Commitments and Contingencies (Details) In Millions, unless otherwise specified	3 Months Ended	9 Months Ended
	Sep. 30, 2011 USD ($)	Sep. 30, 2011 USD ($)	Sep. 30, 2011 CAD	Sep. 30, 2011 Sixth Amended Petition [Member] USD ($)	Sep. 30, 2011 Seventh Amended Petition [Member] USD ($)
Litigation, Interest and Attorney's Fees claimed by plaintiffs		$ 8.9
Disgorgement damages awarded in favor of the plaintiff	23.9	23.9
Unrecorded capital investments obligation, Exploration program acres coverage	2.5	2.5
Unrecorded capital investments obligation			47.0
Unrecorded promissory note payable			44.5
Litigation, Allegations		Litigation In February 2009, SEPCO was added as a defendant in a Third Amended Petition in the matter of Tovah Energy, LLC and Toby Berry-Helfand v. David Michael Grimes, et, al. In the Sixth Amended Petition, filed in July 2010, in the 273 ^rdDistrict Court in Shelby County, Texas (collectively, the "Sixth Petition") plaintiff alleged that, in 2005, they provided SEPCO with proprietary data regarding two prospects in the James Lime formation pursuant to a confidentiality agreement and that SEPCO refused to return the proprietary data to the plaintiff, subsequently acquired leases based upon such proprietary data and profited therefrom. Among other things, the plaintiff's allegations in the Sixth Petition included various statutory and common law claims, including, but not limited to claims of misappropriation of trade secrets, violation of the Texas Theft Liability Act, breach of fiduciary duty and confidential relationships, various fraud based claims and breach of contract, including a claim of breach of a purported right of first refusal on all interests acquired by SEPCO between February 15, 2005 and February 15, 2006. In the Sixth Petition, plaintiff sought actual damages of over $55 million as well as other remedies, including special damages and punitive damages of four times the amount of actual damages established at trial. Immediately before the commencement of the trial in November 2010, plaintiff was permitted, over SEPCO's objections, to file a Seventh Amended Petition claiming actual damages of $46 million and also seeking the equitable remedy of disgorgement of all profits for the misappropriation of trade secrets and the breach of fiduciary duty claims. In December 2010, the jury found in favor of the plaintiff with respect to all of the statutory and common law claims and awarded $11.4 million in compensatory damages. The jury did not, however, award the plaintiff any special, punitive or other damages. In addition, the jury separately determined that SEPCO's profits for purposes of disgorgement were $381.5 million. This profit determination does not constitute a judgment or an award. The plaintiff's entitlement to disgorgement of profits as an equitable remedy will be determined by the judge and it is within the judge's discretion to award none, some or all the amount of profit to the plaintiff. On December 31, 2010, the plaintiff filed a motion to enter the judgment based on the jury's verdict. On February 11, 2011, SEPCO filed a motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict and a motion to disregard certain findings. On March 11, 2011, the plaintiff filed an amended motion for judgment and intervenor filed its motion for judgment seeking not only the monetary damages and the profits determined by the jury but also seeking, as a new remedy, a constructive trust for profits from 143 wells as well as future drilling and sales of properties in the prospect areas. A hearing on the post-verdict motions was held on March 14, 2011. At the suggestion of the judge, all parties voluntarily agreed to participate in non-binding mediation efforts. The mediation occurred on April 6, 2011 and was unsuccessful. On June 6, 2011, SEPCO received by mail a letter dated June 2, 2011 from the judge, in which he made certain rulings with respect to the post-verdict motions and responses filed by the parties. In his rulings, the judge denied SEPCO's motion for judgment, judgment notwithstanding the verdict and to disregard certain findings. Plaintiff's and intervenor's claim for a constructive trust was denied but the judge ruled that plaintiff and intervenor shall recover from SEPCO $11.4 million and a reasonable attorney's fee of 40% of the total damages awarded and are entitled to recover on their claim for disgorgement. The judge instructed that SEPCO calculate the profit on the designated wells for each respective period. SEPCO performed the calculation and provided it to the judge in June 2011. On July 5, 2011, plaintiff and intervenor filed a letter with the court raising objections to the accounting provided by SEPCO, to which SEPCO filed a response on July 11, 2011. On July 12, 2011, the judge sent a letter to the parties in which he ruled that after reviewing the parties' respective position letters, he was awarding $23.9 million in disgorgement damages in favor of the plaintiff and intervenor. In the July 12, 2011 letter, the judge instructed the plaintiff and intervenor to prepare a judgment for his approval prior to July 21, 2011 consistent with his findings in his June 2, 2011 letter and the disgorgement award. On August 24, 2011, a judgment was entered pursuant to which plaintiff and intervenor are entitled to recover approximately $11.4 million in actual damages and approximately $23.9 million in disgorgement as well as prejudgment interest and attorney's fees which currently are estimated to be up to $8.9 million and all costs of court of the plaintiff and intervenor. On September 22, 2011, the plaintiff and intervenor filed a motion to modify, correct or reform the judgment which requested that the court vacate the final judgment ordering SEPCO to produce additional accounting information and reconsider the amount SEPCO should disgorge. On September 23, 2011, SEPCO filed a motion for a new trial. The Company believes that SEPCO has a number of legal grounds for appealing the judgment, all of which will be vigorously pursued. Based on the Company's understanding and judgment of the facts and merits of this case, including appellate defenses, and after considering the advice of counsel, the Company has determined that, although reasonably possible after exhaustion of all appeals, an adverse final outcome to this lawsuit is not probable. As such, the Company has not accrued any amounts with respect to this lawsuit. If the plaintiff and intervenor were to ultimately prevail in the appellate process, the Company currently estimates, based on the judgments to date, that SEPCO's potential liability would be in the range of zero to $44.2 million, including interest and attorney's fees. The Company's assessment may change in the future due to occurrence of certain events, such as denied appeals, and such re-assessment could lead to the determination that the potential liability is probable and could be material to the Company's results of operations, financial position or cash flows.
Litigation, Monetary damages claimed by plaintiffs				55.0	46.0
Litigation, Management's assessment		The Company is subject to other litigation and claims that have arisen in the ordinary course of business. The Company accrues for such items when a liability is both probable and the amount can be reasonably estimated. In the opinion of management, the results of such litigation and claims currently pending will not have a material effect on the results of operations, financial position or cash flows.
Litigation settlement, gross		11.4
Litigation, portion of profits considered for disgorgement		381.5
Percentage of attorney fees recoverable by plantiff	40
Number of wells for constructive trust profits		143
Number of horizontal wells operated by SEECO in Arkansas		27
Dekatherm/Day of capacity		100,000
Obligation under transportation agreements	$ 120.4