Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2013
Disclosure Text Block [Abstract]
Contingencies	11. Contingencies General The Company is a defendant in a number of lawsuits and is involved in governmental proceedings and regulatory controls arising in the ordinary course of business, including, but not limited to, personal injury claims; title disputes; tax disputes; royalty claims; contract claims; contamination claims relating to oil and gas production, transportation, and processing; and environmental claims, including claims involving assets owned by acquired companies. 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 position, results of operations, or cash flows. The following discussion of the Company's contingencies includes material developments with respect to matters previously reported in the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2012. No new material matters have arisen since the filing of the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2012. 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. The well was operated by BP Exploration and Production Inc. (BP) and Anadarko held a 25% non-operated interest. In October 2011, the Company and BP entered into a settlement agreement relating to the Deepwater Horizon events (Settlement Agreement). Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, the Company is fully indemnified by BP against claims and damages arising under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA), claims for natural resource damages (NRD) and assessment costs, and other potential damages. 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 fines and penalties, punitive damages, shareholder derivative or securities laws claims, or certain other claims. The Company has not recorded a liability for any costs that are subject to indemnification by BP. For additional disclosure of the Deepwater Horizon events, the Company's Settlement Agreement with BP, environmental claims under OPA, NRD claims, potential penalties and fines, and civil litigation, see Note 17—Contingencies—Deepwater Horizon Events in the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements included in the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2012. Penalties and Fines In December 2010, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), on behalf of the United States, filed a civil lawsuit in the U.S. District Court in New Orleans, Louisiana (Louisiana District Court) against several parties, including Anadarko, seeking an assessment of civil penalties under the Clean Water Act (CWA) in an amount to be determined by the Louisiana District Court. In February 2012, the Louisiana District Court entered a declaratory judgment that, as a partial owner of the Macondo well, Anadarko is liable for civil penalties under Section 311 of the CWA. The declaratory judgment addresses liability only, and does not address the amount of any civil penalty. The assessment of a civil penalty against Anadarko has been reserved until a later proceeding to be scheduled by the Louisiana District Court. In August 2012, Anadarko filed a notice of appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit concerning that portion of the February 2012 declaratory judgment finding Anadarko liable for civil penalties under the CWA. The appeal is pending. 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 have appealed, or have provided indication of a likely appeal of, the Louisiana District Court's decision that only federal law, and not state law, applies to Deepwater Horizon event-related claims. If any such appeal is successful, state and/or local laws and regulations could become sources of penalties or fines against the Company. Applicable accounting guidance requires the Company to accrue a liability if it is probable that a liability is incurred and the amount of the liability can be reasonably estimated. The Louisiana District Court's declaratory judgment in February 2012 satisfies the requirement that a loss, arising from the future assessment of a civil penalty against Anadarko, is probable. Notwithstanding the declaratory judgment, the Company currently cannot estimate the amount of any potential civil penalty. The CWA sets forth subjective criteria, including degree of fault and history of prior violations, which significantly influence the magnitude of CWA penalty assessments. As a result of the subjective nature of CWA penalty assessments, the Company currently cannot estimate the amount of any such penalty nor determine a range of potential loss. Furthermore, neither the February 2012 settlement of Deepwater Horizon-related civil penalties (including those under the CWA) by the other non-operating partner with the United States and five affected Gulf states (Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida) nor the January 2013 settlement of CWA civil and criminal penalties by the drilling contractor with the United States affects the Company's current conclusion regarding its ability to estimate potential fines and penalties. The Company lacks insight into those settlements, retains legal counsel separate from the other parties, and was not involved in any manner with respect to those settlements. Events or factors that could assist the Company in estimating the amount of any potential civil penalty or a range of potential loss related to such penalties include (i) an assessment by the DOJ, (ii) a ruling by a court of competent jurisdiction, or (iii) the initiation of substantive settlement negotiations between the Company and the DOJ. Given the Company's lack of direct operational involvement in the event, as confirmed by the Louisiana District Court, and the subjective criteria of the CWA, the Company believes that its exposure to CWA penalties will not materially impact the Company's consolidated financial position, results of operations, or cash flows. Civil Litigation Damage Claims Numerous Deepwater Horizon event-related civil lawsuits have been filed against BP and other parties, including the Company. This litigation has been consolidated into a federal Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) action pending before Judge Carl Barbier in the Louisiana District Court. In March 2012, BP and the Plaintiffs' Steering Committee entered into a tentative settlement agreement to resolve the substantial majority of economic loss and medical claims stemming from the Deepwater Horizon events, which the Louisiana District Court approved in orders issued in December 2012 and January 2013. Only OPA claims seeking economic loss damages against the Company remain. In addition, certain state and local governments have appealed, or have provided indication of a likely appeal of, the MDL court's decision that only federal law, and not state law, applies to Deepwater Horizon event-related claims. 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. The first phase of the trial in Transocean's Limitation of Liability case in the MDL commenced in February 2013 (Phase I). In April 2013, the evidence closed and all parties rested. Findings of fact, post-trial briefs, and responsive briefs are scheduled to be fully submitted by July 2013. BP, BP p.l.c., the United States, state and local governments, Halliburton, and Transocean participated in Phase I of the trial. Anadarko was excused from participation in Phase I of the trial. The issues tried in Phase I include the cause of the blow-out and all related events leading up to April 22, 2010, the date the Deepwater Horizon sank, as well as allocation of fault. The allocation of fault remains in the Phase I trial because Halliburton and Transocean have not settled with any of the parties and wish to prove to the court that their respective company was not at fault. The second phase of trial is expected to start in September 2013 (Phase II). The issues to be tried in Phase II are expected to include spill-source control and quantification of the spill for the period from April 22, 2010, until the well was capped. The Company, BP, BP p.l.c., the United States, state and local governments, Halliburton, and Transocean will participate in Phase II of the trial. Two separate class action complaints were filed in June and August 2010, in the U.S. 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. In March 2012, the New York District Court granted the Lead Plaintiff's motion to transfer venue to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas – Houston Division (Texas District Court). In May 2012, the Texas District Court granted the defendants' motion to transfer the consolidated action within the district to Judge Keith P. Ellis. In July 2012, the plaintiffs filed their First Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint. The defendants filed a renewed motion to dismiss in the Southern District Court of Texas in September 2012. In April 2013, Judge Ellis heard oral arguments on the motion to dismiss, but has not yet issued a ruling. Given the various stages of these matters, 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 its directors in each of these matters, and will avail itself of the 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. This assessment takes into account certain qualitative factors, including the subjective and fault-based nature of CWA penalties, the Company's indemnification by BP against certain damage claims as discussed above, BP's creditworthiness, the merits of the shareholder claims, and directors' and officers' insurance coverage related to outstanding shareholder claims. 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. The Company cannot predict the nature of evidence that may be discovered during the course of legal proceedings or the timing of completion of any legal proceedings. 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. Tronox Litigation 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 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. 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 and seeks, among other things, to recover damages, including interest, in excess of $18.9 billion from Kerr-McGee and Anadarko, as well as litigation fees and costs. In accordance with Tronox's Plan of Reorganization, the Adversary Proceeding is being pursued by the Anadarko Litigation Trust. Pursuant to the Anadarko Litigation Trust Agreement, 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. For additional disclosure related to the Tronox Litigation, see Note 17—Contingencies—Tronox Litigation in the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements included in the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2012. The U.S. government was granted authority to intervene 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). Anadarko and Kerr-McGee moved to dismiss the claims of the U.S. government, but that motion has been stayed by the Bankruptcy Court. In April 2012, Anadarko and Kerr-McGee filed an answer to the FDCPA Complaint. In February 2012, the Company filed a motion for partial summary judgment seeking dismissal of several claims, including all actual and constructive fraudulent transfer claims protected by Section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code. The court has not yet ruled on that issue. Trial began in May 2012 and in September 2012, the evidence closed and both sides rested. In November 2012, the parties filed post-trial briefs and closing arguments were presented in December 2012. The parties filed final post-trial briefs in January 2013. The matter is pending before the court. The Company remains confident in the merits of its position and does not believe a loss resulting from litigating the Adversary Proceeding is probable. Accounting guidance requires that contingent losses be probable in nature for loss recognition to be appropriate. Accordingly, the Company's Consolidated Balance Sheet as of March 31, 2013, does not include a loss-contingency liability related to the litigation of the Adversary Proceeding. Although the Company does not consider a loss related to the litigation of the Adversary Proceeding to be probable, it is reasonably possible that the Company could incur a loss as a result of litigating this matter. Despite the plaintiffs' damage claims in excess of $18.9 billion, the Company currently believes a reasonable range of potential loss is zero to $1.4 billion. The low end of the Company's estimated range of potential loss is based on the Company's current belief that it will more likely than not prevail in defending against the claims asserted in the Adversary Proceeding. The high end of the Company's estimated range of potential loss represents the amount of consideration received by Kerr-McGee at the time of the Tronox spin-off, approximately $985 million, plus interest thereon. The Company's estimated range of potential loss is based on the Company's opinion regarding the current status of and likelihood of final resolution through litigation and could change as a result of developments in the Adversary Proceeding, or if the likelihood of settlement ceases to be remote. The Company's ultimate financial obligation resulting from resolution of the Adversary Proceeding could vary, perhaps materially, from the Company's above-stated estimated range of potential loss.

Contingencies

3 Months Ended

Mar. 31, 2013

11. Contingencies

General The Company is a defendant in a number of lawsuits and is involved in governmental proceedings and regulatory controls arising in the ordinary course of business, including, but not limited to, personal injury claims; title disputes; tax disputes; royalty claims; contract claims; contamination claims relating to oil and gas production, transportation, and processing; and environmental claims, including claims involving assets owned by acquired companies. 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 position, results of operations, or cash flows.

The following discussion of the Company's contingencies includes material developments with respect to matters previously reported in the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2012. No new material matters have arisen since the filing of the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2012.

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. The well was operated by BP Exploration and Production Inc. (BP) and Anadarko held a 25% non-operated interest. In October 2011, the Company and BP entered into a settlement agreement relating to the Deepwater Horizon events (Settlement Agreement). Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, the Company is fully indemnified by BP against claims and damages arising under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA), claims for natural resource damages (NRD) and assessment costs, and other potential damages. 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 fines and penalties, punitive damages, shareholder derivative or securities laws claims, or certain other claims. The Company has not recorded a liability for any costs that are subject to indemnification by BP. For additional disclosure of the Deepwater Horizon events, the Company's Settlement Agreement with BP, environmental claims under OPA, NRD claims, potential penalties and fines, and civil litigation, see Note 17—Contingencies—Deepwater Horizon Events in the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements included in the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2012.

Penalties and Fines In December 2010, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), on behalf of the United States, filed a civil lawsuit in the U.S. District Court in New Orleans, Louisiana (Louisiana District Court) against several parties, including Anadarko, seeking an assessment of civil penalties under the Clean Water Act (CWA) in an amount to be determined by the Louisiana District Court. In February 2012, the Louisiana District Court entered a declaratory judgment that, as a partial owner of the Macondo well, Anadarko is liable for civil penalties under Section 311 of the CWA. The declaratory judgment addresses liability only, and does not address the amount of any civil penalty. The assessment of a civil penalty against Anadarko has been reserved until a later proceeding to be scheduled by the Louisiana District Court. In August 2012, Anadarko filed a notice of appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit concerning that portion of the February 2012 declaratory judgment finding Anadarko liable for civil penalties under the CWA. The appeal is pending.

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 have appealed, or have provided indication of a likely appeal of, the Louisiana District Court's decision that only federal law, and not state law, applies to Deepwater Horizon event-related claims. If any such appeal is successful, state and/or local laws and regulations could become sources of penalties or fines against the Company.

Applicable accounting guidance requires the Company to accrue a liability if it is probable that a liability is incurred and the amount of the liability can be reasonably estimated. The Louisiana District Court's declaratory judgment in February 2012 satisfies the requirement that a loss, arising from the future assessment of a civil penalty against Anadarko, is probable. Notwithstanding the declaratory judgment, the Company currently cannot estimate the amount of any potential civil penalty. The CWA sets forth subjective criteria, including degree of fault and history of prior violations, which significantly influence the magnitude of CWA penalty assessments. As a result of the subjective nature of CWA penalty assessments, the Company currently cannot estimate the amount of any such penalty nor determine a range of potential loss. Furthermore, neither the February 2012 settlement of Deepwater Horizon-related civil penalties (including those under the CWA) by the other non-operating partner with the United States and five affected Gulf states (Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida) nor the January 2013 settlement of CWA civil and criminal penalties by the drilling contractor with the United States affects the Company's current conclusion regarding its ability to estimate potential fines and penalties. The Company lacks insight into those settlements, retains legal counsel separate from the other parties, and was not involved in any manner with respect to those settlements. Events or factors that could assist the Company in estimating the amount of any potential civil penalty or a range of potential loss related to such penalties include (i) an assessment by the DOJ, (ii) a ruling by a court of competent jurisdiction, or (iii) the initiation of substantive settlement negotiations between the Company and the DOJ.

Given the Company's lack of direct operational involvement in the event, as confirmed by the Louisiana District Court, and the subjective criteria of the CWA, the Company believes that its exposure to CWA penalties will not materially impact the Company's consolidated financial position, results of operations, or cash flows.

Civil Litigation Damage Claims Numerous Deepwater Horizon event-related civil lawsuits have been filed against BP and other parties, including the Company. This litigation has been consolidated into a federal Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) action pending before Judge Carl Barbier in the Louisiana District Court. In March 2012, BP and the Plaintiffs' Steering Committee entered into a tentative settlement agreement to resolve the substantial majority of economic loss and medical claims stemming from the Deepwater Horizon events, which the Louisiana District Court approved in orders issued in December 2012 and January 2013. Only OPA claims seeking economic loss damages against the Company remain. In addition, certain state and local governments have appealed, or have provided indication of a likely appeal of, the MDL court's decision that only federal law, and not state law, applies to Deepwater Horizon event-related claims. 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.

The first phase of the trial in Transocean's Limitation of Liability case in the MDL commenced in February 2013 (Phase I). In April 2013, the evidence closed and all parties rested. Findings of fact, post-trial briefs, and responsive briefs are scheduled to be fully submitted by July 2013. BP, BP p.l.c., the United States, state and local governments, Halliburton, and Transocean participated in Phase I of the trial. Anadarko was excused from participation in Phase I of the trial. The issues tried in Phase I include the cause of the blow-out and all related events leading up to April 22, 2010, the date the Deepwater Horizon sank, as well as allocation of fault. The allocation of fault remains in the Phase I trial because Halliburton and Transocean have not settled with any of the parties and wish to prove to the court that their respective company was not at fault. The second phase of trial is expected to start in September 2013 (Phase II). The issues to be tried in Phase II are expected to include spill-source control and quantification of the spill for the period from April 22, 2010, until the well was capped. The Company, BP, BP p.l.c., the United States, state and local governments, Halliburton, and Transocean will participate in Phase II of the trial.

Two separate class action complaints were filed in June and August 2010, in the U.S. 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. In March 2012, the New York District Court granted the Lead Plaintiff's motion to transfer venue to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas – Houston Division (Texas District Court). In May 2012, the Texas District Court granted the defendants' motion to transfer the consolidated action within the district to Judge Keith P. Ellis. In July 2012, the plaintiffs filed their First Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint. The defendants filed a renewed motion to dismiss in the Southern District Court of Texas in September 2012. In April 2013, Judge Ellis heard oral arguments on the motion to dismiss, but has not yet issued a ruling.

Given the various stages of these matters, 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 its directors in each of these matters, and will avail itself of the 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. This assessment takes into account certain qualitative factors, including the subjective and fault-based nature of CWA penalties, the Company's indemnification by BP against certain damage claims as discussed above, BP's creditworthiness, the merits of the shareholder claims, and directors' and officers' insurance coverage related to outstanding shareholder claims.

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. The Company cannot predict the nature of evidence that may be discovered during the course of legal proceedings or the timing of completion of any legal proceedings.

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.

Tronox Litigation 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 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. 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 and seeks, among other things, to recover damages, including interest, in excess of $18.9 billion from Kerr-McGee and Anadarko, as well as litigation fees and costs. In accordance with Tronox's Plan of Reorganization, the Adversary Proceeding is being pursued by the Anadarko Litigation Trust. Pursuant to the Anadarko Litigation Trust Agreement, 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. For additional disclosure related to the Tronox Litigation, see Note 17—Contingencies—Tronox Litigation in the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements included in the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2012.

The U.S. government was granted authority to intervene 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). Anadarko and Kerr-McGee moved to dismiss the claims of the U.S. government, but that motion has been stayed by the Bankruptcy Court. In April 2012, Anadarko and Kerr-McGee filed an answer to the FDCPA Complaint.

In February 2012, the Company filed a motion for partial summary judgment seeking dismissal of several claims, including all actual and constructive fraudulent transfer claims protected by Section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code. The court has not yet ruled on that issue. Trial began in May 2012 and in September 2012, the evidence closed and both sides rested. In November 2012, the parties filed post-trial briefs and closing arguments were presented in December 2012. The parties filed final post-trial briefs in January 2013. The matter is pending before the court.

The Company remains confident in the merits of its position and does not believe a loss resulting from litigating the Adversary Proceeding is probable. Accounting guidance requires that contingent losses be probable in nature for loss recognition to be appropriate. Accordingly, the Company's Consolidated Balance Sheet as of March 31, 2013, does not include a loss-contingency liability related to the litigation of the Adversary Proceeding.

Although the Company does not consider a loss related to the litigation of the Adversary Proceeding to be probable, it is reasonably possible that the Company could incur a loss as a result of litigating this matter. Despite the plaintiffs' damage claims in excess of $18.9 billion, the Company currently believes a reasonable range of potential loss is zero to $1.4 billion. The low end of the Company's estimated range of potential loss is based on the Company's current belief that it will more likely than not prevail in defending against the claims asserted in the Adversary Proceeding. The high end of the Company's estimated range of potential loss represents the amount of consideration received by Kerr-McGee at the time of the Tronox spin-off, approximately $985 million, plus interest thereon.

The Company's estimated range of potential loss is based on the Company's opinion regarding the current status of and likelihood of final resolution through litigation and could change as a result of developments in the Adversary Proceeding, or if the likelihood of settlement ceases to be remote. The Company's ultimate financial obligation resulting from resolution of the Adversary Proceeding could vary, perhaps materially, from the Company's above-stated estimated range of potential loss.