8.	COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Legal Matters

Apache is party to various legal actions arising in the ordinary course of business, including litigation and governmental and regulatory controls. The Company has an accrued liability of approximately $20 million for all legal contingencies that are deemed to be probable of occurring and can be reasonably estimated. Apache’s estimates are based on information known about the matters and its experience in contesting, litigating, and settling similar matters. Although actual amounts could differ from management’s estimate, none of the actions are believed by management to involve future amounts that would be material to Apache’s financial position, results of operations, or liquidity after consideration of recorded accruals. For material matters that Apache believes an unfavorable outcome is reasonably possible, the Company has disclosed the nature of the matter and a range of potential exposure, unless an estimate cannot be made at this time. It is management’s opinion that the loss for any other litigation matters and claims that are reasonably possible to occur will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position, results of operations, or liquidity.

Argentine Environmental Claims

As more fully described in Note 8 of the financial statements in Apache’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for its 2011 fiscal year, in 2006 the Company acquired a subsidiary of Pioneer Natural Resources in Argentina (PNRA) that is involved in various administrative proceedings with environmental authorities in the Neuquén Province relating to permits for and discharges from operations in that province. In addition, PNRA was named in a suit initiated against oil companies operating in the Neuquén basin entitled Asociación de Superficiarios de la Patagonia v. YPF S.A., et. al., originally filed on August 21, 2003, in the Argentine National Supreme Court of Justice relating to various environmental and remediation claims. The plaintiff in that case, known as ASSUPA, has recently asserted similar lawsuits and claims against numerous oil and gas producers relating to other geographic areas of Argentina, including claims against a Company subsidiary relating to the Austral Basin. While it is possible that the Company subsidiary may incur liabilities related to these claims, no reasonable prediction can be made as the Company subsidiary’s overall exposure related to these claims is not currently determinable. No other material change in the status of these matters has occurred since the filing of Apache’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for its 2011 fiscal year.

U.S. Royalty Litigation

As more fully described in Note 8 of the financial statements in Apache’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for its 2011 fiscal year, two potential class action lawsuits are pending in respect of oil and gas royalties paid by the Company: Foster v. Apache Corporation, Civil Action No. CIV-10-0573-HE, in the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma, and Joyce Holder Trust v. Apache Corporation, Civil Action No. 4:11-cv-03872, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division. In the Foster case, on August 20, 2012, the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma denied plaintiff’s motion for class certification. The plaintiff has filed a motion for reconsideration, which is pending. In the Holder case, following a class certification hearing in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, the parties resolved the matter with no material impact on the Company’s financial position, results of operations, or liquidity, and with the settlement providing for denial of class certification and dismissal of the case.

Louisiana Restoration

As more fully described in Note 8 of the financial statements in Apache’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for its 2011 fiscal year, numerous surface owners have filed claims or sent demand letters to various oil and gas companies, including Apache, claiming that, under either expressed or implied lease terms or Louisiana law, they are liable for damage measured by the cost of restoration of leased premises to their original condition as well as damages for contamination and cleanup.

In the lawsuit captioned Ardoin Limited Partnership et al. v. Meridian Resources & Exploration et al., Case No. 10-18692, in the District Court of Cameron Parish, Louisiana, prior to trial the court granted Apache’s motions to dismiss the plaintiffs’ claims against Apache. Plaintiffs then settled with the other defendant in the case, BP America, Inc. (BP). BP has demanded that Apache indemnify it for the amount of its settlement with plaintiffs, which is not material to Apache. Apache has rejected BP’s indemnity claim and, further, Apache has demanded that Wagner Oil Company (which purchased Apache’s interest in the subject property) indemnify Apache from and against BP’s claim.

In the lawsuit filed on May 4, 2010, against Phoenix Exploration Company LP (Phoenix) captioned Belle Isle, L.L.C. v. Anadarko Petroleum Corporation et al., Docket No. 121742, in the District Court of St. Mary Parish, Louisiana, plaintiff’s experts have estimated the cost of remediation to be approximately $87 million, and plaintiffs claim additional damages for canal restoration, among other things, all of which is disputed by the Company. No other material change in the status of these matters has occurred since the filing of Apache’s most recent Annual Report on Form 10-K for its 2011 fiscal year.

Hurricane-Related Litigation

As more fully described in Note 8 of the financial statements in Apache’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for its 2011 fiscal year, on May 27, 2011, in the case styled Comer et al. v. Murphy Oil USA, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:11-cv-220 HS0-JMR, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, the District Court has granted defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ claims, and plaintiffs have appealed the decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. No other material change in the status of this matter has occurred since the filing of Apache’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for its 2011 fiscal year.

Australia Gas Pipeline Force Majeure

As more fully described in Note 8 of the financial statements in Apache’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for its 2011 fiscal year, in 2008 Company subsidiaries reported a pipeline explosion that interrupted deliveries of natural gas in Australia to customers under various long-term contracts. No material change in the status of these matters has occurred since the filing of Apache’s most recent Annual Report on Form 10-K for its 2011 fiscal year except as follows:

•

The prosecution notice that was filed on May 28, 2009, by the Department of Mines and Petroleum against Apache Northwest Pty Ltd and its co-licensees was dismissed by the Magistrates Court of Western Australia on March 29, 2012.

•

The June 2009 report prepared by the inspectors appointed by the government of Western Australia under the Petroleum Pipelines Act to coordinate the final stages of the investigation into the Varanus Island gas explosion, as described in Apache’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for its 2011 fiscal year, was published by the State government on May 24, 2012. Company subsidiaries disagree with the inspectors’ June 2009 conclusions. Two other government reports were not published by the State and are not referenced by the inspectors. The Magistrates Court of Western Australia subsequently ordered that both such reports could be released on the basis that the inspectors’ June 2009 report “came with some limitations” and the two other government reports “together were part and parcel if not the main reason or the only reason…certainly a significant contribution to the reason for the matter not proceeding to prosecution and trial.” In the first such report, the State’s senior investigator said in February 2009 that the prospects of a successful prosecution of Apache for failing to maintain the pipeline “would be slight.” In the second such report, the State’s lead corrosion expert concluded in July 2011 that Apache “had reasonable grounds to believe that the pipeline was in good repair” prior to the explosion.

•

In the case captioned Alcoa of Australia Limited v. Apache Energy Limited, Apache Northwest Pty Ltd, Tap (Harriet) Pty Ltd, and Kufpec Australia Pty Ltd, Civ. 1481 of 2011, in the Supreme Court of Western Australia, on June 20, 2012, the Supreme Court struck out Alcoa’s claim that the liquidated damages provisions under two long-term contracts are unenforceable as a penalty and also struck out Alcoa’s claim for damages for breach of statutory duty. The Company subsidiaries have filed an appeal in the Supreme Court of Western Australia Court of Appeal asking that Alcoa’s remaining tort claim for economic loss be dismissed or, alternatively, struck out. The appeal is pending.

•

In the case captioned Burrup Fertilisers Pty Ltd v. Apache Corporation, Apache Energy Limited, and Apache Northwest Pty Ltd, Cause No. 2009-79834, in the District Court of Harris County, Texas, Apache Corporation has filed a motion to dismiss on the ground of forum non conveniens, which is pending.

Breton Lawsuit

As more fully described in Note 8 of the financial statements in Apache’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for its 2011 fiscal year, on October 4, 2011, plaintiffs filed suit in Breton Energy, L.L.C. et al. v. Mariner Energy Resources, Inc., et al., Case 4:11-cv-03561, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, seeking compensation from defendants for allegedly depriving plaintiffs, either negligently or intentionally, of rights to hydrocarbons in a reservoir described by plaintiffs as a common reservoir in West Cameron Blocks 171 and 172 offshore Louisiana in the Gulf of Mexico. On September 27, 2012, the court dismissed plaintiffs’ claims on various grounds, including for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, while granting plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint within 30 days. On October 29, 2012, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. No other material change in the status of this matter has occurred since the filing of Apache’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for its 2011 fiscal year.

Escheat Audits

As more fully described in Note 8 of the financial statements in Apache’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for its 2011 fiscal year, the State of Delaware, Department of Finance, Division of Revenue (Unclaimed Property), has notified numerous companies, including Apache Corporation, that the State intends to examine its books and records and those of its subsidiaries and related entities to determine compliance with the Delaware Escheat Laws. No material change in the status of this matter has occurred since the filing of Apache’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for its 2011 fiscal year.

Burrup-Related Gas Supply Lawsuits

As more fully described in Note 8 of the financial statements in Apache’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for its 2011 fiscal year, on May 19, 2011, a lawsuit captioned Oswal v. Apache Corporation, Cause No. 2011-30302, in the District Court of Harris County, Texas, was filed in which plaintiff Pankaj Oswal, in his personal capacity and as trustee for the Burrup Trust, asserts claims against the Company under the Australian Trade Practices Act. Apache Corporation has filed a motion to dismiss on the ground of forum non conveniens, which is pending. No other material change in the status of this matter has occurred since the filing of Apache’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for its 2011 fiscal year.

Also as more fully described in Note 8 of the financial statements in Apache’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for its 2011 fiscal year, this lawsuit is one of a number of legal actions involving the Burrup Fertilisers Pty Ltd ammonia plant in Western Australia. In one of these legal actions—a case captioned Radhika Oswal v. Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited (ANZ) et al., No. SCI 2011 4653, in the Supreme Court of Victoria—Oswal’s wife, Radhika Oswal, was granted leave on April 20, 2012, to add Apache Fertilisers Pty Ltd as a defendant.

Concerning the action filed by Tap (Harriet) Pty Ltd (Tap) against Burrup Fertilisers Pty Ltd et al., Civ. 2329 of 2009, in the Supreme Court of Western Australia, as more fully described in Note 8 of the financial statements in Apache’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for its 2011 fiscal year, a Company subsidiary purchased Tap, which then modified its agreement to supply gas to the ammonia plant and resolved both Tap’s claims against Burrup Fertilisers and Burrup Fertilisers’ counterclaims against Tap in the Tap action.

Environmental Matters

As of September 30, 2012, the Company had an undiscounted reserve for environmental remediation of approximately $102 million. The Company is not aware of any environmental claims existing as of September 30, 2012, that have not been provided for or would otherwise have a material impact on its financial position, results of operations, or liquidity. There can be no assurance, however, that current regulatory requirements will not change or past non-compliance with environmental laws will not be discovered on the Company’s properties.

As more fully described in Note 8 of the financial statements in Apache’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for its 2011 fiscal year, Apache Canada Ltd. asserted a claim against BP Canada arising out of the acquisition of certain Canadian properties under the parties’ Partnership Interest and Share Purchase and Sale Agreement dated July 20, 2010. The parties have resolved the matter on commercial terms with no material impact on the Company’s financial position, results of operations, or liquidity.

As more fully described in Note 8 of the financial statements in Apache’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for its 2011 fiscal year, on May 25, 2011, a panel of the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) published a report dated May 23, 2011, and titled “OCS G-2580, Vermilion Block 380 Platform A, Incidents of Noncompliance.” The report concerned the BOEM’s investigation of a fire on the Vermillion 380 A platform located in the Gulf of Mexico. At the time of the incident, Mariner operated the platform. A small amount of hydrocarbons spilled from the platform into the surrounding water as a result of the incident, and 13 workers were rescued after evacuating the platform. The BOEM concluded in its investigation that the fire was caused by Mariner’s failure to adequately maintain or operate the platform’s heater-treater in a safe condition. The BOEM also identified other safety deficiencies on the platform. On December 27, 2011, the BOEM issued several Incidents of Non-Compliance, which may provide the basis for the assessment of civil penalties against Mariner. The Company, which acquired Mariner, effective November 10, 2010, filed an appeal on August 31, 2012, contesting several of the Incidents of Non-Compliance. No other material change in the status of this matter has occurred since the filing of Apache’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for its 2011 fiscal year.