Commitments And Contingencies	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2011
Commitments And Contingencies [Abstract]
Commitments And Contingencies	Note 16 — Commitments and Contingencies Lease Commitments We lease several facilities, ROVs and vessels under noncancelable operating leases. Future minimum rentals under these leases are approximately $54.4 million at December 31, 2011 with $42.8 million due in 2012, $7.6 million in 2013, $1.8 million in 2014, $1.2 million in 2015, $0.4 million in 2016 and $0.6 million thereafter. Total rental expense under these operating leases was approximately $62.2 million, $66.2 million and $89.9 million for the years ended December 31, 2011, 2010 and 2009, respectively. Insurance We carry Hull and Increased Value insurance which provides coverage for physical damage up to an agreed amount for each vessel. The deductibles are based on the value of the vessel with a maximum deductible of $1.0 million on the Q4000, HP I and Well Enhancer, $500,000 on the Intrepid, Seawell and Express and $375,000 on the Caesar. In addition to the primary deductibles the vessels are subject to an Annual Aggregate Deductible of $1.25 million. We also carry Protection and Indemnity ("P&I") insurance which covers liabilities arising from the operation of the vessels and General Liability insurance which covers liabilities arising from construction operations. The deductible on both the P&I and General Liability is $100,000 per occurrence. Onshore employees are covered by Workers' Compensation. Offshore employees and marine crews are covered by a Maritime Employers Liability ("MEL") insurance policy which covers Jones Act exposures and includes a deductible of $100,000 per occurrence plus a $1.0 million annual aggregate deductible. In addition to the liability policies described above, we currently carry various layers of Umbrella Liability for total limits of $500 million excess of primary limits. Our self-insured retention on our medical and health benefits program for employees is $250,000 per participant. We incur workers' compensation, MEL, and other insurance claims in the normal course of business, which management believes are covered by insurance. The Company analyzes each claim for potential exposure and estimates the ultimate liability of each claim. At December 31, 2011 we did not have any claims exceeding our deductible limits. We have not incurred any significant losses as a result of claims denied by our insurance carriers. Our services are provided in hazardous environments where accidents involving catastrophic damage or loss of life could occur, and litigation arising from such an event may result in our being named a defendant in lawsuits asserting large claims. Although there can be no assurance the amount of insurance we carry is sufficient to protect us fully in all events, or that such insurance will continue to be available at current levels of cost or coverage, we believe that our insurance protection is adequate for our business operations. A successful liability claim for which we are underinsured or uninsured could have a material adverse effect on our business. Litigation, Contingencies and Claims In March 2009, we were notified of a third party's intention to terminate an international construction contract based on a claimed breach of that contract by one of our subsidiaries. Under the terms of the contract, our potential liability for damages was generally capped at approximately $32 million Australian dollars ("AUD"). We asserted counterclaims that in the aggregate approximated $12 million U.S. dollars. On March 30, 2010, an out of court settlement of these claims was reached. Pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement, in April 2010 we paid the third party $15 million AUD to settle all of its damage claims against us. We also agreed not to seek any further payment of our counterclaims against them. In the first quarter of 2010, we recorded approximately $17.5 million in expenses associated with this settlement agreement, including $13.8 million for the litigation settlement payment and $3.7 million to write off our remaining trade receivable from the third party. These amounts were recorded as selling, general and administrative expenses in the accompanying consolidated statements of operations. In 2006, we were subcontracted to perform development work for a large gas field offshore India. Work commenced in the fourth quarter of 2007 and we completed our scope of work in the third quarter of 2009. To date we have collected approximately $303 million related to this project with an amount of trade receivables and claims yet to be collected. We have requested arbitration in India pursuant to the terms of the subcontract to pursue our claims and the prime contractor has also requested arbitration and has asserted certain counterclaims against us. If we are not successful in resolving these matters through ongoing discussions with the prime contractor, then arbitration in India remains a potential remedy. Based on number of factors associated with the ongoing negotiations with the prime contractor, in 2010, we established a $4 million allowance against our trade receivable balance that reduces its balance to an amount we believe is ultimately realizable. However, at the time of this filing no final commercial resolution of this matter has been reached. We have received value added tax (VAT) assessments from the State of Andhra Pradesh, India (the "State") in the amount of approximately $28 million related to a subsea construction and diving contract we entered into in December 2006 in India for the tax years 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010. The State claims we owe unpaid taxes related to products consumed by us during the period of the contract. We are of the opinion that the State has arbitrarily assessed this VAT tax and has no foundation for the assessment and believe that we have complied with all rules and regulations as relate to VAT in the State. We also believe that our position is supported by law and intend to vigorously defend our position. However, the ultimate outcome of this assessment and our potential liability from it, if any, cannot be determined at this time. If the current assessment is upheld, it may have a material negative effect on our consolidated results of operations while also impacting our financial position. Loss Contracts Whenever we have a contract that qualifies as a loss contract, we estimate the future shortfall between our anticipated future revenues and future costs. We had one such contract in 2008, which was ultimately terminated because of the delay in the delivery of the Caesar. As of December 31, 2008, we estimated the loss under this contract at $9.0 million. In the second quarter of 2009, services under this contract were substantially completed by a third party and we revised our estimated loss to approximately $15.8 million. Subsequently, we settled the liability for $12.7 million. Accordingly we included an additional $3.7 million of charges to cost of sales in the accompanying consolidated statements of operations for the year ended December 31, 2009. We paid $7.2 million of the loss in 2008 and the remaining $5.5 million in the second quarter of 2010. In 2010, we had two additional contracts that resulted in significant losses. The first of these contracts represented the initial project performed by the Caesar. The project, which included a primary work scope of laying 36-miles of pipe in the Gulf of Mexico, was completed in the third quarter of 2010 at a total loss of $12.0 million. The loss was primarily the result of certain start-up performance issues with the vessel as well as non-reimbursable costs associated with weather delays. The second contract was entered into by our WOSEA subsidiary to plug, abandon and salvage subsea wells in an oil and gas field located offshore China. The project commenced in the second half of 2010 and was initially expected to be completed by the end of October 2010. However, the subsea wells were structurally difficult to plug. WOSEA also experienced some start-up issues with its recently repaired subsea intervention device, which was significantly damaged in March 2009. In the fourth quarter of 2010, WOSEA experienced significant weather delays corresponding with the peak of typhoon season in the China Sea, which added additional non reimbursable time and related costs to the project. As a result of the continued weather delays, it was mutually agreed that WOSEA would discontinue the project and in connection with that decision, the parties also agreed to a reduced scope of work for this project. Our operating results for the year ending December 31, 2010 included an aggregate $30 million pre-tax loss, which reflects the costs to complete the project over the contractual revenues as modified. In the first quarter of 2011, this project ended and we recorded an additional pre-tax loss of approximately $0.2 million. Commitments Since September 30, 2009, we have added three vessels to our fleet. The Well Enhancer joined our well operations fleet in October 2009, and the Caesar, a pipelay vessel, and the HP I, a floating production unit vessel, were placed in service in the first half of 2010. The construction of these three vessels has represented a substantial amount of our capital expenditures since 2007. Although all three vessels are in service, a certain amount of future capital will be required to be spent to fully complete the vessels. For example, in 2010, we completed installation of a coil tubing unit on the Well Enhancer. The timing of future capital upgrades is mainly determined by the vessel's utilization as we attempt to coordinate such activities with known gaps in its contractual backlog or when the vessel is scheduled for a regulatory inspection and/or drydocking. In February 2012, we announced that we are initiating construction of a new multi-service semi-submersible well intervention and well operations vessel similar to our existing Q4000 vessel. This vessel is expected to be completed and placed in service in 2015.

Note 16 — Commitments and Contingencies

Lease Commitments

We lease several facilities, ROVs and vessels under noncancelable operating leases. Future minimum rentals under these leases are approximately $54.4 million at December 31, 2011 with $42.8 million due in 2012, $7.6 million in 2013, $1.8 million in 2014, $1.2 million in 2015, $0.4 million in 2016 and $0.6 million thereafter. Total rental expense under these operating leases was approximately $62.2 million, $66.2 million and $89.9 million for the years ended December 31, 2011, 2010 and 2009, respectively.

Insurance

We carry Hull and Increased Value insurance which provides coverage for physical damage up to an agreed amount for each vessel. The deductibles are based on the value of the vessel with a maximum deductible of $1.0 million on the Q4000, HP I and Well Enhancer, $500,000 on the Intrepid, Seawell and Express and $375,000 on the Caesar. In addition to the primary deductibles the vessels are subject to an Annual Aggregate Deductible of $1.25 million. We also carry Protection and Indemnity ("P&I") insurance which covers liabilities arising from the operation of the vessels and General Liability insurance which covers liabilities arising from construction operations. The deductible on both the P&I and General Liability is $100,000 per occurrence. Onshore employees are covered by Workers' Compensation. Offshore employees and marine crews are covered by a Maritime Employers Liability ("MEL") insurance policy which covers Jones Act exposures and includes a deductible of $100,000 per occurrence plus a $1.0 million annual aggregate deductible. In addition to the liability policies described above, we currently carry various layers of Umbrella Liability for total limits of $500 million excess of primary limits. Our self-insured retention on our medical and health benefits program for employees is $250,000 per participant.

We incur workers' compensation, MEL, and other insurance claims in the normal course of business, which management believes are covered by insurance. The Company analyzes each claim for potential exposure and estimates the ultimate liability of each claim. At December 31, 2011 we did not have any claims exceeding our deductible limits. We have not incurred any significant losses as a result of claims denied by our insurance carriers. Our services are provided in hazardous environments where accidents involving catastrophic damage or loss of life could occur, and litigation arising from such an event may result in our being named a defendant in lawsuits asserting large claims. Although there can be no assurance the amount of insurance we carry is sufficient to protect us fully in all events, or that such insurance will continue to be available at current levels of cost or coverage, we believe that our insurance protection is adequate for our business operations. A successful liability claim for which we are underinsured or uninsured could have a material adverse effect on our business.

Litigation, Contingencies and Claims

In March 2009, we were notified of a third party's intention to terminate an international construction contract based on a claimed breach of that contract by one of our subsidiaries. Under the terms of the contract, our potential liability for damages was generally capped at approximately $32 million Australian dollars ("AUD"). We asserted counterclaims that in the aggregate approximated $12 million U.S. dollars. On March 30, 2010, an out of court settlement of these claims was reached. Pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement, in April 2010 we paid the third party $15 million AUD to settle all of its damage claims against us. We also agreed not to seek any further payment of our counterclaims against them. In the first quarter of 2010, we recorded approximately $17.5 million in expenses associated with this settlement agreement, including $13.8 million for the litigation settlement payment and $3.7 million to write off our remaining trade receivable from the third party. These amounts were recorded as selling, general and administrative expenses in the accompanying consolidated statements of operations.

In 2006, we were subcontracted to perform development work for a large gas field offshore India. Work commenced in the fourth quarter of 2007 and we completed our scope of work in the third quarter of 2009. To date we have collected approximately $303 million related to this project with an amount of trade receivables and claims yet to be collected. We have requested arbitration in India pursuant to the terms of the subcontract to pursue our claims and the prime contractor has also requested arbitration and has asserted certain counterclaims against us. If we are not successful in resolving these matters through ongoing discussions with the prime contractor, then arbitration in India remains a potential remedy. Based on number of factors associated with the ongoing negotiations with the prime contractor, in 2010, we established a $4 million allowance against our trade receivable balance that reduces its balance to an amount we believe is ultimately realizable. However, at the time of this filing no final commercial resolution of this matter has been reached.

We have received value added tax (VAT) assessments from the State of Andhra Pradesh, India (the "State") in the amount of approximately $28 million related to a subsea construction and diving contract we entered into in December 2006 in India for the tax years 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010. The State claims we owe unpaid taxes related to products consumed by us during the period of the contract. We are of the opinion that the State has arbitrarily assessed this VAT tax and has no foundation for the assessment and believe that we have complied with all rules and regulations as relate to VAT in the State. We also believe that our position is supported by law and intend to vigorously defend our position. However, the ultimate outcome of this assessment and our potential liability from it, if any, cannot be determined at this time. If the current assessment is upheld, it may have a material negative effect on our consolidated results of operations while also impacting our financial position.

Loss Contracts

Whenever we have a contract that qualifies as a loss contract, we estimate the future shortfall between our anticipated future revenues and future costs. We had one such contract in 2008, which was ultimately terminated because of the delay in the delivery of the Caesar. As of December 31, 2008, we estimated the loss under this contract at $9.0 million. In the second quarter of 2009, services under this contract were substantially completed by a third party and we revised our estimated loss to approximately $15.8 million. Subsequently, we settled the liability for $12.7 million. Accordingly we included an additional $3.7 million of charges to cost of sales in the accompanying consolidated statements of operations for the year ended December 31, 2009. We paid $7.2 million of the loss in 2008 and the remaining $5.5 million in the second quarter of 2010.

In 2010, we had two additional contracts that resulted in significant losses. The first of these contracts represented the initial project performed by the Caesar. The project, which included a primary work scope of laying 36-miles of pipe in the Gulf of Mexico, was completed in the third quarter of 2010 at a total loss of $12.0 million. The loss was primarily the result of certain start-up performance issues with the vessel as well as non-reimbursable costs associated with weather delays. The second contract was entered into by our WOSEA subsidiary to plug, abandon and salvage subsea wells in an oil and gas field located offshore China. The project commenced in the second half of 2010 and was initially expected to be completed by the end of October 2010. However, the subsea wells were structurally difficult to plug. WOSEA also experienced some start-up issues with its recently repaired subsea intervention device, which was significantly damaged in March 2009. In the fourth quarter of 2010, WOSEA experienced significant weather delays corresponding with the peak of typhoon season in the China Sea, which added additional non reimbursable time and related costs to the project. As a result of the continued weather delays, it was mutually agreed that WOSEA would discontinue the project and in connection with that decision, the parties also agreed to a reduced scope of work for this project. Our operating results for the year ending December 31, 2010 included an aggregate $30 million pre-tax loss, which reflects the costs to complete the project over the contractual revenues as modified. In the first quarter of 2011, this project ended and we recorded an additional pre-tax loss of approximately $0.2 million.

Commitments

Since September 30, 2009, we have added three vessels to our fleet. The Well Enhancer joined our well operations fleet in October 2009, and the Caesar, a pipelay vessel, and the HP I, a floating production unit vessel, were placed in service in the first half of 2010. The construction of these three vessels has represented a substantial amount of our capital expenditures since 2007. Although all three vessels are in service, a certain amount of future capital will be required to be spent to fully complete the vessels. For example, in 2010, we completed installation of a coil tubing unit on the Well Enhancer. The timing of future capital upgrades is mainly determined by the vessel's utilization as we attempt to coordinate such activities with known gaps in its contractual backlog or when the vessel is scheduled for a regulatory inspection and/or drydocking.

In February 2012, we announced that we are initiating construction of a new multi-service semi-submersible well intervention and well operations vessel similar to our existing Q4000 vessel. This vessel is expected to be completed and placed in service in 2015.