Contingencies	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2015
Contingencies [Abstract]
Contingencies	15. 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 personal injury claims; property damage claims; title disputes; tax disputes; royalty claims; contract claims; contamination claims relating to oil and gas exploration, 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. The Company’s Consolidated Balance Sheets include liabilities of $269 million at December 31, 2015, and $5.3 billion at December 31, 2014, for litigation-related contingencies. 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 the resolution of pending proceedings will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows. 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, mutual releases, and agreement to indemnify relating to the Deepwater Horizon events (Settlement Agreement), under which the Company paid $4.0 billion in cash and transferred its interest in the Macondo well and the Mississippi Canyon Block 252 (Lease) to BP. Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, the Company is fully indemnified by BP against all claims, causes of action, losses, costs, expenses, liabilities, damages, or judgments of any kind arising out of the Deepwater Horizon events, related damage claims 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 (OA). 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. Numerous Deepwater Horizon event-related civil lawsuits have been filed against BP and other parties, including the Company by, among others, fishing, boating, and shrimping enterprises and industry groups; restaurants; commercial and residential property owners; certain rig workers or their families; the States of Alabama, Louisiana, Texas, and Mississippi, and several of their political subdivisions; the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ); environmental non-governmental organizations; and certain Mexican states. Many of the lawsuits filed assert various claims of negligence, gross negligence, and violations of several federal and state laws and regulations, including, among others, OPA; the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act; the Clean Air Act; the Clean Water Act (CWA); and the Endangered Species Act; or challenge existing permits for operations in the Gulf of Mexico. Generally, the plaintiffs seek actual damages, punitive damages, declaratory judgment, and/or injunctive relief. This litigation has been consolidated into a federal Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) action pending before Judge Carl Barbier in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana in New Orleans, Louisiana (Louisiana District Court). In July 2015, BP announced a settlement agreement in principle with the DOJ and certain states and local government entities regarding essentially all of the outstanding claims against BP related to the Deepwater Horizon event (BP Settlement) and, in October 2015, lodged a proposed consent decree with the Louisiana District Court. A hearing related to the consent decree is currently scheduled for March 2016. 15. Contingencies (Continued) Liability Accrual Below is a discussion of the Company’s current analysis, under applicable accounting guidance, of its potential liability for (i) amounts under the OA (OA Liabilities), (ii) OPA-related environmental costs, and (iii) other contingent liabilities. Applicable accounting guidance requires the Company to accrue a liability if both (a) it is probable that a liability has been incurred and (b) the amount of that liability can be reasonably estimated. The Company is fully indemnified by BP against OPA damage claims, NRD claims and assessment costs, and 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 has not recorded a liability for any costs that are subject to indemnification by BP. OA Liabilities Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, all amounts deemed by BP to have been due under the OA, as well as all future amounts that otherwise would be invoiced to Anadarko under the OA, have been satisfied. OPA-Related Environmental Costs BP, Anadarko, and other parties, including parties that do not own an interest in the Lease, such as the drilling contractor, have received correspondence from the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) referencing their identification as a “responsible party or guarantor” (RP) under OPA. Under OPA, RPs, including Anadarko, may be jointly and severally liable for costs of well control, spill response, and containment and removal of hydrocarbons as well as other costs and damage claims related to the spill and spill cleanup. The USCG’s identification of Anadarko as an RP arises as a result of Anadarko’s status as a co-lessee in the Lease. Under accounting guidance applicable to environmental liabilities, a liability is presumed probable if the entity is both identified as an RP and associated with the environmental event. The Company’s co-lessee status in the Lease at the time of the event and the subsequent identification and treatment of the Company as an RP satisfies these standards and therefore establishes the presumption that the Company’s potential environmental liabilities related to the Deepwater Horizon events are probable. As BP funds OPA-related environmental costs, any potential joint and several liability for these costs is satisfied for all RPs, including Anadarko. This bears significance in that once these costs are funded by BP, such costs are no longer analyzed as OPA-related environmental costs, but instead are analyzed as OA Liabilities. As discussed above, Anadarko has settled its OA Liabilities with BP. Thus, potential liability to the Company for OPA-related environmental costs can arise only where BP does not, or otherwise is unable to, fund all of the OPA-related environmental costs. Under this scenario, the joint and several nature of the liability for these costs could cause the Company to recognize a liability for OPA-related environmental costs. However, all liability relating to OPA-related environmental costs should be resolved as part of the BP Settlement, provided that the consent decree is ultimately approved by the Louisiana District Court. Additionally, in the event the consent decree is not approved by the Louisiana District Court, the Company is fully indemnified by BP against these costs (including guarantees by BPCNA or BP p.l.c.). Allocable Share of Gross OPA-Related Environmental Costs Under applicable accounting guidance, the Company is required to estimate its allocable share of gross OPA-related environmental costs. To date, BP has paid all Deepwater Horizon event-related costs, which satisfies the Company’s potential liability for these costs. Additionally, BP has entered into the BP Settlement Agreement to resolve all liability associated with these costs. Based on the BP Settlement Agreement, BP’s stated intent to continue funding these costs, the Company’s assessment of BP’s financial ability to continue funding these costs, and the impact of BP’s settlements with both of its OA partners, the Company believes the likelihood of BP not continuing to satisfy these claims to be remote. Accordingly, the Company considers zero to be its allocable share of gross OPA-related environmental costs and, consistent with applicable accounting guidance, has not recorded a liability for these amounts. 15. Contingencies (Continued) Penalties and Fines These costs include amounts that may be assessed as a result of potential civil and/or criminal penalties under various federal, state, and/or local statutes and/or regulations as a result of the Deepwater Horizon events, including, for example, the CWA, the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and possibly other federal, state, and local laws. The foregoing does not represent an exhaustive list of statutes and regulations that potentially could trigger a penalty or fine assessment against the Company. In December 2010, the DOJ on behalf of the United States, filed a civil lawsuit in the Louisiana District Court against several parties, including the Company, seeking an assessment of civil penalties under the CWA in an amount to be determined by the Louisiana District Court. In an effort to resolve this matter, the Company made a settlement offer to the DOJ in July 2014 and had a contingent liability of $90 million recorded as of December 31, 2014. After previously finding that Anadarko, as a nonoperating investor in the Macondo well, was not culpable with respect to the Deepwater Horizon events, the Louisiana District Court found Anadarko liable for civil penalties under Section 311 of the CWA as a working-interest owner in the Macondo well and entered a judgment of $159.5 million in December 2015. The Company recorded an additional contingent liability during 2015 for $69.5 million, for a total liability of $159.5 million at December 31, 2015. The deadline for an appeal of the decision was February 16, 2016. The parties did not appeal the decision; accordingly, the Company expects to pay the penalty in the first quarter of 2016. 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. These appeals should be dismissed as part of the BP Settlement, provided that the consent decree is ultimately approved by the Louisiana District Court. In the event the consent decree is not approved by the Louisiana District Court and any such appeal proceeds and is successful, state and/or local laws and regulations could become sources of penalties or fines against the Company. Natural Resource Damages This category includes future damage claims that may be made by federal and/or state natural resource trustee agencies at the completion of injury assessments and restoration planning. Natural resources generally include land, fish, water, air, wildlife, and other such resources belonging to, managed by, held in trust by, or otherwise controlled by, the federal, state, or local government. The NRD assessment process is led by various federal agencies and affected states. Referred to as the “Co-Trustees,” these entities continue to conduct injury assessment and restoration planning. NRD claims are generally sought after the damage assessment and restoration planning is completed, which may take several years. Thus, the Company remains unable to reasonably estimate the magnitude of any NRD claim. However, all NRD claims should be dismissed as part of the BP Settlement, provided that the consent decree is ultimately approved by the Louisiana District Court. In the event the Louisiana District Court does not approve the consent decree, the Company anticipates that BP will satisfy any NRD claim, which eliminates any potential liability to Anadarko for such costs. In the event any NRD damage claim is made directly against Anadarko, the Company is fully indemnified by BP against such claims (including guarantees by BPCNA or BP p.l.c.). 15. Contingencies (Continued) Civil Litigation Damage Claims As discussed above, numerous Deepwater Horizon event-related civil lawsuits have been filed against BP and other parties, including the Company. Generally, the plaintiffs are seeking actual damages, punitive damages, declaratory judgment, and/or injunctive relief. However, all claims relating to this MDL action should be dismissed as part of the BP Settlement, provided that the consent decree is ultimately approved by the Louisiana District Court. Additionally, in the event the consent decree is not approved by the Louisiana District Court, 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. Remaining Liability Outlook It is possible that the Company may recognize additional Deepwater Horizon event-related liabilities for potential penalties and fines and certain royalty claims not covered by the indemnification provisions of the Settlement Agreement. 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 was 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. For purposes of this Form 10-K, references to “Tronox” after February 2011 refer to the Litigation Trust. 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. 15. Contingencies (Continued) 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, the Company agreed to pay interest on the above amount from April 3, 2014, through the payment of the settlement, with an annual interest rate 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), 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 also provided contribution protection from third-party claims seeking reimbursement from Anadarko and certain of its affiliates for the sites identified in the settlement agreement. In January 2015, the Company paid $5.2 billion after the settlement agreement became effective. 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, included in Tronox-related contingent loss in the Company’s Consolidated Statements of Income, of $60 million during 2014 and $5 million during the first quarter of 2015. At December 31, 2015, there was no Tronox-related contingent liability on the Company’s Consolidated Balance Sheet. For information on the tax effects of the Tronox settlement agreement, see Note 12—Income Taxes. Other Litigation In December 2008, Anadarko sold its interest in the Peregrino heavy-oil field offshore Brazil. The Company is currently litigating a dispute with the Brazilian tax authorities regarding the tax rate applicable to the transaction. In December 2008, the Company deposited the amount of tax originally in dispute in a Brazilian real-denominated judicially-controlled Brazilian bank account pending final resolution of the matter. At December 31, 2015, the deposit of $86 million is included in other assets on the Company’s Consolidated Balance Sheet. In July 2009, the lower judicial court ruled in favor of the Brazilian tax authorities. The Company appealed this decision to the Brazilian Regional courts, which upheld the lower court’s ruling in favor of the Brazilian tax authorities in December 2011. In April 2012, the Company filed simultaneous appeals to the Brazilian Superior Court and the Brazilian Supreme Court. The Brazilian Superior Court and the Brazilian Supreme Court have agreed to hear the case and the Company currently is awaiting the setting of initial hearing dates. In August 2013, following a determination by an administrative court in a related matter that the amount of tax in dispute was not calculated properly, the Company filed a petition requesting the withdrawal of a portion of the judicial deposit to the extent it exceeds the amount of tax currently in dispute and any interest on such excess amount. In April 2015, the Company’s petition was denied. The Company appealed this decision. The appeal was denied in November 2015. The Company believes that it will more likely than not prevail in the Brazilian Superior Court and the Brazilian Supreme Court. Therefore, no tax liability has been recorded for Peregrino divestiture-related litigation at December 31, 2015. The Company continues to vigorously defend its position in Brazilian courts. 15. Contingencies (Continued) Guarantees and Indemnifications The Company provides certain indemnifications in relation to asset dispositions. These indemnifications typically relate to disputes, litigation, or tax matters existing at the date of disposition. In 2013, as a result of a Chapter 11 bankruptcy declaration by a third party, the Department of the Interior ordered Anadarko to perform the decommissioning of a production facility and related wells, which were previously sold to the third party. During 2013, the Company accrued costs of $117 million to decommission the production facility and related wells, reported in other (income) expense, net in the Company’s Consolidated Statement of Income. During each of the years ended December 31, 2015 and 2014, the Company recognized a $22 million increase in the estimated decommissioning costs. Anadarko completed decommissioning of the production facility in 2014 and expects to complete decommissioning of the wells in 2016. Decommissioning obligations of $116 million at December 31, 2015, and $114 million at December 31, 2014, were included in accrued expenses on the Company’s Consolidated Balance Sheets. Actual costs may vary from this estimate; however, the Company does not believe that any such change will materially impact its 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’s Consolidated Balance Sheets include liabilities for remediation and reclamation obligations of $145 million at December 31, 2015, and $126 million at December 31, 2014. The current portion of these amounts was included in accounts payable and the long-term portion of these amounts was included in other long-term liabilities—other on the Company’s Consolidated Balance Sheets. The Company continually monitors remediation and reclamation processes and adjusts its liability for these obligations as necessary. The Company is one of numerous parties previously notified by the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) that, as a result of a prior acquisition, it is a potentially responsible party with respect to a landfill located in West Covina, California. While no agreement is in place with the DTSC, the Company recorded a $50 million restoration liability in 2013 with respect to the site, representing the current estimated obligation, which is included in the Company’s liability balance at December 31, 2015. The Company could incur additional obligations if any of the potentially responsible parties are ultimately not able to fund their allocated share of the costs or if the DTSC requires a more costly remedial approach. It is possible that the Company’s current estimate of probable loss related to this matter could change, perhaps materially, in the future.

15. 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 personal injury claims; property damage claims; title disputes; tax disputes; royalty claims; contract claims; contamination claims relating to oil and gas exploration, 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. The Company’s Consolidated Balance Sheets include liabilities of $269 million at December 31, 2015, and $5.3 billion at December 31, 2014, for litigation-related contingencies. 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 the resolution of pending proceedings will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows.

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, mutual releases, and agreement to indemnify relating to the Deepwater Horizon events (Settlement Agreement), under which the Company paid $4.0 billion in cash and transferred its interest in the Macondo well and the Mississippi Canyon Block 252 (Lease) to BP. Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, the Company is fully indemnified by BP against all claims, causes of action, losses, costs, expenses, liabilities, damages, or judgments of any kind arising out of the Deepwater Horizon events, related damage claims 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 (OA). 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.

Numerous Deepwater Horizon event-related civil lawsuits have been filed against BP and other parties, including the Company by, among others, fishing, boating, and shrimping enterprises and industry groups; restaurants; commercial and residential property owners; certain rig workers or their families; the States of Alabama, Louisiana, Texas, and Mississippi, and several of their political subdivisions; the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ); environmental non-governmental organizations; and certain Mexican states. Many of the lawsuits filed assert various claims of negligence, gross negligence, and violations of several federal and state laws and regulations, including, among others, OPA; the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act; the Clean Air Act; the Clean Water Act (CWA); and the Endangered Species Act; or challenge existing permits for operations in the Gulf of Mexico. Generally, the plaintiffs seek actual damages, punitive damages, declaratory judgment, and/or injunctive relief. This litigation has been consolidated into a federal Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) action pending before Judge Carl Barbier in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana in New Orleans, Louisiana (Louisiana District Court).

In July 2015, BP announced a settlement agreement in principle with the DOJ and certain states and local government entities regarding essentially all of the outstanding claims against BP related to the Deepwater Horizon event (BP Settlement) and, in October 2015, lodged a proposed consent decree with the Louisiana District Court. A hearing related to the consent decree is currently scheduled for March 2016.

15. Contingencies (Continued)

Liability Accrual Below is a discussion of the Company’s current analysis, under applicable accounting guidance, of its potential liability for (i) amounts under the OA (OA Liabilities), (ii) OPA-related environmental costs, and (iii) other contingent liabilities. Applicable accounting guidance requires the Company to accrue a liability if both (a) it is probable that a liability has been incurred and (b) the amount of that liability can be reasonably estimated.

The Company is fully indemnified by BP against OPA damage claims, NRD claims and assessment costs, and 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 has not recorded a liability for any costs that are subject to indemnification by BP.

OA Liabilities Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, all amounts deemed by BP to have been due under the OA, as well as all future amounts that otherwise would be invoiced to Anadarko under the OA, have been satisfied.

OPA-Related Environmental Costs BP, Anadarko, and other parties, including parties that do not own an interest in the Lease, such as the drilling contractor, have received correspondence from the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) referencing their identification as a “responsible party or guarantor” (RP) under OPA. Under OPA, RPs, including Anadarko, may be jointly and severally liable for costs of well control, spill response, and containment and removal of hydrocarbons as well as other costs and damage claims related to the spill and spill cleanup. The USCG’s identification of Anadarko as an RP arises as a result of Anadarko’s status as a co-lessee in the Lease.

Under accounting guidance applicable to environmental liabilities, a liability is presumed probable if the entity is both identified as an RP and associated with the environmental event. The Company’s co-lessee status in the Lease at the time of the event and the subsequent identification and treatment of the Company as an RP satisfies these standards and therefore establishes the presumption that the Company’s potential environmental liabilities related to the Deepwater Horizon events are probable.

As BP funds OPA-related environmental costs, any potential joint and several liability for these costs is satisfied for all RPs, including Anadarko. This bears significance in that once these costs are funded by BP, such costs are no longer analyzed as OPA-related environmental costs, but instead are analyzed as OA Liabilities. As discussed above, Anadarko has settled its OA Liabilities with BP. Thus, potential liability to the Company for OPA-related environmental costs can arise only where BP does not, or otherwise is unable to, fund all of the OPA-related environmental costs. Under this scenario, the joint and several nature of the liability for these costs could cause the Company to recognize a liability for OPA-related environmental costs. However, all liability relating to OPA-related environmental costs should be resolved as part of the BP Settlement, provided that the consent decree is ultimately approved by the Louisiana District Court. Additionally, in the event the consent decree is not approved by the Louisiana District Court, the Company is fully indemnified by BP against these costs (including guarantees by BPCNA or BP p.l.c.).

Allocable Share of Gross OPA-Related Environmental Costs Under applicable accounting guidance, the Company is required to estimate its allocable share of gross OPA-related environmental costs. To date, BP has paid all Deepwater Horizon event-related costs, which satisfies the Company’s potential liability for these costs. Additionally, BP has entered into the BP Settlement Agreement to resolve all liability associated with these costs. Based on the BP Settlement Agreement, BP’s stated intent to continue funding these costs, the Company’s assessment of BP’s financial ability to continue funding these costs, and the impact of BP’s settlements with both of its OA partners, the Company believes the likelihood of BP not continuing to satisfy these claims to be remote. Accordingly, the Company considers zero to be its allocable share of gross OPA-related environmental costs and, consistent with applicable accounting guidance, has not recorded a liability for these amounts.

15. Contingencies (Continued)

Penalties and Fines These costs include amounts that may be assessed as a result of potential civil and/or criminal penalties under various federal, state, and/or local statutes and/or regulations as a result of the Deepwater Horizon events, including, for example, the CWA, the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and possibly other federal, state, and local laws. The foregoing does not represent an exhaustive list of statutes and regulations that potentially could trigger a penalty or fine assessment against the Company. In December 2010, the DOJ on behalf of the United States, filed a civil lawsuit in the Louisiana District Court against several parties, including the Company, seeking an assessment of civil penalties under the CWA in an amount to be determined by the Louisiana District Court. In an effort to resolve this matter, the Company made a settlement offer to the DOJ in July 2014 and had a contingent liability of $90 million recorded as of December 31, 2014. After previously finding that Anadarko, as a nonoperating investor in the Macondo well, was not culpable with respect to the Deepwater Horizon events, the Louisiana District Court found Anadarko liable for civil penalties under Section 311 of the CWA as a working-interest owner in the Macondo well and entered a judgment of $159.5 million in December 2015. The Company recorded an additional contingent liability during 2015 for $69.5 million, for a total liability of $159.5 million at December 31, 2015. The deadline for an appeal of the decision was February 16, 2016. The parties did not appeal the decision; accordingly, the Company expects to pay the penalty in the first quarter of 2016.

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. These appeals should be dismissed as part of the BP Settlement, provided that the consent decree is ultimately approved by the Louisiana District Court. In the event the consent decree is not approved by the Louisiana District Court and any such appeal proceeds and is successful, state and/or local laws and regulations could become sources of penalties or fines against the Company.

Natural Resource Damages This category includes future damage claims that may be made by federal and/or state natural resource trustee agencies at the completion of injury assessments and restoration planning. Natural resources generally include land, fish, water, air, wildlife, and other such resources belonging to, managed by, held in trust by, or otherwise controlled by, the federal, state, or local government. The NRD assessment process is led by various federal agencies and affected states. Referred to as the “Co-Trustees,” these entities continue to conduct injury assessment and restoration planning. NRD claims are generally sought after the damage assessment and restoration planning is completed, which may take several years. Thus, the Company remains unable to reasonably estimate the magnitude of any NRD claim. However, all NRD claims should be dismissed as part of the BP Settlement, provided that the consent decree is ultimately approved by the Louisiana District Court. In the event the Louisiana District Court does not approve the consent decree, the Company anticipates that BP will satisfy any NRD claim, which eliminates any potential liability to Anadarko for such costs. In the event any NRD damage claim is made directly against Anadarko, the Company is fully indemnified by BP against such claims (including guarantees by BPCNA or BP p.l.c.).

15. Contingencies (Continued)

Civil Litigation Damage Claims As discussed above, numerous Deepwater Horizon event-related civil lawsuits have been filed against BP and other parties, including the Company. Generally, the plaintiffs are seeking actual damages, punitive damages, declaratory judgment, and/or injunctive relief. However, all claims relating to this MDL action should be dismissed as part of the BP Settlement, provided that the consent decree is ultimately approved by the Louisiana District Court. Additionally, in the event the consent decree is not approved by the Louisiana District Court, 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.

Remaining Liability Outlook It is possible that the Company may recognize additional Deepwater Horizon event-related liabilities for potential penalties and fines and certain royalty claims not covered by the indemnification provisions of the Settlement Agreement.

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 was 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. For purposes of this Form 10-K, references to “Tronox” after February 2011 refer to the Litigation Trust.

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.

15. Contingencies (Continued)

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, the Company agreed to pay interest on the above amount from April 3, 2014, through the payment of the settlement, with an annual interest rate 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), 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 also provided contribution protection from third-party claims seeking reimbursement from Anadarko and certain of its affiliates for the sites identified in the settlement agreement. In January 2015, the Company paid $5.2 billion after the settlement agreement became effective.

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, included in Tronox-related contingent loss in the Company’s Consolidated Statements of Income, of $60 million during 2014 and $5 million during the first quarter of 2015. At December 31, 2015, there was no Tronox-related contingent liability on the Company’s Consolidated Balance Sheet. For information on the tax effects of the Tronox settlement agreement, see Note 12—Income Taxes.

Other Litigation In December 2008, Anadarko sold its interest in the Peregrino heavy-oil field offshore Brazil. The Company is currently litigating a dispute with the Brazilian tax authorities regarding the tax rate applicable to the transaction. In December 2008, the Company deposited the amount of tax originally in dispute in a Brazilian real-denominated judicially-controlled Brazilian bank account pending final resolution of the matter. At December 31, 2015, the deposit of $86 million is included in other assets on the Company’s Consolidated Balance Sheet.

In July 2009, the lower judicial court ruled in favor of the Brazilian tax authorities. The Company appealed this decision to the Brazilian Regional courts, which upheld the lower court’s ruling in favor of the Brazilian tax authorities in December 2011. In April 2012, the Company filed simultaneous appeals to the Brazilian Superior Court and the Brazilian Supreme Court. The Brazilian Superior Court and the Brazilian Supreme Court have agreed to hear the case and the Company currently is awaiting the setting of initial hearing dates.

In August 2013, following a determination by an administrative court in a related matter that the amount of tax in dispute was not calculated properly, the Company filed a petition requesting the withdrawal of a portion of the judicial deposit to the extent it exceeds the amount of tax currently in dispute and any interest on such excess amount. In April 2015, the Company’s petition was denied. The Company appealed this decision. The appeal was denied in November 2015.

The Company believes that it will more likely than not prevail in the Brazilian Superior Court and the Brazilian Supreme Court. Therefore, no tax liability has been recorded for Peregrino divestiture-related litigation at December 31, 2015. The Company continues to vigorously defend its position in Brazilian courts.

15. Contingencies (Continued)

Guarantees and Indemnifications The Company provides certain indemnifications in relation to asset dispositions. These indemnifications typically relate to disputes, litigation, or tax matters existing at the date of disposition. In 2013, as a result of a Chapter 11 bankruptcy declaration by a third party, the Department of the Interior ordered Anadarko to perform the decommissioning of a production facility and related wells, which were previously sold to the third party. During 2013, the Company accrued costs of $117 million to decommission the production facility and related wells, reported in other (income) expense, net in the Company’s Consolidated Statement of Income. During each of the years ended December 31, 2015 and 2014, the Company recognized a $22 million increase in the estimated decommissioning costs. Anadarko completed decommissioning of the production facility in 2014 and expects to complete decommissioning of the wells in 2016. Decommissioning obligations of $116 million at December 31, 2015, and $114 million at December 31, 2014, were included in accrued expenses on the Company’s Consolidated Balance Sheets. Actual costs may vary from this estimate; however, the Company does not believe that any such change will materially impact its 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’s Consolidated Balance Sheets include liabilities for remediation and reclamation obligations of $145 million at December 31, 2015, and $126 million at December 31, 2014. The current portion of these amounts was included in accounts payable and the long-term portion of these amounts was included in other long-term liabilities—other on the Company’s Consolidated Balance Sheets. The Company continually monitors remediation and reclamation processes and adjusts its liability for these obligations as necessary.

The Company is one of numerous parties previously notified by the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) that, as a result of a prior acquisition, it is a potentially responsible party with respect to a landfill located in West Covina, California. While no agreement is in place with the DTSC, the Company recorded a $50 million restoration liability in 2013 with respect to the site, representing the current estimated obligation, which is included in the Company’s liability balance at December 31, 2015. The Company could incur additional obligations if any of the potentially responsible parties are ultimately not able to fund their allocated share of the costs or if the DTSC requires a more costly remedial approach. It is possible that the Company’s current estimate of probable loss related to this matter could change, perhaps materially, in the future.