Commitments And Contingencies And Other Matters	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2014
Commitments And Contingencies and Other Matters [Abstract]
Commitments And Contingencies And Other Matters	Note 12 — 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. Pursuant to the terms of this contract, payments are made in a fixed percentage of the contract price, together with any variations, on contractually scheduled dates. The vessel is expected to be completed and placed in service in 2015. At March 31, 2014, our total investment in the Q5000 was $213.7 million, including $173.8 million of scheduled payments made to the shipyard. In August 2012, we acquired the Discoverer 534 drillship from a subsidiary of Transocean Ltd. for $85 million. The vessel, renamed the Helix 534, underwent upgrades and modifications to render it suitable for use as a well intervention vessel and commenced well intervention operations in the Gulf of Mexico in February 2014. At March 31, 2014, our total investment for the Helix 534 was $219.4 million, including related well control equipment. 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, both of which are expected to be in 2015. In September 2013, we executed a second contract with the same shipyard in Singapore that is currently constructing the Q5000. This contract provides for the construction of a newbuild semi-submersible well intervention vessel, the Q7000, which will be built to North Sea standards. This $346.0 million shipyard contract represents the majority of the expected costs associated with the construction of the Q7000. Pursuant to the terms of this contract, 20% of the contract price was paid upon the signing of the contract and the remaining 80% will be paid upon the delivery of the vessel, which is expected to occur in 2016. At March 31, 2014, our total investment in the Q7000 was $80.8 million, including the $69.2 million paid to the shipyard upon signing the contract. In February 2014, we entered into agreements with Petróleo Brasileiro S.A. (“Petrobras”) to provide well intervention services offshore Brazil. The initial term of the agreements with Petrobras is for four years with options to extend. In connection with the Petrobras agreements, we entered into charter agreements with Siem Offshore AS for two newbuild monohull vessels, both of which are expected to be in service for Petrobras in 2016. At March 31, 2014, our total investment in the topside equipment for the two vessels was $0.1 million. Contingencies and Claims Under terms of the equity purchase agreement for the sale of ERT, we required the buyer to provide bonding in a sufficient amount as determined by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (the “BOEM”) to cover the decommissioning costs of ERT’s lease properties and thus to replace and allow for a full discharge of our existing guaranty to the BOEM for ERT’s lease obligations. The buyer posted the bonding required by the equity purchase agreement, and a formal request to the BOEM for a release of our guaranty is pending. 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 executive officers, 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 certain of the Company’s then executive officers who are defendants. The defendants 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 our 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 270th 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. The defendants filed motions to stay and dismiss the proceeding, which motions were denied by the trial court judge. The defendants then filed a petition for a writ of mandamus with the state appellate court, in which they requested that court to direct the district court to grant the motion to stay or dismiss the case. The appellate court denied the request to grant mandamus with respect to this requested relief, but did grant a writ of mandamus ordering the lower court to vacate its ruling to the extent the plaintiff failed to plead with particularity that our Board of Directors wrongfully refused his demand, and that he was a shareholder of record at the relevant time. A special committee of our Board of Directors subsequently determined to reject the plaintiff’s demand regarding this matter, and based on that rejection, as well as the plaintiff’s pleadings, the defendants filed a motion for summary judgment in December 2013. The court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment in March 2014, and the plaintiffs have appealed that ruling. 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 12 — 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. Pursuant to the terms of this contract, payments are made in a fixed percentage of the contract price, together with any variations, on contractually scheduled dates. The vessel is expected to be completed and placed in service in 2015. At March 31, 2014, our total investment in the Q5000 was $213.7 million, including $173.8 million of scheduled payments made to the shipyard.

In August 2012, we acquired the Discoverer 534 drillship from a subsidiary of Transocean Ltd. for $85 million. The vessel, renamed the Helix 534, underwent upgrades and modifications to render it suitable for use as a well intervention vessel and commenced well intervention operations in the Gulf of Mexico in February 2014. At March 31, 2014, our total investment for the Helix 534 was $219.4 million, including related well control equipment.

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, both of which are expected to be in 2015.

In September 2013, we executed a second contract with the same shipyard in Singapore that is currently constructing the Q5000. This contract provides for the construction of a newbuild semi-submersible well intervention vessel, the Q7000, which will be built to North Sea standards. This $346.0 million shipyard contract represents the majority of the expected costs associated with the construction of the Q7000. Pursuant to the terms of this contract, 20% of the contract price was paid upon the signing of the contract and the remaining 80% will be paid upon the delivery of the vessel, which is expected to occur in 2016. At March 31, 2014, our total investment in the Q7000 was $80.8 million, including the $69.2 million paid to the shipyard upon signing the contract.

In February 2014, we entered into agreements with Petróleo Brasileiro S.A. (“Petrobras”) to provide well intervention services offshore Brazil. The initial term of the agreements with Petrobras is for four years with options to extend. In connection with the Petrobras agreements, we entered into charter agreements with Siem Offshore AS for two newbuild monohull vessels, both of which are expected to be in service for Petrobras in 2016. At March 31, 2014, our total investment in the topside equipment for the two vessels was $0.1 million.

Contingencies and Claims

Under terms of the equity purchase agreement for the sale of ERT, we required the buyer to provide bonding in a sufficient amount as determined by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (the “BOEM”) to cover the decommissioning costs of ERT’s lease properties and thus to replace and allow for a full discharge of our existing guaranty to the BOEM for ERT’s lease obligations. The buyer posted the bonding required by the equity purchase agreement, and a formal request to the BOEM for a release of our guaranty is pending.

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 executive officers, 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 certain of the Company’s then executive officers who are defendants. The defendants 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 our 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 270th 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. The defendants filed motions to stay and dismiss the proceeding, which motions were denied by the trial court judge. The defendants then filed a petition for a writ of mandamus with the state appellate court, in which they requested that court to direct the district court to grant the motion to stay or dismiss the case. The appellate court denied the request to grant mandamus with respect to this requested relief, but did grant a writ of mandamus ordering the lower court to vacate its ruling to the extent the plaintiff failed to plead with particularity that our Board of Directors wrongfully refused his demand, and that he was a shareholder of record at the relevant time. A special committee of our Board of Directors subsequently determined to reject the plaintiff’s demand regarding this matter, and based on that rejection, as well as the plaintiff’s pleadings, the defendants filed a motion for summary judgment in December 2013. The court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment in March 2014, and the plaintiffs have appealed that ruling.

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.