Summary of Significant Accounting Policies, Nature of Operations and Other Developments (Policies)	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2016
Accounting Policies [Abstract]
Recently Issued Accounting Pronouncements That Are Not Yet Effective	Revenue from Contracts with Customers In May 2014, the FASB issued ASU 2014-09, Revenue from Contracts with Customers, which provides guidance on the core principle that an entity should recognize revenue to depict the transfer of promised goods or services to customers in an amount that reflects the consideration to which the entity expects to be entitled in exchange for those goods or services. This ASU applies to all contracts with customers, except financial instruments, guarantees, lease contracts, insurance contracts and certain non-monetary exchanges. It provides the following five-step revenue recognition model: (1) identify the contract(s) with a customer, (2) identify the performance obligations in the contract, (3) determine the transaction price, (4) allocate the transaction price to the performance obligations in the contract, and (5) recognize revenue when (or as) the entity satisfies a performance obligation. In addition, the ASU requires additional disclosure of the nature, amount, timing and uncertainty of revenue and cash flows arising from contracts with customers. In August 2015 the FASB issued ASU 2015-14, Deferral of the Effective Date, which deferred the effective date of ASU 2014-09 to interim and annual periods beginning on January 1, 2018, with early adoption permitted in 2017. Management does not expect the adoption of this guidance to significantly impact the Company’s financial position or results of operations. Recognition and Measurement of Financial Assets and Financial Liabilities In January 2016, the FASB issued ASU 2016-01, Recognition and Measurement of Financial Assets and Financial Liabilities, which amends the accounting, presentation, and disclosure requirements for certain financial instruments. The ASU requires that all equity investments be recorded at fair value through net income (other than those accounted for under equity method or result in consolidation of the investee); however, an entity may choose to measure equity investments that do not have readily determinable fair values at cost minus impairment, if any, plus or minus changes resulting from observable price changes in orderly transactions for the identical or a similar investment of the same issuer. The ASU also requires an entity to present separately in other comprehensive income the portion of the total change in fair value of a liability resulting from a change in the instrument-specific credit risk when the entity has elected to measure the liability under the fair value option. The ASU also clarifies that an entity must evaluate the need for a valuation allowance on a deferred tax asset related to available for sale securities in combination with the entity’s other deferred tax assets. In addition, the ASU amends the presentation and disclosure requirements for financial instruments and now requires the use of an exit price notion when measuring the fair value of financial instruments for disclosure purposes. This guidance is effective for interim and annual periods beginning on January 1, 2018, with early adoption permitted for the amendments to the accounting for financial liabilities under the fair value option. Management is currently assessing the impact of this guidance on the Company’s financial position and results of operations. Accounting for Leases In February 2016, the FASB issued ASU 2016-02, Leases, which will require entities that lease assets (i.e., lessees) to recognize assets and liabilities on their balance sheet for the rights and obligations created by those leases (where lease terms are greater than twelve months). The accounting by entities that own the assets leased (i.e., lessors) will remain largely unchanged; however, leveraged lease accounting will no longer be permitted for leases that commence after the effective date. The ASU will also require qualitative and quantitative disclosures about the amount, timing and uncertainty of cash flows arising from leases. This guidance is effective for interim and annual periods beginning on January 1, 2019 and requires a modified retrospective approach, with early adoption permitted. Management is currently assessing the impact of this guidance on the Company’s financial position and results of operations. Effect of Derivative Contract Novations on Existing Hedge Accounting Relationships In March 2016, the FASB issued ASU 2016-05, Effect of Derivative Contract Novations on Existing Hedge Accounting Relationships, which clarifies that a change in the counterparty to a derivative instrument that has been designated as the hedging instrument does not, in and of itself, require dedesignation of that hedging relationship. However, entities will still need to evaluate whether all other hedge accounting criteria continue to be met. This ASU is effective for interim and annual periods beginning on January 1, 2017, with early adoption permitted. Entities have the option to adopt the new guidance on a prospective basis to new derivative contract novations or on a modified retrospective basis. Management does not expect the adoption of this guidance to significantly impact the Company’s financial position or results of operations. Contingent Put and Call Options in Debt Instruments In March 2016, the FASB issued ASU 2016-06, Contingent Put and Call Options in Debt Instruments, which clarifies the requirements for assessing whether contingent put or call options that can accelerate the payment of principal on debt instruments are clearly and closely related to their debt hosts. Current guidance indicates that a contingently exercisable put or call option is clearly and closely related to the debt host if it is indexed only to interest rates or credit risk, but was unclear whether the nature of the exercise contingency itself should be considered in this evaluation. The ASU clarifies that an entity would not separately assess whether the contingency itself is indexed only to interest rates or the credit risk of the entity to conclude the option is clearly and closely related. This guidance is effective for interim and annual periods beginning on January 1, 2017, with early adoption permitted. The new guidance is required to be applied on a modified retrospective basis to all existing and future debt instruments and an entity will be able to elect the fair value option at transition for the entire debt instrument. Management does not expect the adoption of this guidance to significantly impact the Company’s financial position or results of operations. Simplifying the Transition to the Equity Method of Accounting In March 2016, the FASB issued ASU 2016-07, Simplifying the Transition to the Equity Method of Accounting, which eliminates the requirement to apply the equity method of accounting retrospectively when an investor obtains significant influence over an existing investee. The ASU requires that (1) the equity method be applied prospectively from the date significant influence is obtained, and (2) investors add the cost of acquiring the additional interest in the investee to the current basis of their previously held interest. The ASU also provides specific guidance for available-for-sale securities that become eligible for the equity method whereby any unrealized gain or loss recorded within accumulated other comprehensive income must be recognized in earnings on the date the investment initially qualifies for the equity method. The ASU is effective for interim and annual periods beginning on January 1, 2017, with early adoption permitted. Adoption of this guidance will not significantly impact the Company’s financial position or results of operations. Principal versus Agent Considerations (Reporting Revenue Gross versus Net) In March 2016, the FASB issued ASU 2016-08, Principal versus Agent Considerations (Reporting Revenue Gross versus Net). The ASU amends ASU 2014-09, Revenue from Contracts with Customers, with respect to assessing whether an entity is a principal (and thus presents revenue gross) or an agent (and thus presents revenue net). The amendments retain the guidance that the principal in an arrangement controls a good or service before it is transferred to a customer and clarify: (1) that an entity must first identify the specified good or service being provided to the customer; (2) that the unit of account for the principal versus agent assessment is each specified good or service promised in a contract; (3) indicators and examples to help an entity evaluate whether it is the principal; and (4) how to assess whether an entity controls services performed by another party. The ASU is effective upon the adoption of ASU 2014-09, which is effective for periods beginning January 1, 2018, with early adoption permitted in 2017. Management does not expect the adoption of this guidance to significantly impact the Company’s financial position or results of operations. Accounting for Share-Based Payments In March 2016, the FASB issued ASU 2016-09, Improvements to Employee Share-Based Payment Accounting. The ASU requires recognition of any difference between the deduction for tax purposes and compensation cost recognized for financial reporting purposes as income tax expense or benefit in the income statement (as opposed to recognizing certain excess tax benefits in additional paid-in capital). The tax effects of exercised or vested awards are now also required to be treated as discrete items in the reporting period in which they occur (rather than through the annual estimated effective tax rate) and excess tax benefits must be recognized regardless of whether the benefit reduces taxes payable in the current period. Excess tax benefits are now classified along with other income tax cash flows as an operating activity, as opposed to a financing activity. With respect to accounting for forfeitures, an entity can now make an accounting policy election to either estimate the number of awards that are expected to vest (current GAAP) or account for forfeitures when they occur. Additionally, entities may now partially settle awards in cash up to the maximum statutory tax rates in the applicable jurisdictions, without precluding equity classification of the award (current GAAP allows only up to the minimum statutory withholding requirements). The ASU is effective for interim and annual periods beginning on January 1, 2017, with early adoption permitted. Management is currently assessing the impact of this guidance on the Company’s financial position and results of operations. Measurement of Credit Losses on Financial Instruments In June 2016, the FASB issued ASU 2016-13, Measurement of Credit Losses on Financial Instruments, which provides new guidance on the accounting for credit losses for instruments that are within its scope. For loans and debt securities accounted for at amortized cost, certain off-balance sheet credit exposures, net investments in leases, and trade receivables, the ASU requires an entity to recognize its estimate of credit losses expected over the life of the financial instrument or exposure. Lifetime expected credit losses on purchased financial assets with credit deterioration will be recognized as an allowance with an offset to the cost basis of the asset. For available for sale debt securities, the new standard will require recognition of expected credit losses by recognizing an allowance for credit losses when the fair value of the security is below amortized cost and the recognition of this allowance is limited to the difference between the security’s amortized cost basis and fair value. The ASU is effective for interim and annual periods beginning on January 1, 2020, with early adoption permitted in 2019. Management is currently assessing the impact of the ASU on the Company’s financial position and results of operations.

Revenue from Contracts with Customers

In May 2014, the FASB issued ASU 2014-09, Revenue from Contracts with Customers, which provides guidance on the core principle that an entity should recognize revenue to depict the transfer of promised goods or services to customers in an amount that reflects the consideration to which the entity expects to be entitled in exchange for those goods or services. This ASU applies to all contracts with customers, except financial instruments, guarantees, lease contracts, insurance contracts and certain non-monetary exchanges. It provides the following five-step revenue recognition model: (1) identify the contract(s) with a customer, (2) identify the performance obligations in the contract, (3) determine the transaction price, (4) allocate the transaction price to the performance obligations in the contract, and (5) recognize revenue when (or as) the entity satisfies a performance obligation. In addition, the ASU requires additional disclosure of the nature, amount, timing and uncertainty of revenue and cash flows arising from contracts with customers. In August 2015 the FASB issued ASU 2015-14, Deferral of the Effective Date, which deferred the effective date of ASU 2014-09 to interim and annual periods beginning on January 1, 2018, with early adoption permitted in 2017. Management does not expect the adoption of this guidance to significantly impact the Company’s financial position or results of operations.

Recognition and Measurement of Financial Assets and Financial Liabilities

In January 2016, the FASB issued ASU 2016-01, Recognition and Measurement of Financial Assets and Financial Liabilities, which amends the accounting, presentation, and disclosure requirements for certain financial instruments. The ASU requires that all equity investments be recorded at fair value through net income (other than those accounted for under equity method or result in consolidation of the investee); however, an entity may choose to measure equity investments that do not have readily determinable fair values at cost minus impairment, if any, plus or minus changes resulting from observable price changes in orderly transactions for the identical or a similar investment of the same issuer. The ASU also requires an entity to present separately in other comprehensive income the portion of the total change in fair value of a liability resulting from a change in the instrument-specific credit risk when the entity has elected to measure the liability under the fair value option. The ASU also clarifies that an entity must evaluate the need for a valuation allowance on a deferred tax asset related to available for sale securities in combination with the entity’s other deferred tax assets. In addition, the ASU amends the presentation and disclosure requirements for financial instruments and now requires the use of an exit price notion when measuring the fair value of financial instruments for disclosure purposes. This guidance is effective for interim and annual periods beginning on January 1, 2018, with early adoption permitted for the amendments to the accounting for financial liabilities under the fair value option. Management is currently assessing the impact of this guidance on the Company’s financial position and results of operations.

Accounting for Leases

In February 2016, the FASB issued ASU 2016-02, Leases, which will require entities that lease assets (i.e., lessees) to recognize assets and liabilities on their balance sheet for the rights and obligations created by those leases (where lease terms are greater than twelve months). The accounting by entities that own the assets leased (i.e., lessors) will remain largely unchanged; however, leveraged lease accounting will no longer be permitted for leases that commence after the effective date. The ASU will also require qualitative and quantitative disclosures about the amount, timing and uncertainty of cash flows arising from leases. This guidance is effective for interim and annual periods beginning on January 1, 2019 and requires a modified retrospective approach, with early adoption permitted. Management is currently assessing the impact of this guidance on the Company’s financial position and results of operations.

Effect of Derivative Contract Novations on Existing Hedge Accounting Relationships

In March 2016, the FASB issued ASU 2016-05, Effect of Derivative Contract Novations on Existing Hedge Accounting Relationships, which clarifies that a change in the counterparty to a derivative instrument that has been designated as the hedging instrument does not, in and of itself, require dedesignation of that hedging relationship. However, entities will still need to evaluate whether all other hedge accounting criteria continue to be met. This ASU is effective for interim and annual periods beginning on January 1, 2017, with early adoption permitted. Entities have the option to adopt the new guidance on a prospective basis to new derivative contract novations or on a modified retrospective basis. Management does not expect the adoption of this guidance to significantly impact the Company’s financial position or results of operations.

Contingent Put and Call Options in Debt Instruments

In March 2016, the FASB issued ASU 2016-06, Contingent Put and Call Options in Debt Instruments, which clarifies the requirements for assessing whether contingent put or call options that can accelerate the payment of principal on debt instruments are clearly and closely related to their debt hosts. Current guidance indicates that a contingently exercisable put or call option is clearly and closely related to the debt host if it is indexed only to interest rates or credit risk, but was unclear whether the nature of the exercise contingency itself should be considered in this evaluation. The ASU clarifies that an entity would not separately assess whether the contingency itself is indexed only to interest rates or the credit risk of the entity to conclude the option is clearly and closely related. This guidance is effective for interim and annual periods beginning on January 1, 2017, with early adoption permitted. The new guidance is required to be applied on a modified retrospective basis to all existing and future debt instruments and an entity will be able to elect the fair value option at transition for the entire debt instrument. Management does not expect the adoption of this guidance to significantly impact the Company’s financial position or results of operations.

Simplifying the Transition to the Equity Method of Accounting

In March 2016, the FASB issued ASU 2016-07, Simplifying the Transition to the Equity Method of Accounting, which eliminates the requirement to apply the equity method of accounting retrospectively when an investor obtains significant influence over an existing investee. The ASU requires that (1) the equity method be applied prospectively from the date significant influence is obtained, and (2) investors add the cost of acquiring the additional interest in the investee to the current basis of their previously held interest. The ASU also provides specific guidance for available-for-sale securities that become eligible for the equity method whereby any unrealized gain or loss recorded within accumulated other comprehensive income must be recognized in earnings on the date the investment initially qualifies for the equity method. The ASU is effective for interim and annual periods beginning on January 1, 2017, with early adoption permitted. Adoption of this guidance will not significantly impact the Company’s financial position or results of operations.

Principal versus Agent Considerations (Reporting Revenue Gross versus Net)

In March 2016, the FASB issued ASU 2016-08, Principal versus Agent Considerations (Reporting Revenue Gross versus Net). The ASU amends ASU 2014-09, Revenue from Contracts with Customers, with respect to assessing whether an entity is a principal (and thus presents revenue gross) or an agent (and thus presents revenue net). The amendments retain the guidance that the principal in an arrangement controls a good or service before it is transferred to a customer and clarify: (1) that an entity must first identify the specified good or service being provided to the customer; (2) that the unit of account for the principal versus agent assessment is each specified good or service promised in a contract; (3) indicators and examples to help an entity evaluate whether it is the principal; and (4) how to assess whether an entity controls services performed by another party. The ASU is effective upon the adoption of ASU 2014-09, which is effective for periods beginning January 1, 2018, with early adoption permitted in 2017. Management does not expect the adoption of this guidance to significantly impact the Company’s financial position or results of operations.

Accounting for Share-Based Payments

In March 2016, the FASB issued ASU 2016-09, Improvements to Employee Share-Based Payment Accounting. The ASU requires recognition of any difference between the deduction for tax purposes and compensation cost recognized for financial reporting purposes as income tax expense or benefit in the income statement (as opposed to recognizing certain excess tax benefits in additional paid-in capital). The tax effects of exercised or vested awards are now also required to be treated as discrete items in the reporting period in which they occur (rather than through the annual estimated effective tax rate) and excess tax benefits must be recognized regardless of whether the benefit reduces taxes payable in the current period. Excess tax benefits are now classified along with other income tax cash flows as an operating activity, as opposed to a financing activity. With respect to accounting for forfeitures, an entity can now make an accounting policy election to either estimate the number of awards that are expected to vest (current GAAP) or account for forfeitures when they occur. Additionally, entities may now partially settle awards in cash up to the maximum statutory tax rates in the applicable jurisdictions, without precluding equity classification of the award (current GAAP allows only up to the minimum statutory withholding requirements). The ASU is effective for interim and annual periods beginning on January 1, 2017, with early adoption permitted. Management is currently assessing the impact of this guidance on the Company’s financial position and results of operations.

Measurement of Credit Losses on Financial Instruments

In June 2016, the FASB issued ASU 2016-13, Measurement of Credit Losses on Financial Instruments, which provides new guidance on the accounting for credit losses for instruments that are within its scope. For loans and debt securities accounted for at amortized cost, certain off-balance sheet credit exposures, net investments in leases, and trade receivables, the ASU requires an entity to recognize its estimate of credit losses expected over the life of the financial instrument or exposure. Lifetime expected credit losses on purchased financial assets with credit deterioration will be recognized as an allowance with an offset to the cost basis of the asset. For available for sale debt securities, the new standard will require recognition of expected credit losses by recognizing an allowance for credit losses when the fair value of the security is below amortized cost and the recognition of this allowance is limited to the difference between the security’s amortized cost basis and fair value. The ASU is effective for interim and annual periods beginning on January 1, 2020, with early adoption permitted in 2019. Management is currently assessing the impact of the ASU on the Company’s financial position and results of operations.