Commitments and contingencies | Commitments and contingencies Standby letters of credit (“Letters”) available under our Credit Facility are used in lieu of surety bonds with various organizations for liabilities relating to the operation of oil and natural gas properties. We had Letters outstanding totaling $869 as of each of March 31, 2019 and December 31, 2018 . When amounts under the Letters are paid by the lenders, interest accrues on the amount paid at the same interest rate applicable to borrowings under the Credit Facility. No amounts were paid by the lenders under the Letters; therefore, we paid no interest on the Letters during the three months ended March 31, 2019 or 2018 . Litigation and Claims Chapter 11 Proceedings. Commencement of the Chapter 11 proceedings automatically stayed many of the proceedings and actions against us noted below as well as other claims and actions that were or could have been brought prior to May 9, 2016 (“Petition Date”), and the claims remain subject to Bankruptcy Court jurisdiction. With respect to the proofs of claim asserted in the Chapter 11 Cases arising from the proceedings or actions below which were initiated prior to the Petition Date, we are unable to estimate the amount of such claims that will be allowed by the Bankruptcy Court due to, among other things, the complexity and number of legal and factual issues which are necessary to determine the amount of such claims and uncertainties related to the nature of defenses asserted in connection with the claims, the potential size of the putative classes, and the types of the properties and scope of agreements related to such claims. As a result, no reserves were established in respect of such proofs of claims or any of the proceedings or actions described below. To the extent that any of the legal proceedings were filed prior to the Petition Date and result in a claim being allowed against us, pursuant to the terms of the Reorganization Plan, such claims will be satisfied through the issuance of new stock in the Company or, if the amount of such claim is below the convenience class threshold, through cash settlement. As of March 31, 2019 , there are in excess of 100 remaining claims subject to Bankruptcy Court jurisdiction. Of the total alleged dollar amount of these unresolved claims, nearly all, as measured by the alleged amount of such claims, is comprised of claims from the Naylor Farms case, the W.H. Davis case and the CLO case described below. If the Bankruptcy Court were to allow the remaining unresolved proofs of claims from these cases in the full amount asserted therein, the Company, pursuant to the Plan of Reorganization, would be required to issue additional shares to the holders of such allowed proofs of claim, which could result in dilution to existing stockholders. Naylor Farms, Inc., individually and as class representative on behalf of all similarly situated persons v. Chaparral Energy, L.L.C (the “Naylor Farms case”). On June 7, 2011, an alleged class action was filed against us in the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma (Naylor Trial Court”) alleging that we improperly deducted post-production costs from royalties paid to plaintiffs and other non-governmental Royalty Interest owners from crude oil and natural gas wells we operate in Oklahoma. The plaintiffs have alleged a number of claims, including breach of contract, fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and other claims and seek termination of leases, recovery of compensatory damages, interest, punitive damages and attorney fees on behalf of the alleged class. Plaintiffs indicated they seek damages in excess of $5,000 , the majority of which would be comprised of interest and may increase with the passage of time. We responded to the Naylor Farms petition, denied the allegations and raised arguments and defenses. Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification in October 2015. In addition, the plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment asking the Naylor Trial Court to determine as a matter of law that natural gas is not marketable until it is in the condition and location to enter an interstate pipeline. On May 20, 2016, we filed a Notice of Suggestion of Bankruptcy with the Naylor Trial Court. Subsequently the bankruptcy stay was lifted for the limited purpose of determining the class certification issue. On January 17, 2017, the Naylor Trial Court certified a modified class of plaintiffs with oil and gas leases containing specific language. The modified class constitutes less than 60% of the leases the plaintiffs originally sought to certify. After additional briefing on the subject, on April 18, 2017, the Naylor Trial Court issued an order certifying the class to include only claims relating back to June 1, 2006. On May 3, 2019, our appeal of that class certification was denied by the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals (the “Tenth Circuit”). In addition to filing claims on behalf of the named and putative plaintiffs, on August 15, 2016, plaintiffs’ attorneys filed a proof of claim on behalf of the putative class claiming damages in excess of $150,000 in our Chapter 11 Cases. The Company objected to treatment of the claim on a class basis, asserting the claim should be addressed on an individual basis. On April 20, 2017, plaintiffs filed an amended proof of claim reducing the claim to an amount in excess of $90,000 inclusive of actual and punitive damages, statutory interest and attorney fees. On May 24, 2017, the Bankruptcy Court denied the Company’s objection, ruling the plaintiffs may file a claim on behalf of the class. This order did not establish liability or otherwise address the merits of the plaintiffs’ claims, to which we will also object. On June 7, 2017 we appealed the Bankruptcy Court order to the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. Pursuant to the Reorganization Plan, if the plaintiffs ultimately prevail on the merits of their claims, any liability arising under judgment or settlement of the unsecured claims would be satisfied through the issuance of stock in the Company. We continue to dispute the plaintiffs’ allegations, dispute the case meets the requirements for class certification, and are objecting to the claims both individually and on a class-wide basis. W. H. Davis Family Limited Partnership Claims in the Company’s Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Cases (the “W.H. Davis case”). The W. H. Davis Family Limited Partnership (“Davis”) filed Proofs of Claim (Nos. 1819 and 1835) in the Company’s Chapter 11 Cases. Davis claims that Chaparral owes Davis $17,262 as the result of Chaparral’s alleged diversion of CO2 from the Camrick Unit and the North Perryton Unit to the Farnsworth Unit. All these units were divested by the Company as part of its EOR asset sale in November 2017. The Camrick Unit was a tertiary recovery project located in Beaver County and Texas County, Oklahoma. The North Perryton Unit was a tertiary recovery project located in Ochiltree County, Texas. The Company was previously the operator of the Camrick and North Perryton Units and owned approximately 60% of the working interest in those units. Davis owns approximately 40% of the working interests in those units. The Company also operated the Farnsworth Unit which was a tertiary recovery project located in Ochiltree County, Texas. The Company previously owned 100% of the working interests in the Farnsworth Unit. Davis contends that the Company was required to deliver all available CO 2 sourced from the Agrium nitrogen fertilizer plant in Borger, Texas, to the Camrick and North Perryton Units and its diversion of a portion of the available CO 2 to the Farnsworth Unit constitutes a breach of contractual and fiduciary duties owed to Davis. Davis contends that the diversion has resulted in a decrease of oil production and reserves in the Camrick Unit and the North Perryton Unit. Davis contends that Chaparral caused the diversion of CO 2 from the Camrick and North Perryton Units to the Farnsworth Unit in order to profit from increased production at the Farnsworth Unit to the detriment of Davis. The Company disputes Davis’ allegations and specifically denies that it has any contractual or fiduciary obligation to Davis as alleged in the Proofs of Claim. The Company filed objections to the Proofs of Claim in the Chapter 11 proceeding. This proceeding is pending in the Bankruptcy Court. The Bankruptcy Judge has ordered Davis and the Company to participate in a mediation of the dispute. Pursuant to the Reorganization Plan, if Davis ultimately prevails on the merits of its claims, any liability arising under the judgment or settlement would be satisfied through the issuance of stock in the Company. The Commissioners of the Land Office of the State of Oklahoma’s Claims in the Company’s Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Cases (the “CLO case”). The Commissioners of the Land Office of the State of Oklahoma (“CLO”) claims that the Company is the lessee of mineral interests owned by the State of Oklahoma that are administered by the CLO. The CLO alleges that the Company has failed to pay royalties or has underpaid royalties owed to the CLO under these mineral leases and the CLO’s regulations. The CLO’s Proofs of Claims Nos. 2130 and 2131 allege non-payment of royalties and seek recovery of $1,697 in allegedly unpaid royalties and related interest. The CLO’s Proofs of Claim Nos. 2132, 2133 and 2234 allege underpayment of royalties seek recovery of $29 in underpaid royalties and related interests. The Company objects to the CLO’s claims on several grounds, including: (1) claims fail to take into account differences in the specific lease language and applicable regulations as they have changed over time; (2) the CLO’s construction of the leases and the regulations are improper; (3) the claims are based upon improper benchmark prices; (4) the claims improperly include amounts for interests; (5) the CLO seeks to impose liability on the Company for royalties where it is not CLO’s lessee; and (6) the claims are barred in whole or in part by the applicable Statute of Limitations and/or the doctrines of laches and estoppel. Pursuant to the Reorganization Plan, if the CLO ultimately prevails on the merits of its claims, any liability arising under the judgment or settlement would be satisfied through the issuance of stock in the Company. Lisa West and Stormy Hopson, individually and as class representatives on behalf of all similarly situated persons v. Chaparral Energy, L.L.C. (the “ West case”) On February 18, 2016, an alleged class action was filed against us, as well as several other operators in the District Court of Pottawatomie County, State of Oklahoma, alleging claims on behalf of named plaintiffs and all similarly situated persons having an insurable real property interest in eight counties in central Oklahoma (the “Class Area”). The plaintiffs alleged that certain oil and gas operations conducted by us and the other defendants have induced earthquakes in the Class Area. The plaintiffs did not seek damages for property damage, but instead asked the court to require the defendants to reimburse plaintiffs and class members for earthquake insurance premiums from 2011 through the time at which the court determines there is no longer a risk of induced earthquakes, as well as attorney fees and costs and other relief. On March 18, 2016, the case was removed to the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma under the Class Action Fairness Act. On April 14, 2016, we filed a motion to dismiss the claims asserted against us for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. On May 20, 2016, we filed a Notice of Suggestion of Bankruptcy, informing the court that we had filed voluntary petitions for relief under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code. On October 14, 2016, the plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint adding additional defendants and increasing the Class Area to 25 central Oklahoma counties. Other defendants filed motions to dismiss the action which were granted on May 12, 2017. On July 18, 2017, plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint adding additional named plaintiffs as putative class representatives and adding three additional counties to the putative class area. In the Second Amended Complaint, plaintiffs sought damages for nuisance, negligence, abnormally dangerous activities, and trespass. Due to Chaparral’s bankruptcy, plaintiffs specifically limited alleged damages related to Chaparral’s disposal activities occurring after our emergence from bankruptcy on March 21, 2017. We moved to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint on September 15, 2017. On August 13, 2018, the court granted our motion to dismiss, and on August 16, 2018 issued an order striking the class allegations from the Second Amended Complaint. On August 30, 2018, plaintiffs filed a motion for a permissive appeal with the Tenth Circuit, challenging the order dismissing the class allegations. The Tenth Circuit denied plaintiffs’ petition for leave to appeal on September 24, 2018. Because the plaintiffs still have live claims pending against other defendants, the district court’s dismissal of the claims asserted against us are not yet final. In the event plaintiffs ultimately seek to appeal our dismissal, we will dispute the plaintiffs’ claims, dispute that the case meets the requirements for a class action, dispute the remedies requested are available under Oklahoma law, and vigorously defend the case. Plaintiffs’ attorneys filed a proof of claim on behalf of the putative class claiming in excess of $75,000 in our Chapter 11 Cases. We filed an objection to class treatment of the proof of claim filed by the West plaintiffs in our bankruptcy proceeding. The Bankruptcy Court heard our objection, and on February 9, 2018 granted our objection to class treatment of the proof of claim. James Butler et al. v. Berexco, L.L.C., Chaparral Energy, L.L.C, et al. (the " Butler case") On October 13, 2017, a group of fifty-two individual plaintiffs filed a lawsuit in the District Court of Payne County, State of Oklahoma against twenty-six named defendants, including us, and twenty-five unnamed defendants. Plaintiffs are all property owners and residents of Payne County, Oklahoma, and allege salt water disposal activities by the defendants, owners or operators of salt water disposal wells, induced earthquakes which have caused damage to real and personal property, and emotional damages. Plaintiffs claim absolute liability for ultra-hazardous activities, negligence, gross negligence, public and private nuisance, trespass, and ask for compensatory and punitive damages. On December 18, 2017, we moved the court to dismiss the claims against us. Prior to plaintiffs responding to our motion, a hearing on a motion to stay the Butler case was held on January 4, 2018. The judge granted the motion to stay proceedings, ruling that the Butler case was stayed pending final judgment or denial of class certification in the West case. Despite the dismissal of the class allegations in the West case, the stay has not been lifted. Our motion to dismiss will not be considered until the stay is lifted, at which time, if necessary, we will dispute plaintiffs’ claims, dispute that the remedies requested are available under Oklahoma law, and vigorously defend the case. Lacheverjuan Bennett et al. v. Chaparral Energy, L.L.C., et al. On March 26, 2018, a group of twenty-seven individual plaintiffs filed a lawsuit in the District Court of Logan County, State of Oklahoma against twenty-three named defendants, including us, and twenty-five unnamed defendants. Plaintiffs are all property owners and residents of Logan County, Oklahoma, and allege the defendants, all oil and gas companies which have engaged in injection well operations, induced earthquakes which have caused damage to real and personal property, and caused emotional damages. Plaintiffs claim absolute liability for ultra-hazardous activities, negligence, gross negligence, public and private nuisance, and trespass, and ask for compensatory and punitive damages, and attorney fees and costs. On October 22, 2018, we filed a motion to dismiss the claims asserted against us for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Jointly with other defendants, we have also filed a motion to stay the proceedings pending resolution of the West case. Despite dismissal of the class allegations in the West case, the stay has not been lifted. When the stay is lifted, we will dispute the plaintiffs’ claims, dispute the remedies requested are available under Oklahoma law, and vigorously defend the case. Hallco Petroleum, Inc. v. Chaparral Energy, L.L.C. On November 7, 2017, Hallco Production, LLC (“Hallco”) filed a lawsuit against us in the District Court of Kay County, State of Oklahoma. Plaintiffs alleged carbon dioxide which was injected for enhanced oil recovery in wells operated by us in the North Burbank Unit migrated to wells operated by Hallco, damaging its salt water disposal well and therefore preventing operation of, and production from, all wells on Hallco’s lease. Plaintiffs allege the migration of carbon dioxide constituted trespass, and further allege negligence and nuisance. Plaintiff seeks actual damages in excess of $75 , plus punitive damages in an unspecified amount. Because we sold the EOR wells on November 17, 2017, Hallco filed an amended petition on March 6, 2018 to add the purchaser, Perdure Petroleum, LLC, as an additional defendant in the lawsuit. Plaintiff claims the damage is ongoing. We dispute the plaintiff’s claims, dispute the remedies requested are available under Oklahoma law, and are vigorously defending the case. Brown & Borelli, Inc. v. Chesapeake Operating, L.L.C. et al. , in the District Court of Kingfisher County, State of Oklahoma. The plaintiff filed its petition in this case on August 24, 2018. In the petition, the plaintiff alleges our use of hydraulic fracturing during completion of a certain horizontal oil and gas well caused damage to plaintiff’s existing vertical wells located in another section. The plaintiff also alleges two co-defendants’ completion of horizontal wells likewise caused damage to the same vertical wells. Plaintiff asserts claims for trespass and nuisance against all defendants and seeks to recover compensatory damages for the alleged loss of production to plaintiff’s vertical wells. We filed an answer on October 9, 2018 disputing plaintiff’s material allegations and asserting certain affirmative and other defenses. Discovery is ongoing and no scheduling order has yet been entered by the court. We will vigorously defend the case. We are involved in various other legal proceedings including, but not limited to, commercial disputes, claims from royalty and surface owners, property damage claims, quiet title actions, personal injury claims, employment claims, and other matters which arise in the ordinary course of business. These proceedings may include allegations of damages from induced earthquakes, which we will vigorously defend as necessary. In addition, other proofs of claim have been filed in our bankruptcy case which we anticipate repudiating. While the outcome of these legal proceedings cannot be predicted with certainty, we do not expect any of them individually to have a material effect on our financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. Contractual obligations We have numerous contractual commitments in the ordinary course of business including debt service requirements, operating leases, financing leases and purchase obligations. Our operating leases include leases for drilling rigs, which have terms of up to 15 months , and leases on CO 2 recycle compressors, which have terms of seven years . Aside from operating leases, we also have financing leases for our CO 2 recycle compressors and fleet vehicles. In conjunction with the sale of our EOR assets, all our leased CO 2 compressors were subleased to the buyer of those assets although we remain the primary obligor in relation to U.S. Bank, the originating lessor. The subleases are structured such that the lease payments and remaining lease term are identical to the original leases. Other than additional borrowings under our Credit Facility and our new leases for fleet vehicles (see Note 5—Leases), we did not have material changes to our contractual commitments since December 31, 2018. |