XML 29 R19.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT v3.24.1.u1
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES
 3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2024
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]  
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES
Legal Matters
The Company is party to various legal actions arising in the ordinary course of business, including litigation and governmental and regulatory controls, which also may include controls related to the potential impacts of climate change. As of March 31, 2024, the Company has an accrued liability of approximately $84 million for all legal contingencies that are deemed to be probable of occurring and can be reasonably estimated. The Company’s estimates are based on information known about the matters and its experience in contesting, litigating, and settling similar matters. Although actual amounts could differ from management’s estimate, none of the actions are believed by management to involve future amounts that would be material to the Company’s financial position, results of operations, or liquidity after consideration of recorded accruals. With respect to material matters for which the Company believes an unfavorable outcome is reasonably possible, the Company has disclosed the nature of the matter and a range of potential exposure, unless an estimate cannot be made at this time. It is management’s opinion that the loss for any other litigation matters and claims that are reasonably possible to occur will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position, results of operations, or liquidity.
For additional information on Legal Matters described below, refer to Note 12—Commitments and Contingencies to the consolidated financial statements contained in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2023.
Argentine Environmental Claims
On March 12, 2014, the Company and its subsidiaries completed the sale of all of the Company’s subsidiaries’ operations and properties in Argentina to YPF Sociedad Anonima (YPF). As part of that sale, YPF assumed responsibility for all of the past, present, and future litigation in Argentina involving Company subsidiaries, except that Company subsidiaries have agreed to indemnify YPF for certain environmental, tax, and royalty obligations capped at an aggregate of $100 million. The indemnity is subject to specific agreed conditions precedent, thresholds, contingencies, limitations, claim deadlines, loss sharing, and other terms and conditions. On April 11, 2014, YPF provided its first notice of claims pursuant to the indemnity. Company subsidiaries have not paid any amounts under the indemnity but will continue to review and consider claims presented by YPF. Further, Company subsidiaries retain the right to enforce certain Argentina-related indemnification obligations against Pioneer Natural Resources Company (Pioneer) in an amount up to $45 million pursuant to the terms and conditions of stock purchase agreements entered in 2006 between Company subsidiaries and subsidiaries of Pioneer.
Louisiana Restoration 
As more fully described in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2023, Louisiana surface owners often file lawsuits or assert claims against oil and gas companies, including the Company, claiming that operators and working interest owners in the chain of title are liable for environmental damages on the leased premises, including damages measured by the cost of restoration of the leased premises to its original condition, regardless of the value of the underlying property. From time to time, restoration lawsuits and claims are resolved by the Company for amounts that are not material to the Company, while new lawsuits and claims are asserted against the Company. With respect to each of the pending lawsuits and claims, the amount claimed is not currently determinable or is not material. Further, the overall exposure related to these lawsuits and claims is not currently determinable. While adverse judgments against the Company are possible, the Company intends to actively defend these lawsuits and claims.
Starting in November of 2013 and continuing into 2023, several parishes in Louisiana have pending lawsuits against many oil and gas producers, including the Company. In these cases, the Parishes, as plaintiffs, allege that defendants’ oil and gas exploration, production, and transportation operations in specified fields were conducted in violation of the State and Local Coastal Resources Management Act of 1978, as amended, and applicable regulations, rules, orders, and ordinances promulgated or adopted thereunder by the Parish or the State of Louisiana. Plaintiffs allege that defendants caused substantial damage to land and water bodies located in the coastal zone of Louisiana. Plaintiffs seek, among other things, unspecified damages for alleged violations of applicable law within the coastal zone, the payment of costs necessary to clear, re-vegetate, detoxify, and otherwise restore the subject coastal zone as near as practicable to its original condition, and actual restoration of the coastal zone to its original condition. Without acknowledging or admitting any liability and solely to avoid the expense and uncertainty of future litigation, the Company agreed to settle with the State of Louisiana and Louisiana coastal Parishes to resolve any potential liability on the part of the Company for claims that were or could have been asserted by the coastal Parishes and/or the State of Louisiana in the pending litigation. The settlement is subject to court approval, which the parties hope to receive at some point in the first half of 2024. The consideration to be provided by the Company in the settlement will not have a material impact on the Company’s financial position. Following settlement of these various lawsuits, the Company will be a defendant in only two remaining coastal zone lawsuits, one filed by the City of New Orleans against the Company and a number of oil and gas operators and the other filed against Callon Offshore Production, Inc., among many other oil and gas operators, and pending in St. Bernard Parish, Louisiana. The Company will now oversee the latter lawsuit as a result of the merger with Callon Petroleum Company.
Apollo Exploration Lawsuit
In a case captioned Apollo Exploration, LLC, Cogent Exploration, Ltd. Co. & SellmoCo, LLC v. Apache Corporation, Cause No. CV50538 in the 385th Judicial District Court, Midland County, Texas, plaintiffs alleged damages in excess of $200 million (having previously claimed in excess of $1.1 billion) relating to purchase and sale agreements, mineral leases, and area of mutual interest agreements concerning properties located in Hartley, Moore, Potter, and Oldham Counties, Texas. The trial court entered final judgment in favor of the Company, ruling that the plaintiffs take nothing by their claims and awarding the Company its attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in defending the lawsuit. The court of appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part the trial court’s judgment thereby reinstating some of plaintiffs’ claims. The Texas Supreme Court granted the Company’s petition for review and heard oral argument in October 2022. On April 28, 2023, the Texas Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals’ decision and remanded the case back to the court of appeals for further proceedings. After plaintiffs’ request for rehearing, on July 21, 2023, the Texas Supreme Court reaffirmed its reversal of the court of appeals’ decision and remand of the case back to the court of appeals for further proceedings.
Australian Operations Divestiture Dispute
Pursuant to a Sale and Purchase Agreement dated April 9, 2015 (Quadrant SPA), the Company and its subsidiaries divested Australian operations to Quadrant Energy Pty Ltd (Quadrant). Closing occurred on June 5, 2015. In April 2017, the Company filed suit against Quadrant for breach of the Quadrant SPA. In its suit, the Company seeks approximately AUD $80 million. In December 2017, Quadrant filed a defense of equitable set-off to the Company’s claim and a counterclaim seeking approximately AUD $200 million in the aggregate. The Company will vigorously prosecute its claim while vigorously defending against Quadrant’s counter claims.
California and Delaware Litigation
On July 17, 2017, in three separate actions, San Mateo and Marin Counties, and the City of Imperial Beach, California, all filed suit individually and on behalf of the people of the state of California against over 30 oil and gas companies alleging damages as a result of global warming. Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages and abatement under various tort theories. On December 20, 2017, in two separate actions, the City of Santa Cruz and Santa Cruz County filed similar lawsuits against many of the same defendants. On January 22, 2018, the City of Richmond filed a similar lawsuit.
On September 10, 2020, the State of Delaware filed suit, individually and on behalf of the people of the State of Delaware, against over 25 oil and gas companies alleging damages as a result of global warming. Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages and abatement under various tort theories.
The Company intends to challenge personal jurisdiction in California and to vigorously defend the Delaware lawsuit.
Kulp Minerals Lawsuit
On or about April 7, 2023, Apache was sued in a purported class action in New Mexico styled Kulp Minerals LLC v. Apache Corporation, Case No. D-506-CV-2023-00352 in the Fifth Judicial District. The Kulp Minerals case has not been certified and seeks to represent a group of owners allegedly owed statutory interest under New Mexico law as a result of purported late oil and gas payments. The amount of this claim is not yet reasonably determinable. The Company intends to vigorously defend against the claims asserted in this lawsuit.
Shareholder and Derivative Lawsuits
On February 23, 2021, a case captioned Plymouth County Retirement System v. Apache Corporation, et al. was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas (Houston Division) against the Company and certain current and former officers. The complaint, which is a shareholder lawsuit styled as a class action, alleges, among other things, that (1) the Company intentionally used unrealistic assumptions regarding the amount and composition of available oil and gas in Alpine High; (2) the Company did not have the proper infrastructure in place to safely and/or economically drill and/or transport those resources even if they existed in the amounts purported; (3) certain statements and omissions artificially inflated the value of the Company’s operations in the Permian Basin; and (4) as a result, the Company’s public statements were materially false and misleading. With no admission, concession, or finding of any fault, liability, or wrongdoing, but only to avoid the expense and uncertainty of litigation, the parties have agreed to a settlement resolving all claims made against the defendants by the class. The settlement agreement will be subject to court approval, and a hearing is expected to be held in the coming months. The settlement will not have a material effect on the Company’s financial position, results of operations, or liquidity and is subject to insurance coverage that companies have for these types of claims.
On February 21, 2023, a case captioned Steve Silverman, Derivatively and on behalf of Nominal Defendant APA Corp. v. John J. Christmann IV, et al. was filed in federal district court for the Southern District of Texas. Then, on July 21, 2023, a case captioned Yang-Li-Yu, Derivatively and on behalf of Nominal Defendant APA Corp. v. John J. Christmann IV, et al. was filed in federal district court for the Southern District of Texas. These cases have now been consolidated as In Re APA Corporation Derivative Litigation, Case No. 4:23-cv-00636 in the Southern District of Texas and purport to be derivative actions brought against senior management and Company directors over many of the same allegations included in the Plymouth County Retirement System matter and asserts claims of (1) breach of fiduciary duty; (2) waste of corporate assets; and (3) unjust enrichment. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated lawsuits, which is fully briefed and will remain pending following settlement of the Plymouth County Retirement System case noted above.
Environmental Matters
As of March 31, 2024, the Company had an undiscounted reserve for environmental remediation of approximately $5 million.
On September 11, 2020, the Company received a Notice of Violation and Finding of Violation, and accompanying Clean Air Act Information Request, from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) following site inspections in April 2019 at several of the Company’s oil and natural gas production facilities in Lea and Eddy Counties, New Mexico. Then on December 29, 2020, the Company received a Notice of Violation and Opportunity to Confer, and accompanying Clean Air Act Information Request, from the EPA following helicopter flyovers in September 2019 of several of the Company’s oil and natural gas production facilities in Reeves County, Texas. The notices and information requests involved alleged emissions control and reporting violations. The Company cooperated with the EPA, responded to the information requests, and negotiated and entered into a consent decree to resolve the alleged violations in both New Mexico and Texas, which has been approved and entered by the Court. The consideration provided by the Company in connection with the consent decree, which includes a $4 million payment, will not have a material impact on the Company’s financial position.
The Company is not aware of any environmental claims existing as of March 31, 2024, that have not been provided for or would otherwise have a material impact on its financial position, results of operations, or liquidity. There can be no assurance, however, that current regulatory requirements will not change or past non-compliance with environmental laws will not be discovered on the Company’s properties.
Potential Decommissioning Obligations on Sold Properties
In 2013, Apache sold its Gulf of Mexico (GOM) Shelf operations and properties and its GOM operating subsidiary, GOM Shelf LLC (GOM Shelf) to Fieldwood Energy LLC (Fieldwood). Fieldwood assumed the obligation to decommission the properties held by GOM Shelf and the properties acquired from Apache and its other subsidiaries (collectively, the Legacy GOM Assets). On February 14, 2018, Fieldwood filed for (and subsequently emerged from) Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. On August 3, 2020, Fieldwood filed for (and subsequently emerged from) Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection for a second time. Upon emergence from this second bankruptcy, the Legacy GOM Assets were separated into a standalone company, which was subsequently merged into GOM Shelf. Under GOM Shelf’s limited liability company agreement, the proceeds of production of the Legacy GOM Assets are to be used to fund the operation of GOM Shelf and the decommissioning of Legacy GOM Assets. Pursuant to the terms of the original transaction, as amended in the first bankruptcy, the securing of the asset retirement obligations for the Legacy GOM Assets as and when Apache is required to perform or pay for any such decommissioning was accomplished through the posting of letters of credit in favor of Apache (Letters of Credit), the provision of two bonds (Bonds) in favor of Apache, and the establishment of a trust account of which Apache was a beneficiary and which was funded by net profits interests (NPIs) depending on future oil prices. In addition, after such sources have been exhausted, Apache agreed upon resolution of GOM Shelf’s second bankruptcy to provide a standby loan to GOM Shelf of up to $400 million to perform decommissioning, with such standby loan secured by a first and prior lien on the Legacy GOM Assets.
By letter dated April 5, 2022 (replacing two earlier letters) and by subsequent letter dated March 1, 2023, GOM Shelf notified the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) that it was unable to fund the decommissioning obligations that it was obligated to perform on certain of the Legacy GOM Assets. As a result, Apache and other current and former owners in these assets have received orders from BSEE and demands from third parties to decommission certain of the Legacy GOM Assets included in GOM Shelf’s notifications to BSEE. Apache expects to receive similar orders and demands on the other Legacy GOM Assets included in GOM Shelf’s notification letters. Apache has also received orders to decommission other Legacy GOM Assets that were not included in GOM Shelf’s notification letters. Further, Apache anticipates that GOM Shelf may send additional such notices to BSEE in the future and that it may receive additional orders from BSEE requiring it to decommission other Legacy GOM Assets.
On June 21, 2023, two sureties that issued Bonds directly to Apache and two sureties that issued bonds to the issuing bank on the Letters of Credit filed suit against Apache in a case styled Zurich American Insurance Company, HCC International Insurance Company PLC, Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company and Everest Reinsurance Company (Insurers) v. Apache Corporation, Cause No. 2023-38238 in the 281st Judicial District Court, Harris County Texas. The sureties sought to prevent Apache from drawing on the Bonds and Letters of Credit and further alleged that they are discharged from their reimbursement obligations related to decommissioning costs and are entitled to other relief. On July 20, 2023, the 281st Judicial District Court denied the Insurers’ request for a temporary injunction. On July 26, 2023, Apache removed the suit to the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas (Houston Division) which subsequently held that the sureties’ state court lawsuit violated the terms of the Bankruptcy Confirmation Order and is void. Since the time the sureties filed their state court lawsuit, Apache has drawn down the entirety of the Letters of Credit. Apache has also sought to draw down on the Bonds; however, the sureties refuse to pay such Bond draws. Apache is vigorously pursuing its claims against the sureties.
As of March 31, 2024, the Company has recorded a $186 million asset, which represents the remaining amount the Company expects to be reimbursed from security related to these decommissioning costs.
The Company has recorded contingent liabilities in the amounts of $847 million and $824 million as of March 31, 2024 and December 31, 2023, respectively, representing the estimated costs of decommissioning it may be required to perform on legacy GOM properties previously sold to Fieldwood and other GOM operators. During the first quarter of 2024, the Company recognized $66 million of “Loss on previously sold Gulf of Mexico properties,” which includes increases of $33 million related to orders received during the period from BSEE to decommission properties previously sold to Cox Operating LLC. The Company recognized no losses for decommissioning previously sold properties during the first quarter of 2023. There have been no other changes in estimates from December 31, 2023 that would have a material impact on the Company’s financial position, results of operations, or liquidity.