Note 1—Basis of Presentation

The interim-period financial information presented in the financial statements included in this report is unaudited and, in the opinion of management, includes all known accruals and adjustments necessary for a fair presentation of the consolidated financial position of ConocoPhillips and its results of operations and cash flows for such periods. All such adjustments are of a normal and recurring nature unless otherwise disclosed. Certain notes and other information have been condensed or omitted from the interim financial statements included in this report. Therefore, these financial statements should be read in conjunction with the consolidated financial statements and notes included in our 2014 Annual Report on Form 10-K.

The results of operations for our former Nigeria business have been classified as discontinued operations for all periods presented. Unless indicated otherwise, the information in the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements relates to our continuing operations.

Note 2—Variable Interest Entities (VIEs)

We hold variable interests in VIEs that have not been consolidated because we are not considered the primary beneficiary. Information on our significant VIE follows:

Australia Pacific LNG Pty Ltd (APLNG)

APLNG is considered a VIE, as it has entered into certain contractual arrangements that provide it with additional forms of subordinated financial support. We are not the primary beneficiary of APLNG because we share with Origin Energy and China Petrochemical Corporation (Sinopec) the power to direct the key activities of APLNG that most significantly impact its economic performance, which involve activities related to the production and commercialization of coalbed methane, as well as liquefied natural gas (LNG) processing and export marketing. As a result, we do not consolidate APLNG, and it is accounted for as an equity method investment.

As of September 30, 2015, we have not provided any financial support to APLNG other than amounts previously contractually required. Unless we elect otherwise, we have no requirement to provide liquidity or purchase the assets of APLNG. See Note 5—Investments, Loans and Long-Term Receivables, and Note 10—Guarantees, for additional information.

Inventories valued on the last-in, first-out (LIFO) basis totaled $270 million and $440 million at September 30, 2015 and December 31, 2014, respectively.

5

Table of Contents

Note 4—Assets Held for Sale

On October 5, 2015, we entered into a definitive agreement to sell certain western Canada proved and unproved properties. The transaction is expected to close in the fourth quarter of 2015. As of September 30, 2015, the net carrying value of these assets was approximately $129 million, which primarily included $375 million of properties, plants and equipment (PP&E) and $235 million of asset retirement obligations.

On October 30, 2015, we entered into a definitive agreement to sell certain gas producing properties and gathering facilities in Texas and Louisiana. The transaction is expected to close late fourth quarter 2015 or early 2016. As of September 30, 2015, the net carrying value of these assets was approximately $232 million, which primarily included $358 million of PP&E and $126 million of asset retirement obligations.

Note 5—Investments, Loans and Long-Term Receivables

APLNG

APLNG’s $8.5 billion project finance facility consists of financing agreements executed by APLNG with the Export-Import Bank of the United States for approximately $2.9 billion, the Export-Import Bank of China for approximately $2.7 billion, and a syndicate of Australian and international commercial banks for approximately $2.9 billion. At September 30, 2015, $8.4 billion had been drawn from the facility. In connection with the execution of the project financing, we provided a completion guarantee for our pro-rata share of the project finance facility until the project achieves financial completion. See Note 10—Guarantees, for additional information.

APLNG is considered a VIE, as it has entered into certain contractual arrangements that provide it with additional forms of subordinated financial support. See Note 2—Variable Interest Entities (VIEs), for additional information.

At September 30, 2015, the book value of our equity method investment in APLNG was $11,530 million, net of a $1,522 million reduction due to cumulative foreign currency translation effects. The balance is included in the “Investments and long-term receivables” line on our consolidated balance sheet.

FCCL

At September 30, 2015, the book value of our equity method investment in FCCL was $8,346 million, net of a $1,667 million reduction due to cumulative foreign currency translation effects. The balance is included in the “Investments and long-term receivables” line on our consolidated balance sheet. In the first quarter of 2014, we received a $1.3 billion distribution from FCCL, which is included in the “Undistributed equity earnings” line on our consolidated statement of cash flows.

Loans and Long-Term Receivables

As part of our normal ongoing business operations and consistent with industry practice, we enter into numerous agreements with other parties to pursue business opportunities. Included in such activity are loans made to certain affiliated and non-affiliated companies. At September 30, 2015, significant loans to affiliated companies included $804 million in project financing to Qatar Liquefied Gas Company Limited (3) (QG3).

The long-term portion of these loans is included in the “Loans and advances—related parties” line on our consolidated balance sheet, while the short-term portion is in “Accounts and notes receivable—related parties.”

6

Table of Contents

Note 6—Suspended Wells, Unproved Property Impairments and Other Exploration Expenses

The capitalized cost of suspended wells at September 30, 2015, was $1,466 million, an increase of $167 million from $1,299 million at year-end 2014. Three suspended wells in Malaysia totaling $45 million were charged to dry hole expense during the first nine months of 2015 relating to exploratory well costs capitalized for a period greater than one year as of December 31, 2014.

In the second quarter of 2015, we decided not to pursue further evaluation of our Lebork, Damnica and Karwia concessions in Poland and Block 37 lease in Angola. Accordingly, we recorded pre-tax impairments of $93 million and $116 million, respectively, for the associated carrying value of capitalized undeveloped leasehold cost.

In the third quarter of 2015, we decided not to conduct further activity on certain Gulf of Mexico leases and to relinquish our Palangkaraya Production Sharing Contract in Indonesia. Accordingly, we recorded pre-tax impairments of $240 million and $105 million, respectively, for the associated carrying value of capitalized undeveloped leasehold cost. Additionally, in line with our July 2015 announcement of plans to reduce future deepwater exploration spending, we have recognized cancellation costs of $335 million and written off $48 million of capitalized rig costs in relation to the termination of our Gulf of Mexico deepwater drillship contract with Ensco in the Lower 48 segment in the third quarter of 2015.

These charges are included in the “Exploration expenses” line on our consolidated income statement.

The nine-month period of 2015 included impairments in our Europe segment of $96 million, primarily as a result of lower natural gas prices and reduced volume forecasts.

The three- and nine-month periods of 2014 included an impairment in our Lower 48 segment of $102 million, primarily as a result of reduced volume forecasts.

Unproved property impairments, included in the “Exploration expenses” line on our consolidated income statement, are further discussed in Note 6—Suspended Wells, Unproved Property Impairments and Other Exploration Expenses.

7

Table of Contents

Note 8—Debt

We have two commercial paper programs supported by our $7.0 billion revolving credit facility: the ConocoPhillips $6.1 billion program, primarily a funding source for short-term working capital needs, and the ConocoPhillips Qatar Funding Ltd. $900 million program, which is used to fund commitments relating to QG3. Commercial paper maturities are generally limited to 90 days.

At September 30, 2015 and December 31, 2014, we had no direct outstanding borrowings under the revolving credit facility, with no letters of credit as of September 30, 2015 or December 31, 2014. Under the ConocoPhillips Qatar Funding Ltd. commercial paper program, $803 million of commercial paper was outstanding at September 30, 2015, compared with $860 million at December 31, 2014. Since we had $803 million of commercial paper outstanding and had issued no letters of credit, we had access to $6.2 billion in borrowing capacity under our revolving credit facility at September 30, 2015.

At September 30, 2015, we classified $695 million of short-term debt as long-term debt, based on our ability and intent to refinance the obligation on a long-term basis under our revolving credit facility.

In May 2015, we issued notes consisting of:

The net proceeds were used for general corporate purposes.

*Includes components of other comprehensive income, which are disclosed separately in the Consolidated Statement of Comprehensive Income.

8

Table of Contents

Note 10—Guarantees

At September 30, 2015, we were liable for certain contingent obligations under various contractual arrangements as described below. We recognize a liability, at inception, for the fair value of our obligation as a guarantor for newly issued or modified guarantees. Unless the carrying amount of the liability is noted below, we have not recognized a liability because the fair value of the obligation is immaterial. In addition, unless otherwise stated, we are not currently performing with any significance under the guarantee and expect future performance to be either immaterial or have only a remote chance of occurrence.

APLNG Guarantees

At September 30, 2015, we had outstanding multiple guarantees in connection with our 37.5 percent ownership interest in APLNG. The following is a description of the guarantees with values calculated utilizing September 2015 exchange rates:

Other Guarantees

We have other guarantees with maximum future potential payment amounts totaling approximately $370 million, which consist primarily of guarantees of the residual value of leased corporate aircraft, a guarantee for our portion of a joint venture’s project finance reserve accounts, a guarantee to fund the short-term cash liquidity deficit of a joint venture, and a guarantee of minimum charter revenue for an LNG vessel. These guarantees have remaining terms of up to nine years or the life of the venture and would become payable if, upon sale, certain asset values are lower than guaranteed amounts, business conditions decline at guaranteed entities, or as a result of non-performance of contractual terms by guaranteed parties.

9

Table of Contents

Indemnifications

Over the years, we have entered into agreements to sell ownership interests in certain corporations, joint ventures and assets that gave rise to qualifying indemnifications. In addition we have entered into agreements involving leased facilities that provided for certain indemnifications. These agreements include indemnifications for taxes, environmental liabilities, employee claims, property damage, costs, fees and litigation. The terms of these indemnifications vary greatly. The majority of these indemnifications are related to environmental issues, the term is generally indefinite and the maximum amount of future payments is generally unlimited. The carrying amount recorded for these indemnifications at September 30, 2015, was approximately $90 million. We amortize the indemnification liability over the relevant time period, if one exists, based on the facts and circumstances surrounding each type of indemnity. In cases where the indemnification term is indefinite, we will reverse the liability when we have information the liability is essentially relieved or amortize the liability over an appropriate time period as the fair value of our indemnification exposure declines. Although it is reasonably possible future payments may exceed amounts recorded, due to the nature of the indemnifications, it is not possible to make a reasonable estimate of the maximum potential amount of future payments. Included in the recorded carrying amount at September 30, 2015, were approximately $40 million of environmental accruals for known contamination that are included in the “Asset retirement obligations and accrued environmental costs” line on our consolidated balance sheet. For additional information about environmental liabilities, see Note 11—Contingencies and Commitments.

On April 30, 2012, the separation of our Downstream businesses was completed, creating two independent energy companies: ConocoPhillips and Phillips 66. In connection with the separation, we entered into an Indemnification and Release Agreement, which provides for cross-indemnities between Phillips 66 and us and established procedures for handling claims subject to indemnification and related matters. We evaluated the impact of the indemnifications given and the Phillips 66 indemnifications received as of the separation date and concluded those fair values were immaterial.

On March 1, 2015, a supplier to one of the refineries that was included in Phillips 66 as part of the separation of our Downstream businesses formally registered Phillips 66 as a party to the supply agreement, thereby triggering a guarantee we provided at the time of separation. Our maximum potential liability for future payments under this guarantee, which would become payable if Phillips 66 does not perform its contractual obligations under the supply agreement, is approximately $1.6 billion. At September 30, 2015, the carrying value of this guarantee is approximately $100 million and the remaining term is nine years. Because Phillips 66 has indemnified us for losses incurred under this guarantee, we have recorded an indemnification asset from Phillips 66 of approximately $100 million. The recorded indemnification asset amount represents the estimated fair value of the guarantee; however, if we are required to perform under the guarantee, we would expect to recover from Phillips 66 any amounts in excess of that value, provided Phillips 66 is a going concern.

Note 11—Contingencies and Commitments

A number of lawsuits involving a variety of claims arising in the ordinary course of business have been made against ConocoPhillips. We also may be required to remove or mitigate the effects on the environment of the placement, storage, disposal or release of certain chemical, mineral and petroleum substances at various active and inactive sites. We regularly assess the need for accounting recognition or disclosure of these contingencies. In the case of all known contingencies (other than those related to income taxes), we accrue a liability when the loss is probable and the amount is reasonably estimable. If a range of amounts can be reasonably estimated and no amount within the range is a better estimate than any other amount, then the minimum of the range is accrued. We do not reduce these liabilities for potential insurance or third-party recoveries. If applicable, we accrue receivables for probable insurance or other third-party recoveries. With respect to income-tax-related contingencies, we use a cumulative probability-weighted loss accrual in cases where sustaining a tax position is less than certain.

Based on currently available information, we believe it is remote that future costs related to known contingent liability exposures will exceed current accruals by an amount that would have a material adverse impact on our

10

Table of Contents

consolidated financial statements. As we learn new facts concerning contingencies, we reassess our position both with respect to accrued liabilities and other potential exposures. Estimates particularly sensitive to future changes include contingent liabilities recorded for environmental remediation, tax and legal matters. Estimated future environmental remediation costs are subject to change due to such factors as the uncertain magnitude of cleanup costs, the unknown time and extent of such remedial actions that may be required, and the determination of our liability in proportion to that of other responsible parties. Estimated future costs related to tax and legal matters are subject to change as events evolve and as additional information becomes available during the administrative and litigation processes.

Environmental

We are subject to international, federal, state and local environmental laws and regulations. When we prepare our consolidated financial statements, we record accruals for environmental liabilities based on management’s best estimates, using all information that is available at the time. We measure estimates and base liabilities on currently available facts, existing technology, and presently enacted laws and regulations, taking into account stakeholder and business considerations. When measuring environmental liabilities, we also consider our prior experience in remediation of contaminated sites, other companies’ cleanup experience, and data released by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or other organizations. We consider unasserted claims in our determination of environmental liabilities, and we accrue them in the period they are both probable and reasonably estimable.

Although liability of those potentially responsible for environmental remediation costs is generally joint and several for federal sites and frequently so for other sites, we are usually only one of many companies cited at a particular site. Due to the joint and several liabilities, we could be responsible for all cleanup costs related to any site at which we have been designated as a potentially responsible party. We have been successful to date in sharing cleanup costs with other financially sound companies. Many of the sites at which we are potentially responsible are still under investigation by the EPA or the agency concerned. Prior to actual cleanup, those potentially responsible normally assess the site conditions, apportion responsibility and determine the appropriate remediation. In some instances, we may have no liability or may attain a settlement of liability. Where it appears that other potentially responsible parties may be financially unable to bear their proportional share, we consider this inability in estimating our potential liability, and we adjust our accruals accordingly. As a result of various acquisitions in the past, we assumed certain environmental obligations. Some of these environmental obligations are mitigated by indemnifications made by others for our benefit and some of the indemnifications are subject to dollar limits and time limits.

We are currently participating in environmental assessments and cleanups at numerous federal Superfund and comparable state and international sites. After an assessment of environmental exposures for cleanup and other costs, we make accruals on an undiscounted basis (except those acquired in a purchase business combination, which we record on a discounted basis) for planned investigation and remediation activities for sites where it is probable future costs will be incurred and these costs can be reasonably estimated. At September 30, 2015, our balance sheet included a total environmental accrual of $286 million, compared with $344 million at December 31, 2014, for remediation activities in the United States and Canada. We expect to incur a substantial amount of these expenditures within the next 30 years. We have not reduced these accruals for possible insurance recoveries. In the future, we may be involved in additional environmental assessments, cleanups and proceedings.

Legal Proceedings

We are subject to various lawsuits and claims including but not limited to matters involving oil and gas royalty and severance tax payments, gas measurement and valuation methods, contract disputes, environmental damages, personal injury, and property damage. Our primary exposures for such matters relate to alleged royalty underpayments on certain federal, state and privately owned properties and claims of alleged environmental contamination from historic operations. We will continue to defend ourselves vigorously in these matters.

Our legal organization applies its knowledge, experience and professional judgment to the specific characteristics of our cases, employing a litigation management process to manage and monitor the legal

11

Table of Contents

proceedings against us. Our process facilitates the early evaluation and quantification of potential exposures in individual cases. This process also enables us to track those cases that have been scheduled for trial and/or mediation. Based on professional judgment and experience in using these litigation management tools and available information about current developments in all our cases, our legal organization regularly assesses the adequacy of current accruals and determines if adjustment of existing accruals, or establishment of new accruals, is required.

Other Contingencies

We have contingent liabilities resulting from throughput agreements with pipeline and processing companies not associated with financing arrangements. Under these agreements, we may be required to provide any such company with additional funds through advances and penalties for fees related to throughput capacity not utilized. In addition, at September 30, 2015, we had performance obligations secured by letters of credit of $388 million (issued as direct bank letters of credit) related to various purchase commitments for materials, supplies, commercial activities and services incident to the ordinary conduct of business.

In 2007, we announced we had been unable to reach agreement with respect to our migration to an empresa mixta structure mandated by the Venezuelan government’s Nationalization Decree. As a result, Venezuela’s national oil company, Petróleos de Venezuela S.A. (PDVSA), or its affiliates, directly assumed control over ConocoPhillips’ interests in the Petrozuata and Hamaca heavy oil ventures and the offshore Corocoro development project. In response to this expropriation, we filed a request for international arbitration on November 2, 2007, with the World Bank’s International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID). An arbitration hearing was held before an ICSID tribunal during the summer of 2010. On September 3, 2013, an ICSID arbitration tribunal held that Venezuela unlawfully expropriated ConocoPhillips’ significant oil investments in June 2007. A separate arbitration phase is currently proceeding to determine the damages owed to ConocoPhillips for Venezuela’s actions. On October 10, 2014, we filed a separate arbitration under the rules of the International Chamber of Commerce against PDVSA for contractual compensation related to the Petrozuata and Hamaca heavy crude oil projects.

In 2008, Burlington Resources, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of ConocoPhillips, initiated arbitration before ICSID against The Republic of Ecuador, as a result of the newly enacted Windfall Profits Tax Law and government-mandated renegotiation of our production sharing contracts. Despite a restraining order issued by the ICSID tribunal, Ecuador confiscated the crude oil production of Burlington and its co-venturer and sold the seized crude oil. In 2009, Ecuador took over operations in Blocks 7 and 21, fully expropriating our assets. In June 2010, the ICSID tribunal concluded it has jurisdiction to hear the expropriation claim. On April 24, 2012, Ecuador filed supplemental counterclaims asserting environmental damages, which we believe are not material. The ICSID tribunal issued a decision on liability on December 14, 2012, in favor of Burlington, finding that Ecuador’s seizure of Blocks 7 and 21 was an unlawful expropriation in violation of the Ecuador-U.S. Bilateral Investment Treaty. An additional arbitration phase is now proceeding to determine the damages owed to ConocoPhillips for Ecuador’s actions and to address Ecuador’s counterclaims.

ConocoPhillips served a Notice of Arbitration on the Timor-Leste Minister of Finance in October 2012 for outstanding disputes related to a series of tax assessments. As of September 30, 2015, ConocoPhillips has paid, under protest, tax assessments totaling approximately $237 million, which are primarily recorded in the “Investments and long-term receivables” line on our consolidated balance sheet. The arbitration hearing was conducted in Singapore in June 2014 under the United Nations Commission on International Trade Laws (UNCITRAL) arbitration rules, pursuant to the terms of the Tax Stability Agreement with the Timor-Leste government. Post-hearing briefs from both parties were filed in August 2014. We are now awaiting the Tribunal’s decision. Future impacts on our business are not known at this time.

12

Table of Contents

Note 12—Derivative and Financial Instruments

Derivative Instruments

We use futures, forwards, swaps and options in various markets to meet our customer needs and capture market opportunities. Our commodity business primarily consists of natural gas, crude oil, bitumen, LNG and natural gas liquids.

Our derivative instruments are held at fair value on our consolidated balance sheet. Where these balances have the right of setoff, they are presented on a net basis. Related cash flows are recorded as operating activities on the consolidated statement of cash flows. On our consolidated income statement, realized and unrealized gains and losses are recognized either on a gross basis if directly related to our physical business or a net basis if held for trading. Gains and losses related to contracts that meet and are designated with the normal purchase normal sale exception are recognized upon settlement. We generally apply this exception to eligible crude contracts. We do not use hedge accounting for our commodity derivatives.

The following table presents the gross fair values of our commodity derivatives, excluding collateral, and the line items where they appear on our consolidated balance sheet:

The gains (losses) from commodity derivatives incurred, and the line items where they appear on our consolidated income statement were:

The table below summarizes our material net exposures resulting from outstanding commodity derivative contracts:

13

Table of Contents

Foreign Currency Exchange Derivatives

We have foreign currency exchange rate risk resulting from international operations. Our foreign currency exchange derivative activity primarily relates to managing our cash-related and foreign currency exchange rate exposures, such as firm commitments for capital programs or local currency tax payments, dividends, and cash returns from net investments in foreign affiliates. We do not elect hedge accounting on our foreign currency exchange derivatives.

The following table presents the gross fair values of our foreign currency exchange derivatives, excluding collateral, and the line items where they appear on our consolidated balance sheet:

The (gains) losses from foreign currency exchange derivatives incurred, and the line item where they appear on our consolidated income statement were:

We had the following net notional position of outstanding foreign currency exchange derivatives:

Financial Instruments

We have certain financial instruments on our consolidated balance sheet related to interest-bearing time deposits and commercial paper. These held-to-maturity financial instruments are included in “Cash and cash equivalents” on our consolidated balance sheet if the maturities at the time we made the investments were 90 days or less.

14

Table of Contents

Credit Risk

Financial instruments potentially exposed to concentrations of credit risk consist primarily of cash equivalents, over-the-counter (OTC) derivative contracts and trade receivables. Our cash equivalents are placed in high-quality commercial paper, money market funds, government debt securities and time deposits with major international banks and financial institutions.

The credit risk from our OTC derivative contracts, such as forwards and swaps, derives from the counterparty to the transaction. Individual counterparty exposure is managed within predetermined credit limits and includes the use of cash-call margins when appropriate, thereby reducing the risk of significant nonperformance. We also use futures, swaps and option contracts that have a negligible credit risk because these trades are cleared with an exchange clearinghouse and subject to mandatory margin requirements until settled; however, we are exposed to the credit risk of those exchange brokers for receivables arising from daily margin cash calls, as well as for cash deposited to meet initial margin requirements.

Our trade receivables result primarily from our petroleum operations and reflect a broad national and international customer base, which limits our exposure to concentrations of credit risk. The majority of these receivables have payment terms of 30 days or less, and we continually monitor this exposure and the creditworthiness of the counterparties. We do not generally require collateral to limit the exposure to loss; however, we will sometimes use letters of credit, prepayments and master netting arrangements to mitigate credit risk with counterparties that both buy from and sell to us, as these agreements permit the amounts owed by us or owed to others to be offset against amounts due us.

Certain of our derivative instruments contain provisions that require us to post collateral if the derivative exposure exceeds a threshold amount. We have contracts with fixed threshold amounts and other contracts with variable threshold amounts that are contingent on our credit rating. The variable threshold amounts typically decline for lower credit ratings, while both the variable and fixed threshold amounts typically revert to zero if we fall below investment grade. Cash is the primary collateral in all contracts; however, many also permit us to post letters of credit as collateral, such as transactions administered through the New York Mercantile Exchange.

The aggregate fair value of all derivative instruments with such credit-risk-related contingent features that were in a liability position on September 30, 2015 and December 31, 2014, was $122 million and $150 million, respectively. For these instruments, no collateral was posted as of September 30, 2015 or December 31, 2014. If our credit rating had been lowered one level from its “A” rating (per Standard and Poor’s) on September 30, 2015, we would be required to post no additional collateral to our counterparties. If we had been downgraded below investment grade, we would be required to post $122 million of additional collateral, either with cash or letters of credit.

15

Table of Contents

Note 13—Fair Value Measurement

We carry a portion of our assets and liabilities at fair value that are measured at a reporting date using an exit price (i.e., the price that would be received to sell an asset or paid to transfer a liability) and disclosed according to the quality of valuation inputs under the following hierarchy: