Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2011
Notes to Financial Statement [Abstract]
Contingencies	Note 13: 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, and for which the Company was one of the suppliers of spare parts and repair services, was deployed by the drilling rig Deepwater Horizon when the rig experienced a tragic explosion and fire on April 20, 2010, resulting in bodily injuries and loss of life, loss of the rig, and an unprecedented discharge of hydrocarbons into the Gulf of Mexico. While the Company did not operate the BOP, nor did it have anyone on the rig at the time of the incident, claims for personal injury, wrongful death and property damage arising from the Deepwater Horizon incident have been asserted against the Company and others. Additionally, claims for pollution and for economic damages, including business interruption and loss of revenue, have been, and may continue to be asserted against all parties associated with this incident, including the Company, BP p.l.c. and certain of its subsidiaries, the operator of Mississippi Canyon Block 252 upon which the Macondo well was being drilled, Transocean Ltd. and certain of its affiliates, the rig owner and operator, as well as other equipment and service companies, including Halliburton. The Company has been named as one of multiple defendants in over 350 suits filed and presently pending in a variety of Federal and State courts, a number of which have been filed as class actions or multi-plaintiff actions. Other defendants, including BP, Transocean and Halliburton have asserted cross-claims against us as we have asserted such claims against them. Most of these suits pending in Federal courts have been consolidated into a single proceeding before a single Federal judge under the rules governing multi-district litigation. The consolidated case is styled In Re: Oil Spill by the Oil Rig “Deepwater Horizon” in the Gulf of Mexico on April 20, 2010, MDL Docket No. 2179. There are also a small number of cases pending in state courts. The States of Alabama and Louisiana have brought a claim for destruction of and/or harm to natural resources against those associated with this incident, including Cameron, in State of Alabama, ex. rel. Troy King, Attorney General vs. Transocean Ltd., et. al., Cause No. 2:10cv00691, U.S. Dist. Ct., M.D. Ala., and State of Louisiana vs. BP Exploration & Production, Inc., et. al, MDL No. 2179, as have a number of other local governmental entities and 3 Mexican states. It is possible other such claims may be asserted against the Company by the United States Government (USG) and by other Gulf and/or East Coast States, whose Attorneys General have notified the Company to preserve documents in the event of a claim, and possibly by other parties. The USG has brought suit against BP and certain other parties associated with this incident for recovery under statutes such as the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA) and the Clean Water Act, which suit has been made part of the MDL proceedings. While the Company was not named as a defendant in this suit by the USG, BP brought a third-party complaint for contribution under OPA against several parties associated with this incident which were not named by the USG, including the Company. A shareholder derivative suit, Berzner vs. Erikson, et al., Cause No. 2010-71817 in the 190th District Court of Harris County, Texas, has been filed 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. This incident and its causes have been investigated by a joint investigation team of the U.S. Coast Guard and the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (the “JIT”), which has named Cameron a party-in-interest, the Departments of the Interior and Justice, the U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board, and by various other governmental entities, including Congressional Committees. An investigation conducted by the National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling has been completed. The Department of Justice, in addition to its involvement in the civil litigation, formed a task force to conduct criminal investigations into possible criminal charges stemming from this incident and its aftermath. The Federal Court overseeing the multi-district litigation has ruled that it will begin trying liability issues arising out of the Deepwater Horizon Matter in February 2012, and has issued a number of orders to effectuate this scheduling. Based on the facts known to date, the Company is of the opinion that there was no defect in or failure of the BOP that caused or contributed to the explosion. The reasons as to why the efforts to shut-in the well after the explosion were unsuccessful are not yet known and are the subject of continuing investigation and discovery in the MDL proceedings. A report on the results of a forensic examination of the BOP by Det Norske Veritas commissioned by the JIT as part of its investigation was made public in March 2011. This report cited what it considered to be the inability of the BOP to shear the off-center drill pipe as a contributing factor to the BOP's blind shear rams being unable to close and seal the well. The JIT recently announced that it would release its final report in the "near future" but after the JIT's previously scheduled July 27, 2011 release date. The extent of the environmental impact, and the ultimate costs and damages that will ultimately be determined attributable to this incident and its aftermath are not yet known and therefore cannot be reasonably estimated. As a result, we are unable to make any reasonable determination of what liability, if any, the Company could be found to have with respect to any of these claims or whether the Company will be found to have any liability, directly or by way of contribution, under any environmental laws or regulations or otherwise. BP has been designated as the Responsible Party for the pollution emanating from the Macondo well under OPA, and has accepted such designation. Cameron has not been named a Responsible Party. The applicable contracts between Cameron and Transocean entities provide for customary industry “knock-for-knock” indemnification by which each party agreed to bear the risk of, and hold the other harmless with respect to, all claims for personal injury, to include wrongful death, and property loss or damage of its own, its employees and those of its contractors. Settlements in a number of personal injury and wrongful death cases have been reached between Transocean and the claimants, and the settlement agreements have included a complete release of Cameron. In addition, the contracts provide that in the event Transocean is entitled to indemnity under any contract with its customers or suppliers for pollution or other damages associated with a blowout or loss of well control, Transocean will provide Cameron with the benefit of such indemnity to the fullest extent possible. Transocean has publicly stated that it has a full pollution indemnity from BP, although BP has so far declined to acknowledge any obligation under the indemnity. The Company has commercial general liability insurance, including completed products and sudden accidental pollution coverage, with limits of $500 million and a self retention of $3 million. Defense costs are not covered by the policy. Coverage includes claims for personal injury and wrongful death, as well as liability for pollution and loss of revenue/business interruption. The Company has notified its insurers of the claims being asserted against it. The insurers have responded with “reservation of rights” letters. While the Company's BOPs have a history of reliable performance when properly maintained and operated in accordance with product specifications, until the litigation referred to above progresses and until the investigations referred to above are completed, we are unable to determine the extent of the Company's future involvement in the litigation and any liability resulting from this incident. If it is ultimately determined that the Company bears some responsibility, and therefore liability, for the costs and damages caused by this event, we will rely on our contractual indemnity rights and then, if and to the extent necessary and available, on our insurance coverage. If our contractual indemnities are determined to be inapplicable, or the indemnitors fail or are unable to fulfill their contractual indemnity obligations, and if the damages and costs ultimately determined to be the Company's responsibility exceed our available insurance coverage, we could be liable for amounts that could have a material adverse impact on our financial condition, results of operations and cash flows. Through June 30, 2011, the Company has incurred and expensed legal fees of $34.8 million. The Company has not accrued any amounts relating to this matter because we do not believe at the present time a loss is probable. Other Litigation In 2001, the Company discovered that contaminated underground water from a former manufacturing site in Houston (see discussion below under Environmental Matters) 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 any sale. Based upon 2009 testing results of monitoring wells on the southeastern border of the plume, the Company notified 33 homeowners whose property is adjacent to the class area that their property may be affected. The Company is taking remedial measures to prevent these properties from being affected. 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 $11.8 million for these matters as of June 30, 2011. The Company has been named as a defendant in a number of multi-defendant, multi-plaintiff tort lawsuits since 1995. At June 30, 2011, the Company's consolidated balance sheet included a liability of approximately $8.3 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. Regulatory Contingencies In July 2007, the Company was one of a number of companies to receive a letter from the Criminal Division of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) requesting information on activities undertaken on their behalf by a customs clearance broker. The DOJ inquired into whether certain of the services provided to the Company by the customs clearance broker may have involved violations of the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA). The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) also conducted an informal inquiry into the same matter. Following a review of the investigation conducted by the Company's special counsel and a number of follow-up meetings, both the DOJ and SEC have notified the Company they do not intend to pursue enforcement action against the Company with regard to this matter and their respective files have been closed. Tax Contingencies The Company has legal entities in over 40 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. 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 is complete 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. The Company does not believe, based upon information currently available, that there are any material environmental liabilities existing at these locations. At June 30, 2011, the Company's consolidated balance sheet included a noncurrent liability of approximately $5.8 million for environmental matters.

Note 13: 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, and for which the Company was one of the suppliers of spare parts and repair services, was deployed by the drilling rig Deepwater Horizon when the rig experienced a tragic explosion and fire on April 20, 2010, resulting in bodily injuries and loss of life, loss of the rig, and an unprecedented discharge of hydrocarbons into the Gulf of Mexico.

While the Company did not operate the BOP, nor did it have anyone on the rig at the time of the incident, claims for personal injury, wrongful death and property damage arising from the Deepwater Horizon incident have been asserted against the Company and others. Additionally, claims for pollution and for economic damages, including business interruption and loss of revenue, have been, and may continue to be asserted against all parties associated with this incident, including the Company, BP p.l.c. and certain of its subsidiaries, the operator of Mississippi Canyon Block 252 upon which the Macondo well was being drilled, Transocean Ltd. and certain of its affiliates, the rig owner and operator, as well as other equipment and service companies, including Halliburton. The Company has been named as one of multiple defendants in over 350 suits filed and presently pending in a variety of Federal and State courts, a number of which have been filed as class actions or multi-plaintiff actions. Other defendants, including BP, Transocean and Halliburton have asserted cross-claims against us as we have asserted such claims against them. Most of these suits pending in Federal courts have been consolidated into a single proceeding before a single Federal judge under the rules governing multi-district litigation. The consolidated case is styled In Re: Oil Spill by the Oil Rig “Deepwater Horizon” in the Gulf of Mexico on April 20, 2010, MDL Docket No. 2179. There are also a small number of cases pending in state courts. The States of Alabama and Louisiana have brought a claim for destruction of and/or harm to natural resources against those associated with this incident, including Cameron, in State of Alabama, ex. rel. Troy King, Attorney General vs. Transocean Ltd., et. al., Cause No. 2:10cv00691, U.S. Dist. Ct., M.D. Ala., and State of Louisiana vs. BP Exploration & Production, Inc., et. al, MDL No. 2179, as have a number of other local governmental entities and 3 Mexican states. It is possible other such claims may be asserted against the Company by the United States Government (USG) and by other Gulf and/or East Coast States, whose Attorneys General have notified the Company to preserve documents in the event of a claim, and possibly by other parties. The USG has brought suit against BP and certain other parties associated with this incident for recovery under statutes such as the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA) and the Clean Water Act, which suit has been made part of the MDL proceedings. While the Company was not named as a defendant in this suit by the USG, BP brought a third-party complaint for contribution under OPA against several parties associated with this incident which were not named by the USG, including the Company. A shareholder derivative suit, Berzner vs. Erikson, et al., Cause No. 2010-71817 in the 190th District Court of Harris County, Texas, has been filed 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. This incident and its causes have been investigated by a joint investigation team of the U.S. Coast Guard and the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (the “JIT”), which has named Cameron a party-in-interest, the Departments of the Interior and Justice, the U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board, and by various other governmental entities, including Congressional Committees. An investigation conducted by the National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling has been completed. The Department of Justice, in addition to its involvement in the civil litigation, formed a task force to conduct criminal investigations into possible criminal charges stemming from this incident and its aftermath.

The Federal Court overseeing the multi-district litigation has ruled that it will begin trying liability issues arising out of the Deepwater Horizon Matter in February 2012, and has issued a number of orders to effectuate this scheduling.

Based on the facts known to date, the Company is of the opinion that there was no defect in or failure of the BOP that caused or contributed to the explosion. The reasons as to why the efforts to shut-in the well after the explosion were unsuccessful are not yet known and are the subject of continuing investigation and discovery in the MDL proceedings. A report on the results of a forensic examination of the BOP by Det Norske Veritas commissioned by the JIT as part of its investigation was made public in March 2011. This report cited what it considered to be the inability of the BOP to shear the off-center drill pipe as a contributing factor to the BOP's blind shear rams being unable to close and seal the well. The JIT recently announced that it would release its final report in the "near future" but after the JIT's previously scheduled July 27, 2011 release date.

The extent of the environmental impact, and the ultimate costs and damages that will ultimately be determined attributable to this incident and its aftermath are not yet known and therefore cannot be reasonably estimated. As a result, we are unable to make any reasonable determination of what liability, if any, the Company could be found to have with respect to any of these claims or whether the Company will be found to have any liability, directly or by way of contribution, under any environmental laws or regulations or otherwise. BP has been designated as the Responsible Party for the pollution emanating from the Macondo well under OPA, and has accepted such designation. Cameron has not been named a Responsible Party.

The applicable contracts between Cameron and Transocean entities provide for customary industry “knock-for-knock” indemnification by which each party agreed to bear the risk of, and hold the other harmless with respect to, all claims for personal injury, to include wrongful death, and property loss or damage of its own, its employees and those of its contractors. Settlements in a number of personal injury and wrongful death cases have been reached between Transocean and the claimants, and the settlement agreements have included a complete release of Cameron. In addition, the contracts provide that in the event Transocean is entitled to indemnity under any contract with its customers or suppliers for pollution or other damages associated with a blowout or loss of well control, Transocean will provide Cameron with the benefit of such indemnity to the fullest extent possible. Transocean has publicly stated that it has a full pollution indemnity from BP, although BP has so far declined to acknowledge any obligation under the indemnity.

The Company has commercial general liability insurance, including completed products and sudden accidental pollution coverage, with limits of $500 million and a self retention of $3 million. Defense costs are not covered by the policy. Coverage includes claims for personal injury and wrongful death, as well as liability for pollution and loss of revenue/business interruption. The Company has notified its insurers of the claims being asserted against it. The insurers have responded with “reservation of rights” letters.

While the Company's BOPs have a history of reliable performance when properly maintained and operated in accordance with product specifications, until the litigation referred to above progresses and until the investigations referred to above are completed, we are unable to determine the extent of the Company's future involvement in the litigation and any liability resulting from this incident. If it is ultimately determined that the Company bears some responsibility, and therefore liability, for the costs and damages caused by this event, we will rely on our contractual indemnity rights and then, if and to the extent necessary and available, on our insurance coverage. If our contractual indemnities are determined to be inapplicable, or the indemnitors fail or are unable to fulfill their contractual indemnity obligations, and if the damages and costs ultimately determined to be the Company's responsibility exceed our available insurance coverage, we could be liable for amounts that could have a material adverse impact on our financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

Through June 30, 2011, the Company has incurred and expensed legal fees of $34.8 million. The Company has not accrued any amounts relating to this matter because we do not believe at the present time a loss is probable.

Other Litigation

In 2001, the Company discovered that contaminated underground water from a former manufacturing site in Houston (see discussion below under Environmental Matters) 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 any sale.

Based upon 2009 testing results of monitoring wells on the southeastern border of the plume, the Company notified 33 homeowners whose property is adjacent to the class area that their property may be affected. The Company is taking remedial measures to prevent these properties from being affected.

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 $11.8 million for these matters as of June 30, 2011.

The Company has been named as a defendant in a number of multi-defendant, multi-plaintiff tort lawsuits since 1995. At June 30, 2011, the Company's consolidated balance sheet included a liability of approximately $8.3 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.

Regulatory Contingencies

In July 2007, the Company was one of a number of companies to receive a letter from the Criminal Division of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) requesting information on activities undertaken on their behalf by a customs clearance broker. The DOJ inquired into whether certain of the services provided to the Company by the customs clearance broker may have involved violations of the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA). The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) also conducted an informal inquiry into the same matter.

Following a review of the investigation conducted by the Company's special counsel and a number of follow-up meetings, both the DOJ and SEC have notified the Company they do not intend to pursue enforcement action against the Company with regard to this matter and their respective files have been closed.

Tax Contingencies

The Company has legal entities in over 40 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.

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 is complete 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. The Company does not believe, based upon information currently available, that there are any material environmental liabilities existing at these locations. At June 30, 2011, the Company's consolidated balance sheet included a noncurrent liability of approximately $5.8 million for environmental matters.