Contingencies and Commitments	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2019
Contingencies and Commitments [Abstract]
Contingencies and Commitments	Note 13—Contingencies and Commitments A number of lawsuits involving a variety of claims arising in the ordinary course of business have been filed 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. See Note 19—Income Taxes, for additional information about income tax-related contingencies. 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 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. 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. We have not reduced these accruals for possible insurance recoveries. In the future, we may be involved in additional environmental assessments, cleanups and proceedings. See Note 10—Asset Retirement Obligations and Accrued Environmental Costs, for a summary of our accrued environmental liabilities. 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, climate change, personal injury, and property damage. Our primary exposures for such matters relate to alleged royalty and tax 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 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 December 31, 2019, we had performance obligations secured by letters of credit of $ 277 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, ConocoPhillips was unable to reach agreement with respect to the 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, ConocoPhillips initiated international arbitration on November 2, 2007, with the ICSID. On September 3, 2013, an ICSID arbitration tribunal held that Venezuela unlawfully expropriated ConocoPhillips’ significant oil investments in June 2007. On January 17, 2017, the Tribunal reconfirmed the decision that the expropriation was unlawful. In March 2019, the Tribunal unanimously ordered the government of Venezuela to pay ConocoPhillips approximately $ 8.7 billion in compensation for the government’s unlawful expropriation of the company’s investments in Venezuela in 2007. ConocoPhillips has filed a request for recognition of the award in several jurisdictions. On August 29, 2019, the ICSID Tribunal issued a decision rectifying the award and reducing it by approximately $ 227 million. The award now stands at $ 8.5 billion plus interest. The government of Venezuela sought annulment of the award. In 2014, ConocoPhillips filed a separate and independent arbitration under the rules of the ICC against PDVSA under the contracts that had established the Petrozuata and Hamaca projects. The ICC Tribunal issued an award in April 2018, finding that PDVSA owed ConocoPhillips approximately $ 2 billion under their agreements in connection with the expropriation of the projects and other pre-expropriation fiscal measures. In August 2018, ConocoPhillips entered into a settlement with PDVSA to recover the full amount of this ICC award, plus interest through the payment period, including initial payments totaling approximately $500 million within a period of 90 days from the time of signing of the settlement agreement. The balance of the settlement is to be paid quarterly over a period of four and a half years. To date, ConocoPhillips has received approximately $ 754 million. Per the settlement, PDVSA recognized the ICC award as a judgment in various jurisdictions, and ConocoPhillips agreed to suspend its legal enforcement actions. ConocoPhillips sent notices of default to PDVSA on October 14 and November 12, 2019, and to date PDVSA failed to cure its breach. As a result, ConocoPhillips has resumed legal enforcement actions. ConocoPhillips has ensured that the settlement and any actions thereof meet all appropriate U.S. regulatory requirements, including those related to any applicable sanctions imposed by the U.S. against Venezuela. In 2016, ConocoPhillips filed a separate and independent arbitration under the rules of the ICC against PDVSA under the contracts that had established the Corocoro project. On August 2, 2019, the ICC Tribunal awarded ConocoPhillips approximately $ 55 million under the Corocoro contracts. ConocoPhillips is seeking recognition and enforcement of the award in various jurisdictions. ConocoPhillips has ensured that all the actions related to the award meet all appropriate U.S. regulatory requirements, including those related to any applicable sanctions imposed by the U.S. against Ve nezuela. In February 2017, the ICSID Tribunal unanimously awarded Burlington Resources, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of ConocoPhillips, $ 380 million for Ecuador’s unlawful expropriation of Burlington’s investment in Blocks 7 and 21, in breach of the U.S.-Ecuador Bilateral Investment Treaty. The tribunal also issued a separate decision finding Ecuador to be entitled to $ 42 million for environmental and infrastructure counterclaims. In December 2017, Burlington and Ecuador entered into a settlement agreement by which Ecuador paid Burlington $ 337 million in two installments. The first installment of $ 75 million was paid in December 2017, and the second installment of $ 262 million was paid in April 2018. The settlement included an offset for the counterclaims decision, of which Burlington is entitled to a contribution from Perenco Ecuador Limited, its co-venturer and consortium operator, pursuant to a joint and several liability provision in the JOA. In September 2019, a separate ICSID Tribunal issued an award in the Perenco arbitration, ordering Perenco to pay an additional $ 54 million to Ecuador for its environmental counterclaim. Burlington and Perenco will reconcile their shares of the environmental and infrastructure counterclaims according to their JOA participating interests, and we expect Burlington’s share will be immaterial. In June 2017, FAR Ltd. initiated arbitration before the ICC against ConocoPhillips Senegal B.V. in connection with the sale of ConocoPhillips Senegal B.V. to Woodside Energy Holdings (Senegal) Limited in 2016. In February 2020, the ICC Tribunal issued an award dismissing FAR Ltd.’s claims in the arbitration. In late 2017, ConocoPhillips (U.K.) Limited (CPUKL) initiated United Nations Commission on International Trade and Law (UNCITRAL) arbitration against Vietnam in accordance with the U.K.-Vietnam Bilateral Investment Treaty relating to a tax dispute arising from the 2012 sale of ConocoPhillips (U.K.) Cuu Long Limited and ConocoPhillips (U.K.) Gama Limited. The parties entered into a settlement agreement in October 2019, and the arbitration was dismissed in December 2019 as a result of this agreement. In 2017 and 2018, cities, counties, and a state government in California, New York, Washington, Rhode Island and Maryland, as well as the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Association, Inc., have filed lawsuits against oil and gas companies, including ConocoPhillips, seeking compensatory damages and equitable relief to abate alleged climate change impacts. ConocoPhillips is vigorously defending against these lawsuits. The lawsuits brought by the Cities of San Francisco, Oakland and New York have been dismissed by the district courts and appeals are pending. Lawsuits filed by other cities and counties in California and Washington are currently stayed pending resolution of the appeals brought by the Cities of San Francisco and Oakland to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Lawsuits filed in Maryland and Rhode Island are proceeding in state court while rulings in those matters, on the issue of whether the matters should proceed in state or federal court, are on appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit and First Circuit, respectively. Several Louisiana parishes and individual landowners have filed lawsuits against oil and gas companies, including ConocoPhillips, seeking compensatory damages in connection with historical oil and gas operations in Louisiana. All parish lawsuits are stayed pending an appeal to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals on the issue of whether they will proceed in federal or state court. ConocoPhillips will vigorously defend against these lawsuits. Long-Term Throughput Agreements and Take -or-Pay Agreements We have certain throughput agreements and take-or-pay agreements in support of financing arrangements. The agreements typically provide for natural gas or crude oil transportation to be used in the ordinary course of the company’s business. The aggregate amounts of estimated payments under these various agreements are: 2020—$ 7 million; 2021—$ 7 million; 2022—$ 7 million; 2023—$ 7 million; 2024—$ 7 million; and 2025 and after—$ 57 million. Total payments under the agreements were $ 25 million in 2019, $ 39 million in 2018 and $ 43 million in 2017.

Note 13—Contingencies and Commitments

A number of lawsuits involving a variety of claims

arising in the ordinary course of business

have been filed

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

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.

See Note 19—Income Taxes, for additional information

about income tax-related contingencies.

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

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

the U.S. 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

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.

We have

not reduced these accruals for possible insurance recoveries.

In the future, we may be involved in additional

environmental assessments, cleanups and proceedings.

See Note 10—Asset Retirement Obligations and

Accrued Environmental Costs, for a summary of our

accrued environmental liabilities.

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, climate change, personal injury, and property damage.

Our primary exposures for such matters

relate to alleged royalty and tax 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

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 December 31, 2019, we had performance

obligations secured by letters of credit

277

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, ConocoPhillips was unable to reach agreement

with respect to the 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.

response to this expropriation, ConocoPhillips

initiated international arbitration on November 2,

2007, with the

ICSID.

On September 3, 2013, an ICSID arbitration tribunal

held that Venezuela unlawfully expropriated

ConocoPhillips’ significant oil investments

in June 2007.

On January 17, 2017, the Tribunal reconfirmed the

decision that the expropriation was unlawful.

In March 2019, the Tribunal unanimously ordered the

government of Venezuela to pay ConocoPhillips approximately $

8.7

billion in compensation for the

government’s unlawful expropriation of the company’s investments in Venezuela in 2007.

ConocoPhillips has

filed a request for recognition of the award in several

jurisdictions.

On August 29, 2019, the ICSID Tribunal

issued a decision rectifying the award and reducing

it by approximately $

227

million.

The award now stands

at $

8.5

billion plus interest.

The government of Venezuela sought annulment of the award.

In 2014, ConocoPhillips filed a separate and independent

arbitration under the rules of the ICC against

PDVSA under the contracts that had established the

Petrozuata and Hamaca projects.

The ICC Tribunal issued

an award in April 2018, finding that PDVSA owed

ConocoPhillips approximately $

billion

under their

agreements in connection with the expropriation of the projects and other pre-expropriation fiscal measures. In

August 2018, ConocoPhillips entered into a settlement with PDVSA to recover the full amount of this ICC

award, plus interest through the payment period, including initial payments totaling approximately $500

million within a period of 90 days from the time of signing of the settlement agreement. The balance of the

settlement is to be paid quarterly over a period of four and a half years.

To date, ConocoPhillips has received

approximately $

754

million.

Per the settlement, PDVSA recognized the ICC

award as a judgment in various

jurisdictions, and ConocoPhillips agreed to suspend

its legal enforcement actions.

ConocoPhillips sent notices

of default to PDVSA on October 14 and November

12, 2019, and to date PDVSA failed to

cure its breach.

a result, ConocoPhillips has resumed legal enforcement

actions.

ConocoPhillips has ensured that the

settlement and any actions thereof meet all appropriate

U.S. regulatory requirements, including those related

any applicable sanctions imposed by the U.S. against

Venezuela.

In 2016, ConocoPhillips filed a separate and independent

arbitration under the rules of the ICC against

PDVSA under the contracts that had established the

Corocoro project.

On August 2, 2019, the ICC Tribunal

awarded ConocoPhillips approximately $

million under the Corocoro contracts.

ConocoPhillips is seeking

recognition and enforcement of the award in various

jurisdictions.

ConocoPhillips has ensured that all the

actions related to the award meet all appropriate

U.S. regulatory requirements, including those related

to any

applicable sanctions imposed by the U.S. against

nezuela.

In February 2017, the ICSID Tribunal unanimously awarded Burlington

Resources, Inc., a wholly owned

subsidiary of ConocoPhillips, $

380

million for Ecuador’s unlawful expropriation of

Burlington’s investment in

Blocks 7 and 21, in breach of the U.S.-Ecuador

Bilateral Investment Treaty.

The tribunal also issued a

separate decision finding Ecuador to be entitled

to $

million for environmental and infrastructure

counterclaims.

In December 2017, Burlington and Ecuador

entered into a settlement agreement by which

Ecuador paid Burlington $

337

million in two installments.

The first installment of $

million was paid in

December 2017, and the second installment

of $

262

million was paid in April 2018.

The settlement included

an offset for the counterclaims decision, of which Burlington

is entitled to a contribution from Perenco

Ecuador Limited, its co-venturer and consortium

operator, pursuant to a joint and several liability provision in

the JOA.

In September 2019, a separate ICSID Tribunal issued an award

in the Perenco arbitration, ordering

Perenco to pay an additional $

million to Ecuador for its environmental counterclaim.

Burlington and

Perenco will reconcile their shares of the environmental

and infrastructure counterclaims according

to their

JOA participating interests, and we expect Burlington’s share will be immaterial.

In June 2017, FAR Ltd. initiated arbitration before the ICC against ConocoPhillips

Senegal B.V.

in connection

with the sale of ConocoPhillips Senegal B.V. to Woodside Energy Holdings (Senegal) Limited in 2016.

February 2020, the ICC Tribunal issued an award dismissing

FAR Ltd.’s

claims in the arbitration.

In late 2017, ConocoPhillips (U.K.) Limited

(CPUKL) initiated United Nations Commission

on International

Trade and Law (UNCITRAL) arbitration against Vietnam in accordance with the U.K.-Vietnam Bilateral

Investment Treaty relating to a tax dispute arising from the

2012 sale of ConocoPhillips (U.K.) Cuu Long

Limited and ConocoPhillips (U.K.) Gama Limited.

The parties entered into a settlement agreement

in October

2019, and the arbitration was dismissed in

December 2019 as a result of this agreement.

In 2017 and 2018, cities, counties, and a state

government in California, New York, Washington, Rhode Island

and Maryland, as well as the Pacific Coast Federation

of Fishermen’s Association, Inc., have filed lawsuits

against oil and gas companies, including ConocoPhillips,

seeking compensatory damages and equitable

relief

to abate alleged climate change impacts.

ConocoPhillips is vigorously defending against

these lawsuits.

The

lawsuits brought by the Cities of San Francisco,

Oakland and New York have been dismissed by the district

courts and appeals are pending.

Lawsuits filed by other cities and counties

in California and Washington are

currently stayed pending resolution of the appeals

brought by the Cities of San Francisco and

Oakland to the

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Lawsuits filed in Maryland and Rhode Island

are proceeding in

state court while rulings in those matters, on the

issue of whether the matters should proceed

in state or federal

court, are on appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals

for the Fourth Circuit and First Circuit,

respectively.

Several Louisiana parishes and individual landowners

have filed lawsuits against oil and gas companies,

including ConocoPhillips, seeking compensatory

damages in connection with historical oil

and gas operations

in Louisiana.

All parish lawsuits are stayed pending an appeal

to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals on the

issue of whether they will proceed in federal or

state court.

ConocoPhillips will vigorously defend against

these lawsuits.