Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2015
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. QEP assesses these claims in an effort to determine the degree of probability and range of possible loss for potential accrual in its Consolidated Financial Statements. In accordance with ASC 450, Contingencies, an accrual is recorded for a loss contingency when its occurrence is probable and damages are reasonably estimable based on the anticipated most likely outcome or the minimum amount within a range of possible outcomes. Because legal proceedings are inherently unpredictable, and unfavorable resolutions can occur, assessing contingencies is highly subjective and requires judgments about uncertain future events. When evaluating contingencies, QEP may be unable to provide a meaningful estimate due to a number of factors, including the procedural status of the matter in question, the presence of complex or novel legal theories, the ongoing discovery and/or development of information important to the matter. QEP is unable to estimate reasonably possible losses (in excess of recorded accruals, if any) for its loss contingencies for the reasons set forth above. QEP believes, however, that the resolution of pending proceedings (after accruals, insurance coverage, and indemnification arrangements) will not be material to QEP's financial position but could be material to results of operations in a particular quarter or year. Litigation Rocky Mountain Resources, LLC v. QEP Energy Company, Wexpro Company, Ultra Resources, Inc. and Lance Oil & Gas Company, Inc., Civil No. 2011-7816, District Court of Sublette County, Wyoming. Rocky Mountain Resources, LLC (Rocky Mountain) filed its complaint on March 30, 2011, seeking determination of the existence of a 4% overriding royalty interest in State of Wyoming oil and gas Lease No. 79-0645 covering Section 16, T32-N R-109-W, Sublette County, Wyoming. QEP and the other defendants are current lessees of Lease 79-0645. Rocky Mountain alleges that the defendants have received benefits from Lease 79-0645 and have failed to pay Rocky Mountain monies associated with the claimed 4% overriding royalty interest since the issuance of the lease by the State of Wyoming in 1980. Rocky Mountain asserts claims for quiet title, declaratory judgment, breach of contract, breach of duty of good faith, conversion, constructive trust and prejudgment interest. On May 7, 2014, the trial court entered its order granting plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the issue of whether the overriding royalty interest burdens QEP's lease. On June 17, 2014, the Supreme Court of Wyoming denied QEP's Petition for Writ of Review. On August 21, 2014, the trial court denied QEP’s Motion to Certify Questions of Law to the Wyoming Supreme Court. At the conclusion of a trial in February 2015, and after being instructed by the Court that the overriding royalty interest burdened QEP’s lease, a jury rendered a verdict against QEP and awarded Rocky Mountain damages in the amount of $16.7 million, including interest. QEP believes that the Court’s ruling on summary judgment and the resulting jury instructions are in error and will appeal to the Wyoming Supreme Court. On March 27, 2015, defendants filed a Motion for New Trial arguing that the verdict is not sustained by sufficient evidence, is contrary to law and resulted from errors of law occurring at the trial. The Court has taken the motion under advisement. Post-judgment interest accrues at the statutory rate of 10%. QEP estimates that, notwithstanding the verdict, the range of reasonably possible losses is still zero to $20.0 million. Yannick Gagné and others similarly situated v. QEP Resources, Inc., et al., No. 480-06-1-132, Superior Court, Province of Quebec, Canada. Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of all persons who sustained damages as a result of the July 6, 2013 train derailment in Lac-Mégantic, Quebec, which resulted in substantial loss of life and property. The fourth amended motion to authorize the bringing of a class action was filed on February 19, 2014, and names numerous defendants, including the rail company that transported the crude oil (which filed for bankruptcy protection in August 2013). The plaintiffs contend that QEP, and other producer defendants, sold Bakken crude oil to third-party purchasers in North Dakota, who resold the oil and transported it on the derailed train. Plaintiffs alleged that QEP and the producer defendants, among other things, failed to ensure that the oil was adequately processed to remove volatile gases and vapors, knowingly added volatile light end petroleum liquids and/or vapors or blended the crude with condensate, failed to conduct adequate well site testing to determine the proper hazard classification of the oil, failed to properly classify the shipping requirements for the oil, failed to take reasonable care to ensure that the oil was properly labeled and shipped, failed to identify the risk of the train derailment and take action to prevent it, and failed to adopt, implement and enforce rules and procedures pertaining to the safe shipment of the oil. The plaintiffs seek damages, but specific monetary damages are not asserted. Class certification hearings took place in June 2014, and a court order regarding class certification is pending. Many of the defendants, including QEP, and their insurers have reached an agreement with Trustees in both Canadian and U.S. Bankruptcy Courts to resolve all of these claims. The terms of the agreement are confidential and are contingent upon the approval of the courts. In addition, on July 15, 2015, QEP was served with a complaint entitled Samuel Audet, et al. vs. Devlar Energy Marketing, LLC, et al., No. DC-15-06428, District Court of Dallas County, Texas, 95^th Judicial District. The plaintiffs, defendants, allegations, and damages sought are materially similar to those in the Yannick Gagné case, and plaintiffs state that this lawsuit is filed to preserve claims under the applicable two-year statute of limitations. Plaintiffs also filed a motion to stay proceedings in this case for 90 days pending the outcome of the global settlement discussions described above in the Yannick Gagné case. The court's order on this request for a stay is pending.

Contingencies

QEP is involved in various commercial and regulatory claims, litigation and other legal proceedings that arise in the ordinary course of its business. QEP assesses these claims in an effort to determine the degree of probability and range of possible loss for potential accrual in its Consolidated Financial Statements. In accordance with ASC 450, Contingencies, an accrual is recorded for a loss contingency when its occurrence is probable and damages are reasonably estimable based on the anticipated most likely outcome or the minimum amount within a range of possible outcomes. Because legal proceedings are inherently unpredictable, and unfavorable resolutions can occur, assessing contingencies is highly subjective and requires judgments about uncertain future events. When evaluating contingencies, QEP may be unable to provide a meaningful estimate due to a number of factors, including the procedural status of the matter in question, the presence of complex or novel legal theories, the ongoing discovery and/or development of information important to the matter. QEP is unable to estimate reasonably possible losses (in excess of recorded accruals, if any) for its loss contingencies for the reasons set forth above. QEP believes, however, that the resolution of pending proceedings (after accruals, insurance coverage, and indemnification arrangements) will not be material to QEP's financial position but could be material to results of operations in a particular quarter or year.

Litigation

Rocky Mountain Resources, LLC v. QEP Energy Company, Wexpro Company, Ultra Resources, Inc. and Lance Oil & Gas Company, Inc., Civil No. 2011-7816, District Court of Sublette County, Wyoming. Rocky Mountain Resources, LLC (Rocky Mountain) filed its complaint on March 30, 2011, seeking determination of the existence of a 4% overriding royalty interest in State of Wyoming oil and gas Lease No. 79-0645 covering Section 16, T32-N R-109-W, Sublette County, Wyoming. QEP and the other defendants are current lessees of Lease 79-0645. Rocky Mountain alleges that the defendants have received benefits from Lease 79-0645 and have failed to pay Rocky Mountain monies associated with the claimed 4% overriding royalty interest since the issuance of the lease by the State of Wyoming in 1980. Rocky Mountain asserts claims for quiet title, declaratory judgment, breach of contract, breach of duty of good faith, conversion, constructive trust and prejudgment interest. On May 7, 2014, the trial court entered its order granting plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the issue of whether the overriding royalty interest burdens QEP's lease. On June 17, 2014, the Supreme Court of Wyoming denied QEP's Petition for Writ of Review. On August 21, 2014, the trial court denied QEP’s Motion to Certify Questions of Law to the Wyoming Supreme Court. At the conclusion of a trial in February 2015, and after being instructed by the Court that the overriding royalty interest burdened QEP’s lease, a jury rendered a verdict against QEP and awarded Rocky Mountain damages in the amount of $16.7 million, including interest. QEP believes that the Court’s ruling on summary judgment and the resulting jury instructions are in error and will appeal to the Wyoming Supreme Court. On March 27, 2015, defendants filed a Motion for New Trial arguing that the verdict is not sustained by sufficient evidence, is contrary to law and resulted from errors of law occurring at the trial. The Court has taken the motion under advisement. Post-judgment interest accrues at the statutory rate of 10%. QEP estimates that, notwithstanding the verdict, the range of reasonably possible losses is still zero to $20.0 million.

Yannick Gagné and others similarly situated v. QEP Resources, Inc., et al., No. 480-06-1-132, Superior Court, Province of Quebec, Canada. Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of all persons who sustained damages as a result of the July 6, 2013 train derailment in Lac-Mégantic, Quebec, which resulted in substantial loss of life and property. The fourth amended motion to authorize the bringing of a class action was filed on February 19, 2014, and names numerous defendants, including the rail company that transported the crude oil (which filed for bankruptcy protection in August 2013). The plaintiffs contend that QEP, and other producer defendants, sold Bakken crude oil to third-party purchasers in North Dakota, who resold the oil and transported it on the derailed train. Plaintiffs alleged that QEP and the producer defendants, among other things, failed to ensure that the oil was adequately processed to remove volatile gases and vapors, knowingly added volatile light end petroleum liquids and/or vapors or blended the crude with condensate, failed to conduct adequate well site testing to determine the proper hazard classification of the oil, failed to properly classify the shipping requirements for the oil, failed to take reasonable care to ensure that the oil was properly labeled and shipped, failed to identify the risk of the train derailment and take action to prevent it, and failed to adopt, implement and enforce rules and procedures pertaining to the safe shipment of the oil. The plaintiffs seek damages, but specific monetary damages are not asserted. Class certification hearings took place in June 2014, and a court order regarding class certification is pending. Many of the defendants, including QEP, and their insurers have reached an agreement with Trustees in both Canadian and U.S. Bankruptcy Courts to resolve all of these claims. The terms of the agreement are confidential and are contingent upon the approval of the courts. In addition, on July 15, 2015, QEP was served with a complaint entitled Samuel Audet, et al. vs. Devlar Energy Marketing, LLC, et al., No. DC-15-06428, District Court of Dallas County, Texas, 95^th Judicial District. The plaintiffs, defendants, allegations, and damages sought are materially similar to those in the Yannick Gagné case, and plaintiffs state that this lawsuit is filed to preserve claims under the applicable two-year statute of limitations. Plaintiffs also filed a motion to stay proceedings in this case for 90 days pending the outcome of the global settlement discussions described above in the Yannick Gagné case. The court's order on this request for a stay is pending.