Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2012
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Contingencies	Contingencies QEP is involved in various commercial and regulatory claims, litigation and other legal proceedings that arise in the ordinary course of its business. Management does not believe any of them will have a material effect on the Company's financial position, results of operations or cash flows, except with regard to cases discussed below where management cannot determine at this time whether they will have a material effect. In accordance with ASC 450, Contingencies, an accrual is recorded for a loss contingency when its occurrence is probable and damages can be reasonably estimated based on the anticipated most likely outcome or the minimum amount within a range of possible outcomes. QEP's estimates are based on information known about the claims, and experience in contesting, litigating and settling similar claims. Disclosures are also provided for reasonably possible losses that could have a material effect on the Company's financial position, results of operations or cash flows. The following discussion describes the nature of QEP's major loss contingencies. Environmental Claims United States of America v. QEP Field Services, Civil No. 208CV167, U.S. District Court for Utah. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) alleged that QEP Field Services (f/k/a Questar Gas Management) violated the Clean Air Act (CAA) and sought substantial penalties and a permanent injunction involving the manner of operation of five compressor stations located in the Uinta Basin of eastern Utah. On May 16, 2012, QEP Field Services settled this matter and the parties executed a consent decree which was subsequently approved by court order. The civil penalty paid to the government during the third quarter of 2012 was $3.7 million. A contribution of $0.4 million will be payable to a non-profit corporation or trust to be created by the Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation for the implementation of environmental programs for the benefit of Tribal members. The settlement also requires the Company to reduce its emissions by removing certain equipment, installing additional pollution controls and replacing the natural gas powered instrument control systems with compressed air control systems, all of which will require capital expenditures of approximately $2.4 million, of which $0.8 million had been spent as of September 30, 2012. QEP Field Services will have continuing operational compliance obligations under the consent decree at the affected facilities. Litigation Chieftain Royalty Company v. QEP Energy Company, Case No CJ2011-1, U. S. District Court for Oklahoma. This is a class action filed by two royalty owners on behalf of all QEP Energy royalty owners in the state of Oklahoma since 1988, asserting various claims for damages related to royalty valuation on all of QEP's Oklahoma wells. These claims include breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, unjust enrichment, tortious breach of contract, conspiracy, and conversion, based generally on asserted improper deduction of post-production costs. The court has certified the class as to the breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment claims. Because this case involves complex legal issues and uncertainties, a large class of plaintiffs and a large number of producing properties and wells, and because the proceedings are in the early stages, with substantive discovery yet to be conducted, the Company is unable to estimate a reasonably possible loss or range of loss. Although the plaintiff class has not made a formal demand, based upon the class allegations, we believe the class may seek damages in excess of $200 million. QEP Energy is still evaluating the claims, but believes that it has properly valued and paid royalty under Oklahoma law and will vigorously defend this case. Questar Gas Company v. QEP Field Services Company, Civil No. 120902969, Third Judicial District Court, State of Utah. QEP Field Services' former affiliate Questar Gas Company (QGC) filed this complaint in state court in Utah on May 1, 2012, asserting claims for breach of contract, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, for an accounting and declaratory judgment related to a 1993 gathering agreement (1993 Agreement) entered when the parties were affiliates. Under the 1993 Agreement, QEP Field Services provides gathering services for producing properties developed by former affiliate Wexpro Company on behalf of QGC's utility ratepayers. The core dispute pertains to the annual calculation of the gathering rate, which is based on a cost of service concept expressed in the 1993 Agreement and in a 1998 amendment. The annual gathering rate has been calculated in the same manner under the contract since it was amended in 1998, without any prior objection or challenge by QGC. Specific monetary damages are not asserted. Also, on May 1, 2012, QEP Field Services Company filed a legal action against Questar Gas entitled QEP Field Services Company v. Questar Gas Company, in the Second District Court in Denver County, Colorado, seeking declaratory judgment relating to its gathering service and charges under the same agreement.

Contingencies

QEP is involved in various commercial and regulatory claims, litigation and other legal proceedings that arise in the ordinary course of its business. Management does not believe any of them will have a material effect on the Company's financial position, results of operations or cash flows, except with regard to cases discussed below where management cannot determine at this time whether they will have a material effect. In accordance with ASC 450, Contingencies, an accrual is recorded for a loss contingency when its occurrence is probable and damages can be reasonably estimated based on the anticipated most likely outcome or the minimum amount within a range of possible outcomes. QEP's estimates are based on information known about the claims, and experience in contesting, litigating and settling similar claims. Disclosures are also provided for reasonably possible losses that could have a material effect on the Company's financial position, results of operations or cash flows. The following discussion describes the nature of QEP's major loss contingencies.

Environmental Claims

United States of America v. QEP Field Services, Civil No. 208CV167, U.S. District Court for Utah. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) alleged that QEP Field Services (f/k/a Questar Gas Management) violated the Clean Air Act (CAA) and sought substantial penalties and a permanent injunction involving the manner of operation of five compressor stations located in the Uinta Basin of eastern Utah. On May 16, 2012, QEP Field Services settled this matter and the parties executed a consent decree which was subsequently approved by court order. The civil penalty paid to the government during the third quarter of 2012 was $3.7 million. A contribution of $0.4 million will be payable to a non-profit corporation or trust to be created by the Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation for the implementation of environmental programs for the benefit of Tribal members. The settlement also requires the Company to reduce its emissions by removing certain equipment, installing additional pollution controls and replacing the natural gas powered instrument control systems with compressed air control systems, all of which will require capital expenditures of approximately $2.4 million, of which $0.8 million had been spent as of September 30, 2012. QEP Field Services will have continuing operational compliance obligations under the consent decree at the affected facilities.

Litigation

Chieftain Royalty Company v. QEP Energy Company, Case No CJ2011-1, U. S. District Court for Oklahoma. This is a class action filed by two royalty owners on behalf of all QEP Energy royalty owners in the state of Oklahoma since 1988, asserting various claims for damages related to royalty valuation on all of QEP's Oklahoma wells. These claims include breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, unjust enrichment, tortious breach of contract, conspiracy, and conversion, based generally on asserted improper deduction of post-production costs. The court has certified the class as to the breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment claims. Because this case involves complex legal issues and uncertainties, a large class of plaintiffs and a large number of producing properties and wells, and because the proceedings are in the early stages, with substantive discovery yet to be conducted, the Company is unable to estimate a reasonably possible loss or range of loss. Although the plaintiff class has not made a formal demand, based upon the class allegations, we believe the class may seek damages in excess of $200 million. QEP Energy is still evaluating the claims, but believes that it has properly valued and paid royalty under Oklahoma law and will vigorously defend this case.

Questar Gas Company v. QEP Field Services Company, Civil No. 120902969, Third Judicial District Court, State of Utah. QEP Field Services' former affiliate Questar Gas Company (QGC) filed this complaint in state court in Utah on May 1, 2012, asserting claims for breach of contract, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, for an accounting and declaratory judgment related to a 1993 gathering agreement (1993 Agreement) entered when the parties were affiliates. Under the 1993 Agreement, QEP Field Services provides gathering services for producing properties developed by former affiliate Wexpro Company on behalf of QGC's utility ratepayers. The core dispute pertains to the annual calculation of the gathering rate, which is based on a cost of service concept expressed in the 1993 Agreement and in a 1998 amendment. The annual gathering rate has been calculated in the same manner under the contract since it was amended in 1998, without any prior objection or challenge by QGC. Specific monetary damages are not asserted. Also, on May 1, 2012, QEP Field Services Company filed a legal action against Questar Gas entitled QEP Field Services Company v. Questar Gas Company, in the Second District Court in Denver County, Colorado, seeking declaratory judgment relating to its gathering service and charges under the same agreement.