Commitments and Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2015
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Commitments and Contingencies Contingencies Liabilities and other contingencies are recognized upon determination of an exposure, which when analyzed indicates that it is both probable that an asset has been impaired or that a liability has been incurred and that the amount of such loss is reasonably estimable. Volatility of Oil and Natural Gas Prices Our revenues, future rate of growth, results of operations, financial condition and ability to borrow funds or obtain additional capital, as well as the carrying value of our properties, are substantially dependent upon prevailing prices of oil and natural gas. Legal Proceedings Cause No. 08-04-07047-CV; Oz Gas Corporation v. Remuda Operating Company, et al. v. Victory Energy Corporation.; In the 112^th District Court of Crockett County, Texas. Plaintiff Oz Gas Corporation (“Oz”) filed a lawsuit in April 2008 against various parties for bad faith trespass, among other claims, regarding the drilling of two wells on lands that Oz claims title to. On November 18, 2009, Victory Energy Corporation intervened in the lawsuit to protect its 50% interest in one of the named wells in the lawsuit (that being the 155-2 well located on the Adams Baggett Ranch in Crockett County, Texas). This case was mediated, with no settlement reached. It went to trial February 8-9, 2012. The Court found in favor of Oz and rendered verdict against Victory and the other Defendants, jointly and severally. Victory appealed this case to the 8^th Court of Appeals in El Paso, Texas where the Court of Appeals affirmed the verdict of the District Court and Victory filed a Motion for Rehearing, which was denied. Victory filed a Petition for Review in the Supreme Court of Texas on December 15, 2014 which was denied. On March 30, 2015 Victory filed a Motion for Rehearing in this case. On May 1, 2015 the Supreme Court sent a letter asking for Oz to file a response to Victory’s motion by May 18, 2015. Oz sought an extension of time to file their response, which was unopposed by Victory. The Supreme Court allowed the extension and Oz filed their Response to Motion for Rehearing on June 11, 2015. On June 17, 2015 Victory filed a Motion for Leave to file Reply in Support of Motion for Rehearing and filed said Reply on June 19, 2015. Oz then filed a Surreply to Petitioner’s Reply to Response to Motion for Rehearing on June 25, 2015. The Supreme Court has not taken any action at this time. Cause No. D-1-GN-13-000044; Aurora Energy Partners and Victory Energy Corporation v. Crooked Oaks, LLC; In the 261^st District Court of Travis County, Texas. Victory Energy Corporation sued Crooked Oaks, LLC a/k/a Crooked Oak, LLC for breach of a purchase and sale agreement dated May 7, 2012 in which Victory sold certain assets to Crooked Oaks, LLC. The lawsuit seeks to recover $200,000 from Crooked Oaks, LLC in addition to attorney’s fees and all costs of court. On August 5, 2015 Victory received Notice from the District Court that this case was set on the Dismissal Docket for want of prosecution. Victory is planning on filing a Motion to Retain and a Motion for Summary Judgment in this case. Cause No. 50198; Trilogy Operating, Inc. v. Aurora Energy Partners; In the 118^th District Court of Howard County, Texas. This lawsuit was filed on January 9, 2015. This lawsuit alleges causes of action for declaratory judgment, breach of contract, and suit to quiet title regarding the drilling and completion of four wells. On or about February 12, 2015, the parties met at an informal settlement conference. At the adjournment of the meeting, Trilogy was to provide Aurora with a detailed accounting before proceeding forward. The accounting provided by Trilogy was not helpful and Aurora has asked for an audit under the terms set out in the Joint Operating Agreement, which Trilogy denied. Discovery is ongoing in this case and no trial date has been set at this time. Cause No. 2015-05280; TELA Garwood Limited, LP. v. Aurora Energy Partners and Victory Energy Corporation; In the 164^th District Court of Harris County, Texas. This lawsuit was filed on January 30, 2015. This lawsuit alleges breach of contract regarding a Purchase and Sale Agreement that TELA Garwood Limited, LP and Aurora Energy Partners entered into on June 30, 2014. A first closing was held on June 30, 2014 and a purchase price adjustment payment was made on July 31, 2014. Between these two dates Aurora paid TELAapproximately $3 million. A second closing was to take place in September of 2014, however several title defect were found to exist. The title defects could not be cured and TELA would not agree to a purchase price reduction which ultimately lead to TELA terminating the second closing. Aurora and Victory have filed an answer in this case. On March 4, 2015, TELA supplemented their petition adding all of the Victory board members to this lawsuit, however not everyone has been served. On April 30, 2015, Aurora and Victory filed a counterclaim against TELA alleging breach of contract, breach of warranty, fraud, fraud in the inception, negligent misrepresentation, and tortious interference with contract and business relationship. An answer, special exceptions and request for disclosure was filed on May 8, 2015 on behalf of the board members. Discovery is ongoing in this case and no trial date has been set.

Commitments and Contingencies

Contingencies

Liabilities and other contingencies are recognized upon determination of an exposure, which when analyzed indicates that it is both probable that an asset has been impaired or that a liability has been incurred and that the amount of such loss is reasonably estimable.

Volatility of Oil and Natural Gas Prices

Our revenues, future rate of growth, results of operations, financial condition and ability to borrow funds or obtain additional capital, as well as the carrying value of our properties, are substantially dependent upon prevailing prices of oil and natural gas.

Legal Proceedings

Cause No. 08-04-07047-CV; Oz Gas Corporation v. Remuda Operating Company, et al. v. Victory Energy Corporation.; In the 112^th District Court of Crockett County, Texas.

Plaintiff Oz Gas Corporation (“Oz”) filed a lawsuit in April 2008 against various parties for bad faith trespass, among other claims, regarding the drilling of two wells on lands that Oz claims title to. On November 18, 2009, Victory Energy Corporation intervened in the lawsuit to protect its 50% interest in one of the named wells in the lawsuit (that being the 155-2 well located on the Adams Baggett Ranch in Crockett County, Texas).

This case was mediated, with no settlement reached. It went to trial February 8-9, 2012. The Court found in favor of Oz and rendered verdict against Victory and the other Defendants, jointly and severally. Victory appealed this case to the 8^th Court of Appeals in El Paso, Texas where the Court of Appeals affirmed the verdict of the District Court and Victory filed a Motion for Rehearing, which was denied. Victory filed a Petition for Review in the Supreme Court of Texas on December 15, 2014 which was denied. On March 30, 2015 Victory filed a Motion for Rehearing in this case. On May 1, 2015 the Supreme Court sent a letter asking for Oz to file a response to Victory’s motion by May 18, 2015. Oz sought an extension of time to file their response, which was unopposed by Victory. The Supreme Court allowed the extension and Oz filed their Response to Motion for Rehearing on June 11, 2015. On June 17, 2015 Victory filed a Motion for Leave to file Reply in Support of Motion for Rehearing and filed said Reply on June 19, 2015. Oz then filed a Surreply to Petitioner’s Reply to Response to Motion for Rehearing on June 25, 2015. The Supreme Court has not taken any action at this time.

Cause No. D-1-GN-13-000044; Aurora Energy Partners and Victory Energy Corporation v. Crooked Oaks, LLC; In the 261^st District Court of Travis County, Texas.

Victory Energy Corporation sued Crooked Oaks, LLC a/k/a Crooked Oak, LLC for breach of a purchase and sale agreement dated May 7, 2012 in which Victory sold certain assets to Crooked Oaks, LLC. The lawsuit seeks to recover $200,000 from Crooked Oaks, LLC in addition to attorney’s fees and all costs of court.

On August 5, 2015 Victory received Notice from the District Court that this case was set on the Dismissal Docket for want of prosecution. Victory is planning on filing a Motion to Retain and a Motion for Summary Judgment in this case.

Cause No. 50198; Trilogy Operating, Inc. v. Aurora Energy Partners; In the 118^th District Court of Howard County, Texas.

This lawsuit was filed on January 9, 2015. This lawsuit alleges causes of action for declaratory judgment, breach of contract, and suit to quiet title regarding the drilling and completion of four wells. On or about February 12, 2015, the parties met at an informal settlement conference. At the adjournment of the meeting, Trilogy was to provide Aurora with a detailed accounting before proceeding forward. The accounting provided by Trilogy was not helpful and Aurora has asked for an audit under the terms set out in the Joint Operating Agreement, which Trilogy denied.

Discovery is ongoing in this case and no trial date has been set at this time.

Cause No. 2015-05280; TELA Garwood Limited, LP. v. Aurora Energy Partners and Victory Energy Corporation; In the 164^th District Court of Harris County, Texas.

This lawsuit was filed on January 30, 2015. This lawsuit alleges breach of contract regarding a Purchase and Sale Agreement that TELA Garwood Limited, LP and Aurora Energy Partners entered into on June 30, 2014. A first closing was held on June 30, 2014 and a purchase price adjustment payment was made on July 31, 2014. Between these two dates Aurora paid TELAapproximately $3 million. A second closing was to take place in September of 2014, however several title defect were found to exist. The title defects could not be cured and TELA would not agree to a purchase price reduction which ultimately lead to TELA terminating the second closing.

Aurora and Victory have filed an answer in this case. On March 4, 2015, TELA supplemented their petition adding all of the Victory board members to this lawsuit, however not everyone has been served. On April 30, 2015, Aurora and Victory filed a counterclaim against TELA alleging breach of contract, breach of warranty, fraud, fraud in the inception, negligent misrepresentation, and tortious interference with contract and business relationship. An answer, special exceptions and request for disclosure was filed on May 8, 2015 on behalf of the board members.

Discovery is ongoing in this case and no trial date has been set.