2.2.0.25falsefalse1220 - Disclosure - Contingenciestruefalsefalse1falsefalseUSDfalsefalse1/1/2010 - 12/31/2010 USD ($) / shares USD ($) $FROM_Jan01_2010_TO_Dec31_2010http://www.sec.gov/CIK0000773910duration2010-01-01T00:00:002010-12-31T00:00:00usdPerShrDividehttp://www.xbrl.org/2003/iso4217USDiso4217http://www.xbrl.org/2003/instancesharesxbrli0USDStandardhttp://www.xbrl.org/2003/iso4217USDiso42170PureStandardhttp://www.xbrl.org/2003/instancepurexbrli0SharesStandardhttp://www.xbrl.org/2003/instancesharesxbrli0MMboeStandardhttp://www.anadarko.com/20101231MMboeapc0USDUSD$4false0apc_ContingencyDisclosureTextBlockapcfalsenadurationDescribes any existing condition, situation, or set of circumstances involving uncertainty as of the balance sheet date (or...falsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalseverboselabel1falsefalsefalse0015.  Contingencies        The following discussion of the Company's contingencies excludes discussion related to the Deepwater Horizon events. See Note 2 Deepwater Horizon Events. General   Litigation charges and adjustments of $10 million increased income before income taxes, and $24 million and $112 million decreased income before income taxes during 2010, 2009 and 2008, respectively. 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 on 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 Kerr-McGee Corporation (Kerr-McGee) were named as a 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 alleges that the Company, including Kerr-McGee, and other industry defendants knowingly undervalued natural gas in connection with royalty payments on production from federal and Indian lands. Based on the Company's present understanding of these various governmental and False Claims Act proceedings, the Company believes that it has substantial defenses to these claims and is vigorously asserting such defenses. However, if the Company is found to have violated the False Claims Act, the Company could be subject to a variety of damages, including treble damages and substantial monetary fines. The claims against the Company have not been set for trial. The Company has reached a tentative settlement with the United States Government and the Relators, which, if finalized, will resolve this litigation against Anadarko and Kerr-McGee, as well as several administrative actions. The tentative settlement must be approved by various levels of authority within the United States Government, which could take up to a year. Management has accrued a liability for the estimated settlement amount. The Company believes that an additional loss, in excess of the accrued settlement amount, is unlikely to have a material adverse effect on Anadarko's consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.       In January 2009, Tronox Incorporated (Tronox), a former wholly owned subsidiary of Kerr-McGee, 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 (the 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 (the 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 the litigation fees and costs. In addition, Tronox seeks to equitably subordinate and/or disallow all claims asserted by Anadarko and Kerr-McGee in the bankruptcy cases. Anadarko and Kerr-McGee moved to dismiss the complaint in its entirety. In March 2010, the Court issued an opinion granting in part and denying in part Anadarko's and Kerr-McGee's motion to dismiss the complaint. Notably, the Court dismissed, with prejudice, Tronox's request for punitive damages relating to the fraudulent conveyance claims. The Court granted Tronox leave to replead certain of its common law claims, and Tronox filed an amended complaint in April 2010. Anadarko and Kerr-McGee have moved to dismiss three breach of fiduciary duty-related claims in the amended complaint. That motion has been briefed and is awaiting a ruling by the Court. The Adversary Proceeding is set for trial in March 2012.       The United States filed a motion to intervene in the Adversary Proceeding, asserting that it has an independent cause of action against Anadarko, Kerr-McGee and Tronox under the Federal Debt Collection Procedures Act relating primarily to environmental cleanup obligations allegedly owed to the United States by Tronox. That motion to intervene has been granted, and the United States is now a co-plaintiff against Anadarko and Kerr-McGee in the Adversary Proceeding. Anadarko and Kerr-McGee have moved to dismiss the United States' complaint-in-intervention, but that motion currently has been stayed by order of the Court.        In June 2010, Anadarko and Kerr-McGee filed a motion in Tronox's Chapter 11 cases to compel Tronox to assume or reject the Master Separation Agreement (together with all annexes, related agreements, and ancillary agreements to it, the MSA). In response to this motion, Tronox announced to the Court that it would reject the MSA effective July 22, 2010. In August 2010, the Court entered a Stipulation and Agreed Order among Tronox, Anadarko, and Kerr-McGee authorizing the rejection of the MSA.        During 2010, the Company reversed a $95 million liability for a reimbursement obligation that was provided by Kerr-McGee to Tronox pursuant to the terms of the MSA. Following Tronox's rejection of the MSA, Anadarko and Kerr-McGee filed amended proofs of claim (the Proofs of Claim), which include claims for damages arising from such rejection of the MSA. Tronox and several of its creditors have objected to the Proofs of Claim. At the end of January 2011, the Court entered a Stipulation and Agreed Order regarding a settlement of the claims by Anadarko and Kerr-McGee against Tronox resulting from its rejection of the MSA. In February 2011, the Company received its agreed-upon claim, in the form of Tronox equity, valued at $29 million.        The Company will continue to monitor events subsequent to the MSA rejection and will assess the impact of future events on the Company's consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows. See Guarantees and Indemnifications section of this Note 15.       In August 2010, Tronox filed a motion seeking, among other things, (i) authority to enter into a certain plan support agreement and equity-commitment agreement (together, the Plan Support Agreements) and (ii) approval of procedures for a rights offering. Anadarko and Kerr-McGee filed an objection to the motion. In the objection, Anadarko and Kerr-McGee requested that the Court order mediation of the Adversary Proceeding. Tronox and the United States opposed mediation, citing, in support of their position, a lack of sufficient discovery. The Court declined to order mediation at that time. In September 2010, the Court entered an order authorizing Tronox to enter into the Plan Support Agreements and approved the rights offering procedures. Anadarko and Kerr-McGee are not subject to the rights offering procedures. However, Anadarko and Kerr-McGee reached an agreement with Tronox that will entitle them to receive the economic benefit on account of their claims against Tronox as if they had participated in the rights offering if certain conditions are satisfied.        In September 2010, Tronox filed a Proposed First Amended Joint Plan of Reorganization pursuant to Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code (the Plan) and a related disclosure statement (the Disclosure Statement), which modify and supersede the terms of its plan and disclosure statement filed in July 2010. Tronox subsequently filed further amendments to the Plan and Disclosure Statement. The Plan contemplates, among other things, that (a) the claims of the United States (as well as other federal, state, local or tribal governmental entities having regulatory authority or responsibilities with respect to environmental laws) related to Tronox's environmental liabilities at legacy sites, will be settled through the creation of certain environmental response trusts and a litigation trust, to which Tronox will contribute the following consideration: (i) $270 million in cash, (ii) 88% of the proceeds from the Adversary Proceeding, (iii) certain Nevada assets, including the real property located in Henderson, Nevada, (iv) certain other real property and related assets, and (v) certain insurance and financial assurance assets worth at least $50 million; (b) certain creditors who have asserted tort claims against Tronox arising from, among other things, environmental contamination or chemical or asbestos exposure will receive the following consideration from a trust to be created under the Plan: (i) $13 million in cash, (ii) 12% of the proceeds from the Adversary Proceeding, and (iii) certain insurance assets, including the net proceeds of certain insurance settlements; and (c) certain creditors who have asserted general unsecured claims against Tronox will receive the following consideration: (i) their pro rata share of 50.9% of the common equity of reorganized Tronox and (ii) the right to purchase up to 45.5% of the common equity of reorganized Tronox. Objections to the Plan and Disclosure Statement were filed by various interested parties, including Anadarko and Kerr-McGee.       In October and November 2010, Tronox filed certain documents central to the Plan as part of the Plan Supplement including, among other things, the Environmental Claims Settlement Agreement and the Tort Claims Trust Agreement. The Plan contemplates that additional documents, including the Anadarko Litigation Trust Agreement, will be filed as part of the Plan Supplement and parties in interest will have an opportunity to object to those documents before they become effective pursuant to the Plan. Also in November 2010, the Court confirmed the Plan, subject to certain modifications and settlements, and entered the order confirming the Plan. Anadarko's objections to the Plan were resolved prior to confirmation. In February 2011, Tronox emerged from bankruptcy. It is unclear what, if any, effect the Plan might have on the Adversary Proceeding or its outcome.       In addition, a consolidated class action complaint has been filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the District Court) on behalf of purported purchasers of Tronox's equity and debt securities between November 21, 2005, and January 12, 2009 (the Class Period), against Anadarko, Kerr-McGee, several former Kerr-McGee officers and directors, several former Tronox officers and directors and Ernst & Young LLP. The complaint alleges causes of action arising under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the 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 class action complaint and in June 2010, the District Court issued an opinion and order dismissing the plaintiffs' complaint against Anadarko, but granted the plaintiffs leave to replead their allegations related to the claim that Anadarko was liable as a successor-in-interest to Kerr-McGee. The District Court further granted in part and denied in part the motions to dismiss by Kerr-McGee and certain of its former officers and directors, but permitted the plaintiffs leave to replead certain of the dismissed claims. The plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated class action complaint in July 2010. In August 2010, Anadarko, Kerr-McGee, and several of Kerr-McGee's former officers and directors filed respective motions to dismiss. In January 2011, the District Court issued an opinion and order denying the motions of Kerr-McGee and several former Kerr-McGee officers and directors. The District Court also denied Anadarko's motion to dismiss the remaining Section 20(a) claim under the Exchange Act covering the period beginning on August 10, 2006, through the end of the alleged Class Period. However, the District Court dismissed this claim against Anadarko to the extent it was based on a successor-in-interest theory of liability. The discovery process is ongoing.        The Tronox proceedings are at a very early stage; accordingly, the Company currently cannot assess the probability of losses, or reasonably estimate a range of any potential losses related to the proceedings described above. The Company intends 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 BOEMRE, previously known as the Minerals Management Service (MMS), an agency of the Department of the Interior (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. These deepwater drilling moratoria (collectively, the Moratorium) prohibited drilling and/or spudding any new wells, and required operators that were in the process of drilling wells to proceed to the next safe opportunity to secure such wells, and to take all necessary steps to cease operations and temporarily abandon the impacted wells. 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, but the BOEMRE has not approved new 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 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.        In September 2010, the Company gave written notice of termination to another drilling contractor of a rig that had been placed in force majeure, and the Company filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Houston 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 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. If the Company does not succeed in its claim, the Company could be obligated to pay the rig contract rate from the contract-termination date through March 2013, the end of the original contract term.        The disputed rentals for the contract periods described above are $90 million and $377 million, respectively, but any potential damages would be reduced by, among other things, any 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 incurred by the drilling contractor by not having to operate the drilling rig on a daily basis. At December 31, 2010, the Company has not recorded a liability for costs associated with these disputes as management believes payment related to these matters is not probable. The Company intends to vigorously pursue each claim.       In September 2010, the BOEMRE issued a Notice to Lessees that requires lessees to plug all wells that have been idle for the past five years and decommission related equipment. Lessees were required to submit a company-wide plan for decommissioning facilities and wells. Anadarko completed this plan and does not believe the costs to implement the plan will have a material impact on the Company's consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.Deepwater Royalty Relief Act   In 1995, the United States Congress passed the Deepwater Royalty Relief Act (DWRRA) to stimulate exploration and production of oil and natural gas by providing relief from the obligation to pay royalties on certain federal leases located in the deep waters of the Gulf of Mexico. The Company currently owns interests in several deepwater Gulf of Mexico leases. After the passage of the DWRRA, the MMS (renamed the BOEMRE as discussed above) inserted price thresholds into leases issued in 1996, 1997 and 2000 that effectively eliminated the DWRRA royalty relief if these price thresholds were exceeded.        In January 2006, the DOI issued an order (the 2006 Order) to Kerr-McGee Oil and Gas Corporation (KMOG), a subsidiary of Kerr-McGee, to pay oil and gas royalties and accrued interest on KMOG's deepwater Gulf of Mexico production associated with eight 1996, 1997 and 2000 leases, for which KMOG considered royalties to be suspended under the DWRRA. KMOG successfully appealed the 2006 Order, and the DOI's petition for a writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court was denied on October 5, 2009.       In 2009, based on the U.S. Supreme Court's denial of the DOI's petition for review by the court, Anadarko reversed its $657 million liability for accrued royalties on leases listed in the 2006 Order, similar orders to pay issued in 2008 and 2009, and other deepwater Gulf of Mexico leases with similar price-threshold provisions. The Company's accrued liability of $657 million related to royalties on production from January 2003 through September 2009, including a $165 million liability related to pre-acquisition contingencies recorded in purchase accounting. In addition, the Company reversed its $78 million accrued liability for interest on these unpaid royalty amounts, substantially all of which related to post-acquisition periods.        The MMS issued two additional orders to Anadarko in 2008 and 2009 to pay “past-due” royalties and interest covering several deepwater Gulf of Mexico leases. Anadarko filed administrative appeals with the MMS for the 2008 and 2009 orders (which were stayed pending a final non-appealable judgment relating to the 2006 Order). As a result of the Supreme Court's denial of certiorari, the MMS notified Anadarko on February 25, 2010, that the 2008 and 2009 orders had been withdrawn.Guarantees and Indemnifications   Under the terms of the MSA entered into between Kerr-McGee and Tronox, Kerr-McGee agreed to reimburse Tronox for 50% of certain qualifying environmental-remediation costs incurred and paid by Tronox and its subsidiaries before November 28, 2012, subject to certain limitations and conditions. The reimbursement obligation under the MSA was limited to a maximum aggregate reimbursement of $100 million. During 2010, the Company reversed to non-operating income a $95 million liability recorded for this reimbursement obligation as a result of a court-authorized rejection of the MSA. See Litigation section of this Note 15.       The Company also provides certain indemnifications in relation to asset dispositions. These indemnifications typically relate to disputes, litigation or tax matters existing at the date of disposition. In connection with the 2006 sale of its Canadian subsidiary, the Company indemnified the purchaser for audit adjustments that may be imposed by the Canadian taxing authorities for periods prior to the sale. At December 31, 2010, other long-term liabilities include a $54 million liability for this contingency. The Company believes it is probable that the remaining indemnification will be settled with the purchaser in cash.Other   The Company is subject to other legal proceedings, claims and liabilities which arise in the ordinary course of its business. In the opinion of Anadarko, the liability (if any) with respect to these claims will not have a material adverse effect on the Company's consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.        Anadarko is also subject to various environmental-remediation and reclamation obligations arising from federal, state and local laws and regulations. At December 31, 2010 and 2009, the Company's Consolidated Balance Sheets include liabilities of $96 million for remediation and reclamation obligations. The Company continually monitors the remediation and reclamation process and adjusts its liability for these obligations as necessary.15.  Contingencies        The following discussion of the Company's contingencies excludes discussion relatedfalsefalsefalsefalsefalseOtherus-types:textBlockItemTypestringDescribes any existing condition, situation, or set of circumstances involving uncertainty as of the balance sheet date (or prior to issuance of the financial statements) as to a probable or reasonably possible gain or loss incurred by an entity that will ultimately be resolved when one or more future events occur or fail to occur, and typically discloses the amount of gain or loss recorded or a range of possible gain or loss, or an assertion that no reasonable estimate can be made.No authoritative reference available.falsefalseContingencies11ContingenciesUnKnownUnKnownUnKnownUnKnownfalsetrue