Commitments And Contingencies	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2020
Commitments And Contingencies [Abstract]
Commitments And Contingencies	8. Commitments and Contingencies Cost Reduction Measures Commencing in the quarter ended March 31, 2015 and continuing into the quarter ended June 30, 2018, the Company implemented cost reduction measures including compensation reductions for each employee as well as members of the Board of Directors. These compensation reductions were to remain in place until such time, if any, that the market price of crude oil, calculated as a thirty day trailing average of WTI postings as published by the U.S. Energy Information Administration meets or exceeds $70 per barrel. In May 2018, oil prices as so calculated exceeded $70 and compensation reverted to the levels in place before the reductions became effective. At such time, if any, that the market price of crude oil, calculated as a thirty day trailing average of WTI postings as published by the U.S. Energy Information Administration meets or exceeds $85 per barrel, all previous reductions made will be reimbursed, a portion which may be paid in stock, to each employee and members of the Board of Directors if is still employed by the Company or still a member of the Board of Directors. For the period January 1, 2015 through December 31, 2020, the reductions were approximately $430,000. Of the $430,000, approximately $117,000 will be paid in the Company’s common stock. The $117,000 value represents approximately 8,000 common share valued at $14.88 per share which represents the closing price on December 31, 2020 (the number of shares and price per share have been adjusted to reflect the impact of the 1 for 12 reverse stock split approved at the shareholder meeting dated February 25, 2021, effective with trading on March 1, 2021). The Company has not accrued any liabilities associated with these compensation reductions. As of the closing of the Merger Transaction with Riley, the potential reimbursement of this amount and shares are no longer due to the former Tengasco employees. Legal Proceedings We are involved in various legal proceedings relating to our operations and review the status of these proceedings on an ongoing basis and, from time to time, may settle or otherwise resolve these matters on terms and conditions that management believes are in our best interests. Although the results cannot be known with certainty, we currently believe that the ultimate results of such proceedings will not have a material adverse effect on our business, financial position, results of operations or liquidity. On May 14, 2020 the Company received notice of three orders (the “Orders”) issued by the Regional Director of the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (“BSEE”) of the Department of the Interior dated May 13, 2020, stating that the Company, together with a group of several other named parties, were being looked to by the BSEE to perform the decommissioning of facilities on three Gulf of Mexico leases owned by Hoactzin Partners, L. P. (“Hoactzin’) and other lessees due to Hoactzin’s default in its lease obligations to decommission such facilities. No monetary amount was sought or described in the Orders. Hoactzin is controlled by Peter E. Salas, the chairman of the Company’s Board of Directors. Management’s assessment of the likelihood of a loss is remote as the Company believes it has available defenses to the Orders. On August 21, 2020, the bankruptcy court in the Northern District of Texas in Dallas entered an agreed order requiring Hoactzin, the surety on Hoactzin’s bonds, and seven other working interest owners (a group not including the Company) to complete all the necessary decommissioning on all of Hoactzin’s facilities and to prepay all anticipated expenses, including insurance premiums and a contingency reserve, estimated to be necessary to do so. The bankruptcy trustee has reported that all funds to be paid have been received from all parties to the agreed order. Decommissioning is proceeding under the direction of the bankruptcy trustee and approved contractors under the control of the bankruptcy court. Accordingly, it is anticipated that all work contemplated by the Orders will be completed by, and at the expense of, other persons and the relief sought in the Orders for the Company to perform the work will at that time be moot as to the Company. In response to the announcement that Tengasco, Inc. and Riley Exploration – Permian LLC were engaging in a business combination, on December 2, 2020 a purported shareholder of Tengasco filed a lawsuit against Tengasco and the members of the Tengasco board of directors in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York, captioned Luis A. Nieves Cortes v. Tengasco Inc., et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-10111-LAP (which we refer to as the “Cortes complaint”). On December 8, 2020 a purported shareholder of Tengasco filed a lawsuit against Tengasco, the members of the Tengasco board of directors, and Mike Rugen, Tengasco’s CFO/Interim CEO, in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York, captioned Sarah King v. Tengasco, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-10343 (which we refer to as the “King complaint”). On December 10, 2020 a purported shareholder of Tengasco filed a lawsuit against Tengasco, the members of the Tengasco board of directors, Antman Sub, LLC and Riley Exploration Permian, LLC in the United States District Court, District of Delaware, captioned Lewis D. Baker v. Tengasco, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-01681-UNA (which we refer to as the “Baker complaint”). On December 31, 2020 a purported shareholder of Tengasco filed a lawsuit against Tengasco and the members of the Tengasco board of directors in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York, captioned Lara Gaudio v. Tengasco, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-11114-UA (which we refer to as the “Gaudio complaint”). On February 4, 2021 a purported shareholder of Tengasco filed a lawsuit against Tengasco and the members of the Tengasco board of directors in the United States District Court, District of Colorado, captioned Robert Wilhelm v. Tengasco, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-00348 (which we refer to as the “Wilhelm complaint” and together with the Cortes complaint, the King complaint, the Baker complaint, and the Wilhelm complaint, the “federal law complaints”). The plaintiffs in the federal law complaints generally claimed that the defendants disseminated a false or misleading registration statement regarding the proposed merger in violation of Section 14(a) and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act and/or Rule 14a-9 promulgated under the Exchange Act. In addition, the plaintiff in the King complaint claims that the individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties of candor and disclosure. The plaintiffs sought, among other things, injunctive relief to prevent consummation of the merger until the alleged disclosure violations were cured, damages in the event the merger was consummated, and an award of attorney's fees and costs. While Tengasco and Riley believed the previous disclosures were complete and disagreed with the plaintiffs, Tengasco filed a Form 8-K that included certain additional requested disclosures. Plaintiffs dismissed all of the federal law complaints.

8. Commitments and Contingencies

Cost Reduction Measures

Commencing in the quarter ended March 31, 2015 and continuing into the quarter ended June 30, 2018, the Company implemented cost reduction measures including compensation reductions for each employee as well as members of the Board of Directors. These compensation reductions were to remain in place until such time, if any, that the market price of crude oil, calculated as a thirty day trailing average of WTI postings as published by the U.S. Energy Information Administration meets or exceeds $70 per barrel. In May 2018, oil prices as so calculated exceeded $70 and compensation reverted to the levels in place before the reductions became effective. At such time, if any, that the market price of crude oil, calculated as a thirty day trailing average of WTI postings as published by the U.S. Energy Information Administration meets or exceeds $85 per barrel, all previous reductions made will be reimbursed, a portion which may be paid in stock, to each employee and members of the Board of Directors if is still employed by the Company or still a member of the Board of Directors. For the period January 1, 2015 through December 31, 2020, the reductions were approximately $430,000. Of the $430,000, approximately $117,000 will be paid in the Company’s common stock. The $117,000 value represents approximately 8,000 common share valued at $14.88 per share which represents the closing price on December 31, 2020 (the number of shares and price per share have been adjusted to reflect the impact of the 1 for 12 reverse stock split approved at the shareholder meeting dated February 25, 2021, effective with trading on March 1, 2021). The Company has not accrued any liabilities associated with these compensation reductions. As of the closing of the Merger Transaction with Riley, the potential reimbursement of this amount and shares are no longer due to the former Tengasco employees.

Legal Proceedings

We are involved in various legal proceedings relating to our operations and review the status of these proceedings on an ongoing basis and, from time to time, may settle or otherwise resolve these matters on terms and conditions that management believes are in our best interests. Although the results cannot be known with certainty, we currently believe that the ultimate results of such proceedings will not have a material adverse effect on our business, financial position, results of operations or liquidity.

On May 14, 2020 the Company received notice of three orders (the “Orders”) issued by the Regional Director of the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (“BSEE”) of the Department of the Interior dated May 13, 2020, stating that the Company, together with a group of several other named parties, were being looked to by the BSEE to perform the decommissioning of facilities on three Gulf of Mexico leases owned by Hoactzin Partners, L. P. (“Hoactzin’) and other lessees due to Hoactzin’s default in its lease obligations to decommission such facilities. No monetary amount was sought or described in the Orders. Hoactzin is controlled by Peter E. Salas, the chairman of the Company’s Board of Directors. Management’s assessment of the likelihood of a loss is remote as the Company believes it has available defenses to the Orders. On August 21, 2020, the bankruptcy court in the Northern District of Texas in Dallas entered an agreed order requiring Hoactzin, the surety on Hoactzin’s bonds, and seven other working interest owners (a group not including the Company) to complete all the necessary decommissioning on all of Hoactzin’s facilities and to prepay all anticipated expenses, including insurance premiums and a contingency reserve, estimated to be necessary to do so. The bankruptcy trustee has reported that all funds to be paid have been received from all parties to the agreed order. Decommissioning is proceeding under the direction of the bankruptcy trustee and approved contractors under the control of the bankruptcy court. Accordingly, it is anticipated that all work contemplated by the Orders will be completed by, and at the expense of, other persons and the relief sought in the Orders for the Company to perform the work will at that time be moot as to the Company.

In response to the announcement that Tengasco, Inc. and Riley Exploration – Permian LLC were engaging in a business combination, on December 2, 2020 a purported shareholder of Tengasco filed a lawsuit against Tengasco and the members of the Tengasco board of directors in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York, captioned Luis A. Nieves Cortes v. Tengasco Inc., et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-10111-LAP (which we refer to as the “Cortes complaint”). On December 8, 2020 a purported shareholder of Tengasco filed a lawsuit against Tengasco, the members of the Tengasco board of directors, and Mike Rugen, Tengasco’s CFO/Interim CEO, in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York, captioned Sarah King v. Tengasco, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-10343 (which we refer to as the “King complaint”). On December 10, 2020 a purported shareholder of Tengasco filed a lawsuit against Tengasco, the members of the Tengasco board of directors, Antman Sub, LLC and Riley Exploration Permian, LLC in the United States District Court, District of Delaware, captioned Lewis D. Baker v. Tengasco, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-01681-UNA (which we refer to as the “Baker complaint”). On December 31, 2020 a purported shareholder of Tengasco filed a lawsuit against Tengasco and the members of the Tengasco board of directors in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York, captioned Lara Gaudio v. Tengasco, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-11114-UA (which we refer to as the “Gaudio complaint”). On February 4, 2021 a purported shareholder of Tengasco filed a lawsuit against Tengasco and the members of the Tengasco board of directors in the United States District Court, District of Colorado, captioned Robert Wilhelm v. Tengasco, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-00348 (which we refer to as the “Wilhelm complaint” and together with the Cortes complaint, the King complaint, the Baker complaint, and the Wilhelm complaint, the “federal law complaints”). The plaintiffs in the federal law complaints generally claimed that the defendants disseminated a false or misleading registration statement regarding the proposed merger in violation of Section 14(a) and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act and/or Rule 14a-9 promulgated under the Exchange Act. In addition, the plaintiff in the King complaint claims that the individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties of candor and disclosure. The plaintiffs sought, among other things, injunctive relief to prevent consummation of the merger until the alleged disclosure violations were cured, damages in the event the merger was consummated, and an award of attorney's fees and costs. While Tengasco and Riley believed the previous disclosures were complete and disagreed with the plaintiffs, Tengasco filed a Form 8-K that included certain additional requested disclosures. Plaintiffs dismissed all of the federal law complaints.