Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2014
Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Contingencies	11. Contingencies Litigation The Company is a defendant in a number of lawsuits, is involved in governmental proceedings, and is subject to regulatory controls arising in the ordinary course of business, including, but not limited to, personal injury claims; property damage claims; title disputes; tax disputes; royalty claims; contract claims; contamination claims relating to oil and gas production, transportation, and processing; and environmental claims, including claims involving assets owned by acquired companies and claims involving assets previously sold to third parties and no longer a part of the Company’s current operations. Anadarko is also subject to various environmental-remediation and reclamation obligations arising from federal, state, and local laws and regulations. While the ultimate outcome and impact on the Company cannot be predicted with certainty, after consideration of recorded expense and liability accruals, management believes that, with the possible exception of the Tronox Litigation discussed below, the resolution of pending proceedings will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows. The following is a discussion of any material developments in previously reported contingencies and any other material matters that have arisen since the filing of the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2013. Tronox Litigation On November 28, 2005, Tronox Incorporated (Tronox), at the time a subsidiary of Kerr-McGee Corporation, completed an initial public offering (IPO) and was subsequently spun-off from Kerr-McGee Corporation. In August 2006, Anadarko acquired all of the stock of Kerr-McGee Corporation. In January 2009, Tronox and certain of Tronox’s subsidiaries filed voluntary petitions for relief under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (Bankruptcy Court), which is the court that presided over the Adversary Proceeding (defined below). In May 2009, Tronox and certain of its affiliates filed a lawsuit against Anadarko and Kerr-McGee Corporation and certain of its subsidiaries (collectively, Kerr-McGee) asserting several claims, including claims for actual and constructive fraudulent conveyance (Adversary Proceeding). Tronox alleged, among other things, that it was insolvent or undercapitalized at the date of its IPO and sought, among other things, to recover damages in excess of $18.85 billion from Kerr-McGee and Anadarko, as well as interest and attorneys’ fees and costs. In accordance with Tronox’s Bankruptcy Court-approved Plan of Reorganization (Plan), the Adversary Proceeding is being pursued by a litigation trust (Litigation Trust). Pursuant to the Plan, the Litigation Trust was “deemed substituted” for the Tronox plaintiffs in the Adversary Proceeding. The U.S. government intervened in the Adversary Proceeding, and in May 2009 asserted separate claims against Anadarko and Kerr-McGee under the Federal Debt Collection Procedures Act (FDCPA Complaint). The Litigation Trust and the U.S. government agreed that the recovery of damages under the Adversary Proceeding, if any, would cover both the Adversary Proceeding and the FDCPA Complaint. In February 2011, Tronox emerged from bankruptcy pursuant to the Plan. The terms of the Plan, which were confirmed by the Bankruptcy Court in the fourth quarter of 2010, contemplate that the claims of the U.S. government (together with other federal, state, local, and tribal governmental entities having regulatory authority or responsibilities for environmental laws, collectively, the Governmental Entities) related to Tronox’s environmental liabilities and tort claims asserted against Tronox by other creditors will be settled through certain environmental response trusts and the Litigation Trust. The Plan provides for an allocation of any proceeds from the Adversary Proceeding between the Governmental Entities and the other creditors. Liability Accrual On April 3, 2014, Anadarko and Kerr-McGee entered into a settlement agreement with the Litigation Trust and the U.S. government (in its capacity as plaintiff-intervenor and acting for and on behalf of certain U.S. government agencies) to resolve all claims asserted in the Adversary Proceeding and FDCPA Complaint for $5.15 billion, which represents principal of approximately $3.98 billion plus 6% interest from the filing of the Adversary Proceeding on May 12, 2009, through April 3, 2014. In addition, interest will be paid on the above amount from April 3, 2014, through the date of payment of the settlement, with interest of 1.5% for the first 180 days and 1.5% plus the one-month LIBOR thereafter. Under the terms of the settlement agreement, the Litigation Trust, Anadarko, and Kerr-McGee agreed to mutually release all claims that were or could have been asserted in the Adversary Proceeding. The U.S. government (representing federal agencies that filed claims in the Tronox bankruptcy) and Anadarko and Kerr-McGee also provided covenants not to sue each other with respect to certain claims and causes of action. The U.S. government will also provide contribution protection from third-party claims seeking reimbursement from Anadarko and certain of its affiliates for the sites identified in the settlement agreement. 11. Contingencies (Continued) The Adversary Proceeding has been stayed pending final approval of the settlement agreement. In May 2014, the Bankruptcy Court issued its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law recommending approval of the settlement agreement. The settlement agreement is subject to approval by the New York District Court and the issuance of an injunction by the New York District Court barring similar claims from third parties. The settlement payment will be made once both the New York District Court’s approval of the settlement agreement and the issuance of the injunction are final and non-appealable. The Company currently expects this process to be completed in early 2015. Anadarko recognized Tronox-related contingent losses of $850 million in the fourth quarter of 2013 and $4.3 billion in the first quarter of 2014. In addition, Anadarko recognized settlement-related interest expense of $38 million, included in Tronox-related contingent loss in the Company’s Consolidated Statement of Income, during the nine months ended September 30, 2014, for an aggregate $5.19 billion Tronox-related contingent liability on the Company’s Consolidated Balance Sheet at September 30, 2014. For information on the tax effects of the settlement agreement, see Note 12—Income Taxes. Deepwater Horizon Events In April 2010, the Macondo well in the Gulf of Mexico blew out and an explosion occurred on the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig, resulting in an oil spill. The well was operated by BP Exploration and Production Inc. (BP) and Anadarko held a 25% nonoperated interest. In October 2011, the Company and BP entered into a settlement agreement relating to the Deepwater Horizon events (Settlement Agreement). Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, the Company is fully indemnified by BP against all claims and damages arising under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA), claims for natural resource damages (NRD) and assessment costs, and any claims arising under the Operating Agreement with BP. This indemnification is guaranteed by BP Corporation North America Inc. (BPCNA) and, in the event that the net worth of BPCNA declines below an agreed-upon amount, BP p.l.c. has agreed to become the sole guarantor. Under the Settlement Agreement, BP does not indemnify the Company against penalties and fines, punitive damages, shareholder derivative or securities laws claims, or certain other claims. The Company has not recorded a liability for any costs that are subject to indemnification by BP. For additional disclosure of the Deepwater Horizon events, the Company’s Settlement Agreement with BP, environmental claims under OPA, NRD claims, potential penalties and fines, and civil litigation, see Note 17—Contingencies—Deepwater Horizon Events in the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements included in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2013. Penalties and Fines In December 2010, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), on behalf of the United States, filed a civil lawsuit in the U.S. District Court in New Orleans, Louisiana (Louisiana District Court) against several parties, including the Company, seeking an assessment of civil penalties under the Clean Water Act (CWA) in an amount to be determined by the Louisiana District Court. In February 2012, the Louisiana District Court entered a declaratory judgment that, as a partial owner of the Macondo well, Anadarko is liable for civil penalties under Section 311 of the CWA. The declaratory judgment, which was affirmed in June 2014 by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (Fifth Circuit), addresses liability only and does not address the amount of the civil penalty. The assessment of a civil penalty against Anadarko will follow a bench trial scheduled to begin in January 2015. In July 2014, Anadarko filed a motion for rehearing with the Fifth Circuit requesting that the full court sit to reconsider Anadarko’s appeal concerning that portion of the February 2012 declaratory judgment which found Anadarko liable for civil penalties under the CWA. In September 2014, Anadarko filed a letter notifying the Fifth Circuit that the Louisiana District Court issued Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in the first phase of the Deepwater Horizon trial (Phase I Findings and Conclusions), which included facts that contradict certain key facts assumed by the Fifth Circuit panel in its June 2014 decision. 11. Contingencies (Continued) Applicable accounting guidance requires the Company to accrue a liability if it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of the liability can be reasonably estimated. The Louisiana District Court’s declaratory judgment in February 2012 satisfies the requirement that a liability arising from the future assessment of a civil penalty against Anadarko is probable. In an effort to resolve this matter, the Company made a settlement offer to the DOJ in July 2014 of $90 million and recorded a contingent liability for this amount at June 30, 2014. The Company subsequently engaged in further discussions regarding settlement, but the parties have not been able to reach agreement on either the amount of, or the terms and conditions governing, a settlement. The Company’s settlement offer of $90 million remains outstanding and the Company remains open to resolving the matter through settlement discussions. The Company believes that $90 million under a settlement scenario is a better estimate of loss at this time than any other amount. Based on the above accounting guidance, the Company’s contingent liability for CWA penalties and fines remains $90 million at September 30, 2014. However, the Company may ultimately incur a liability related to CWA penalties in excess of the current accrued liability. The actual amount of a CWA penalty is subject to uncertainty, including whether the Company will be able to reach a settlement with the DOJ or will proceed to trial in January 2015. The CWA sets forth subjective criteria to be considered by the court in assessing the magnitude of any CWA penalty, including the degree of fault of the owner. In the Phase I and II trials (defined below) and again for the penalty phase trial in January 2015, the Louisiana District Court ruled that no evidence of Anadarko’s alleged culpability or fault may be presented. In addition, in its Phase I Findings and Conclusions, the Louisiana District Court did not allocate any fault to Anadarko. Given the subjective nature of the CWA criteria used to determine penalty assessments and the Louisiana District Court’s prior rulings related to culpability and allocation of fault, the Company currently cannot reasonably estimate the amount of any such penalty to be assessed or determine a reasonable range of potential loss if the matter is resolved by the Louisiana District Court following trial. However, given the Company’s lack of direct operational involvement in the event, the Louisiana District Court’s rulings excluding any evidence of Anadarko’s alleged culpability or fault, the Phase I Findings and Conclusions that did not allocate any fault to Anadarko, and the subjective criteria of the CWA, the Company believes that its exposure to CWA penalties will not materially impact the Company’s financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows. Events or factors that could assist the Company in estimating the amount of settlement or potential civil penalty or a range of potential loss related to such penalty include (i) an assessment by the DOJ, (ii) a ruling by a court of competent jurisdiction, or (iii) substantive settlement negotiations between the Company and the DOJ. As discussed below, numerous Deepwater Horizon event-related civil lawsuits have been filed against BP and other parties, including the Company. Certain state and local governments appealed, or provided indication of a likely appeal of, the Louisiana District Court’s decision that only federal law, and not state law, applies to Deepwater Horizon event-related claims. For example, eleven Louisiana Parish District Attorneys appealed that decision to the Fifth Circuit. In February 2014, the Fifth Circuit denied the appeal and upheld the Louisiana District Court’s decision. In October 2014, the United States Supreme Court denied the Parish District Attorneys’ petition to review the case. While that denial ends further appeal of that decision by the Parish District Attorneys, any other party subject to the decision who has not yet appealed, including private parties who opted out of the BP settlement, the states, and other local governments, may do so after obtaining a final judgment on their damages claims. If any further appeal is taken and is successful, state and/or local laws and regulations could become sources of penalties or fines against the Company. Civil Litigation Damage Claims Numerous Deepwater Horizon event-related civil lawsuits have been filed against BP and other parties, including the Company. This litigation has been consolidated into a federal Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) action pending before Judge Carl Barbier in the Louisiana District Court. In March 2012, BP and the Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee (PSC) entered into a settlement agreement to resolve a substantial majority of the economic loss and medical claims stemming from the Deepwater Horizon events, which the Louisiana District Court approved in orders issued in December 2012 and January 2013. Only OPA claims seeking economic loss damages against the Company remain. In addition, certain state and local governments have appealed, or have provided indication of a likely appeal of, the Louisiana District Court’s decision that only federal law, and not state law, applies to Deepwater Horizon event-related claims. Certain Mexican states also have appealed the dismissal of their claims against BP, the Company, and others. The Company, pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, is fully indemnified by BP against losses arising as a result of claims for damages, irrespective of whether such claims are based on federal (including OPA) or state law. 11. Contingencies (Continued) The first phase of the trial in the MDL (Phase I) commenced in February 2013. The PSC, BP, BP America Production Company (BPAP), BP p.l.c., the United States, state and local governments, Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. (Halliburton), and certain subsidiaries of Transocean Ltd. (Transocean) participated in Phase I. Anadarko was excused from participation in Phase I. The issues tried in Phase I included the cause of the blowout and all related events leading up to April 22, 2010, the date the Deepwater Horizon sank, as well as allocation of fault. In September 2014, the Louisiana District Court issued its Phase I Findings and Conclusions. The Louisiana District Court found that BP and BPAP, Transocean, and Halliburton, but not Anadarko, are each liable under general maritime law for the blowout, explosion, and oil spill. The court determined that BP’s and BPAP’s conduct was reckless and that both Transocean’s and Halliburton’s conduct was negligent. The Louisiana District Court apportioned 67% of the fault to BP and BPAP, 30% to Transocean, and 3% to Halliburton. No fault was allocated to Anadarko. BP is challenging certain of the Louisiana District Court’s findings. The second phase of trial (Phase II) began in September 2013 and in November 2013 the parties rested their Phase II cases. The issues tried in Phase II included spill-source control and quantification of the spill for the period from April 20, 2010, until the well was capped. The Company, the PSC, BP, BPAP, BP p.l.c., the United States, state and local governments, Halliburton, and Transocean participated in Phase II of the trial. The penalty phase of the trial, which is scheduled to begin in January 2015, will include Anadarko, BP, and the United States, and will assess findings and penalties under the CWA. In March 2014, the Louisiana District Court ruled that no evidence of Anadarko’s alleged culpability or fault may be presented during the penalty phase trial. The State of Alabama previously brought actions against the Company and other parties for claims arising from the Deepwater Horizon event, including claims for penalties and fines under state environmental laws, which were subsequently dismissed by the Louisiana District Court. The Louisiana District Court has selected this case as its test case for valuing the damages sought by states for claims under federal laws arising from the Deepwater Horizon event. Trial is set for November 2015 and the parties are conducting discovery. The Louisiana District Court’s previous rulings apply to Alabama’s claims, including the court’s decision that only federal law, and not state law, applies; its decision allocating fault and liability among BP and BPAP, Transocean, and Halliburton; and its orders precluding evidence of alleged culpability by Anadarko, leaving only damages to be decided. The Company, pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, is fully indemnified by BP against losses arising as a result of claims for damages. Two separate class-action complaints were filed in June and August 2010, in the New York District Court on behalf of purported purchasers of the Company’s stock between June 12, 2009, and June 9, 2010, against Anadarko and certain of its officers. The consolidated action was subsequently transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas - Houston Division (Texas District Court). The complaints allege causes of action arising pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 for purported misstatements and omissions regarding, among other things, the Company’s liability related to the Deepwater Horizon events. The plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of compensatory damages, including interest thereon, as well as litigation fees and costs. In March 2014, the parties reached a settlement in this matter, which was approved by the Texas District Court in September 2014. The settlement was directly funded by the Company’s insurers. 11. Contingencies (Continued) Remaining Liability Outlook It is possible that the Company may recognize additional Deepwater Horizon event-related liabilities for potential fines and penalties and certain other claims not covered by the indemnification provisions of the Settlement Agreement; however, the Company does not believe that any potential liability attributable to the foregoing items, individually or in the aggregate, will have a material impact on the Company’s financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows. This assessment takes into account certain qualitative factors, including the subjective and fault-based nature of CWA penalties, the Company’s indemnification by BP against certain damage claims as discussed above, and BP’s creditworthiness. Although the Company is fully indemnified by BP against OPA damage claims, NRD claims and assessment costs, and certain other potential liabilities, the Company may be required to recognize a liability for these amounts in advance of, or in connection with, recognizing a receivable from BP for the related indemnity payment. In all circumstances, however, the Company expects that any additional indemnified liability that may be recognized by the Company will be subsequently recovered from BP itself or through the guarantees of BPCNA or BP p.l.c. The Company will continue to monitor the MDL and other legal proceedings discussed above related to the Deepwater Horizon events. The Company cannot predict the nature of additional evidence that may be discovered during the course of legal proceedings or the timing of completion of any legal proceedings. Deepwater Horizon and Tronox Derivative Claims In May 2013, an Anadarko shareholder filed a derivative action in the 215^th District Court of Harris County, Texas (215^th District Court) against Anadarko and certain current and former directors and officers (DWH Derivative Action). The shareholder purported to bring claims on behalf of Anadarko and alleged, among other things, that certain current and former directors and officers breached their fiduciary duty in connection with the Company’s investment in the Macondo lease. In addition, in April 2014, the Company’s Board of Directors received a letter from a current shareholder demanding that the Board undertake an independent investigation of certain current and former officers and directors for alleged breach of fiduciary duty related to the Company’s April 2014 settlement of the Adversary Proceeding (Tronox Derivative Demand). In May 2014, the parties reached an agreement to jointly resolve the DWH Derivative Action and the Tronox Derivative Demand in one settlement. In order to achieve the joint settlement, the petition in the DWH Derivative Action was amended to include the allegations asserted in the Tronox Derivative Demand. In August 2014, the 215^th District Court approved the settlement. The settlement did not have a material impact on the Company’s financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows. Environmental Matters Anadarko is also subject to various environmental-remediation and reclamation obligations arising from federal, state, and local laws and regulations. The Company continually monitors remediation and reclamation processes and adjusts its liability for these obligations as necessary.

11. Contingencies

Litigation The Company is a defendant in a number of lawsuits, is involved in governmental proceedings, and is subject to regulatory controls arising in the ordinary course of business, including, but not limited to, personal injury claims; property damage claims; title disputes; tax disputes; royalty claims; contract claims; contamination claims relating to oil and gas production, transportation, and processing; and environmental claims, including claims involving assets owned by acquired companies and claims involving assets previously sold to third parties and no longer a part of the Company’s current operations. Anadarko is also subject to various environmental-remediation and reclamation obligations arising from federal, state, and local laws and regulations. While the ultimate outcome and impact on the Company cannot be predicted with certainty, after consideration of recorded expense and liability accruals, management believes that, with the possible exception of the Tronox Litigation discussed below, the resolution of pending proceedings will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows.

The following is a discussion of any material developments in previously reported contingencies and any other material matters that have arisen since the filing of the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2013.

Tronox Litigation On November 28, 2005, Tronox Incorporated (Tronox), at the time a subsidiary of Kerr-McGee Corporation, completed an initial public offering (IPO) and was subsequently spun-off from Kerr-McGee Corporation. In August 2006, Anadarko acquired all of the stock of Kerr-McGee Corporation. In January 2009, Tronox and certain of Tronox’s subsidiaries filed voluntary petitions for relief under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (Bankruptcy Court), which is the court that presided over the Adversary Proceeding (defined below). In May 2009, Tronox and certain of its affiliates filed a lawsuit against Anadarko and Kerr-McGee Corporation and certain of its subsidiaries (collectively, Kerr-McGee) asserting several claims, including claims for actual and constructive fraudulent conveyance (Adversary Proceeding). Tronox alleged, among other things, that it was insolvent or undercapitalized at the date of its IPO and sought, among other things, to recover damages in excess of $18.85 billion from Kerr-McGee and Anadarko, as well as interest and attorneys’ fees and costs. In accordance with Tronox’s Bankruptcy Court-approved Plan of Reorganization (Plan), the Adversary Proceeding is being pursued by a litigation trust (Litigation Trust). Pursuant to the Plan, the Litigation Trust was “deemed substituted” for the Tronox plaintiffs in the Adversary Proceeding.

The U.S. government intervened in the Adversary Proceeding, and in May 2009 asserted separate claims against Anadarko and Kerr-McGee under the Federal Debt Collection Procedures Act (FDCPA Complaint). The Litigation Trust and the U.S. government agreed that the recovery of damages under the Adversary Proceeding, if any, would cover both the Adversary Proceeding and the FDCPA Complaint.

In February 2011, Tronox emerged from bankruptcy pursuant to the Plan. The terms of the Plan, which were confirmed by the Bankruptcy Court in the fourth quarter of 2010, contemplate that the claims of the U.S. government (together with other federal, state, local, and tribal governmental entities having regulatory authority or responsibilities for environmental laws, collectively, the Governmental Entities) related to Tronox’s environmental liabilities and tort claims asserted against Tronox by other creditors will be settled through certain environmental response trusts and the Litigation Trust. The Plan provides for an allocation of any proceeds from the Adversary Proceeding between the Governmental Entities and the other creditors.

Liability Accrual On April 3, 2014, Anadarko and Kerr-McGee entered into a settlement agreement with the Litigation Trust and the U.S. government (in its capacity as plaintiff-intervenor and acting for and on behalf of certain U.S. government agencies) to resolve all claims asserted in the Adversary Proceeding and FDCPA Complaint for $5.15 billion, which represents principal of approximately $3.98 billion plus 6% interest from the filing of the Adversary Proceeding on May 12, 2009, through April 3, 2014. In addition, interest will be paid on the above amount from April 3, 2014, through the date of payment of the settlement, with interest of 1.5% for the first 180 days and 1.5% plus the one-month LIBOR thereafter. Under the terms of the settlement agreement, the Litigation Trust, Anadarko, and Kerr-McGee agreed to mutually release all claims that were or could have been asserted in the Adversary Proceeding. The U.S. government (representing federal agencies that filed claims in the Tronox bankruptcy) and Anadarko and Kerr-McGee also provided covenants not to sue each other with respect to certain claims and causes of action. The U.S. government will also provide contribution protection from third-party claims seeking reimbursement from Anadarko and certain of its affiliates for the sites identified in the settlement agreement.

11. Contingencies (Continued)

The Adversary Proceeding has been stayed pending final approval of the settlement agreement. In May 2014, the Bankruptcy Court issued its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law recommending approval of the settlement agreement. The settlement agreement is subject to approval by the New York District Court and the issuance of an injunction by the New York District Court barring similar claims from third parties. The settlement payment will be made once both the New York District Court’s approval of the settlement agreement and the issuance of the injunction are final and non-appealable. The Company currently expects this process to be completed in early 2015. Anadarko recognized Tronox-related contingent losses of $850 million in the fourth quarter of 2013 and $4.3 billion in the first quarter of 2014. In addition, Anadarko recognized settlement-related interest expense of $38 million, included in Tronox-related contingent loss in the Company’s Consolidated Statement of Income, during the nine months ended September 30, 2014, for an aggregate $5.19 billion Tronox-related contingent liability on the Company’s Consolidated Balance Sheet at September 30, 2014. For information on the tax effects of the settlement agreement, see Note 12—Income Taxes.

Deepwater Horizon Events In April 2010, the Macondo well in the Gulf of Mexico blew out and an explosion occurred on the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig, resulting in an oil spill. The well was operated by BP Exploration and Production Inc. (BP) and Anadarko held a 25% nonoperated interest. In October 2011, the Company and BP entered into a settlement agreement relating to the Deepwater Horizon events (Settlement Agreement). Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, the Company is fully indemnified by BP against all claims and damages arising under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA), claims for natural resource damages (NRD) and assessment costs, and any claims arising under the Operating Agreement with BP. This indemnification is guaranteed by BP Corporation North America Inc. (BPCNA) and, in the event that the net worth of BPCNA declines below an agreed-upon amount, BP p.l.c. has agreed to become the sole guarantor. Under the Settlement Agreement, BP does not indemnify the Company against penalties and fines, punitive damages, shareholder derivative or securities laws claims, or certain other claims. The Company has not recorded a liability for any costs that are subject to indemnification by BP. For additional disclosure of the Deepwater Horizon events, the Company’s Settlement Agreement with BP, environmental claims under OPA, NRD claims, potential penalties and fines, and civil litigation, see Note 17—Contingencies—Deepwater Horizon Events in the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements included in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2013.

Penalties and Fines In December 2010, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), on behalf of the United States, filed a civil lawsuit in the U.S. District Court in New Orleans, Louisiana (Louisiana District Court) against several parties, including the Company, seeking an assessment of civil penalties under the Clean Water Act (CWA) in an amount to be determined by the Louisiana District Court. In February 2012, the Louisiana District Court entered a declaratory judgment that, as a partial owner of the Macondo well, Anadarko is liable for civil penalties under Section 311 of the CWA. The declaratory judgment, which was affirmed in June 2014 by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (Fifth Circuit), addresses liability only and does not address the amount of the civil penalty. The assessment of a civil penalty against Anadarko will follow a bench trial scheduled to begin in January 2015.

In July 2014, Anadarko filed a motion for rehearing with the Fifth Circuit requesting that the full court sit to reconsider Anadarko’s appeal concerning that portion of the February 2012 declaratory judgment which found Anadarko liable for civil penalties under the CWA. In September 2014, Anadarko filed a letter notifying the Fifth Circuit that the Louisiana District Court issued Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in the first phase of the Deepwater Horizon trial (Phase I Findings and Conclusions), which included facts that contradict certain key facts assumed by the Fifth Circuit panel in its June 2014 decision.

11. Contingencies (Continued)

Applicable accounting guidance requires the Company to accrue a liability if it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of the liability can be reasonably estimated. The Louisiana District Court’s declaratory judgment in February 2012 satisfies the requirement that a liability arising from the future assessment of a civil penalty against Anadarko is probable. In an effort to resolve this matter, the Company made a settlement offer to the DOJ in July 2014 of $90 million and recorded a contingent liability for this amount at June 30, 2014. The Company subsequently engaged in further discussions regarding settlement, but the parties have not been able to reach agreement on either the amount of, or the terms and conditions governing, a settlement. The Company’s settlement offer of $90 million remains outstanding and the Company remains open to resolving the matter through settlement discussions. The Company believes that $90 million under a settlement scenario is a better estimate of loss at this time than any other amount. Based on the above accounting guidance, the Company’s contingent liability for CWA penalties and fines remains $90 million at September 30, 2014. However, the Company may ultimately incur a liability related to CWA penalties in excess of the current accrued liability.

The actual amount of a CWA penalty is subject to uncertainty, including whether the Company will be able to reach a settlement with the DOJ or will proceed to trial in January 2015. The CWA sets forth subjective criteria to be considered by the court in assessing the magnitude of any CWA penalty, including the degree of fault of the owner. In the Phase I and II trials (defined below) and again for the penalty phase trial in January 2015, the Louisiana District Court ruled that no evidence of Anadarko’s alleged culpability or fault may be presented. In addition, in its Phase I Findings and Conclusions, the Louisiana District Court did not allocate any fault to Anadarko. Given the subjective nature of the CWA criteria used to determine penalty assessments and the Louisiana District Court’s prior rulings related to culpability and allocation of fault, the Company currently cannot reasonably estimate the amount of any such penalty to be assessed or determine a reasonable range of potential loss if the matter is resolved by the Louisiana District Court following trial. However, given the Company’s lack of direct operational involvement in the event, the Louisiana District Court’s rulings excluding any evidence of Anadarko’s alleged culpability or fault, the Phase I Findings and Conclusions that did not allocate any fault to Anadarko, and the subjective criteria of the CWA, the Company believes that its exposure to CWA penalties will not materially impact the Company’s financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows.

Events or factors that could assist the Company in estimating the amount of settlement or potential civil penalty or a range of potential loss related to such penalty include (i) an assessment by the DOJ, (ii) a ruling by a court of competent jurisdiction, or (iii) substantive settlement negotiations between the Company and the DOJ.

As discussed below, numerous Deepwater Horizon event-related civil lawsuits have been filed against BP and other parties, including the Company. Certain state and local governments appealed, or provided indication of a likely appeal of, the Louisiana District Court’s decision that only federal law, and not state law, applies to Deepwater Horizon event-related claims. For example, eleven Louisiana Parish District Attorneys appealed that decision to the Fifth Circuit. In February 2014, the Fifth Circuit denied the appeal and upheld the Louisiana District Court’s decision. In October 2014, the United States Supreme Court denied the Parish District Attorneys’ petition to review the case. While that denial ends further appeal of that decision by the Parish District Attorneys, any other party subject to the decision who has not yet appealed, including private parties who opted out of the BP settlement, the states, and other local governments, may do so after obtaining a final judgment on their damages claims. If any further appeal is taken and is successful, state and/or local laws and regulations could become sources of penalties or fines against the Company.

Civil Litigation Damage Claims Numerous Deepwater Horizon event-related civil lawsuits have been filed against BP and other parties, including the Company. This litigation has been consolidated into a federal Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) action pending before Judge Carl Barbier in the Louisiana District Court. In March 2012, BP and the Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee (PSC) entered into a settlement agreement to resolve a substantial majority of the economic loss and medical claims stemming from the Deepwater Horizon events, which the Louisiana District Court approved in orders issued in December 2012 and January 2013. Only OPA claims seeking economic loss damages against the Company remain. In addition, certain state and local governments have appealed, or have provided indication of a likely appeal of, the Louisiana District Court’s decision that only federal law, and not state law, applies to Deepwater Horizon event-related claims. Certain Mexican states also have appealed the dismissal of their claims against BP, the Company, and others. The Company, pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, is fully indemnified by BP against losses arising as a result of claims for damages, irrespective of whether such claims are based on federal (including OPA) or state law.

11. Contingencies (Continued)

The first phase of the trial in the MDL (Phase I) commenced in February 2013. The PSC, BP, BP America Production Company (BPAP), BP p.l.c., the United States, state and local governments, Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. (Halliburton), and certain subsidiaries of Transocean Ltd. (Transocean) participated in Phase I. Anadarko was excused from participation in Phase I. The issues tried in Phase I included the cause of the blowout and all related events leading up to April 22, 2010, the date the Deepwater Horizon sank, as well as allocation of fault. In September 2014, the Louisiana District Court issued its Phase I Findings and Conclusions. The Louisiana District Court found that BP and BPAP, Transocean, and Halliburton, but not Anadarko, are each liable under general maritime law for the blowout, explosion, and oil spill. The court determined that BP’s and BPAP’s conduct was reckless and that both Transocean’s and Halliburton’s conduct was negligent. The Louisiana District Court apportioned 67% of the fault to BP and BPAP, 30% to Transocean, and 3% to Halliburton. No fault was allocated to Anadarko. BP is challenging certain of the Louisiana District Court’s findings.

The second phase of trial (Phase II) began in September 2013 and in November 2013 the parties rested their Phase II cases. The issues tried in Phase II included spill-source control and quantification of the spill for the period from April 20, 2010, until the well was capped. The Company, the PSC, BP, BPAP, BP p.l.c., the United States, state and local governments, Halliburton, and Transocean participated in Phase II of the trial. The penalty phase of the trial, which is scheduled to begin in January 2015, will include Anadarko, BP, and the United States, and will assess findings and penalties under the CWA. In March 2014, the Louisiana District Court ruled that no evidence of Anadarko’s alleged culpability or fault may be presented during the penalty phase trial.

The State of Alabama previously brought actions against the Company and other parties for claims arising from the Deepwater Horizon event, including claims for penalties and fines under state environmental laws, which were subsequently dismissed by the Louisiana District Court. The Louisiana District Court has selected this case as its test case for valuing the damages sought by states for claims under federal laws arising from the Deepwater Horizon event. Trial is set for November 2015 and the parties are conducting discovery. The Louisiana District Court’s previous rulings apply to Alabama’s claims, including the court’s decision that only federal law, and not state law, applies; its decision allocating fault and liability among BP and BPAP, Transocean, and Halliburton; and its orders precluding evidence of alleged culpability by Anadarko, leaving only damages to be decided. The Company, pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, is fully indemnified by BP against losses arising as a result of claims for damages.

Two separate class-action complaints were filed in June and August 2010, in the New York District Court on behalf of purported purchasers of the Company’s stock between June 12, 2009, and June 9, 2010, against Anadarko and certain of its officers. The consolidated action was subsequently transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas - Houston Division (Texas District Court). The complaints allege causes of action arising pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 for purported misstatements and omissions regarding, among other things, the Company’s liability related to the Deepwater Horizon events. The plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of compensatory damages, including interest thereon, as well as litigation fees and costs. In March 2014, the parties reached a settlement in this matter, which was approved by the Texas District Court in September 2014. The settlement was directly funded by the Company’s insurers.

11. Contingencies (Continued)

Remaining Liability Outlook It is possible that the Company may recognize additional Deepwater Horizon event-related liabilities for potential fines and penalties and certain other claims not covered by the indemnification provisions of the Settlement Agreement; however, the Company does not believe that any potential liability attributable to the foregoing items, individually or in the aggregate, will have a material impact on the Company’s financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows. This assessment takes into account certain qualitative factors, including the subjective and fault-based nature of CWA penalties, the Company’s indemnification by BP against certain damage claims as discussed above, and BP’s creditworthiness.

Although the Company is fully indemnified by BP against OPA damage claims, NRD claims and assessment costs, and certain other potential liabilities, the Company may be required to recognize a liability for these amounts in advance of, or in connection with, recognizing a receivable from BP for the related indemnity payment. In all circumstances, however, the Company expects that any additional indemnified liability that may be recognized by the Company will be subsequently recovered from BP itself or through the guarantees of BPCNA or BP p.l.c.

The Company will continue to monitor the MDL and other legal proceedings discussed above related to the Deepwater Horizon events. The Company cannot predict the nature of additional evidence that may be discovered during the course of legal proceedings or the timing of completion of any legal proceedings.

Deepwater Horizon and Tronox Derivative Claims In May 2013, an Anadarko shareholder filed a derivative action in the 215^th District Court of Harris County, Texas (215^th District Court) against Anadarko and certain current and former directors and officers (DWH Derivative Action). The shareholder purported to bring claims on behalf of Anadarko and alleged, among other things, that certain current and former directors and officers breached their fiduciary duty in connection with the Company’s investment in the Macondo lease.

In addition, in April 2014, the Company’s Board of Directors received a letter from a current shareholder demanding that the Board undertake an independent investigation of certain current and former officers and directors for alleged breach of fiduciary duty related to the Company’s April 2014 settlement of the Adversary Proceeding (Tronox Derivative Demand).

In May 2014, the parties reached an agreement to jointly resolve the DWH Derivative Action and the Tronox Derivative Demand in one settlement. In order to achieve the joint settlement, the petition in the DWH Derivative Action was amended to include the allegations asserted in the Tronox Derivative Demand. In August 2014, the 215^th District Court approved the settlement. The settlement did not have a material impact on the Company’s financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows.

Environmental Matters Anadarko is also subject to various environmental-remediation and reclamation obligations arising from federal, state, and local laws and regulations. The Company continually monitors remediation and reclamation processes and adjusts its liability for these obligations as necessary.