COP 10-Q Quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013

Table of Contents

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-Q

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 [X] 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 [X] No [    ]

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

Large accelerated filer  [X]    Accelerated filer  [    ]     Non-accelerated filer  [    ]     Smaller reporting company  [    ]

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

The registrant had 1,225,098,698 shares of common stock, $.01 par value, outstanding at September 30, 2013.

Table of Contents

CONOCOPHILLIPS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of Contents

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

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 2012 Annual Report on Form 10-K.

As a result of our separation of Phillips 66 on April 30, 2012, the results of operations for our former refining, marketing and transportation businesses; most of our former Midstream segment; our former Chemicals segment; and our power generation and certain technology operations included in our former Emerging Businesses segment (collectively, our “Downstream business”), have been classified as discontinued operations for all periods presented. In addition, the results of operations for our interest in the North Caspian Sea Production Sharing Agreement (Kashagan) and our Algerian and Nigerian businesses have been classified as discontinued operations for all periods presented. See Note 3—Discontinued Operations, for additional information. Unless indicated otherwise, the information in the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements relates to our continuing operations.

Effective January 1, 2013, we early adopted, on a prospective basis, Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) Accounting Standards Update (ASU) No. 2013-05, “Parent’s Accounting for the Cumulative Translation Adjustment (CTA) upon Derecognition of Certain Subsidiaries or Groups of Assets within a Foreign Entity or of an Investment in a Foreign Entity.” This ASU clarifies that the CTA should not be released into net income unless a parent sells a part of its investment within a foreign entity which represents the complete or substantially complete liquidation of the reporting parent’s investment in the broader foreign entity. The ASU also requires the release of all the related CTA into net income upon gaining control in a step acquisition of an equity method investment that is considered to be a standalone foreign entity, and a pro rata release of the related CTA into net income upon a partial sale of an interest in an equity method investment that is considered to be a standalone foreign entity. There was no impact to our consolidated financial statements from the early adoption of this standard.

Separation of Downstream Business

On April 30, 2012, the separation of our Downstream business was completed, creating two independent energy companies: ConocoPhillips and Phillips 66. In connection with the separation, Phillips 66 distributed approximately $7.8 billion to us in a special cash distribution. The principal funds from the special cash distribution were designated solely to pay dividends, repurchase common stock, repay debt, or a combination of the foregoing, within twelve months following the distribution. The cash was included in the “Restricted cash” line on our consolidated balance sheet. No balance remained from the cash distribution as of September 30, 2013. We also entered into several agreements with Phillips 66 in order to effect the separation and govern our relationship with Phillips 66.

5

Table of Contents

Sales and other operating revenues and income from discontinued operations related to Phillips 66 for the three- and nine-month periods ended September 30, 2012, were as follows:

Income from discontinued operations after-tax includes transaction, information systems and other costs incurred to effect the separation of $70 million for the nine-month period ended September 30, 2012. No separation costs were incurred during the first nine months of 2013.

Prior to the separation, commodity sales to and purchases from Phillips 66 were $4,973 million and $166 million, respectively, for the nine-month period ended September 30, 2012. Prior to May 1, 2012, commodity sales and related costs were eliminated in consolidation between ConocoPhillips and Phillips 66. Beginning May 1, 2012, these revenues and costs represent third-party transactions with Phillips 66.

Other Discontinued Operations

As part of our ongoing asset disposition program, we agreed to sell our interest in Kashagan and our Algerian and Nigerian businesses (collectively, the “Disposition Group”). The Disposition Group was previously part of the Other International operating segment.

On November 26, 2012, we notified government authorities in Kazakhstan and co-venturers of our intent to sell the Company’s 8.4 percent interest in Kashagan to ONGC Videsh Limited (OVL). On July 2, 2013, we received notification from the government of Kazakhstan indicating it is exercising its right to pre-empt the proposed sale to OVL and designating KazMunayGas (KMG) as the entity to acquire the interest. On October 31, 2013, we completed the transaction with KMG for total proceeds of $5.4 billion. We recorded pre-tax impairments of $606 million and $43 million in the fourth quarter of 2012 and the first quarter of 2013, respectively. At September 30, 2013, the carrying value of the net assets related to our interest in Kashagan was $5.3 billion, net of impairments.

On December 18, 2012, we entered into an agreement with Pertamina to sell our wholly owned subsidiary, ConocoPhillips Algeria Ltd., for a total of $1.75 billion plus customary adjustments. The transaction is targeted to close by the end of 2013. We received a deposit of $175 million in December 2012. The deposit is refundable in the event our co-venturer exercises its preemptive rights, which have been waived, or government approval is not received. At September 30, 2013, the net carrying value of our Algerian assets was $714 million.

On December 20, 2012, we entered into agreements with affiliates of Oando PLC to sell our Nigerian business unit. This included its upstream affiliates and Phillips (Brass) Limited, which owns a 17 percent interest in the Brass LNG Project. Brass LNG plans to construct an LNG facility in the Niger Delta. In September 2013, we agreed to extend the outside date, or the date the sales agreements may terminate, for our Nigerian upstream affiliates to November 30, 2013, in order to provide additional time for Oando to obtain financing. This sale is expected to generate proceeds of $1.65 billion plus customary adjustments. We received a deposit of $435 million in December 2012 and may retain the deposit if closing does not occur due to default by the buyer or failure to obtain all consents required under Nigerian petroleum laws. In September 2013, we also agreed to extend the date for closing the sale of our interest in Brass LNG to the first quarter of 2014, subject to certain conditions. The sale of Brass LNG would generate proceeds of $105 million plus customary adjustments. At September 30, 2013, the net carrying value of our Nigerian assets was $371 million.

6

Table of Contents

At September 30, 2013, each component of the Disposition Group met the criteria to be classified as held for sale. Accordingly, we classified $11 million of loans and advances to related parties in the “Accounts and notes receivable—related parties” line and $7,421 million of noncurrent assets in the “Prepaid expenses and other current assets” line of our consolidated balance sheet. In addition, we classified $905 million of noncurrent liabilities in the “Accrued income and other taxes” line and $136 million of asset retirement obligations in the “Other accruals” line of our consolidated balance sheet. The carrying amounts of the major classes of assets and liabilities associated with the Disposition Group were as follows:

Sales and other operating revenues and income from discontinued operations related to the Disposition Group were as follows:

7

Table of Contents

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:

Freeport LNG Development, L.P. (Freeport LNG)

We have an agreement with Freeport LNG to participate in an LNG receiving terminal in Quintana, Texas. We have no ownership in Freeport LNG; however, we own a 50 percent interest in Freeport LNG GP, Inc. (Freeport GP), which serves as the general partner managing the venture. We entered into a credit agreement with Freeport LNG, whereby we agreed to provide loan financing for the construction of the terminal. We also entered into a long-term agreement with Freeport LNG to use 0.9 billion cubic feet per day of regasification capacity, which expires in 2033. The terminal became operational in June 2008, and we began making payments under the terminal use agreement. At September 30, 2013, the prepaid balance of the terminal use agreement was $269 million, which is primarily reflected in the “Other assets” line on our consolidated balance sheet. Freeport LNG began making loan repayments in September 2008, and the loan balance outstanding was $522 million at September 30, 2013, and $565 million at December 31, 2012.

In July 2013, we reached an agreement with Freeport LNG to terminate our long-term agreement at the Freeport LNG Terminal, subject to Freeport LNG obtaining regulatory approval and project financing for an LNG liquefaction and export facility in Texas, in which we are not a participant. Upon satisfaction of these conditions, currently expected to occur by the end of the first quarter of 2014, we will pay Freeport LNG a termination fee of approximately $600 million. Freeport LNG will repay the outstanding ConocoPhillips loan used by Freeport to partially fund the original construction of the terminal. When the agreement becomes effective, we expect to recognize an after-tax charge to earnings of approximately $540 million. At that time, our terminal regasification capacity will be reduced from 0.9 billion cubic feet per day to 0.4 billion cubic feet per day, until July 1, 2016, at which time it will be reduced to zero.

Freeport LNG is a VIE because Freeport GP holds no equity in Freeport LNG, and the limited partners of Freeport LNG do not have any substantive decision making ability. Since we do not have the unilateral power to direct the key activities which most significantly impact its economic performance, we are not the primary beneficiary of Freeport LNG. These key activities primarily involve or relate to operating and maintaining the terminal. We also performed an analysis of the expected losses and determined we are not the primary beneficiary. This expected loss analysis took into account that the credit support arrangement requires Freeport LNG to maintain sufficient commercial insurance to mitigate any loan losses. The loan to Freeport LNG is accounted for as a financial asset, and our investment in Freeport GP is accounted for as an equity investment.

Australia Pacific LNG (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 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, 2013, 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 7—Investments, Loans and Long-Term Receivables, and Note 13—Guarantees, for additional information.

8

Table of Contents

Inventories consisted of the following:

Inventories valued on the last-in, first-out (LIFO) basis totaled $374 million and $147 million at September 30, 2013, and December 31, 2012, respectively. The estimated excess of current replacement cost over LIFO cost of inventories was approximately $140 million at September 30, 2013, and $200 million at December 31, 2012.

Our interest in Kashagan and the Algerian and Nigerian business units were considered held for sale at September 30, 2013. These assets are classified as discontinued operations. See Note 3—Discontinued Operations, for additional information.

In March 2013, we sold the majority of our properties in the Cedar Creek Anticline for $989 million and recognized a before-tax loss on disposition of $49 million, which was included in the “Gain on dispositions” line on our consolidated income statement for the nine-month period ended September 30, 2013. At the time of the disposition, the carrying value of our interest, which was included in the Lower 48 and Latin America segment, was $1,038 million, which included $1,066 million of properties, plants and equipment (PP&E) and $28 million of asset retirement obligations.

In June 2013, we sold a portion of our working interests in the Browse and Canning basins for $402 million. Because we retained a working interest in the unproved properties, proceeds were treated as a reduction of the carrying value of PP&E with no gain or loss on disposition recognized. Prior to the partial disposition, the carrying value of the PP&E associated with our interests, included in our Asia Pacific and Middle East segment, was $486 million.

In August 2013, we sold our interest in the Clyden undeveloped oil sands leasehold for $724 million and recognized a before-tax gain on disposition of $614 million, which was included in the “Gain on dispositions” line on our consolidated income statement for the three- and nine-month periods ended September 30, 2013. At the time of the disposition, the carrying value of our interest in Clyden, which was included in the Canada segment, was $110 million and was classified as PP&E.

In August 2013, we also sold our 39 percent interest in Phoenix Park Gas Processors Limited for $593 million and recognized a before-tax gain on disposition of $417 million, which was included in the “Gain on dispositions” line on our consolidated income statement for the three- and nine-month periods ended September 30, 2013. At the time of the disposition, the carrying value of our equity investment in Phoenix Park, which was included in our Lower 48 and Latin America segment, was $176 million.

9

Table of Contents

APLNG

In the fourth quarter of 2012, APLNG satisfied all conditions precedent to drawdown from the $8.5 billion project finance facility. The 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. In connection with the execution of the project financing, we provided a completion guarantee for our pro-rata share of the project finance facility until the project achieves financial completion. See Note 13—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 4—Variable Interest Entities (VIEs), for additional information.

At September 30, 2013, the book value of our equity method investment in APLNG was $10,526 million, which included $1,601 million of cumulative translation effects due to strengthening of the Australian dollar relative to the U.S. dollar over time, and is included in the “Investments and long-term receivables” line on our consolidated balance sheet.

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. Significant loans to affiliated companies at September 30, 2013, included the following:

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.”

The capitalized cost of suspended wells at September 30, 2013, was $1,066 million, an increase of $28 million from $1,038 million at year-end 2012. No suspended wells were charged to dry hole expense during the first nine months of 2013 relating to exploratory well costs capitalized for a period greater than one year as of December 31, 2012.

10

Table of Contents

During the three- and nine-month periods ended September 30, 2013 and 2012, we recognized before-tax impairment charges within the following segments:

The nine-month periods of 2013 and 2012 included impairments in our Europe segment of $28 million and $79 million, respectively, primarily due to increases in the asset retirement obligation for the U.K. Don Field, which has ceased production. Additionally, the nine-month period of 2012 included a $213 million property impairment in our Canada segment for the carrying value of capitalized project development costs associated with our Mackenzie Gas Project. Advancement of the project was suspended indefinitely in the first quarter of 2012 due to a continued decline in market conditions and the lack of acceptable commercial terms. We also recorded a $481 million impairment for the undeveloped leasehold costs associated with the project, which was included in the “Exploration expenses” line on our consolidated income statement.

We have two commercial paper programs supported by our $7.5 billion revolving credit facility: the ConocoPhillips $6.35 billion program, primarily a funding source for short-term working capital needs, and the ConocoPhillips Qatar Funding Ltd. $1.15 billion program, which is used to fund commitments relating to QG3. Commercial paper maturities are generally limited to 90 days.

At September 30, 2013, and December 31, 2012, we had no direct outstanding borrowings or letters of credit issued under our revolving credit facilities. In addition, under the ConocoPhillips Qatar Funding Ltd. commercial paper program, there was $961 million of commercial paper outstanding at September 30, 2013, compared with $1,055 million at December 31, 2012. Since we had $961 million of commercial paper outstanding and had issued no letters of credit, we had access to $6.5 billion in borrowing capacity under our revolving credit facilities at September 30, 2013.

At September 30, 2013, we classified $865 million of short-term debt as long-term debt, based on our ability and intent to refinance the obligation on a long-term basis under our revolving credit facilities.

During the first nine months of 2013, we repaid the following debt instruments at maturity:

During the second quarter of 2013, a lease of a semi-submersible floating production system (FPS) commenced for the Gumusut development, located in Malaysia, in which we are a co-venturer. The FPS lease provides for an initial noncancelable term of 15 years, a subsequent 5-year cancelable term with no required lease payments, and an additional 5-year term with terms and conditions to be agreed at a later date. The lease has no ongoing purchase options or escalation clauses. Certain contingent rental payments may be incurred if actual commissioning costs exceed provisioned amounts. The lease does not impose any significant restrictions concerning dividends, debt or further leasing activities.

11

Table of Contents

A capital lease asset and a capital lease obligation of $906 million were recognized for our proportionate interest in the FPS. The value of the capital lease asset and associated obligation are based on the present value of the future minimum lease payments using our pre-tax incremental borrowing rate of 3.58 percent for debt with similar terms. Following the startup of the FPS, the capital lease asset will be depreciated over a period consistent with the estimated proved reserves of Gumusut using the unit-of-production method with the associated depreciation included in the “Depreciation, depletion and amortization” line on our consolidated income statement. Future minimum lease payments under the capital lease are $46 million for the remainder of 2013, $78 million per year for 2014 through 2017, and $814 million for all years thereafter.

We are obligated to contribute $7.5 billion, plus interest, over a 10-year period that began in 2007, to FCCL Partnership. Quarterly principal and interest payments of $237 million began in the second quarter of 2007, and will continue until the balance is paid. Of the principal obligation amount, approximately $803 million was short-term and was included in the “Accounts payable—related parties” line on our September 30, 2013, consolidated balance sheet. The principal portion of these payments, which totaled $575 million in the first nine months of 2013, is included in the “Other” line in the financing activities section on our consolidated statement of cash flows. Interest accrues at a fixed annual rate of 5.3 percent on the unpaid principal balance. Fifty percent of the quarterly interest payment is reflected as a capital contribution and is included in the “Capital expenditures and investments” line on our consolidated statement of cash flows.

Activity attributable to common stockholders’ equity and noncontrolling interests for the first nine months of 2013 and 2012 was as follows:

*Includes components of other comprehensive income, which are disclosed separately in our consolidated statement of comprehensive income.

12

Table of Contents

At September 30, 2013, 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 either because the guarantees were issued prior to December 31, 2002, or 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, 2013, we have 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 2013 exchange rates:

Other Guarantees

We have other guarantees with maximum future potential payment amounts totaling approximately $270 million, which consist primarily of guarantees of the residual value of leased corporate aircraft, guarantees to fund the short-term cash liquidity deficit of two joint ventures, a guarantee for our portion of a joint venture’s debt obligations and a guarantee of minimum charter revenue for an LNG vessel. These guarantees have remaining terms of up to 11 years or the life of the venture and would become payable if, upon sale, certain asset values are lower than guaranteed amounts, business conditions decline at guaranteed entities, or as a result of non-performance of contractual terms by guaranteed parties.

13

Table of Contents

Indemnifications

Over the years, we have entered into various lease agreements or agreements to sell ownership interests in certain corporations, joint ventures and assets that gave rise to qualifying indemnifications. Agreements associated with these leases and sales include indemnifications for taxes, environmental liabilities, permits and licenses, employee claims, real estate indemnity against tenant defaults, 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, 2013, was approximately $60 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, 2013, were approximately $50 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 14—Contingencies and Commitments.

In connection with the separation of the Downstream business, the Company entered into an Indemnification and Release Agreement with Phillips 66. This agreement provided for cross-indemnities between Phillips 66 and ConocoPhillips and established procedures for handling claims subject to indemnification and related matters. We evaluated the impact of the indemnifications given and the Phillips 66 indemnifications received as of the separation date and concluded those fair values were immaterial.

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

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

14

Table of Contents

currently available facts, existing technology, and presently enacted laws and regulations, taking into account stakeholder and business considerations. When measuring environmental liabilities, we also consider our prior experience in remediation of contaminated sites, other companies’ cleanup experience, and data released by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or other organizations. We consider unasserted claims in our determination of environmental liabilities, and we accrue them in the period they are both probable and reasonably estimable.

Although liability of those potentially responsible for environmental remediation costs is generally joint and several for federal sites and frequently so for other sites, we are usually only one of many companies cited at a particular site. Due to the joint and several liabilities, we could be responsible for all cleanup costs related to any site at which we have been designated as a potentially responsible party. We have been successful to date in sharing cleanup costs with other financially sound companies. Many of the sites at which we are potentially responsible are still under investigation by the EPA or the agency concerned. Prior to actual cleanup, those potentially responsible normally assess the site conditions, apportion responsibility and determine the appropriate remediation. In some instances, we may have no liability or may attain a settlement of liability. Where it appears that other potentially responsible parties may be financially unable to bear their proportional share, we consider this inability in estimating our potential liability, and we adjust our accruals accordingly. As a result of various acquisitions in the past, we assumed certain environmental obligations. Some of these environmental obligations are mitigated by indemnifications made by others for our benefit and some of the indemnifications are subject to dollar 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 in respect of sites 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, 2013, our balance sheet included a total environmental accrual of $355 million, compared with $364 million at December 31, 2012, for remediation activities in the U.S. and Canada. We expect to incur a substantial amount of these expenditures within the next 30 years. We have not reduced these accruals for possible insurance recoveries. In the future, we may be involved in additional environmental assessments, cleanups and proceedings.

Legal Proceedings

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, are 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, 2013, we had performance obligations secured by letters of credit of $809 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

15

Table of Contents

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. An additional arbitration phase is now proceeding to determine the amount of damages owed to ConocoPhillips for Venezuela’s actions.

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 a supplemental counterclaim asserting environmental damages, which we believe are not material. The ICSID tribunal issued a decision on liability on December 14, 2012, in favor of Burlington, finding that Ecuador’s seizure of Blocks 7 and 21 was an unlawful expropriation in violation of the Ecuador-U.S. Bilateral Investment Treaty. An additional arbitration phase is now proceeding to determine the damages owed to ConocoPhillips for Ecuador’s actions.

ConocoPhillips served a Notice of Arbitration on the Timor-Leste Minister of Finance in October 2012 for outstanding disputes related to a series of tax assessments. Between December 2010 and September 2013, ConocoPhillips paid, under protest, tax assessments totaling approximately $232 million, which are primarily recorded in the “Investments and long-term receivables” line on our consolidated balance sheet. The arbitration will be conducted in Singapore under the United Nations Commission on International Trade Laws (UNCITRAL) arbitration rules, pursuant to the terms of the Tax Stability Agreement with the Timor-Leste government. The arbitration process is currently underway. Future impacts on our business are not known at this time.

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. Under our current business model, we are not required to register as a Swap Dealer or Major Swap Participant.

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

16

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 consists of transactions designed to mitigate our cash-related and foreign currency exchange rate exposures, such as firm commitments for capital projects 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.

17

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:

Financial Instruments

We have certain financial instruments on our consolidated balance sheet related to interest bearing time deposits and commercial paper. The following held-to-maturity financial instruments are included in “Cash and cash equivalents” on our consolidated balance sheet:

18

Table of Contents

In conjunction with the separation of our Downstream business, we received a special cash distribution from Phillips 66. See Note 3—Discontinued Operations, for additional information. The balance of the special cash distribution was zero at September 30, 2013, and $748 million at December 31, 2012, and was included in “Restricted cash” on our consolidated balance sheet. At December 31, 2012, the funds in the restricted cash account were invested in money market funds with maturities within 90 days from December 31, 2012.

Credit Risk

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

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

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

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

The aggregate fair value of all derivative instruments with such credit-risk-related contingent features that were in a liability position on September 30, 2013, and December 31, 2012, was $83 million and $130 million, respectively. For these instruments, no collateral was posted as of September 30, 2013, or December 31, 2012. If our credit rating had been lowered one level from its “A” rating (per Standard and Poor’s) on September 30, 2013, we would be required to post no additional collateral to our counterparties. If we had been downgraded below investment grade, we would be required to post $83 million of additional collateral, either with cash or letters of credit.

19

Table of Contents

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 that are 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.

Recurring Fair Value Measurement

Financial assets and liabilities reported at fair value on a recurring basis primarily include commodity derivatives and certain investments to support nonqualified deferred compensation plans. The deferred compensation investments are measured at fair value using unadjusted prices available from national securities exchanges; therefore, these assets are categorized as Level 1 in the fair value hierarchy. 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. Level 3 derivative assets and liabilities consist of OTC swaps, options and forward purchase and sale contracts that are long term in nature and 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.

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):