Commitments and Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2013
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	Office Lease The Company’s corporate headquarters are located at One Lincoln Centre, 5400 LBJ Freeway, Suite 1500, Dallas, Texas. In April 2013, the Company entered into the fifth amendment to its office lease agreement. This amendment increased the square footage of its corporate headquarters to 40,071 square feet effective July 1, 2013. The lease expires on June 30, 2022. Natural Gas and NGL Processing and Transportation Commitments Effective September 1, 2012, the Company entered into a firm five-year natural gas processing and transportation agreement whereby the Company committed to transport the anticipated natural gas production from a significant portion of its Eagle Ford acreage in South Texas through the counterparty’s system for processing at the counterparty’s facilities. The agreement also includes firm transportation of the natural gas liquids extracted at the counterparty’s processing plant downstream for fractionation. After processing, the residue natural gas is purchased by the counterparty at the tailgate of its processing plant and further transported under its firm natural gas transportation agreements. The arrangement contains fixed processing and liquids transportation and fractionation fees, and the revenue the Company receives varies with the quality of natural gas transported to the processing facilities and the contract period. Under this agreement, if the Company does not meet 80% of the maximum thermal quantity transportation and processing commitments in a contract year, it will be required to pay a deficiency fee per MMBtu of natural gas deficiency. Any quantity in excess of the maximum MMBtu delivered in a contract year can be carried over to the next contract year for purposes of calculating the natural gas deficiency. The Company believes that its current and anticipated production from the wells covered by this agreement is sufficient to meet 80% of the maximum thermal quantity transportation and processing commitments under this agreement. The Company’s remaining aggregate undiscounted minimum commitments under this agreement are $12.2 million at September 30, 2013. The Company paid approximately $2.0 million and $3.8 million in processing and transportation fees under this agreement during the three and nine months ended September 30, 2013. Other Commitments From time to time, the Company enters into contracts with third parties for drilling rigs. These contracts establish daily rates for the drilling rigs and the term of the Company’s commitment for the drilling services to be provided, which are typically for one year or less. Should the Company elect to terminate a contract and if the drilling contractor were unable to secure work for the contracted drilling rigs or if the drilling contractor were unable to secure work for the contracted drilling rigs at the same daily rates being charged to the Company prior to the end of their respective contract terms, the Company would incur termination obligations. The Company’s maximum outstanding aggregate termination obligations under its drilling rig contracts were approximately $7.7 million at September 30, 2013. At September 30, 2013, the Company had agreed to participate in the drilling and completion of various non-operated wells. If all of these wells are drilled and completed, the Company will have minimum outstanding aggregate commitments for its participation in these wells of approximately $16.7 million at September 30, 2013, which it expects to incur within the next few months. Legal Proceedings Cynthia Fry Peironnet, et al. v. MRC Energy Company f/k/a Matador Resources Company. The Company was involved in a dispute over a mineral rights lease involving certain acreage in Louisiana. The dispute regarded an extension of the term of a lease in Caddo Parish, Louisiana (the “Lease”) where the Company had drilled or participated in the drilling of both Cotton Valley and Haynesville shale wells. At issue were the deep rights below the Cotton Valley formation on approximately 1,805 gross acres where the Company has the right to participate for up to a 25% working interest, and also retains a small overriding royalty interest, in Haynesville shale wells drilled in units that include portions of the acreage. The Company’s total net revenue and overriding royalty interests in several non-operated Haynesville shale wells previously drilled on this acreage range from approximately 2% to 23%, and only portions of these interests are attributable to this acreage. The sum of the Company’s overriding royalty and net revenue interests attributable to this acreage from Haynesville wells previously drilled on this acreage comprises less than one net well. The plaintiffs brought this claim against the Company on May 15, 2008 in the First Judicial District Court, Caddo Parish, Louisiana (the “Trial Court”). The plaintiffs sought (i) reformation or rescission of the lease extension, (ii) an accounting for additional royalty, (iii) monetary damages and (iv) attorney’s fees. During the pendency of the case in the Trial Court, the Company settled with one lessor who owned a 1/6^th undivided interest in the minerals. The Trial Court rendered multiple rulings in favor of the Company, including a unanimous jury verdict in favor of the Company in the fall of 2010. Final judgment of the Trial Court was rendered in favor of the Company on June 6, 2011. On August 1, 2012, the Louisiana Second Circuit Court of Appeal (the “Court of Appeal”) affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment of the Trial Court and remanded the case to the Trial Court for determination of damages. The Court of Appeal affirmed the Trial Court with respect to the 1/6^th royalty owner that settled and also affirmed that the Company’s lease extension was unambiguous. Nonetheless, the Court of Appeal reformed the lease extension to cover only approximately 169 gross acres, holding that the deep rights covering the remaining 1,636 gross acres had expired. The Court of Appeal denied the Company’s motion for rehearing, and the Company and certain other defendants filed an appeal with the Louisiana Supreme Court. The Louisiana Supreme Court granted the requests to hear an appeal of the Court of Appeal’s decision, and in June 2013, the Louisiana Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeal and reinstated the Trial Court judgment in its entirety. The plaintiffs filed an application for rehearing with the Louisiana Supreme Court, which was denied on August 30, 2013. MRC Energy Company f/k/a Matador Resources Company v. Orca ICI Development, J.V. The Company and Orca, a non-operator working interest owner, had various disputes regarding certain of the Company’s Eagle Ford shale wells and properties. Among other things, issues arose with respect to the rights and obligations of the Company and Orca under various agreements between the parties, and Orca sought the Company’s consent to Orca’s proposed assignment of its 50 percent working interest in the Cowey #3H and #4H wells to a non-industry person, despite the presence of a uniform maintenance of interest provision. On April 2, 2013, Orca brought suit against the Company in the 57th Judicial District Court of Bexar County, Texas and sought injunctive relief. The court denied Orca’s demand for injunctive relief, and on April 5, 2013, the Company moved to enforce arbitration provisions in the agreements between the parties. On April 22, 2013, the Company initiated an arbitration against Orca, seeking, among other things, a declaration that the Company could withhold its consent to Orca’s putative assignment of these interests. Pursuant to agreements reached between the parties in May and June 2013, Orca and the Company agreed to resolve all outstanding issues between the parties regarding the respective rights and obligations of the parties under the agreements between them. In addition, the Company agreed to bear 100% of the costs to drill, complete and equip the Cowey #3H and #4H wells. Until such time as the Company has recovered 100% of the costs to drill, complete and equip the wells, all revenues generated by production from these two wells will be attributable to the Company. Following the Company’s recovery of these amounts, Orca would participate in the wells for a 25% working interest. The Company has returned $8.7 million submitted by Orca’s putative assignee. The agreements also included a mutual release of claims between the Company and Orca and provided for the dismissal of the Bexar County litigation. Orca filed a notice of non-suit on August 7, 2013. The Company is a defendant in several other lawsuits encountered in the ordinary course of its business. In the opinion of management, it is remote that these lawsuits will have a material adverse impact on the Company’s financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

Office Lease

The Company’s corporate headquarters are located at One Lincoln Centre, 5400 LBJ Freeway, Suite 1500, Dallas, Texas. In April 2013, the Company entered into the fifth amendment to its office lease agreement. This amendment increased the square footage of its corporate headquarters to 40,071 square feet effective July 1, 2013. The lease expires on June 30, 2022.

Natural Gas and NGL Processing and Transportation Commitments

Effective September 1, 2012, the Company entered into a firm five-year natural gas processing and transportation agreement whereby the Company committed to transport the anticipated natural gas production from a significant portion of its Eagle Ford acreage in South Texas through the counterparty’s system for processing at the counterparty’s facilities. The agreement also includes firm transportation of the natural gas liquids extracted at the counterparty’s processing plant downstream for fractionation. After processing, the residue natural gas is purchased by the counterparty at the tailgate of its processing plant and further transported under its firm natural gas transportation agreements. The arrangement contains fixed processing and liquids transportation and fractionation fees, and the revenue the Company receives varies with the quality of natural gas transported to the processing facilities and the contract period.

Under this agreement, if the Company does not meet 80% of the maximum thermal quantity transportation and processing commitments in a contract year, it will be required to pay a deficiency fee per MMBtu of natural gas deficiency. Any quantity in excess of the maximum MMBtu delivered in a contract year can be carried over to the next contract year for purposes of calculating the natural gas deficiency. The Company believes that its current and anticipated production from the wells covered by this agreement is sufficient to meet 80% of the maximum thermal quantity transportation and processing commitments under this agreement. The Company’s remaining aggregate undiscounted minimum commitments under this agreement are $12.2 million at September 30, 2013. The Company paid approximately $2.0 million and $3.8 million in processing and transportation fees under this agreement during the three and nine months ended September 30, 2013.

Other Commitments

From time to time, the Company enters into contracts with third parties for drilling rigs. These contracts establish daily rates for the drilling rigs and the term of the Company’s commitment for the drilling services to be provided, which are typically for one year or less. Should the Company elect to terminate a contract and if the drilling contractor were unable to secure work for the contracted drilling rigs or if the drilling contractor were unable to secure work for the contracted drilling rigs at the same daily rates being charged to the Company prior to the end of their respective contract terms, the Company would incur termination obligations. The Company’s maximum outstanding aggregate termination obligations under its drilling rig contracts were approximately $7.7 million at September 30, 2013.

At September 30, 2013, the Company had agreed to participate in the drilling and completion of various non-operated wells. If all of these wells are drilled and completed, the Company will have minimum outstanding aggregate commitments for its participation in these wells of approximately $16.7 million at September 30, 2013, which it expects to incur within the next few months.

Legal Proceedings

Cynthia Fry Peironnet, et al. v. MRC Energy Company f/k/a Matador Resources Company. The Company was involved in a dispute over a mineral rights lease involving certain acreage in Louisiana. The dispute regarded an extension of the term of a lease in Caddo Parish, Louisiana (the “Lease”) where the Company had drilled or participated in the drilling of both Cotton Valley and Haynesville shale wells. At issue were the deep rights below the Cotton Valley formation on approximately 1,805 gross acres where the Company has the right to participate for up to a 25% working interest, and also retains a small overriding royalty interest, in Haynesville shale wells drilled in units that include portions of the acreage. The Company’s total net revenue and overriding royalty interests in several non-operated Haynesville shale wells previously drilled on this acreage range from approximately 2% to 23%, and only portions of these interests are attributable to this acreage. The sum of the Company’s overriding royalty and net revenue interests attributable to this acreage from Haynesville wells previously drilled on this acreage comprises less than one net well.

The plaintiffs brought this claim against the Company on May 15, 2008 in the First Judicial District Court, Caddo Parish, Louisiana (the “Trial Court”). The plaintiffs sought (i) reformation or rescission of the lease extension, (ii) an accounting for additional royalty, (iii) monetary damages and (iv) attorney’s fees. During the pendency of the case in the Trial Court, the Company settled with one lessor who owned a 1/6^th undivided interest in the minerals. The Trial Court rendered multiple rulings in favor of the Company, including a unanimous jury verdict in favor of the Company in the fall of 2010. Final judgment of the Trial Court was rendered in favor of the Company on June 6, 2011. On August 1, 2012, the Louisiana Second Circuit Court of Appeal (the “Court of Appeal”) affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment of the Trial Court and remanded the case to the Trial Court for determination of damages. The Court of Appeal affirmed the Trial Court with respect to the 1/6^th royalty owner that settled and also affirmed that the Company’s lease extension was unambiguous. Nonetheless, the Court of Appeal reformed the lease extension to cover only approximately 169 gross acres, holding that the deep rights covering the remaining 1,636 gross acres had expired. The Court of Appeal denied the Company’s motion for rehearing, and the Company and certain other defendants filed an appeal with the Louisiana Supreme Court. The Louisiana Supreme Court granted the requests to hear an appeal of the Court of Appeal’s decision, and in June 2013, the Louisiana Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeal and reinstated the Trial Court judgment in its entirety. The plaintiffs filed an application for rehearing with the Louisiana Supreme Court, which was denied on August 30, 2013.

MRC Energy Company f/k/a Matador Resources Company v. Orca ICI Development, J.V. The Company and Orca, a non-operator working interest owner, had various disputes regarding certain of the Company’s Eagle Ford shale wells and properties. Among other things, issues arose with respect to the rights and obligations of the Company and Orca under various agreements between the parties, and Orca sought the Company’s consent to Orca’s proposed assignment of its 50 percent working interest in the Cowey #3H and #4H wells to a non-industry person, despite the presence of a uniform maintenance of interest provision. On April 2, 2013, Orca brought suit against the Company in the 57th Judicial District Court of Bexar County, Texas and sought injunctive relief. The court denied Orca’s demand for injunctive relief, and on April 5, 2013, the Company moved to enforce arbitration provisions in the agreements between the parties. On April 22, 2013, the Company initiated an arbitration against Orca, seeking, among other things, a declaration that the Company could withhold its consent to Orca’s putative assignment of these interests. Pursuant to agreements reached between the parties in May and June 2013, Orca and the Company agreed to resolve all outstanding issues between the parties regarding the respective rights and obligations of the parties under the agreements between them. In addition, the Company agreed to bear 100% of the costs to drill, complete and equip the Cowey #3H and #4H wells. Until such time as the Company has recovered 100% of the costs to drill, complete and equip the wells, all revenues generated by production from these two wells will be attributable to the Company. Following the Company’s recovery of these amounts, Orca would participate in the wells for a 25% working interest. The Company has returned $8.7 million submitted by Orca’s putative assignee. The agreements also included a mutual release of claims between the Company and Orca and provided for the dismissal of the Bexar County litigation. Orca filed a notice of non-suit on August 7, 2013.

The Company is a defendant in several other lawsuits encountered in the ordinary course of its business. In the opinion of management, it is remote that these lawsuits will have a material adverse impact on the Company’s financial position, results of operations or cash flows.