Commitments and Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2017
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Litigation We are named defendants in several lawsuits and respondents in certain governmental proceedings arising in the ordinary course of business. While the outcome of lawsuits or other proceedings against us cannot be predicted with certainty, management does not consider it reasonably possible that a loss resulting from such lawsuits or other proceedings in excess of any amounts accrued has been incurred that is expected to have a material adverse impact on our financial condition, results of operations, or liquidity. On March 18, 2011, we filed a lawsuit in the Circuit Court of Union County, Arkansas, asserting claims of professional negligence, breach of contract and other claims against the engineering firm we hired for engineering design, equipment, procurement, advisory, testing and startup services for our El Dorado, Arkansas chemical production facility. The engineering firm disputed our claims and promptly filed a motion to compel the matter to arbitration. After a lengthy procedural dispute in Arkansas state court, arbitration proceedings were initiated on November 15, 2013. Ultimately, on December 16, 2016, the arbitration panel ruled in our favor, declared us as the prevailing party, and awarded us a total net amount of $12.8 million. We received full payment of the $12.8 million final award on January 5, 2017, and this amount was credited to earnings in the accompanying consolidated statement of operations for the nine months ended September 30, 2017. From May 2009 to December 2014, EPIC Diving & Marine Services, LLC (“EPIC”), a wholly-owned subsidiary, was the charterer of a dive support vessel from a service provider. At the time of redelivery of the vessel there was a dispute between EPIC and the service provider that was submitted to arbitration in London pursuant to the dispute resolution provision of the charter agreement. Just prior to the scheduled arbitration proceedings in June 2017, EPIC reached a favorable settlement in relation to certain of the service provider's claims against EPIC. EPIC’s dispute with the service provider that a fee was due at the time of redelivery of the vessel proceeded to arbitration on June 20, 2017. On July 6, 2017, the arbitration panel issued its ruling against EPIC, awarding the service provider $3.0 million, plus interest and fees. A net exposure of $2.8 million was accrued and charged to earnings during 2017. Other Contingencies During 2011, in connection with the sale of a significant majority of Maritech’s oil and gas producing properties, the buyers of the properties assumed the associated decommissioning liabilities pursuant to the purchase and sale agreements. For those oil and gas properties Maritech previously operated, the buyers of the properties assumed the financial responsibilities associated with the properties' operations, including abandonment and decommissioning, and generally became the successor operator. Some buyers of these Maritech properties subsequently sold certain of these properties to other buyers who also assumed these financial responsibilities associated with the properties' operations, and these buyers also typically became the successor operator of the properties. To the extent that a buyer of these properties fails to perform the abandonment and decommissioning work required, the previous owner, including Maritech, may be required to perform the abandonment and decommissioning obligation. A significant portion of the decommissioning liabilities that were assumed by the buyers of the Maritech properties in 2011 remains unperformed and we believe the amounts of these remaining liabilities are significant. We monitor the financial condition of the buyers of these properties from Maritech, and if current oil and natural gas pricing levels continue, we expect that one or more of these buyers may be unable to perform the decommissioning work required on the properties acquired from Maritech. During the nine months ended September 30, 2017, continued low oil and natural gas prices have resulted in reduced revenues and cash flows for all oil and gas producing companies, including those companies that bought Maritech properties in the past. Certain of these oil and gas producing companies that bought Maritech properties are currently experiencing severe financial difficulties. With regard to certain of these properties, Maritech has security in the form of bonds or cash escrows intended to secure the buyers' obligations to perform the decommissioning work. Maritech and its legal counsel continue to monitor the status of these companies. As of September 30, 2017, we do not consider the likelihood of Maritech becoming liable for decommissioning liabilities on sold properties to be probable. Maritech has encountered situations where previously plugged and abandoned wells on its properties have later exhibited a buildup of pressure, which is evidenced by gas bubbles coming from the plugged well head. We refer to this situation as “wells under pressure” and this can either be discovered when performing additional work at the property or by notification from a third party. Wells under pressure require Maritech to return to the site to perform additional plug and abandonment procedures that were not originally anticipated and included in the estimate of the asset retirement obligation for such property. Remediation work at previously abandoned well sites is particularly costly, due to the lack of a platform from which to base these activities. Maritech is the last operator of record for its plugged wells, and bears the risk of additional future work required as a result of wells becoming pressurized in the future.

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Litigation

We are named defendants in several lawsuits and respondents in certain governmental proceedings arising in the ordinary course of business. While the outcome of lawsuits or other proceedings against us cannot be predicted with certainty, management does not consider it reasonably possible that a loss resulting from such lawsuits or other proceedings in excess of any amounts accrued has been incurred that is expected to have a material adverse impact on our financial condition, results of operations, or liquidity.

On March 18, 2011, we filed a lawsuit in the Circuit Court of Union County, Arkansas, asserting claims of professional negligence, breach of contract and other claims against the engineering firm we hired for engineering design, equipment, procurement, advisory, testing and startup services for our El Dorado, Arkansas chemical production facility. The engineering firm disputed our claims and promptly filed a motion to compel the matter to arbitration. After a lengthy procedural dispute in Arkansas state court, arbitration proceedings were initiated on November 15, 2013. Ultimately, on December 16, 2016, the arbitration panel ruled in our favor, declared us as the prevailing party, and awarded us a total net amount of $12.8 million. We received full payment of the $12.8 million final award on January 5, 2017, and this amount was credited to earnings in the accompanying consolidated statement of operations for the nine months ended September 30, 2017.

From May 2009 to December 2014, EPIC Diving & Marine Services, LLC (“EPIC”), a wholly-owned subsidiary, was the charterer of a dive support vessel from a service provider. At the time of redelivery of the vessel there was a dispute between EPIC and the service provider that was submitted to arbitration in London pursuant to the dispute resolution provision of the charter agreement. Just prior to the scheduled arbitration proceedings in June 2017, EPIC reached a favorable settlement in relation to certain of the service provider's claims against EPIC. EPIC’s dispute with the service provider that a fee was due at the time of redelivery of the vessel proceeded to arbitration on June 20, 2017. On July 6, 2017, the arbitration panel issued its ruling against EPIC, awarding the service provider $3.0 million, plus interest and fees. A net exposure of $2.8 million was accrued and charged to earnings during 2017.

Other Contingencies

During 2011, in connection with the sale of a significant majority of Maritech’s oil and gas producing properties, the buyers of the properties assumed the associated decommissioning liabilities pursuant to the purchase and sale agreements. For those oil and gas properties Maritech previously operated, the buyers of the properties assumed the financial responsibilities associated with the properties' operations, including abandonment and decommissioning, and generally became the successor operator. Some buyers of these Maritech properties subsequently sold certain of these properties to other buyers who also assumed these financial responsibilities associated with the properties' operations, and these buyers also typically became the successor operator of the properties. To the extent that a buyer of these properties fails to perform the abandonment and decommissioning work required, the previous owner, including Maritech, may be required to perform the abandonment and decommissioning obligation. A significant portion of the decommissioning liabilities that were assumed by the buyers of the Maritech properties in 2011 remains unperformed and we believe the amounts of these remaining liabilities are significant. We monitor the financial condition of the buyers of these properties from Maritech, and if current oil and natural gas pricing levels continue, we expect that one or more of these buyers may be unable to perform the decommissioning work required on the properties acquired from Maritech.

During the nine months ended September 30, 2017, continued low oil and natural gas prices have resulted in reduced revenues and cash flows for all oil and gas producing companies, including those companies that bought Maritech properties in the past. Certain of these oil and gas producing companies that bought Maritech properties are currently experiencing severe financial difficulties. With regard to certain of these properties, Maritech has security in the form of bonds or cash escrows intended to secure the buyers' obligations to perform the decommissioning work. Maritech and its legal counsel continue to monitor the status of these companies. As of September 30, 2017, we do not consider the likelihood of Maritech becoming liable for decommissioning liabilities on sold properties to be probable.

Maritech has encountered situations where previously plugged and abandoned wells on its properties have later exhibited a buildup of pressure, which is evidenced by gas bubbles coming from the plugged well head. We refer to this situation as “wells under pressure” and this can either be discovered when performing additional work at the property or by notification from a third party. Wells under pressure require Maritech to return to the site to perform additional plug and abandonment procedures that were not originally anticipated and included in the estimate of the asset retirement obligation for such property. Remediation work at previously abandoned well sites is particularly costly, due to the lack of a platform from which to base these activities. Maritech is the last operator of record for its plugged wells, and bears the risk of additional future work required as a result of wells becoming pressurized in the future.