Commitment and Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2016
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitment and Contingencies [Text Block]	The Company is involved in various commercial and regulatory claims, litigation and other legal proceedings that arise in the ordinary course of its business. In each reporting period, the Company assesses these claims in an effort to determine the degree of probability and range of possible loss for potential accrual in its Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements. In accordance with ASC 450, Contingencies, an accrual is recorded for a material 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. 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 related to legal proceedings, the Company may be unable to estimate losses due to a number of factors, including potential defenses, the procedural status of the matter in question, the presence of complex legal and/or factual issues, the ongoing discovery and/or development of information important to the matter. Rocky Mountain Resources Lawsuit – Rocky Mountain Resources, LLC (Rocky Mountain) filed a complaint against the Company in March 2011, seeking determination of the existence of a 4% overriding royalty interest in an oil and gas lease. Rocky Mountain alleges that the defendants 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. In February 2015, a jury rendered a verdict against the Company and awarded Rocky Mountain damages in the amount of $16.7 million, including interest. The Company appealed the verdict to the Wyoming Supreme Court and posted a bond for approximately $20.0 million (representing the amount of the verdict and two years of accrued interest at the statutory rate of 10%). In accordance with the Court’s order, the Company is depositing the future monthly revenues attributable to the 4% overriding royalty interest with the Court as such amounts become due and payable. These deposits are presented within “Prepaid expenses and other” on the Company’s Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. The overriding royalty payments will be subject to the direction of the Court following the conclusion of the appeal. Claims of Former Limited Partners – The Company received a demand from certain former limited partners of terminated drilling partnerships of the Company (acting as the general partner). The former limited partners allege that distributions to which they were entitled from the drilling partnerships were not made or were calculated incorrectly. Other former limited partners may assert claims. No litigation has been filed, and the Company is in the process of evaluating the allegations and its defenses. Arbitration Regarding Gas Purchase Agreement – A midstream service provider that purchases, gathers and processes natural gas produced from oil wells operated by the Company in the Williston Basin has claimed that the decline in commodity prices has rendered its gathering and processing operations “uneconomic” and demanded that, effective March 1, 2016, QEP pay additional fees for gathering and processing services. The midstream service provider has been unwilling to connect new wells unless the Company agrees to pay the increased fees for production from the new wells. QEP initiated arbitration proceedings in May 2016 to enforce the terms of the existing agreement. The arbitration proceedings are scheduled for the fourth quarter of 2016. Department of Interior Investigation regarding Indian Royalties – Pursuant to regulations published by the Office of Natural Resources Revenue (ONRR) of the Department of the Interior (DOI), certain of the Company’s Indian leases are subject to “dual accounting” and “major portion” requirements. The Company must initially report royalties on production from these leases based upon its actual sales arrangements and, once ONRR publishes the major portion price (approximately 18 months after a calendar year), the Company must recalculate its previously reported royalties for the applicable calendar year and pay additional royalties if the dual accounting or major portion pricing results in higher royalties. In July 2016, the Company was notified that the Office of Inspector General of the DOI is conducting an investigation into the timeliness of the Company’s compliance with ONRR dual accounting and major portion requirements to recalculate royalties for 2013 on production from certain Indian leases. There may be penalties and additional royalties due. EPA Request for Information – In July 2015, QEP received an information request from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) pursuant to Section 114(a) of the Clean Air Act. The information request sought facts and data about certain tank batteries in QEP’s Williston Basin operations. QEP timely responded to the information requests. In August 2016, the EPA requested a conference to review this matter. In addition, since February 2016, the North Dakota Department of Health (NDDH) has engaged with the oil and gas production industry in North Dakota to address potential noncompliance associated with emissions from tank batteries. QEP has participated in these discussions. While no formal federal or state enforcement action has been commenced in connection with the tank batteries to date, other operators have been assessed penalties following similar information requests. QEP anticipates that resolution of these matters will likely result in penalties and require QEP to incur additional capital expenditures to correct noncompliance issues. To the extent that the Company can reasonably estimate losses for contingencies where the risk of a material loss (in excess of accruals, if any) is reasonably possible, the Company estimates such losses could total between zero and approximately $60.0 million.

The Company is involved in various commercial and regulatory claims, litigation and other legal proceedings that arise in the ordinary course of its business. In each reporting period, the Company assesses these claims in an effort to determine the degree of probability and range of possible loss for potential accrual in its Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements. In accordance with ASC 450, Contingencies, an accrual is recorded for a material 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.

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 related to legal proceedings, the Company may be unable to estimate losses due to a number of factors, including potential defenses, the procedural status of the matter in question, the presence of complex legal and/or factual issues, the ongoing discovery and/or development of information important to the matter.

Rocky Mountain Resources Lawsuit – Rocky Mountain Resources, LLC (Rocky Mountain) filed a complaint against the Company in March 2011, seeking determination of the existence of a 4% overriding royalty interest in an oil and gas lease. Rocky Mountain alleges that the defendants 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. In February 2015, a jury rendered a verdict against the Company and awarded Rocky Mountain damages in the amount of $16.7 million, including interest. The Company appealed the verdict to the Wyoming Supreme Court and posted a bond for approximately $20.0 million (representing the amount of the verdict and two years of accrued interest at the statutory rate of 10%). In accordance with the Court’s order, the Company is depositing the future monthly revenues attributable to the 4% overriding royalty interest with the Court as such amounts become due and payable. These deposits are presented within “Prepaid expenses and other” on the Company’s Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. The overriding royalty payments will be subject to the direction of the Court following the conclusion of the appeal.

Claims of Former Limited Partners – The Company received a demand from certain former limited partners of terminated drilling partnerships of the Company (acting as the general partner). The former limited partners allege that distributions to which they were entitled from the drilling partnerships were not made or were calculated incorrectly. Other former limited partners may assert claims. No litigation has been filed, and the Company is in the process of evaluating the allegations and its defenses.

Arbitration Regarding Gas Purchase Agreement – A midstream service provider that purchases, gathers and processes natural gas produced from oil wells operated by the Company in the Williston Basin has claimed that the decline in commodity prices has rendered its gathering and processing operations “uneconomic” and demanded that, effective March 1, 2016, QEP pay additional fees for gathering and processing services. The midstream service provider has been unwilling to connect new wells unless the Company agrees to pay the increased fees for production from the new wells. QEP initiated arbitration proceedings in May 2016 to enforce the terms of the existing agreement. The arbitration proceedings are scheduled for the fourth quarter of 2016.

Department of Interior Investigation regarding Indian Royalties – Pursuant to regulations published by the Office of Natural Resources Revenue (ONRR) of the Department of the Interior (DOI), certain of the Company’s Indian leases are subject to “dual accounting” and “major portion” requirements. The Company must initially report royalties on production from these leases based upon its actual sales arrangements and, once ONRR publishes the major portion price (approximately 18 months after a calendar year), the Company must recalculate its previously reported royalties for the applicable calendar year and pay additional royalties if the dual accounting or major portion pricing results in higher royalties. In July 2016, the Company was notified that the Office of Inspector General of the DOI is conducting an investigation into the timeliness of the Company’s compliance with ONRR dual accounting and major portion requirements to recalculate royalties for 2013 on production from certain Indian leases. There may be penalties and additional royalties due.

EPA Request for Information – In July 2015, QEP received an information request from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) pursuant to Section 114(a) of the Clean Air Act. The information request sought facts and data about certain tank batteries in QEP’s Williston Basin operations. QEP timely responded to the information requests. In August 2016, the EPA requested a conference to review this matter. In addition, since February 2016, the North Dakota Department of Health (NDDH) has engaged with the oil and gas production industry in North Dakota to address potential noncompliance associated with emissions from tank batteries. QEP has participated in these discussions. While no formal federal or state enforcement action has been commenced in connection with the tank batteries to date, other operators have been assessed penalties following similar information requests. QEP anticipates that resolution of these matters will likely result in penalties and require QEP to incur additional capital expenditures to correct noncompliance issues.

To the extent that the Company can reasonably estimate losses for contingencies where the risk of a material loss (in excess of accruals, if any) is reasonably possible, the Company estimates such losses could total between zero and approximately $60.0 million.