Contingencies	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2016
Loss Contingency [Abstract]
CONTINGENCIES	CONTINGENCIES In two separate complaints, one filed by the State of Louisiana and the Parish of Cameron in the 38th Judicial District Court for the Parish of Cameron on February 9, 2016 and the other filed by the State of Louisiana and the District Attorney for the 15^th Judicial District of the State of Louisiana in the 15^th Judicial District Court for the Parish of Vermillion on July 29, 2016, the Company was named as a defendant, among 26 oil and gas companies, in the Cameron Parish complaint and among more than 40 oil and gas companies in the Vermillion Parish complaint, or the Complaints. The Complaints were filed under the State and Local Coastal Resources Management Act of 1978, as amended, and the rules, regulations, orders and ordinances adopted thereunder, which Gulfport referred to collectively as the CZM Laws, and allege that certain of the defendants’ oil and gas exploration, production and transportation operations associated with the development of the East Hackberry and West Hackberry oil and gas fields, in the case of the Cameron Parish complaint, and the Tigre Lagoon oil and gas field, in the case of the Vermillion Parish complaint, were conducted in violation of the CZM Laws. The Complaints allege that such activities caused substantial damage to land and waterbodies located in the coastal zone of the relevant Parish, including due to defendants’ design, construction and use of waste pits and the alleged failure to properly close the waste pits and to clear, re-vegetate, detoxify and return the property affected to its original condition, as well as the defendants’ alleged discharge of waste into the coastal zone. The Complaints also allege that the defendants’ oil and gas activities have resulted in the dredging of numerous canals, which had a direct and significant impact on the state coastal waters within the relevant Parish and that the defendants, among other things, failed to design, construct and maintain these canals using the best practical techniques to prevent bank slumping, erosion and saltwater intrusion and to minimize the potential for inland movement of storm-generated surges, which activities allegedly have resulted in the erosion of marshes and the degradation of terrestrial and aquatic life therein. The Complaints also allege that the defendants failed to re-vegetate, refill, clean, detoxify and otherwise restore these canals to their original condition. In these two petitions, the plaintiffs seek damages and other appropriate relief under the CZM Laws, including the payment of costs necessary to clear, re-vegetate, detoxify and otherwise restore the affected coastal zone of the relevant Parish to its original condition, actual restoration of such coastal zone to its original condition, and the payment of reasonable attorney fees and legal expenses and pre-judgment and post judgment interest. The Company was served with the Cameron complaint in early May 2016 and with the Vermillion Complaint in early September 2016. The Louisiana Attorney General and the Louisiana Department of Natural Resources intervened in both the Cameron Parish suit and the Vermillion Parish suit. Shortly after the Complaints were filed, certain defendants removed the cases to the lawsuit to the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana. In both cases, the plaintiffs have filed a motion to remand, but both Courts have stayed further proceedings on the motions to remand pending a ruling from the United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit on similar jurisdictional issues in another matter. The plaintiffs have granted all defendants an extension of time to file responsive pleadings to the Complaints until the District Courts rule on the motions to remand. Gulfport has not had the opportunity to evaluate the applicability of the allegations made in such complaints to their operations. Due to the early stages of these matters, management cannot determine the amount of loss, if any, that may result. Due to the nature of the Company's business, it is, from time to time, involved in routine litigation or subject to disputes or claims related to its business activities, including workers' compensation claims and employment related disputes. In the opinion of the Company's management, none of the pending litigation, disputes or claims against the Company, if decided adversely, will have a material adverse effect on its financial condition, cash flows or results of operations. Insurance Proceeds In September 2014, the Company settled its legacy surface contamination lawsuit with Reeds et al. Under the terms of the settlement agreement, Gulfport paid $18.0 million, which is included in litigation settlement in the accompanying consolidated statements of operations for the year ended December 31, 2014. For the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2015 the Company was reimbursed $5.7 million and $10.0 million, respectively, net of related legal fees by its insurance provider, which is included in insurance proceeds in the accompanying consolidated statements of operations. Concentration of Credit Risk Gulfport operates in the oil and natural gas industry principally in the states of Ohio and Louisiana with sales to refineries, re-sellers such as pipeline companies, and local distribution companies. While certain of these customers are affected by periodic downturns in the economy in general or in their specific segment of the oil and gas industry, Gulfport believes that its level of credit-related losses due to such economic fluctuations has been immaterial and will continue to be immaterial to the Company’s results of operations in the long term. The Company maintains cash balances at several banks. Accounts at each institution are insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation up to $250,000. At December 31, 2016, Gulfport held cash in excess of insured limits in these banks totaling $1.5 billion. During the year ended December 31, 2016, Gulfport sold approximately 68% and 10% of its natural gas production to BP Energy Company ("BP") and DTE Energy Trading, Inc. ("DTE"), respectively, 72% and 24% of its oil production to Shell Trading Company ("Shell") and Marathon Oil Corporation ("Marathon"), respectively, and 74% and 23% of its natural gas liquids production to MarkWest Utica EMG ("MarkWest"), and Antero Resources ("Antero"), respectively. During the year ended December 31, 2015, Gulfport sold approximately 79% and 14% of its natural gas production to BP and DTE, respectively, 90% and 10% of its oil production to Shell and Marathon, respectively, and 76% and 24% of its natural gas liquids production to MarkWest and Antero, respectively. During the year ended December 31, 2014, Gulfport sold approximately 40%, 32%, and 19% of its natural gas production to BP, DTE and Hess, respectively, 99% of its oil production to Shell, and 100% of its natural gas liquids production to MarkWest.

CONTINGENCIES

In two separate complaints, one filed by the State of Louisiana and the Parish of Cameron in the 38th Judicial District Court for the Parish of Cameron on February 9, 2016 and the other filed by the State of Louisiana and the District Attorney for the 15^th Judicial District of the State of Louisiana in the 15^th Judicial District Court for the Parish of Vermillion on July 29, 2016, the Company was named as a defendant, among 26 oil and gas companies, in the Cameron Parish complaint and among more than 40 oil and gas companies in the Vermillion Parish complaint, or the Complaints. The Complaints were filed under the State and Local Coastal Resources Management Act of 1978, as amended, and the rules, regulations, orders and ordinances adopted thereunder, which Gulfport referred to collectively as the CZM Laws, and allege that certain of the defendants’ oil and gas exploration, production and transportation operations associated with the development of the East Hackberry and West Hackberry oil and gas fields, in the case of the Cameron Parish complaint, and the Tigre Lagoon oil and gas field, in the case of the Vermillion Parish complaint, were conducted in violation of the CZM Laws. The Complaints allege that such activities caused substantial damage to land and waterbodies located in the coastal zone of the relevant Parish, including due to defendants’ design, construction and use of waste pits and the alleged failure to properly close the waste pits and to clear, re-vegetate, detoxify and return the property affected to its original condition, as well as the defendants’ alleged discharge of waste into the coastal zone. The Complaints also allege that the defendants’ oil and gas activities have resulted in the dredging of numerous canals, which had a direct and significant impact on the state coastal waters within the relevant Parish and that the defendants, among other things, failed to design, construct and maintain these canals using the best practical techniques to prevent bank slumping, erosion and saltwater intrusion and to minimize the potential for inland movement of storm-generated surges, which activities allegedly have resulted in the erosion of marshes and the degradation of terrestrial and aquatic life therein. The Complaints also allege that the defendants failed to re-vegetate, refill, clean, detoxify and otherwise restore these canals to their original condition. In these two petitions, the plaintiffs seek damages and other appropriate relief under the CZM Laws, including the payment of costs necessary to clear, re-vegetate, detoxify and otherwise restore the affected coastal zone of the relevant Parish to its original condition, actual restoration of such coastal zone to its original condition, and the payment of reasonable attorney fees and legal expenses and pre-judgment and post judgment interest.

The Company was served with the Cameron complaint in early May 2016 and with the Vermillion Complaint in early September 2016. The Louisiana Attorney General and the Louisiana Department of Natural Resources intervened in both the Cameron Parish suit and the Vermillion Parish suit. Shortly after the Complaints were filed, certain defendants removed the cases to the lawsuit to the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana. In both cases, the plaintiffs have filed a motion to remand, but both Courts have stayed further proceedings on the motions to remand pending a ruling from the United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit on similar jurisdictional issues in another matter. The plaintiffs have granted all defendants an extension of time to file responsive pleadings to the Complaints until the District Courts rule on the motions to remand. Gulfport has not had the opportunity to evaluate the applicability of the allegations made in such complaints to their operations. Due to the early stages of these matters, management cannot determine the amount of loss, if any, that may result.

Due to the nature of the Company's business, it is, from time to time, involved in routine litigation or subject to disputes or claims related to its business activities, including workers' compensation claims and employment related disputes. In the opinion of the Company's management, none of the pending litigation, disputes or claims against the Company, if decided adversely, will have a material adverse effect on its financial condition, cash flows or results of operations.

Insurance Proceeds

In September 2014, the Company settled its legacy surface contamination lawsuit with Reeds et al. Under the terms of the settlement agreement, Gulfport paid $18.0 million, which is included in litigation settlement in the accompanying consolidated statements of operations for the year ended December 31, 2014. For the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2015 the Company was reimbursed $5.7 million and $10.0 million, respectively, net of related legal fees by its insurance provider, which is included in insurance proceeds in the accompanying consolidated statements of operations.

Concentration of Credit Risk

Gulfport operates in the oil and natural gas industry principally in the states of Ohio and Louisiana with sales to refineries, re-sellers such as pipeline companies, and local distribution companies. While certain of these customers are affected by periodic downturns in the economy in general or in their specific segment of the oil and gas industry, Gulfport believes that its level of credit-related losses due to such economic fluctuations has been immaterial and will continue to be immaterial to the Company’s results of operations in the long term.

The Company maintains cash balances at several banks. Accounts at each institution are insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation up to $250,000. At December 31, 2016, Gulfport held cash in excess of insured limits in these banks totaling $1.5 billion.

During the year ended December 31, 2016, Gulfport sold approximately 68% and 10% of its natural gas production to BP Energy Company ("BP") and DTE Energy Trading, Inc. ("DTE"), respectively, 72% and 24% of its oil production to Shell Trading Company ("Shell") and Marathon Oil Corporation ("Marathon"), respectively, and 74% and 23% of its natural gas liquids production to MarkWest Utica EMG ("MarkWest"), and Antero Resources ("Antero"), respectively. During the year ended December 31, 2015, Gulfport sold approximately 79% and 14% of its natural gas production to BP and DTE, respectively, 90% and 10% of its oil production to Shell and Marathon, respectively, and 76% and 24% of its natural gas liquids production to MarkWest and Antero, respectively. During the year ended December 31, 2014, Gulfport sold approximately 40%, 32%, and 19% of its natural gas production to BP, DTE and Hess, respectively, 99% of its oil production to Shell, and 100% of its natural gas liquids production to MarkWest.