Commitments and Contingencies	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2017
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES LEASES At December 31, 2017, we had long-term non-cancelable operating leases covering certain facilities and equipment. The minimum annual rental commitments, net of amounts due under subleases, for each of the five years in the period ending December 31, 2021 are $156 million, $119 million, $95 million, $76 million and $54 million, respectively, and $188 million in the aggregate thereafter. Rent expense was $360 million, $200 million and $206 million for the years ended December 31, 2017, 2016 and 2015, respectively. We did not enter into any significant capital leases during the three years ended December 31, 2017. LITIGATION We are subject to a number of lawsuits and claims arising out of the conduct of our business. The ability to predict the ultimate outcome of such matters involves judgments, estimates and inherent uncertainties. We record a liability for those contingencies where the incurrence of a loss is probable and the amount can be reasonably estimated, including accruals for self-insured losses which are calculated based on historical claim data, specific loss development factors and other information. A range of total possible losses for all litigation matters cannot be reasonably estimated. Based on a consideration of all relevant facts and circumstances, we do not expect the ultimate outcome of currently pending lawsuits or claims against us, other than those discussed below, will have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows, however, there can be no assurance as to the ultimate outcome of these matters. With respect to the litigation matters below, if there was an adverse outcome individually or collectively, there could be a material impact on our business, financial condition and results of operations expected for the year. These litigation matters are subject to inherent uncertainties and management's view of these matters may change in the future. Therefore, there can be no assurance as to the ultimate outcome of these matters. During 2014, we received notification from a customer related to a possible equipment failure in a natural gas storage system in Northern Germany, which includes certain of our products. We are currently investigating the cause of the possible failure and, if necessary, possible repair and replacement options for our products. Similar products were utilized in other natural gas storage systems for this and other customers. The customer initiated arbitral proceedings against us on June 19, 2015, under the rules of the German Institute of Arbitration e.V. (DIS). On August 3, 2016, the customer amended its claims and now alleges damages of approximately $224 million plus interest at an annual rate of prime + 5%. Hearings before the arbitration panel were held January 16, 2017 through January 23, 2017, and March 20, 2017 through March 21, 2017. In addition, on September 21, 2015, TRIUVA Kapitalverwaltungsgesellschaft mbH filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division against the Company and Baker Hughes Oilfield Operations, Inc. alleging that the plaintiff is the owner of gas storage caverns in Etzel, Germany in which the Company provided certain equipment in connection with the development of the gas storage caverns. The plaintiff further alleges that the Company supplied equipment that was either defectively designed or failed to warn of risks that the equipment posed, and that these alleged defects caused damage to the plaintiff's property. The plaintiff seeks recovery of alleged compensatory and punitive damages of an unspecified amount, in addition to reasonable attorneys' fees, court costs and pre-judgment and post-judgment interest. The allegations in this lawsuit are related to the claims made in the June 19, 2015 German arbitration referenced above. At this time, we are not able to predict the outcome of these claims. On April 30, 2015, a class and collective action lawsuit alleging that we failed to pay a nationwide class of workers overtime in compliance with the Fair Labor Standards Act and North Dakota law was filed titled Williams et al. v. Baker Hughes Oilfield Operations, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the District of North Dakota. On February 8, 2016, the Court conditionally certified certain subclasses of employees for collective action treatment. The parties entered into a settlement agreement which was approved by the Court on December 7, 2017. The amount of the settlement will not have a material impact on the financial results reported by the Company. On July 31, 2015, Rapid Completions LLC filed a lawsuit in federal court in the Eastern District of Texas against Baker Hughes Incorporated, Baker Hughes Oilfield Operations, Inc., and others claiming infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,907,936; 7,134,505; 7,543,634; 7,861,774; and 8,657,009. On August 6, 2015, Rapid Completions amended its complaint to allege infringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,074,451. On September 17, 2015, Rapid Completions and Packers Plus Energy Services Inc. sued Baker Hughes Canada Company in the Canada Federal Court on the related Canadian patent 2,412,072. On April 1, 2016, Rapid Completions removed U.S. Patent No. 6,907,936 from its claims in the lawsuit. On April 5, 2016, Rapid Completions filed a second lawsuit in federal court in the Eastern District of Texas against Baker Hughes Incorporated, Baker Hughes Oilfield Operations, Inc. and others claiming infringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,303,501. These patents relate primarily to certain specific downhole completions equipment. The plaintiff has requested a permanent injunction against further alleged infringement, damages in an unspecified amount, supplemental and enhanced damages, and additional relief such as attorney's fees and costs. During August and September 2016, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) agreed to institute an inter-partes review of U.S. Patent Nos 7,861,774; 7,134,505; 7,534,634; 6,907,936; 8,657,009; and 9,074,451. On August 29, 2017, the USPTO issued its final written decisions in the inter-partes reviews of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,657,009 and 9,074,451 finding that all claims of those patents were unpatentable. On August 31, 2017, the USPTO issued its final written decision in the inter-partes review of U.S. Patent 6,907,936 - the patent dropped from the lawsuit by the plaintiffs - finding that all claims of this patent were patentable. On October 27, 2017, Rapid Completions filed its notices of appeal of the USPTO’s final written decision in the inter-partes review of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,657,009 and 9,074,451. Trial on the validity of asserted claims from Canada patent 2,412,072, was completed March 9, 2017. On December 7, 2017, the Canadian Court issued its judgment finding the patent claims asserted from Canada patent 2,412,072 against Baker Hughes Canada Company were invalid. On January 5, 2018, Rapid Completions filed its Notice of Appeal of the Canadian Court’s judgment of invalidity. At this time, we are not able to predict the outcome of these claims. On May 10, 2017, a putative class action complaint was filed on behalf of purported Baker Hughes stockholders in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas challenging the Transaction Agreement and Plan of Merger combining Baker Hughes with GE O&G. The complaint is captioned Booth Family Trust v. Baker Hughes Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 4:17-cv-01457 (S.D. Tex. 2017). The complaint asserted, among other things, claims under Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the Exchange Act) against Baker Hughes and the members of its board of directors and challenged the adequacy of the disclosures made in the combined proxy statement/prospectus dated as of May 9, 2017. In addition to certain unspecified damages and reimbursement of costs, the plaintiff sought to enjoin the consummation of the Transactions. On June 21, 2017, the parties reached an agreement in principle to settle the Booth Family Trust litigation in exchange for the Company making certain additional disclosures. Those disclosures were contained in an 8-K filed with the SEC on June 22, 2017. On September 14, 2017, the parties filed a Stipulation of Dismissal with the Court dismissing all remaining claims of the Booth Family Trust with prejudice. The parties agreed to an award of attorney’s fees in an amount that will not have a material impact on the financial results reported by the Company. Following consummation of the Transactions, two purported holders of shares of Baker Hughes common stock, representing a total of 1,875,000 shares of common stock of Baker Hughes, filed petitions in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware seeking appraisal for their shares pursuant to Section 262 of the Delaware General Corporation Law. The action is captioned as follows: GKC Strategic Value Master Fund, LP F/K/A GKC Appraisal Rights Master Fund, LP and Walleye Trading LLC v. Baker Hughes Incorporated, Case No. 2017-0769. At this time, we are not able to predict the outcome of this action. On February 17, 2017, GE Infrastructure Sensing, Inc. (now known as GE Infrastructure Sensing, LLC) (GEIS), a subsidiary of the Company, was served with a lawsuit filed in the Eastern District of New York by a company named Saniteq LLC claiming compensatory damages totalling $500 million plus punitive damages of an unspecified amount. The complaint is captioned Saniteq LLC v. GE Infrastructure Sensing, Inc., No. 17-cv-771 (E.D.N.Y 2017). The complaint generally alleges that GEIS breached a contract being negotiated between the parties and misappropriated unspecified trade secrets. At this time, we are not able to predict the outcome of these claims. In January 2013, INEOS and Naphtachimie initiated expertise proceedings in Aix-en-Provence, France arising out of a fire at a chemical plant owned by INEOS in Lavera, France, which resulted in a 15-day plant shutdown and destruction of a steam turbine, which was part of a compressor train owned by Naphtachimie. INEOS and Naphtachimie claim approximately €195 million in losses as a result of the incident. Two of the Company's subsidiaries (and 17 other companies) were notified to participate in the proceedings. The proceedings are ongoing, and at this time, there is no indication that the Company's subsidiaries were involved in the incident. At this time, we are not able to predict the outcome of these claims. In late November 2017, staff of the Boston office of the SEC notified GE that they are conducting an investigation of GE’s revenue recognition practices and internal controls over financial reporting related to long-term service agreements. The scope of the SEC’s request may include some BHGE contracts, mainly in our TPS business. We have provided documents to GE and are cooperating with them in their response to the SEC. The Company is reporting the following matter in compliance with SEC requirements to disclose environmental proceedings where the government is a party and that potentially involve monetary sanctions of $100,000 or greater. In January 2018, Kern County California issued an administrative enforcement order with a proposed penalty of $130,000 for alleged violations of process safety management regulations at a manufacturing facility in Taft, California that is indirectly owned by the Company. We insure against risks arising from our business to the extent deemed prudent by our management and to the extent insurance is available, but no assurance can be given that the nature and amount of that insurance will be sufficient to fully indemnify us against liabilities arising out of pending or future legal proceedings or other claims. Most of our insurance policies contain deductibles or self-insured retentions in amounts we deem prudent and for which we are responsible for payment. In determining the amount of self-insurance, it is our policy to self-insure those losses that are predictable, measurable and recurring in nature, such as claims for automobile liability, general liability and workers compensation. ENVIRONMENTAL MATTERS Estimated remediation costs are accrued using currently available facts, existing environmental permits, technology and enacted laws and regulations. Our cost estimates are developed based on internal evaluations and are not discounted. Accruals are recorded when it is probable that we will be obligated to pay for environmental site evaluation, remediation or related activities, and such costs can be reasonably estimated. As additional information becomes available, accruals are adjusted to reflect current cost estimates. Ongoing environmental compliance costs, such as obtaining environmental permits, installation of pollution control equipment and waste disposal are expensed as incurred. Where we have been identified as a potentially responsible party in a U.S. federal or state Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (“Superfund”) site, we accrue our share of the estimated remediation costs of the site. This share is based on the ratio of the estimated volume of waste we contributed to the site to the total volume of waste disposed at the site. OTHER In the normal course of business with customers, vendors and others, we have entered into off-balance sheet arrangements, such as surety bonds for performance, letters of credit and other bank issued guarantees, which totaled approximately $3.4 billion at December 31, 2017. It is not practicable to estimate the fair value of these financial instruments. None of the off-balance sheet arrangements either has, or is likely to have, a material effect on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows. We also had commitments outstanding for purchase obligations for each of the five years in the period ending December 31, 2022 of $962 million, $45 million, $42 million, $36 million and $23 million, respectively, and $13 million in the aggregate thereafter.

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

LEASES

At December 31, 2017, we had long-term non-cancelable operating leases covering certain facilities and equipment. The minimum annual rental commitments, net of amounts due under subleases, for each of the five years in the period ending December 31, 2021 are $156 million, $119 million, $95 million, $76 million and $54 million, respectively, and $188 million in the aggregate thereafter. Rent expense was $360 million, $200 million and $206 million for the years ended December 31, 2017, 2016 and 2015, respectively. We did not enter into any significant capital leases during the three years ended December 31, 2017.

LITIGATION

We are subject to a number of lawsuits and claims arising out of the conduct of our business. The ability to predict the ultimate outcome of such matters involves judgments, estimates and inherent uncertainties. We record a liability for those contingencies where the incurrence of a loss is probable and the amount can be reasonably estimated, including accruals for self-insured losses which are calculated based on historical claim data, specific loss development factors and other information.

A range of total possible losses for all litigation matters cannot be reasonably estimated. Based on a consideration of all relevant facts and circumstances, we do not expect the ultimate outcome of currently pending lawsuits or claims against us, other than those discussed below, will have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows, however, there can be no assurance as to the ultimate outcome of these matters.

With respect to the litigation matters below, if there was an adverse outcome individually or collectively, there could be a material impact on our business, financial condition and results of operations expected for the year. These litigation matters are subject to inherent uncertainties and management's view of these matters may change in the future. Therefore, there can be no assurance as to the ultimate outcome of these matters.

During 2014, we received notification from a customer related to a possible equipment failure in a natural gas storage system in Northern Germany, which includes certain of our products. We are currently investigating the cause of the possible failure and, if necessary, possible repair and replacement options for our products. Similar products were utilized in other natural gas storage systems for this and other customers. The customer initiated arbitral proceedings against us on June 19, 2015, under the rules of the German Institute of Arbitration e.V. (DIS). On August 3, 2016, the customer amended its claims and now alleges damages of approximately $224 million plus interest at an annual rate of prime + 5%. Hearings before the arbitration panel were held January 16, 2017 through January 23, 2017, and March 20, 2017 through March 21, 2017. In addition, on September 21, 2015, TRIUVA Kapitalverwaltungsgesellschaft mbH filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division against the Company and Baker Hughes Oilfield Operations, Inc. alleging that the plaintiff is the owner of gas storage caverns in Etzel, Germany in which the Company provided certain equipment in connection with the development of the gas storage caverns. The plaintiff further alleges that the Company supplied equipment that was either defectively designed or failed to warn of risks that the equipment posed, and that these alleged defects caused damage to the plaintiff's property. The plaintiff seeks recovery of alleged compensatory and punitive damages of an unspecified amount, in addition to reasonable attorneys' fees, court costs and pre-judgment and post-judgment interest. The allegations in this lawsuit are related to the claims made in the June 19, 2015 German arbitration referenced above. At this time, we are not able to predict the outcome of these claims.

On April 30, 2015, a class and collective action lawsuit alleging that we failed to pay a nationwide class of workers overtime in compliance with the Fair Labor Standards Act and North Dakota law was filed titled Williams et al. v. Baker Hughes Oilfield Operations, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the District of North Dakota. On February 8, 2016, the Court conditionally certified certain subclasses of employees for collective action treatment. The parties entered into a settlement agreement which was approved by the Court on December 7, 2017. The amount of the settlement will not have a material impact on the financial results reported by the Company.

On July 31, 2015, Rapid Completions LLC filed a lawsuit in federal court in the Eastern District of Texas against Baker Hughes Incorporated, Baker Hughes Oilfield Operations, Inc., and others claiming infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,907,936; 7,134,505; 7,543,634; 7,861,774; and 8,657,009. On August 6, 2015, Rapid Completions amended its complaint to allege infringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,074,451. On September 17, 2015, Rapid Completions and Packers Plus Energy Services Inc. sued Baker Hughes Canada Company in the Canada Federal Court on the related Canadian patent 2,412,072. On April 1, 2016, Rapid Completions removed U.S. Patent No. 6,907,936 from its claims in the lawsuit. On April 5, 2016, Rapid Completions filed a second lawsuit in federal court in the Eastern District of Texas against Baker Hughes Incorporated, Baker Hughes Oilfield Operations, Inc. and others claiming infringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,303,501. These patents relate primarily to certain specific downhole completions equipment. The plaintiff has requested a permanent injunction against further alleged infringement, damages in an unspecified amount, supplemental and enhanced damages, and additional relief such as attorney's fees and costs. During August and September 2016, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) agreed to institute an inter-partes review of U.S. Patent Nos 7,861,774; 7,134,505; 7,534,634; 6,907,936; 8,657,009; and 9,074,451. On August 29, 2017, the USPTO issued its final written decisions in the inter-partes reviews of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,657,009 and 9,074,451 finding that all claims of those patents were unpatentable. On August 31, 2017, the USPTO issued its final written decision in the inter-partes review of U.S. Patent 6,907,936 - the patent dropped from the lawsuit by the plaintiffs - finding that all claims of this patent were patentable. On October 27, 2017, Rapid Completions filed its notices of appeal of the USPTO’s final written decision in the inter-partes review of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,657,009 and 9,074,451. Trial on the validity of asserted claims from Canada patent 2,412,072, was completed March 9, 2017. On December 7, 2017, the Canadian Court issued its judgment finding the patent claims asserted from Canada patent 2,412,072 against Baker Hughes Canada Company were invalid. On January 5, 2018, Rapid Completions filed its Notice of Appeal of the Canadian Court’s judgment of invalidity. At this time, we are not able to predict the outcome of these claims.

On May 10, 2017, a putative class action complaint was filed on behalf of purported Baker Hughes stockholders in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas challenging the Transaction Agreement and Plan of Merger combining Baker Hughes with GE O&G. The complaint is captioned Booth Family Trust v. Baker Hughes Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 4:17-cv-01457 (S.D. Tex. 2017). The complaint asserted, among other things, claims under Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the Exchange Act) against Baker Hughes and the members of its board of directors and challenged the adequacy of the disclosures made in the combined proxy statement/prospectus dated as of May 9, 2017. In addition to certain unspecified damages and reimbursement of costs, the plaintiff sought to enjoin the consummation of the Transactions. On June 21, 2017, the parties reached an agreement in principle to settle the Booth Family Trust litigation in exchange for the Company making certain additional disclosures. Those disclosures were contained in an 8-K filed with the SEC on June 22, 2017. On September 14, 2017, the parties filed a Stipulation of Dismissal with the Court dismissing all remaining claims of the Booth Family Trust with prejudice. The parties agreed to an award of attorney’s fees in an amount that will not have a material impact on the financial results reported by the Company.

Following consummation of the Transactions, two purported holders of shares of Baker Hughes common stock, representing a total of 1,875,000 shares of common stock of Baker Hughes, filed petitions in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware seeking appraisal for their shares pursuant to Section 262 of the Delaware General Corporation Law. The action is captioned as follows: GKC Strategic Value Master Fund, LP F/K/A GKC Appraisal Rights Master Fund, LP and Walleye Trading LLC v. Baker Hughes Incorporated, Case No. 2017-0769. At this time, we are not able to predict the outcome of this action.

On February 17, 2017, GE Infrastructure Sensing, Inc. (now known as GE Infrastructure Sensing, LLC) (GEIS), a subsidiary of the Company, was served with a lawsuit filed in the Eastern District of New York by a company named Saniteq LLC claiming compensatory damages totalling $500 million plus punitive damages of an unspecified amount. The complaint is captioned Saniteq LLC v. GE Infrastructure Sensing, Inc., No. 17-cv-771 (E.D.N.Y 2017). The complaint generally alleges that GEIS breached a contract being negotiated between the parties and misappropriated unspecified trade secrets. At this time, we are not able to predict the outcome of these claims.

In January 2013, INEOS and Naphtachimie initiated expertise proceedings in Aix-en-Provence, France arising out of a fire at a chemical plant owned by INEOS in Lavera, France, which resulted in a 15-day plant shutdown and destruction of a steam turbine, which was part of a compressor train owned by Naphtachimie. INEOS and Naphtachimie claim approximately €195 million in losses as a result of the incident. Two of the Company's subsidiaries (and 17 other companies) were notified to participate in the proceedings. The proceedings are ongoing, and at this time, there is no indication that the Company's subsidiaries were involved in the incident. At this time, we are not able to predict the outcome of these claims.

In late November 2017, staff of the Boston office of the SEC notified GE that they are conducting an investigation of GE’s revenue recognition practices and internal controls over financial reporting related to long-term service agreements. The scope of the SEC’s request may include some BHGE contracts, mainly in our TPS business. We have provided documents to GE and are cooperating with them in their response to the SEC.

The Company is reporting the following matter in compliance with SEC requirements to disclose environmental proceedings where the government is a party and that potentially involve monetary sanctions of $100,000 or greater. In January 2018, Kern County California issued an administrative enforcement order with a proposed penalty of $130,000 for alleged violations of process safety management regulations at a manufacturing facility in Taft, California that is indirectly owned by the Company.

We insure against risks arising from our business to the extent deemed prudent by our management and to the extent insurance is available, but no assurance can be given that the nature and amount of that insurance will be sufficient to fully indemnify us against liabilities arising out of pending or future legal proceedings or other claims. Most of our insurance policies contain deductibles or self-insured retentions in amounts we deem prudent and for which we are responsible for payment. In determining the amount of self-insurance, it is our policy to self-insure those losses that are predictable, measurable and recurring in nature, such as claims for automobile liability, general liability and workers compensation.

ENVIRONMENTAL MATTERS

Estimated remediation costs are accrued using currently available facts, existing environmental permits, technology and enacted laws and regulations. Our cost estimates are developed based on internal evaluations and are not discounted. Accruals are recorded when it is probable that we will be obligated to pay for environmental site evaluation, remediation or related activities, and such costs can be reasonably estimated. As additional information becomes available, accruals are adjusted to reflect current cost estimates. Ongoing environmental compliance costs, such as obtaining environmental permits, installation of pollution control equipment and waste disposal are expensed as incurred. Where we have been identified as a potentially responsible party in a U.S. federal or state Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (“Superfund”) site, we accrue our share of the estimated remediation costs of the site. This share is based on the ratio of the estimated volume of waste we contributed to the site to the total volume of waste disposed at the site.

OTHER

In the normal course of business with customers, vendors and others, we have entered into off-balance sheet arrangements, such as surety bonds for performance, letters of credit and other bank issued guarantees, which totaled approximately $3.4 billion at December 31, 2017. It is not practicable to estimate the fair value of these financial instruments. None of the off-balance sheet arrangements either has, or is likely to have, a material effect on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows. We also had commitments outstanding for purchase obligations for each of the five years in the period ending December 31, 2022 of $962 million, $45 million, $42 million, $36 million and $23 million, respectively, and $13 million in the aggregate thereafter.