Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2011
Contingencies [Abstract]
Contingencies	Note 11 – Contingencies QEP is involved in various commercial and regulatory claims and 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 adverse effect on the Company's financial position, results of operations or cash flows. A liability is recorded for a loss contingency when its occurrence is probable and damages can be reasonably estimated based on the anticipated most likely outcome. Disclosures are provided for contingencies reasonably likely to occur which would have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial position, results of operations or cash flows. Some of the claims involve highly complex issues relating to liability, damages and other matters subject to substantial uncertainties and, therefore, the probability of liability or an estimate of loss cannot be reasonably determined. 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) alleges that QEP Field Services (f/k/a Questar Gas Management) violated the Clean Air Act (CAA) and seeks substantial penalties and a permanent injunction involving the manner of operation of five compressor stations located in the Uinta Basin of eastern Utah. Individual members of the Ute Indian Tribe's Business Committee have now intervened as co-plaintiffs asserting the same CAA claims as the federal government. EPA contends that the potential to emit, on a hypothetically uncontrolled basis, for these facilities renders them “major sources” of emissions for criteria and hazardous air pollutants even though controls were installed. Categorization of the facilities as “major sources” affects the particular regulatory program and requirements applicable to those facilities. EPA claims that QEP Field Services failed to obtain the necessary major source pre-construction or modification permits, and failed to comply with hazardous air pollutant regulations for monitoring, testing and reporting, among other requirements. QEP Field Services contends that its facilities have pollution controls installed as part of their operational design that reduce their actual air emissions below major source thresholds, rendering them subject to different regulatory requirements applicable to non-major sources. QEP Field Services has vigorously defended itself against EPA's claims, and believes that the major source permitting and regulatory requirements at issue can be legally avoided by applying EPA's prior permitting practice for similar facilities elsewhere in Indian Country, among other defenses. Because of the complexities and uncertainties of this legal dispute, it is difficult to predict all reasonably possible outcomes; however, management believes the Company has accrued a reasonable loss contingency that is an immaterial amount, for the anticipated most likely outcome. QEP Energy v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, No. 09-9538, U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit. On July 10, 2009, QEP Energy filed a petition with the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals challenging an administrative compliance order dated May 12, 2009 (Order), issued by EPA which asserts that QEP Energy's Flat Rock 14P well in the Uinta Basin and associated equipment is a major source of hazardous air pollutants and its operation fails to comply with certain regulations of the CAA. The Order required immediate compliance. QEP Energy denied that the drilling and operation of the 14P well and associated equipment violated any provisions of the CAA. QEP and EPA entered into an administrative order on consent, effective June 17, 2011, resolving all disputes associated with prospective CAA compliance at the Flat Rock 14P well. Among other matters, the order requires installation of pollution control equipment to destroy vapors from the well's dehydration equipment and ongoing monitoring and reporting associated with operation of that control equipment.

Note 11 – Contingencies

QEP is involved in various commercial and regulatory claims and 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 adverse effect on the Company's financial position, results of operations or cash flows. A liability is recorded for a loss contingency when its occurrence is probable and damages can be reasonably estimated based on the anticipated most likely outcome. Disclosures are provided for contingencies reasonably likely to occur which would have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial position, results of operations or cash flows. Some of the claims involve highly complex issues relating to liability, damages and other matters subject to substantial uncertainties and, therefore, the probability of liability or an estimate of loss cannot be reasonably determined.

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) alleges that QEP Field Services (f/k/a Questar Gas Management) violated the Clean Air Act (CAA) and seeks substantial penalties and a permanent injunction involving the manner of operation of five compressor stations located in the Uinta Basin of eastern Utah. Individual members of the Ute Indian Tribe's Business Committee have now intervened as co-plaintiffs asserting the same CAA claims as the federal government. EPA contends that the potential to emit, on a hypothetically uncontrolled basis, for these facilities renders them “major sources” of emissions for criteria and hazardous air pollutants even though controls were installed. Categorization of the facilities as “major sources” affects the particular regulatory program and requirements applicable to those facilities. EPA claims that QEP Field Services failed to obtain the necessary major source pre-construction or modification permits, and failed to comply with hazardous air pollutant regulations for monitoring, testing and reporting, among other requirements. QEP Field Services contends that its facilities have pollution controls installed as part of their operational design that reduce their actual air emissions below major source thresholds, rendering them subject to different regulatory requirements applicable to non-major sources. QEP Field Services has vigorously defended itself against EPA's claims, and believes that the major source permitting and regulatory requirements at issue can be legally avoided by applying EPA's prior permitting practice for similar facilities elsewhere in Indian Country, among other defenses. Because of the complexities and uncertainties of this legal dispute, it is difficult to predict all reasonably possible outcomes; however, management believes the Company has accrued a reasonable loss contingency that is an immaterial amount, for the anticipated most likely outcome.

QEP Energy v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, No. 09-9538, U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit. On July 10, 2009, QEP Energy filed a petition with the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals challenging an administrative compliance order dated May 12, 2009 (Order), issued by EPA which asserts that QEP Energy's Flat Rock 14P well in the Uinta Basin and associated equipment is a major source of hazardous air pollutants and its operation fails to comply with certain regulations of the CAA. The Order required immediate compliance. QEP Energy denied that the drilling and operation of the 14P well and associated equipment violated any provisions of the CAA. QEP and EPA entered into an administrative order on consent, effective June 17, 2011, resolving all disputes associated with prospective CAA compliance at the Flat Rock 14P well. Among other matters, the order requires installation of pollution control equipment to destroy vapors from the well's dehydration equipment and ongoing monitoring and reporting associated with operation of that control equipment.