Commitments and contingencies	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2017
Commitments And Contingencies [Abstract]
Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure	8. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES: The commencement of the chapter 11 proceedings automatically stayed certain actions against the Company, including actions to collect prepetition liabilities or to exercise control over the property of the Company’s bankruptcy estates. The Plan, as confirmed, provides for the treatment of claims against the Company’s bankruptcy estates, including prepetition liabilities that have not otherwise been satisfied or addressed during the chapter 11 proceedings. As noted in this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q, the claims resolution process associated with our chapter 11 proceedings is on-going, and we expect it to continue for an indefinite period of time. Indebtedness Claims The chapter 11 filings by the Company and its various subsidiaries, including Ultra Resources, constituted events of default under the Company’s and Ultra Resources’ debt agreements. See Note 3 of this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for more information about the debt agreements. On or around September 1, 2016, many of the holders of this indebtedness filed proofs of claim with the Bankruptcy Court, asserting claims for the outstanding balance of the indebtedness, unpaid interest that had accrued by the petition dates, interest that has accrued since the petition dates (including interest at the default rates under the debt agreements), make-whole amounts, and other fees and obligations under the debt agreements. On December 29, 2016, holders of certain Senior Notes (as defined below) filed a complaint initiating an adversary proceeding against us in our chapter 11 cases. In the complaint, among other matters, the noteholders allege that there is a make-whole amount due under the Senior Notes as a result of our filing the chapter 11 cases, which they assert is “no less than $200,725,869, exclusive of any interest thereon.” On January 13, 2017, holders of certain other Senior Notes intervened to join the adversary proceeding as plaintiffs. On January 30, 2017, we filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. On February 10, 2017, both noteholder groups objected to our motion to dismiss. At a February 13, 2017 hearing, the Court set a briefing schedule and, subsequently, set a hearing date for May 16, 2017 for oral argument related to the make-whole and interest claims. In connection with confirmation and consummation of the Plan, to resolve certain objections to confirmation asserted by the holders of Senior Notes, among others, we entered into a stipulation with the claimants pursuant to which we agreed to establish and fund a $400.0 million reserve account after the Effective Date, pending resolution of make-whole and post-petition interest claims. On April 14, 2017, we funded the account. At this time, we are not able to determine the likelihood or range of amounts attributable to claims for postpetition interest, make-whole amounts, or other fees and obligations under the debt agreements. Rockies Express Pipeline On February 26, 2016, we received a letter from Sempra Rockies Marketing, LLC (“Sempra”) alleging that we were in breach of our Capacity Release Agreement, dated March 5, 2009 (the “Capacity Agreement”), resulting from nonpayment of fees for transportation service and notifying us that Sempra was authorized to recall the capacity released to us under the Capacity Agreement and to pursue any claims for damages or other remedies to which Sempra was entitled. On March 8, 2016, we received a letter from Sempra notifying us that Sempra was exercising its alleged right to permanently recall the 50,000 MMBtu/day of capacity on the Rockies Express Pipeline pursuant to the Capacity Agreement and that the recall would be effective as of March 9, 2016. On August 25, 2016, Sempra filed a proof of claim with the Bankruptcy Court for approximately $63.8 million. As previously disclosed in a Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the SEC on April 18, 2017, on April 10, 2017, we agreed, with Sempra, to settle their claims for $57.0 million payable, in full, and has been accrued as contract settlement expense on the Consolidated Statements of Operations. This amount is payable on the earlier of June 30, 2017 or 45 days after the Effective Date. We expect to pay this amount by May 27, 2017. On April 4, 2016, we received a demand for payment and notice of enforcement from Rockies Express Pipeline LLC (“REX”) in connection with the transportation agreement related to the Rockies Express Pipeline, pursuant to which Rockies Express demanded payment from us of $303.2 million by April 20, 2016. On April 14, 2016, REX filed a lawsuit against us in Harris County, Texas alleging breach of contract and seeking damages related to the alleged breach. On August 26, 2016, REX filed a proof of claim with the Bankruptcy Court for $303.3 million. On January 12, 2017 we entered into a settlement agreement with REX which was subsequently amended on March 2, 2017. Pursuant to the settlement (as amended), we agreed to make a cash payment to REX of $150.0 million on the earlier of three months after the Effective Date or October 30, 2017. We expect to pay this amount on or before July 12, 2017. Additionally, in connection with the settlement, we entered into a new seven-year agreement with REX for firm transportation service of 200,000 dekatherms per day on the Rockies Express Pipeline, west-to-east, commencing December 1, 2019, at a rate of approximately $0.37 per dekatherm, or approximately $26.8 million annually. Royalties On April 19, 2016, the Company received a preliminary determination notice from the Office of Natural Resources Revenue (“ONRR”) asserting that the Company’s allocation of certain processing costs and plant fuel use at certain processing plants were impermissibly charged as deductions in the determination of royalties owed under Federal oil and gas leases. During the second quarter of 2016, the Company responded to the preliminary determination asserting the reasonableness of its allocation methodology of such costs, noting several matters we believed should have been considered in the preliminary determination notice. On October 27, 2016, ONRR filed a proof of claim with the Bankruptcy Court asserting approximately $35.1 million in claims attributable to the Company’s royalty calculations. During the first quarter of 2017, the Company responded to the preliminary determination again asserting the reasonableness of its allocation methodology of such costs. The ONRR unbundling review could ultimately result in an order for payment of additional royalties under the Company’s Federal oil and gas leases for current and prior periods. The Company is not able to determine the likelihood or range of any additional royalties or, if and when assessed, whether such amounts would be material. Oil Sales Contract On April 29, 2016, the Company received a letter from counsel to Sunoco Partners Marketing & Terminals L.P. (“SPMT”) asserting that (1) the Company had breached, by anticipatory repudiation, a contract for the purchase and sale of crude oil between Ultra Resources and SPMT and (2) the contract was terminated. In the letter, SPMT demanded payment for damages resulting from the breach in the amount of $38.6 million. On August 31, 2016, SPMT filed a proof of claim with the Bankruptcy Court for $16.9 million. On December 13, 2016, we filed an objection to SPMT’s proof of claim, and on December 14, 2016, we filed an adversary proceeding against SPMT related to its breach of the contract during the prepetition period. On January 18, 2017, SPMT filed a reply to our objection SPMT’s proof of claim and an answer to our complaint in the adversary proceeding. At this time, we are not able to determine the likelihood or range of damages owed to SPMT, if any, related to this matter, or, if and when such amounts are assessed, whether such amounts would be material. SPMT is a member of our official committee of unsecured creditors. We anticipate SPMT’s claims will be resolved in connection with our chapter 11 proceedings. The Company is a party, with Big West Oil, LLC (“Big West”), to several prepetition contracts (the “Crude Contracts”) for the purchase and sale of crude oil. On April 26, 2016, Big West Oil LLC (“Big West”) and the Company entered into a Temporary Suspension of Contracts and Interim Crude Oil Purchase and Sale Agreement (“Suspension Agreement”), pursuant to which the parties suspended performance under the prepetition contracts. On August 30, 2016, Big West filed a proof of claim with the Bankruptcy Court for $32.6 million. The Company objected to Big West’s proof of claim. On January 20, 2017, Big West and the Company reached an agreement settling and resolving Big West’s proof of claim. Pursuant to the settlement, we agreed to make a cash payment to Big West of $17.35 million and that all of our prepetition contracts with Big West, including the Suspension Agreement, would be rejected, cancelled and extinguished on the Effective Date (with no additional damages other than the $17.35 million payment) in connection with the Plan. The Bankruptcy Court approved the settlement, and it was included in the Plan, as confirmed and consummated. We paid the $17.35 million to Big West during April 2017. Additionally, in connection with the settlement, we and Big West entered into two new, two-year, contracts for the purchase and sale of crude oil we produce in Wyoming and Utah. Other Claims The Company is party to a lawsuit related to disputes with respect to overriding royalty interests in certain of our operated leases in Pinedale, Wyoming. At this time, no determination of the outcome of these claims can be made, and as no damage claim amount has been asserted by the claimants, we cannot reasonably estimate the potential impact of these claims. We intend to defend this case vigorously, and expect these claims to be resolved in our chapter 11 proceedings. The Company is currently involved in various routine disputes and allegations incidental to its business operations. While it is not possible to determine the ultimate disposition of these matters, the Company believes that the resolution of all such pending or threatened litigation is not likely to have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position or results of operations.

8. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES:

The commencement of the chapter 11 proceedings automatically stayed certain actions against the Company, including actions to collect prepetition liabilities or to exercise control over the property of the Company’s bankruptcy estates. The Plan, as confirmed, provides for the treatment of claims against the Company’s bankruptcy estates, including prepetition liabilities that have not otherwise been satisfied or addressed during the chapter 11 proceedings. As noted in this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q, the claims resolution process associated with our chapter 11 proceedings is on-going, and we expect it to continue for an indefinite period of time.

Indebtedness Claims

The chapter 11 filings by the Company and its various subsidiaries, including Ultra Resources, constituted events of default under the Company’s and Ultra Resources’ debt agreements. See Note 3 of this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for more information about the debt agreements. On or around September 1, 2016, many of the holders of this indebtedness filed proofs of claim with the Bankruptcy Court, asserting claims for the outstanding balance of the indebtedness, unpaid interest that had accrued by the petition dates, interest that has accrued since the petition dates (including interest at the default rates under the debt agreements), make-whole amounts, and other fees and obligations under the debt agreements. On December 29, 2016, holders of certain Senior Notes (as defined below) filed a complaint initiating an adversary proceeding against us in our chapter 11 cases. In the complaint, among other matters, the noteholders allege that there is a make-whole amount due under the Senior Notes as a result of our filing the chapter 11 cases, which they assert is “no less than $200,725,869, exclusive of any interest thereon.” On January 13, 2017, holders of certain other Senior Notes intervened to join the adversary proceeding as plaintiffs. On January 30, 2017, we filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. On February 10, 2017, both noteholder groups objected to our motion to dismiss. At a February 13, 2017 hearing, the Court set a briefing schedule and, subsequently, set a hearing date for May 16, 2017 for oral argument related to the make-whole and interest claims. In connection with confirmation and consummation of the Plan, to resolve certain objections to confirmation asserted by the holders of Senior Notes, among others, we entered into a stipulation with the claimants pursuant to which we agreed to establish and fund a $400.0 million reserve account after the Effective Date, pending resolution of make-whole and post-petition interest claims. On April 14, 2017, we funded the account. At this time, we are not able to determine the likelihood or range of amounts attributable to claims for postpetition interest, make-whole amounts, or other fees and obligations under the debt agreements.

Rockies Express Pipeline

On February 26, 2016, we received a letter from Sempra Rockies Marketing, LLC (“Sempra”) alleging that we were in breach of our Capacity Release Agreement, dated March 5, 2009 (the “Capacity Agreement”), resulting from nonpayment of fees for transportation service and notifying us that Sempra was authorized to recall the capacity released to us under the Capacity Agreement and to pursue any claims for damages or other remedies to which Sempra was entitled. On March 8, 2016, we received a letter from Sempra notifying us that Sempra was exercising its alleged right to permanently recall the 50,000 MMBtu/day of capacity on the Rockies Express Pipeline pursuant to the Capacity Agreement and that the recall would be effective as of March 9, 2016. On August 25, 2016, Sempra filed a proof of claim with the Bankruptcy Court for approximately $63.8 million. As previously disclosed in a Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the SEC on April 18, 2017, on April 10, 2017, we agreed, with Sempra, to settle their claims for $57.0 million payable, in full, and has been accrued as contract settlement expense on the Consolidated Statements of Operations. This amount is payable on the earlier of June 30, 2017 or 45 days after the Effective Date. We expect to pay this amount by May 27, 2017.

On April 4, 2016, we received a demand for payment and notice of enforcement from Rockies Express Pipeline LLC (“REX”) in connection with the transportation agreement related to the Rockies Express Pipeline, pursuant to which Rockies Express demanded payment from us of $303.2 million by April 20, 2016. On April 14, 2016, REX filed a lawsuit against us in Harris County, Texas alleging breach of contract and seeking damages related to the alleged breach. On August 26, 2016, REX filed a proof of claim with the Bankruptcy Court for $303.3 million. On January 12, 2017 we entered into a settlement agreement with REX which was subsequently amended on March 2, 2017. Pursuant to the settlement (as amended), we agreed to make a cash payment to REX of $150.0 million on the earlier of three months after the Effective Date or October 30, 2017. We expect to pay this amount on or before July 12, 2017. Additionally, in connection with the settlement, we entered into a new seven-year agreement with REX for firm transportation service of 200,000 dekatherms per day on the Rockies Express Pipeline, west-to-east, commencing December 1, 2019, at a rate of approximately $0.37 per dekatherm, or approximately $26.8 million annually.

Royalties

On April 19, 2016, the Company received a preliminary determination notice from the Office of Natural Resources Revenue (“ONRR”) asserting that the Company’s allocation of certain processing costs and plant fuel use at certain processing plants were impermissibly charged as deductions in the determination of royalties owed under Federal oil and gas leases. During the second quarter of 2016, the Company responded to the preliminary determination asserting the reasonableness of its allocation methodology of such costs, noting several matters we believed should have been considered in the preliminary determination notice. On October 27, 2016, ONRR filed a proof of claim with the Bankruptcy Court asserting approximately $35.1 million in claims attributable to the Company’s royalty calculations. During the first quarter of 2017, the Company responded to the preliminary determination again asserting the reasonableness of its allocation methodology of such costs. The ONRR unbundling review could ultimately result in an order for payment of additional royalties under the Company’s Federal oil and gas leases for current and prior periods. The Company is not able to determine the likelihood or range of any additional royalties or, if and when assessed, whether such amounts would be material.

Oil Sales Contract

On April 29, 2016, the Company received a letter from counsel to Sunoco Partners Marketing & Terminals L.P. (“SPMT”) asserting that (1) the Company had breached, by anticipatory repudiation, a contract for the purchase and sale of crude oil between Ultra Resources and SPMT and (2) the contract was terminated. In the letter, SPMT demanded payment for damages resulting from the breach in the amount of $38.6 million. On August 31, 2016, SPMT filed a proof of claim with the Bankruptcy Court for $16.9 million. On December 13, 2016, we filed an objection to SPMT’s proof of claim, and on December 14, 2016, we filed an adversary proceeding against SPMT related to its breach of the contract during the prepetition period. On January 18, 2017, SPMT filed a reply to our objection SPMT’s proof of claim and an answer to our complaint in the adversary proceeding. At this time, we are not able to determine the likelihood or range of damages owed to SPMT, if any, related to this matter, or, if and when such amounts are assessed, whether such amounts would be material. SPMT is a member of our official committee of unsecured creditors. We anticipate SPMT’s claims will be resolved in connection with our chapter 11 proceedings.

The Company is a party, with Big West Oil, LLC (“Big West”), to several prepetition contracts (the “Crude Contracts”) for the purchase and sale of crude oil. On April 26, 2016, Big West Oil LLC (“Big West”) and the Company entered into a Temporary Suspension of Contracts and Interim Crude Oil Purchase and Sale Agreement (“Suspension Agreement”), pursuant to which the parties suspended performance under the prepetition contracts. On August 30, 2016, Big West filed a proof of claim with the Bankruptcy Court for $32.6 million. The Company objected to Big West’s proof of claim. On January 20, 2017, Big West and the Company reached an agreement settling and resolving Big West’s proof of claim. Pursuant to the settlement, we agreed to make a cash payment to Big West of $17.35 million and that all of our prepetition contracts with Big West, including the Suspension Agreement, would be rejected, cancelled and extinguished on the Effective Date (with no additional damages other than the $17.35 million payment) in connection with the Plan. The Bankruptcy Court approved the settlement, and it was included in the Plan, as confirmed and consummated. We paid the $17.35 million to Big West during April 2017. Additionally, in connection with the settlement, we and Big West entered into two new, two-year, contracts for the purchase and sale of crude oil we produce in Wyoming and Utah.

Other Claims

The Company is party to a lawsuit related to disputes with respect to overriding royalty interests in certain of our operated leases in Pinedale, Wyoming. At this time, no determination of the outcome of these claims can be made, and as no damage claim amount has been asserted by the claimants, we cannot reasonably estimate the potential impact of these claims. We intend to defend this case vigorously, and expect these claims to be resolved in our chapter 11 proceedings. The Company is currently involved in various routine disputes and allegations incidental to its business operations. While it is not possible to determine the ultimate disposition of these matters, the Company believes that the resolution of all such pending or threatened litigation is not likely to have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position or results of operations.