Contingencies	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2011
Contingencies [Abstract]
Contingencies	(11) Contingencies The Company formerly owned a 0.97953% working interest in OCS Lease 320 in the Sword Unit, Offshore California. Lease 320 was conveyed back to the United States at the conclusion of its previous litigation with the government (Amber Resources Co., et al. vs. United States, Civ. Act. No. 2-30 filed in the United States Court of Federal Claims) when the courts determined that the government had breached that lease (among others) and was liable to the working interest owners for damages; however, the government now contends that the former working interest owners are still obligated to permanently plug and abandon an exploratory well that was drilled on the lease and to clear the well site. The former operator of the lease commenced litigation against the government in United States District Court for the District of Columbia (Noble Energy Corp. vs. Kenneth L. Salazar, Secretary United States Department of the Interior, et al No. 1:09-cv-02013-EGS) seeking a declaratory judgment that the former working interest owners are not responsible for these costs as a result of the government’s breach of the lease. On April 22, 2011, the Court entered a judgment in favor of the government, ruling that the working interest owners jointly and severally share the responsibility to permanently plug and abandon the subject well, and that this duty was not discharged by the government’s breach of contract. On May 11, 2011, the former operator filed an appeal of this ruling to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The Court of Appeals did not rule in either party’s favor, but instead issued an order on March 2, 2012 vacating the judgment and sending the case back to the District Court with instructions to vacate the previous order by the government to permanently plug and abandon the well, and to remand the case to the Department of the Interior for a more extensive explanation as to why it interprets its regulations to require that the former owners permanently plug and abandon the well notwithstanding the government’s breach of the lease. It is currently unknown whether or not the former operator will ultimately be successful in the litigation. In September 2011, however, the Company received an estimate from the operator indicating that, based on available information of resources to mobilize and demobilize a rig to the well, the Company’s pro rata share of the estimated cost of decommissioning the well would be approximately $756,000. The estimate that was provided does not contain any anticipated expenditures for the preparation of an environmental impact study, regulatory permitting matters at any level or any expenditure estimates for potentially required of costs of containment equipment. The operator has indicated that the estimate is subject to material fluctuations in cost based upon rig mobilization costs and other factors. The actual costs of decommissioning the well could be materially different from the estimate provided by the operator. As a non-operator in this well the Company is unable to determine a reasonable estimate of the liability, if any, at this time. If the former working interest owners are ultimately held liable, it is likely that the former operator will assert that the Company is responsible for the payment of its proportionate share of the actual cost of any decommissioning operation, and the former operator has filed a claim in the Company’s bankruptcy case seeking reimbursement in such event. The Company’s bankruptcy counsel has advised the Company that if the former operator’s claim is allowed it would be treated as a prepetition unsecured claim that would be dealt with as part of the plan of reorganization to be confirmed in the Company’s bankruptcy case, and that once the plan is confirmed the former operator would be permanently barred from asserting any further claims against the Company based on this matter. There can be no assurance at this time that a plan of reorganization will be confirmed in the Company’s bankruptcy case.

Contingencies

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2011

(11) Contingencies

The Company formerly owned a 0.97953% working interest in OCS Lease 320 in the Sword Unit, Offshore California. Lease 320 was conveyed back to the United States at the conclusion of its previous litigation with the government (Amber Resources Co., et al. vs. United States, Civ. Act. No. 2-30 filed in the United States Court of Federal Claims) when the courts determined that the government had breached that lease (among others) and was liable to the working interest owners for damages; however, the government now contends that the former working interest owners are still obligated to permanently plug and abandon an exploratory well that was drilled on the lease and to clear the well site. The former operator of the lease commenced litigation against the government in United States District Court for the District of Columbia (Noble Energy Corp. vs. Kenneth L. Salazar, Secretary United States Department of the Interior, et al No. 1:09-cv-02013-EGS) seeking a declaratory judgment that the former working interest owners are not responsible for these costs as a result of the government’s breach of the lease. On April 22, 2011, the Court entered a judgment in favor of the government, ruling that the working interest owners jointly and severally share the responsibility to permanently plug and abandon the subject well, and that this duty was not discharged by the government’s breach of contract. On May 11, 2011, the former operator filed an appeal of this ruling to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The Court of Appeals did not rule in either party’s favor, but instead issued an order on March 2, 2012 vacating the judgment and sending the case back to the District Court with instructions to vacate the previous order by the government to permanently plug and abandon the well, and to remand the case to the Department of the Interior for a more extensive explanation as to why it interprets its regulations to require that the former owners permanently plug and abandon the well notwithstanding the government’s breach of the lease. It is currently unknown whether or not the former operator will ultimately be successful in the litigation. In September 2011, however, the Company received an estimate from the operator indicating that, based on available information of resources to mobilize and demobilize a rig to the well, the Company’s pro rata share of the estimated cost of decommissioning the well would be approximately $756,000. The estimate that was provided does not contain any anticipated expenditures for the preparation of an environmental impact study, regulatory permitting matters at any level or any expenditure estimates for potentially required of costs of containment equipment. The operator has indicated that the estimate is subject to material fluctuations in cost based upon rig mobilization costs and other factors. The actual costs of decommissioning the well could be materially different from the estimate provided by the operator. As a non-operator in this well the Company is unable to determine a reasonable estimate of the liability, if any, at this time. If the former working interest owners are ultimately held liable, it is likely that the former operator will assert that the Company is responsible for the payment of its proportionate share of the actual cost of any decommissioning operation, and the former operator has filed a claim in the Company’s bankruptcy case seeking reimbursement in such event. The Company’s bankruptcy counsel has advised the Company that if the former operator’s claim is allowed it would be treated as a prepetition unsecured claim that would be dealt with as part of the plan of reorganization to be confirmed in the Company’s bankruptcy case, and that once the plan is confirmed the former operator would be permanently barred from asserting any further claims against the Company based on this matter. There can be no assurance at this time that a plan of reorganization will be confirmed in the Company’s bankruptcy case.

- Definition

The entire disclosure for commitments and contingencies.

+ References

Reference 1: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef

-Publisher FASB

-Name Accounting Standards Codification

-Topic 450

-SubTopic 20

-Section 50

-Paragraph 4

-URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6952336&loc=d3e14435-108349

Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef

-Publisher FASB

-Name Accounting Standards Codification

-Topic 460

-SubTopic 10

-Section 50

-Paragraph 8

-URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6398077&loc=d3e12565-110249

Reference 3: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef

-Publisher FASB

-Name FASB Interpretation (FIN)

-Number 14

-Paragraph 3

-LegacyDoc This reference is SUPERSEDED by the Accounting Standards Codification effective for interim and annual periods ending after September 15, 2009. This reference is included to help users transition from the previous accounting hierarchy and will be removed from future versions of this taxonomy.

Reference 4: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef

-Publisher FASB

-Name Accounting Standards Codification

-Topic 440

-SubTopic 10

-Section 50

-Paragraph 2

-URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6394976&loc=d3e25287-109308

Reference 5: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef

-Publisher FASB

-Name Statement of Financial Accounting Standard (FAS)

-Number 5

-Paragraph 9, 10, 11, 12

-LegacyDoc This reference is SUPERSEDED by the Accounting Standards Codification effective for interim and annual periods ending after September 15, 2009. This reference is included to help users transition from the previous accounting hierarchy and will be removed from future versions of this taxonomy.

Reference 6: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef

-Publisher FASB

-Name Accounting Standards Codification

-Topic 210

-SubTopic 10

-Section S99

-Paragraph 1

-Subparagraph (SX 210.5-02.25)

-URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6877327&loc=d3e13212-122682

Reference 7: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef

-Publisher FASB

-Name Accounting Standards Codification

-Topic 825

-SubTopic 20

-Section 50

-Paragraph 1

-URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6449706&loc=d3e16207-108621

+ Details

AMBER RESOURCES CO OF COLORADO 10-K