Deepwater Horizon Events	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2011
Disclosure Text Block [Abstract]
Deepwater Horizon Events	2. Deepwater Horizon Events Background, Settlement, and BP Indemnification In April 2010, the Macondo well in the Gulf of Mexico, in which Anadarko holds a 25% non-operating leasehold interest, discovered hydrocarbon accumulations. During suspension operations, the well blew out, an explosion occurred on the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig, and the drilling rig sank, resulting in the release of hydrocarbons into the Gulf of Mexico. Eleven people lost their lives in the explosion and subsequent fire, and others sustained personal injuries. The Macondo well was plugged on September 19, 2010. BP Exploration & Production Inc. (BP), the operator of Mississippi Canyon Block 252 in which the Macondo well is located (Lease), is funding claims and coordinating cleanup efforts. BP invoiced the Company $6.1 billion for what BP considered to be Anadarko's proportionate share of actual costs and anticipated near-term future costs related to these activities. Anadarko withheld payment to BP for all Deepwater Horizon event-related invoices pending the completion of various ongoing investigations into and litigation regarding the cause of the well blowout, explosion, and subsequent release of hydrocarbons. In October 2011, the Company and BP entered into a settlement agreement, mutual releases, and agreement to indemnify, whereby the Company and BP agreed to a mutual release of claims against each other relating to the Deepwater Horizon events (Settlement Agreement). Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, the Company has agreed to pay $4.0 billion in cash and transfer its interest in the Lease to BP (subject to required governmental approvals of the transfer), and BP has agreed to accept this consideration in full satisfaction of its claims against Anadarko for $6.1 billion of invoices issued to date and to forgo reimbursement for all future costs arising from the Deepwater Horizon events, including future costs under the Operating Agreement (OA). In addition, BP has fully indemnified Anadarko 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 associated damage-assessment costs, and any claims arising under the OA. This indemnification has been 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 fines and penalties, punitive damages, shareholder, derivative, or security laws claims, or certain other claims. The Company believes that costs associated with non-indemnified items, individually or in the aggregate, will not materially impact the Company's consolidated financial position, results of operations, or cash flows. Liability Accrual As of September 30, 2011, the Company has recorded a liability for Deepwater Horizon-related settlement costs of approximately $4.0 billion, which includes the cash payment to be remitted to BP in accordance with the Settlement Agreement, as well as Deepwater Horizon event-related legal fees. These legal fees were previously recorded in general and administrative expenses in the Consolidated Statements of Income and have been reclassified for all periods presented to conform to the current-period presentation. Below is a discussion of the Company's current analysis, under applicable accounting guidance, of its potential liability for (i) amounts invoiced by BP under the OA (OA Liabilities), (ii) OPA-related environmental costs, and (iii) other contingent liabilities. Accounting rules require loss recognition only where a potential loss is considered probable and 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 Under 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 United States 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. Applicable accounting guidance requires the Company to accrue an environmental liability if it is both probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of the liability can be reasonably estimated. 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 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. Given that such liabilities are probable, the Company must separately assess and estimate the Company's allocable share of gross estimated OPA-related environmental costs. 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 are instead analyzed as OA Liabilities. As discussed above, Anadarko has agreed with BP to settle its current and future OA Liabilities. Thus, potential liability to the Company for OPA-related environmental costs can only arise 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, the Company is fully indemnified by BP against these costs (including guarantees by BPCNA or BP p.l.c.). Gross OPA-Related Environmental Cost Estimate In prior periods, the Company provided an estimated range of gross OPA-related environmental costs for all identified RPs. This estimate was comprised of spill-response costs and OPA damage claims and was derived from cost information received by the Company from BP. As a result of the Settlement Agreement, the Company no longer expects to receive cost and claims data related to the Deepwater Horizon events. Accordingly, the OPA-related environmental cost estimate included in BP's public releases is the best data available to the Company and therefore herein and hereafter will be utilized by the Company in its accounting analysis. Based on information included in BP p.l.c.'s public release on October 25, 2011, the range of gross OPA-related environmental costs is estimated to be $7.0 billion to $11.0 billion, excluding (i) amounts BP has already funded, which constitute settled OA Liabilities; (ii) amounts that cannot reasonably be estimated by BP, which include NRD claims and other litigation damages; and (iii) non-OPA-related fines and penalties that may be assessed against Anadarko, including assessments under the Clean Water Act (CWA). The Company believes that actual gross OPA-related environmental costs may vary from those estimated by BP p.l.c. in its public releases, perhaps materially from the above cost estimate. 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 based on the Company's estimate of the allocation method and percentage that may ultimately apply to it. To date, BP has paid all Deepwater Horizon event-related costs, which satisfies the Company's potential liability for these costs. Additionally, BP has repeatedly stated publicly and in prior congressional testimony that it will continue to pay these costs. BP's funding and public commentary has continued subsequent to the release of BP's own investigation report, the National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling's final report, and the Deepwater Horizon Joint Investigation Team final report, which the Company considers to be significant positive indications in assessing the likelihood of BP continuing to fund all of these costs. Based on 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, at September 30, 2011, the Company considers zero to be its allocable percentage share of gross OPA-related environmental costs and, consistent with applicable accounting guidance, continues to have a liability accrual of zero for these amounts. Other Contingencies 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. To date, no penalties or fines have been assessed against the Company. However, on December 15, 2010, the United States Department of Justice (DOJ), on behalf of the United States, filed a civil lawsuit in the United States District Court in New Orleans, Louisiana (Louisiana District Court) against several parties, including Anadarko Petroleum Corporation and Anadarko E&P Company LP (AE&P), a subsidiary of Anadarko, seeking an assessment of civil penalties under the CWA in an amount to be determined by the Louisiana District Court. The DOJ complaint seeks separate penalty assessments against both Anadarko Petroleum Corporation and AE&P (based on a temporary interest that AE&P at one time held in the Lease). In April 2011, the Company moved to dismiss AE&P from the DOJ lawsuit because the effective date of AE&P's transfer of its interest in the Lease to Anadarko Petroleum Corporation pre-dated the Deepwater Horizon events. The Company currently believes it is probable that AE&P will not be found liable for CWA penalties upon the presentation of evidence. The Company believes the outcome of this decision will not have a material impact on Anadarko's potential liability. Although Anadarko was named in the DOJ civil lawsuit, its status as a defendant does not mean that Anadarko will be assessed a CWA penalty in that action. First, the Company has a defense to liability under the CWA based on the location from which the discharge occurred. If the court finds that the discharge of hydrocarbons came from the vessel (which includes the riser pipe), the Company may not be liable under the CWA because it neither owned nor operated the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig. Second, because CWA penalties, in practice, are generally assessed on a party-specific basis and take into account several factors including the party's degree of fault, the Company considers its lack of direct involvement in the operation of the drilling rig and the spill itself significant in concluding that losses from CWA penalty assessments are not probable. This view was reinforced by the Louisiana District Court's decision that dismissed all negligence claims against the Company based on the court's finding that the Company did not exercise operational control over the events that led to the oil spill. Accordingly, the Company does not consider a CWA penalty assessment to be probable and, therefore, has not recorded a liability for potential CWA penalties at September 30, 2011. In addition to concluding that any liability for CWA penalties is not probable, the Company currently cannot estimate the amount of any potential penalty. The CWA sets forth subjective criteria, including degree of fault and history of prior violations, which influence CWA penalty assessments. Thus, as a result of the subjective nature of CWA penalty assessments, the Company currently cannot estimate the amount of any such penalty. However, given the Company's lack of direct operational involvement in the event, as recently confirmed by the Louisiana District Court, the Company believes that its potential exposure to CWA penalties will not materially impact the Company's consolidated financial position, results of operations, or cash flows. 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 government agencies that act as trustees of natural resources on behalf of the public. Government agencies involved in the process include the Department of Commerce, the Department of the Interior (DOI), and the Department of Defense. These governmental departments, along with the five affected states – Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas – are referred to as the “Co-Trustees.” The Co-Trustees continue to conduct injury assessment and restoration planning. The DOJ civil lawsuit filed against BP, the Company, and others seeks unspecified damages for injury to federal natural resources. Not all of the Co-Trustees were a party to this lawsuit; however, during the second quarter of 2011, the states of Alabama and Louisiana each filed NRD-related state law claims against the Company in the Louisiana District Court. The Company filed a motion to dismiss all of the claims in both of these complaints in June 2011. The Court heard oral arguments on these and other parties' motions in September 2011 and has taken the motions under advisement. 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. 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). Civil Litigation Damage Claims Numerous 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 State of Alabama and several of its political subdivisions; the DOJ; environmental non-governmental organizations; the State of Louisiana and certain of its political subdivisions; 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 CWA; and the Endangered Species Act; or challenge existing permits for operations in the Gulf of Mexico. Generally, the plaintiffs are seeking actual damages, punitive damages, declaratory judgment, and/or injunctive relief. In August 2010, the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation created Multidistrict Litigation No. 2179 (MDL) to administer essentially all pretrial matters for litigation filed in federal court involving Deepwater Horizon event-related claims. Federal Judge Carl Barbier presides over this MDL in the Louisiana District Court. The Louisiana District Court has issued a number of case-management orders that establish a schedule for procedural matters, discovery, and trial of certain of the MDL cases. The parties to the MDL are actively engaged in discovery. In May 2011 and September 2011, Judge Barbier heard oral arguments on the numerous motions to dismiss filed by the multiple defendants named in this litigation. While a number of the motions remain pending, Judge Barbier has dismissed all maritime and state law claims filed against the Company by private plaintiffs seeking damages for economic loss. All negligence claims filed by these private plaintiffs against the Company have been dismissed based upon Judge Barbier's finding that the Company did not exercise operational control over the events that led to the oil spill. In a separate order, Judge Barbier reached similar findings and dismissed all claims against the Company filed by private plaintiffs alleging personal injury caused by exposure to oil, fumes or other contaminants from the blowout or the chemical dispersants used during the post-spill cleanup operations. Judge Barbier further found that federal law exclusively applies to the private plaintiffs' claims for property damage and economic loss and dismissed all state law claims against the Company asserting liability for such damages and losses. Only OPA claims asserted by private plaintiffs seeking economic loss damages against the Company remain. The Company, pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, is fully indemnified by BP against such OPA claims. The Louisiana District Court has scheduled a February 2012 trial in Transocean's Limitation of Liability case in the MDL. This trial is to be the first phase of a three-phase trial, each phase designed to address different issues. The first phase of the trial is to determine certain liability issues and the liability allocation among the parties alleged to be involved in or liable for the Deepwater Horizon events. In April 2011, the Company filed its answer in this Limitation of Liability case and cross-claimed against affiliates of BP and Transocean Ltd. (Transocean), Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. (Halliburton), Cameron International Corporation (Cameron), and other third-party defendants. Transocean, Halliburton, and Cameron subsequently filed cross-claims against the Company, and BP filed a motion to stay the litigation in the MDL between BP and the non-operating OA parties. In the motion to stay, BP argued that the cross-claims asserted against BP by the Company and the other non-operating OA party are covered by the dispute resolution procedures under the OA and should be stayed. As a result of the Settlement Agreement, a mutual release of all claims, including those that could have been made in arbitration, was agreed to by the Company and BP. The Company has also assigned all rights, title, and interest to all claims that have been or could be asserted against third parties, including cross-claims filed against other third-party defendants, to BP, with the exception of rights to claims the Company may assert under its insurance policies. Two separate class action complaints were filed in June and August 2010, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (New York District Court) on behalf of purported purchasers of the Company's stock between June 9, 2009, and June 12, 2010, against Anadarko and certain of its officers. 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 November 2010, the New York District Court consolidated the two cases and appointed The Pension Trust Fund for Operating Engineers and Employees' Retirement System of the Government of the Virgin Islands (Virgin Islands Group) to act as Lead Plaintiff. In January 2011, the Lead Plaintiff filed its Consolidated Amended Complaint. Prior to filing its Consolidated Amended Complaint, the Lead Plaintiff requested leave from the New York District Court to transfer this lawsuit to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. The Company opposes the Lead Plaintiff's request to transfer the case to the District Court for the Southern District of Texas. The parties have submitted briefs to the New York District Court concerning the transfer of venue issue. In March 2011, the Company moved to dismiss the Consolidated Amended Complaint of the Lead Plaintiff, and in April 2011, the Lead Plaintiff filed its opposition to the motion to dismiss. The motion to transfer and motion to dismiss remain under advisement of the New York District Court. Also in June 2010, a shareholder derivative petition was filed in the 152nd Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas (Harris County District Court), by a shareholder of the Company against Anadarko (as a nominal defendant), certain of its officers, and current and certain former directors. The petition alleged breaches of fiduciary duties, unjust enrichment, and waste of corporate assets in connection with the Deepwater Horizon events. The plaintiffs sought certain changes to the Company's governance and internal procedures, disgorgement of profits, and reimbursement of litigation fees and costs. In November 2010, the Harris County District Court granted Anadarko's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction and Special Exceptions, and granted the plaintiffs 120 days to file an Amended Petition. In March 2011, the plaintiffs filed an Amended Petition. The Company filed Special Exceptions and a Motion to Dismiss the Amended Petition in April 2011. In June 2011, the Harris County District Court heard oral arguments on these matters and granted the motion to dismiss. The time for the plaintiffs to appeal has expired. In September 2010, a purported shareholder made a demand of the Company's Board of Directors (Board) to investigate allegations of breaches of duty by members of management. The Board duly considered the demand, and in January 2011 determined that it would not be in the best interest of the Company to pursue the issues alleged in the demand letter. Given the early stages of these proceedings, the Company currently cannot assess the probability of losses, or reasonably estimate a range of any potential losses, related to ongoing proceedings. The Company intends to vigorously defend itself, its officers, and directors in all proceedings, and will avail itself of any and all indemnities provided by BP against civil damages. Remaining Liability Outlook It is reasonably possible that the Company may recognize additional Deepwater Horizon event-related liabilities for potential fines and penalties, shareholder claims, 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 consolidated financial position, results of operations, or cash flows. The Company will continue to monitor the MDL and other legal proceedings discussed above as well as federal investigations related to the Deepwater Horizon events, including the investigation by the United States Chemical Safety Board. The Company cannot predict the nature of evidence that may be discovered during the course of legal proceedings and investigations, the timing of discovery, or the timing of completion of any legal proceedings or investigations. 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. Insurance and Other Recoveries The Company carries insurance to protect against potential financial losses. At the time of the Deepwater Horizon events, the Company's insurance coverage applied to gross covered costs up to a level of approximately $710 million, less up to $60 million of deductibles. Based on Anadarko's 25% non-operated leasehold interest in the Lease, the Company estimates its net insurance coverage will total not less than $178 million, less deductibles of $15 million. The Company has not recognized a receivable for any potential insurance recoveries in its Consolidated Balance Sheets, but expects to recover, at a minimum, the first $163 million of insured costs under its then-existing insurance policy. At this time, recovery of these amounts is not considered probable because the Company has not yet filed a claim. The Company also carries directors' and officers' insurance which covers certain risks associated with certain of the above-described legal proceedings. As part of the Settlement Agreement, BP has agreed that, to the extent it receives value in the future from claims that it has asserted or could assert against third parties arising from or relating to the Deepwater Horizon events, it will make cash payments (not to exceed $1.0 billion in the aggregate) to Anadarko, on a current and continuing basis, of 12.5% of the aggregate value received by BP in excess of $1.5 billion. Any payments received by the Company pursuant to this arrangement will be accounted for as a reimbursement of the $4.0 billion payment made by the Company to BP as part of the Settlement Agreement. 11. Contingencies The following discussion of the Company's contingencies excludes the Deepwater Horizon events discussed in Note 2. General The Company is a defendant in a number of lawsuits and is involved in governmental proceedings arising in the ordinary course of business, including, but not limited to, royalty claims, contract claims, and environmental claims. The Company has also been named as a defendant in various personal injury claims, including claims by employees of third-party contractors alleging exposure to asbestos, silica, and benzene while working at refineries previously owned by acquired companies. While the ultimate outcome and impact to the Company cannot be predicted with certainty, management believes that the resolution of these proceedings will not have a material adverse effect on the Company's consolidated financial position, results of operations, or cash flows. Litigation The Company is subject to various claims by its royalty owners in the regular course of business as an oil and gas producer, including disputes regarding measurement, post-production costs and expenses, and royalty valuations. The Company and certain of its subsidiaries (collectively, the Anadarko Defendants) were named as defendants in a case styled U.S. of America ex rel. Harrold E. Wright v. AGIP Petroleum Co., et al. filed in September 2000 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Lufkin Division. This lawsuit generally alleged that the Anadarko Defendants and other industry defendants violated the False Claims Act by knowingly undervaluing natural gas in connection with royalty payments on production from federal and Indian lands. In June 2011, the Company finalized its settlement of this litigation for approximately $19 million that was previously expensed. The settlement has been approved by the United States government and resolves all claims related to this litigation, as well as several related administrative matters, against the Anadarko Defendants. SM Energy has alleged that AE&P breached a Joint Exploration Agreement (JEA) originally executed between Anadarko and TXCO Energy Corp. (TXCO) in March 2008 relating to an oil and gas development project in Maverick, Dimmitt, Webb and LaSalle Counties in the Eagleford shale in South Texas. SM Energy is a party to the JEA through two letter agreements with TXCO dated April of 2008, to which Anadarko consented. SM Energy contends that Anadarko is required under the agreements to tender to them a proportionate share of the leasehold interests that Anadarko acquired in TXCO's bankruptcy proceeding in February 2010. The arbitration hearing related to this dispute was held in September 2011. If the Company does not prevail in this matter, Anadarko could be obligated to sell a portion of its leasehold interest in the JEA to SM Energy or pay damages. The Company is vigorously defending this matter. In January 2009, Tronox Incorporated (Tronox), a former subsidiary of Kerr-McGee Corporation (Kerr-McGee), which is a current subsidiary of Anadarko, and certain of its subsidiaries filed voluntary petitions for relief under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (Bankruptcy Court). Subsequently, in May 2009, Tronox and certain of its affiliates filed a lawsuit against Anadarko and Kerr-McGee asserting a number of claims, including claims for actual and constructive fraudulent conveyance (Adversary Proceeding). Tronox alleges, among other things, that it was insolvent or undercapitalized at the time it was spun off from Kerr-McGee. Tronox seeks, among other things, to recover an unspecified amount of damages, including interest, from Kerr-McGee and Anadarko, as well as litigation fees and costs. Anadarko and Kerr-McGee moved to dismiss the complaint in its entirety. In March 2010, the Bankruptcy Court issued an opinion granting in part and denying in part Anadarko's and Kerr-McGee's motion to dismiss the complaint. Notably, the Bankruptcy Court dismissed, with prejudice, Tronox's request for punitive damages relating to the fraudulent-conveyance claims. The Bankruptcy Court granted Tronox leave to replead certain of its common law claims, and Tronox filed an amended complaint in April 2010. In May 2010, Anadarko and Kerr-McGee moved to dismiss certain claims in the amended complaint. In May 2011, the Bankruptcy Court dismissed two claims against Anadarko for conspiracy and aiding and abetting, and declined to dismiss a breach of fiduciary duty claim against Kerr-McGee. In August 2011, Tronox filed a motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of whether damages in the Adversary Proceeding are limited to the amount of Tronox's environmental and tort creditor claims. Kerr-McGee and Anadarko filed a response and cross-motion in September 2011. Expert discovery is ongoing. The Adversary Proceeding is set for trial in April 2012. The United States government was granted authority to intervene in the Adversary Proceeding, and it has asserted separate claims against Anadarko and Kerr-McGee under the Federal Debt Collection Procedures Act. Anadarko and Kerr-McGee have moved to dismiss the claims of the United States government, but that motion has been stayed by the Bankruptcy Court. In August 2010, the Bankruptcy Court entered a Stipulation and Agreed Order among Tronox, Anadarko, and Kerr-McGee authorizing the rejection of the Master Separation Agreement (together with all annexes, related agreements, and ancillary agreements to it, the MSA). Anadarko and Kerr-McGee filed Proofs of Claim, which included claims for damages arising from the MSA rejection. In January 2011, the Bankruptcy Court entered a Stipulation and Agreed Order approving a settlement of Anadarko and Kerr-McGee's rejection damage claims against Tronox. The settlement provided Anadarko a general unsecured claim against Tronox. In February 2011, in settlement of its claim, Anadarko received shares of Tronox stock, which were assigned to a financial institution in exchange for $46 million, included as a credit to general and administrative expenses in the Company's Consolidated Statements of Income for the nine months ended September 30, 2011. The Company will continue to monitor the impact that the rejection of the MSA may have on other litigation and other proceedings, including the Adversary Proceeding, and will assess the impact of future events on the Company's consolidated financial position, results of operations, and cash flows. In February 2011, in accordance with Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code, Tronox emerged from bankruptcy pursuant to an August 2010 Bankruptcy Court approved Plan of Reorganization (Plan). The terms of the Plan, which were confirmed by the Bankruptcy Court in the third quarter of 2010, contemplate that the claims of the United States government (together with other federal, state, local, or tribal governmental entities having regulatory authority or responsibilities for environmental laws, the Governmental Entities) related to Tronox's environmental liabilities will be settled through certain environmental response trusts and a litigation trust (Anadarko Litigation Trust). The Plan provides that the Governmental Entities will receive, among other things, 88% of the proceeds from the Adversary Proceeding. Additionally, certain creditors asserting tort claims against Tronox may receive, among other things, 12% of the proceeds from the Adversary Proceeding. Certain documents central to the Plan and the Adversary Proceeding were approved by the Bankruptcy Court in the fourth quarter of 2010 and in February 2011, including the Environmental Claims Settlement Agreement, the Tort Claims Trust Agreement, the Environmental Response Trust Agreement, and the Anadarko Litigation Trust Agreement (ALTA). In accordance with the Plan, the Adversary Proceeding will be prosecuted by the Anadarko Litigation Trust. Pursuant to the ALTA, the Anadarko Litigation Trust was “deemed substituted” for Tronox in the Adversary Proceeding as the party in such litigation. For purposes of this Form 10-Q, references to “Tronox” after February 2011 refer to the Anadarko Litigation Trust. In addition, in July 2009, a consolidated class action complaint was filed in the New York District Court on behalf of purported purchasers of Tronox's equity and debt securities between November 21, 2005, and January 12, 2009 (Class Period), against Anadarko, Kerr-McGee, several former Kerr-McGee officers and directors, several former Tronox officers and directors, and Ernst & Young LLP (collectively, the Securities Defendants). The complaint alleges causes of action arising under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act) for purported misstatements and omissions regarding, among other things, Tronox's environmental-remediation and tort claim liabilities. The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that these purported misstatements and omissions are contained in certain of Tronox's public filings, including filings made in connection with Tronox's initial public offering. The plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of compensatory damages, including interest thereon, as well as litigation fees and costs. Anadarko, Kerr-McGee, and other defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated class action complaint and in August 2010 moved to dismiss an amended consolidated class action complaint that had been filed in July 2010. The New York District Court issued the second of two opinions and orders on the motions (Orders). Following the Orders, only the plaintiffs' Section 20(a) claims under the Exchange Act remain against Anadarko and Kerr-McGee. The plaintiffs' claims against Anadarko are limited to the period beginning on August 10, 2006, through the end of the Class Period. In August 2011, plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification. The Securities Defendants filed briefs in opposition to class certification in September 2011. The court denied class certification in October 2011 and has requested the parties to re-brief the class certification motion. The discovery process is ongoing. Discovery and motions are still underway in the Tronox proceedings. The Company does not consider a loss related to this matter to be probable; however, a loss is possible, and such loss, if realized, could have a material adverse effect on the Company. At this time the Company cannot reasonably estimate a range of potential losses related to the proceedings described above because the amount of potential damages will depend on circumstances that have not yet occurred, including the outcome of expert testimony and certain determinations to be made by the Bankruptcy Court. The Company intends to continue to vigorously defend itself, its officers, and its directors in these proceedings. Deepwater Drilling Moratorium and Other Related Matters In May and July 2010, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement (BOEMRE), previously known as the Minerals Management Service, an agency of the DOI, issued directives requiring lessees and operators of federal oil and gas leases in the Outer Continental Shelf regions of the Gulf of Mexico and Pacific Ocean to cease drilling all new deepwater wells, including wellbore sidetracks and bypasses, through November 30, 2010 (the Moratorium). Anadarko ceased all drilling operations in the Gulf of Mexico in accordance with the Moratorium, which resulted in the suspension of operations of two operated deepwater wells (Lucius and Nansen) and one non-operated deepwater well (Vito). The Moratorium was lifted effective October 12, 2010. In July and August 2011, the DOI issued drilling permits to Anadarko for the Heidelberg appraisal well, the Cheyenne East exploration well near the Independence Hub facility, and a development well in the Nansen field. Drilling activity at these locations is expected to begin in late 2011. Anadarko is awaiting additional DOI approvals for other exploration plans and drilling permits. As a result of the Moratorium and additional inspection and safety requirements issued by the BOEMRE in May and June 2010, the Company provided notification of force majeure to drilling contractors of four of the Company's contracted deepwater rigs in the Gulf of Mexico. Some of the contracts have provisions that authorize contract termination by either party if force majeure conditions continue for a specified number of consecutive days. In June 2010, the Company gave written notice of termination to the drilling contractor of a rig placed in force majeure in May 2010, and filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Houston, Texas (Houston, Texas District Court) against the drilling contractor seeking a judicial declaration that the Company's interpretation of the drilling contract was correct and that the contract terminated on June 19, 2010. The drilling contractor filed an Original Answer in July 2010 denying the Moratorium constituted a force majeure event and asserted that Anadarko had breached the drilling contract. If the Company does not prevail in its claim, the Company could be obligated to pay the rig contract rate from the contract-termination date through March 2011, the end of the original contract term. The disputed rental for the contract period is $116 million; however, any potential damages would be reduced by, among other things, amounts resulting from the drilling contractor's ability to mitigate damages by leasing the drilling rig to another third party, as well as cost savings realized by the drilling contractor as a result of not operating the drilling rig for the entire original contract period. At September 30, 2011, the Company has not recognized a liability for costs associated with this dispute as management believes payment related to this matter is not probable. The Company intends to vigorously pursue this claim. In September 2010, the Company gave written notice of termination to another drilling contractor of a rig that had previously been placed in force majeure, and the Company filed a lawsuit in the Houston, Texas District Court against the drilling contractor seeking a judicial declaration that the Company's interpretation of the drilling contract was correct and that the contract terminated on September 18, 2010. The drilling contractor filed a Motion to Dismiss and an Original Answer in October 2010. The Houston, Texas District Court, acting on its discretion, converted the Motion to Dismiss into a Motion for Summary Judgment and entered a scheduling order for submission of briefs during February and March 2011. In May 2011, the Company and the drilling contractor mutually agreed to dismiss all claims related to this dispute. The resolution of this dispute did not have an impact on Anadarko's consolidated financial position, results of operations, or cash flows.

Deepwater Horizon Events

9 Months Ended

Sep. 30, 2011

2. Deepwater Horizon Events

Background, Settlement, and BP Indemnification In April 2010, the Macondo well in the Gulf of Mexico, in which Anadarko holds a 25% non-operating leasehold interest, discovered hydrocarbon accumulations. During suspension operations, the well blew out, an explosion occurred on the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig, and the drilling rig sank, resulting in the release of hydrocarbons into the Gulf of Mexico. Eleven people lost their lives in the explosion and subsequent fire, and others sustained personal injuries. The Macondo well was plugged on September 19, 2010.

BP Exploration & Production Inc. (BP), the operator of Mississippi Canyon Block 252 in which the Macondo well is located (Lease), is funding claims and coordinating cleanup efforts. BP invoiced the Company $6.1 billion for what BP considered to be Anadarko's proportionate share of actual costs and anticipated near-term future costs related to these activities. Anadarko withheld payment to BP for all Deepwater Horizon event-related invoices pending the completion of various ongoing investigations into and litigation regarding the cause of the well blowout, explosion, and subsequent release of hydrocarbons.

In October 2011, the Company and BP entered into a settlement agreement, mutual releases, and agreement to indemnify, whereby the Company and BP agreed to a mutual release of claims against each other relating to the Deepwater Horizon events (Settlement Agreement). Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, the Company has agreed to pay $4.0 billion in cash and transfer its interest in the Lease to BP (subject to required governmental approvals of the transfer), and BP has agreed to accept this consideration in full satisfaction of its claims against Anadarko for $6.1 billion of invoices issued to date and to forgo reimbursement for all future costs arising from the Deepwater Horizon events, including future costs under the Operating Agreement (OA). In addition, BP has fully indemnified Anadarko 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 associated damage-assessment costs, and any claims arising under the OA. This indemnification has been 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 fines and penalties, punitive damages, shareholder, derivative, or security laws claims, or certain other claims. The Company believes that costs associated with non-indemnified items, individually or in the aggregate, will not materially impact the Company's consolidated financial position, results of operations, or cash flows.

Liability Accrual As of September 30, 2011, the Company has recorded a liability for Deepwater Horizon-related settlement costs of approximately $4.0 billion, which includes the cash payment to be remitted to BP in accordance with the Settlement Agreement, as well as Deepwater Horizon event-related legal fees. These legal fees were previously recorded in general and administrative expenses in the Consolidated Statements of Income and have been reclassified for all periods presented to conform to the current-period presentation.

Below is a discussion of the Company's current analysis, under applicable accounting guidance, of its potential liability for (i) amounts invoiced by BP under the OA (OA Liabilities), (ii) OPA-related environmental costs, and (iii) other contingent liabilities. Accounting rules require loss recognition only where a potential loss is considered probable and 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 Under 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 United States 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.

Applicable accounting guidance requires the Company to accrue an environmental liability if it is both probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of the liability can be reasonably estimated. 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 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. Given that such liabilities are probable, the Company must separately assess and estimate the Company's allocable share of gross estimated OPA-related environmental costs.

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 are instead analyzed as OA Liabilities. As discussed above, Anadarko has agreed with BP to settle its current and future OA Liabilities. Thus, potential liability to the Company for OPA-related environmental costs can only arise 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, the Company is fully indemnified by BP against these costs (including guarantees by BPCNA or BP p.l.c.).

Gross OPA-Related Environmental Cost Estimate In prior periods, the Company provided an estimated range of gross OPA-related environmental costs for all identified RPs. This estimate was comprised of spill-response costs and OPA damage claims and was derived from cost information received by the Company from BP. As a result of the Settlement Agreement, the Company no longer expects to receive cost and claims data related to the Deepwater Horizon events. Accordingly, the OPA-related environmental cost estimate included in BP's public releases is the best data available to the Company and therefore herein and hereafter will be utilized by the Company in its accounting analysis.

Based on information included in BP p.l.c.'s public release on October 25, 2011, the range of gross OPA-related environmental costs is estimated to be $7.0 billion to $11.0 billion, excluding (i) amounts BP has already funded, which constitute settled OA Liabilities; (ii) amounts that cannot reasonably be estimated by BP, which include NRD claims and other litigation damages; and (iii) non-OPA-related fines and penalties that may be assessed against Anadarko, including assessments under the Clean Water Act (CWA). The Company believes that actual gross OPA-related environmental costs may vary from those estimated by BP p.l.c. in its public releases, perhaps materially from the above cost estimate.

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 based on the Company's estimate of the allocation method and percentage that may ultimately apply to it. To date, BP has paid all Deepwater Horizon event-related costs, which satisfies the Company's potential liability for these costs. Additionally, BP has repeatedly stated publicly and in prior congressional testimony that it will continue to pay these costs. BP's funding and public commentary has continued subsequent to the release of BP's own investigation report, the National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling's final report, and the Deepwater Horizon Joint Investigation Team final report, which the Company considers to be significant positive indications in assessing the likelihood of BP continuing to fund all of these costs. Based on 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, at September 30, 2011, the Company considers zero to be its allocable percentage share of gross OPA-related environmental costs and, consistent with applicable accounting guidance, continues to have a liability accrual of zero for these amounts.

Other Contingencies

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.

To date, no penalties or fines have been assessed against the Company. However, on December 15, 2010, the United States Department of Justice (DOJ), on behalf of the United States, filed a civil lawsuit in the United States District Court in New Orleans, Louisiana (Louisiana District Court) against several parties, including Anadarko Petroleum Corporation and Anadarko E&P Company LP (AE&P), a subsidiary of Anadarko, seeking an assessment of civil penalties under the CWA in an amount to be determined by the Louisiana District Court. The DOJ complaint seeks separate penalty assessments against both Anadarko Petroleum Corporation and AE&P (based on a temporary interest that AE&P at one time held in the Lease). In April 2011, the Company moved to dismiss AE&P from the DOJ lawsuit because the effective date of AE&P's transfer of its interest in the Lease to Anadarko Petroleum Corporation pre-dated the Deepwater Horizon events. The Company currently believes it is probable that AE&P will not be found liable for CWA penalties upon the presentation of evidence. The Company believes the outcome of this decision will not have a material impact on Anadarko's potential liability.

Although Anadarko was named in the DOJ civil lawsuit, its status as a defendant does not mean that Anadarko will be assessed a CWA penalty in that action. First, the Company has a defense to liability under the CWA based on the location from which the discharge occurred. If the court finds that the discharge of hydrocarbons came from the vessel (which includes the riser pipe), the Company may not be liable under the CWA because it neither owned nor operated the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig. Second, because CWA penalties, in practice, are generally assessed on a party-specific basis and take into account several factors including the party's degree of fault, the Company considers its lack of direct involvement in the operation of the drilling rig and the spill itself significant in concluding that losses from CWA penalty assessments are not probable. This view was reinforced by the Louisiana District Court's decision that dismissed all negligence claims against the Company based on the court's finding that the Company did not exercise operational control over the events that led to the oil spill. Accordingly, the Company does not consider a CWA penalty assessment to be probable and, therefore, has not recorded a liability for potential CWA penalties at September 30, 2011.

In addition to concluding that any liability for CWA penalties is not probable, the Company currently cannot estimate the amount of any potential penalty. The CWA sets forth subjective criteria, including degree of fault and history of prior violations, which influence CWA penalty assessments. Thus, as a result of the subjective nature of CWA penalty assessments, the Company currently cannot estimate the amount of any such penalty. However, given the Company's lack of direct operational involvement in the event, as recently confirmed by the Louisiana District Court, the Company believes that its potential exposure to CWA penalties will not materially impact the Company's consolidated financial position, results of operations, or cash flows.

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 government agencies that act as trustees of natural resources on behalf of the public. Government agencies involved in the process include the Department of Commerce, the Department of the Interior (DOI), and the Department of Defense. These governmental departments, along with the five affected states – Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas – are referred to as the “Co-Trustees.” The Co-Trustees continue to conduct injury assessment and restoration planning.

The DOJ civil lawsuit filed against BP, the Company, and others seeks unspecified damages for injury to federal natural resources. Not all of the Co-Trustees were a party to this lawsuit; however, during the second quarter of 2011, the states of Alabama and Louisiana each filed NRD-related state law claims against the Company in the Louisiana District Court. The Company filed a motion to dismiss all of the claims in both of these complaints in June 2011. The Court heard oral arguments on these and other parties' motions in September 2011 and has taken the motions under advisement.

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. 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).

Civil Litigation Damage Claims Numerous 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 State of Alabama and several of its political subdivisions; the DOJ; environmental non-governmental organizations; the State of Louisiana and certain of its political subdivisions; 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 CWA; and the Endangered Species Act; or challenge existing permits for operations in the Gulf of Mexico. Generally, the plaintiffs are seeking actual damages, punitive damages, declaratory judgment, and/or injunctive relief.

In August 2010, the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation created Multidistrict Litigation No. 2179 (MDL) to administer essentially all pretrial matters for litigation filed in federal court involving Deepwater Horizon event-related claims. Federal Judge Carl Barbier presides over this MDL in the Louisiana District Court. The Louisiana District Court has issued a number of case-management orders that establish a schedule for procedural matters, discovery, and trial of certain of the MDL cases. The parties to the MDL are actively engaged in discovery. In May 2011 and September 2011, Judge Barbier heard oral arguments on the numerous motions to dismiss filed by the multiple defendants named in this litigation. While a number of the motions remain pending, Judge Barbier has dismissed all maritime and state law claims filed against the Company by private plaintiffs seeking damages for economic loss. All negligence claims filed by these private plaintiffs against the Company have been dismissed based upon Judge Barbier's finding that the Company did not exercise operational control over the events that led to the oil spill. In a separate order, Judge Barbier reached similar findings and dismissed all claims against the Company filed by private plaintiffs alleging personal injury caused by exposure to oil, fumes or other contaminants from the blowout or the chemical dispersants used during the post-spill cleanup operations. Judge Barbier further found that federal law exclusively applies to the private plaintiffs' claims for property damage and economic loss and dismissed all state law claims against the Company asserting liability for such damages and losses. Only OPA claims asserted by private plaintiffs seeking economic loss damages against the Company remain. The Company, pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, is fully indemnified by BP against such OPA claims.

The Louisiana District Court has scheduled a February 2012 trial in Transocean's Limitation of Liability case in the MDL. This trial is to be the first phase of a three-phase trial, each phase designed to address different issues. The first phase of the trial is to determine certain liability issues and the liability allocation among the parties alleged to be involved in or liable for the Deepwater Horizon events. In April 2011, the Company filed its answer in this Limitation of Liability case and cross-claimed against affiliates of BP and Transocean Ltd. (Transocean), Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. (Halliburton), Cameron International Corporation (Cameron), and other third-party defendants. Transocean, Halliburton, and Cameron subsequently filed cross-claims against the Company, and BP filed a motion to stay the litigation in the MDL between BP and the non-operating OA parties. In the motion to stay, BP argued that the cross-claims asserted against BP by the Company and the other non-operating OA party are covered by the dispute resolution procedures under the OA and should be stayed. As a result of the Settlement Agreement, a mutual release of all claims, including those that could have been made in arbitration, was agreed to by the Company and BP. The Company has also assigned all rights, title, and interest to all claims that have been or could be asserted against third parties, including cross-claims filed against other third-party defendants, to BP, with the exception of rights to claims the Company may assert under its insurance policies.

Two separate class action complaints were filed in June and August 2010, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (New York District Court) on behalf of purported purchasers of the Company's stock between June 9, 2009, and June 12, 2010, against Anadarko and certain of its officers. 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 November 2010, the New York District Court consolidated the two cases and appointed The Pension Trust Fund for Operating Engineers and Employees' Retirement System of the Government of the Virgin Islands (Virgin Islands Group) to act as Lead Plaintiff. In January 2011, the Lead Plaintiff filed its Consolidated Amended Complaint. Prior to filing its Consolidated Amended Complaint, the Lead Plaintiff requested leave from the New York District Court to transfer this lawsuit to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. The Company opposes the Lead Plaintiff's request to transfer the case to the District Court for the Southern District of Texas. The parties have submitted briefs to the New York District Court concerning the transfer of venue issue. In March 2011, the Company moved to dismiss the Consolidated Amended Complaint of the Lead Plaintiff, and in April 2011, the Lead Plaintiff filed its opposition to the motion to dismiss. The motion to transfer and motion to dismiss remain under advisement of the New York District Court.

Also in June 2010, a shareholder derivative petition was filed in the 152nd Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas (Harris County District Court), by a shareholder of the Company against Anadarko (as a nominal defendant), certain of its officers, and current and certain former directors. The petition alleged breaches of fiduciary duties, unjust enrichment, and waste of corporate assets in connection with the Deepwater Horizon events. The plaintiffs sought certain changes to the Company's governance and internal procedures, disgorgement of profits, and reimbursement of litigation fees and costs. In November 2010, the Harris County District Court granted Anadarko's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction and Special Exceptions, and granted the plaintiffs 120 days to file an Amended Petition. In March 2011, the plaintiffs filed an Amended Petition. The Company filed Special Exceptions and a Motion to Dismiss the Amended Petition in April 2011. In June 2011, the Harris County District Court heard oral arguments on these matters and granted the motion to dismiss. The time for the plaintiffs to appeal has expired.

In September 2010, a purported shareholder made a demand of the Company's Board of Directors (Board) to investigate allegations of breaches of duty by members of management. The Board duly considered the demand, and in January 2011 determined that it would not be in the best interest of the Company to pursue the issues alleged in the demand letter.

Given the early stages of these proceedings, the Company currently cannot assess the probability of losses, or reasonably estimate a range of any potential losses, related to ongoing proceedings. The Company intends to vigorously defend itself, its officers, and directors in all proceedings, and will avail itself of any and all indemnities provided by BP against civil damages.

Remaining Liability Outlook It is reasonably possible that the Company may recognize additional Deepwater Horizon event-related liabilities for potential fines and penalties, shareholder claims, 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 consolidated financial position, results of operations, or cash flows.

The Company will continue to monitor the MDL and other legal proceedings discussed above as well as federal investigations related to the Deepwater Horizon events, including the investigation by the United States Chemical Safety Board. The Company cannot predict the nature of evidence that may be discovered during the course of legal proceedings and investigations, the timing of discovery, or the timing of completion of any legal proceedings or investigations. 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.

Insurance and Other Recoveries The Company carries insurance to protect against potential financial losses. At the time of the Deepwater Horizon events, the Company's insurance coverage applied to gross covered costs up to a level of approximately $710 million, less up to $60 million of deductibles. Based on Anadarko's 25% non-operated leasehold interest in the Lease, the Company estimates its net insurance coverage will total not less than $178 million, less deductibles of $15 million. The Company has not recognized a receivable for any potential insurance recoveries in its Consolidated Balance Sheets, but expects to recover, at a minimum, the first $163 million of insured costs under its then-existing insurance policy. At this time, recovery of these amounts is not considered probable because the Company has not yet filed a claim. The Company also carries directors' and officers' insurance which covers certain risks associated with certain of the above-described legal proceedings.

As part of the Settlement Agreement, BP has agreed that, to the extent it receives value in the future from claims that it has asserted or could assert against third parties arising from or relating to the Deepwater Horizon events, it will make cash payments (not to exceed $1.0 billion in the aggregate) to Anadarko, on a current and continuing basis, of 12.5% of the aggregate value received by BP in excess of $1.5 billion. Any payments received by the Company pursuant to this arrangement will be accounted for as a reimbursement of the $4.0 billion payment made by the Company to BP as part of the Settlement Agreement.

11. Contingencies

The following discussion of the Company's contingencies excludes the Deepwater Horizon events discussed in Note 2.

General The Company is a defendant in a number of lawsuits and is involved in governmental proceedings arising in the ordinary course of business, including, but not limited to, royalty claims, contract claims, and environmental claims. The Company has also been named as a defendant in various personal injury claims, including claims by employees of third-party contractors alleging exposure to asbestos, silica, and benzene while working at refineries previously owned by acquired companies. While the ultimate outcome and impact to the Company cannot be predicted with certainty, management believes that the resolution of these proceedings will not have a material adverse effect on the Company's consolidated financial position, results of operations, or cash flows.

Litigation The Company is subject to various claims by its royalty owners in the regular course of business as an oil and gas producer, including disputes regarding measurement, post-production costs and expenses, and royalty valuations. The Company and certain of its subsidiaries (collectively, the Anadarko Defendants) were named as defendants in a case styled U.S. of America ex rel. Harrold E. Wright v. AGIP Petroleum Co., et al. filed in September 2000 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Lufkin Division. This lawsuit generally alleged that the Anadarko Defendants and other industry defendants violated the False Claims Act by knowingly undervaluing natural gas in connection with royalty payments on production from federal and Indian lands. In June 2011, the Company finalized its settlement of this litigation for approximately $19 million that was previously expensed. The settlement has been approved by the United States government and resolves all claims related to this litigation, as well as several related administrative matters, against the Anadarko Defendants.

SM Energy has alleged that AE&P breached a Joint Exploration Agreement (JEA) originally executed between Anadarko and TXCO Energy Corp. (TXCO) in March 2008 relating to an oil and gas development project in Maverick, Dimmitt, Webb and LaSalle Counties in the Eagleford shale in South Texas. SM Energy is a party to the JEA through two letter agreements with TXCO dated April of 2008, to which Anadarko consented. SM Energy contends that Anadarko is required under the agreements to tender to them a proportionate share of the leasehold interests that Anadarko acquired in TXCO's bankruptcy proceeding in February 2010. The arbitration hearing related to this dispute was held in September 2011. If the Company does not prevail in this matter, Anadarko could be obligated to sell a portion of its leasehold interest in the JEA to SM Energy or pay damages. The Company is vigorously defending this matter.

In January 2009, Tronox Incorporated (Tronox), a former subsidiary of Kerr-McGee Corporation (Kerr-McGee), which is a current subsidiary of Anadarko, and certain of its subsidiaries filed voluntary petitions for relief under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (Bankruptcy Court). Subsequently, in May 2009, Tronox and certain of its affiliates filed a lawsuit against Anadarko and Kerr-McGee asserting a number of claims, including claims for actual and constructive fraudulent conveyance (Adversary Proceeding). Tronox alleges, among other things, that it was insolvent or undercapitalized at the time it was spun off from Kerr-McGee. Tronox seeks, among other things, to recover an unspecified amount of damages, including interest, from Kerr-McGee and Anadarko, as well as litigation fees and costs. Anadarko and Kerr-McGee moved to dismiss the complaint in its entirety. In March 2010, the Bankruptcy Court issued an opinion granting in part and denying in part Anadarko's and Kerr-McGee's motion to dismiss the complaint. Notably, the Bankruptcy Court dismissed, with prejudice, Tronox's request for punitive damages relating to the fraudulent-conveyance claims. The Bankruptcy Court granted Tronox leave to replead certain of its common law claims, and Tronox filed an amended complaint in April 2010. In May 2010, Anadarko and Kerr-McGee moved to dismiss certain claims in the amended complaint. In May 2011, the Bankruptcy Court dismissed two claims against Anadarko for conspiracy and aiding and abetting, and declined to dismiss a breach of fiduciary duty claim against Kerr-McGee. In August 2011, Tronox filed a motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of whether damages in the Adversary Proceeding are limited to the amount of Tronox's environmental and tort creditor claims. Kerr-McGee and Anadarko filed a response and cross-motion in September 2011. Expert discovery is ongoing. The Adversary Proceeding is set for trial in April 2012.

The United States government was granted authority to intervene in the Adversary Proceeding, and it has asserted separate claims against Anadarko and Kerr-McGee under the Federal Debt Collection Procedures Act. Anadarko and Kerr-McGee have moved to dismiss the claims of the United States government, but that motion has been stayed by the Bankruptcy Court.

In August 2010, the Bankruptcy Court entered a Stipulation and Agreed Order among Tronox, Anadarko, and Kerr-McGee authorizing the rejection of the Master Separation Agreement (together with all annexes, related agreements, and ancillary agreements to it, the MSA). Anadarko and Kerr-McGee filed Proofs of Claim, which included claims for damages arising from the MSA rejection. In January 2011, the Bankruptcy Court entered a Stipulation and Agreed Order approving a settlement of Anadarko and Kerr-McGee's rejection damage claims against Tronox. The settlement provided Anadarko a general unsecured claim against Tronox. In February 2011, in settlement of its claim, Anadarko received shares of Tronox stock, which were assigned to a financial institution in exchange for $46 million, included as a credit to general and administrative expenses in the Company's Consolidated Statements of Income for the nine months ended September 30, 2011. The Company will continue to monitor the impact that the rejection of the MSA may have on other litigation and other proceedings, including the Adversary Proceeding, and will assess the impact of future events on the Company's consolidated financial position, results of operations, and cash flows.

In February 2011, in accordance with Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code, Tronox emerged from bankruptcy pursuant to an August 2010 Bankruptcy Court approved Plan of Reorganization (Plan). The terms of the Plan, which were confirmed by the Bankruptcy Court in the third quarter of 2010, contemplate that the claims of the United States government (together with other federal, state, local, or tribal governmental entities having regulatory authority or responsibilities for environmental laws, the Governmental Entities) related to Tronox's environmental liabilities will be settled through certain environmental response trusts and a litigation trust (Anadarko Litigation Trust). The Plan provides that the Governmental Entities will receive, among other things, 88% of the proceeds from the Adversary Proceeding. Additionally, certain creditors asserting tort claims against Tronox may receive, among other things, 12% of the proceeds from the Adversary Proceeding. Certain documents central to the Plan and the Adversary Proceeding were approved by the Bankruptcy Court in the fourth quarter of 2010 and in February 2011, including the Environmental Claims Settlement Agreement, the Tort Claims Trust Agreement, the Environmental Response Trust Agreement, and the Anadarko Litigation Trust Agreement (ALTA). In accordance with the Plan, the Adversary Proceeding will be prosecuted by the Anadarko Litigation Trust. Pursuant to the ALTA, the Anadarko Litigation Trust was “deemed substituted” for Tronox in the Adversary Proceeding as the party in such litigation. For purposes of this Form 10-Q, references to “Tronox” after February 2011 refer to the Anadarko Litigation Trust.

In addition, in July 2009, a consolidated class action complaint was filed in the New York District Court on behalf of purported purchasers of Tronox's equity and debt securities between November 21, 2005, and January 12, 2009 (Class Period), against Anadarko, Kerr-McGee, several former Kerr-McGee officers and directors, several former Tronox officers and directors, and Ernst & Young LLP (collectively, the Securities Defendants). The complaint alleges causes of action arising under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act) for purported misstatements and omissions regarding, among other things, Tronox's environmental-remediation and tort claim liabilities. The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that these purported misstatements and omissions are contained in certain of Tronox's public filings, including filings made in connection with Tronox's initial public offering. The plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of compensatory damages, including interest thereon, as well as litigation fees and costs. Anadarko, Kerr-McGee, and other defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated class action complaint and in August 2010 moved to dismiss an amended consolidated class action complaint that had been filed in July 2010. The New York District Court issued the second of two opinions and orders on the motions (Orders). Following the Orders, only the plaintiffs' Section 20(a) claims under the Exchange Act remain against Anadarko and Kerr-McGee. The plaintiffs' claims against Anadarko are limited to the period beginning on August 10, 2006, through the end of the Class Period. In August 2011, plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification. The Securities Defendants filed briefs in opposition to class certification in September 2011. The court denied class certification in October 2011 and has requested the parties to re-brief the class certification motion. The discovery process is ongoing.

Discovery and motions are still underway in the Tronox proceedings. The Company does not consider a loss related to this matter to be probable; however, a loss is possible, and such loss, if realized, could have a material adverse effect on the Company. At this time the Company cannot reasonably estimate a range of potential losses related to the proceedings described above because the amount of potential damages will depend on circumstances that have not yet occurred, including the outcome of expert testimony and certain determinations to be made by the Bankruptcy Court. The Company intends to continue to vigorously defend itself, its officers, and its directors in these proceedings.

Deepwater Drilling Moratorium and Other Related Matters In May and July 2010, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement (BOEMRE), previously known as the Minerals Management Service, an agency of the DOI, issued directives requiring lessees and operators of federal oil and gas leases in the Outer Continental Shelf regions of the Gulf of Mexico and Pacific Ocean to cease drilling all new deepwater wells, including wellbore sidetracks and bypasses, through November 30, 2010 (the Moratorium). Anadarko ceased all drilling operations in the Gulf of Mexico in accordance with the Moratorium, which resulted in the suspension of operations of two operated deepwater wells (Lucius and Nansen) and one non-operated deepwater well (Vito). The Moratorium was lifted effective October 12, 2010. In July and August 2011, the DOI issued drilling permits to Anadarko for the Heidelberg appraisal well, the Cheyenne East exploration well near the Independence Hub facility, and a development well in the Nansen field. Drilling activity at these locations is expected to begin in late 2011. Anadarko is awaiting additional DOI approvals for other exploration plans and drilling permits.

As a result of the Moratorium and additional inspection and safety requirements issued by the BOEMRE in May and June 2010, the Company provided notification of force majeure to drilling contractors of four of the Company's contracted deepwater rigs in the Gulf of Mexico. Some of the contracts have provisions that authorize contract termination by either party if force majeure conditions continue for a specified number of consecutive days.

In June 2010, the Company gave written notice of termination to the drilling contractor of a rig placed in force majeure in May 2010, and filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Houston, Texas (Houston, Texas District Court) against the drilling contractor seeking a judicial declaration that the Company's interpretation of the drilling contract was correct and that the contract terminated on June 19, 2010. The drilling contractor filed an Original Answer in July 2010 denying the Moratorium constituted a force majeure event and asserted that Anadarko had breached the drilling contract. If the Company does not prevail in its claim, the Company could be obligated to pay the rig contract rate from the contract-termination date through March 2011, the end of the original contract term. The disputed rental for the contract period is $116 million; however, any potential damages would be reduced by, among other things, amounts resulting from the drilling contractor's ability to mitigate damages by leasing the drilling rig to another third party, as well as cost savings realized by the drilling contractor as a result of not operating the drilling rig for the entire original contract period. At September 30, 2011, the Company has not recognized a liability for costs associated with this dispute as management believes payment related to this matter is not probable. The Company intends to vigorously pursue this claim.

In September 2010, the Company gave written notice of termination to another drilling contractor of a rig that had previously been placed in force majeure, and the Company filed a lawsuit in the Houston, Texas District Court against the drilling contractor seeking a judicial declaration that the Company's interpretation of the drilling contract was correct and that the contract terminated on September 18, 2010. The drilling contractor filed a Motion to Dismiss and an Original Answer in October 2010. The Houston, Texas District Court, acting on its discretion, converted the Motion to Dismiss into a Motion for Summary Judgment and entered a scheduling order for submission of briefs during February and March 2011. In May 2011, the Company and the drilling contractor mutually agreed to dismiss all claims related to this dispute. The resolution of this dispute did not have an impact on Anadarko's consolidated financial position, results of operations, or cash flows.