Commitments and Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2016
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Commitments and Contingencies Included below is a discussion of various future commitments of the Company as of September 30, 2016. The commitments under these arrangements are not recorded in the accompanying condensed consolidated balance sheets. Drilling commitments – As of September 30, 2016, the Company had drilling rig contracts with various terms extending to February 2020 to ensure rig availability in its key operating areas. Future commitments as of September 30, 2016 total approximately $250 million, of which $49 million is expected to be incurred in the remainder of 2016, $134 million in 2017, $44 million in 2018, $21 million in 2019, and $2 million in 2020. Pipeline transportation commitments – The Company has entered into firm transportation commitments to guarantee pipeline access capacity on crude oil and natural gas pipelines. The commitments, which have varying terms extending as far as 2027, require the Company to pay per-unit transportation charges regardless of the amount of pipeline capacity used. Future commitments remaining as of September 30, 2016 under the pipeline transportation arrangements amount to approximately $849 million, of which $55 million is expected to be incurred in the remainder of 2016, $215 million in 2017, $208 million in 2018, $154 million in 2019, $47 million in 2020, and $170 million thereafter. The Company’s pipeline commitments are for production primarily in the North region. The Company is not committed under these contracts to deliver fixed and determinable quantities of crude oil or natural gas in the future. Litigation – In November 2010, a putative class action was filed in the District Court of Blaine County, Oklahoma by Billy J. Strack and Daniela A. Renner as trustees of certain named trusts and on behalf of other similarly situated parties against the Company. The Petition alleged the Company improperly deducted post-production costs from royalties paid to plaintiffs and other royalty interest owners from crude oil and natural gas wells located in Oklahoma. The plaintiffs alleged a number of claims, including breach of contract, fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and other claims and seek recovery of compensatory damages, interest, punitive damages and attorney fees on behalf of the proposed class. On November 3, 2014, plaintiffs filed an Amended Petition that did not add any substantive claims, but sought a “hybrid class action” in which they sought certification of certain claims for injunctive relief, reserving the right to seek a further class certification on money damages in the future. Plaintiffs filed an Amended Motion for Class Certification on January 9, 2015, that modified the proposed class to royalty owners in Oklahoma production from July 1, 1993, to the present (instead of 1980 to the present) and sought certification of over 45 separate “issues” for injunctive or declaratory relief, again, reserving the right to seek a further class certification of money damages in the future. The Company responded to the petition, its amendment, and the motions for class certification denying the allegations and raising a number of affirmative defenses and legal arguments to each of the claims and filings. Certain discovery was undertaken and the “hybrid” motion was briefed by plaintiffs and the Company. A hearing on the “hybrid” class certification was held on June 1st and 2nd, 2015. On June 11, 2015, the trial court certified a “hybrid” class as requested by plaintiffs. The Company has appealed the trial court’s class certification order, which will be reviewed de novo by the appellate court. The appeal briefing is complete and ready for determination by the court. An unsuccessful mediation was conducted on December 7, 2015. The parties have continued settlement negotiations. If such negotiations are unsuccessful, the Company intends to litigate the case to its conclusion. The Company is not currently able to estimate a reasonably possible loss or range of loss or what impact, if any, the action will have on its financial condition, results of operations or cash flows due to the preliminary status of the matter, the complexity and number of legal and factual issues presented by the matter and uncertainties with respect to, among other things, the nature of the claims and defenses, the potential size of the class, the scope and types of the properties and agreements involved, the production years involved, and the ultimate potential outcome of the matter. Although not currently at issue in the “hybrid” certification, plaintiffs have alleged underpayments in excess of $200 million that they may claim as damages, which may increase with the passage of time, a majority of which would be comprised of interest. The Company disputes plaintiffs’ claims, disputes that the case meets the requirements for a class action and is vigorously defending the case. The Company will continue to assert its defenses to the case as certified as well as any future attempt to certify a money damages class. The Company is 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, disputes with tax authorities and other matters. While the outcome of these legal matters cannot be predicted with certainty, the Company does not expect them to have a material effect on its financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. As of both September 30, 2016 and December 31, 2015, the Company had recorded a liability in the condensed consolidated balance sheets under the caption “Other noncurrent liabilities” of $6.1 million for various matters, none of which are believed to be individually significant. Environmental risk – Due to the nature of the crude oil and natural gas business, the Company is exposed to possible environmental risks. The Company is not aware of any material environmental issues or claims.

Commitments and Contingencies

Included below is a discussion of various future commitments of the Company as of September 30, 2016. The commitments under these arrangements are not recorded in the accompanying condensed consolidated balance sheets.

Drilling commitments – As of September 30, 2016, the Company had drilling rig contracts with various terms extending to February 2020 to ensure rig availability in its key operating areas. Future commitments as of September 30, 2016 total approximately $250 million, of which $49 million is expected to be incurred in the remainder of 2016, $134 million in 2017, $44 million in 2018, $21 million in 2019, and $2 million in 2020.

Pipeline transportation commitments – The Company has entered into firm transportation commitments to guarantee pipeline access capacity on crude oil and natural gas pipelines. The commitments, which have varying terms extending as far as 2027, require the Company to pay per-unit transportation charges regardless of the amount of pipeline capacity used. Future commitments remaining as of September 30, 2016 under the pipeline transportation arrangements amount to approximately $849 million, of which $55 million is expected to be incurred in the remainder of 2016, $215 million in 2017, $208 million in 2018, $154 million in 2019, $47 million in 2020, and $170 million thereafter.

The Company’s pipeline commitments are for production primarily in the North region. The Company is not committed under these contracts to deliver fixed and determinable quantities of crude oil or natural gas in the future.

Litigation – In November 2010, a putative class action was filed in the District Court of Blaine County, Oklahoma by Billy J. Strack and Daniela A. Renner as trustees of certain named trusts and on behalf of other similarly situated parties against the Company. The Petition alleged the Company improperly deducted post-production costs from royalties paid to plaintiffs and other royalty interest owners from crude oil and natural gas wells located in Oklahoma. The plaintiffs alleged a number of claims, including breach of contract, fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and other claims and seek recovery of compensatory damages, interest, punitive damages and attorney fees on behalf of the proposed class. On November 3, 2014, plaintiffs filed an Amended Petition that did not add any substantive claims, but sought a “hybrid class action” in which they sought certification of certain claims for injunctive relief, reserving the right to seek a further class certification on money damages in the future. Plaintiffs filed an Amended Motion for Class Certification on January 9, 2015, that modified the proposed class to royalty owners in Oklahoma production from July 1, 1993, to the present (instead of 1980 to the present) and sought certification of over 45 separate “issues” for injunctive or declaratory relief, again, reserving the right to seek a further class certification of money damages in the future. The Company responded to the petition, its amendment, and the motions for class certification denying the allegations and raising a number of affirmative defenses and legal arguments to each of the claims and filings. Certain discovery was undertaken and the “hybrid” motion was briefed by plaintiffs and the Company. A hearing on the “hybrid” class certification was held on June 1st and 2nd, 2015. On June 11, 2015, the trial court certified a “hybrid” class as requested by plaintiffs. The Company has appealed the trial court’s class certification order, which will be reviewed de novo by the appellate court. The appeal briefing is complete and ready for determination by the court. An unsuccessful mediation was conducted on December 7, 2015. The parties have continued settlement negotiations. If such negotiations are unsuccessful, the Company intends to litigate the case to its conclusion. The Company is not currently able to estimate a reasonably possible loss or range of loss or what impact, if any, the action will have on its financial condition, results of operations or cash flows due to the preliminary status of the matter, the complexity and number of legal and factual issues presented by the matter and uncertainties with respect to, among other things, the nature of the claims and defenses, the potential size of the class, the scope and types of the properties and agreements involved, the production years involved, and the ultimate potential outcome of the matter. Although not currently at issue in the “hybrid” certification, plaintiffs have alleged underpayments in excess of $200 million that they may claim as damages, which may increase with the passage of time, a majority of which would be comprised of interest. The Company disputes plaintiffs’ claims, disputes that the case meets the requirements for a class action and is vigorously defending the case. The Company will continue to assert its defenses to the case as certified as well as any future attempt to certify a money damages class.

The Company is 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, disputes with tax authorities and other matters. While the outcome of these legal matters cannot be predicted with certainty, the Company does not expect them to have a material effect on its financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. As of both September 30, 2016 and December 31, 2015, the Company had recorded a liability in the condensed consolidated balance sheets under the caption “Other noncurrent liabilities” of $6.1 million for various matters, none of which are believed to be individually significant.

Environmental risk – Due to the nature of the crude oil and natural gas business, the Company is exposed to possible environmental risks. The Company is not aware of any material environmental issues or claims.