XML 90 R21.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.24.0.1

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES | 12 Months Ended
--- | ---
Dec. 31, 2023
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 December 31, 2023, the Company has an accrued liability of approximately $83 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. Argentine Environmental Claims 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, 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) in an amount up to $45 million pursuant to the terms and conditions of stock purchase agreements entered in 2006 between Company subsidiaries and subsidiaries of Pioneer. Louisiana Restoration 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. Starting in November of 2013 and continuing into 2023, several parishes in Louisiana have pending lawsuits against many oil and gas producers, including the Company. In these cases, the Parishes, as 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. Without acknowledging or admitting any liability and solely to avoid the expense and uncertainty of future litigation, the Company agreed to settle with the State of Louisiana and Louisiana coastal Parishes to resolve any potential liability on the part of the Company for claims that were or could have been asserted by the coastal Parishes and/or the State of Louisiana in the pending litigation. The settlement is subject to court approval, which the parties hope to receive at some point in the first half of 2024. The consideration to be provided by the Company in the settlement will not have a material impact on the Company’s financial position. Following settlement of these various lawsuits, the Company will be a defendant in only one remaining coastal zone lawsuit, which has been filed by the City of New Orleans against a number of oil and gas operators. Apollo Exploration Lawsuit In a case captioned Apollo Exploration, LLC, Cogent Exploration, Ltd. Co. & SellmoCo, LLC v. Apache Corporation, Cause No. CV50538 in the 385 th 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. 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. The Company will vigorously prosecute its claim while vigorously defending against Quadrant’s counter claims. Canadian Operations Divestiture Dispute Pursuant to a Sale and Purchase Agreement dated July 6, 2017 (Paramount SPA), the Company and its subsidiaries divested their remaining Canadian operations to Paramount Resources LTD (Paramount). Closing occurred on August 16, 2017. On September 11, 2019, four ex-employees of Apache Canada LTD on behalf of themselves and individuals employed by Apache Canada LTD on July 6, 2017, filed an Amended Statement of Claim in a matter styled Stephen Flesch et. al. v Apache Corporation et. al., No. 1901-09160 Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta against the Company and others seeking class certification and a finding that the Paramount SPA amounted to a Change of Control of the Company, entitling them to accelerated vesting under the Company’s equity plans. In the suit, the class seeks approximately $60 million USD and punitive damages. Without acknowledging or admitting any liability and solely to avoid the expense and uncertainty of future litigation, Apache has agreed to a settlement in the Flesch class action matter under which Apache will pay $7 million USD to resolve all claims against the Company asserted by the class. The settlement was approved by the court on October 26, 2023. California and Delaware Litigation On July 17, 2017, in three separate actions, San Mateo and Marin Counties, and the City of Imperial Beach, California, all filed suit individually and on behalf of the people of the state of California against over 30 oil and gas companies alleging damages as a result of global warming. Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages and abatement under various tort theories. On December 20, 2017, in two separate actions, the City of Santa Cruz and Santa Cruz County filed similar lawsuits against many of the same defendants. On January 22, 2018, the City of Richmond filed a similar lawsuit. 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 intends to challenge personal jurisdiction in California and to vigorously defend the Delaware lawsuit. 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. Shareholder and Derivative Lawsuits On February 23, 2021, a case captioned Plymouth County Retirement System v. Apache Corporation, et al. was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas (Houston Division) against the Company and certain current and former officers. The complaint, which is a shareholder lawsuit styled as a class action, alleges that (1) the Company intentionally used unrealistic assumptions regarding the amount and composition of available oil and gas in Alpine High; (2) the Company did not have the proper infrastructure in place to safely and/or economically drill and/or transport those resources even if they existed in the amounts purported; (3) certain statements and omissions artificially inflated the value of the Company’s operations in the Permian Basin; and (4) as a result, the Company’s public statements were materially false and misleading. The Company intends to vigorously defend this lawsuit. On February 21, 2023, a case captioned Steve Silverman, Derivatively and on behalf of Nominal Defendant APA Corp. v. John J. Christmann IV, et al. was filed in federal district court for the Southern District of Texas. Then, on July 21, 2023, a case captioned Yang-Li-Yu, Derivatively and on behalf of Nominal Defendant APA Corp. v. John J. Christmann IV, et al. was filed in federal district court for the Southern District of Texas. These cases have now been consolidated as In Re APA Corporation Derivative Litigation, Case No. 4:23-cv-00636 in the Southern District of Texas and purport to be derivative actions brought against senior management and Company directors over many of the same allegations included in the Plymouth County Retirement System matter and asserts claims of (1) breach of fiduciary duty; (2) waste of corporate assets; and (3) unjust enrichment. The defendants intend to vigorously defend these lawsuits. Environmental Matters The Company, as an owner or lessee and operator of oil and gas properties, is subject to various federal, state, local, and foreign country laws and regulations relating to discharge of materials into, and protection of, the environment. These laws and regulations may, among other things, impose liability on the lessee under an oil and gas lease for the cost of pollution clean-up resulting from operations and subject the lessee to liability for pollution damages. In some instances, the Company may be directed to suspend or cease operations in the affected area. The Company maintains insurance coverage, which it believes is customary in the industry, although the Company is not fully insured against all environmental risks. The Company manages its exposure to environmental liabilities on properties to be acquired by identifying existing problems and assessing the potential liability. The Company also conducts periodic reviews, on a Company-wide basis, to identify changes in its environmental risk profile. These reviews evaluate whether there is a probable liability, the amount, and the likelihood that the liability will be incurred. The amount of any potential liability is determined by considering, among other matters, incremental direct costs of any likely remediation and the proportionate cost of employees who are expected to devote a significant amount of time directly to any possible remediation effort. As it relates to evaluations of purchased properties, depending on the extent of an identified environmental problem, the Company may exclude a property from the acquisition, require the seller to remediate the property to the Company’s satisfaction, or agree to assume liability for the remediation of the property. The Company’s general policy is to limit any reserve additions to any incidents or sites that are considered probable to result in an expected remediation cost exceeding $300,000. Any environmental costs and liabilities that are not reserved for are treated as an expense when actually incurred. In the Company’s estimation, neither these expenses nor expenses related to training and compliance programs are likely to have a material impact on its financial condition. As of December 31, 2023, the Company had an undiscounted reserve for environmental remediation of approximately $5 million. On September 11, 2020, the Company received a Notice of Violation and Finding of Violation, and accompanying Clean Air Act Information Request, from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) following site inspections in April 2019 at several of the Company’s oil and natural gas production facilities in Lea and Eddy Counties, New Mexico. Then on December 29, 2020, the Company received a Notice of Violation and Opportunity to Confer, and accompanying Clean Air Act Information Request, from the EPA following helicopter flyovers in September 2019 of several of the Company’s oil and natural gas production facilities in Reeves County, Texas. The notices and information requests involved alleged emissions control and reporting violations. The Company cooperated with the EPA, responded to the information requests, and negotiated and entered into a consent decree to resolve the alleged violations in both New Mexico and Texas, which will be subject to court approval. The consideration to be provided by the Company in connection with the consent decree will not have a material impact on the Company’s financial position. The Company is not aware of any environmental claims existing as of December 31, 2023, 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 Mexico (GOM) Shelf operations and properties and its GOM operating subsidiary, GOM Shelf LLC (GOM Shelf) to Fieldwood Energy LLC (Fieldwood). Under the terms of the purchase agreement, Apache received cash consideration of $3.75 billion and 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 GOM Assets). In respect of such abandonment obligations, Fieldwood posted letters of credit in favor of Apache (Letters of Credit) and established trust accounts (Trust A and Trust B) of which Apache was a beneficiary and which were funded by two net profits interests (NPIs) depending on future oil prices. On February 14, 2018, Fieldwood filed for protection under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. In connection with the 2018 bankruptcy, Fieldwood confirmed a plan under which Apache agreed, inter alia, to (i) accept bonds in exchange for certain of the Letters of Credit and (ii) amend the Trust A trust agreement and one of the NPIs to consolidate the trusts into a single Trust (Trust A) funded by both remaining NPIs. Following the 2018 reorganization of Fieldwood, Apache held two bonds (Bonds) and five Letters of Credit securing Fieldwood’s asset retirement obligations on the Legacy GOM Assets as and when Apache is required to perform or pay for decommissioning any Legacy GOM Asset over the remaining life of the Legacy GOM Assets. On August 3, 2020, Fieldwood again filed for protection under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. On June 25, 2021, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas (Houston Division) entered an order confirming Fieldwood’s bankruptcy plan. On August 27, 2021, Fieldwood’s bankruptcy plan became effective. Pursuant to the plan, the Legacy GOM 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 GOM Assets will be used to fund the operation of GOM Shelf and the decommissioning of Legacy GOM Assets. By letter dated April 5, 2022, replacing two prior letters dated September 8, 2021 and February 22, 2022, 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 is currently obligated to perform on certain of the Legacy GOM Assets. As a result, Apache and other current and former owners in these assets have received orders from BSEE to decommission certain of the Legacy GOM Assets included in GOM Shelf’s notifications to BSEE. Apache expects to receive similar orders on the other Legacy GOM Assets included in GOM Shelf’s notification letters. Apache has also received orders to decommission other Legacy GOM 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 GOM Assets. As of December 31, 2023, Apache has incurred $819 million in decommissioning costs related to Legacy GOM Assets. GOM Shelf did not, and has confirmed that it will not, reimburse Apache for these decommissioning costs. As a result, Apache has sought and will continue to seek reimbursement from its security for these costs. As of December 31, 2023, $293 million has been reimbursed from Trust A and $336 million has been reimbursed from the Letters of Credit. If GOM Shelf does not reimburse Apache for further decommissioning costs incurred with respect to Legacy GOM Assets, then Apache will continue to seek reimbursement from Trust A, to the extent of available funds, and thereafter, will seek reimbursement from the Bonds and the Letters of Credit until all such funds and securities are fully utilized. In addition, after such sources have been exhausted, Apache has agreed to provide a standby loan to GOM Shelf of up to $400 million to perform decommissioning (Standby Loan Agreement), with such standby loan secured by a first and prior lien on the Legacy GOM Assets. If the combination of GOM Shelf’s net cash flow from its producing properties, the Trust A funds, the Bonds, and the remaining Letters of Credit are insufficient to fully fund decommissioning of any Legacy GOM Assets that Apache may be required to perform or fund, or if GOM Shelf’s net cash flow from its remaining producing properties after the Trust A funds, Bonds, and Letters of Credit are exhausted is insufficient to repay any loans made by Apache under the Standby Loan Agreement, then Apache may be forced to use its available cash to fund the deficit. As of December 31, 2023, Apache estimates that its potential liability to fund the remaining decommissioning of Legacy GOM Assets it may be ordered to perform or fund ranges from $824 million to $1.2 billion on an undiscounted basis. Management does not believe any specific estimate within this range is a better estimate than any other. Accordingly, the Company has recorded a contingent liability of $824 million as of December 31, 2023, representing the estimated costs of decommissioning it may be required to perform or fund on Legacy GOM Assets. Of the total liability recorded, $764 million is reflected under the caption “Decommissioning contingency for sold Gulf of Mexico properties,” and $60 million is reflected under “Other current liabilities” in the Company’s consolidated balance sheet. Changes in significant assumptions impacting Apache’s estimated liability, including expected decommissioning rig spread rates, lift boat rates, and planned abandonment logistics could result in a liability in excess of the amount accrued. As of December 31, 2023, the Company has also recorded a $199 million asset, which represents the remaining amount the Company expects to be reimbursed from the Trust A funds, the Bonds, and the Letters of Credit for decommissioning it may be required to perform on Legacy GOM Assets. Of the total asset recorded, $21 million is reflected under the caption “Decommissioning security for sold Gulf of Mexico properties,” and $178 million is reflected under “Other current assets.” The Company recognized $212 million, $157 million, and $446 million during 2023, 2022, and 2021, respectively, of “Losses on previously sold Gulf of Mexico properties” to reflect the net impact of changes to the estimated decommissioning liability and decommissioning asset to the Company’s statement of consolidated operations. On June 21, 2023, the 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 281 st Judicial District Court, Harris County Texas. Insurers are seeking to prevent Apache from drawing on the Bonds and Letters of Credit and further allege that they are discharged from their reimbursement obligations related to decommissioning costs and are entitled to other relief. On July 20, 2023, the 281 st Judicial District Court denied the Insurers’ request for a temporary injunction. On July 26, 2023, Apache removed the suit to the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas (Houston Division) which subsequently held that the sureties’ state court lawsuit violated the terms of the Bankruptcy Confirmation Order and is void. Apache has drawn down the entirety of the Letters of Credit and is vigorously pursuing its claims against the sureties. Leases and Contractual Obligations The Company determines if an arrangement is an operating or finance lease at the inception of each contract. If the contract is classified as an operating lease, the Company records an ROU asset and corresponding liability reflecting the total remaining present value of fixed lease payments over the expected term of the lease agreement. The expected term of the lease may include options to extend or terminate the lease when it is reasonably certain that the Company will exercise that option. If the Company’s lease does not provide an implicit rate in the contract, the Company uses its incremental borrowing rate when calculating the present value. In the normal course of business, the Company enters into various lease agreements for real estate, drilling rigs, vessels, aircrafts, and equipment related to its exploration and development activities, which are typically classified as operating leases under the provisions of the standard. ROU assets are reflected within “Deferred charges and other assets” on the Company’s consolidated balance sheet, and the associated operating lease liabilities are reflected within “Other current liabilities” and “Other” within “Deferred Credits and Other Noncurrent Liabilities,” as applicable. Operating lease expense associated with ROU assets is recognized on a straight-line basis over the lease term. Lease expense is reflected on the statement of consolidated operations commensurate with the leased activities and nature of the services performed. Gross fixed operating lease expense, inclusive of amounts billable to partners and other working interest owners, was $168 million, $145 million, and $128 million for the years ended 2023, 2022, and 2021, respectively. As allowed under the standard, the Company accounts for non-lease and lease components as a single lease component for all asset classes and has elected to exclude short-term leases (those with terms of 12 months or less) from the balance sheet presentation. Costs incurred for short-term leases were $71 million, $62 million, and $20 million in 2023, 2022, and 2021, respectively. In 2023 these costs primarily related to decommissioning work in the Gulf of Mexico. In 2022 and 2021, these costs were primarily related to drilling activities in Block 58 offshore Suriname. Finance lease assets are included in “Property, Plant, and Equipment” on the consolidated balance sheet, and the associated finance lease liabilities are reflected within “Current debt” and “Long-term debt,” as applicable. Depreciation on the Company’s finance lease asset was $2 million in each of the years 2023, 2022, and 2021. Interest on the Company’s finance lease liability was $1 million, $2 million, and $2 million in 2023, 2022, and 2021, respectively. The following table represents the Company’s weighted average lease term and discount rate as of December 31, 2023:
|  | Operating Leases |  | Finance Lease
Weighted average remaining lease term |  | 6.9 years |  | 9.7 years
Weighted average discount rate |  | 5.3 | % |  | 4.4 | %
At December 31, 2023, contractual obligations for long-term operating leases, finance leases, and purchase obligations are as follows:
Net Minimum Commitments(1) |  | Operating Leases(2) |  | Finance Lease(3) |  | Purchase Obligations(4)(5)
|  | (In millions)
2024 |  | $ | 116 |  |  | $ | 3 |  |  | $ | 250 |
2025 |  | 35 |  |  | 3 |  |  | 197 |
2026 |  | 21 |  |  | 4 |  |  | 766 |
2027 |  | 23 |  |  | 4 |  |  | 143 |
2028 |  | 22 |  |  | 4 |  |  | 141 |
Thereafter |  | 129 |  |  | 23 |  |  | 208 |
Total future minimum payments |  | 346 |  |  | 41 |  |  | $ | 1,705 |
Less: imputed interest |  | (65) |  |  | (9) |  |  | N/A
Total lease liabilities |  | 281 |  |  | 32 |  |  | N/A
Current portion |  | 116 |  |  | 2 |  |  | N/A
Non-current portion |  | $ | 165 |  |  | $ | 30 |  |  | N/A
(1)Excludes commitments for jointly owned fields and facilities for which the Company is not the operator. (2)Amounts represent future payments associated with oil and gas operations inclusive of amounts billable to partners and other working interest owners. Such payments may be capitalized as a component of oil and gas properties and subsequently depreciated, impaired, or written off as exploration expense. (3)Amounts represent the Company’s finance lease obligation related to the Company’s Midland, Texas regional office building. (4)Amounts represent any agreements to purchase goods or services that are enforceable and legally binding and that specify all significant terms. These include minimum commitments associated with take-or-pay contracts, NGL processing agreements, drilling work program commitments, and agreements to secure capacity rights on third-party pipelines. Amounts exclude certain product purchase obligations related to marketing and trading activities for which there are no minimum purchase requirements or the amounts are not fixed or determinable. Total costs incurred under take-or-pay and throughput obligations were $182 million, $183 million, and $198 million in 2023, 2022, and 2021, respectively. (5)Under terms agreed to in the Egypt merged concession agreement entered into in 2021, the Company committed to spend a minimum of $3.5 billion on exploration, development, and operating activities by March 31, 2026. As of December 31, 2023, the Company has spent $2.9 billion and believes it will be able to satisfy the remaining obligation within its current exploration and development program. The lease liability reflected in the table above represents the Company’s fixed minimum payments that are settled in accordance with the lease terms. Actual lease payments during the period may also include variable lease components such as common area maintenance, usage-based sales taxes and rate differentials, or other similar costs that are not determinable at the inception of the lease. Gross variable lease payments, inclusive of amounts billable to partners and other working interest owners were $74 million, $90 million, and $64 million in 2023, 2022, and 2021, respectively.

X
- References No definition available. + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureAbstract
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | xbrli:stringItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration

X
- Definition The entire disclosure for commitments and contingencies. + References Reference 1: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (a) -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org//1943274/2147482648/440-10-50-4 Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2009/role/commonPracticeRef -Topic 450 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org//450/tableOfContent Reference 3: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Topic 954 -SubTopic 440 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Section 50 -Paragraph 1 -Subparagraph (a) -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org//1943274/2147480327/954-440-50-1 Reference 4: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (c) -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org//1943274/2147482648/440-10-50-4 Reference 5: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Topic 440 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org//440/tableOfContent + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | dtr-types:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration