allegations that the arbitrator "exceeded his pow ers” and that the award "failed to draw its essence from the agreement,” Apache never specifically alleged that the Exculpatory Clause overrode the Arbitration and Choice-of-Law Clauses, thereby stripping the arbitrator of jurisdiction to award consequential damages. See Magistrate Judge’s Memorandum and Recommendation, at 48 (“Nothing suggests that [the arbitrator] exceeded his powers or failed to rationally infer the essence of the contract.”). Although Apache's conduct in this litigation has made it a close issue, we conclude that Apache has sufficiently preserved the argument that we will address it on the merits. 5 . See E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co. v. Local 900 of the Int’l Chem. Workers Union, 968 F.2d 456, 459 (5th Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>); Am. Eagle Airlines, Inc. v. Air Line Pilots
holding that because the parties agreed to arbitrate and both placed the issue before the arbitrator the issue of consolidation was for the arbitrator holding that upon vacating an arbitration award the court has the discretion to remand to the same arbitrator or different arbitrator holding arbitrator exceeded authority where submission limited issue to finding proper cause holding that the state must prove consent was voluntary not simply a submission to authority holding that the arbitrator exceeded his authority by addressing a question that was not submitted to arbitration and actually emerged six weeks after the original issue arose