CONOCOPHILLIPS - Quarter Report: 2017 September (Form 10-Q)

Table of Contents

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-Q

(Mark One)

For the quarterly period ended September 30, 2017

or

For the transition period from              to             

Commission file number: 001-32395

ConocoPhillips

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

600 North Dairy Ashford, Houston, TX 77079

(Address of principal executive offices) (Zip Code)

281-293-1000

(Registrant’s telephone number, including area code)

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.    Yes  ☒     No  ☐

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files).    Yes  ☒    No  ☐

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, a smaller reporting company, or an emerging growth company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer,” “smaller reporting company” and “emerging growth company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.

If an emerging growth company, indicate by check mark if the registrant has elected not to use the extended transition period for complying with any new or revised financial accounting standards provided pursuant to Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act. [ ]

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act).    Yes  ☐    No  ☒

The registrant had 1,195,515,824 shares of common stock, $.01 par value, outstanding at September 30, 2017.

Table of Contents

CONOCOPHILLIPS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of Contents

PART I. FINANCIAL INFORMATION

See Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.

1

Table of Contents

*Plans for which ConocoPhillips is not the primary obligor-primarily those administered by equity affiliates.

See Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.

2

Table of Contents

See Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.

3

Table of Contents

See Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.

4

Table of Contents

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 2016 Annual Report on Form 10-K.

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 VIEs 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, 2017, 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 11—Guarantees, for additional information.

Marine Well Containment Company, LLC (MWCC)

MWCC provides well containment equipment and technology and related services in the deepwater U.S. Gulf of Mexico. Its principal activities involve the development and maintenance of rapid-response hydrocarbon well containment systems that are deployable in the Gulf of Mexico on a call-out basis. We have a 10 percent ownership interest in MWCC, and it is accounted for as an equity method investment because MWCC is a limited liability company in which we are a Founding Member and exercise significant influence through our permanent seat on the ten-member Executive Committee responsible for overseeing the affairs of MWCC. In 2016, MWCC executed a $154 million term loan financing arrangement with an external financial institution whose terms required the financing be secured by letters of credit provided by certain owners of MWCC, including ConocoPhillips. In connection with the financing transaction, we issued a letter of credit of $22 million which can be drawn upon in the event of a default by MWCC on its obligation to repay the proceeds of the term loan. The fair value of this letter of credit is immaterial and not recognized on our consolidated balance sheet. MWCC is considered a VIE, as it has entered into arrangements that provide it with additional forms of subordinated financial support. We are not the primary beneficiary and do not consolidate MWCC because we share the power to govern the business and operation of the company and to undertake certain obligations that most significantly impact its economic performance with nine other unaffiliated owners of MWCC.

At September 30, 2017, the carrying value of our equity method investment in MWCC was $141 million. We have not provided any financial support to MWCC other than amounts previously contractually required. Unless we elect otherwise, we have no requirement to provide liquidity or purchase the assets of MWCC.

5

Table of Contents

Note 3—Inventories

Inventories consisted of the following:

Inventories valued on the last-in, first-out (LIFO) basis totaled $297 million and $269 million at September 30, 2017 and December 31, 2016, respectively. The estimated excess of current replacement cost over LIFO cost of inventories was approximately $90 million and $104 million at September 30, 2017 and December 31, 2016, respectively.

Note 4—Assets Held for Sale or Sold

Assets Held for Sale

On June 28, 2017, we signed a definitive agreement with an affiliate of Miller Thomson & Partners LLC to sell our interests in the Barnett for $305 million in cash, subject to customary adjustments. The transaction is subject to specific conditions precedent being satisfied, including regulatory approval, and is expected to close in the fourth quarter of 2017. We recorded a before-tax impairment of $566 million in the second quarter of 2017 to reduce the carrying value of our investment to fair value and an additional impairment of $2 million was recorded in the third quarter of 2017. As of September 30, 2017, our Barnett interests had a net carrying value of approximately $296 million and were considered held for sale resulting in the reclassification of $344 million of properties, plants and equipment (PP&E) to “Prepaid expenses and other current assets” and $49 million of noncurrent liabilities, primarily asset retirement obligations, to “Other accruals” on our consolidated balance sheet. The before-tax loss associated with our interests in the Barnett, including the $566 million and $2 million impairments noted above, was $575 million and $55 million for the nine-month periods ended September 30, 2017 and September 30, 2016, respectively. The Barnett results of operations are reported within our Lower 48 segment.

Assets Sold

On May 17, 2017, we completed the sale of our 50 percent nonoperated interest in the Foster Creek Christina Lake (FCCL) Partnership, as well as the majority of our western Canada gas assets to Cenovus Energy. Consideration for the transaction was $11 billion in cash after customary adjustments, including $600 million related to environmental claims, 208 million Cenovus Energy common shares and a five-year uncapped contingent payment. The cash proceeds are included in the “Cash Flows From Investing Activities” section of our consolidated statement of cash flows. The value of the shares at closing was $1.96 billion based on a price of $9.41 per share on the New York Stock Exchange. The contingent payment, calculated and paid on a quarterly basis, is $6 million Canadian dollars (CAD) for every $1 CAD by which the Western Canada Select (WCS) quarterly average crude price exceeds $52 CAD per barrel.

At closing, the carrying value of our equity investment in FCCL was $8.9 billion. The carrying value of our interest in the western Canada gas assets was $1.9 billion consisting primarily of $2.6 billion of PP&E, partly offset by asset retirement obligations of $585 million and approximately $100 million of environmental and other accruals. A before-tax gain of $1.85 billion was included in the “Gain on disposition” line on our consolidated income statement for the second quarter of 2017. An additional before-tax gain of $281 million was recognized in the third quarter of 2017. We reported before-tax losses of $26 million and $444 million for the western Canada gas producing properties for the nine-month periods ending September 30, 2017 and

6

Table of Contents

September 30, 2016, respectively. We reported before-tax equity earnings of $197 million and a before-tax equity loss of $37 million for FCCL for the same periods, respectively. Both FCCL and the western Canada gas assets were reported within our Canada segment.

For more information on the Canada disposition and our investment in Cenovus Energy see Note 6—Investment in Cenovus Energy, Note 14—Fair Value Measurement, and Note 15—Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income (Loss).

On July 31, 2017, we completed the sale of our interests in the San Juan Basin to an affiliate of Hilcorp Energy Company for $2.5 billion in cash after customary adjustments, and recognized a loss on disposition of $22 million. The $2.5 billion of cash proceeds are included in the “Cash Flows From Investing Activities” section of our consolidated statement of cash flows. The transaction includes a contingent payment of up to $300 million. The six-year contingent payment is effective beginning January 1, 2018, and is due annually for the periods in which the monthly U.S. Henry Hub price is at or above $3.20 per million British thermal units.

In the second quarter of 2017, we recorded a before-tax impairment of $3.3 billion to reduce the carrying value of our interests in the San Juan Basin to fair value. At the time of disposition, the San Juan Basin interests had a net carrying value of approximately $2.5 billion, consisting of $2.9 billion of PP&E and $406 million of liabilities, primarily asset retirement obligations. The before-tax loss associated with our interests in the San Juan Basin, including both the $3.3 billion impairment and $22 million loss on disposition noted above, was $3.2 billion and $226 million for the nine-month periods ended September 30, 2017 and September 30, 2016, respectively. The San Juan Basin results of operations are reported within our Lower 48 segment.

On September 29, 2017, we completed the sale of our interest in the Panhandle assets for $178 million in cash after customary adjustments, and recognized a before-tax loss on disposition of $28 million. The proceeds are included in the “Cash Flows From Investing Activities” section of our consolidated statement of cash flows. At the time of the disposition, the carrying value of our interest was $206 million, consisting primarily of $279 million of PP&E and $72 million of asset retirement obligations. Including the $28 million loss on disposition noted above, we reported before-tax losses for the Panhandle properties of $16 million and $28 million for the nine months ended September 30, 2017 and September 30, 2016, respectively. The Panhandle results are reported within our Lower 48 segment.

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. All amounts have been drawn from the facility. APLNG made its first principal and interest repayment in March 2017 and will continue to make bi-annual payments until March 2029. At September 30, 2017, a balance of $7.9 billion was outstanding on 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 achieved financial completion. In October 2016, we reached financial completion for Train 1, which reduced our associated guarantee by 60 percent. In August 2017, we reached financial completion for Train 2, which removed the remaining guarantee. See Note 11—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.

During the first and second quarters of 2017, the outlook for crude oil prices deteriorated, and as a result of significantly reduced price outlooks, the estimated fair value of our investment in APLNG declined to an amount below carrying value. Based on a review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this decline in

7

Table of Contents

fair value, we concluded in the second quarter of 2017 the impairment was other than temporary under the guidance of Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) Accounting Standards Codification (ASC) Topic 323, “Investments – Equity Method and Joint Ventures,” and the recognition of an impairment of our investment to fair value was necessary. Accordingly, we recorded a noncash $2,384 million, before- and after-tax impairment in our second-quarter 2017 results. Fair value was estimated based on an internal discounted cash flow model using estimated future production, an outlook of future prices from a combination of exchanges (short-term) and pricing service companies (long-term), costs, a market outlook of foreign exchange rates provided by a third party, and a discount rate believed to be consistent with those used by principal market participants. The impairment was included in the “Impairments” line on our consolidated income statement.

At September 30, 2017, the carrying value of our equity method investment in APLNG was $7,661 million. The balance is included in the “Investments and long-term receivables” line item on our consolidated balance sheet.

FCCL

On May 17, 2017, we completed the sale of our 50 percent nonoperated interest in the FCCL Partnership, as well as the majority of our western Canada gas assets to Cenovus Energy. For additional information on the Canada disposition and our investment in Cenovus Energy, see Note 4—Assets Held for Sale or Sold and Note 6—Investment in Cenovus Energy.

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, 2017, significant loans to affiliated companies included $581 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.”

Note 6-–Investment in Cenovus Energy

On May 17, 2017, we completed the sale of our 50 percent nonoperated interest in the FCCL Partnership, as well as the majority of our western Canada gas assets to Cenovus Energy. Consideration for the transaction included 208 million Cenovus Energy common shares. See Note 4—Assets Held for Sale or Sold, for additional information on the Canada disposition.

At closing, the fair value and cost basis of our investment in 208 million Cenovus Energy common shares was $1.96 billion based on a price of $9.41 per share on the New York Stock Exchange. Our ownership approximates to 16.9 percent of issued and outstanding Cenovus common shares, and under an investor agreement with Cenovus Energy, we have agreed not to transfer any of our Cenovus Energy common shares until six months from the closing date (the “Lock-up Termination Date”).

We have classified our investment as an available-for-sale equity security on our consolidated balance sheet and, as of September 30, 2017, our investment is carried at fair value of $2.08 billion, reflecting the closing price of Cenovus Energy shares on the New York Stock Exchange of $10.02 per share. The carrying value reflects a before-tax unrealized gain of $127 million and an after-tax unrealized gain of $82 million over our cost basis of $1.96 billion. The unrealized gain is reported as a component of accumulated other comprehensive loss. See Note 14—Fair Value Measurement, for additional information. Following the Lock-up Termination Date, we intend to decrease our investment over time through market transactions, private agreements or otherwise.

8

Table of Contents

Note 7—Suspended Wells and Other Exploration Expenses

The capitalized cost of suspended wells at September 30, 2017, was $872 million, a decrease of $191 million from $1,063 million at year-end 2016. Two suspended wells in Shenandoah in the Gulf of Mexico totaling $94 million, one suspended well in Alaska totaling $17 million, and one suspended well in Malaysia totaling $23 million were charged to dry hole expense during the first nine months of 2017 relating to exploratory well costs capitalized for a period greater than one year as of December 31, 2016.

We reached a settlement agreement on our contract for the Athena drilling rig, initially secured for our four-well commitment program in Angola. As a result of the cancellation, we recorded a before-tax charge of $43 million net in the first quarter of 2017. This charge is included in the “Exploration expenses” line on our consolidated income statement.

Note 8—Impairments

During the three- and nine-month periods ended September 30, 2017 and 2016, we recognized before-tax impairment charges within the following segments:

In the nine-month period of 2017, our Lower 48 segment included impairments of $3,888 million primarily due to certain developed properties which were written down to fair value less costs to sell. See Note 4—Assets Held for Sale or Sold, for additional information on our dispositions. Additionally, the nine-month period of 2017 included the impairment of our APLNG investment reported within the Asia Pacific and Middle East segment. For more information, see the “APLNG” section of Note 5—Investments, Loans and Long-Term Receivables. The nine-month period also included an impairment in our Alaska segment in the first quarter of 2017 of $174 million for the associated PP&E carrying value of our small interest in a nonoperated producing property.

In October 2017, we expect to record an estimated $60 million before-tax impairment of a gas processing plant in Norway, primarily due to restructured ownership and a change in commercial premises. This impairment will be reflected in our year-end results within our Europe and North Africa segment.

In the three- and nine-month periods ended September 30, 2016, our Canada and Asia Pacific and Middle East segments included impairments of $60 million and $42 million, respectively, primarily related to certain developed properties in central Alberta and offshore Indonesia, which were written down to fair value less costs to sell. Our Europe and North Africa segment included impairments of $20 million in the three-month period ended September 30, 2016, primarily as a result of a canceled project and lower natural gas prices, both in the United Kingdom. In the nine-month period of 2016, our Europe and North Africa segment included impairments of $157 million, primarily as a result of lower natural gas prices in the United Kingdom. Our Lower 48 segment included impairments of $61 million before-tax in the nine-month period of 2016, primarily as a result of lower natural gas prices and increased asset retirement obligation estimates.

9

Table of Contents

The charges discussed below are included in the “Exploration expenses” line on our consolidated income statement and are not reflected in the table above.

Exploration expenses in the three- and nine-month periods of 2017 and 2016 were aligned with our decision announced in 2015 to reduce deepwater exploration spending.

In the first quarter of 2017, we recorded a before-tax impairment of $51 million for the associated carrying value of capitalized undeveloped leasehold costs of Shenandoah in deepwater Gulf of Mexico following the suspension of appraisal activity by the operator.

In the second quarter of 2016, we recorded a $203 million before-tax impairment for the associated carrying value of our Gibson and Tiber undeveloped leaseholds in deepwater Gulf of Mexico. In the first quarter of 2016, we recorded a $95 million before-tax impairment for the associated carrying value of capitalized undeveloped leasehold costs of the Melmar prospect, and the majority of a $79 million impairment in deepwater Gulf of Mexico, mainly as a result of changes in the estimated market value following the completion of an initial marketing effort.

Note 9—Debt

As of September 30, 2017, our revolving credit facility, expiring in June 2019, was $6.75 billion. The credit facility supports two commercial paper programs: the ConocoPhillips $6.25 billion program, primarily a funding source for short-term working capital needs, and the ConocoPhillips Qatar Funding Ltd. $500 million program, which is used to fund commitments relating to QG3. Commercial paper maturities are generally limited to 90 days.

At September 30, 2017 and December 31, 2016, we had no direct outstanding borrowings under the revolving credit facility and no letters of credit. We had no commercial paper outstanding at September 30, 2017 or December 31, 2016, under both the ConocoPhillips and the ConocoPhillips Qatar Funding Ltd. commercial paper programs. Since we had no commercial paper outstanding and had issued no letters of credit, we had access to $6.75 billion in borrowing capacity under our revolving credit facility at September 30, 2017.

In the first quarter of 2017, we made a prepayment of $805 million on our floating rate term loan facility due in 2019. In the third quarter of 2017, we prepaid the remaining balance of $645 million.

During the nine-month period of 2017, we redeemed a total $4.8 billion of debt as described below.

In the second quarter of 2017, we redeemed $3.0 billion of debt across the following instruments:

In the third quarter of 2017, we redeemed $1.8 billion of debt across the following instruments:

We incurred premiums above book value to redeem the debt instruments of $234 million and $50 million in the second and third quarter of 2017, respectively. These costs are reported in the “Other expense” line on our consolidated income statement.

10

Table of Contents

In October 2017, we gave notice to make a partial redemption of $250 million on the $1.25 billion 4.20% Notes due in 2021. The prepayment will occur in the fourth quarter of 2017, and we expect to incur approximately $20 million in premiums above book value, subject to pricing, related to this redemption when paid.

At September 30, 2017, we had $283 million of certain variable rate demand bonds (VRDBs) outstanding with maturities ranging through 2035. The VRDBs are redeemable at the option of the bondholders on any business day. The VRDBs are included in the “Long-term debt” line on our consolidated balance sheet.

Note 10—Noncontrolling Interests

Activity attributable to common stockholders’ equity and noncontrolling interests for the first nine months of 2017 and 2016 was as follows:

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

Note 11—Guarantees

At September 30, 2017, 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, 2017, 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 2017 exchange rates:

11

Table of Contents

Other Guarantees

We have other guarantees with maximum future potential payment amounts totaling approximately $780 million, which consist primarily of guarantees of the residual value of leased office buildings, guarantees of the residual value of leased corporate aircraft, and a guarantee for our portion of a joint venture’s project finance reserve accounts. These guarantees have remaining terms of up to six years 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 nonperformance of contractual terms by guaranteed parties.

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. These agreements include indemnifications for taxes, environmental liabilities, employee claims 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, 2017, was approximately $100 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, 2017, 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 12—Contingencies and Commitments.

12

Table of Contents

On March 1, 2015, a supplier to one of the refineries 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 $1.28 billion. At September 30, 2017, the carrying value of this guarantee is approximately $98 million and the remaining term is seven years. Because Phillips 66 has indemnified us for losses incurred under this guarantee, we have recorded an indemnification asset from Phillips 66 of approximately $98 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 12—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 but 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 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 factors such 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

13

Table of Contents

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, 2017, our balance sheet included a total environmental accrual of $182 million, compared with $247 million at December 31, 2016, for remediation activities in the United States and Canada. We expect to incur a substantial amount of these expenditures within the next 30 years. 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 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 September 30, 2017, we had performance obligations secured by letters of credit of $286 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. On January 17, 2017, the Tribunal reconfirmed the decision that the expropriation was unlawful. A separate arbitration phase is currently proceeding to determine the damages owed to ConocoPhillips for Venezuela’s actions. Separate arbitrations for contractual compensation against PDVSA are also pending before International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) arbitration tribunals. In addition,

14

Table of Contents

ConocoPhillips brought fraudulent transfer actions in the U.S. District Court of Delaware, alleging that PDVSA has taken actions to improperly expatriate assets from the United States to Venezuela in an effort to avoid judgment creditors.

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. In February 2017, the tribunal unanimously awarded Burlington $380 million for Ecuador’s unlawful expropriation and 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 limited environmental and infrastructure impacts associated with the operations of Burlington and its co-venturer. Ecuador filed a request for annulment of this decision with ICSID, triggering a provisional stay of enforcement of the award. On August 31, the ICSID Annulment Committee issued a decision terminating the provisional stay. The annulment proceeding is ongoing.

In December 2016, ConocoPhillips Angola filed a notice of arbitration against Sonangol E.P. under the Block 36 Production Sharing Contract relating to disputes arising thereunder. The arbitration is being conducted under the United Nations Commission on International Trade Laws (UNCITRAL) rules using a three-person tribunal. The arbitration is ongoing.

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. The arbitral tribunal is in the process of being constituted.

Note 13—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 our 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.

15

Table of Contents

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:

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.

16

Table of Contents

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:

    *Primarily Canadian dollar.

  **Primarily British pound.

***Primarily Euro and Canadian dollar.

Financial Instruments

We invest excess cash in financial instruments with maturities based on our cash forecasts for the various currency pools we manage. The maturities of these investments may from time to time extend beyond 90 days. The types of financial instruments in which we currently invest include:

These financial instruments appear in the “Cash and cash equivalents” line of our consolidated balance sheet if the maturities at the time we made the investments were 90 days or less; otherwise, these financial instruments are included in the “Short-term investments” line on our consolidated balance sheet.

17

Table of Contents

Credit Risk

Financial instruments potentially exposed to concentrations of credit risk consist primarily of cash equivalents, short-term investments, over-the-counter (OTC) derivative contracts and trade receivables. Our cash equivalents and short-term investments are placed in high-quality commercial paper, government 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 to 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, 2017 and December 31, 2016, was $39 million and $42 million, respectively. For these instruments, no collateral was posted as of September 30, 2017 or December 31, 2016. If our credit rating had been downgraded below investment grade on September 30, 2017, we would be required to post $39 million of additional collateral, either with cash or letters of credit.

18

Table of Contents

Note 14—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:

The classification of an asset or liability is based on the lowest level of input significant to its fair value. Those that are initially classified as Level 3 are subsequently reported as Level 2 when the fair value derived from unobservable inputs is inconsequential to the overall fair value, or if corroborated market data becomes available. Assets and liabilities initially reported as Level 2 are subsequently reported as Level 3 if corroborated market data is no longer available. Transfers occur at the end of the reporting period. There were no material transfers in or out of Level 1 during 2017 or 2016.

Recurring Fair Value Measurement

Financial assets and liabilities reported at fair value on a recurring basis primarily include commodity derivatives. Level 1 derivative assets and liabilities primarily represent exchange-traded futures and options that are valued using unadjusted prices available from the underlying exchange. Level 2 derivative assets and liabilities primarily represent OTC swaps, options and forward purchase and sale contracts that are valued using adjusted exchange prices, prices provided by brokers or pricing service companies that are all corroborated by market data. This also includes our investment in common shares of Cenovus Energy, currently subject to a trading restriction, which is valued using quotes for shares on the New York Stock Exchange. Level 3 derivative assets and liabilities consist of OTC swaps, options and forward purchase and sale contracts where a significant portion of fair value is calculated from underlying market data that is not readily available. The derived value uses industry standard methodologies that may consider the historical relationships among various commodities, modeled market prices, time value, volatility factors and other relevant economic measures. The use of these inputs results in management’s best estimate of fair value. Level 3 activity was not material for all periods presented.

The following table summarizes the fair value hierarchy for gross financial assets and liabilities (i.e., unadjusted where the right of setoff exists for commodity derivatives accounted for at fair value on a recurring basis):