Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2013
Contingencies [Abstract]
Contingencies	Note 12: Contingencies The Company is subject to a number of contingencies, including litigation, tax contingencies and environmental matters. Deepwater Horizon Matter A blowout preventer ("BOP") originally manufactured by the Company and delivered in 2001 was deployed by the drilling rig Deepwater Horizon which in 2010 experienced an explosion and fire resulting in bodily injuries and loss of life, the loss of the rig, and discharge of hydrocarbons into the Gulf of Mexico. The Company was named as one of a number of defendants in over 400 suits asserting claims for personal injury, wrongful death, property damage, pollution and economic damages. Most of these suits were consolidated into a single proceeding under rules governing multi-district litigation. The consolidated case is styled: In Re: Oil Spill by the Oil Rig Deep Water Horizon in the Gulf of Mexicoon April 20, 2010, MDL Docket No. 2179. On December 15, 2011, the Company entered into an agreement with BP Exploration and Production Inc. (BPXP), guaranteed by BP Corporation North America Inc., pursuant to which BPXP agreed to indemnify the Company for any and all current and future compensatory claims, and to pay on behalf of the Company any and all such claims, associated with or arising out of the Deepwater Horizon incident the Company otherwise would have been obligated to pay, including claims arising under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA) and Clean Water Act, claims for natural resource damages and associated damage-assessment costs, clean-up costs, and other claims arising from third parties. The agreement does not provide indemnification of the Company for punitive damages. On March 20, 2013, the Court in the MDL proceeding granted the Company's motion for a judgment in its favor denying recovery for punitive damages. On April 3, 2013, the Court granted the Company's motion for a judgment in its favor denying recovery for all other claims asserted in the MDL proceeding. Not all suits arising out of the Deepwater Horizon Matter were consolidated into the MDL proceeding and a number of suits have been filed recently which have not yet been consolidated into the MDL proceeding. The Company has been named as a defendant in approximately 40 such suits, all of which allege substantially the same facts, make substantially the same allegations and seek substantially the same relief as the cases consolidated into the MDL proceeding. The Company currently anticipates that all claims against the Company in the cases filed or to be filed in connection with the Deepwater Horizon Matter will either be dismissed as a result of the rulings of the Court in the MDL proceeding or on their own merits or lack thereof. In any event, all damages, other than punitive damages, that could be imposed against the Company in such cases would be covered by the Company's agreement with BPXP. The agreement with BPXP also does not provide indemnification of the Company for any fines, penalties, or certain other potential non-compensatory claims levied on it individually. The Company, however, does not consider any of these, singly or cumulatively, to pose a significant financial risk to it because, while the United States brought suit against BP and certain other parties associated with this incident for recovery under statutes such as OPA and the Clean Water Act, the United States did not name the Company as a defendant. Certain state and local governmental entities have asserted the right to levy fines and penalties as a result of the discharge of hydrocarbons, but the Federal District Court in which the MDL action is pending has ruled that they do not have this right as a result of Federal preemption. This issue is currently on appeal to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. A shareholder derivative suit, Berzner vs. Erikson, et al., Cause No. 2010-71817, I 90th District Court of Harris County, Texas, was filed in October 2010 against the Company's directors in connection with this incident and its aftermath alleging the Company's directors failed to exercise their fiduciary duties regarding the safety and efficacy of its products, but still remains in the initial pleading stage. Other Litigation The Company from time to time is a defendant in cases alleging equipment failure due to inherent defects; failure of design, manufacture, testing, assembly or installation; and/or improper maintenance, and are typically accompanied by claims such as breach of contract, breach of implied warranty, negligence, negligent misrepresentation, strict liability in tort and/or product liability. One such matter is Chesapeake Appalachia, L.L.C. and Chesapeake Operating, Inc. vs. Cameron International Corporation filed in the District Court of Oklahoma County, Oklahoma on April 16, 2013, in which Chesapeake alleges a failure of Cameron hydraulic fracturing wellhead equipment which is claimed to have caused or contributed to an uncontrolled discharge of fluids on the Chesapeake ATGAS 2H well site in Pennsylvania and seeks unspecified damages. Another such example is a matter which is the subject of a claim filed in two separate jurisdictions on February 13, 2013. Each is styled Boardwalk Pipeline Partners, et al. vs. Tube Forgings of America, Inc. et al. including Cameron International Corporation. One was filed in Daviess Circuit Court, Division II, Kentucky, and the other in the District Court of Panola, County, Texas. The plaintiffs allege a failure of a Cameron check valve which is claimed to have caused or contributed to a fire at and damage to a compressor station in Carthage, Texas, and seek unspecified damages. The facts of these incidents and their causes are currently under investigation. In any event, the Company has insurance coverage that is applicable with a self-retention of $5.0 million per incident. The Company also has been and continues to be named as a defendant in a number of multi-defendant, multi-plaintiff tort lawsuits. At March 31, 2013, the Company's consolidated balance sheet included a liability of approximately $13.0 million for such cases. The Company believes, based on its review of the facts and law, that the potential exposure from these suits will not have a material adverse effect on its consolidated results of operations, financial condition or liquidity. Tax and Other Contingencies The Company has legal entities in over 50 countries. As a result, the Company is subject to various tax filing requirements in these countries. The Company prepares its tax filings in a manner which it believes is consistent with such filing requirements. However, some of the tax laws and regulations to which the Company is subject require interpretation and/or judgment. Although the Company believes the tax liabilities for periods ending on or before the balance sheet date have been adequately provided for in the financial statements, to the extent a taxing authority believes the Company has not prepared its tax filings in accordance with the authority's interpretation of the tax laws and regulations, the Company could be exposed to additional taxes. The Company is currently undergoing a customs audit in Brazil. The Company has been assessed with approximately $51.0 million of additional customs duties, penalties and interest by the government of Brazil as a result of the current customs audit for the years 2003-2010. The Company has identified numerous errors in the assessment, the government has not provided appropriate supporting documentation for the assessment, and the Company believes a majority of this assessment will ultimately be proven to be incorrect. As a result, the Company currently expects no material adverse impact on its results of operations or cash flows as a result of the ultimate resolution of this matter. No amounts have been accrued for this assessment as of March 31, 2013 as no loss is currently considered probable. Environmental Matters The Company is currently identified as a potentially responsible party (PRP) with respect to two sites designated for cleanup under the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) or similar state laws. One of these sites is Osborne, Pennsylvania (a landfill into which a predecessor of the PCS operation in Grove City, Pennsylvania deposited waste), where remediation was completed in 2011 and remaining costs relate to ongoing ground water treatment and monitoring. The other is believed to be a de minimis exposure. The Company is also engaged in site cleanup under the Voluntary Cleanup Plan of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality at former manufacturing locations in Houston and Missouri City, Texas. Additionally, the Company has discontinued operations at a number of other sites which had been active for many years and which may have yet undiscovered contamination. The Company does not believe, based upon information currently available, that there are any material environmental liabilities existing at these locations. At March 31, 2013, the Company's consolidated balance sheet included a noncurrent liability of approximately $3.9 million for these environmental matters. In 2001, the Company discovered that contaminated underground water from the former manufacturing site in Houston referenced above had migrated under an adjacent residential area. Pursuant to applicable state regulations, the Company notified the affected homeowners. Concerns over the impact on property values of the underground water contamination and its public disclosure led to a number of claims by homeowners. The Company has settled these claims, primarily as a result of the settlement of a class action lawsuit, and is obligated to reimburse 197 homeowners for any diminution in value of their property due to contamination concerns at the time of the property's sale. Test results of monitoring wells on the southeastern border of the plume indicate that the plume is moving in a new direction, likely as a result of a ground water drainage system completed as part of an interstate highway improvement project. As a result, the Company notified 33 additional homeowners, and may provide notice to additional homeowners, whose property is adjacent to the class area that their property may be affected. The Company is taking remedial measures to mitigate any impact on these properties. The Company believes, based on its review of the facts and law, that any potential exposure from existing agreements as well as any possible new claims that may be filed with respect to this underground water contamination will not have a material adverse effect on its financial position or results of operations. The Company's consolidated balance sheet included a liability of approximately $7.1 million for these matters as of March 31, 2013.

Note 12: Contingencies

The Company is subject to a number of contingencies, including litigation, tax contingencies and environmental matters.

Deepwater Horizon Matter

A blowout preventer ("BOP") originally manufactured by the Company and delivered in 2001 was deployed by the drilling rig Deepwater Horizon which in 2010 experienced an explosion and fire resulting in bodily injuries and loss of life, the loss of the rig, and discharge of hydrocarbons into the Gulf of Mexico.

The Company was named as one of a number of defendants in over 400 suits asserting claims for personal injury, wrongful death, property damage, pollution and economic damages. Most of these suits were consolidated into a single proceeding under rules governing multi-district litigation. The consolidated case is styled: In Re: Oil Spill by the Oil Rig Deep Water Horizon in the Gulf of Mexicoon April 20, 2010, MDL Docket No. 2179.

On December 15, 2011, the Company entered into an agreement with BP Exploration and Production Inc. (BPXP), guaranteed by BP Corporation North America Inc., pursuant to which BPXP agreed to indemnify the Company for any and all current and future compensatory claims, and to pay on behalf of the Company any and all such claims, associated with or arising out of the Deepwater Horizon incident the Company otherwise would have been obligated to pay, including claims arising under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA) and Clean Water Act, claims for natural resource damages and associated damage-assessment costs, clean-up costs, and other claims arising from third parties. The agreement does not provide indemnification of the Company for punitive damages.

On March 20, 2013, the Court in the MDL proceeding granted the Company's motion for a judgment in its favor denying recovery for punitive damages. On April 3, 2013, the Court granted the Company's motion for a judgment in its favor denying recovery for all other claims asserted in the MDL proceeding.

Not all suits arising out of the Deepwater Horizon Matter were consolidated into the MDL proceeding and a number of suits have been filed recently which have not yet been consolidated into the MDL proceeding. The Company has been named as a defendant in approximately 40 such suits, all of which allege substantially the same facts, make substantially the same allegations and seek substantially the same relief as the cases consolidated into the MDL proceeding. The Company currently anticipates that all claims against the Company in the cases filed or to be filed in connection with the Deepwater Horizon Matter will either be dismissed as a result of the rulings of the Court in the MDL proceeding or on their own merits or lack thereof. In any event, all damages, other than punitive damages, that could be imposed against the Company in such cases would be covered by the Company's agreement with BPXP.

The agreement with BPXP also does not provide indemnification of the Company for any fines, penalties, or certain other potential non-compensatory claims levied on it individually. The Company, however, does not consider any of these, singly or cumulatively, to pose a significant financial risk to it because, while the United States brought suit against BP and certain other parties associated with this incident for recovery under statutes such as OPA and the Clean Water Act, the United States did not name the Company as a defendant. Certain state and local governmental entities have asserted the right to levy fines and penalties as a result of the discharge of hydrocarbons, but the Federal District Court in which the MDL action is pending has ruled that they do not have this right as a result of Federal preemption. This issue is currently on appeal to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.

A shareholder derivative suit, Berzner vs. Erikson, et al., Cause No. 2010-71817, I 90th District Court of Harris County, Texas, was filed in October 2010 against the Company's directors in connection with this incident and its aftermath alleging the Company's directors failed to exercise their fiduciary duties regarding the safety and efficacy of its products, but still remains in the initial pleading stage.

Other Litigation

The Company from time to time is a defendant in cases alleging equipment failure due to inherent defects; failure of design, manufacture, testing, assembly or installation; and/or improper maintenance, and are typically accompanied by claims such as breach of contract, breach of implied warranty, negligence, negligent misrepresentation, strict liability in tort and/or product liability. One such matter is Chesapeake Appalachia, L.L.C. and Chesapeake Operating, Inc. vs. Cameron International Corporation filed in the District Court of Oklahoma County, Oklahoma on April 16, 2013, in which Chesapeake alleges a failure of Cameron hydraulic fracturing wellhead equipment which is claimed to have caused or contributed to an uncontrolled discharge of fluids on the Chesapeake ATGAS 2H well site in Pennsylvania and seeks unspecified damages. Another such example is a matter which is the subject of a claim filed in two separate jurisdictions on February 13, 2013. Each is styled Boardwalk Pipeline Partners, et al. vs. Tube Forgings of America, Inc. et al. including Cameron International Corporation. One was filed in Daviess Circuit Court, Division II, Kentucky, and the other in the District Court of Panola, County, Texas. The plaintiffs allege a failure of a Cameron check valve which is claimed to have caused or contributed to a fire at and damage to a compressor station in Carthage, Texas, and seek unspecified damages. The facts of these incidents and their causes are currently under investigation. In any event, the Company has insurance coverage that is applicable with a self-retention of $5.0 million per incident.

The Company also has been and continues to be named as a defendant in a number of multi-defendant, multi-plaintiff tort lawsuits. At March 31, 2013, the Company's consolidated balance sheet included a liability of approximately $13.0 million for such cases. The Company believes, based on its review of the facts and law, that the potential exposure from these suits will not have a material adverse effect on its consolidated results of operations, financial condition or liquidity.

Tax and Other Contingencies

The Company has legal entities in over 50 countries. As a result, the Company is subject to various tax filing requirements in these countries. The Company prepares its tax filings in a manner which it believes is consistent with such filing requirements. However, some of the tax laws and regulations to which the Company is subject require interpretation and/or judgment. Although the Company believes the tax liabilities for periods ending on or before the balance sheet date have been adequately provided for in the financial statements, to the extent a taxing authority believes the Company has not prepared its tax filings in accordance with the authority's interpretation of the tax laws and regulations, the Company could be exposed to additional taxes.

The Company is currently undergoing a customs audit in Brazil. The Company has been assessed with approximately $51.0 million of additional customs duties, penalties and interest by the government of Brazil as a result of the current customs audit for the years 2003-2010. The Company has identified numerous errors in the assessment, the government has not provided appropriate supporting documentation for the assessment, and the Company believes a majority of this assessment will ultimately be proven to be incorrect. As a result, the Company currently expects no material adverse impact on its results of operations or cash flows as a result of the ultimate resolution of this matter. No amounts have been accrued for this assessment as of March 31, 2013 as no loss is currently considered probable.

Environmental Matters

The Company is currently identified as a potentially responsible party (PRP) with respect to two sites designated for cleanup under the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) or similar state laws. One of these sites is Osborne, Pennsylvania (a landfill into which a predecessor of the PCS operation in Grove City, Pennsylvania deposited waste), where remediation was completed in 2011 and remaining costs relate to ongoing ground water treatment and monitoring. The other is believed to be a de minimis exposure. The Company is also engaged in site cleanup under the Voluntary Cleanup Plan of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality at former manufacturing locations in Houston and Missouri City, Texas. Additionally, the Company has discontinued operations at a number of other sites which had been active for many years and which may have yet undiscovered contamination. The Company does not believe, based upon information currently available, that there are any material environmental liabilities existing at these locations. At March 31, 2013, the Company's consolidated balance sheet included a noncurrent liability of approximately $3.9 million for these environmental matters.

In 2001, the Company discovered that contaminated underground water from the former manufacturing site in Houston referenced above had migrated under an adjacent residential area. Pursuant to applicable state regulations, the Company notified the affected homeowners. Concerns over the impact on property values of the underground water contamination and its public disclosure led to a number of claims by homeowners. The Company has settled these claims, primarily as a result of the settlement of a class action lawsuit, and is obligated to reimburse 197 homeowners for any diminution in value of their property due to contamination concerns at the time of the property's sale. Test results of monitoring wells on the southeastern border of the plume indicate that the plume is moving in a new direction, likely as a result of a ground water drainage system completed as part of an interstate highway improvement project. As a result, the Company notified 33 additional homeowners, and may provide notice to additional homeowners, whose property is adjacent to the class area that their property may be affected. The Company is taking remedial measures to mitigate any impact on these properties. The Company believes, based on its review of the facts and law, that any potential exposure from existing agreements as well as any possible new claims that may be filed with respect to this underground water contamination will not have a material adverse effect on its financial position or results of operations. The Company's consolidated balance sheet included a liability of approximately $7.1 million for these matters as of March 31, 2013.