Commitments And Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2014
Commitments And Contingencies [Abstract]
Commitments And Contingencies	(11) COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Commitments In the first quarter of 2010, the Company was awarded exclusive licenses by the Province of New Brunswick in Canada to conduct an exploration program covering approximately 2.5 million acres in the province. The licenses require the Company to make certain capital investments in New Brunswick of approximately $47 million Canadian dollars in the aggregate over a three year period. In order to obtain the licenses, the Company provided promissory notes payable on demand to the Minister of Finance of the Province of New Brunswick with an aggregate principal amount of $45 million Canadian dollars. The promissory notes secure the Company’s capital expenditure obligations under the licenses and are returnable to the Company to the extent the Company performs such obligations. If the Company fails to perform fully, the Minister of Finance may retain a portion of the applicable promissory notes in an amount equal to any deficiency. The Company commenced its Canada exploration program in 2010 and, as of June 30, 2014 has invested $43 million Canadian dollars, or $41 million US dollars, in New Brunswick towards the Company’s commitment. In December 2012, the Company received two one-year extensions to our exploration license agreements, the second of which will expire on March 16, 2015. No liability has been recognized in connection with the promissory notes due to the Company’s investments in New Brunswick as of June 30, 2014 and its future investment plans. The Company entered into new and amended natural gas transportation and gathering arrangements with third party pipelines, during the second quarter of 2014, in support of the Company’s production in the Marcellus Shale. As of June 30, 2014, the Company’s obligations for demand and similar charges under the firm transportation agreements and gathering agreements totaled approximately $3.8 billion and the Company has guarantee obligations of up to $100 million of that amount. Environmental Risk The Company is subject to laws and regulations relating to the protection of the environment. Environmental and cleanup related costs of a non-capital nature are accrued when it is both probable that a liability has been incurred and when the amount can be reasonably estimated. Management believes any future remediation or other compliance related costs will not have a material effect on the financial position or reported results of operations of the Company. Litigation Tovah Energy In February 2009, Southwestern Energy Production Company (“SEPCO”) was added as a defendant in a case then styled Tovah Energy, LLC and Toby Berry-Helfand v. David Michael Grimes, et, al., pending in the 273rd District Court in Shelby County, Texas. By the time of trial in December 2010, Ms. Berry-Helfand (the only remaining plaintiff) alleged that, in 2005, she 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, she alleged 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 2005 and February 2006. She also sought disgorgement of SEPCO’s profits. A former associate of the plaintiff intervened in the matter claiming to have helped develop the prospect years earlier. The jury found in favor of the plaintiff and the intervenor with respect to all of the statutory and common law claims and awarded $11 million in compensatory damages but no special, punitive or other damages. Separately, the jury determined that SEPCO’s profits for purposes of disgorgement, if ordered as a remedy, were $382 million. (Disgorgement of profits is an equitable remedy determined by the judge, and it is within the judge’s discretion to award none, some or all of unlawfully obtained profits.) In August 2011, a judgment was entered pursuant to which the plaintiff and the intervenor were entitled to recover approximately $11 million in actual damages and approximately $24 million in disgorgement as well as prejudgment interest and attorneys’ fees, which currently are estimated to be up to $9 million, and all costs of court of the plaintiff and intervenor. Both sides appealed and in July 2013, the Texas Court of Appeals in Tyler ordered that (1) the judgment awarding the plaintiff and the intervenor $24 million as disgorgement of illicit gains be reversed and judgment rendered that they take nothing, (2) the award of $11 million for actual damages, insofar as it is based on the jury’s findings of breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, breach of contract, and theft of trade secret be reversed and judgment rendered that the plaintiff and the intervenor take nothing under those theories of recovery, (3) the award of $11 million to the plaintiff and the intervenor as damages for misappropriation of trade secret be affirmed, (4) the case be remanded to the trial court for a determination and award of attorney’s fees for SEPCO as the prevailing party under the Texas Theft Liability Act, and (5) in all other respects, the judgment is affirmed. All parties petitioned for rehearing. The Court of Appeals denied rehearing in November 2013. SEPCO filed a petition for review in the Supreme Court of Texas in February 2014. The plaintiff and the intervenor filed cross-petition for review in April 2014, but conditioned their filing on the court’s granting SEPCO’s petition for review; i.e., if the court denies SEPCO’s petition for review, then the plaintiff and the intervenor are not seeking further review of the court of appeals’ judgment. Based on the Company’s understanding and judgment of the facts and merits of this case, including appellate matters, and after considering the advice of counsel, the Company has determined that, although reasonably possible, a materially adverse final outcome to this action is not probable. As such, the Company has not accrued any amounts with respect to this action. If the Supreme Court declines to hear the case or affirms all aspects of the court of appeals’ judgment, then SEPCO would owe the $11 million in damages, plus interest and attorneys fees, offset by any award of attorneys’ fees for its prevailing on the theft count. The Company’s assessment may change in the future due to occurrence of certain events, such as the result of the petition or petitions for review at the Supreme Court of Texas, and such a 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. Other The Company is subject to various litigation, claims and proceedings that have arisen in the ordinary course of business, such as for alleged breaches of contract, miscalculation of royalties and pollution, contamination or nuisance. Management believes that such litigation, claims and proceedings, individually or in aggregate and after taking into account insurance, are not likely to have a material adverse impact on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows. Many of these matters are in early stages, so the allegations and the damage theories have not been fully developed, and all subject to inherent uncertainties; therefore, management’s view may change in the future. If an unfavorable final outcome were to occur, there exists the possibility of a material impact on the Company’s financial position, results of operations or cash flows for the period in which the effect becomes reasonably estimable. The Company accrues for such items when a liability is both probable and the amount can be reasonably estimated.

(11) COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Commitments

In the first quarter of 2010, the Company was awarded exclusive licenses by the Province of New Brunswick in Canada to conduct an exploration program covering approximately 2.5 million acres in the province. The licenses require the Company to make certain capital investments in New Brunswick of approximately $47 million Canadian dollars in the aggregate over a three year period. In order to obtain the licenses, the Company provided promissory notes payable on demand to the Minister of Finance of the Province of New Brunswick with an aggregate principal amount of $45 million Canadian dollars. The promissory notes secure the Company’s capital expenditure obligations under the licenses and are returnable to the Company to the extent the Company performs such obligations. If the Company fails to perform fully, the Minister of Finance may retain a portion of the applicable promissory notes in an amount equal to any deficiency. The Company commenced its Canada exploration program in 2010 and, as of June 30, 2014 has invested $43 million Canadian dollars, or $41 million US dollars, in New Brunswick towards the Company’s commitment. In December 2012, the Company received two one-year extensions to our exploration license agreements, the second of which will expire on March 16, 2015. No liability has been recognized in connection with the promissory notes due to the Company’s investments in New Brunswick as of June 30, 2014 and its future investment plans.

The Company entered into new and amended natural gas transportation and gathering arrangements with third party pipelines, during the second quarter of 2014, in support of the Company’s production in the Marcellus Shale. As of June 30, 2014, the Company’s obligations for demand and similar charges under the firm transportation agreements and gathering agreements totaled approximately $3.8 billion and the Company has guarantee obligations of up to $100 million of that amount.

Environmental Risk

The Company is subject to laws and regulations relating to the protection of the environment. Environmental and cleanup related costs of a non-capital nature are accrued when it is both probable that a liability has been incurred and when the amount can be reasonably estimated. Management believes any future remediation or other compliance related costs will not have a material effect on the financial position or reported results of operations of the Company.

Litigation

Tovah Energy

In February 2009, Southwestern Energy Production Company (“SEPCO”) was added as a defendant in a case then styled Tovah Energy, LLC and Toby Berry-Helfand v. David Michael Grimes, et, al., pending in the 273rd District Court in Shelby County, Texas. By the time of trial in December 2010, Ms. Berry-Helfand (the only remaining plaintiff) alleged that, in 2005, she 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, she alleged 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 2005 and February 2006. She also sought disgorgement of SEPCO’s profits. A former associate of the plaintiff intervened in the matter claiming to have helped develop the prospect years earlier.

The jury found in favor of the plaintiff and the intervenor with respect to all of the statutory and common law claims and awarded $11 million in compensatory damages but no special, punitive or other damages. Separately, the jury determined that SEPCO’s profits for purposes of disgorgement, if ordered as a remedy, were $382 million. (Disgorgement of profits is an equitable remedy determined by the judge, and it is within the judge’s discretion to award none, some or all of unlawfully obtained profits.) In August 2011, a judgment was entered pursuant to which the plaintiff and the intervenor were entitled to recover approximately $11 million in actual damages and approximately $24 million in disgorgement as well as prejudgment interest and attorneys’ fees, which currently are estimated to be up to $9 million, and all costs of court of the plaintiff and intervenor.

Both sides appealed and in July 2013, the Texas Court of Appeals in Tyler ordered that (1) the judgment awarding the plaintiff and the intervenor $24 million as disgorgement of illicit gains be reversed and judgment rendered that they take nothing, (2) the award of $11 million for actual damages, insofar as it is based on the jury’s findings of breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, breach of contract, and theft of trade secret be reversed and judgment rendered that the plaintiff and the intervenor take nothing under those theories of recovery, (3) the award of $11 million to the plaintiff and the intervenor as damages for misappropriation of trade secret be affirmed, (4) the case be remanded to the trial court for a determination and award of attorney’s fees for SEPCO as the prevailing party under the Texas Theft Liability Act, and (5) in all other respects, the judgment is affirmed. All parties petitioned for rehearing. The Court of Appeals denied rehearing in November 2013.

SEPCO filed a petition for review in the Supreme Court of Texas in February 2014. The plaintiff and the intervenor filed cross-petition for review in April 2014, but conditioned their filing on the court’s granting SEPCO’s petition for review; i.e., if the court denies SEPCO’s petition for review, then the plaintiff and the intervenor are not seeking further review of the court of appeals’ judgment. Based on the Company’s understanding and judgment of the facts and merits of this case, including appellate matters, and after considering the advice of counsel, the Company has determined that, although reasonably possible, a materially adverse final outcome to this action is not probable. As such, the Company has not accrued any amounts with respect to this action. If the Supreme Court declines to hear the case or affirms all aspects of the court of appeals’ judgment, then SEPCO would owe the $11 million in damages, plus interest and attorneys fees, offset by any award of attorneys’ fees for its prevailing on the theft count. The Company’s assessment may change in the future due to occurrence of certain events, such as the result of the petition or petitions for review at the Supreme Court of Texas, and such a 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.

Other

The Company is subject to various litigation, claims and proceedings that have arisen in the ordinary course of business, such as for alleged breaches of contract, miscalculation of royalties and pollution, contamination or nuisance. Management believes that such litigation, claims and proceedings, individually or in aggregate and after taking into account insurance, are not likely to have a material adverse impact on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows. Many of these matters are in early stages, so the allegations and the damage theories have not been fully developed, and all subject to inherent uncertainties; therefore, management’s view may change in the future. If an unfavorable final outcome were to occur, there exists the possibility of a material impact on the Company’s financial position, results of operations or cash flows for the period in which the effect becomes reasonably estimable. The Company accrues for such items when a liability is both probable and the amount can be reasonably estimated.