COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2025
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Legal Matters The Company is party to various legal actions arising in the ordinary course of business, including litigation and governmental and regulatory controls, which also may include controls related to the potential impacts of climate change. As of June 30, 2025, 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. The Company’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 the Company’s financial position, results of operations, or liquidity after consideration of recorded accruals. With respect to material matters for which the Company 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. For additional information on Legal Matters described below, refer to Note 11—Commitments and Contingencies to the consolidated financial statements contained in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2024. Louisiana Restoration As more fully described in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2024, Louisiana surface owners often file lawsuits or assert claims against oil and gas companies, including the Company, claiming that operators and working interest owners in the chain of title are liable for environmental damages on the leased premises, including damages measured by the cost of restoration of the leased premises to its original condition, regardless of the value of the underlying property. From time to time, restoration lawsuits and claims are resolved by the Company for amounts that are not material to the Company, while new lawsuits and claims are asserted against the Company. With respect to each of the pending lawsuits and claims, the amount claimed is not currently determinable or is not material. Further, the overall exposure related to these lawsuits and claims is not currently determinable. While adverse judgments against the Company are possible, the Company intends to actively defend these lawsuits and claims. Currently, the State of Louisiana, a number of coastal parishes in Louisiana, and the City of New Orleans, as plaintiffs, are all pursuing various lawsuits against many oil and gas producers with current or historic operations in Louisiana. In these cases, the plaintiffs allege that defendants’ oil and gas exploration, production, and transportation operations in specified fields were conducted in violation of the State and Local Coastal Resources Management Act of 1978, as amended, and applicable regulations, rules, orders, and ordinances promulgated or adopted thereunder by the Parish or the State of Louisiana. Plaintiffs allege that defendants caused substantial damage to land and water bodies located in the coastal zone of Louisiana. Plaintiffs seek, among other things, unspecified damages for alleged violations of applicable law within the coastal zone, the payment of costs necessary to clear, re-vegetate, detoxify, and otherwise restore the subject coastal zone as near as practicable to its original condition, and actual restoration of the coastal zone to its original condition. Following its settlement with a number of parishes and the state, the Company is now a defendant in only one coastal zone lawsuit, which was filed by the City of New Orleans against the Company and a number of oil and gas operators and pipeline companies. The Company is vigorously defending this lawsuit. Apollo Exploration Lawsuit In a case captioned Apollo Exploration, LLC, Cogent Exploration, Ltd. Co. & SellmoCo, LLC v. Apache Corporation, Cause No. CV50538 in the 385th Judicial District Court, Midland County, Texas, plaintiffs alleged damages in excess of $200 million (having previously claimed in excess of $1.1 billion) relating to purchase and sale agreements, mineral leases, and area of mutual interest agreements concerning properties located in Hartley, Moore, Potter, and Oldham Counties, Texas. The trial court entered final judgment in favor of the Company, ruling that the plaintiffs take nothing by their claims and awarding the Company its attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in defending the lawsuit. The court of appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part the trial court’s judgment thereby reinstating some of plaintiffs’ claims. The Texas Supreme Court granted the Company’s petition for review and heard oral argument in October 2022. On April 28, 2023, the Texas Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals’ decision and remanded the case back to the court of appeals for further proceedings. After plaintiffs’ request for rehearing, on July 21, 2023, the Texas Supreme Court reaffirmed its reversal of the court of appeals’ decision and remand of the case back to the court of appeals for further proceedings. Upon remand, on March 6, 2025, the court of appeals affirmed the entirety of the trial courts’ orders resulting in final judgment in favor of the Company, plaintiffs taking nothing by their claims, and awarding the Company its attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in defending the lawsuit. The plaintiffs did not appeal the court of appeals’ March 6, 2025 opinion, meaning that the judgment in favor of the Company is final. Australian Operations Divestiture Dispute Pursuant to a Sale and Purchase Agreement dated April 9, 2015 (Quadrant SPA), the Company and its subsidiaries divested Australian operations to Quadrant Energy Pty Ltd (Quadrant). Closing occurred on June 5, 2015. In April 2017, the Company filed suit against Quadrant for breach of the Quadrant SPA. In its suit, the Company seeks approximately AUD $80 million. In December 2017, Quadrant filed a defense of equitable set-off to the Company’s claim and a counterclaim seeking approximately AUD $200 million in the aggregate. In 2018, Quadrant was acquired by Australian oil and gas company Santos, Ltd., who assumed Quadrant’s place in the ongoing litigation. In early 2025, Santos amended the pending counterclaims to abandon a number of claims that had been asserted against the Company but maintaining counterclaims for approximately AUD $57 million. Santos then filed a new lawsuit in the Supreme Court of Western Australia contending that it may be liable to the Australian Taxation Office for assessments, penalties, and interest related to the 2014 and 2015 tax years of approximately AUD $133 million and asserting that, if such amounts must be paid, the Company is liable to Santos for those amounts under the Quadrant SPA. All lawsuits related to the Quadrant SPA have now been consolidated into the same proceeding. The Company will vigorously prosecute its claim while vigorously defending against any counterclaims. Delaware Litigation On September 10, 2020, the State of Delaware filed suit, individually and on behalf of the people of the State of Delaware, against over 25 oil and gas companies alleging damages as a result of global warming. Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages and abatement under various tort theories. The Company is vigorously defending the suit. Kulp Minerals Lawsuit On or about April 7, 2023, Apache was sued in a purported class action in New Mexico styled Kulp Minerals LLC v. Apache Corporation, Case No. D-506-CV-2023-00352 in the Fifth Judicial District. The Kulp Minerals case has not been certified and seeks to represent a group of owners allegedly owed statutory interest under New Mexico law as a result of purported late oil and gas payments. The amount of this claim is not yet reasonably determinable. The Company intends to vigorously defend against the claims asserted in this lawsuit. Environmental Matters The Company is not aware of any environmental claims existing as of June 30, 2025, 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. Potential Decommissioning Obligations on Sold Properties In 2013, Apache sold its Gulf of America (GOA) Shelf operations and properties and its GOA operating subsidiary, GOM Shelf LLC (GOM Shelf) to Fieldwood Energy LLC (Fieldwood). Fieldwood assumed the obligation to decommission the properties held by GOM Shelf and the properties acquired from Apache and its other subsidiaries (collectively, the Legacy GOA Assets). On February 14, 2018, Fieldwood filed for (and subsequently emerged from) Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. On August 3, 2020, Fieldwood filed for (and subsequently emerged from) Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection for a second time. Upon emergence from this second bankruptcy, the Legacy GOA Assets were separated into a standalone company, which was subsequently merged into GOM Shelf. Under GOM Shelf’s limited liability company agreement, the proceeds of production of the Legacy GOA Assets are to be used to fund the operation of GOM Shelf and the decommissioning of Legacy GOA Assets. Pursuant to the terms of the original transaction, as amended in the first bankruptcy, the securing of the asset retirement obligations for the Legacy GOA Assets as and when Apache is required to perform or pay for any such decommissioning was accomplished through the posting of letters of credit in favor of Apache (Letters of Credit), the provision of two bonds (Bonds) in favor of Apache, and the establishment of a trust account of which Apache was a beneficiary and which was funded by net profits interests (NPIs) depending on future oil prices. In addition, after such sources have been exhausted, Apache agreed upon resolution of GOM Shelf’s second bankruptcy to GOM Shelf loans of up to $400 million to perform decommissioning, with such loans and related obligations secured by first and prior liens on the Legacy GOA Assets. By letter dated April 5, 2022 (replacing two earlier letters) and by subsequent letter dated March 1, 2023, GOM Shelf notified the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) that it was unable to fund the decommissioning obligations that it was obligated to perform on certain of the Legacy GOA Assets. As a result, Apache and other current and former owners in these assets have received orders from BSEE and demands from third parties to decommission certain of the Legacy GOA Assets included in GOM Shelf’s notifications to BSEE. Apache expects to receive similar orders and demands on the other Legacy GOA Assets included in GOM Shelf’s notification letters. Apache has also received orders to decommission other Legacy GOA Assets that were not included in GOM Shelf’s notification letters. Further, Apache anticipates that GOM Shelf may send additional such notices to BSEE in the future and that it may receive additional orders from BSEE requiring it to decommission other Legacy GOA Assets. On June 21, 2023, two sureties that issued Bonds directly to Apache and two sureties that issued bonds to the issuing bank on the Letters of Credit filed suit against Apache in a case styled Zurich American Insurance Company, HCC International Insurance Company PLC, Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company and Everest Reinsurance Company (Insurers) v. Apache Corporation, Cause No. 2023-38238 in the 281st Judicial District Court, Harris County Texas. The sureties sought to prevent Apache from drawing on the $148 million in Bonds and $350 million in Letters of Credit and further alleged that they are discharged from their reimbursement obligations related to decommissioning costs and are entitled to other relief. The parties settled their dispute in the first quarter of 2025, which resulted in, among other things, mutual releases, the retention by Apache of all amounts drawn on the Letters of Credit, and payment to Apache of $140 million under the Bonds. As of June 30, 2025, the Company recorded an asset of $39 million representing the remaining amount the Company expects to be reimbursed from security related to these decommissioning costs. The Company has also recorded contingent liabilities in the amounts of $1.0 billion for each of the periods ended June 30, 2025 and December 31, 2024, representing the estimated costs of decommissioning it may be required to perform on the Legacy GOA Assets. There have been no other changes in estimates from December 31, 2024 that would have a material impact on the Company’s financial position, results of operations, or liquidity. The Company recognized $17 million and $83 million in the second quarter and first six months of 2024, respectively, of losses for estimated decommissioning costs on GOA properties previously sold to Fieldwood and other GOA operators.

The Company is party to various legal actions arising in the ordinary course of business, including litigation and governmental and regulatory controls, which also may include controls related to the potential impacts of climate change. As of June 30, 2025, 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. The Company’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 the Company’s financial position, results of operations, or liquidity after consideration of recorded accruals. With respect to material matters for which the Company 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.

As more fully described in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2024, Louisiana surface owners often file lawsuits or assert claims against oil and gas companies, including the Company, claiming that operators and working interest owners in the chain of title are liable for environmental damages on the leased premises, including damages measured by the cost of restoration of the leased premises to its original condition, regardless of the value of the underlying property. From time to time, restoration lawsuits and claims are resolved by the Company for amounts that are not material to the Company, while new lawsuits and claims are asserted against the Company. With respect to each of the pending lawsuits and claims, the amount claimed is not currently determinable or is not material. Further, the overall exposure related to these lawsuits and claims is not currently determinable. While adverse judgments against the Company are possible, the Company intends to actively defend these lawsuits and claims.

Currently, the State of Louisiana, a number of coastal parishes in Louisiana, and the City of New Orleans, as plaintiffs, are all pursuing various lawsuits against many oil and gas producers with current or historic operations in Louisiana. In these cases, the plaintiffs allege that defendants’ oil and gas exploration, production, and transportation operations in specified fields were conducted in violation of the State and Local Coastal Resources Management Act of 1978, as amended, and applicable regulations, rules, orders, and ordinances promulgated or adopted thereunder by the Parish or the State of Louisiana. Plaintiffs allege that defendants caused substantial damage to land and water bodies located in the coastal zone of Louisiana. Plaintiffs seek, among other things, unspecified damages for alleged violations of applicable law within the coastal zone, the payment of costs necessary to clear, re-vegetate, detoxify, and otherwise restore the subject coastal zone as near as practicable to its original condition, and actual restoration of the coastal zone to its original condition. Following its settlement with a number of parishes and the state, the Company is now a defendant in only one coastal zone lawsuit, which was filed by the City of New Orleans against the Company and a number of oil and gas operators and pipeline companies. The Company is vigorously defending this lawsuit.

In a case captioned Apollo Exploration, LLC, Cogent Exploration, Ltd. Co. & SellmoCo, LLC v. Apache Corporation, Cause No. CV50538 in the 385th Judicial District Court, Midland County, Texas, plaintiffs alleged damages in excess of $200 million (having previously claimed in excess of $1.1 billion) relating to purchase and sale agreements, mineral leases, and area of mutual interest agreements concerning properties located in Hartley, Moore, Potter, and Oldham Counties, Texas. The trial court entered final judgment in favor of the Company, ruling that the plaintiffs take nothing by their claims and awarding the Company its attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in defending the lawsuit. The court of appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part the trial court’s judgment thereby reinstating some of plaintiffs’ claims. The Texas Supreme Court granted the Company’s petition for review and heard oral argument in October 2022. On April 28, 2023, the Texas Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals’ decision and remanded the case back to the court of appeals for further proceedings. After plaintiffs’ request for rehearing, on July 21, 2023, the Texas Supreme Court reaffirmed its reversal of the court of appeals’ decision and remand of the case back to the court of appeals for further proceedings. Upon remand, on March 6, 2025, the court of appeals affirmed the entirety of the trial courts’ orders resulting in final judgment in favor of the Company, plaintiffs taking nothing by their claims,

Pursuant to a Sale and Purchase Agreement dated April 9, 2015 (Quadrant SPA), the Company and its subsidiaries divested Australian operations to Quadrant Energy Pty Ltd (Quadrant). Closing occurred on June 5, 2015. In April 2017, the Company filed suit against Quadrant for breach of the Quadrant SPA. In its suit, the Company seeks approximately AUD $80 million. In December 2017, Quadrant filed a defense of equitable set-off to the Company’s claim and a counterclaim seeking approximately AUD $200 million in the aggregate. In 2018, Quadrant was acquired by Australian oil and gas company Santos, Ltd., who assumed Quadrant’s place in the ongoing litigation. In early 2025, Santos amended the pending counterclaims to abandon a number of claims that had been asserted against the Company but maintaining counterclaims for approximately AUD $57 million. Santos then filed a new lawsuit in the Supreme Court of Western Australia contending that it may be liable to the Australian Taxation Office for assessments, penalties, and interest related to the 2014 and 2015 tax years of approximately AUD $133 million and asserting that, if such amounts must be paid, the Company is liable to Santos for those amounts under the Quadrant SPA. All lawsuits related to the Quadrant SPA have now been consolidated into the same proceeding. The Company will vigorously prosecute its claim while vigorously defending against any counterclaims.

On or about April 7, 2023, Apache was sued in a purported class action in New Mexico styled Kulp Minerals LLC v. Apache Corporation, Case No. D-506-CV-2023-00352 in the Fifth Judicial District. The Kulp Minerals case has not been certified and seeks to represent a group of owners allegedly owed statutory interest under New Mexico law as a result of purported late oil and gas payments. The amount of this claim is not yet reasonably determinable. The Company intends to vigorously defend against the claims asserted in this lawsuit.

The Company is not aware of any environmental claims existing as of June 30, 2025, 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.

In 2013, Apache sold its Gulf of America (GOA) Shelf operations and properties and its GOA operating subsidiary, GOM Shelf LLC (GOM Shelf) to Fieldwood Energy LLC (Fieldwood). Fieldwood assumed the obligation to decommission the properties held by GOM Shelf and the properties acquired from Apache and its other subsidiaries (collectively, the Legacy GOA Assets). On February 14, 2018, Fieldwood filed for (and subsequently emerged from) Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. On August 3, 2020, Fieldwood filed for (and subsequently emerged from) Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection for a second time. Upon emergence from this second bankruptcy, the Legacy GOA Assets were separated into a standalone company, which was subsequently merged into GOM Shelf. Under GOM Shelf’s limited liability company agreement, the proceeds of production of the Legacy GOA Assets are to be used to fund the operation of GOM Shelf and the decommissioning of Legacy GOA Assets. Pursuant to the terms of the original transaction, as amended in the first bankruptcy, the securing of the asset retirement obligations for the Legacy GOA Assets as and when Apache is required to perform or pay for any such decommissioning was accomplished through the posting of letters of credit in favor of Apache (Letters of Credit), the provision of two bonds (Bonds) in favor of Apache, and the establishment of a trust account of which Apache was a beneficiary and which was funded by net profits interests (NPIs) depending on future oil prices. In addition, after such sources have been exhausted, Apache agreed upon resolution of GOM Shelf’s second bankruptcy to GOM Shelf loans of up to $400 million to perform decommissioning, with such loans and related obligations secured by first and prior liens on the Legacy GOA Assets.

By letter dated April 5, 2022 (replacing two earlier letters) and by subsequent letter dated March 1, 2023, GOM Shelf notified the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) that it was unable to fund the decommissioning obligations that it was obligated to perform on certain of the Legacy GOA Assets. As a result, Apache and other current and former owners in these assets have received orders from BSEE and demands from third parties to decommission certain of the Legacy GOA Assets included in GOM Shelf’s notifications to BSEE. Apache expects to receive similar orders and demands on the other Legacy GOA Assets included in GOM Shelf’s notification letters. Apache has also received orders to decommission other Legacy GOA Assets that were not included in GOM Shelf’s notification letters. Further, Apache anticipates that GOM Shelf may send additional such notices to BSEE in the future and that it may receive additional orders from BSEE requiring it to decommission other Legacy GOA Assets.

On June 21, 2023, two sureties that issued Bonds directly to Apache and two sureties that issued bonds to the issuing bank on the Letters of Credit filed suit against Apache in a case styled Zurich American Insurance Company, HCC International Insurance Company PLC, Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company and Everest Reinsurance Company (Insurers) v. Apache Corporation, Cause No. 2023-38238 in the 281st Judicial District Court, Harris County Texas. The sureties sought to prevent Apache from drawing on the $148 million in Bonds and $350 million in Letters of Credit and further alleged that they are discharged from their reimbursement obligations related to decommissioning costs and are entitled to other relief. The parties settled their dispute in the first quarter of 2025, which resulted in, among other things, mutual releases, the retention by Apache of all amounts drawn on the Letters of Credit, and payment to Apache of $140 million under the Bonds.

The Company has also recorded contingent liabilities in the amounts of $1.0 billion for each of the periods ended June 30, 2025 and December 31, 2024, representing the estimated costs of decommissioning it may be required to perform on the Legacy GOA Assets. There have been no other changes in estimates from December 31, 2024 that would have a material impact on the Company’s financial position, results of operations, or liquidity.