Commitments And Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2015
Commitments And Contingencies [Abstract]
Commitments And Contingencies	(10) COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Operating Commitments and Contingencies In the first quarter of 2010, the Company was awarded exclusive licenses by the Province of New Brunswick in Canada to conduct an exploration program covering approximately 2.5 million acres in the province. The licenses require the Company to make certain capital investments in New Brunswick of approximately $47 million Canadian dollars in the aggregate over the license periods. In order to obtain the licenses, the Company provided promissory notes payable on demand to the Minister of Finance of the Province of New Brunswick with an aggregate principal amount of $45 million Canadian dollars. The promissory notes secure the Company’s capital expenditure obligations under the licenses and are returnable to the Company to the extent the Company performs such obligations. If the Company fails to fully perform, the Minister of Finance may retain a portion of the applicable promissory notes in an amount equal to any deficiency. The Company commenced its Canada exploration program in 2010 and, as of September 30, 2015 has invested $45 million Canadian dollars, or $44 million US dollars, in New Brunswick towards the Company’s commitment, fully covering the promissory notes held by the Province of New Brunswick. No liability has been recognized in connection with the promissory notes due to the Company’s investments in New Brunswick as of September 30, 2015 and its future investment plans. In December 2014, New Brunswick’s provincial government announced its intent to impose a moratorium on hydraulic fracturing in the province, and, on March 27, 2015, the provincial legislature approved enabling legislation. The Company has been granted an extension of its licenses. The provincial government has announced a list of conditions that must be met before the moratorium can be lifted, but because these conditions are subjective and the government has discretion whether to grant an extension, the Company cannot predict the duration of the moratorium or whether it will continue beyond the expiration of the licenses, as their terms have been, or in the future may be, extended. Unless and until the moratorium is lifted, the Company will not be able to continue with its program in New Brunswick. If the licenses expire before the moratorium is lifted or the Company can complete its program, the Company may be required to write off its investment. As of September 30, 2015, the Company’s contractual obligations for demand and similar charges under firm transportation and gathering agreements to guarantee access capacity on operational natural gas and liquids pipelines and gathering systems totaled approximately $8.8 billion, 36% of which related to access capacity on future pipeline and gathering infrastructure projects that still require the granting of regulatory approvals and additional construction efforts. The Company also had guarantee obligations of up to $605 million of that amount. Environmental Risk The Company is subject to laws and regulations relating to the protection of the environment. Environmental and cleanup related costs of a non-capital nature are accrued when it is both probable that a liability has been incurred and when the amount can be reasonably estimated. Management believes any future remediation or other compliance related costs will not have a material effect on the financial position or reported results of operations of the Company. Litigation The Company is subject to laws and regulations relating to the protection of the environment. The Company’s policy is to accrue environmental and cleanup related costs of a non-capital nature when it is both probable that a liability has been incurred and when the amount can be reasonably estimated. Management believes any future remediation or other compliance related costs will not have a material effect on our financial position, results of operations, and cash flows. Tovah Energy In February 2009, one of the Company’s subsidiaries was added as a defendant in a case then styled Tovah Energy, LLC and Toby Berry-Helfand v. David Michael Grimes, et, al., pending in the 273rd District Court in Shelby County, Texas. By the time of trial in December 2010, Ms. Berry-Helfand (the only remaining plaintiff) alleged that, in 2005, she provided our subsidiary with proprietary data regarding two prospects in the James Lime formation pursuant to a confidentiality agreement and that the Company’s subsidiary refused to return the proprietary data to the plaintiff, subsequently acquired leases based upon such proprietary data and profited therefrom. Among other things, she alleged various statutory and common law claims, including, but not limited to, claims of misappropriation of trade secrets, violation of the Texas Theft Liability Act, breach of fiduciary duty and confidential relationships, various fraud based claims and breach of contract, including a claim of breach of a purported right of first refusal on all interests acquired by our subsidiary between February 2005 and February 2006. She also sought disgorgement of the Company’s subsidiary’s profits. A former associate of the plaintiff intervened in the matter claiming to have helped develop the prospect years earlier. The jury found in favor of the plaintiff and the intervenor with respect to all of the statutory and common law claims and awarded $11 million in compensatory damages but no special, punitive or other damages. Separately, the jury determined that the Company’s subsidiary’s profits for purposes of disgorgement, if ordered as a remedy, were $382 million. (Disgorgement of profits is an equitable remedy determined by the judge, and it is within the judge’s discretion to award none, some or all of unlawfully obtained profits.) In August 2011, a judgment was entered pursuant to which the plaintiff and the intervenor were entitled to recover approximately $11 million in actual damages and approximately $24 million in disgorgement as well as prejudgment interest and attorneys’ fees, which currently are estimated to be up to $9 million, and all costs of court of the plaintiff and intervenor. Both sides appealed and in July 2013, the Tyler Court of Appeals ordered that (1) the judgment awarding the plaintiff and the intervenor $24 million as disgorgement of illicit gains be reversed and judgment rendered that they take nothing, (2) the award of $11 million for actual damages, insofar as it is based on the jury’s findings of breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, breach of contract, and theft of trade secret is reversed and judgment rendered that the plaintiff and the intervenor take nothing under those theories of recovery, (3) the award of $11 million to the plaintiff and the intervenor as damages for misappropriation of trade secret is affirmed, (4) the case be remanded to the trial court for a determination and award of attorney’s fees for the Company’s subsidiary as the prevailing party under the Texas Theft Liability Act, and (5) in all other respects, the judgment is affirmed. All parties petitioned for rehearing. The Tyler Court of Appeals denied rehearing in November 2013. The Company’s subsidiary filed a petition for review in the Supreme Court of Texas in February 2014. The plaintiff and the intervenor filed a cross-petition for review in April 2014, but conditioned their filing on the court’s granting the Company’s subsidiary’s petition for review; i.e., if the court denies the Company’s subsidiary’s petition for review, then the plaintiff and the intervenor are not seeking further review of the court of appeals’ judgment. The Supreme Court granted the parties’ petitions for review and heard oral argument on the case in October 2015 but has not yet issued a decision. Based on the Company’s understanding and judgment of the facts and merits of this case, including appellate matters, and after considering the advice of counsel, the Company has determined that, although reasonably possible, a materially adverse final outcome to this action is not probable. As such, the Company has not accrued any amounts with respect to this action. If the Supreme Court affirms all aspects of the court of appeals’ judgment, then the Company’s subsidiary would owe the $11 million in damages, plus interest and attorneys’ fees, offset by any award of attorneys’ fees for its prevailing on the theft count. The Company’s assessment may change in the future depending on the Supreme Court’s decision, and such a re-assessment could lead to the determination that the potential liability is probable and could be material to the Company’s results of operations, financial position or cash flows. Arkansas Royalty Litigation The Company or certain of the Company’s subsidiaries are defendants in three cases, two filed in Arkansas state court in 2010 and 2013 and one in federal court in 2014, on behalf of putative classes of royalty owners on some of our leases located in Arkansas. The chief complaint in all three cases is that one of the Company’s subsidiaries underpaid the royalty owners by, among other things, deducting from royalty payments costs for gathering, transportation, and compression of natural gas in excess of what is permitted by the relevant leases. In September and October 2014 the judges in the two Arkansas state actions entered orders certifying classes of royalty owners who are citizens of Arkansas. The Company’s subsidiaries are appealing those orders. In October 2015, the court in the federal case conducted a hearing on the plaintiff's motion to certify a class of royalty owners not included in either of the two state cases. The Company and certain of its subsidiaries asserted that the federal court should not certify any class, but that, if it did, it should certify a broader class that would, among other things, encompass all cost-bearing royalty owners with leases for property in the Fayetteville Shale. The federal court has not yet ruled on this issue. Discovery regarding the plaintiffs’ theories of liability and amount of claimed damages is ongoing. None of the plaintiffs in any of the cases has specified the specific range of damages being sought, but each has presented two alternative damages theories. Under one theory, plaintiffs have asserted that obligations to affiliates are not “incurred” and therefore the exploration subsidiary was not entitled to deduct any post-production costs. Plaintiffs appear to contend that damages under this theory would be based on the aggregate amount deducted from royalty payments for gathering, treating, and compressing gas, which, based on discovery, could exceed $200 million. Under another theory, plaintiffs assert that the gathering and treating rates it deducted from royalty payments exceeded the affiliates’ actual costs or otherwise were not reasonable. The plaintiffs have not disclosed what they contend the appropriate rate is. In addition, in September 2015 three cases were filed in Arkansas state court on behalf of a total of 248 individually named plaintiffs. Each case asserts complaints that are in substance virtually identical to the above-described case. The Company and its subsidiaries have removed two of the cases to federal court, and those cases have been assigned to the court in which the above-described federal case is pending. Management believes that, in all of the above cases, the deductions from royalty payments as calculated are permitted and intends to defend the cases vigorously. The Company’s assessment may change in the future due to the occurrence of certain events, such as adverse judgments, and such a re-assessment could lead to the determination that the potential liability is probable and could be material to the Company’s results of operations, financial position or cash flows. Other The Company is subject to various other litigation, claims and proceedings that have arisen in the ordinary course of business, such as for alleged breaches of contract, miscalculation of royalties, and pollution, contamination or nuisance. Management believes that such litigation, claims and proceedings, individually or in aggregate and after taking into account insurance, are not likely to have a material adverse impact on the Company’s financial position, results of operations or cash flows. Many of these matters are in early stages, so the allegations and the damage theories have not been fully developed, and are all subject to inherent uncertainties; therefore, Management’s view may change in the future. If an unfavorable final outcome were to occur, there exists the possibility of a material impact on the Company’s financial position, results of operations or cash flows for the period in which the effect becomes reasonably estimable. The Company accrues for such items when a liability is both probable and the amount can be reasonably estimated. Indemnifications The Company provides certain indemnifications in relation to dispositions of assets. These indemnifications typically relate to disputes, litigation or tax matters existing at the date of disposition. No liability has been recognized in connection with these indemnifications.

(10) COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Operating Commitments and Contingencies

In the first quarter of 2010, the Company was awarded exclusive licenses by the Province of New Brunswick in Canada to conduct an exploration program covering approximately 2.5 million acres in the province. The licenses require the Company to make certain capital investments in New Brunswick of approximately $47 million Canadian dollars in the aggregate over the license periods. In order to obtain the licenses, the Company provided promissory notes payable on demand to the Minister of Finance of the Province of New Brunswick with an aggregate principal amount of $45 million Canadian dollars. The promissory notes secure the Company’s capital expenditure obligations under the licenses and are returnable to the Company to the extent the Company performs such obligations. If the Company fails to fully perform, the Minister of Finance may retain a portion of the applicable promissory notes in an amount equal to any deficiency. The Company commenced its Canada exploration program in 2010 and, as of September 30, 2015 has invested $45 million Canadian dollars, or $44 million US dollars, in New Brunswick towards the Company’s commitment, fully covering the promissory notes held by the Province of New Brunswick. No liability has been recognized in connection with the promissory notes due to the Company’s investments in New Brunswick as of September 30, 2015 and its future investment plans. In December 2014, New Brunswick’s provincial government announced its intent to impose a moratorium on hydraulic fracturing in the province, and, on March 27, 2015, the provincial legislature approved enabling legislation. The Company has been granted an extension of its licenses. The provincial government has announced a list of conditions that must be met before the moratorium can be lifted, but because these conditions are subjective and the government has discretion whether to grant an extension, the Company cannot predict the duration of the moratorium or whether it will continue beyond the expiration of the licenses, as their terms have been, or in the future may be, extended. Unless and until the moratorium is lifted, the Company will not be able to continue with its program in New Brunswick. If the licenses expire before the moratorium is lifted or the Company can complete its program, the Company may be required to write off its investment.

As of September 30, 2015, the Company’s contractual obligations for demand and similar charges under firm transportation and gathering agreements to guarantee access capacity on operational natural gas and liquids pipelines and gathering systems totaled approximately $8.8 billion, 36% of which related to access capacity on future pipeline and gathering infrastructure projects that still require the granting of regulatory approvals and additional construction efforts. The Company also had guarantee obligations of up to $605 million of that amount.

Environmental Risk

The Company is subject to laws and regulations relating to the protection of the environment. Environmental and cleanup related costs of a non-capital nature are accrued when it is both probable that a liability has been incurred and when the amount can be reasonably estimated. Management believes any future remediation or other compliance related costs will not have a material effect on the financial position or reported results of operations of the Company.

Litigation

The Company is subject to laws and regulations relating to the protection of the environment. The Company’s policy is to accrue environmental and cleanup related costs of a non-capital nature when it is both probable that a liability has been incurred and when the amount can be reasonably estimated. Management believes any future remediation or other compliance related costs will not have a material effect on our financial position, results of operations, and cash flows.

Tovah Energy

In February 2009, one of the Company’s subsidiaries was added as a defendant in a case then styled Tovah Energy, LLC and Toby Berry-Helfand v. David Michael Grimes, et, al., pending in the 273rd District Court in Shelby County, Texas. By the time of trial in December 2010, Ms. Berry-Helfand (the only remaining plaintiff) alleged that, in 2005, she provided our subsidiary with proprietary data regarding two prospects in the James Lime formation pursuant to a confidentiality agreement and that the Company’s subsidiary refused to return the proprietary data to the plaintiff, subsequently acquired leases based upon such proprietary data and profited therefrom. Among other things, she alleged various statutory and common law claims, including, but not limited to, claims of misappropriation of trade secrets, violation of the Texas Theft Liability Act, breach of fiduciary duty and confidential relationships, various fraud based claims and breach of contract, including a claim of breach of a purported right of first refusal on all interests acquired by our subsidiary between February 2005 and February 2006. She also sought disgorgement of the Company’s subsidiary’s profits. A former associate of the plaintiff intervened in the matter claiming to have helped develop the prospect years earlier.

The jury found in favor of the plaintiff and the intervenor with respect to all of the statutory and common law claims and awarded $11 million in compensatory damages but no special, punitive or other damages. Separately, the jury determined that the Company’s subsidiary’s profits for purposes of disgorgement, if ordered as a remedy, were $382 million. (Disgorgement of profits is an equitable remedy determined by the judge, and it is within the judge’s discretion to award none, some or all of unlawfully obtained profits.) In August 2011, a judgment was entered pursuant to which the plaintiff and the intervenor were entitled to recover approximately $11 million in actual damages and approximately $24 million in disgorgement as well as prejudgment interest and attorneys’ fees, which currently are estimated to be up to $9 million, and all costs of court of the plaintiff and intervenor.

Both sides appealed and in July 2013, the Tyler Court of Appeals ordered that (1) the judgment awarding the plaintiff and the intervenor $24 million as disgorgement of illicit gains be reversed and judgment rendered that they take nothing, (2) the award of $11 million for actual damages, insofar as it is based on the jury’s findings of breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, breach of contract, and theft of trade secret is reversed and judgment rendered that the plaintiff and the intervenor take nothing under those theories of recovery, (3) the award of $11 million to the plaintiff and the intervenor as damages for misappropriation of trade secret is affirmed, (4) the case be remanded to the trial court for a determination and award of attorney’s fees for the Company’s subsidiary as the prevailing party under the Texas Theft Liability Act, and (5) in all other respects, the judgment is affirmed. All parties petitioned for rehearing. The Tyler Court of Appeals denied rehearing in November 2013.

The Company’s subsidiary filed a petition for review in the Supreme Court of Texas in February 2014. The plaintiff and the intervenor filed a cross-petition for review in April 2014, but conditioned their filing on the court’s granting the Company’s subsidiary’s petition for review; i.e., if the court denies the Company’s subsidiary’s petition for review, then the plaintiff and the intervenor are not seeking further review of the court of appeals’ judgment. The Supreme Court granted the parties’ petitions for review and heard oral argument on the case in October 2015 but has not yet issued a decision. Based on the Company’s understanding and judgment of the facts and merits of this case, including appellate matters, and after considering the advice of counsel, the Company has determined that, although reasonably possible, a materially adverse final outcome to this action is not probable. As such, the Company has not accrued any amounts with respect to this action. If the Supreme Court affirms all aspects of the court of appeals’ judgment, then the Company’s subsidiary would owe the $11 million in damages, plus interest and attorneys’ fees, offset by any award of attorneys’ fees for its prevailing on the theft count. The Company’s assessment may change in the future depending on the Supreme Court’s decision, and such a re-assessment could lead to the determination that the potential liability is probable and could be material to the Company’s results of operations, financial position or cash flows.

Arkansas Royalty Litigation

The Company or certain of the Company’s subsidiaries are defendants in three cases, two filed in Arkansas state court in 2010 and 2013 and one in federal court in 2014, on behalf of putative classes of royalty owners on some of our leases located in Arkansas. The chief complaint in all three cases is that one of the Company’s subsidiaries underpaid the royalty owners by, among other things, deducting from royalty payments costs for gathering, transportation, and compression of natural gas in excess of what is permitted by the relevant leases. In September and October 2014 the judges in the two Arkansas state actions entered orders certifying classes of royalty owners who are citizens of Arkansas. The Company’s subsidiaries are appealing those orders. In October 2015, the court in the federal case conducted a hearing on the plaintiff's motion to certify a class of royalty owners not included in either of the two state cases. The Company and certain of its subsidiaries asserted that the federal court should not certify any class, but that, if it did, it should certify a broader class that would, among other things, encompass all cost-bearing royalty owners with leases for property in the Fayetteville Shale. The federal court has not yet ruled on this issue.

Discovery regarding the plaintiffs’ theories of liability and amount of claimed damages is ongoing. None of the plaintiffs in any of the cases has specified the specific range of damages being sought, but each has presented two alternative damages theories. Under one theory, plaintiffs have asserted that obligations to affiliates are not “incurred” and therefore the exploration subsidiary was not entitled to deduct any post-production costs. Plaintiffs appear to contend that damages under this theory would be based on the aggregate amount deducted from royalty payments for gathering, treating, and compressing gas, which, based on discovery, could exceed $200 million. Under another theory, plaintiffs assert that the gathering and treating rates it deducted from royalty payments exceeded the affiliates’ actual costs or otherwise were not reasonable. The plaintiffs have not disclosed what they contend the appropriate rate is.

In addition, in September 2015 three cases were filed in Arkansas state court on behalf of a total of 248 individually named plaintiffs. Each case asserts complaints that are in substance virtually identical to the above-described case. The Company and its subsidiaries have removed two of the cases to federal court, and those cases have been assigned to the court in which the above-described federal case is pending.

Management believes that, in all of the above cases, the deductions from royalty payments as calculated are permitted and intends to defend the cases vigorously. The Company’s assessment may change in the future due to the occurrence of certain events, such as adverse judgments, and such a re-assessment could lead to the determination that the potential liability is probable and could be material to the Company’s results of operations, financial position or cash flows.

Other

The Company is subject to various other litigation, claims and proceedings that have arisen in the ordinary course of business, such as for alleged breaches of contract, miscalculation of royalties, and pollution, contamination or nuisance. Management believes that such litigation, claims and proceedings, individually or in aggregate and after taking into account insurance, are not likely to have a material adverse impact on the Company’s financial position, results of operations or cash flows. Many of these matters are in early stages, so the allegations and the damage theories have not been fully developed, and are all subject to inherent uncertainties; therefore, Management’s view may change in the future. If an unfavorable final outcome were to occur, there exists the possibility of a material impact on the Company’s financial position, results of operations or cash flows for the period in which the effect becomes reasonably estimable. The Company accrues for such items when a liability is both probable and the amount can be reasonably estimated.

Indemnifications

The Company provides certain indemnifications in relation to dispositions of assets. These indemnifications typically relate to disputes, litigation or tax matters existing at the date of disposition. No liability has been recognized in connection with these indemnifications.