COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2021
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. As of June 30, 2021, the Company has an accrued liability of approximately $71 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. For material matters that 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 11—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, 2020. Argentine Environmental Claims and Argentina Tariff No material change in the status of the YPF Sociedad Anónima and Pioneer Natural Resources Company indemnities matter has occurred since the filing of the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020. Louisiana Restoration As more fully described in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, 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 2021, several parishes in Louisiana have pending lawsuits against many oil and gas producers, including the Company. These cases were all removed to federal courts in Louisiana. Some of the cases have been remanded to state court with the remand orders being appealed. 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. While adverse judgments against the Company might be possible, the Company intends to vigorously oppose these claims. 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 areas 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 plaintiff’s claims. Further appeal is pending. Australian Operations Divestiture Dispute Pursuant to a Sale and Purchase Agreement dated April 9, 2015 (Quadrant SPA), the Company and its subsidiaries divested their remaining 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 believes that Quadrant’s claims lack merit and will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position, results of operation, or liquidity. Canadian Operations Divestiture Dispute Pursuant to a Sale and Purchase Agreement dated July 6, 2017 (Paramount SPA), the Company and its subsidiaries divested their remaining Canadian operations to Paramount Resources LTD (Paramount). Closing occurred on August 16, 2017. On September 11, 2019, four ex-employees of Apache Canada on behalf of themselves and individuals employed by Apache Canada LTD on July 6, 2017, filed an Amended Statement of Claim in a matter styled Stephen Flesch et. al. v Apache Corporation et. al., No. 1901-09160 Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta against the Company and others seeking class certification and a finding that the Paramount SPA amounted to a Change of Control of the Company, entitling them to accelerated vesting under the Company’s equity plans. In the suit, the purported class seeks approximately $60 million USD and punitive damages. The Company believes that Plaintiffs’ claims lack merit and will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position, results of operation, or liquidity. California and Delaware Litigation On July 17, 2017, in three separate actions, San Mateo County, California, Marin County, California, 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 and in a separate action on January 22, 2018, the City of Richmond, filed similar lawsuits against many of the same defendants. On November 14, 2018, the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations, Inc. also filed a similar lawsuit against many of the same defendants. After removal of all such lawsuits to federal court, the district court remanded them back to state court. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals’ affirmance of this remand decision was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. That appeal was decided by the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in a similar case, BP p.l.c. v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore. As a result, the California cases have been sent back to the 9th Circuit for further appellate review of the decision to remand the cases to state court. Further activity in the cases, has been stayed pending further appellate review. 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 believes that it is not subject to jurisdiction of the California courts and that claims made against it in the Delaware litigation are baseless. The Company intends to challenge jurisdiction in California and to vigorously defend the Delaware lawsuit. Castex Lawsuit In a case styled Apache Corporation v. Castex Offshore, Inc, et. al., Cause No. 2015-48580, in the 113th Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas, Castex filed claims for alleged damages of approximately $200 million, relating to overspend on the Belle Isle Gas Facility upgrade, and the drilling of five sidetracks on the Potomac #3 well. After a jury trial, a verdict of approximately $60 million, plus fees, costs, and interest was entered against the Company. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals of Texas reversed the judgment, in part, reducing the judgment to approximately $13.5 million, plus fees, costs, and interest against the Company. The Company is evaluating appeal. Oklahoma Class Actions The Company is a party to two purported class actions in Oklahoma styled Bigie Lee Rhea v. Apache Corporation, Case No. 6:14-cv-00433-JH, and Albert Steven Allen v. Apache Corporation, Case No. CJ-2019-00219. The Rhea case has been certified and includes a class of royalty owners seeking damages in excess of $250 million for alleged breach of the implied covenant to market relating to post-production deductions and alleged NGL uplift value. The Allen case has not been certified and seeks to represent a group of owners who have allegedly received late royalty and other payments under Oklahoma statutes. The amount of this claim is not yet reasonably determinable. While adverse judgments against the Company are possible, the Company intends to vigorously defend these lawsuits and claims. 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, (1) alleges that the Company intentionally used unrealistic assumptions regarding the amount and composition of available oil and gas in Alpine High; (2) alleges that 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) alleges that these statements and omissions artificially inflated the value of the Company’s operations in the Permian Basin; and (4) alleges that, as a result, the Company’s public statements were materially false and misleading. On March 4, 2021, another lawsuit, captioned Brian Schwegel v. Apache Corporation, et al., was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas (Houston Division) alleging identical allegations. The Company believes that all plaintiffs’ claims lack merit and intends to vigorously defend these lawsuits. On March 16, 2021, a case captioned William Wessels, Derivatively and on behalf of APA Corporation v. John J. Christmann IV et al. was filed in the 334th District Court of Harris County, Texas. The case purports to be a derivative action 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. On June 7, 2021, another lawsuit, captioned Thomas Miskella, Derivatively and on behalf of APA Corporation v. John J. Christmann IV et al., was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas (Houston Division) alleging nearly identical allegations. On June 25, 2021, another lawsuit, captioned Rawley Brodeen, Derivatively and on behalf of APA Corporation v. John J. Christmann IV et al., was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas (Houston Division) alleging nearly identical allegations. And on July 14, 2021, another lawsuit, captioned Barry Dudenhoeffer, Derivatively and on behalf of APA Corporation v. John J. Christmann IV et al., was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas (Houston Division) alleging nearly identical allegations. The defendants believe the plaintiffs’ derivative claims lack merit and intend to vigorously defend these lawsuits. Environmental Matters As of June 30, 2021, the Company had an undiscounted reserve for environmental remediation of approximately $2 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. The notice and information request involve alleged emissions control and reporting violations. The Company is cooperating with the EPA and responding to the information request. The EPA has not commenced enforcement proceedings, and at this time, the Company is unable to reasonably estimate whether such proceedings will result in monetary sanctions and, if so, whether they would be more or less than $100,000, exclusive of interest and costs. 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 notice and information request involve alleged emissions control and reporting violations. The Company is cooperating with the EPA and responding to the information request. The EPA has not commenced enforcement proceedings, and at this time, the Company is unable to reasonably estimate whether such proceedings will result in monetary sanctions and, if so, whether they would be more or less than $100,000, exclusive of interest and costs. The Company is not aware of any environmental claims existing as of June 30, 2021 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 Asset Retirement Obligations In 2013, the Company sold its Gulf of Mexico (GOM) Shelf operations and properties (Legacy GOM Assets) to Fieldwood Energy LLC (Fieldwood). Under the terms of the purchase agreement, the Company received cash consideration of $3.75 billion and Fieldwood assumed $1.5 billion of discounted asset abandonment liabilities as of the disposition date. In respect of such abandonment liabilities, Fieldwood posted letters of credit in favor of the Company (Letters of Credit) and established a trust account (Trust A), which is funded by a 10 percent net profits interest depending on future oil prices and of which the Company is the beneficiary. On February 14, 2018, Fieldwood filed for protection under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. In connection with the 2018 bankruptcy, Fieldwood confirmed a plan under which the Company agreed, inter alia, to accept bonds in exchange for certain of the Letters of Credit. Currently, the Company holds two bonds (Bonds) and the remaining Letters of Credit to secure Fieldwood’s asset retirement obligations (AROs) on the Legacy GOM Assets as and when such abandonment and decommissioning obligations are required to be performed over the remaining life of the Legacy GOM Assets. On August 3, 2020, Fieldwood again filed for protection under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. Fieldwood has submitted a plan of reorganization, and the Company has been engaged in discussions with Fieldwood and other interested parties regarding such plan. If approved by the bankruptcy court, the submitted plan would separate the Legacy GOM Assets into a standalone company, and proceeds of production of the Legacy GOM Assets will be used for the AROs. If the proceeds of production are insufficient for such AROs, then the Company expects that it may be required by the relevant governmental authorities to perform such AROs, in which case it will apply the Bonds, remaining Letters of Credit, and Trust A to pay for the AROs. In addition, after such sources have been exhausted, the Company has agreed to provide a standby loan of up to $400 million to perform decommissioning, with such standby loan secured by a first and prior lien on the Legacy GOM Assets. If the foregoing is insufficient, the Company may be forced to use available cash to cover any additional costs it incurs for performing such AROs. On June 25, 2021, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas (Houston Division) entered an order confirming Fieldwood’s bankruptcy plan.

The Company is party to various legal actions arising in the ordinary course of business, including litigation and governmental and regulatory controls. As of June 30, 2021, the Company has an accrued liability of approximately $71 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. For material matters that 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.

As more fully described in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, 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 2021, several parishes in Louisiana have pending lawsuits against many oil and gas producers, including the Company. These cases were all removed to federal courts in Louisiana. Some of the cases have been remanded to state court with the remand orders being appealed. 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. While adverse judgments against the Company might be possible, the Company intends to vigorously oppose these claims.

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 areas 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 plaintiff’s claims. Further appeal is pending.

Pursuant to a Sale and Purchase Agreement dated April 9, 2015 (Quadrant SPA), the Company and its subsidiaries divested their remaining 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 believes that Quadrant’s claims lack merit and will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position, results of operation, or liquidity.

Pursuant to a Sale and Purchase Agreement dated July 6, 2017 (Paramount SPA), the Company and its subsidiaries divested their remaining Canadian operations to Paramount Resources LTD (Paramount). Closing occurred on August 16, 2017. On September 11, 2019, four ex-employees of Apache Canada on behalf of themselves and individuals employed by Apache Canada LTD on July 6, 2017, filed an Amended Statement of Claim in a matter styled Stephen Flesch et. al. v Apache Corporation et. al., No. 1901-09160 Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta against the Company and others seeking class certification and a finding that the Paramount SPA amounted to a Change of Control of the Company, entitling them to accelerated vesting under the Company’s equity plans. In the suit, the purported class seeks approximately $60 million USD and punitive damages. The Company believes that Plaintiffs’ claims lack merit and will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position, results of operation, or liquidity.

On July 17, 2017, in three separate actions, San Mateo County, California, Marin County, California, 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 and in a separate action on January 22, 2018, the City of Richmond, filed similar lawsuits against many of the same defendants. On November 14, 2018, the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations, Inc. also filed a similar lawsuit against many of the same defendants. After removal of all such lawsuits to federal court, the district court remanded them back to state court. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals’ affirmance of this remand decision was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. That appeal was decided by the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in a similar case, BP p.l.c. v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore. As a result, the California cases have been sent back to the 9th Circuit for further appellate review of the decision to remand the cases to state court. Further activity in the cases, has been stayed pending further appellate review.

In a case styled Apache Corporation v. Castex Offshore, Inc, et. al., Cause No. 2015-48580, in the 113th Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas, Castex filed claims for alleged damages of approximately $200 million, relating to overspend on the Belle Isle Gas Facility upgrade, and the drilling of five sidetracks on the Potomac #3 well. After a jury trial, a verdict of approximately $60 million, plus fees, costs, and interest was entered against the Company. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals of Texas reversed the judgment, in part, reducing the judgment to approximately $13.5 million, plus fees, costs, and interest against the Company. The Company is evaluating appeal.

The Company is a party to two purported class actions in Oklahoma styled Bigie Lee Rhea v. Apache Corporation, Case No. 6:14-cv-00433-JH, and Albert Steven Allen v. Apache Corporation, Case No. CJ-2019-00219. The Rhea case has been certified and includes a class of royalty owners seeking damages in excess of $250 million for alleged breach of the implied covenant to market relating to post-production deductions and alleged NGL uplift value. The Allen case has not been certified and seeks to represent a group of owners who have allegedly received late royalty and other payments under Oklahoma statutes. The amount of this claim is not yet reasonably determinable. While adverse judgments against the Company are possible, the Company intends to vigorously defend these lawsuits and claims.

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, (1) alleges that the Company intentionally used unrealistic assumptions regarding the amount and composition of available oil and gas in Alpine High; (2) alleges that 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) alleges that these statements and omissions artificially inflated the value of the Company’s operations in the Permian Basin; and (4) alleges that, as a result, the Company’s public statements were materially false and misleading. On March 4, 2021, another lawsuit, captioned Brian Schwegel v. Apache Corporation, et al., was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas (Houston Division) alleging identical allegations. The Company believes that all plaintiffs’ claims lack merit and intends to vigorously defend these lawsuits.

On March 16, 2021, a case captioned William Wessels, Derivatively and on behalf of APA Corporation v. John J. Christmann IV et al. was filed in the 334th District Court of Harris County, Texas. The case purports to be a derivative action 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. On June 7, 2021, another lawsuit, captioned Thomas Miskella, Derivatively and on behalf of APA Corporation v. John J. Christmann IV et al., was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas (Houston Division) alleging nearly identical allegations. On June 25, 2021, another lawsuit, captioned Rawley Brodeen, Derivatively and on behalf of APA Corporation v. John J. Christmann IV et al., was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas (Houston Division) alleging nearly identical allegations. And on July 14, 2021, another lawsuit, captioned Barry Dudenhoeffer, Derivatively and on behalf of APA Corporation v. John J. Christmann IV et al., was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas (Houston Division) alleging nearly identical allegations. The defendants believe the plaintiffs’ derivative claims lack merit and intend to vigorously defend these lawsuits.

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. The notice and information request involve alleged emissions control and reporting violations. The Company is cooperating with the EPA and responding to the information request. The EPA has not commenced enforcement proceedings, and at this time, the Company is unable to reasonably estimate whether such proceedings will result in monetary sanctions and, if so, whether they would be more or less than $100,000, exclusive of interest and costs.

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 notice and information request involve alleged emissions control and reporting violations. The Company is cooperating with the EPA and responding to the information request. The EPA has not commenced enforcement proceedings, and at this time, the Company is unable to reasonably estimate whether such proceedings will result in monetary sanctions and, if so, whether they would be more or less than $100,000, exclusive of interest and costs.

The Company is not aware of any environmental claims existing as of June 30, 2021 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.

In 2013, the Company sold its Gulf of Mexico (GOM) Shelf operations and properties (Legacy GOM Assets) to Fieldwood Energy LLC (Fieldwood). Under the terms of the purchase agreement, the Company received cash consideration of $3.75 billion and Fieldwood assumed $1.5 billion of discounted asset abandonment liabilities as of the disposition date. In respect of such abandonment liabilities, Fieldwood posted letters of credit in favor of the Company (Letters of Credit) and established a trust account (Trust A), which is funded by a 10 percent net profits interest depending on future oil prices and of which the Company is the beneficiary. On February 14, 2018, Fieldwood filed for protection under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. In connection with the 2018 bankruptcy, Fieldwood confirmed a plan under which the Company agreed, inter alia, to accept bonds in exchange for certain of the Letters of Credit. Currently, the Company holds two bonds (Bonds) and the remaining Letters of Credit to secure Fieldwood’s asset retirement obligations (AROs) on the Legacy GOM Assets as and when such abandonment and decommissioning obligations are required to be performed over the remaining life of the Legacy GOM Assets.

On August 3, 2020, Fieldwood again filed for protection under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. Fieldwood has submitted a plan of reorganization, and the Company has been engaged in discussions with Fieldwood and other interested parties regarding such plan. If approved by the bankruptcy court, the submitted plan would separate the Legacy GOM Assets into a standalone company, and proceeds of production of the Legacy GOM Assets will be used for the AROs. If the proceeds of production are insufficient for such AROs, then the Company expects that it may be required by the relevant governmental authorities to perform such AROs, in which case it will apply the Bonds, remaining Letters of Credit, and Trust A to pay for the AROs. In addition, after such sources have been exhausted, the Company has agreed to provide a standby loan of up to $400 million to perform decommissioning, with such standby loan secured by a first and prior lien on the Legacy GOM Assets. If the foregoing is insufficient, the Company may be forced to use available cash to cover any additional costs it incurs for performing such AROs.