13. CONTINGENCIES	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2016
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
13. CONTINGENCIES	Certain Legal Proceedings From time to time, the Company is party to various legal proceedings arising in the ordinary course of business. While the outcome of lawsuits cannot be predicted with certainty, the Company is not currently a party to any proceeding that it believes, if determined in a manner adverse to the Company, could have a potential material adverse effect on its financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows. On July 9, 2014, Nabors Drilling USA, L.P. and other Nabors entities and Yuma Energy, Inc. and several of its wholly owned subsidiaries were named in a lawsuit filed in the District Court of Harris County, Texas, in the 80th Judicial District, concerning the death of an employee of Timco Services during the drilling of the Crosby 12-1 well. The Company has tendered its defense to its liability insurance carriers who are responding. There has been one unsuccessful mediation session. Depositions are being scheduled. Management believes that the Company has adequate insurance to meet this potential claim. In September 2015, a suit was filed against the Company and Pyramid Oil LLC styled Mark A. Ontiveros and Louise D. Ontiveros, Trustees of The Ontiveros Family Trust dated March 29, 2007 vs. Pyramid Oil, LLC, et al. In the suit, the plaintiffs allege that the 1950 Community Oil and Gas Lease between them and Pyramid Oil LLC has expired by non-production. The Company claims that the lease is still in effect, as there is no cessation of production time frame set out in the lease; production had temporarily ceased, but was still profitable when measured over an appropriate time period; and the Company was conducting workover operations on a well on the lease in an effort to re-establish production when served with the quit claim deed demand from the plaintiff’s attorney. All present owners of the minerals covered by the 1950 Community Oil and Gas Lease, with the exception of the plaintiffs and one other owner, have executed amendments signifying their concurrence that the 1950 Community Oil and Gas Lease is still in force and effect. The parties are presently in the process of document discovery. Environmental Remediation Contingencies As of December 31, 2015, there were no known environmental or other regulatory matters related to the Company’s operations that were reasonably expected to result in a material liability to the Company. The Company’s operations are subject to numerous laws and regulations governing the discharge of materials into the environment or otherwise relating to environmental protection. Exploration, a subsidiary of the Company, has been named as one of 97 defendants in a matter entitled Board of Commissioners of the Southeast Louisiana Flood Protection Authority – East, Individually and As the Board Governing the Orleans Levee District, the Lake Borgne Basin Levee District, and the East Jefferson Levee District v. Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, LLC, et al., Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans, State of Louisiana, No. 13-6911, Division “J” - 5, now removed as Civil Action No. 13-5410, before the United States District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana. Plaintiff filed the suit on July 24, 2013 seeking damages and injunctive relief arising out of defendants’ drilling, exploration, and production activities from the early 1900s to the present day in coastal areas east of the Mississippi River in Southeast Louisiana. The suit alleges that defendants’ activities have caused “removal, erosion, and submergence” of coastal lands resulting in significant reduction or loss of the protection such lands afforded against hurricanes and tropical storms. Plaintiff alleges that it now faces increased costs to maintain and operate the man-made hurricane protection system and may reach the point where that system no longer adequately protects populated areas. Plaintiff lists hundreds of wells, pipelines, and dredging events as possible sources of the alleged land loss. Exploration is named in association with 11 wells, four rights-of-way, and one dredging permit. The suit does not specify any deficiency or harm caused by any individual activity or facility. Although the suit references various federal statutes as sources of standards of care, plaintiff claims that all causes of action arise under state law: negligence, strict liability, natural servitude of drain, public nuisance, private nuisance, and as third-party beneficiary under breach of contract. The Company tendered its defense to its liability insurance carriers, who are responding. On February 13, 2015, the federal judge adjudicating the matter granted defendants “Joint Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim Under Rule 12(b)(6)”, thereby dismissing plaintiff’s claims with prejudice in the matter. On February 20, 2015, the Board of Orleans filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Fifth Circuit. On February 29, 2016, oral arguments were held regarding the appeal, but as of May 23, 2016, no ruling on the appeal has been made. The Company will continue to contest plaintiff’s legal arguments and factual assertions. At this point in the legal process, no evaluation of the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome or associated economic loss can be made; therefore no liability has been recorded on the Company’s books. Escheat Audits The States of Louisiana, Texas, Minnesota, North Dakota and Wyoming have notified the Company that they will examine the Company’s books and records to determine compliance with each of the examining state’s escheat laws. The review is being conducted by Discovery Audit Services, LLC. The Company has engaged Ryan, LLC to represent it in this matter. The exposure related to the audits is not currently determinable.

13. CONTINGENCIES

3 Months Ended

Mar. 31, 2016

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Certain Legal Proceedings

From time to time, the Company is party to various legal proceedings arising in the ordinary course of business. While the outcome of lawsuits cannot be predicted with certainty, the Company is not currently a party to any proceeding that it believes, if determined in a manner adverse to the Company, could have a potential material adverse effect on its financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows.

On July 9, 2014, Nabors Drilling USA, L.P. and other Nabors entities and Yuma Energy, Inc. and several of its wholly owned subsidiaries were named in a lawsuit filed in the District Court of Harris County, Texas, in the 80th Judicial District, concerning the death of an employee of Timco Services during the drilling of the Crosby 12-1 well. The Company has tendered its defense to its liability insurance carriers who are responding. There has been one unsuccessful mediation session. Depositions are being scheduled. Management believes that the Company has adequate insurance to meet this potential claim.

In September 2015, a suit was filed against the Company and Pyramid Oil LLC styled Mark A. Ontiveros and Louise D. Ontiveros, Trustees of The Ontiveros Family Trust dated March 29, 2007 vs. Pyramid Oil, LLC, et al. In the suit, the plaintiffs allege that the 1950 Community Oil and Gas Lease between them and Pyramid Oil LLC has expired by non-production. The Company claims that the lease is still in effect, as there is no cessation of production time frame set out in the lease; production had temporarily ceased, but was still profitable when measured over an appropriate time period; and the Company was conducting workover operations on a well on the lease in an effort to re-establish production when served with the quit claim deed demand from the plaintiff’s attorney. All present owners of the minerals covered by the 1950 Community Oil and Gas Lease, with the exception of the plaintiffs and one other owner, have executed amendments signifying their concurrence that the 1950 Community Oil and Gas Lease is still in force and effect. The parties are presently in the process of document discovery.

Environmental Remediation Contingencies

As of December 31, 2015, there were no known environmental or other regulatory matters related to the Company’s operations that were reasonably expected to result in a material liability to the Company. The Company’s operations are subject to numerous laws and regulations governing the discharge of materials into the environment or otherwise relating to environmental protection.

Exploration, a subsidiary of the Company, has been named as one of 97 defendants in a matter entitled Board of Commissioners of the Southeast Louisiana Flood Protection Authority – East, Individually and As the Board Governing the Orleans Levee District, the Lake Borgne Basin Levee District, and the East Jefferson Levee District v. Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, LLC, et al., Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans, State of Louisiana, No. 13-6911, Division “J” - 5, now removed as Civil Action No. 13-5410, before the United States District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana. Plaintiff filed the suit on July 24, 2013 seeking damages and injunctive relief arising out of defendants’ drilling, exploration, and production activities from the early 1900s to the present day in coastal areas east of the Mississippi River in Southeast Louisiana.

The suit alleges that defendants’ activities have caused “removal, erosion, and submergence” of coastal lands resulting in significant reduction or loss of the protection such lands afforded against hurricanes and tropical storms. Plaintiff alleges that it now faces increased costs to maintain and operate the man-made hurricane protection system and may reach the point where that system no longer adequately protects populated areas.

Plaintiff lists hundreds of wells, pipelines, and dredging events as possible sources of the alleged land loss. Exploration is named in association with 11 wells, four rights-of-way, and one dredging permit. The suit does not specify any deficiency or harm caused by any individual activity or facility.

Although the suit references various federal statutes as sources of standards of care, plaintiff claims that all causes of action arise under state law: negligence, strict liability, natural servitude of drain, public nuisance, private nuisance, and as third-party beneficiary under breach of contract.

The Company tendered its defense to its liability insurance carriers, who are responding. On February 13, 2015, the federal judge adjudicating the matter granted defendants “Joint Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim Under Rule 12(b)(6)”, thereby dismissing plaintiff’s claims with prejudice in the matter. On February 20, 2015, the Board of Orleans filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Fifth Circuit. On February 29, 2016, oral arguments were held regarding the appeal, but as of May 23, 2016, no ruling on the appeal has been made. The Company will continue to contest plaintiff’s legal arguments and factual assertions. At this point in the legal process, no evaluation of the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome or associated economic loss can be made; therefore no liability has been recorded on the Company’s books.

Escheat Audits

The States of Louisiana, Texas, Minnesota, North Dakota and Wyoming have notified the Company that they will examine the Company’s books and records to determine compliance with each of the examining state’s escheat laws. The review is being conducted by Discovery Audit Services, LLC. The Company has engaged Ryan, LLC to represent it in this matter. The exposure related to the audits is not currently determinable.