Commitments and Contingencies

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2019

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Included below is a discussion of various future commitments of the Company as of December 31, 2019. The commitments under these arrangements are not recorded in the accompanying Consolidated Balance Sheets. The amounts disclosed represent undiscounted cash flows on a gross basis and no inflation elements have been applied.

Volume commitment agreements. As of December 31, 2019, the Company had certain agreements with an aggregate requirement to deliver, transport or purchase a minimum quantity of approximately 34.9 MMBbl of crude oil, 35.0 MMBbl of NGLs, 827.6 Bcf of natural gas and 14.9 MMBbl of water, prior to any applicable volume credits, within specified timeframes, all of which are 25 years or less. These amounts are recognized as marketing, transportation and gathering expense in the Company’s Consolidated Statements of Operations. The future commitments under certain agreements cannot be estimated as they are based on fixed differentials relative to a commodity index price under the agreements as compared to the differential relative to a commodity index price for the production month.

The estimable future commitments under these volume commitment agreements as of December 31, 2019 are as follows:


	(In thousands)
2020	$	82,515
2021	95,074
2022	107,004
2023	91,649
2024	78,013
Thereafter	140,282
	$	594,537

Subsequent to December 31, 2019, the Company entered into a new agreement to deliver additional volumes of water within a specified timeframe, which is ten years or less. The estimable future total commitment under this volume commitment agreement was approximately $3.8 million.

The Company enters into long-term contracts to provide production flow assurance in over-supplied basins and/or areas with limited infrastructure. This strategic tactic provides for optimization of transportation and processing costs. As properties are undergoing development activities, the Company may experience temporary delivery or transportation shortfalls until production volumes grow to meet or exceed the minimum volume commitments. The Company recognizes any monthly deficiency payments in the period in which the underdelivery takes place and the related liability has been incurred. The table above does not include any such deficiency payments that may be incurred under the Company’s physical delivery contracts, since it cannot be predicted with accuracy the amount and timing of any such penalties incurred.

Lease commitments. The Company has various operating and finance lease commitments that consists primarily of offices, drilling rigs, vehicles and other property and equipment used in its operations. See Note 20—Leases for additional information.

Litigation. The Company is party to various legal and/or regulatory proceedings from time to time arising in the ordinary course of business. When the Company determines that a loss is probable of occurring and is reasonably estimable, the Company accrues an undiscounted liability for such contingencies based on its best estimate using information available at the time. The Company discloses contingencies where an adverse outcome may be material, or in the judgment of management, the matter should otherwise be disclosed.

During the year ended December 31, 2019, a loss accrual was recorded in the amount of $20 million, which the Company believes is the estimable amount of loss that could potentially be incurred from its pending legal proceedings based upon currently available information. This amount was recognized in accrued liabilities in the Company’s Consolidated Balance Sheet and general and administrative expenses in the Company’s Consolidated Statements of Operations.

Mirada litigation. On March 23, 2017, Mirada Energy, LLC, Mirada Wild Basin Holding Company, LLC and Mirada Energy Fund I, LLC (collectively, “Mirada”) filed a lawsuit against Oasis, OPNA and OMS, seeking monetary damages in excess of $100 million, declaratory relief, attorneys’ fees and costs (Mirada Energy, LLC, et al. v. Oasis Petroleum North America LLC, et al.; in the 334th Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas; Case Number 2017-19911). Mirada asserts that it is a working interest owner in certain acreage owned and operated by the Company in Wild Basin. Specifically, Mirada asserts that the Company has breached certain agreements by: (1) failing to allow Mirada to participate in the Company’s midstream operations in Wild Basin; (2) refusing to provide Mirada with information that Mirada contends is required under certain agreements and failing to provide information in a timely fashion; (3) failing to consult with Mirada and failing to obtain Mirada’s consent prior to drilling more than one well at a time in Wild Basin; and (4) overstating the estimated costs of proposed well operations in Wild Basin. Mirada seeks a declaratory judgment that the Company be removed as operator in Wild Basin at Mirada’s election and that Mirada be allowed to elect a new operator; certain agreements apply to the Company and Mirada and Wild Basin with respect to this dispute; the Company be required to provide all information within its possession regarding proposed or ongoing operations in Wild Basin; and the Company not be permitted to drill, or propose to drill, more than one well at a time in Wild Basin without obtaining Mirada’s consent. Mirada also seeks a declaratory judgment with respect to the Company’s current midstream operations in Wild Basin. Specifically, Mirada seeks a declaratory judgment that Mirada has a right to participate in the Company’s Wild Basin midstream operations, consisting of produced water disposal, crude oil gathering and natural gas gathering and processing; that, upon Mirada’s election to participate, Mirada is obligated to pay its proportionate costs of the Company’s midstream operations in Wild Basin; and that Mirada would then be entitled to receive a share of revenues from the midstream operations and would not be charged any amount for its use of these facilities for production from the “Contract Area.”

On June 30, 2017, Mirada amended its original petition to add a claim that the Company has breached certain agreements by charging Mirada for midstream services provided by its affiliates and to seek a declaratory judgment that Mirada is entitled to be paid its share of total proceeds from the sale of hydrocarbons received by OPNA or any affiliate of OPNA without deductions for midstream services provided by OPNA or its affiliates.

On February 2, 2018 and February 16, 2018, Mirada filed a second and third amended petition, respectively. In these filings, Mirada alleged new legal theories for being entitled to enforce the underlying contracts and added Bighorn DevCo, Bobcat DevCo and Beartooth DevCo as defendants, asserting that these entities were created in bad faith in an effort to avoid contractual obligations owed to Mirada.

On March 2, 2018, Mirada filed a fourth amended petition that described Mirada’s alleged ownership and assignment of interests in assets purportedly governed by agreements at issue in the lawsuit. On August 31, 2018, Mirada filed a fifth amended petition that added OMP as a defendant, asserting that it was created in bad faith in an effort to avoid contractual obligations owed to Mirada.

On July 2, 2019, Oasis, OPNA, OMS, OMP, Bighorn DevCo, Bobcat DevCo and Beartooth DevCo LLC (collectively “Oasis Entities”) counterclaimed against Mirada for a judgment declaring that Oasis Entities are not obligated to purchase, manage, gather, transport, compress, process, market, sell or otherwise handle Mirada’s proportionate share of oil and gas produced from OPNA-operated wells. The counterclaim also seeks attorney’s fees, costs and expenses.

On November 1, 2019, Mirada filed a sixth amended petition that stated that Mirada seeks in excess of $200 million in damages and asserted that OMS is an agent of OPNA and OPNA, OMS, OMP, Bighorn DevCo, Bobcat DevCo and Beartooth DevCo LLC are agents of Oasis. Mirada also changed its allegation that it may elect a new operator for the subject wells to instead allege that Mirada may remove Oasis as operator.

On November 1, 2019, the Oasis Entities amended their counterclaim against Mirada for a judgment declaring that a provision in one of the agreements does not incorporate by reference any provisions in a certain participation agreement and joint operating agreement. The additional counterclaim also seeks attorney’s fees, costs and expenses. On the same day, the Oasis Entities filed an amended answer asserting additional defenses against Mirada’s claims.

The Company believes that Mirada’s claims are without merit, that the Company has complied with its obligations under the applicable agreements and that some of Mirada’s claims are grounded in agreements that do not apply to the Company. The Company filed answers denying all of Mirada’s claims and intends and continues to vigorously defend against Mirada’s claims.

Discovery is ongoing, and each of the parties has made a number of procedural filings and motions, and additional filings and motions can be expected over the course of the claim. Trial is scheduled for May 2020. The Company cannot predict or guarantee the ultimate outcome or resolution of such matter. If such matter were to be determined adversely to the Company’s interests, or if the Company were forced to settle such matter for a significant amount, such resolution or settlement could have

a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. Such an adverse determination could materially impact the Company’s ability to operate its properties in Wild Basin or develop its identified drilling locations in Wild Basin on its current development schedule. A determination that Mirada has a right to participate in the Company’s midstream operations could materially reduce the interests of the Company in their current assets and future midstream opportunities and related revenues in Wild Basin. In addition, the Company has agreed to indemnify OMP for any losses resulting from this litigation under the omnibus agreement it entered into with OMP at the time of OMP’s initial public offering.

Solomon litigation. On or about August 28, 2019, Oasis Petroleum LLC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company (“OP LLC”), was named as a defendant in the lawsuit styled Andrew Solomon, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated vs. Oasis Petroleum, LLC, pending in the United States District Court for the District of North Dakota. The lawsuit alleged violations of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (the “FLSA”) and Title 29 of the North Dakota Century Code (“Title 29”) as the result of OP LLC’s alleged practice of paying the plaintiff and similarly situated current and former employees overtime at rates less than required by applicable law, or failing to pay for certain overtime hours worked. The lawsuit requested that: (i) its federal claims be advanced as a collective action, with a class of all operators, technicians and all other employees in substantially similar positions employed by OP LLC who were paid hourly for at least one week during the three year period prior to the commencement of the lawsuit, who worked 40 or more hours in at least one workweek and/or eight or more hours on at least one workday; and (ii) its state claims be advanced as a class action, with a class of all Operators, Technicians, and all other employees in substantially similar positions employed by OP LLC in North Dakota during the two year period prior to the commencement of the lawsuit, who worked 40 or more hours in at least one workweek and/or worked eight or more hours in a day on at least one workday. No motion has been filed for class certification, and the Company cannot predict whether such a motion will be filed or a class certified.

The Company believes that Mr. Solomon’s claims are without merit and that OP LLC has complied with its obligations under the FLSA and Title 29. OP LLC has filed an answer denying all of Mr. Solomon’s claims and intends to vigorously defend against the claims. The Company cannot predict or guarantee the ultimate outcome or resolutions of such matter. If such matter were to be determined adversely to the Company’s interests, or if the Company were forced to settle such matter for a significant amount, such resolution or settlement could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.