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 $16 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 2012 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, in 2012 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 one or more of the Company’s subsidiaries may incur liabilities related to these claims, no reasonable prediction can be made as the Company’s subsidiaries’ exposure related to these lawsuits 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 2012 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 2012 fiscal year, on August 20, 2012, in Foster v. Apache Corporation, Civil Action No. CIV-10-0573-HE, in the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma, the District Court denied plaintiff’s motion for class certification. The plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration, which was also denied, and petitioned the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit to accept an appeal of the District Court’s ruling denying class certification. The plaintiff withdrew the petition to appeal following decisions on July 8, 2013, by the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit to vacate District Court class certification orders in two unrelated lawsuits – Wallace B. Roderick Revocable Living Trust v. XTO Energy, Inc., No. 12-3176, and Chieftain Royalty Company v. XTO Energy, Inc., No. 12-7047. 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 2012 fiscal year.

Louisiana Restoration

As more fully described in Note 8 of the financial statements in Apache’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for its 2012 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. No material change in the status of these matters has occurred since the filing of Apache’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for its 2012 fiscal year.

On July 24, 2013, a lawsuit was filed captioned Board of Commissioners of the Southeast Louisiana Flood Protection Authority – East v. Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company et al., Case No. 2013-6911 in the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans, State of Louisiana, in which plaintiff on behalf of itself and as the board governing the levee districts of Orleans, Lake Borgne Basin, and East Jefferson alleges that Louisiana coastal lands have been damaged as a result of oil and gas industry activity, including a network of canals for access and pipelines. The plaintiff seeks damages and injunctive relief in the form of abatement and restoration based on claims of negligence, strict liability, natural servitude of drain, public nuisance, private nuisance, and breach of contract – third party beneficiary. Apache has been indiscriminately named as one of approximately 100 defendants in the lawsuit. The overall exposure related to this lawsuit is not currently determinable. While an adverse judgment against Apache might be possible, Apache intends to vigorously defend the case.

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 2012 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 granted defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ claims, and plaintiffs appealed the decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. On May 14, 2013, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the District Court’s decision in case No. 12-60291. 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 2012 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 2012 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 2012 fiscal year except as follows:

•

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 hearing on appeal took place on April 10, 2013, and the parties await the Court of Appeal’s ruling.

•

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, on March 22, 2013, Burrup Fertilisers agreed to dismiss its Texas lawsuit based on Apache Corporation’s motion to dismiss on the ground of forum non conveniens. Accordingly, the District Court entered an agreed order dismissing Burrup Fertilisers’ Texas lawsuit on the ground of forum non conveniens. By its terms, the order of dismissal does not prevent Burrup Fertilisers from re-filing its lawsuit in the civil courts of Western Australia.

•

As noted in Apache’s most recent Annual Report on Form 10-K for its 2012 fiscal year, other customers have threatened to file suit challenging the declaration of force majeure under their contracts. At least one third party that is not a customer has also threatened to file suit. In the event it is determined that the pipeline explosion was not a force majeure, Company subsidiaries believe that liquidated damages should be the extent of the damages under long-term contracts with such provisions. Approximately 90 percent of the natural gas volumes sold by Company subsidiaries under long-term contracts have liquidated damages provisions. The Company’s subsidiaries’ share of contractual liquidated damages under the long-term contracts with such provisions would not be expected to exceed $50 million AUD exclusive of interest. This is a reduction from the previous estimate of $200 million AUD. No assurance can be given that customers and/or third parties would not assert claims in excess of contractual liquidated damages, and exposure related to such claims is not currently determinable. While an adverse judgment against Company subsidiaries (and the Company, in the case of the Burrup Fertilisers lawsuit) is possible, the Company and Company subsidiaries do not believe any such claims would have merit and plan to vigorously pursue their defenses against any such claims.

Breton Lawsuit

As more fully described in Note 8 of the financial statements in Apache’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for its 2012 fiscal year, on October 29, 2012, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint 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 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 May 28, 2013, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims and entered judgment in favor of the defendants. On June 3, 2013, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The appeal 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 2012 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 2012 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. The review is ongoing, and 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 2012 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 2012 fiscal year, on May 19, 2011, a lawsuit captioned Pankaj Oswal et al. v. Apache Corporation, Cause No. 2011-30302, in the District Court of Harris County, Texas, was filed in which plaintiffs assert claims against the Company under the Australian Trade Practices Act. Following a hearing on March 22, 2013, the District Court on April 5, 2013, granted Apache Corporation’s motion to dismiss on the ground of forum non conveniens and entered an order dismissing the Texas lawsuit. 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 2012 fiscal year.

No material change in the status of the 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, has occurred since the filing of Apache’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for its 2012 fiscal year.

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, 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 2012 fiscal year.

Environmental Matters

As of June 30, 2013, the Company had an undiscounted reserve for environmental remediation of approximately $98 million. The Company is not aware of any environmental claims existing as of June 30, 2013, 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 2012 fiscal year, on May 25, 2011, a panel of the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEMRE, as it was then known) published a report dated May 23, 2011, and titled “OCS G-2580, Vermilion Block 380 Platform A, Incidents of Noncompliance.” The report concerned the BOEMRE’s investigation of a fire on the Vermillion 380 A platform located in the Gulf of Mexico. Apache currently operates the platform, however, at the time of the incident Mariner Energy was the operator. On April 17, 2013, the Office of Hearings and Appeals, Interior Board of Land Appeals of the United States Department of the Interior, No. IBLA 2012-183, affirmed certain Incidents of Noncompliance issued by the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement arising out of Mariner Energy’s operation of the Vermilion 380 platform. The Company is considering its options, including but not limited to, whether to appeal this determination. Civil penalties have not yet been assessed. 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 2012 fiscal year.

On June 1, 2013 Apache Canada Ltd. discovered a leak of produced water from a below ground pipeline in the area of our Zama Operations in northern Alberta. The pipeline was associated with a produced water disposal well. The spill resulted in approximately 60 thousand barrels of produced water being released to the marsh land environment. The applicable government agencies were immediately notified of the event and the line was shut down. Apache Canada Ltd. is currently conducting clean up and monitoring activities in the affected area. It is communicating with appropriate parties including regulatory and First Nation representatives. Investigation of the incident is underway. While the exposure related to this incident is not currently determinable, the Company does not expect the economic impact of this incident to have a material effect on the Company’s financial position, results of operations, or liquidity.