Commitments And Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2012
Commitments And Contingencies [Abstract]
Commitments And Contingencies	Note 14 – Commitments and Contingencies and Other Matters Commitments Related to Expansion of Well Intervention Fleet In March 2012, we executed a shipyard contract for the construction of a newbuild semisubmersible well intervention vessel, the Q5000. This $386.5 million shipyard contract represents the majority of the expected costs associated with the construction of the Q5000. We made the first scheduled payment under the contract in the amount of $57.8 million in March 2012. Under the terms of this contract, the payments will be made in fixed amounts on contractually scheduled dates. The next payment of $58.1 million is scheduled to be made in December 2012. In July 2012, we contracted to charter the Skandi Constructor for use in our North Sea well intervention operations. The initial term of the charter will be three years once the vessel is delivered to us in the first half of 2013. In August 2012, we acquired the Discoverer 534 drillship from Transocean Ltd. for $85 million. The vessel, renamed the Helix 534, is currently undergoing modifications in Singapore to convert it into a well intervention vessel. Contingencies and Claims 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 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 an allowance against our trade receivable balance that reduces its balance to an amount we believe is ultimately realizable (see Notes 16 and 18 of our 2011 Form 10-K). 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 for the tax years 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010 related to a subsea construction and diving contract we entered into in December 2006 in India. 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 related 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. Impairment and Sale of the Intrepid As a result of diminished work opportunities for the Intrepid, formerly one of our subsea construction vessels, we deferred its scheduled regulatory dry dock and placed the vessel in cold-stack mode in the third quarter of 2012. When this decision was made in the second quarter of 2012, we recorded a $14.6 million impairment charge to reduce the vessel’s carrying cost to its estimated fair value of $35.0 million at that time. In September 2012, we sold the Intrepid for $14.5 million in cash, which resulted in an additional $12.9 million charge to expense. This amount is reflected in the accompanying condensed consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive income in the line item titled “Loss on sale of assets, net”. Impairment of Well Intervention Assets in Australia During the third quarter of 2012, we decided to cease our well intervention operations in Australia. In connection with the closure of these operations, we recorded $1.7 million of severance for our former employees. We also recorded a $4.4 million expense charge to reduce our well intervention assets in Australia to their estimated fair value of $5.0 million. The asset impairment charge was reflected in “Contracting services impairments” in the accompanying condensed consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive income while the fair value of these assets was included as assets held for sale (Note 3) in “Other current assets” in the accompanying condensed consolidated balance sheets. The sale of these assets will close in the fourth quarter of 2012. Litigation On May 12, 2012, a shareholder derivative lawsuit styled Mark Lucas v. Owen Kratz, et al. was filed in the 270^th Judicial District in the District Court of Harris County, Texas. In the suit, the plaintiff makes claims against our Board of Directors, certain of our former directors, certain of our current and former executive officers and the independent compensation consultant to the Compensation Committee of our board of directors, for breaches of the fiduciary duties of candor, good faith and loyalty, unjust enrichment and aiding and abetting the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty relating to the long-term equity awards granted in 2010 to certain of our executive officers. This case is essentially a “copycat” complaint asserting similar causes of action arising out of the same facts as set forth in the federal action, City of Sterling Heights Police & Fire Retirement System v. Owen Kratz, et al., a description of which is included in our 2011 Form 10-K. We have filed a motion to stay, motion to dismiss, special exceptions, plea to the jurisdiction and an original answer asserting that: (i) the suit should be stayed in favor of a first-filed federal derivative case; (ii) the plaintiff has not pled specific facts showing wrongful refusal of demand; (iii) the plaintiff has not demonstrated he continually owned shares during the complained of action; and (iv) the plaintiff has not stated a claim. The plaintiff is generally demanding disgorgement of the excessive compensation, restraint on the disposition/exercise of the alleged improperly awarded equity, implementation of additional internal controls, and attorney’s fees and costs of litigation. On June 20, 2012, we were named as a defendant in a claim filed in the Western District of Virginia by an individual, Charles Adams, who claims that he invented the capping stack used to plug the BP Gulf of Mexico Macondo well. Mr. Adams alleges that we obtained some drawings and other intellectual property from an engineer named Richard Haun and/or Mr. Haun’s company, Equipment Design & Manufacturing Group, LLC, d/b/a ED&M Deepwater Engineering (collectively “ED&M”, and also a named defendant), and that we and ED&M then engaged Cameron International Corporation (which is also a named defendant) to manufacture the capping stack and realize the Plaintiff’s invention. Mr. Adams sought at least $150 million in compensatory damages, treble damages under a Virginia statute, punitive damages, attorney’s fees and costs, as well as temporary and permanent injunctions against the defendants in relation to his claimed intellectual property. When this lawsuit was filed against us, we believed that we were named in error because, among other things, we did not invent, manufacture or provide the capping stack that was used to plug the Macondo well, and although we did have a working relationship with ED&M, that work had nothing to do with the Macondo (or any other) capping stack. The plaintiff dismissed this lawsuit on September 7, 2012. We are involved in various legal proceedings, primarily involving claims for personal injury under the General Maritime Laws of the United States and the Jones Act based on alleged negligence. In addition, from time to time we incur other claims, such as contract disputes, in the normal course of business.

Note 14 – Commitments and Contingencies and Other Matters

Commitments Related to Expansion of Well Intervention Fleet

In March 2012, we executed a shipyard contract for the construction of a newbuild semisubmersible well intervention vessel, the Q5000. This $386.5 million shipyard contract represents the majority of the expected costs associated with the construction of the Q5000. We made the first scheduled payment under the contract in the amount of $57.8 million in March 2012. Under the terms of this contract, the payments will be made in fixed amounts on contractually scheduled dates. The next payment of $58.1 million is scheduled to be made in December 2012.

In July 2012, we contracted to charter the Skandi Constructor for use in our North Sea well intervention operations. The initial term of the charter will be three years once the vessel is delivered to us in the first half of 2013.

In August 2012, we acquired the Discoverer 534 drillship from Transocean Ltd. for $85 million. The vessel, renamed the Helix 534, is currently undergoing modifications in Singapore to convert it into a well intervention vessel.

Contingencies and Claims

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 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 an allowance against our trade receivable balance that reduces its balance to an amount we believe is ultimately realizable (see Notes 16 and 18 of our 2011 Form 10-K). 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 for the tax years 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010 related to a subsea construction and diving contract we entered into in December 2006 in India. 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 related 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.

Impairment and Sale of the Intrepid

As a result of diminished work opportunities for the Intrepid, formerly one of our subsea construction vessels, we deferred its scheduled regulatory dry dock and placed the vessel in cold-stack mode in the third quarter of 2012. When this decision was made in the second quarter of 2012, we recorded a $14.6 million impairment charge to reduce the vessel’s carrying cost to its estimated fair value of $35.0 million at that time. In September 2012, we sold the Intrepid for $14.5 million in cash, which resulted in an additional $12.9 million charge to expense. This amount is reflected in the accompanying condensed consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive income in the line item titled “Loss on sale of assets, net”.

Impairment of Well Intervention Assets in Australia

During the third quarter of 2012, we decided to cease our well intervention operations in Australia. In connection with the closure of these operations, we recorded $1.7 million of severance for our former employees. We also recorded a $4.4 million expense charge to reduce our well intervention assets in Australia to their estimated fair value of $5.0 million. The asset impairment charge was reflected in “Contracting services impairments” in the accompanying condensed consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive income while the fair value of these assets was included as assets held for sale (Note 3) in “Other current assets” in the accompanying condensed consolidated balance sheets. The sale of these assets will close in the fourth quarter of 2012.

Litigation

On May 12, 2012, a shareholder derivative lawsuit styled Mark Lucas v. Owen Kratz, et al. was filed in the 270^th Judicial District in the District Court of Harris County, Texas. In the suit, the plaintiff makes claims against our Board of Directors, certain of our former directors, certain of our current and former executive officers and the independent compensation consultant to the Compensation Committee of our board of directors, for breaches of the fiduciary duties of candor, good faith and loyalty, unjust enrichment and aiding and abetting the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty relating to the long-term equity awards granted in 2010 to certain of our executive officers. This case is essentially a “copycat” complaint asserting similar causes of action arising out of the same facts as set forth in the federal action, City of Sterling Heights Police & Fire Retirement System v. Owen Kratz, et al., a description of which is included in our 2011 Form 10-K. We have filed a motion to stay, motion to dismiss, special exceptions, plea to the jurisdiction and an original answer asserting that: (i) the suit should be stayed in favor of a first-filed federal derivative case; (ii) the plaintiff has not pled specific facts showing wrongful refusal of demand; (iii) the plaintiff has not demonstrated he continually owned shares during the complained of action; and (iv) the plaintiff has not stated a claim. The plaintiff is generally demanding disgorgement of the excessive compensation, restraint on the disposition/exercise of the alleged improperly awarded equity, implementation of additional internal controls, and attorney’s fees and costs of litigation.

On June 20, 2012, we were named as a defendant in a claim filed in the Western District of Virginia by an individual, Charles Adams, who claims that he invented the capping stack used to plug the BP Gulf of Mexico Macondo well. Mr. Adams alleges that we obtained some drawings and other intellectual property from an engineer named Richard Haun and/or Mr. Haun’s company, Equipment Design & Manufacturing Group, LLC, d/b/a ED&M Deepwater Engineering (collectively “ED&M”, and also a named defendant), and that we and ED&M then engaged Cameron International Corporation (which is also a named defendant) to manufacture the capping stack and realize the Plaintiff’s invention. Mr. Adams sought at least $150 million in compensatory damages, treble damages under a Virginia statute, punitive damages, attorney’s fees and costs, as well as temporary and permanent injunctions against the defendants in relation to his claimed intellectual property. When this lawsuit was filed against us, we believed that we were named in error because, among other things, we did not invent, manufacture or provide the capping stack that was used to plug the Macondo well, and although we did have a working relationship with ED&M, that work had nothing to do with the Macondo (or any other) capping stack. The plaintiff dismissed this lawsuit on September 7, 2012.

We are involved in various legal proceedings, primarily involving claims for personal injury under the General Maritime Laws of the United States and the Jones Act based on alleged negligence. In addition, from time to time we incur other claims, such as contract disputes, in the normal course of business.