NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

(Unaudited)

These financial statements have been prepared by Apache Corporation (Apache or the Company) without audit, pursuant to the rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). They reflect all adjustments that are, in the opinion of management, necessary for a fair statement of the results for the interim periods, on a basis consistent with the annual audited financial statements. All such adjustments are of a normal recurring nature. Certain information, accounting policies, and footnote disclosures normally included in financial statements prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States (U.S. GAAP) have been omitted pursuant to such rules and regulations, although the Company believes that the disclosures are adequate to make the information presented not misleading. This Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q should be read along with Apache’s Current Report on Form 8-K dated July 17, 2014 for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013, which contains a summary of the Company’s significant accounting policies and other disclosures.

The Company’s financial statements for prior periods include reclassifications that were made to conform to the current-period presentation. In March 2014, Apache completed the sale of all of its operations in Argentina. Results of operations and cash flows for Argentina operations are reflected as discontinued operations in the Company’s financial statements for all periods presented. For more information regarding this divestiture, please refer to Note 2–Acquisitions and Divestitures.

As of June 30, 2014, Apache’s significant accounting policies are consistent with those discussed in Note 1—Summary of Significant Accounting Policies to the consolidated financial statements contained in Apache’s Current Report on Form 8-K dated July 17, 2014 for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013.

Use of Estimates

The preparation of financial statements in conformity with U.S. GAAP requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of revenues and expenses during the reporting period. Significant estimates with regard to these financial statements include the fair value determination of acquired assets and liabilities, the estimate of proved oil and gas reserves and related present value estimates of future net cash flows therefrom, assessing asset retirement obligations, and the estimate of income taxes. Actual results could differ from those estimates.

Restricted Cash

The Company classifies cash balances as restricted cash when cash is restricted as to withdrawal or usage. As of June 30, 2014, the Company had approximately $1.4 billion of proceeds from the sale of our deepwater Gulf of Mexico properties held by a qualified intermediary and available for use in a like-kind exchange under Section 1031 of the U.S. Internal Revenue Code. The Company has the option to use these funds for the acquisition of properties or receive the funds in cash after a short-term contractual period. As of the date of this filing, the Company expects to close on the acquisition of like-kind properties for $589 million, and as such, the balance is classified as long-term restricted cash on Apache’s consolidated balance sheet as of June 30, 2014. The remaining proceeds of approximately $778 million are classified as short-term restricted cash as of June 30, 2014. Should the Company elect to use additional funds for a like-kind exchange, the balance will be reclassified to long-term restricted cash until the funds are expended. For more information regarding the sale of the deepwater Gulf of Mexico properties, please refer to Note 2—Acquisitions and Divestitures.

Oil and Gas Property

The Company follows the full-cost method of accounting for its oil and gas property. Under this method of accounting, all costs incurred for both successful and unsuccessful exploration and development activities, including salaries, benefits and other internal costs directly identified with these activities, and oil and gas property acquisitions are capitalized. The net book value of oil and gas properties, less related deferred income taxes, may not exceed a calculated “ceiling.” The ceiling limitation is the estimated after-tax future net cash flows from proved oil and gas reserves, discounted at 10 percent per annum and adjusted for designated cash flow hedges. Estimated future net cash flows are calculated using end-of-period costs and an unweighted arithmetic average of commodity prices in effect on the first day of each of the previous 12 months, held flat for the life of the production, except where prices are defined by contractual arrangements.

Any excess of the net book value of proved oil and gas properties, less related deferred income taxes, over the ceiling is charged to expense and reflected as “Additional depreciation, depletion and amortization” (DD&A) in the accompanying statement of consolidated operations. Such limitations are imposed separately on a country-by-country basis and are tested quarterly. For a discussion of the calculation of estimated future net cash flows, please refer to Note 14—Supplemental Oil and Gas Disclosures to the consolidated financial statements contained in Apache’s Current Report on Form 8-K dated July 17, 2014 for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013.

6

In the second quarter of 2014, the Company recorded a $203 million ($77 million net of tax) non-cash write-down of the carrying value of the Company’s North Sea proved oil and gas properties.

New Pronouncements Issued But Not Yet Adopted

In April 2014, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) issued Accounting Standards Update (ASU) No. 2014-08—Presentation of Financial Statements (Topic 205) and Property, Plant, and Equipment (Topic 360): Reporting Discontinued Operations and Disclosures of Disposals of Components of an Entity. ASU 2014-08 modifies the criteria for disposals to qualify as discontinued operations and expands related disclosures. The guidance is effective for annual and interim reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2014. Adoption of this amendment will not have a material effect on our financial position or results of operations.

In May 2014, the FASB and the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) issued a joint revenue recognition standard, ASU 2014-09. The new standard removes inconsistencies in existing standards, changes the way companies recognize revenue from contracts with customers, and increases disclosure requirements. The guidance requires companies to recognize revenue to depict the transfer of goods or services to customers in amounts that reflect the consideration to which the company expects to be entitled in exchange for those goods or services. ASU 2014-09 is effective for annual and interim periods beginning after December 15, 2016. The standard is required to be adopted using either the full retrospective approach, with all prior periods presented adjusted, or the modified retrospective approach, with a cumulative adjustment to retained earnings on the opening balance sheet. The Company is currently evaluating the level of effort needed to implement the standard, the impact of adopting this standard on its consolidated financial statements, and whether to use the full retrospective approach or the modified retrospective approach.

2014 Activity

Gulf of Mexico Deepwater Divestiture

On June 30, 2014, Apache completed the sale of non-operated interests in the Lucius and Heidelberg development projects and 11 primary term deepwater exploration blocks in the Gulf of Mexico for $1.4 billion. The effective date of the transaction was May 1, 2014. Apache’s net book value of oil and gas properties was reduced by approximately $850 million of proved property costs and $518 million of unproved property costs as a result of the transaction.

Canada Divestiture

On April 30, 2014, Apache completed the sale of primarily dry gas producing hydrocarbon assets in the Deep Basin area of western Alberta and British Columbia, Canada, for $374 million. The assets comprise 328,400 net acres in the Ojay, Noel, and Wapiti areas. Apache retained 100 percent of its working interest in horizons below the Cretaceous in the Wapiti area, including rights to the liquids-rich Montney and other deeper horizons. The effective date of the transaction was January 1, 2014.

7

Argentina Divestiture

On March 12, 2014, Apache’s subsidiaries completed the sale of all of the Company’s operations in Argentina to YPF Sociedad Anónima for cash consideration of $800 million (subject to customary closing adjustments) plus the assumption of $52 million of bank debt as of June 30, 2013. The results of operations related to Argentina have been classified as discontinued operations in all periods presented in this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q. The carrying amounts of the major classes of assets and liabilities associated with the disposition were as follows:

Sales and other operating revenues and loss from discontinued operations related to the Argentina disposition were as follows:

2013 Activity

Egypt Partnership

On November 14, 2013, Apache completed the sale of a one-third minority participation in its Egypt oil and gas business to a subsidiary of Sinopec International Petroleum Exploration and Production Corporation (Sinopec). Apache received cash consideration of $2.95 billion after customary closing adjustments. Apache continues to operate its Egypt upstream oil and gas business. Apache recorded $1.9 billion of the proceeds as a noncontrolling interest, which is reflected as a separate component of equity in the Company’s consolidated balance sheet. This represents one-third of Apache’s net book value of its Egypt holdings at the time of the transaction. The remaining proceeds were recorded as additional paid-in capital. Included in “Net income including noncontrolling interest” for the quarter ended June 30, 2014, is net income attributable to Sinopec’s interest totaling $108 million. For the first half of 2014, net income attributable to Sinopec’s interest totaled $206 million, of which the Company has distributed $66 million to Sinopec.

8

Gulf of Mexico Shelf Divestiture

On September 30, 2013, Apache completed the sale of its Gulf of Mexico Shelf operations and properties to Fieldwood Energy LLC (Fieldwood), an affiliate of Riverstone Holdings. Under the terms of the agreement, Apache received cash consideration of $3.7 billion, and Fieldwood assumed $1.5 billion of discounted asset abandonment liabilities. Additionally, Apache retained 50 percent of its ownership interest in all exploration blocks and in horizons below production in developed blocks.

Canada LNG Project

In February 2013, Apache completed a transaction with Chevron Canada Limited (Chevron Canada) under which each company became a 50-percent owner of the Kitimat LNG plant, the Pacific Trail Pipelines Limited Partnership (PTP), and 644,000 gross undeveloped acres in the Horn River and Liard basins. Chevron Canada will operate the LNG plant and pipeline while Apache Canada will continue to operate the upstream assets. Apache’s net proceeds from the transaction were $396 million after post-closing adjustments, and no gain or loss was recorded.

Objectives and Strategies

The Company is exposed to fluctuations in crude oil and natural gas prices on the majority of its worldwide production. Apache manages the variability in its cash flows by occasionally entering into derivative transactions on a portion of its crude oil and natural gas production. The Company utilizes various types of derivative financial instruments, including swaps and options, to manage fluctuations in cash flows resulting from changes in commodity prices.

Counterparty Risk

The use of derivative instruments exposes the Company to counterparty credit risk, or the risk that a counterparty will be unable to meet its commitments. To reduce the concentration of exposure to any individual counterparty, Apache utilizes a diversified group of investment-grade rated counterparties, primarily financial institutions, for its derivative transactions. As of June 30, 2014, Apache had derivative positions with 14 counterparties. The Company monitors counterparty creditworthiness on an ongoing basis; however, it cannot predict sudden changes in counterparties’ creditworthiness. In addition, even if such changes are not sudden, the Company may be limited in its ability to mitigate an increase in counterparty credit risk. Should one of these counterparties not perform, Apache may not realize the benefit of some of its derivative instruments resulting from lower commodity prices.

The Company executes commodity derivative transactions under master agreements that have netting provisions that provide for offsetting payables against receivables. In general, if a party to a derivative transaction incurs a material deterioration in its credit ratings, as defined in the applicable agreement, the other party has the right to demand the posting of collateral, demand a transfer, or terminate the arrangement. The Company’s net derivative liability position at June 30, 2014, represents the aggregate fair value of all derivative instruments with credit-risk-related contingent features that are in a net liability position. The Company has not provided any collateral to any of its counterparties as of June 30, 2014.

Apache has currently elected not to designate any of its qualifying natural gas and oil derivatives as cash flow hedges. Changes in the fair value of these derivatives for the current period are recorded in the Company’s statement of consolidated operations.

9

Fair Value Measurements

Apache’s commodity derivative instruments consist of variable-to-fixed price commodity swaps. The fair values of the Company’s derivatives are not actively quoted in the open market. The Company uses a market approach to estimate the fair values of its derivative instruments, utilizing commodity futures price strips for the underlying commodities provided by a reputable third party.

The following table presents the Company’s derivative assets and liabilities measured at fair value on a recurring basis:

Derivative Assets and Liabilities Recorded in the Consolidated Balance Sheet

All derivative instruments are reflected as either assets or liabilities at fair value in the consolidated balance sheet. These fair values are recorded by netting asset and liability positions where counterparty master netting arrangements contain provisions for net settlement. The carrying value of the Company’s derivative assets and liabilities and their locations on the consolidated balance sheet are as follows:

10

Unrealized gains and losses for derivative activity recorded in the statement of consolidated operations is reflected in the statement of consolidated cash flows as a component of “Other” in “Adjustments to reconcile net income to net cash provided by operating activities.”

11

The Company’s debt is recorded at the carrying amount, net of unamortized discount, on its consolidated balance sheet. The carrying amount of the Company’s commercial paper and uncommitted credit facilities and overdraft lines approximates fair value because the interest rates are variable and reflective of market rates. Apache uses a market approach to determine the fair value of its notes and debentures using estimates provided by an independent investment financial data services firm (a Level 2 fair value measurement).

As of June 30, 2014, the Company had unsecured committed revolving credit facilities totaling $3.3 billion, of which $1.0 billion matures in August 2016 and $2.3 billion matures in June 2018 pursuant to a one-year extension approved in May 2014 under the terms of the $2.3 billion facilities. The facilities consist of a $1.7 billion facility and $1.0 billion facility for the U.S., a $300 million facility for Australia, and a $300 million facility for Canada. As of June 30, 2014, available borrowing capacity under the Company’s credit facilities was $3.3 billion. The Company’s committed credit facilities are used to support Apache’s commercial paper program.

The Company has available a $3.0 billion commercial paper program, which generally enables Apache to borrow funds for up to 270 days at competitive interest rates. The commercial paper program is fully supported by available borrowing capacity under our committed credit facilities. At June 30, 2014 and December 31, 2013, the Company had no outstanding commercial paper.

As of June 30, 2014, the Company had approximately $1 million of current debt outstanding borrowed on uncommitted credit facilities and overdraft lines, compared with $53 million as of December 31, 2013.

12

The Company estimates its annual effective income tax rate in recording its quarterly provision for income taxes in the various jurisdictions in which the Company operates. Statutory tax rate changes and other significant or unusual items are recognized as discrete items in the quarter in which they occur. Accordingly, the Company recorded the income tax impact of a $203 million non-cash write-down of its North Sea proved oil and gas properties as a discrete item in the second quarter of 2014.

Apache and its subsidiaries are subject to U.S. federal income tax as well as income or capital taxes in various state and foreign jurisdictions. The Company’s tax reserves are related to tax years that may be subject to examination by the relevant taxing authority. The Company is under audit with the Internal Revenue Service for the 2011 and 2012 tax years. The Company is also under audit in various states and in most of the Company’s foreign jurisdictions as part of its normal course of business.

13

Legal Matters

Apache is party to various legal actions arising in the ordinary course of business, including litigation and governmental and regulatory controls. As of June 30, 2014, the Company has an accrued liability of approximately $21 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.

For additional information on each of the Legal Matters described below, please see Note 8—Commitments and Contingencies to the consolidated financial statements contained in Apache’s Current Report on Form 8-K dated July 17, 2014 for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013.

Argentine Environmental Claims and Argentina Tariff

In 2003, the Asociación de Superficiarios de la Patagonia (ASSUPA) filed lawsuits against Company subsidiaries in Argentina courts relating to various environmental and remediation claims concerning certain geographic areas of Argentina, including the Neuquén and Austral basins. In addition, effective December 1, 2011, Enargas, an autonomous entity that functions under the Argentine Ministry of Economy, created a tariff charge on all fuel gas used by oil and gas producers in field operations, which is likewise the subject of legal proceedings in Argentina.

On March 12, 2014, the Company and its subsidiaries completed the sale of all of the Company’s subsidiaries’ operations and properties in Argentina to YPF Sociedad Anonima (YPF). As part of that sale, YPF assumed responsibility for all of the past, present, and future litigation in Argentina involving Company subsidiaries, including the ASSUPA and Enargas matters, except that Company subsidiaries have agreed to indemnify YPF for certain environmental, tax, and royalty obligations capped at an aggregate of $100 million. The indemnity is subject to specific agreed conditions precedent, thresholds, contingencies, limitations, claim deadlines, loss sharing, and other terms and conditions. On April 11, 2014, YPF provided its first notice of claims pursuant to the indemnity. Company subsidiaries have not paid any amounts under the indemnity, but will continue to review and consider claims presented by YPF. Further, Company subsidiaries retain the right to enforce certain Argentina-related indemnification obligations against Pioneer Natural Resources Company (Pioneer) up to $67.5 million pursuant to the terms and conditions of stock purchase agreements entered in 2006 between Company subsidiaries and Pioneer subsidiaries. No other material change in the status of these matters has occurred since the filing of Apache’s Current Report on Form 8-K dated July 17, 2014 for its 2013 fiscal year.

Louisiana Restoration  

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 a case captioned Heloise, LLC, et al. v. BP America Production Company, et al. , Case No. 120113 in the District Court for the Parish of Lafourche, plaintiff landowners allege that defendants’ oil and gas operations contaminated their property primarily with chlorides. Apache, a defendant in the case, acquired its interest in the oil and gas operations on plaintiffs’ property from the former operator, Amoco Production Company, when the Company purchased the stock of Amoco’s subsidiary, MW Petroleum Corporation, in 1991. BP America Production Company, as Amoco’s successor in interest, and Apache dispute whether and to what extent they might owe each other indemnity in the case. Plaintiffs’ expert has recently opined that the cost of remediating plaintiffs’ 825 acres exceeds $200 million. Trial is set for December 2014. While an adverse judgment against the Company might be possible, Apache intends to vigorously defend the case.

With respect to Board of Commissioners of the Southeast Louisiana Flood Protection Authority – East v. Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company et al. , Civil Action no. 13-5410, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, the federal court has retained jurisdiction over the matter after denying plaintiff’s motion to remand on June 27, 2014. Further, the Louisiana state government has passed a new law (SB 469) clarifying that only entities authorized under the Coastal Zone Management Act may bring litigation to assert claims arising out of the permitted activities. Plaintiff is not one of those authorized entities. The Company and other defendants will seek dismissal of the case, including pursuant to SB 469.

14

No other material change in the status of these matters has occurred since the filing of Apache’s Current Report on Form 8-K dated July 17, 2014 for its 2013 fiscal year.

Australia Gas Pipeline Force Majeure  

In 2008, Company subsidiaries reported a pipeline explosion that interrupted deliveries of natural gas in Australia to customers under various long-term contracts.

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. On September 17, 2013, the Western Australia Court of Appeal dismissed the Company subsidiaries’ appeal concerning Alcoa’s remaining tort claim for economic loss. On October 15, 2013, the Company subsidiaries applied to the High Court of Australia for special leave to appeal. On April 11, 2014, the High Court refused special leave to appeal. All of the Company subsidiaries’ defenses remain intact for further proceedings at the trial court level, including the defenses that were the subject of the special leave application. Further, in January 2014, an Alcoa affiliate pleaded guilty in United States of America v. Alcoa World Alumina LLC , Criminal No. 14-7, in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, to a charge under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) anti-bribery provisions, 15 U.S.C. Section 78dd-2 and 18 U.S.C. Section 2. This matter overlaps with Alcoa’s claims against Company subsidiaries in that both cases concern alumina produced from Alcoa’s alumina refineries in Western Australia during the period of the gas supply disruption in 2008-2009. In the circumstances of the admitted, agreed, and stipulated facts set forth in the Alcoa affiliate’s Plea Agreement, which is a public document, Company subsidiaries will defend against Alcoa’s claims on the basis that Alcoa is barred by law from recovering economic losses.

In the week prior to expiration of the applicable six-year limitations period on June 3, 2014, the following civil lawsuits were filed in connection with the Varanus Island pipeline explosion (the Incident):

15

With respect to the claims in which the plaintiffs have not specified an amount of alleged damages, the exposure related to such claims is not currently determinable but, in each case, the alleged damages are not expected to be material. Insurance statistics maintained by the Insurance Council of Australia show that the total insured loss resulting from the gas supply disruption was $230 million AUD.

The applicable six-year limitations period has expired. In six years none of the above-referenced plaintiffs presented a claim to Apache or its subsidiaries prior to filing suit and instead allowed the same plaintiff law firm to file suit in Western Australia at the latest possible moment. The Apache defendants do not believe that any of the claims have merit and will vigorously pursue their defenses against such claims. The plaintiffs seek relief primarily in tort, in circumvention of their own positive arrangements regarding risk allocation. In respect of the pending claims filed prior to expiration of the limitations period, contractual liquidated damages under the long-term contracts with such provisions, and under which an Apache subsidiary is a gas supplier, would not be expected to exceed $20 million AUD exclusive of interest. This is a reduction from previous estimates.

No other material change in the status of these matters has occurred since the filing of Apache’s Current Report on Form 8-K dated July 17, 2014 for its 2013 fiscal year.

Breton Lawsuit

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 material change in the status of this matter has occurred since the filing of Apache’s Current Report on Form 8-K dated July 17, 2014 for its 2013 fiscal year.

Escheat Audits

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 Current Report on Form 8-K dated July 17, 2014 for its 2013 fiscal year.

Burrup-Related Gas Supply Lawsuits

On October 11, 2013, a lawsuit captioned Pankaj Oswal v. Apache Corporation , No. WAD 389/2013, in the Federal Court of Australia, District of Western Australia, General Division, was filed in which plaintiff asserts claims against the Company under the Australian Trade Practices Act. The Company does not believe the lawsuit has merit and will vigorously defend against it. No other material change in the status of this matter has occurred since the filing of Apache’s Current Report on Form 8-K dated July 17, 2014 for its 2013 fiscal year.

In 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, plaintiff filed an application seeking to amend her statement of claim in order to add parties as defendants to the proceedings, including the Company and certain of its subsidiaries. Similarly, in a companion case captioned Pankaj Oswal v. Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited (ANZ) et al. , No. SCI 2012 01995, in the Supreme Court of Victoria, plaintiff also filed an application seeking to amend his statement of claim in order to add parties as defendants to the proceedings, including the Company and certain of its subsidiaries. This is the second attempt by the plaintiffs to amend their pleadings, with their first attempt having been unsuccessful. While reserving all rights, including all defenses to the plaintiffs’ proposed amended pleadings, the Company and its subsidiaries did not object to the plaintiffs’ revised applications to amend their pleadings, which is a procedural matter. The court granted plaintiffs’ applications and entered a scheduling order with respect to the filing of all amended pleadings. On July 23, 2014, the Apache defendants filed their responsive pleadings, which include substantial counterclaims against the Oswals by a Company subsidiary. No other material change in the status of these matters has occurred since the filing of Apache’s Current Report on Form 8-K dated July 17, 2014 for its 2013 fiscal year.

16

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 Current Report on Form 8-K dated July 17, 2014 for its 2013 fiscal year.

Environmental Matters

As of June 30, 2014, the Company had an undiscounted reserve for environmental remediation of approximately $89 million. The Company is not aware of any environmental claims existing as of June 30, 2014, 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.