Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2012
Contingencies [Abstract]
Contingencies	Note 9 - 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. QEP's estimates are based on information known about the claims, experience in contesting, litigating and settling similar claims. Although actual amounts could differ from management's estimates, QEP believes that the exposure to potential losses, in excess of the amount which has been accrued, from its probable contingencies 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. As previously disclosed in the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2011, and its Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the three months ended March 31, 2012, 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.On May 16, 2012, QEP Field Services settled this matter through the parties' execution of a consent decree which was subsequently approved by court order. The civil penalty payable to the government is $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 $0.5 million had been spent at June 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 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, including the early stage of discovery and the number of plaintiffs, it is difficult to predict all reasonably possible outcomes. 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 recalculation 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. Because of the complexities and uncertainties of this legal dispute in its early stages, it is difficult to predict all reasonably possible outcomes. 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. While QEP Field Services intends to defend itself against QGC's claims and vigorously pursue its legal rights, the claims involve complex legal issues and uncertainties that make it difficult to predict the outcome of the cases and therefore management cannot determine at this time whether this litigation may have an adverse material effect on its financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

Note 9 - 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. QEP's estimates are based on information known about the claims, experience in contesting, litigating and settling similar claims. Although actual amounts could differ from management's estimates, QEP believes that the exposure to potential losses, in excess of the amount which has been accrued, from its probable contingencies 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. As previously disclosed in the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2011, and its Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the three months ended March 31, 2012, 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.On May 16, 2012, QEP Field Services settled this matter through the parties' execution of a consent decree which was subsequently approved by court order. The civil penalty payable to the government is $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 $0.5 million had been spent at June 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 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, including the early stage of discovery and the number of plaintiffs, it is difficult to predict all reasonably possible outcomes.

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 recalculation 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. Because of the complexities and uncertainties of this legal dispute in its early stages, it is difficult to predict all reasonably possible outcomes. 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. While QEP Field Services intends to defend itself against QGC's claims and vigorously pursue its legal rights, the claims involve complex legal issues and uncertainties that make it difficult to predict the outcome of the cases and therefore management cannot determine at this time whether this litigation may have an adverse material effect on its financial position, results of operations or cash flows.