Commitments and Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2018
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Commitments and Contingencies Legal From time to time, the Company and its subsidiaries may be involved in various legal proceedings and claims in the ordinary course of business. Olenik v. Lodzinksi et al.: On June 2, 2017, Nicholas Olenik filed a purported shareholder class and derivative action in the Delaware Court of Chancery against Earthstone’s Chief Executive Officer, along with other members of the Board, EnCap, Bold, Bold Holdings and OVR. The complaint alleges that Earthstone’s directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the Bold Contribution Agreement. The Plaintiff asserts that the directors negotiated the Bold Transaction to benefit EnCap and its affiliates, failed to obtain adequate consideration for the Earthstone shareholders who were not affiliated with EnCap or Earthstone management, did not follow an adequate process in negotiating and approving the Bold Transaction and made materially misleading or incomplete proxy disclosures in connection with the Bold Transaction. The suit seeks unspecified damages and purports to assert claims derivatively on behalf of Earthstone and as a class action on behalf of all persons who held Common Stock up to March 13, 2017, excluding defendants and their affiliates. On July 20, 2018, the Delaware Court of Chancery granted the defendants' motion to dismiss and entered an order dismissing the action in its entirety with prejudice. Plaintiff may appeal to the Delaware Supreme Court. Earthstone and each of the other defendants believe the claims are entirely without merit and they intend to mount a vigorous defense. The outcome of this suit is uncertain, and while Earthstone is confident in its position, any potential monetary recovery or loss to Earthstone cannot be estimated at this time. On August 18, 2017, litigation captioned Trinity Royal Partners, LP v. Bold Energy III LLC, et al. was filed with the 142nd Judicial District of the District Court in Midland County, Texas, asserting breach of contract and indemnity claims for alleged damages from loss of property relating to two oil and natural gas wells in which Bold was the operator. Trinity Royalty Partners, LP (“Trinity”) alleges that Bold is required to indemnify Trinity under the terms of an Assignment and a Participation and Joint Development Agreement between Bold and Trinity. Damages are alleged to include costs incurred in attempting to repair and restore an oil and natural gas well and for the loss of future reserves attributable to both wells. Trinity is seeking approximately $7.2 million in damages and attorneys’ fees. Earthstone and Bold believe the suit is without any merit and Bold intends to mount a vigorous defense. The outcome of this suit is uncertain, and while the Company is confident in its position, any potential monetary recovery or loss to the Company cannot be estimated at this time. Environmental and Regulatory As of June 30, 2018, there were no known environmental or other regulatory matters related to the Company’s operations that are reasonably expected to result in a material liability to the Company.

Commitments and Contingencies

Legal

From time to time, the Company and its subsidiaries may be involved in various legal proceedings and claims in the ordinary course of business.

Olenik v. Lodzinksi et al.: On June 2, 2017, Nicholas Olenik filed a purported shareholder class and derivative action in the Delaware Court of Chancery against Earthstone’s Chief Executive Officer, along with other members of the Board, EnCap, Bold, Bold Holdings and OVR. The complaint alleges that Earthstone’s directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the Bold Contribution Agreement. The Plaintiff asserts that the directors negotiated the Bold Transaction to benefit EnCap and its affiliates, failed to obtain adequate consideration for the Earthstone shareholders who were not affiliated with EnCap or Earthstone management, did not follow an adequate process in negotiating and approving the Bold Transaction and made materially misleading or incomplete proxy disclosures in connection with the Bold Transaction. The suit seeks unspecified damages and purports to assert claims derivatively on behalf of Earthstone and as a class action on behalf of all persons who held Common Stock up to March 13, 2017, excluding defendants and their affiliates. On July 20, 2018, the Delaware Court of Chancery granted the defendants' motion to dismiss and entered an order dismissing the action in its entirety with prejudice. Plaintiff may appeal to the Delaware Supreme Court. Earthstone and each of the other defendants believe the claims are entirely without merit and they intend to mount a vigorous defense. The outcome of this suit is uncertain, and while Earthstone is confident in its position, any potential monetary recovery or loss to Earthstone cannot be estimated at this time.

On August 18, 2017, litigation captioned Trinity Royal Partners, LP v. Bold Energy III LLC, et al. was filed with the 142nd Judicial District of the District Court in Midland County, Texas, asserting breach of contract and indemnity claims for alleged damages from loss of property relating to two oil and natural gas wells in which Bold was the operator. Trinity Royalty Partners, LP (“Trinity”) alleges that Bold is required to indemnify Trinity under the terms of an Assignment and a Participation and Joint Development Agreement between Bold and Trinity. Damages are alleged to include costs incurred in attempting to repair and restore an oil and natural gas well and for the loss of future reserves attributable to both wells. Trinity is seeking approximately $7.2 million in damages and attorneys’ fees. Earthstone and Bold believe the suit is without any merit and Bold intends to mount a vigorous defense. The outcome of this suit is uncertain, and while the Company is confident in its position, any potential monetary recovery or loss to the Company cannot be estimated at this time.

Environmental and Regulatory

As of June 30, 2018, there were no known environmental or other regulatory matters related to the Company’s operations that are reasonably expected to result in a material liability to the Company.