Commitments and contingencies	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2017
Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and contingencies	Note 11: Commitments and contingencies Standby letters of credit (“Letters”) available under our New Credit Facility are used in lieu of surety bonds with various organizations for liabilities relating to the operation of oil and natural gas properties. We had Letters outstanding totaling $828 as of September 30, 2017, and December 31, 2016. When amounts under the Letters are paid by the lenders, interest accrues on the amount paid at the same interest rate applicable to borrowings under the New Credit Facility. No amounts were paid by the lenders under the Letters; therefore, we paid no interest on the Letters during the nine months ended September 30, 2017 or 2016. Litigation and Claims Chapter 11 Proceedings. Commencement of the Chapter 11 Cases automatically stayed many of the proceedings and actions against us noted below as well as other claims and actions that were or could have been brought prior to May 9, 2016, and the claims remain subject to bankruptcy court jurisdiction. In connection with the proofs of claim asserted during bankruptcy from the proceedings or actions below, we are unable to estimate the amounts that will be allowed through the Bankruptcy proceedings due to the complexity and number of legal and factual issues presented by the matters and uncertainties with respect to, amongst other things, the nature of the claims and defenses, the potential size of the classes, the scope and types of the properties and agreements involved, and the ultimate potential outcomes of the matters. As a result, no reserves were established within our liabilities in connection with the proceedings and actions described below. To the extent that any of these legal proceedings result in a claim being allowed against us, pursuant to the terms of the Reorganization Plan, such claims will be satisfied through the issuance of new stock in the Company or, if the amount is such claim is below the convenience class threshold, through cash settlement. Naylor Farms, Inc., individually and as class representative on behalf of all similarly situated persons v. Chaparral Energy, L.L.C. On June 7, 2011, an alleged class action was filed against us in the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma (“Naylor Trial Court”) alleging that we improperly deducted post-production costs from royalties paid to plaintiffs and other royalty interest owners as categorized in the petition from crude oil and natural gas wells located in Oklahoma (“Naylor Farms Case”). Plaintiffs indicated they seek damages in excess of $5,000, the majority of which would be comprised of interest and may increase with the passage of time. The purported class includes non-governmental royalty interest owners in oil and natural gas wells we operate in Oklahoma. The plaintiffs have alleged a number of claims, including breach of contract, fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and other claims and seek termination of leases, recovery of compensatory damages, interest, punitive damages and attorney fees on behalf of the alleged class. We have responded to the Naylor Farms petition, denied the allegations and raised arguments and defenses. Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification in October 2015. In addition, the plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment asking the court to determine as a matter of law that natural gas is not marketable until it is in the condition and location to enter an interstate pipeline. On May 20, 2016, we filed a Notice of Suggestion of Bankruptcy with the Naylor Trial Court. On January 17, 2017, the Naylor Trial Court certified a modified class of plaintiffs with oil and gas leases containing specific language. The modified class constitutes less than 60% of the leases the plaintiffs originally sought to certify. After additional briefing on the subject, on April 18, 2017, the Naylor Trial Court issued an order certifying the class to include only claims relating back to June 1, 2006. On May 1, 2017, we filed a Petition for Permission to Appeal Class Certification Order with the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals (the “Tenth Circuit”), which was granted. We filed our appellate brief on September 14, 2017, to which the plaintiffs must respond by November 16, 2017. In addition to filing claims on behalf of the named plaintiffs and associated parties, on August 15, 2016, plaintiffs’ attorneys filed a proof of claim on behalf of the putative class claiming damages in excess of $150,000 in our Chapter 11 Cases. The Company objected to treatment of the claim on a class basis, asserting the claim should be addressed on an individual basis. On April 20, 2017, plaintiffs filed an amended proof of claim reducing the claim to an amount in excess of $90,000 inclusive of actual and punitive damages, statutory interest and attorney fees. On May 24, 2017, the Bankruptcy Court denied the Company’s objection, ruling the plaintiffs may file a claim on behalf of the class. This order did not establish liability or otherwise address the merits of the plaintiffs’ claims, to which we will also object. On June 7, 2017 we appealed the Bankruptcy Court order to the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. Under the Reorganization Plan, the plaintiffs are identified as a separate class of creditors, Class 8. Class 8 claims are entitled to receive their pro rata share of new stock issued to the holders of general unsecured claims (including claims of the Noteholders). Although the members of Class 8 voted to reject the Plan, the Bankruptcy Court confirmed the Plan on March 10, 2017, without objection by the plaintiffs. If the plaintiffs ultimately prevail on the merits of their claims, any liability arising under judgment or settlement of the unsecured claims would be satisfied through the issuance of new stock in the Company. We continue to dispute the plaintiffs’ allegations, dispute the case meets the requirements for class certification, and are objecting to the claims both individually and on a class-wide basis. Amanda Dodson, individually and as class representative on behalf of all similarly situated persons v. Chaparral Energy, L.L.C. On May 10, 2013, Amanda Dodson filed a complaint against us in the District Court of Mayes County, Oklahoma, (“Dodson Case”) with an allegation similar to those asserted in the Naylor Farms case related to post-production deductions, and includes claims for breach of contract, fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and other claims and seek termination of leases, recovery of compensatory damages, interest, punitive damages and attorney fees on behalf of the alleged class. The alleged class included non-governmental royalty interest owners in oil and natural gas wells we operate in Oklahoma. We responded to the Dodson petition, denied the allegations and raised a number of affirmative defenses. The case was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice on July 19, 2017. Martha Donelson and John Friend, on behalf of themselves and on behalf of all similarly situated persons v. Chaparral Energy, L.L.C. On August 11, 2014, an alleged class action was filed against us, as well as several other operators in Osage County, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma, alleging claims on behalf of the named plaintiffs and all similarly situated Osage County land owners and surface lessees. The plaintiffs challenged leases and drilling permits approved by the Bureau of Indian Affairs without the environmental studies allegedly required under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The plaintiffs assert claims seeking recovery for trespass, nuisance, negligence and unjust enrichment. Relief sought includes declaring oil and natural gas leases and drilling permits obtained in Osage County without a prior NEPA study void ab initio, removing us from all properties owned by the class members, disgorgement of profits, and compensatory and punitive damages. On March 31, 2016, the Court dismissed the case against all defendants as an improper challenge under NEPA and the Administrative Procedures Act. On April 29, 2016, the plaintiffs filed motions to alter or amend the court’s opinion and vacate the judgment, and to file an amended complaint to cure the deficiencies which the court found in the dismissed complaint. On May 20, 2016, the Company filed a Notice of Suggestion of Bankruptcy, and as a result have not responded to the plaintiffs’ motions. After plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration was denied, plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal on December 6, 2016. The Court has not ruled on the appeal, and has scheduled oral arguments for November 14, 2017. We anticipate any monetary liability related to this claim will be discharged. We dispute plaintiffs’ allegations and dispute that the case meets the requirements for a class action. Lisa West and Stormy Hopson, individually and as class representatives on behalf of all similarly situated persons v. Chaparral Energy, L.L.C. On February 18, 2016, an alleged class action was filed against us, as well as several other operators in the District Court of Pottawatomie County, State of Oklahoma (“West Case”), alleging claims on behalf of named plaintiffs and all similarly situated persons having an insurable real property interest in eight counties in central Oklahoma (the “Class Area”). The plaintiffs allege the oil and gas operations conducted by us and the other defendants have induced earthquakes in the Class Area. The plaintiffs did not seek damages for property damage, instead asked the court to require the defendants to reimburse plaintiffs and class members for earthquake insurance premiums from 2011 through the time at which the court determines there is no longer a risk of induced earthquakes, as well as attorney fees and costs and other relief. We responded to the petition, denied the allegations and raised a number of affirmative defenses. On March 18, 2016, the case was removed to the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma under the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”). On May 20, 2016, we filed a Notice of Suggestion of Bankruptcy, informing the court that we had filed voluntary petitions for relief under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code. On October 14, 2016, the plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint adding additional defendants and increasing the Class Area to 25 Central Oklahoma counties. Other defendants filed motions to dismiss the action which was granted on May 12, 2017. On July 18, 2017, plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint adding additional named plaintiffs as putative class representatives and adding three additional counties to the putative class area. In the Second Amended Complaint, plaintiffs seek damages for nuisance, negligence, abnormally dangerous activities, and trespass. Due to Chaparral’s bankruptcy, plaintiffs specifically limit alleged damages related to Chaparral’s disposal activities occurring after our emergence from bankruptcy on March 21, 2017. We moved to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint on September 15, 2017. Plaintiffs’ attorneys filed a proof of claim on behalf of the putative class claiming in excess of $75,000 in our Chapter 11 Cases. We filed an objection to class treatment of the proof of claim filed by the West plaintiffs in our Bankruptcy proceeding. The Bankruptcy Court had a hearing on our objection, but has not yet ruled. We dispute the plaintiffs’ claims, dispute that the case meets the requirements for a class action, dispute the remedies requested are available under Oklahoma law, and are vigorously defending the case. Lisa Griggs and April Marler, on behalf of themselves and other Oklahoma citizens similarly situated v. New Dominion, L.L.C. et al. On July 21, 2017, an alleged class action was filed against us and other operators, in the District Court of Logan County, State of Oklahoma. The named plaintiffs assert claims on behalf of themselves and Oklahoma citizens owning a home or business between March 30, 2014, and the present in a Class Area which encompasses nine counties in central Oklahoma. The plaintiffs allege disposal of saltwater produced during oil and gas operations induced earthquakes in the Class Area, and each defendant has liability under theories of ultra-hazardous activities, negligence, nuisance, and trespass. On October 24, 2017, plaintiffs filed a First Amended Class Petition in Logan County, Oklahoma, adding Creek County, Oklahoma to the Class Area, and adding an additional earthquake to the list of seismic events allegedly caused by the defendants. The plaintiffs have asked the court to award unspecified damages for damage to real and personal property and loss of market value, loss of use and enjoyment of the properties, and emotional harm, as well as punitive damages and pre-judgment and post-judgment interest. We will dispute the plaintiffs’ claims, dispute that the case meets the requirements for a class action, dispute the remedies requested are available under Oklahoma law, and vigorously defend the case. We dispute the plaintiffs’ claims, dispute that the case meets the requirements for a class action, dispute the plaintiffs are entitled to recovery under our Reorganization Plan, and are vigorously defending the case. James Butler et al. v. Berexco, L.L.C., Chaparral Energy, L.L.C, et al. On October 13, 2017, a group of fifty-two individual plaintiffs filed a lawsuit in the District Court of Payne County, State of Oklahoma against twenty six named defendants, including us, and twenty five unnamed defendants. Plaintiffs are all property owners and residents of Payne County, Oklahoma, and allege salt water disposal activities by the defendants, owners or operators of salt water disposal wells, induced earthquakes which have caused damage to real and personal property, and emotional damages. Plaintiffs claim absolute liability for ultra-hazardous activities, negligence, gross negligence, public and private nuisance, trespass, and ask for compensatory and punitive damages. In addition to disputing the plaintiffs’ claims, we will dispute the remedies requested are available under Oklahoma law, and vigorously defend the case. We are involved in various other legal proceedings including, but not limited to, commercial disputes, claims from royalty and surface owners, property damage claims, personal injury claims, employment claims, and other matters which arise in the ordinary course of business. In addition, other proofs of claim have been filed in our bankruptcy case which we anticipate repudiating. While the outcome of these legal proceedings cannot be predicted with certainty, we do not expect any of them individually to have a material effect on our financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. We have numerous contractual commitments in the ordinary course of business including debt service requirements, operating leases, capital leases and purchase obligations. Our operating leases primarily relate to CO₂ recycle compressors at our EOR facilities and office equipment while our capital leases are related to the sale and subsequent leaseback of compressors. Our purchase obligations primarily relate to a contract for the purchase of CO₂and drilling rig services. Other than changes to our credit facilities (see “Note 6—Debt”) and the discharge of our Senior Notes and certain general unsecured claims pursuant to our Reorganization Plan (see “Note 3—Chapter 11 reorganization”), there were no material changes to our contractual commitments since December 31, 2016.

Note 11: Commitments and contingencies

Standby letters of credit (“Letters”) available under our New Credit Facility are used in lieu of surety bonds with various organizations for liabilities relating to the operation of oil and natural gas properties. We had Letters outstanding totaling $828 as of September 30, 2017, and December 31, 2016. When amounts under the Letters are paid by the lenders, interest accrues on the amount paid at the same interest rate applicable to borrowings under the New Credit Facility. No amounts were paid by the lenders under the Letters; therefore, we paid no interest on the Letters during the nine months ended September 30, 2017 or 2016.

Litigation and Claims

Chapter 11 Proceedings. Commencement of the Chapter 11 Cases automatically stayed many of the proceedings and actions against us noted below as well as other claims and actions that were or could have been brought prior to May 9, 2016, and the claims remain subject to bankruptcy court jurisdiction. In connection with the proofs of claim asserted during bankruptcy from the proceedings or actions below, we are unable to estimate the amounts that will be allowed through the Bankruptcy proceedings due to the complexity and number of legal and factual issues presented by the matters and uncertainties with respect to, amongst other things, the nature of the claims and defenses, the potential size of the classes, the scope and types of the properties and agreements involved, and the ultimate potential outcomes of the matters. As a result, no reserves were established within our liabilities in connection with the proceedings and actions described below. To the extent that any of these legal proceedings result in a claim being allowed against us, pursuant to the terms of the Reorganization Plan, such claims will be satisfied through the issuance of new stock in the Company or, if the amount is such claim is below the convenience class threshold, through cash settlement.

Naylor Farms, Inc., individually and as class representative on behalf of all similarly situated persons v. Chaparral Energy, L.L.C. On June 7, 2011, an alleged class action was filed against us in the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma (“Naylor Trial Court”) alleging that we improperly deducted post-production costs from royalties paid to plaintiffs and other royalty interest owners as categorized in the petition from crude oil and natural gas wells located in Oklahoma (“Naylor Farms Case”). Plaintiffs indicated they seek damages in excess of $5,000, the majority of which would be comprised of interest and may increase with the passage of time. The purported class includes non-governmental royalty interest owners in oil and natural gas wells we operate in Oklahoma. The plaintiffs have alleged a number of claims, including breach of contract, fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and other claims and seek termination of leases, recovery of compensatory damages, interest, punitive damages and attorney fees on behalf of the alleged class. We have responded to the Naylor Farms petition, denied the allegations and raised arguments and defenses. Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification in October 2015. In addition, the plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment asking the court to determine as a matter of law that natural gas is not marketable until it is in the condition and location to enter an interstate pipeline. On May 20, 2016, we filed a Notice of Suggestion of Bankruptcy with the Naylor Trial Court.

On January 17, 2017, the Naylor Trial Court certified a modified class of plaintiffs with oil and gas leases containing specific language. The modified class constitutes less than 60% of the leases the plaintiffs originally sought to certify. After additional briefing on the subject, on April 18, 2017, the Naylor Trial Court issued an order certifying the class to include only claims relating back to June 1, 2006. On May 1, 2017, we filed a Petition for Permission to Appeal Class Certification Order with the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals (the “Tenth Circuit”), which was granted. We filed our appellate brief on September 14, 2017, to which the plaintiffs must respond by November 16, 2017.

In addition to filing claims on behalf of the named plaintiffs and associated parties, on August 15, 2016, plaintiffs’ attorneys filed a proof of claim on behalf of the putative class claiming damages in excess of $150,000 in our Chapter 11 Cases. The Company objected to treatment of the claim on a class basis, asserting the claim should be addressed on an individual basis. On April 20, 2017, plaintiffs filed an amended proof of claim reducing the claim to an amount in excess of $90,000 inclusive of actual and punitive damages, statutory interest and attorney fees. On May 24, 2017, the Bankruptcy Court denied the Company’s objection, ruling the plaintiffs may file a claim on behalf of the class. This order did not establish liability or otherwise address the merits of the plaintiffs’ claims, to which we will also object. On June 7, 2017 we appealed the Bankruptcy Court order to the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. Under the Reorganization Plan, the plaintiffs are identified as a separate class of creditors, Class 8. Class 8 claims are entitled to receive their pro rata share of new stock issued to the holders of general unsecured claims (including claims of the Noteholders). Although the members of Class 8 voted to reject the Plan, the Bankruptcy Court confirmed the Plan on March 10, 2017, without objection by the plaintiffs.

If the plaintiffs ultimately prevail on the merits of their claims, any liability arising under judgment or settlement of the unsecured claims would be satisfied through the issuance of new stock in the Company. We continue to dispute the plaintiffs’ allegations, dispute the case meets the requirements for class certification, and are objecting to the claims both individually and on a class-wide basis.

Amanda Dodson, individually and as class representative on behalf of all similarly situated persons v. Chaparral Energy, L.L.C. On May 10, 2013, Amanda Dodson filed a complaint against us in the District Court of Mayes County, Oklahoma, (“Dodson Case”) with an allegation similar to those asserted in the Naylor Farms case related to post-production deductions, and includes claims for breach of contract, fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and other claims and seek termination of leases, recovery of compensatory damages, interest, punitive damages and attorney fees on behalf of the alleged class. The alleged class included non-governmental royalty interest owners in oil and natural gas wells we operate in Oklahoma. We responded to the Dodson petition, denied the allegations and raised a number of affirmative defenses. The case was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice on July 19, 2017.

Martha Donelson and John Friend, on behalf of themselves and on behalf of all similarly situated persons v. Chaparral Energy, L.L.C. On August 11, 2014, an alleged class action was filed against us, as well as several other operators in Osage County, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma, alleging claims on behalf of the named plaintiffs and all similarly situated Osage County land owners and surface lessees. The plaintiffs challenged leases and drilling permits approved by the Bureau of Indian Affairs without the environmental studies allegedly required under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The plaintiffs assert claims seeking recovery for trespass, nuisance, negligence and unjust enrichment. Relief sought includes declaring oil and natural gas leases and drilling permits obtained in Osage County without a prior NEPA study void ab initio, removing us from all properties owned by the class members, disgorgement of profits, and compensatory and punitive damages. On March 31, 2016, the Court dismissed the case against all defendants as an improper challenge under NEPA and the Administrative Procedures Act. On April 29, 2016, the plaintiffs filed motions to alter or amend the court’s opinion and vacate the judgment, and to file an amended complaint to cure the deficiencies which the court found in the dismissed complaint. On May 20, 2016, the Company filed a Notice of Suggestion of Bankruptcy, and as a result have not responded to the plaintiffs’ motions. After plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration was denied, plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal on December 6, 2016. The Court has not ruled on the appeal, and has scheduled oral arguments for November 14, 2017.

We anticipate any monetary liability related to this claim will be discharged. We dispute plaintiffs’ allegations and dispute that the case meets the requirements for a class action.

Lisa West and Stormy Hopson, individually and as class representatives on behalf of all similarly situated persons v. Chaparral Energy, L.L.C. On February 18, 2016, an alleged class action was filed against us, as well as several other operators in the District Court of Pottawatomie County, State of Oklahoma (“West Case”), alleging claims on behalf of named plaintiffs and all similarly situated persons having an insurable real property interest in eight counties in central Oklahoma (the “Class Area”). The plaintiffs allege the oil and gas operations conducted by us and the other defendants have induced earthquakes in the Class Area. The plaintiffs did not seek damages for property damage, instead asked the court to require the defendants to reimburse plaintiffs and class members for earthquake insurance premiums from 2011 through the time at which the court determines there is no longer a risk of induced earthquakes, as well as attorney fees and costs and other relief. We responded to the petition, denied the allegations and raised a number of affirmative defenses. On March 18, 2016, the case was removed to the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma under the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”). On May 20, 2016, we filed a Notice of Suggestion of Bankruptcy, informing the court that we had filed voluntary petitions for relief under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code. On October 14, 2016, the plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint adding additional defendants and increasing the Class Area to 25 Central Oklahoma counties. Other defendants filed motions to dismiss the action which was granted on May 12, 2017. On July 18, 2017, plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint adding additional named plaintiffs as putative class representatives and adding three additional counties to the putative class area. In the Second Amended Complaint, plaintiffs seek damages for nuisance, negligence, abnormally dangerous activities, and trespass. Due to Chaparral’s bankruptcy, plaintiffs specifically limit alleged damages related to Chaparral’s disposal activities occurring after our emergence from bankruptcy on March 21, 2017. We moved to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint on September 15, 2017.

Plaintiffs’ attorneys filed a proof of claim on behalf of the putative class claiming in excess of $75,000 in our Chapter 11 Cases. We filed an objection to class treatment of the proof of claim filed by the West plaintiffs in our Bankruptcy proceeding. The Bankruptcy Court had a hearing on our objection, but has not yet ruled. We dispute the plaintiffs’ claims, dispute that the case meets the requirements for a class action, dispute the remedies requested are available under Oklahoma law, and are vigorously defending the case.

Lisa Griggs and April Marler, on behalf of themselves and other Oklahoma citizens similarly situated v. New Dominion, L.L.C. et al. On July 21, 2017, an alleged class action was filed against us and other operators, in the District Court of Logan County, State of Oklahoma. The named plaintiffs assert claims on behalf of themselves and Oklahoma citizens owning a home or business between March 30, 2014, and the present in a Class Area which encompasses nine counties in central Oklahoma. The plaintiffs allege disposal of saltwater produced during oil and gas operations induced earthquakes in the Class Area, and each defendant has liability under theories of ultra-hazardous activities, negligence, nuisance, and trespass. On October 24, 2017, plaintiffs filed a First Amended Class Petition in Logan County, Oklahoma, adding Creek County, Oklahoma to the Class Area, and adding an additional earthquake to the list of seismic events allegedly caused by the defendants. The plaintiffs have asked the court to award unspecified damages for damage to real and personal property and loss of market value, loss of use and enjoyment of the properties, and emotional harm, as well as punitive damages and pre-judgment and post-judgment interest. We will dispute the plaintiffs’ claims, dispute that the case meets the requirements for a class action, dispute the remedies requested are available under Oklahoma law, and vigorously defend the case.

We dispute the plaintiffs’ claims, dispute that the case meets the requirements for a class action, dispute the plaintiffs are entitled to recovery under our Reorganization Plan, and are vigorously defending the case.

James Butler et al. v. Berexco, L.L.C., Chaparral Energy, L.L.C, et al. On October 13, 2017, a group of fifty-two individual plaintiffs filed a lawsuit in the District Court of Payne County, State of Oklahoma against twenty six named defendants, including us, and twenty five unnamed defendants. Plaintiffs are all property owners and residents of Payne County, Oklahoma, and allege salt water disposal activities by the defendants, owners or operators of salt water disposal wells, induced earthquakes which have caused damage to real and personal property, and emotional damages. Plaintiffs claim absolute liability for ultra-hazardous activities, negligence, gross negligence, public and private nuisance, trespass, and ask for compensatory and punitive damages. In addition to disputing the plaintiffs’ claims, we will dispute the remedies requested are available under Oklahoma law, and vigorously defend the case.

We are involved in various other legal proceedings including, but not limited to, commercial disputes, claims from royalty and surface owners, property damage claims, personal injury claims, employment claims, and other matters which arise in the ordinary course of business. In addition, other proofs of claim have been filed in our bankruptcy case which we anticipate repudiating. While the outcome of these legal proceedings cannot be predicted with certainty, we do not expect any of them individually to have a material effect on our financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.

We have numerous contractual commitments in the ordinary course of business including debt service requirements, operating leases, capital leases and purchase obligations. Our operating leases primarily relate to CO₂ recycle compressors at our EOR facilities and office equipment while our capital leases are related to the sale and subsequent leaseback of compressors. Our purchase obligations primarily relate to a contract for the purchase of CO₂and drilling rig services. Other than changes to our credit facilities (see “Note 6—Debt”) and the discharge of our Senior Notes and certain general unsecured claims pursuant to our Reorganization Plan (see “Note 3—Chapter 11 reorganization”), there were no material changes to our contractual commitments since December 31, 2016.