Commitments and Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Commitments and Contingencies	Sep. 30, 2020
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Commitments and ContingenciesAs of September 30, 2020, the Company’s material off-balance sheet arrangements and transactions include $76.9 million in outstanding letters of credit issued under its Pre-Petition Credit Facility and $10.3 million in net surety bond exposure issued as financial assurance on certain agreements. There have been no material changes to the Company’s commitments and contingencies disclosed in Note 22 — Commitments and Contingencies in the Company’s 2019 Annual Report other than items discussed below. Chapter 11 Cases. On September 30, 2020, the Debtors filed the Chapter 11 Cases seeking relief under the Bankruptcy Code. The Company expects to continue operations in the normal course pursuant to the applicable provisions of the Bankruptcy Code for the duration of the Chapter 11 Cases. All existing customer and vendor contracts are expected to remain in place and be serviced in the ordinary course of business. Commencement of the Chapter 11 Cases automatically stayed all of the proceedings and actions against the Company (other than regulatory enforcement matters), including those noted below. Please refer to Note 2 — Voluntary Reorganization under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code for more information on the Chapter 11 Cases. Litigation. The Company is party to various legal and/or regulatory proceedings from time to time arising in the ordinary course of business. When the Company determines that a loss is probable of occurring and is reasonably estimable, the Company accrues an undiscounted liability for such contingencies based on its best estimate using information available at the time. The Company discloses contingencies where an adverse outcome may be material, or in the judgment of management, the matter should otherwise be disclosed. Mirada litigation. On March 23, 2017, Mirada Energy, LLC, Mirada Wild Basin Holding Company, LLC and Mirada Energy Fund I, LLC (collectively, “Mirada”) filed a lawsuit against Oasis, OPNA and OMS, seeking monetary damages in excess of $100 million, declaratory relief, attorneys’ fees and costs (Mirada Energy, LLC, et al. v. Oasis Petroleum North America LLC, et al.; in the 334th Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas; Case Number 2017-19911). Mirada asserts that it is a working interest owner in certain acreage owned and operated by the Company in Wild Basin. Specifically, Mirada asserts that the Company has breached certain agreements by: (1) failing to allow Mirada to participate in the Company’s midstream operations in Wild Basin; (2) refusing to provide Mirada with information that Mirada contends is required under certain agreements and failing to provide information in a timely fashion; (3) failing to consult with Mirada and failing to obtain Mirada’s consent prior to drilling more than one well at a time in Wild Basin; and (4) overstating the estimated costs of proposed well operations in Wild Basin. Mirada seeks a declaratory judgment that the Company be removed as operator in Wild Basin at Mirada’s election and that Mirada be allowed to elect a new operator; certain agreements apply to the Company and Mirada and Wild Basin with respect to this dispute; the Company be required to provide all information within its possession regarding proposed or ongoing operations in Wild Basin; and the Company not be permitted to drill, or propose to drill, more than one well at a time in Wild Basin without obtaining Mirada’s consent. Mirada also seeks a declaratory judgment with respect to the Company’s current midstream operations in Wild Basin. Specifically, Mirada seeks a declaratory judgment that Mirada has a right to participate in the Company’s Wild Basin midstream operations, consisting of produced and flowback water disposal, crude oil gathering and natural gas gathering and processing; that, upon Mirada’s election to participate, Mirada is obligated to pay its proportionate costs of the Company’s midstream operations in Wild Basin; and that Mirada would then be entitled to receive a share of revenues from the midstream operations and would not be charged any amount for its use of these facilities for production from the “Contract Area.” On June 30, 2017, Mirada amended its original petition to add a claim that the Company has breached certain agreements by charging Mirada for midstream services provided by its affiliates and to seek a declaratory judgment that Mirada is entitled to be paid its share of total proceeds from the sale of hydrocarbons received by OPNA or any affiliate of OPNA without deductions for midstream services provided by OPNA or its affiliates. On February 2, 2018 and February 16, 2018, Mirada filed a second and third amended petition, respectively. In these filings, Mirada alleged new legal theories for being entitled to enforce the underlying contracts, and added Bighorn DevCo, Bobcat DevCo and Beartooth DevCo as defendants, asserting that these entities were created in bad faith in an effort to avoid contractual obligations owed to Mirada. On March 2, 2018, Mirada filed a fourth amended petition that described Mirada’s alleged ownership and assignment of interests in assets purportedly governed by agreements at issue in the lawsuit. On August 31, 2018, Mirada filed a fifth amended petition that added OMP as a defendant, asserting that it was created in bad faith in an effort to avoid contractual obligations owed to Mirada. On July 2, 2019, Oasis, OPNA, OMS, OMP, Bighorn DevCo, Bobcat DevCo and Beartooth DevCo (collectively the “Oasis Entities”) counterclaimed against Mirada for a judgment declaring that Oasis Entities are not obligated to purchase, manage, gather, transport, compress, process, market, sell or otherwise handle Mirada’s proportionate share of oil and gas produced from OPNA-operated wells. The counterclaim also seeks attorney’s fees, costs and expenses. On November 1, 2019, Mirada filed a sixth amended petition that stated that Mirada seeks in excess of $200 million in damages and asserted that OMS is an agent of OPNA and OPNA, OMS, OMP, Bighorn DevCo, Bobcat DevCo and Beartooth DevCo are agents of Oasis. Mirada also changed its allegation that it may elect a new operator for the subject wells to instead allege that Mirada may remove Oasis as operator. On November 1, 2019, the Oasis Entities amended their counterclaim against Mirada for a judgment declaring that a provision in one of the agreements does not incorporate by reference any provisions in a certain participation agreement and joint operating agreement. The additional counterclaim also seeks attorney’s fees, costs and expenses. On the same day, the Oasis Entities filed an amended answer asserting additional defenses against Mirada’s claims. On March 13, 2020, Mirada filed a seventh amended petition that did not assert any new causes of action and did not add any new parties. Mirada did add an allegation that Oasis breached its implied duty of good faith and fair dealing with respect to certain contracts. On April 30, 2020, Mirada abandoned its prior claims related to overstating the estimated costs of proposed well operations in Wild Basin. On September 28, 2020, the Oasis Entities entered into a Settlement and Mutual Release Agreement (the “Mirada Settlement Agreement”) with Mirada. The Mirada Settlement Agreement provides for, among other things, payment by OPNA to certain Mirada related parties of $42.8 million (with $20.0 million due on the effective date of the Plan, and the balance due on or before 180 days after the effective date of the Plan) and mutual releases, including, without limitation, release of all claims asserted in the Mirada litigation against the Oasis Entities. The Company intends to seek approval of the Mirada Settlement Agreement by the Bankruptcy Court pursuant to the Plan, and has an accrual for the payment of $42.8 million recorded in accrued liabilities on its Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet as of September 30, 2020. Solomon litigation. On or about August 28, 2019, OP LLC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company, was named as a defendant in the lawsuit styled Andrew Solomon, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated v. Oasis Petroleum, LLC, pending in the United States District Court for the District of North Dakota. The lawsuit alleged violations of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (the “FLSA”) and Title 29 of the North Dakota Century Code (“Title 29”) as the result of OP LLC’s alleged practice of paying the plaintiff and similarly situated current and former employees overtime at rates less than required by applicable law, or failing to pay for certain overtime hours worked. The lawsuit requested that: (i) its federal claims be advanced as a collective action, with a class of all operators, technicians, and all other employees in substantially similar positions employed by OP LLC who were paid hourly for at least one week during the three year period prior to the commencement of the lawsuit, who worked 40 or more hours in at least one workweek and/or eight or more hours on at least one workday; and (ii) its state claims be advanced as a class action, with a class of all operators, technicians, and all other employees in substantially similar positions employed by OP LLC in North Dakota during the two year period prior to the commencement of the lawsuit, who worked 40 or more hours in at least one workweek and/or worked eight or more hours in a day on at least one workday. On September 14, 2020, OP LLC entered into a Settlement Agreement and Release of All Claims with Mr. Solomon which provides for, among other things, payment by OP LLC of $15,000 and a release by Mr. Solomon of claims against OP LLC and its affiliates, which includes, but is not limited to, all claims asserted, or which could have been asserted, against OP LLC and its affiliates arising out of or relating in any way to the Solomon litigation. On September 25, 2020, the Solomon litigation was dismissed with prejudice.