Summary Of Significant Accounting Policies (Policy)	9 Months Ended
Summary Of Significant Accounting Policies (Policy)	Sep. 30, 2018
Accounting Policies [Abstract]
Industry Specific Policies, Oil and Gas	We use the full cost method of accounting, which involves capitalizing all acquisition, exploration, exploitation and development costs of oil and natural gas properties. Once we incur costs, they are recorded in the depletable pool of proved properties or in unproved properties (collectively, the “full cost pool”). We review our unproved oil and natural gas property costs on a quarterly basis to assess for impairment or the need to transfer unproved costs to proved properties as a result of extensions or discoveries from drilling operations or determination that no proved reserves are attributable to such costs. The majority of our undeveloped properties are held-by-production, which reduces the risk of impairment as a result of lease expirations. There were no impairments of unproved properties during the three and nine months ended September 30, 2018 and 2017. At the end of each quarterly period, companies that use the full cost method of accounting for their oil and natural gas properties must compute a limitation on capitalized costs (“ceiling test”). The ceiling test involves comparing the net book value of the full cost pool, after taxes, to the full cost ceiling limitation defined below. In the event the full cost ceiling limitation is less than the full cost pool, we are required to record an impairment of our oil and natural gas properties. The full cost ceiling limitation is computed as the sum of the present value of estimated future net revenues from our proved reserves by applying the average price as prescribed by the SEC, less estimated future expenditures (based on current costs) to develop and produce the proved reserves, discounted at 10%, plus the cost of properties not being amortized and the lower of cost or estimated fair value of unproved properties included in the costs being amortized, net of income tax effects. During March 2018, the Court approved the rejection of certain executory contracts related to the sale, marketing and transportation of natural gas in the North Louisiana region. The rejection of these executory contracts has positively impacted the present value of our proved reserves. See further discussion of the rejection of executory contracts in “Note 1. Organization and basis of presentation”. The ceiling test for each period was based on the following average spot prices, in each case adjusted for quality factors and regional differentials to derive estimated future net revenues. Prices presented in the table below are the trailing twelve-month simple average spot prices at the first of the month for natural gas at Henry Hub (“HH”) and West Texas Intermediate (“WTI”) crude oil at Cushing, Oklahoma. The fluctuations demonstrate the volatility in oil and natural gas prices between each of the periods and have a significant impact on our ceiling test limitation. The evaluation of impairment of our oil and natural gas properties includes estimates of proved reserves. There are inherent uncertainties in estimating quantities of proved reserves including projecting the future rates of production and the timing of development activities. The accuracy of any reserve estimate is a function of the quality of available data, and engineering and geological interpretation and judgment. Results of drilling, testing and production subsequent to the date of the estimate may justify revisions of such estimate. Accordingly, reserve estimates often differ from the quantities of oil and natural gas that are ultimately recovered.
New Accounting Pronouncements	Recent accounting pronouncements In February 2016, the FASB issued Accounting Standards Update (“ASU”) No. 2016-02, Leases (Topic 842) (“ASU 2016-02”). The main difference between the current requirement under GAAP and ASU 2016-02 is the recognition of lease assets and lease liabilities by lessees for those leases classified as operating leases. ASU 2016-02 requires that a lessee recognize in the statement of financial position a liability to make lease payments (the lease liability) and a right-of-use asset representing its right to use the underlying asset for the lease term (other than leases that meet the definition of a short-term lease). The liability will be equal to the present value of lease payments. The asset will be based on the liability, subject to adjustment, such as for initial direct costs. For income statement purposes, the FASB retained a dual model, requiring leases to be classified as either operating or finance leases. Operating leases will result in straight-line expense (similar to current operating leases) while finance leases will result in a front-loaded expense pattern (similar to current capital leases). Classification will be based on criteria that are largely similar to those applied in current lease accounting. For lessors, the guidance modifies the classification criteria and the accounting for sales-type and direct financing leases. ASU 2016-02 is effective for annual and interim periods beginning after December 15, 2018 and early adoption is permitted. In January 2018, the FASB issued further guidance on the new lease standard in ASU No. 2018-01, Leases (Topic 842): Land Easement Practical Expedient for Transition to Topic 842 (“ASU 2018-01”). ASU 2018-01 provides a practical expedient to exclude existing or expired land easements from the evaluation of leases under ASU 2016-02 if the easements were not previously accounted for as leases under the current guidance. In July 2018, the FASB issued additional guidance on the accounting for leases in ASU No. 2018-10, Codification Improvements to Topic 842, Leases, and ASU No. 2018-11, Leases (Topic 842): Targeted Improvements (“ASU 2018-11”). ASU 2016-02 was initially required to be adopted using a modified retrospective transition, which would require application of the new guidance at the beginning of the earliest comparative period presented. The guidance in ASU 2018-11 provides companies with another transition method that allows entities to recognize a cumulative-effect adjustment to the opening balance of retained earnings as of the date of adoption. Under this method, previously presented years’ financial positions and results would not be adjusted. The new guidance also provides lessors with a practical expedient, by class of underlying asset, to not separate non-lease components from the associated lease component if (1) the non-lease components would otherwise be accounted for under the new revenue recognition standard, (2) both the timing and pattern of transfer are the same for the non-lease components and associated lease component, and (3) if accounted for separately, the lease component would be classified as an operating lease. We are currently assessing the potential impact of ASU 2016-02 and related clarifying updates and expect they will have an impact on our consolidated financial condition and results of operations upon adoption. We are currently unable to quantify the impact the standard will have on our consolidated financial condition and results of operations. In November 2016, the FASB issued ASU No. 2016-18, Statement of Cash Flows (Topic 230): Restricted Cash (a consensus of the FASB Emerging Issues Task Force) (“ASU 2016-18”). The amendments in this update require that a statement of cash flows explain the change during the period in total cash, cash equivalents and amounts generally described as restricted cash or restricted cash equivalents. Therefore, amounts generally described as restricted cash and restricted cash equivalents should be included with cash and cash equivalents when reconciling the beginning-of-period and end-of-period total amounts shown on the statement of cash flows. ASU 2016-18 is effective for annual and interim periods beginning after December 15, 2017 and early adoption is permitted. We adopted ASU 2016-18 in the first quarter of 2018 utilizing retrospective application. The adoption resulted in an increase in reported investing cash flows of $12.2 million for the nine months ended September 30, 2017 with a corresponding adjustment to the reported end of period cash balances. In January 2017, the FASB issued ASU No. 2017-01, Business Combinations (Topic 805): Clarifying the Definition of a Business (“ASU 2017-01”). ASU 2017-01 is effective for annual and interim periods beginning after December 15, 2017. Under ASU 2017-01, an entity must first determine whether substantially all of the fair value of the gross assets acquired is concentrated in a single identifiable asset or a group of similar assets. If this threshold is met, the set is not a business. If this threshold is not met, the entity then evaluates whether the set meets the requirement that a business includes, at a minimum, an input and a substantive process that together significantly contribute to the ability to create outputs. ASU 2017-01 is effective for annual and interim periods beginning after December 15, 2017. We adopted ASU 2017-01 in the first quarter of 2018 and will apply the guidance of ASU 2017-01 prospectively to future asset acquisitions, including the acquisitions as part of the Appalachia JV Settlement during the first quarter of 2018. In July 2017, the FASB issued ASU No. 2017-11, Earnings Per Share (Topic 260), Distinguishing Liabilities from Equity (Topic 480), Derivatives and Hedging (Topic 815): I. Accounting for Certain Financial Instruments with Down Round Features, II. Replacement of the Indefinite Deferral for Mandatorily Redeemable Financial Instruments of Certain Nonpublic Entities and Certain Mandatorily Redeemable Noncontrolling Interests with a Scope Exception (“ASU 2017-11”). ASU 2017-11 revises the guidance for instruments with down round features in Subtopic 815-40, Derivatives and Hedging - Contracts in Entity’s Own Equity, which is considered in determining whether an equity-linked financial instrument qualifies for a scope exception from derivative accounting. An entity is still required to determine whether instruments would be classified in equity under the guidance in Subtopic 815-40 in determining whether they qualify for that scope exception. If they do qualify, freestanding instruments with down round features are no longer classified as liabilities. Our 2017 Warrants (as defined in “Note 7. Derivative financial instruments”) are required to be classified as liabilities under the current guidance due to their down round features. The amendments in Part I are required to be applied retrospectively to outstanding financial instruments with down round features. ASU 2017-11 is effective for annual and interim periods beginning after December 15, 2018, and early adoption is permitted, including adoption in an interim period. We are currently assessing the impact of ASU 2017-11; however, we believe that it could have an impact on our consolidated financial condition and results of operations if we determine the 2017 Warrants qualify for equity classification. However, we believe it is highly likely that our existing common shares as well as the 2017 Warrants will be canceled at the conclusion of our Chapter 11 Cases. In March 2018, the FASB issued ASU No. 2018-05, Income Taxes (Topic 740): Amendments to SEC paragraphs pursuant to SEC Staff Accounting Bulletin No. 118 (“ASU 2018-05”). The amendments in this update add various SEC paragraphs pursuant to the issuance of SEC Staff Accounting Bulletin No. 118, Income Tax Accounting Implications of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (“SAB 118”). SAB 118 directs taxpayers to consider the implications of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (“Tax Act”) as provisional when it does not have the necessary information available, prepared, or analyzed in reasonable detail to complete its accounting for the change in the tax law. SAB 118 provides a one-year measurement period from a registrant’s reporting period that includes the Tax Act’s enactment date to allow the registrant sufficient time to obtain, prepare and analyze information to complete the required accounting under ASC 740. As described in the 2017 Form 10-K, we reflected the impact of the changes in rates on our deferred tax assets and liabilities at December 31, 2017, as we are required to reflect the change in the period in which the law is enacted. We are still analyzing certain aspects of the Tax Act, which could potentially affect the measurement of our income tax balances and future income tax expense or benefit. The ultimate impact of the Tax Act may differ from the estimates provided herein, possibly materially, due to additional regulatory guidance, changes in interpretations and assumptions, and other actions as a result of the Tax Act. In June 2018, the FASB issued ASU No. 2018-07, Compensation—Stock Compensation (Topic 718): Improvements to Nonemployee Share-Based Payment Accounting (“ASU 2018-07”). The amendments in this update expand the scope of Topic 718 to include share-based payment transactions for acquiring goods or services from nonemployees. An entity should apply the requirements of Topic 718 to nonemployee awards except in certain circumstances. ASU 2018-07 clarifies that Topic 718 applies to all share-based payment transactions in which a grantor acquires goods or services to be consumed in a grantor’s operations unless the transaction effectively provides financing to the grantor or are awarded under a contract accounted for under Topic 606 (as defined below). ASU 2018-07 is effective for fiscal years and interim periods within those fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2018. The amendments require that adjustments required upon application of the update be made through a cumulative-effect adjustment to retained earnings as of the beginning of the fiscal year of adoption. We have historically awarded share-based compensation to nonemployees; however, we do not currently have any outstanding share-based awards to nonemployees. Therefore, we do not believe the adoption of ASU 2018-07 will have an impact on our consolidated financial condition and results of operations unless share-based payments are issued to nonemployees in the future. In July 2018, the FASB issued ASU No. 2018-09, Codification Improvements (“ASU 2018-09”). The amendments in this update include changes to clarify and make other incremental improvements to GAAP under the FASB’s perpetual project to address suggestions from stakeholders. The amendments in this update affect a wide variety of topics and apply to all reporting entities within the scope of the affected accounting guidance. The transition and effective date guidance is based on the facts and circumstances of each amendment. A number of the amendments do not require transition guidance and are effective as of the issuance of the update while many of the updates that have transition guidance are effective for annual periods beginning after December 15, 2018. For amendments relating to issued but not effective guidance, the effective date of these amendments follows that of the originally issued update. We are currently assessing the potential impact of the many amendments within ASU 2018-09 and are currently unable to quantify the impact, if any, the standard will have on our consolidated financial condition and results of operations. Revenue from Contracts with Customers (Topic 606) In May 2014, the FASB issued ASU No. 2014-09, Revenue from Contracts with Customers (Topic 606) (“ASU 2014-09”). The FASB and the International Accounting Standards Board jointly issued this comprehensive new revenue recognition standard that will supersede nearly all existing revenue recognition guidance under GAAP. The core principle of the guidance is that an entity should recognize revenue to depict the transfer of promised goods or services to customers in an amount that reflects the consideration to which the entity expects to be entitled in exchange for those goods or services. The FASB issued additional ASUs that primarily clarified the implementation guidance on principal versus agent considerations, performance obligations and licensing, collectability, presentation of sales taxes and other similar taxes collected from customers, and non-cash consideration. ASU 2014-09 is effective for annual and interim periods beginning after December 15, 2017 and permits the use of either the retrospective or cumulative effect transition method. We adopted ASU 2014-09 and related updates in the first quarter of 2018 based on the modified retrospective method of adoption. The adoption of this standard did not have an impact on our consolidated financial condition and results of operations. We have implemented processes to ensure new contracts are reviewed for the appropriate accounting treatment and to generate the disclosures required under the new standard. Overview of marketing arrangements We produce oil and natural gas. We do not refine or process the oil or natural gas we produce. We sell the majority of the oil we produce under contracts using market sensitive pricing. The majority of our oil contracts are based on NYMEX pricing, which is typically calculated as the average of the daily closing prices of oil to be delivered one month in the future. We also sell a portion of our oil at F.O.B. field prices posted by the principal purchaser of oil where our producing properties are located. Our sales contracts are of a type common within the industry, and we usually negotiate a separate contract for each area. Generally, we sell our oil to purchasers and refiners near the areas of our producing properties. We sell the majority of our natural gas under individually negotiated gas purchase contracts using market sensitive pricing. Our sales contracts vary in length from spot market sales of a single day to term agreements that may extend for a month or more. Our natural gas customers primarily include natural gas marketing companies. The natural gas purchase contracts define the terms and conditions unique to each of these sales. The price received for natural gas sold on the spot market varies daily, reflecting changing market conditions. Revenue recognition under ASC 606 We use the sales method of accounting for oil and natural gas revenues. We record sales revenue based on an estimate of the volumes delivered at estimated prices as determined by the applicable sales agreement. We estimate our sales volumes primarily on company-measured volume readings. We then adjust our oil and natural gas sales in subsequent periods based on the data received from our purchasers that reflects actual volumes and prices received. Historically, these differences have been immaterial. Natural gas imbalances at September 30, 2018 and December 31, 2017 were not significant. We generally sell oil and natural gas under two types of agreements that are common in our industry. Both types of agreements include transportation charges. We evaluate whether we are the principal or the agent in each transaction. The first type of agreement is a net-back arrangement, under which we sell oil or natural gas at the wellhead and collect a price, net of the transportation costs incurred by the purchaser. The purchaser takes custody, title and risk of loss of the oil or natural gas at the wellhead. In this case, we record revenue when the control transfers to the purchaser at the wellhead based on the price received, net of the transportation costs. Under the second type of agreement, we sell oil or natural gas at a specific delivery point, pay transportation to a third-party and receive proceeds from the purchaser with no transportation deduction. The purchaser takes custody, title, and risk of loss of the oil or natural gas at the specific delivery point. In this case, we are deemed to be the principal and the ultimate third-party purchaser is deemed to be the customer. We recognize revenue when control transfers to the purchaser at the specific delivery point based on the price received from the purchaser. The costs that we incur to transport the oil or natural gas are recorded as gathering and transportation expenses. As such, our computed realized prices include revenues that are recognized under two separate bases. Raider Marketing, LP (“Raider”) is a wholly owned subsidiary focused on the marketing of oil and natural gas. Raider purchases and resells natural gas from third-party producers, as well as oil and natural gas from operated wells in Texas and Louisiana, and charges a fee for marketing services to certain working interest owners in the related wells. Raider takes custody, title and risk of loss from the third-party producer upon the purchase of natural gas and then sells the natural gas to a separate third-party purchaser further downstream. The price paid for the purchase of natural gas from the third-party producer is not dependent on the price received from the ultimate purchaser. We are deemed to be the principal in these transactions. As such, third party purchases and sales are reported on a gross basis as “Purchased natural gas” expenses and “Purchased natural gas and marketing” revenues, respectively. The marketing fee charged by Raider to certain working interest owners in our operated wells is reported as “Purchased natural gas and marketing” revenues. Transaction price allocated to remaining performance obligations Our sales are short-term in nature with a contract term of one year or less. We have utilized the practical expedient in ASC 606-10-50-14 exempting us from disclosure of the transaction price allocated to remaining performance obligations if the performance obligation is part of a contract that has an original expected duration of one year or less. Contract balances Under our oil and natural gas sales contracts, we invoice customers once our performance obligations have been satisfied, at which point payment is unconditional. Accordingly, our oil and natural gas sales contracts do not give rise to contract assets or liabilities under ASC 606. Prior-period performance obligations We record revenue in the month production is delivered to the purchaser. However, settlement statements for certain oil and natural gas sales may not be received for 30 to 90 days after the date production is delivered, and as a result, we are required to estimate the amount of production delivered to the purchaser and the price that will be received for the sale of the product. We record the differences between our estimates and the actual amounts received for product sales in the month that payment is received from the purchaser. We have internal controls for our revenue estimation process and related accruals, and any identified differences between our revenue estimates and actual revenue received historically have not been significant. For the three and nine months ended September 30, 2018, revenue recognized in the reporting period related to performance obligations satisfied in prior reporting periods was not material.

EXCO RESOURCES INC 10-Q