Commitments And Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2013
Commitments And Contingencies and Other Matters [Abstract]
Commitments And Contingencies	Note 14 — Commitments and Contingencies and Other Matters Commitments In March 2012, we executed a contract with a shipyard in Singapore for the construction of a newbuild semi-submersible 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. Under the terms of this contract, payments are made in a fixed percentage of the contract price, together with any variations, on contractually scheduled dates. At March 31, 2013, our total investment in the Q5000 was $142.6 million, including $115.9 million of scheduled payments made to the shipyard. In July 2012, we contracted to charter the Skandi Constructor for use in our North Sea well intervention operations. The vessel was delivered to us on April 1, 2013. The initial term of the charter will expire in March 2016. In August 2012, we acquired the Discoverer 534 drillship from a subsidiary of Transocean Ltd. for $85 million. The vessel, renamed the Helix 534, is currently undergoing upgrades and modifications in Singapore to render it suitable for use as a well intervention vessel. At March 31, 2013, our investment in the acquisition and subsequent upgrades to and modifications of the Helix 534 totaled $147.9 million, including related well control equipment. In January 2013, we contracted to charter the Rem Installer for use in our robotics operations. The term of the charter will be three years from the delivery date, which is expected to be around mid-2013. In February 2013, we contracted to charter the Grand Canyon II and Grand Canyon III for use in our robotics operations. The terms of the charters will be five years from the respective delivery dates, which are expected to be in 2014 and 2015. Contingencies and Claims Under terms of the ERT equity purchase agreement, we have required the buyer to provide bonding in a sufficient amount as determined by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (“BOEM”) to replace and allow for a full discharge of our existing guaranty to the BOEM for ERT’s lease obligations. The BOEM is in the process of reevaluating its decommissioning assessments for ERT’s deepwater lease properties in the Gulf of Mexico and as such it is currently uncertain as to the amount of bonding that will be required, and thus also the amount of collateral that the buyer will be required to post to its surety/ies to secure such bonding. To the extent that the purchaser is required to post bonding collateral in an amount greater than $100 million to obtain bonds in the aggregate amount required by the BOEM in order for the BOEM to release our guaranty of ERT’s lease obligations, we have agreed to provide incremental collateral above that amount, if and to the extent required, to the surety/ies providing bonding for ERT’s deepwater properties (the Bushwood and Phoenix fields) in the form of letter(s) of credit, up to the next $50 million of required collateral, for a period not to exceed one year from issuance of the letter(s) of credit, after which the purchaser would then be required to provide all collateral associated with the bonding requirements with respect to our former oil and gas properties. We anticipate that the BOEM will determine its assessments of decommissioning costs for our former deepwater fields in the near term and that the bonding amounts, and therefore the bonding collateral requirements, to obtain a release of our guaranty with respect to ERT’s lease obligations will be known. At the time of this filing it is uncertain whether the amount of collateral will exceed the $100 million threshold so as to require any incremental bonding collateral on our part. In 2007, 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 a 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 for the tax years 2010, 2009, 2008 and 2007 related to an Indian subsea construction and diving contract that we entered into in December 2006. The State claims that 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. Litigation On July 8, 2011, a shareholder derivative lawsuit styled City of Sterling Heights Police & Fire Retirement System v. Owen Kratz, et al. was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division. In the suit, the plaintiff makes claims against our Board of Directors, certain of our former directors, certain of our current and former executives, and the independent compensation consultant to the Compensation Committee of our Board of Directors, for breaches of the fiduciary duty of loyalty, unjust enrichment and aiding and abetting the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty relating to the long-term equity awards granted in 2010 to the Company’s then executive officers who are defendants. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the claim asserting that the plaintiff has not (i) pled specific facts excusing its failure to make pre-suit demand on the Company’s Board of Directors as required by Minnesota law; (ii) filed proper verification; or (iii) stated a claim. A ruling regarding the motion is pending. 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 described above. 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. We filed motions to stay and dismiss the proceeding, which motions were denied by the trial court judge. We filed a petition for a writ of mandamus with the state appellate court, in which we requested that court to direct the district court to grant our motion to stay or dismiss the case. 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

In March 2012, we executed a contract with a shipyard in Singapore for the construction of a newbuild semi-submersible 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. Under the terms of this contract, payments are made in a fixed percentage of the contract price, together with any variations, on contractually scheduled dates. At March 31, 2013, our total investment in the Q5000 was $142.6 million, including $115.9 million of scheduled payments made to the shipyard.

In July 2012, we contracted to charter the Skandi Constructor for use in our North Sea well intervention operations. The vessel was delivered to us on April 1, 2013. The initial term of the charter will expire in March 2016.

In August 2012, we acquired the Discoverer 534 drillship from a subsidiary of Transocean Ltd. for $85 million. The vessel, renamed the Helix 534, is currently undergoing upgrades and modifications in Singapore to render it suitable for use as a well intervention vessel. At March 31, 2013, our investment in the acquisition and subsequent upgrades to and modifications of the Helix 534 totaled $147.9 million, including related well control equipment.

In January 2013, we contracted to charter the Rem Installer for use in our robotics operations. The term of the charter will be three years from the delivery date, which is expected to be around mid-2013.

In February 2013, we contracted to charter the Grand Canyon II and Grand Canyon III for use in our robotics operations. The terms of the charters will be five years from the respective delivery dates, which are expected to be in 2014 and 2015.

Contingencies and Claims

Under terms of the ERT equity purchase agreement, we have required the buyer to provide bonding in a sufficient amount as determined by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (“BOEM”) to replace and allow for a full discharge of our existing guaranty to the BOEM for ERT’s lease obligations. The BOEM is in the process of reevaluating its decommissioning assessments for ERT’s deepwater lease properties in the Gulf of Mexico and as such it is currently uncertain as to the amount of bonding that will be required, and thus also the amount of collateral that the buyer will be required to post to its surety/ies to secure such bonding. To the extent that the purchaser is required to post bonding collateral in an amount greater than $100 million to obtain bonds in the aggregate amount required by the BOEM in order for the BOEM to release our guaranty of ERT’s lease obligations, we have agreed to provide incremental collateral above that amount, if and to the extent required, to the surety/ies providing bonding for ERT’s deepwater properties (the Bushwood and Phoenix fields) in the form of letter(s) of credit, up to the next $50 million of required collateral, for a period not to exceed one year from issuance of the letter(s) of credit, after which the purchaser would then be required to provide all collateral associated with the bonding requirements with respect to our former oil and gas properties. We anticipate that the BOEM will determine its assessments of decommissioning costs for our former deepwater fields in the near term and that the bonding amounts, and therefore the bonding collateral requirements, to obtain a release of our guaranty with respect to ERT’s lease obligations will be known. At the time of this filing it is uncertain whether the amount of collateral will exceed the $100 million threshold so as to require any incremental bonding collateral on our part.

In 2007, 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 a 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 for the tax years 2010, 2009, 2008 and 2007 related to an Indian subsea construction and diving contract that we entered into in December 2006. The State claims that 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.

Litigation

On July 8, 2011, a shareholder derivative lawsuit styled City of Sterling Heights Police & Fire Retirement System v. Owen Kratz, et al. was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division. In the suit, the plaintiff makes claims against our Board of Directors, certain of our former directors, certain of our current and former executives, and the independent compensation consultant to the Compensation Committee of our Board of Directors, for breaches of the fiduciary duty of loyalty, unjust enrichment and aiding and abetting the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty relating to the long-term equity awards granted in 2010 to the Company’s then executive officers who are defendants. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the claim asserting that the plaintiff has not (i) pled specific facts excusing its failure to make pre-suit demand on the Company’s Board of Directors as required by Minnesota law; (ii) filed proper verification; or (iii) stated a claim. A ruling regarding the motion is pending.

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 described above. 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. We filed motions to stay and dismiss the proceeding, which motions were denied by the trial court judge. We filed a petition for a writ of mandamus with the state appellate court, in which we requested that court to direct the district court to grant our motion to stay or dismiss the case.

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.