ENVIRONMENTAL LIABILITIES AND EXPENDITURES

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2025

Environmental Remediation Obligations [Abstract]

ENVIRONMENTAL LIABILITIES AND EXPENDITURES

NOTE 11 - ENVIRONMENTAL LIABILITIES AND EXPENDITURES

The Company is subject to numerous international, federal, state, and local, laws and regulations related to improving or maintaining environmental quality. The laws that require or address environmental remediation, including CERCLA and similar laws, may apply retroactively and regardless of fault, the legality of the original activities or the current ownership or control of sites. The Company participates in or actively monitors a range of remedial activities and government or private proceedings under these laws with respect to alleged past practices at Third-Party, Currently Operated, and Closed or Non-operated Sites, each of which may include NPL Sites. Remedial activities may include one or more of the following: investigation involving sampling, modeling, risk assessment or monitoring; cleanup measures including removal, treatment or disposal; or operation and maintenance of remedial systems. The environmental proceedings seek funding or performance of remediation and, in some cases, compensation for alleged property damage, natural resource damages, punitive damages, civil penalties, injunctive relief and government oversight costs.

As discussed in Note 4 - Acquisitions, Divestitures and Other Transactions, certain Occidental subsidiaries remain responsible for environmental remediation at legacy sites and the indemnification of legacy environmental liabilities and pre-closing liabilities of OxyChem, which are not classified as held for sale. Expenses related to OxyChem and the retained liabilities and indemnification obligations associated with the chemical business are reported as discontinued operations for all periods presented, reflecting the OxyChem Transaction.

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION

As of December 31, 2025, the Company participated in or monitored remedial activities or proceedings at 152 sites. The following table presents the current and non-current environmental remediation liabilities of the Company separated by those related to ongoing operations and discontinued operations as of December 31, 2025 and 2024.

millions	as of December 31, 2025						as of December 31, 2024
	Ongoing Operations		Discontinued Operations		Total		Ongoing Operations		Discontinued Operations		Total
Current Portion:
Accrued Liabilities	$	55	$	96	$	151	$	55	$	95	$	150
Non-Current Portion:
Deferred credit and other liabilities	141		1,578		1,719		170		1,589		1,759
Total current and non-current	$	196	$	1,674	$	1,870	$	225	$	1,684	$	1,909

The estimates of environmental remediation liabilities in the table above vary over time depending on factors such as acquisitions or divestitures, identification of additional sites, remedy selection and implementation and changes in applicable laws or regulations, among other factors. Environmental remediation expenses primarily relate to existing conditions from alleged past practices.

Environmental remediation expenses related to ongoing operations were $18 million in 2025, $20 million in 2024 and $46 million in 2023. For discontinued operations, remediation expenses were $64 million in 2025, $56 million in 2024 and $33 million in 2023.

Based on current estimates, the Company expects to expend funds corresponding to approximately 30% of the year-end consolidated remediation balance over the next three to four years with the remainder over the subsequent 10 or more years.

Environmental remediation sites for ongoing operations and discontinued operations are grouped into NPL Sites and the following three categories of non-NPL Sites — Third-Party Sites, Currently Operated Sites and Closed or Non-operated Sites.

	2025			2024
millions, except number of sites	Number of Sites	Remediation Balance		Number of Sites	Remediation Balance
NPL Sites	29	$	1,379	32	$	1,374
Third-Party Sites	69	238		63	200
Currently Operated Sites	4	25		12	88
Closed or Non-operated Sites	50	228		51	247
Total	152	$	1,870	158	$	1,909

As of December 31, 2025, environmental remediation liabilities exceeded $10 million each at 14 of the 152 sites described above, and 88 of the sites had liabilities less than $1 million each. Of the 152 sites above, 69 relate to ongoing operations with a combined remediation balance of approximately $196 million.

The DASS in Newark, New Jersey accounted for the majority of the liabilities associated with the category of NPL Sites.

Of the 69 Third-Party Sites, eight locations — a former copper mining and smelting operation in Tennessee, a chrome site in New Jersey, a former oil field and a landfill in California, active chemical plants in Kansas and Louisiana, a landfill in New York and an active refinery in Louisiana where the Company reimburses the current owner for certain remediation activities — accounted for approximately two thirds of the liabilities associated with this category.

Oil and gas operations in Colorado, which are collectively managed as one Currently Operated Site, accounted for approximately two thirds of the liabilities associated with this category.

Seven Closed or Non-operated Sites — a landfill in Western New York, a former refinery in Oklahoma, former chemical plants in California, New York, and Washington, and a closed coal mine in Pennsylvania — accounted for approximately two thirds of the liabilities associated with this category.

The Company believes its range of reasonably possible additional losses beyond those amounts currently recorded for environmental remediation for the 152 environmental sites in the table above could be up to $1.9 billion.

DIAMOND ALKALI SUPERFUND SITE

The EPA has organized the DASS into four OUs for evaluating, selecting and implementing remediation under CERCLA. The Company’s current activities in each OU are summarized below.

OU1 – The Former Diamond Alkali Plant at 80-120 Lister Avenue in Newark: Maxus and its affiliates implemented an interim remedy of OU1 pursuant to a 1990 Consent Decree, for which maintenance and monitoring are currently being performed. In January 2025, the EPA issued a ROD for the final remedy of OU1 that provides for optimized containment for which it estimated a cost of $16 million.

OU2 – The Lower 8.3 Miles of the Lower Passaic River: In March 2016, the EPA issued a ROD outlining the remedial actions required for OU2. During the third quarter of 2016, and following Maxus’s bankruptcy filing, the EPA issued an AOC for the design of the remedy selected in the ROD. In May 2024, the EPA approved the remedial design for OU2. In June 2024, the EPA confirmed that the work required by the AOC had been fully completed in accordance with its terms. The EPA has estimated the cost to remediate OU2 to be approximately $1.4 billion.

OU3 – Newark Bay Study Area, including Newark Bay and portions of the Hackensack River, Arthur Kill, and Kill van Kull: Maxus and its affiliates initiated a remedial investigation and feasibility study of OU3 pursuant to a 2004 AOC which was amended in 2010. The Company is currently performing feasibility study activities in OU3.

OU4 – The 17-mile Lower Passaic River Study Area, comprising OU2 and the Upper 9 Miles of the Lower Passaic River: In September 2021, the EPA issued a ROD selecting an interim remedy for the portion of OU4 that excludes OU2 and is located upstream from the Lister Avenue Plant site. In March 2023, the EPA issued a Unilateral Administrative Order directing the design of the EPA’s selected interim remedy for OU4. The EPA has estimated the cost to remediate OU4 to be approximately $440 million.

Natural Resource Trustees – In addition to the activities of the EPA and other parties involved in the OUs described above, federal and state natural resource trustees are assessing natural resources in the Lower Passaic River and Greater Newark Bay to evaluate potential claims for natural resource damages.

Legal matters related to the DASS (Alden Leeds)

In December 2022, the EPA and the DOJ filed a proposed Consent Decree in the Alden Leeds litigation, seeking court approval to settle with 85 parties for a total of $150 million for cleanup costs associated with OU2 and OU4. In January 2024, the DOJ filed a proposed Amended Consent Decree that excluded three companies from the original settlement, among other changes, and subsequently filed a motion to approve the Amended Consent Decree. In December 2024, the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (District Court) approved the Amended Consent Decree. In its order approving the Amended Consent Decree, the District Court accepted the EPA’s revised determination that the Company was responsible for approximately 85% of the cleanup costs for OU2 and OU4. The Company filed an appeal against the District Court’s ruling on the grounds that the decision was flawed for several reasons, including the failure to consider the impact of recent Supreme Court decisions that restrict EPA authority and limit judicial deference to EPA actions. The Notice of Appeal was filed in February 2025, and all briefs have been filed as of January 2026.

As a result of the District Court’s approval of the Amended Consent Decree, the non-current environmental remediation liability related to OU2 and OU4 was increased by $925 million in the fourth quarter of 2024. This charge was included in asset impairments and other charges in the Consolidated Statements of Operations and represented the additional share of the total estimated remediation costs which may be incurred because of the assignment by the District Court of 85% of the responsibility for OU2 and OU4. These costs have not been discounted as the timing and amount of the payments are not fixed or reliably determinable. It is expected that the cash outlay for remediation costs will be expended over ten to twenty years, or more.

The Alden Leeds settlement does not address the liability of entities that were excluded from the settlement, including for OU2, OU3, OU4 or natural resource damages, or the liability of any settling party with respect to OU3 or natural resource damages.

While the remedies for OU2 and OU4 are expected to take ten to twenty years to complete, the EPA may seek to require the Company to perform a substantial majority or all of the remediation work and provide additional financial assurance. It is uncertain when or to what extent the EPA may take action to compel further remediation in OU2 or OU4, or the amount of financial assurance that could be required.

In June 2018, the Company filed a complaint under CERCLA in the District Court against numerous potentially responsible parties seeking contribution and cost recovery of amounts incurred or to be incurred to comply with the AOC and the OU2 ROD, or to perform other remediation activities related to the DASS (2018 Contribution Action). Because costs are being incurred to implement the OU4 Unilateral Administrative Order, a cost recovery action under CERCLA was brought in March 2023 in the District Court against multiple parties (2023 Cost Recovery Action). Both the 2018 Contribution Action and the 2023 Cost Recovery Action were stayed pending the outcome of the Alden Leeds litigation. The Company does not know when the Court will lift the stay in those matters. If not reversed on appeal, the approved Amended Consent Decree could bar the Company from pursuing contribution against the settling parties for remediation costs incurred or that may be incurred in the future to design and implement the remedies in OU2 and OU4, including claims asserted in the 2018 Contribution Action.

Other information

For the DASS, a reserve has been accrued relating to the estimated allocable share of the costs to perform the maintenance and monitoring required in the OU1 Consent Decree, as well as the remedial investigation and feasibility study required in OU3 (Newark Bay). Subject to and without waiver of any rights, including appeal, a reserve has also been accrued for design and implementation of remedies selected in the OU2 ROD and AOC, and the OU4 ROD and OU4 Unilateral Administrative Order, based on the December 2024 Order of the District Court approving the Amended Consent Decree described above, which Order is currently being appealed.

The accrued environmental remediation reserve does not account for the possibility of additional remediation costs or natural resource damages for the DASS that are not considered reasonably estimable. The ultimate liability at the DASS may be greater or less than both the reserved amount and any reasonably possible additional losses, and will depend on final design plans, future actions by the EPA and natural resource trustees, as well as the resolution of the allocable share with other potentially responsible parties, among other factors.

The estimated costs currently recorded for remediation at the DASS and the range of reasonably possible additional losses beyond the amounts currently recognized are evaluated periodically. Due to the complexity and scope of the remediation efforts, the estimated costs may fluctuate over time as new information becomes available.