Commitments and Contingencies	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2014
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Note 18- Commitments and Contingencies The Noble Homer Ferrington was under contract with a subsidiary of ExxonMobil Corporation (“ExxonMobil”), which entered into an assignment agreement with British Petroleum plc (“BP”) for a two-well farmout of the rig in Libya after successfully drilling two wells with the rig for ExxonMobil. In August 2010, BP attempted to terminate the assignment agreement claiming that the rig was not in the required condition, and ExxonMobil informed us that we must look to BP for payment of the dayrate during the assignment period. In August 2010, we initiated arbitration proceedings under the drilling contract against both BP and ExxonMobil. We do not believe BP had the right to terminate the assignment agreement and believe the rig was ready to operate under the drilling contract. The rig operated under farmout arrangements from March 2011 to the conclusion of the contract in the second quarter of 2012. We believe we are owed dayrate by either or both of these clients. The operating dayrate was approximately $538,000 per day for the work in Libya. The arbitration process is proceeding, and we intend to vigorously pursue these claims. As a result of the uncertainties noted above, we have not recognized any revenue during the assignment period and the matter could have a material positive effect on our results of operations or cash flows in the period the matter is resolved should the arbitration panel ultimately rule in our favor. In November 2012, the U.S. Coast Guard in Alaska conducted an inspection of our drillship, the Noble Discoverer, and cited a number of deficiencies to be remediated, including issues relating to the main propulsion and safety management system. We initiated a comprehensive effort to address the deficiencies identified by the Coast Guard and worked with the agency to keep it apprised of our progress. We also conducted an internal investigation in conjunction with the Coast Guard inspection, and the Coast Guard conducted its own investigation. We reported certain potential violations of applicable law to the Coast Guard identified as a result of our internal investigation. These related to what we believe were certain unauthorized disposals of collected deck and sea water from the Noble Discoverer, collected, treated deck water from the Kulluk and potential record-keeping issues with the oil record books for the Noble Discoverer and Kulluk and other matters. The Coast Guard referred the Noble Discoverer and Kulluk matters to the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) for further investigation. In December 2014, one of our subsidiaries reached a settlement with the DOJ regarding its investigation of the Noble Discoverer and the Kulluk. Under the terms of the agreement, the subsidiary pled guilty to oil record book, ballast record and required hazardous condition reporting violations with respect to the Noble Discoverer and an oil record book violation with respect to the Kulluk. The subsidiary paid $8.2 million in fines and $4 million in community service payments, and was placed on probation for four years, provided that we may petition the court for early dismissal of probation after three years. If during the term of probation, the subsidiary fails to adhere to the terms of the plea agreement, the DOJ may withdraw from the plea agreement and would be free to prosecute the subsidiary on all charges arising out of its investigation, including any charges dismissed pursuant to the terms of the plea agreement, as well as potentially other charges. We also implemented a comprehensive environmental compliance plan. We are from time to time a party to various lawsuits that are incidental to our operations in which the claimants seek an unspecified amount of monetary damages for personal injury, including injuries purportedly resulting from exposure to asbestos on drilling rigs and associated facilities. At December 31, 2014, there were 42 asbestos related lawsuits in which we are one of many defendants. These lawsuits have been filed in the United States in the states of Illinois, Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas. We intend to vigorously defend against the litigation. We do not believe the ultimate resolution of these matters will have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows. We are a defendant in certain claims and litigation arising out of operations in the ordinary course of business, the resolution of which, in the opinion of management, will not be material to our financial position, results of operations or cash flows. There is inherent risk in any litigation or dispute and no assurance can be given as to the outcome of these claims. We operate in a number of countries throughout the world and our tax returns filed in those jurisdictions are subject to review and examination by tax authorities within those jurisdictions. During 2013, the IRS completed its examination of our tax reporting for the taxable year ended December 31, 2008 and concluded that we were entitled to a refund. The congressional Joint Committee on Taxation took no exception to the conclusions reached by the IRS, and the refund, plus interest, was received in March 2014. The IRS also completed its examination of our tax reporting for the taxable year ended December 31, 2009, and informed us that it made no changes to our reported tax. During the first quarter of 2014, the IRS began its examination of our tax reporting for the taxable years ended December 31, 2010 and 2011. We believe that we have accurately reported all amounts in our 2010 and 2011 tax returns. We believe the ultimate resolution of the outstanding assessments, for which we have not made any accrual, will not have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial statements. We recognize uncertain tax positions that we believe have a greater than 50 percent likelihood of being sustained. We cannot predict or provide assurance as to the ultimate outcome of any existing or future assessments. Audit claims of approximately $66 million attributable to income, customs and other business taxes have been assessed against us. We have received tax assessments of approximately $141 million related to Paragon Offshore assets that operated through Noble-retained entities in Mexico, and Paragon Offshore has received tax assessments of approximately $165 million for Noble assets that operated through a Paragon Offshore-retained entity in Brazil. Of these tax assessments in Mexico and Brazil, approximately $20 million and $46 million, respectively, relate to Noble’s share of the tax liability. Under the TSA, Paragon Offshore has an obligation to indemnify us for all assessed amounts that are related to Paragon Offshore’s Mexico assets, approximately $121 million, and we have an obligation to indemnify Paragon Offshore for all assessed amounts that are related to Noble’s Brazil assets, approximately $46 million, in each case, if and when such payments become due. We have contested, or intend to contest, these assessments, including through litigation if necessary, and we believe the ultimate resolution, for which we have not made any accrual, will not have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial statements. Tax authorities may issue additional assessments or pursue legal actions as a result of tax audits and we cannot predict or provide assurance as to the ultimate outcome of such assessments and legal actions. On January 23, 2015, Noble received an official notification of a ruling from the Second Chamber of the Supreme Court in Mexico. The ruling settled an ongoing dispute in Mexico relating to the classification of a Noble subsidiary’s business activity and the applicable rate of depreciation under the Mexican law. The ruling did not result in any additional tax liability to Noble. Additionally, the ruling does not constitute mandatory jurisprudence in Mexico, and thus is only applicable to the Noble subsidiary named in the ruling. We will continue to contest future assessments received. Any claim by the tax authorities relating to this issue is subject to a full indemnification from Paragon Offshore under the TSA. We have been notified by Petrobras that it is currently challenging assessments by Brazilian tax authorities of withholding taxes associated with the provision of drilling rigs for its operations in Brazil during 2008 and 2009. Petrobras has also notified us that if Petrobras must ultimately pay such withholding taxes, it will seek reimbursement from us for the portion allocable to our drilling rigs. The amount of withholding tax that Petrobras indicates may be allocable to Noble drilling rigs is R$79 million (approximately $30 million). We believe that our contract with Petrobras requires Petrobras to indemnify us for these withholding taxes. We will, if necessary, vigorously defend our rights. We maintain certain insurance coverage against specified marine perils, which includes physical damage and loss of hire. Damage caused by hurricanes has negatively impacted certain aspects of the energy insurance market, resulting in more restrictive and expensive coverage for U.S. named windstorm perils. Accordingly, we have elected to significantly reduce the named windstorm insurance on our rigs operating in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico. Presently, we insure the Noble Jim Thompson, Noble Amos Runner and Noble Driller for “total loss only” when caused by a named windstorm. For the Noble Bully I, our customer assumes the risk of loss due to a named windstorm event, pursuant to the terms of the drilling contract, through the purchase of insurance coverage (provided that we are responsible for any deductible under such policy) or, at its option, the assumption of the risk of loss up to the insured value in lieu of the purchase of such insurance. The remaining rigs in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico are self-insured for named windstorm perils. In addition, we maintain a physical damage deductible on our rigs of $25 million per occurrence. The loss of hire coverage applies only to our rigs operating under contract with a dayrate equal to or greater than $200,000 a day and is subject to a 45-day waiting period for each unit and each occurrence. Although we maintain insurance in the geographic areas in which we operate, pollution, reservoir damage and environmental risks generally are not fully insurable. Our insurance policies and contractual rights to indemnity may not adequately cover our losses or may have exclusions of coverage for some losses. We do not have insurance coverage or rights to indemnity for all risks, including loss of hire insurance on most of the rigs in our fleet. Uninsured exposures may include expatriate activities prohibited by U.S. laws and regulations, radiation hazards, certain loss or damage to property on board our rigs and losses relating to shorebased terrorist acts or strikes. If a significant accident or other event occurs and is not fully covered by insurance or contractual indemnity, it could materially adversely affect our financial position, results of operations or cash flows. Additionally, there can be no assurance that those parties with contractual obligations to indemnify us will necessarily be financially able to indemnify us against all these risks. We carry protection and indemnity insurance covering marine third party liability exposures, which also includes coverage for employer’s liability resulting from personal injury to our offshore drilling crews. Our protection and indemnity policy currently has a standard deductible of $10 million per occurrence, with maximum liability coverage of $750 million. In connection with our capital expenditure program, we had outstanding commitments, including shipyard and purchase commitments of approximately $729 million at December 31, 2014. We have entered into agreements with certain of our executive officers, as well as certain other employees. These agreements become effective upon a change of control of Noble-UK (within the meaning set forth in the agreements) or a termination of employment in connection with or in anticipation of a change of control, and remain effective for three years thereafter. These agreements provide for compensation and certain other benefits under such circumstances.

Note 18- Commitments and Contingencies

The Noble Homer Ferrington was under contract with a subsidiary of ExxonMobil Corporation (“ExxonMobil”), which entered into an assignment agreement with British Petroleum plc (“BP”) for a two-well farmout of the rig in Libya after successfully drilling two wells with the rig for ExxonMobil. In August 2010, BP attempted to terminate the assignment agreement claiming that the rig was not in the required condition, and ExxonMobil informed us that we must look to BP for payment of the dayrate during the assignment period. In August 2010, we initiated arbitration proceedings under the drilling contract against both BP and ExxonMobil. We do not believe BP had the right to terminate the assignment agreement and believe the rig was ready to operate under the drilling contract. The rig operated under farmout arrangements from March 2011 to the conclusion of the contract in the second quarter of 2012. We believe we are owed dayrate by either or both of these clients. The operating dayrate was approximately $538,000 per day for the work in Libya. The arbitration process is proceeding, and we intend to vigorously pursue these claims. As a result of the uncertainties noted above, we have not recognized any revenue during the assignment period and the matter could have a material positive effect on our results of operations or cash flows in the period the matter is resolved should the arbitration panel ultimately rule in our favor.

In November 2012, the U.S. Coast Guard in Alaska conducted an inspection of our drillship, the Noble Discoverer, and cited a number of deficiencies to be remediated, including issues relating to the main propulsion and safety management system. We initiated a comprehensive effort to address the deficiencies identified by the Coast Guard and worked with the agency to keep it apprised of our progress. We also conducted an internal investigation in conjunction with the Coast Guard inspection, and the Coast Guard conducted its own investigation. We reported certain potential violations of applicable law to the Coast Guard identified as a result of our internal investigation. These related to what we believe were certain unauthorized disposals of collected deck and sea water from the Noble Discoverer, collected, treated deck water from the Kulluk and potential record-keeping issues with the oil record books for the Noble Discoverer and Kulluk and other matters. The Coast Guard referred the Noble Discoverer and Kulluk matters to the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) for further investigation. In December 2014, one of our subsidiaries reached a settlement with the DOJ regarding its investigation of the Noble Discoverer and the Kulluk. Under the terms of the agreement, the subsidiary pled guilty to oil record book, ballast record and required hazardous condition reporting violations with respect to the Noble Discoverer and an oil record book violation with respect to the Kulluk. The subsidiary paid $8.2 million in fines and $4 million in community service payments, and was placed on probation for four years, provided that we may petition the court for early dismissal of probation after three years. If during the term of probation, the subsidiary fails to adhere to the terms of the plea agreement, the DOJ may withdraw from the plea agreement and would be free to prosecute the subsidiary on all charges arising out of its investigation, including any charges dismissed pursuant to the terms of the plea agreement, as well as potentially other charges. We also implemented a comprehensive environmental compliance plan.

We are from time to time a party to various lawsuits that are incidental to our operations in which the claimants seek an unspecified amount of monetary damages for personal injury, including injuries purportedly resulting from exposure to asbestos on drilling rigs and associated facilities. At December 31, 2014, there were 42 asbestos related lawsuits in which we are one of many defendants. These lawsuits have been filed in the United States in the states of Illinois, Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas. We intend to vigorously defend against the litigation. We do not believe the ultimate resolution of these matters will have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

We are a defendant in certain claims and litigation arising out of operations in the ordinary course of business, the resolution of which, in the opinion of management, will not be material to our financial position, results of operations or cash flows. There is inherent risk in any litigation or dispute and no assurance can be given as to the outcome of these claims.

We operate in a number of countries throughout the world and our tax returns filed in those jurisdictions are subject to review and examination by tax authorities within those jurisdictions. During 2013, the IRS completed its examination of our tax reporting for the taxable year ended December 31, 2008 and concluded that we were entitled to a refund. The congressional Joint Committee on Taxation took no exception to the conclusions reached by the IRS, and the refund, plus interest, was received in March 2014. The IRS also completed its examination of our tax reporting for the taxable year ended December 31, 2009, and informed us that it made no changes to our reported tax. During the first quarter of 2014, the IRS began its examination of our tax reporting for the taxable years ended December 31, 2010 and 2011. We believe that we have accurately reported all amounts in our 2010 and 2011 tax returns. We believe the ultimate resolution of the outstanding assessments, for which we have not made any accrual, will not have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial statements. We recognize uncertain tax positions that we believe have a greater than 50 percent likelihood of being sustained. We cannot predict or provide assurance as to the ultimate outcome of any existing or future assessments.

Audit claims of approximately $66 million attributable to income, customs and other business taxes have been assessed against us. We have received tax assessments of approximately $141 million related to Paragon Offshore assets that operated through Noble-retained entities in Mexico, and Paragon Offshore has received tax assessments of approximately $165 million for Noble assets that operated through a Paragon Offshore-retained entity in Brazil. Of these tax assessments in Mexico and Brazil, approximately $20 million and $46 million, respectively, relate to Noble’s share of the tax liability. Under the TSA, Paragon Offshore has an obligation to indemnify us for all assessed amounts that are related to Paragon Offshore’s Mexico assets, approximately $121 million, and we have an obligation to indemnify Paragon Offshore for all assessed amounts that are related to Noble’s Brazil assets, approximately $46 million, in each case, if and when such payments become due. We have contested, or intend to contest, these assessments, including through litigation if necessary, and we believe the ultimate resolution, for which we have not made any accrual, will not have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial statements. Tax authorities may issue additional assessments or pursue legal actions as a result of tax audits and we cannot predict or provide assurance as to the ultimate outcome of such assessments and legal actions.

On January 23, 2015, Noble received an official notification of a ruling from the Second Chamber of the Supreme Court in Mexico. The ruling settled an ongoing dispute in Mexico relating to the classification of a Noble subsidiary’s business activity and the applicable rate of depreciation under the Mexican law. The ruling did not result in any additional tax liability to Noble. Additionally, the ruling does not constitute mandatory jurisprudence in Mexico, and thus is only applicable to the Noble subsidiary named in the ruling. We will continue to contest future assessments received. Any claim by the tax authorities relating to this issue is subject to a full indemnification from Paragon Offshore under the TSA.

We have been notified by Petrobras that it is currently challenging assessments by Brazilian tax authorities of withholding taxes associated with the provision of drilling rigs for its operations in Brazil during 2008 and 2009. Petrobras has also notified us that if Petrobras must ultimately pay such withholding taxes, it will seek reimbursement from us for the portion allocable to our drilling rigs. The amount of withholding tax that Petrobras indicates may be allocable to Noble drilling rigs is R$79 million (approximately $30 million). We believe that our contract with Petrobras requires Petrobras to indemnify us for these withholding taxes. We will, if necessary, vigorously defend our rights.

We maintain certain insurance coverage against specified marine perils, which includes physical damage and loss of hire. Damage caused by hurricanes has negatively impacted certain aspects of the energy insurance market, resulting in more restrictive and expensive coverage for U.S. named windstorm perils. Accordingly, we have elected to significantly reduce the named windstorm insurance on our rigs operating in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico. Presently, we insure the Noble Jim Thompson, Noble Amos Runner and Noble Driller for “total loss only” when caused by a named windstorm. For the Noble Bully I, our customer assumes the risk of loss due to a named windstorm event, pursuant to the terms of the drilling contract, through the purchase of insurance coverage (provided that we are responsible for any deductible under such policy) or, at its option, the assumption of the risk of loss up to the insured value in lieu of the purchase of such insurance. The remaining rigs in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico are self-insured for named windstorm perils. In addition, we maintain a physical damage deductible on our rigs of $25 million per occurrence. The loss of hire coverage applies only to our rigs operating under contract with a dayrate equal to or greater than $200,000 a day and is subject to a 45-day waiting period for each unit and each occurrence.

Although we maintain insurance in the geographic areas in which we operate, pollution, reservoir damage and environmental risks generally are not fully insurable. Our insurance policies and contractual rights to indemnity may not adequately cover our losses or may have exclusions of coverage for some losses. We do not have insurance coverage or rights to indemnity for all risks, including loss of hire insurance on most of the rigs in our fleet. Uninsured exposures may include expatriate activities prohibited by U.S. laws and regulations, radiation hazards, certain loss or damage to property on board our rigs and losses relating to shorebased terrorist acts or strikes. If a significant accident or other event occurs and is not fully covered by insurance or contractual indemnity, it could materially adversely affect our financial position, results of operations or cash flows. Additionally, there can be no assurance that those parties with contractual obligations to indemnify us will necessarily be financially able to indemnify us against all these risks.

We carry protection and indemnity insurance covering marine third party liability exposures, which also includes coverage for employer’s liability resulting from personal injury to our offshore drilling crews. Our protection and indemnity policy currently has a standard deductible of $10 million per occurrence, with maximum liability coverage of $750 million.

In connection with our capital expenditure program, we had outstanding commitments, including shipyard and purchase commitments of approximately $729 million at December 31, 2014.

We have entered into agreements with certain of our executive officers, as well as certain other employees. These agreements become effective upon a change of control of Noble-UK (within the meaning set forth in the agreements) or a termination of employment in connection with or in anticipation of a change of control, and remain effective for three years thereafter. These agreements provide for compensation and certain other benefits under such circumstances.