Commitments and Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2015
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Note 12—Commitments and Contingencies *(a) Legal Matters* Prior to the Oxford Acquisition, Oxford commenced a lawsuit on October 24, 2011 in the Common Pleas Court of Belmont County, Ohio against Mr. Barry West, a lessor under an Oxford oil and gas lease, to enforce its rights to access and drill a well pursuant to the lease during its initial 5-year primary term. The lessor counterclaimed, alleging, among other things, that the challenged Oxford lease constituted a lease in perpetuity and, accordingly, should be deemed void and contrary to public policy in the State of Ohio. On October 4, 2013, the Belmont County trial court granted a motion for summary judgment in favor of the lessor and ruled that the lease is a “no term” perpetual lease and, as such, is void as a matter of Ohio law. The Company has appealed the trial court’s decision in the West case to the Ohio Court of Appeals for the Seventh Appellate District, arguing, among other things, that the Belmont County trial court erred in finding that the lease is a “no term” perpetual lease, by ruling that perpetual leases are void as a matter of Ohio law and by invalidating such leases. The Company cannot predict the outcome of this lawsuit or the amount of time and expense that will be required to resolve the lawsuit. In addition, many of the Company’s other oil and gas leases in Ohio contain provisions identical or similar to those found in the challenged Oxford lease. As of August 14, 2015, we are a party to one other lawsuit that makes allegations similar to those made by the lessor in the West lawsuit. This lawsuit, together with the West case, affect approximately 157 gross (157 net) leasehold acres and were capitalized on our condensed consolidated balance sheet as of September 30, 2015 at $0.6 million. The Company has undertaken efforts to amend the other leases acquired within the Utica Core Area in the Oxford Acquisition to address the issues raised by the trial court’s ruling in the West case. These efforts have resulted in modifications to leases covering approximately 28,838 net acres out of the approximately 38,555 net acres. The Company’s efforts may require modification to address the issues raised by the trial court while the Company’s appeal is pending; however, the Company cannot predict whether the Company will be able to obtain modifications of the leases covering the remaining 9,717 net acres to effectively resolve issues related to the West trial court’s ruling or the amount of time and expense that will be required to amend these leases. In light of the foregoing, if the appeals court affirms the trial court ruling in the West case, and if other courts in Ohio adopt a similar interpretation of the provisions in other oil and gas leases the Company acquired in the Oxford Acquisition, other lessors may challenge the validity of such leases and those challenged leases may be declared void. Consequently, this could result in a loss of the mineral rights and an impairment of the related assets which could have a material adverse impact on the Company’s financial statements. These costs could potentially be impaired if it was determined that the West lawsuit leases are invalid. Other than this potential impairment, the Company is not able to estimate the range of other potential losses related to this matter. On September 26, 2014, the Ohio Court of Appeals for the Seventh Appellate District, the same appellate court that will decide the Company’s appeal in the West case, issued its decision in the case of Clyde Hupp et al. v. Beck Energy Corporation, an appeal of a Monroe County trial court decision upon which the trial court in West based its decision. The appellate court held that while Ohio law disfavors perpetual leases, courts in Ohio have not found them to be per se illegal or void from their inception. The appellate court further held that the trial court misinterpreted both the pertinent lease provisions and Ohio law on the subject and erred in concluding that the Beck Energy lease is a no-term, perpetual lease that is void ab initio as against public policy. On November 7, 2014, the plaintiff landowners filed an appeal of the appellate court’s decision with the Supreme Court of Ohio, which was accepted by the Supreme Court of Ohio on January 28, 2015. On March 2, 2015, the Ohio Court of Appeals for the Seventh Appellate District stayed all proceedings in the Company’s appeal in the West case pending a decision by the Supreme Court of Ohio in the Hupp v. Beck Energy appeal. The Company believes that there are strong grounds for appeal of the West decision, and therefore, the Company intends to pursue all available appellate rights, and to vigorously defend against the claims in this lawsuit. Based on the merits of the Company’s appeal and the favorable holdings in the Hupp v. Beck Energy appellate decision described above, the Company believes that it is not probable that the trial court’s decision in West will be upheld in the appeal or that the Company will incur a material loss in the lawsuit. The Company has not recorded an accrual for the potential losses attributable to this lawsuit. Other Matters From time to time, the Company may be a party to legal proceedings arising in the ordinary course of business. Management does not believe that a material loss is probable as a result of such proceedings. *(b) Environmental Matters* The Company is subject to numerous laws and regulations governing the discharge of materials into the environment or otherwise relating to environmental protection. To the extent laws are enacted or other governmental action is taken that restricts drilling or imposes environmental protection requirements that result in increased costs to the oil and natural gas industry in general, the business and prospects of the Company could be adversely affected. *(c) Leases* The development of the Company’s oil and natural gas properties under their related leases will require a significant amount of capital. The timing of those expenditures will be determined by the lease provisions, the term of the lease and other factors associated with unproved leasehold acreage. To the extent that the Company is not the operator of oil and natural gas properties that it owns an interest in, the timing, and to some degree the amount, of capital expenditures will be controlled by the operator of such properties. The Company leases office space under operating leases that expire between the years 2016 to 2025. The Company recognized rent expense of $0.5 million and $0.1 million for the three months ended September 30, 2015 and 2014, respectively, and rent expense of $0.9 million and $0.2 million for the nine months ended September 30, 2015 and 2014, respectively.

Note 12—Commitments and Contingencies

(a) Legal Matters

Prior to the Oxford Acquisition, Oxford commenced a lawsuit on October 24, 2011 in the Common Pleas Court of Belmont County, Ohio against Mr. Barry West, a lessor under an Oxford oil and gas lease, to enforce its rights to access and drill a well pursuant to the lease during its initial 5-year primary term. The lessor counterclaimed, alleging, among other things, that the challenged Oxford lease constituted a lease in perpetuity and, accordingly, should be deemed void and contrary to public policy in the State of Ohio. On October 4, 2013, the Belmont County trial court granted a motion for summary judgment in favor of the lessor and ruled that the lease is a “no term” perpetual lease and, as such, is void as a matter of Ohio law.

The Company has appealed the trial court’s decision in the West case to the Ohio Court of Appeals for the Seventh Appellate District, arguing, among other things, that the Belmont County trial court erred in finding that the lease is a “no term” perpetual lease, by ruling that perpetual leases are void as a matter of Ohio law and by invalidating such leases. The Company cannot predict the outcome of this lawsuit or the amount of time and expense that will be required to resolve the lawsuit.

In addition, many of the Company’s other oil and gas leases in Ohio contain provisions identical or similar to those found in the challenged Oxford lease. As of August 14, 2015, we are a party to one other lawsuit that makes allegations similar to those made by the lessor in the West lawsuit. This lawsuit, together with the West case, affect approximately 157 gross (157 net) leasehold acres and were capitalized on our condensed consolidated balance sheet as of September 30, 2015 at $0.6 million.

The Company has undertaken efforts to amend the other leases acquired within the Utica Core Area in the Oxford Acquisition to address the issues raised by the trial court’s ruling in the West case. These efforts have resulted in modifications to leases covering approximately 28,838 net acres out of the approximately 38,555 net acres. The Company’s efforts may require modification to address the issues raised by the trial court while the Company’s appeal is pending; however, the Company cannot predict whether the Company will be able to obtain modifications of the leases covering the remaining 9,717 net acres to effectively resolve issues related to the West trial court’s ruling or the amount of time and expense that will be required to amend these leases.

In light of the foregoing, if the appeals court affirms the trial court ruling in the West case, and if other courts in Ohio adopt a similar interpretation of the provisions in other oil and gas leases the Company acquired in the Oxford Acquisition, other lessors may challenge the validity of such leases and those challenged leases may be declared void. Consequently, this could result in a loss of the mineral rights and an impairment of the related assets which could have a material adverse impact on the Company’s financial statements. These costs could potentially be impaired if it was determined that the West lawsuit leases are invalid. Other than this potential impairment, the Company is not able to estimate the range of other potential losses related to this matter.

On September 26, 2014, the Ohio Court of Appeals for the Seventh Appellate District, the same appellate court that will decide the Company’s appeal in the West case, issued its decision in the case of Clyde Hupp et al. v. Beck Energy Corporation, an appeal of a Monroe County trial court decision upon which the trial court in West based its decision. The appellate court held that while Ohio law disfavors perpetual leases, courts in Ohio have not found them to be per se illegal or void from their inception. The appellate court further held that the trial court misinterpreted both the pertinent lease provisions and Ohio law on the subject and erred in concluding that the Beck Energy lease is a no-term, perpetual lease that is void ab initio as against public policy. On November 7, 2014, the plaintiff landowners filed an appeal of the appellate court’s decision with the Supreme Court of Ohio, which was accepted by the Supreme Court of Ohio on January 28, 2015. On March 2, 2015, the Ohio Court of Appeals for the Seventh Appellate District stayed all proceedings in the Company’s appeal in the West case pending a decision by the Supreme Court of Ohio in the Hupp v. Beck Energy appeal.

The Company believes that there are strong grounds for appeal of the West decision, and therefore, the Company intends to pursue all available appellate rights, and to vigorously defend against the claims in this lawsuit. Based on the merits of the Company’s appeal and the favorable holdings in the Hupp v. Beck Energy appellate decision described above, the Company believes that it is not probable that the trial court’s decision in West will be upheld in the appeal or that the Company will incur a material loss in the lawsuit. The Company has not recorded an accrual for the potential losses attributable to this lawsuit.

Other Matters

From time to time, the Company may be a party to legal proceedings arising in the ordinary course of business. Management does not believe that a material loss is probable as a result of such proceedings.

(b) Environmental Matters

The Company is subject to numerous laws and regulations governing the discharge of materials into the environment or otherwise relating to environmental protection. To the extent laws are enacted or other governmental action is taken that restricts drilling or imposes environmental protection requirements that result in increased costs to the oil and natural gas industry in general, the business and prospects of the Company could be adversely affected.

(c) Leases

The development of the Company’s oil and natural gas properties under their related leases will require a significant amount of capital. The timing of those expenditures will be determined by the lease provisions, the term of the lease and other factors associated with unproved leasehold acreage. To the extent that the Company is not the operator of oil and natural gas properties that it owns an interest in, the timing, and to some degree the amount, of capital expenditures will be controlled by the operator of such properties.

The Company leases office space under operating leases that expire between the years 2016 to 2025. The Company recognized rent expense of $0.5 million and $0.1 million for the three months ended September 30, 2015 and 2014, respectively, and rent expense of $0.9 million and $0.2 million for the nine months ended September 30, 2015 and 2014, respectively.