Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2012
Contingencies [Abstract]
Contingencies	Note 10 – 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. In accordance with ASC 450, 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 or the minimum amount within a range of possible outcomes. The Company believes that the exposure to potential losses from its contingencies deemed as probable is immaterial. For claims deemed reasonably possible the Company does not have a range of potential exposure as an estimate cannot be made because the cases are in their early stages or have a large number of plaintiffs. Disclosures are provided for contingencies reasonably possible to occur which would have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial position, results of operations or cash flows but have not yet been accrued. Some of the claims involve numerous plaintiffs, 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. 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 filed on February 28, 2008. 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 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 and operated by QEP Field Services. 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 probable outcomes; however, management believes the Company has accrued an estimated loss contingency that is an immaterial amount, for the anticipated most likely outcome. Litigation Chieftain Royalty Company v. QEP Energy Company, Case No CJ2011-1, U. S. District Court for Oklahoma filed on January 20, 2011. This is a class action filed by a royalty owner on behalf of every QEP Energy royalty owner in the state of Oklahoma since 1988 asserting various claims for damages related to royalty valuation, including breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, fraud and conversion, based generally on asserted improper deduction of post-production costs. Because this case is in an early stage prior to full discovery, it is difficult to reasonably estimate potential liability. QEP Energy believes it has properly valued and paid royalty under Oklahoma law and will vigorously defend this claim. Because of the complexities and uncertainties of this legal dispute and the number of plaintiffs, it is difficult to predict all reasonably possible outcomes; however, management believes, at this early litigation stage, the potential loss contingency is an immaterial amount.

Note 10 – 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. In accordance with ASC 450, 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 or the minimum amount within a range of possible outcomes. The Company believes that the exposure to potential losses from its contingencies deemed as probable is immaterial. For claims deemed reasonably possible the Company does not have a range of potential exposure as an estimate cannot be made because the cases are in their early stages or have a large number of plaintiffs. Disclosures are provided for contingencies reasonably possible to occur which would have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial position, results of operations or cash flows but have not yet been accrued. Some of the claims involve numerous plaintiffs, 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. 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 filed on February 28, 2008. 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 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 and operated by QEP Field Services. 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 probable outcomes; however, management believes the Company has accrued an estimated loss contingency that is an immaterial amount, for the anticipated most likely outcome.

Litigation

Chieftain Royalty Company v. QEP Energy Company, Case No CJ2011-1, U. S. District Court for Oklahoma filed on January 20, 2011. This is a class action filed by a royalty owner on behalf of every QEP Energy royalty owner in the state of Oklahoma since 1988 asserting various claims for damages related to royalty valuation, including breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, fraud and conversion, based generally on asserted improper deduction of post-production costs. Because this case is in an early stage prior to full discovery, it is difficult to reasonably estimate potential liability. QEP Energy believes it has properly valued and paid royalty under Oklahoma law and will vigorously defend this claim. Because of the complexities and uncertainties of this legal dispute and the number of plaintiffs, it is difficult to predict all reasonably possible outcomes; however, management believes, at this early litigation stage, the potential loss contingency is an immaterial amount.