Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2011
Contingencies [Abstract]
Contingencies	Note 14 - Contingencies Demand Letter, Derivative Cases and Shareholder Class Actions In June 2009, Pride received a demand letter from a purported shareholder that alleged certain of Pride's then-current and former officers and directors violated their fiduciary duties in regards to certain matters involving Pride's previously disclosed Foreign Corrupt Practices Act ("FCPA") investigation. The letter requested that Pride's board of directors take appropriate action against the individuals in question. In September 2009, Pride's board of directors formed a special committee, which retained independent legal counsel and commenced an evaluation of the issues raised by the letter in an effort to determine a course of action. In April 2010, two purported shareholders of Pride filed derivative actions against all of Pride's then-current directors and against Pride, as nominal defendant. The lawsuits alleged that the individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties in regards to certain matters involving Pride's previously disclosed FCPA investigation. Among other remedies, the lawsuits seek damages in an unspecified amount and equitable relief against the individual defendants, along with an award of attorney fees and other costs and expenses to the plaintiff. After the conclusion of Pride's investigation, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended petition in January 2011, raising allegations substantially similar to those made in the prior lawsuits. In December 2010, the special committee completed its evaluation of the issues surrounding Pride's FCPA investigation and again reviewed its conclusion in January 2011 in connection with the amended petition described above. The committee concluded that it was not in the interest of Pride or its shareholders to pursue litigation related to the matter. During the first quarter of 2011, a number of putative shareholder class action complaints or petitions were filed against various combinations of Pride, Pride's directors, Ensco and certain of our subsidiaries. These lawsuits challenged the proposed Merger and generally alleged, among other matters, that the individual members of the Pride board of directors breached their fiduciary duties by approving the proposed Merger, failing to take steps to maximize value to Pride's shareholders and failing to disclose material information concerning the proposed Merger in the registration statement on Form S-4; that Pride, Ensco and certain of our subsidiaries aided and abetted such breaches of fiduciary duties; and that the Merger Agreement improperly favored Ensco and unduly restricted Pride's ability to negotiate with other bidders. These lawsuits generally sought, among other remedies, compensatory damages, declaratory and injunctive relief concerning the alleged fiduciary breaches, and injunctive relief prohibiting the defendants from consummating the Merger. In addition, the plaintiffs in the derivative class action lawsuits related to Pride's previously disclosed FCPA investigation amended their petition to add claims related to the Merger. In May 2011, Ensco and the other named defendants signed a memorandum of understanding with the plaintiffs to settle the previously disclosed shareholder class action lawsuits filed related to the Merger Agreement. As provided in the memorandum of understanding, Pride provided additional information to Pride's shareholders regarding the Merger. The Merger Agreement was amended to reduce the fee payable by Pride in connection with certain terminations of the Merger Agreement to $195.0 million from $260.0 million. The amendment also shortened the "tail period" for certain transactions that could trigger a termination fee from 12 months to nine months after termination and eliminated the "force the vote" provision applicable to Pride such that Pride would not be required to submit the adoption of the Merger Agreement to its shareholders if the Pride board of directors made an adverse change in their recommendation. On August 29, 2011, the parties to the memorandum of understanding entered into a stipulation of settlement, which provides for, among other matters, the release of certain claims following notice by mailing, certification of a non-opt-out class for settlement purposes, a settlement hearing and final approval of the settlement. The stipulation of settlement also provides that Pride or its successor has agreed not to oppose any application by attorneys for the class for fees and expenses not exceeding $1.1 million. The stipulation of settlement is subject to customary conditions, including court approval. There can be no assurance that the stipulation of settlement receives such approval. The settlement hearing is scheduled for November 23, 2011. At this time, we are unable to predict the outcome of these matters or estimate the extent to which we may be exposed to any resulting liability. Although the outcome cannot be predicted, we do not expect these matters to have a material adverse effect on our financial position, operating results or cash flows. Seahawk Tax-Related Credit Support In August 2009, Pride completed the spin-off of Seahawk Drilling, Inc. ("Seahawk"), which held the assets and liabilities that were associated with Pride's mat-supported jackup rig business. In 2006, 2007 and 2009, Seahawk received tax assessments from the Mexican government related to their operations. Pursuant to local statutory requirements, Seahawk has provided and may provide additional surety bonds, letters of credit or other suitable collateral to contest these assessments. Pursuant to a tax support agreement between Pride and Seahawk, Pride agreed, at Seahawk's request, to guarantee or indemnify the issuer of any such surety bonds, letters of credit or other collateral issued for Seahawk's account in respect of such Mexican tax assessments made prior to the spin-off date. In September 2010, Seahawk requested that Pride provide credit support for four letters of credit issued for the appeals of four of Seahawk's tax assessments. The amount of the request totaled approximately $50.0 million. In October 2010, Pride provided credit support in satisfaction of this request. A liability of $700,000 related to this matter was recorded as of September 30, 2011 and included in accrued liabilities and other on our condensed consolidated balance sheet. Pursuant to the tax support agreement, Seahawk is required to pay Pride a fee based on the actual credit support provided. Seahawk's quarterly fee payment due on December 31, 2010 was not made, which had the effect of terminating Pride's obligation to provide further credit support under the tax support agreement. In February 2011, Pride sent a notice to Seahawk requesting that it provide cash collateral for the credit support previously provided by Pride, as provided under the terms of the agreement. Seahawk did not post the cash collateral, thereby further repudiating its obligations under the tax support agreement. Pride filed a proof of claim in Seahawk's bankruptcy for all damages arising from or relating to Seahawk's repudiation of its obligations under the tax support agreement. In connection with Seahawk's bankruptcy filing, a committee of Seahawk's equity security holders filed a lawsuit against Pride seeking, among others, a determination that Seahawk has no liability to Pride under the tax support agreement or that such liability is offset by Seahawk's asserted claims against Pride. The trial of Pride's claims against Seahawk and Seahawk's claims against Pride is scheduled to commence on December 12, 2011. We believe Seahawk's claims are without merit and we intend to vigorously defend our position. For additional information regarding Seahawk's bankruptcy, including alleged claims it may have against Pride, see "Seahawk Drilling, Inc. Bankruptcy" in Part II, Item 1, Legal Proceedings of this quarterly report on Form 10-Q. ENSCO 74 Loss In September 2008, ENSCO 74 was lost as a result of Hurricane Ike in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico. Portions of its legs remained underwater adjacent to the customer's platform, and the sunken rig hull of ENSCO 74 was located approximately 95 miles from the original drilling location when it was struck by an oil tanker in March 2009. During the fourth quarter of 2010, wreck removal operations on the sunken rig hull of ENSCO 74 were completed. We believe it is probable that we are required to remove the leg sections of ENSCO 74 remaining adjacent to the customer's platform because they may interfere with the customer's future operations, in addition to the removal of related debris. We estimate the leg and related debris removal costs to range from $21.0 million to $35.0 million. We expect the cost of removal of the legs and related debris to be fully covered by our insurance. Physical damage to our rigs caused by a hurricane, the associated "sue and labor" costs to mitigate the insured loss and removal, salvage and recovery costs are all covered by our property insurance policies subject to a $50.0 million per occurrence self-insured retention. Coverage for ENSCO 74 sue and labor costs and wreckage and debris removal costs under our property insurance policies is limited to $25.0 million and $50.0 million, respectively. Supplemental wreckage and debris removal coverage is provided under our liability insurance policies, subject to an annual aggregate limit of $500.0 million. We also have a customer contractual indemnification that provides for reimbursement of any ENSCO 74 wreckage and debris removal costs that are not recovered under our insurance policies. A $21.0 million liability, representing the low end of the range of estimated leg and related debris removal costs, and a corresponding receivable for recovery of those costs was recorded as of September 30, 2011 and included in accrued liabilities and other and other assets, net, on our condensed consolidated balance sheet. In March 2009, we received notice from legal counsel representing certain underwriters in a subrogation claim alleging that ENSCO 74 caused a pipeline to rupture during Hurricane Ike. In September 2009, civil litigation was filed seeking damages for the cost of repairs and business interruption in an amount in excess of $26.0 million. Based on information currently available, primarily the adequacy of available defenses, we have not concluded that it is probable a liability exists with respect to this matter. In March 2009, the owner of the oil tanker that struck the hull of ENSCO 74 commenced civil litigation against us seeking monetary damages of $10.0 million for losses incurred when the tanker struck the sunken hull of ENSCO 74. Based on information currently available, primarily the adequacy of available defenses, we have not concluded that it is probable a liability exists with respect to this matter. We filed a petition for exoneration or limitation of liability under U.S. admiralty and maritime law in September 2009. The petition seeks exoneration from or limitation of liability for any and all injury, loss or damage caused, occasioned or occurred in relation to the ENSCO 74 loss in September 2008. The owner of the tanker that struck the hull of ENSCO 74 and the owners of four subsea pipelines have presented claims in the exoneration/limitation proceedings. The matter is scheduled for trial in March 2012. We have liability insurance policies that provide coverage for claims such as the tanker and pipeline claims as well as removal of wreckage and debris in excess of the property insurance policy sublimit, subject to a $10.0 million per occurrence self-insured retention for third-party claims and an annual aggregate limit of $500.0 million. We believe all liabilities associated with the ENSCO 74 loss during Hurricane Ike resulted from a single occurrence under the terms of the applicable insurance policies. However, legal counsel for certain liability underwriters have asserted that the liability claims arise from separate occurrences. In the event of multiple occurrences, the self-insured retention is $15.0 million for two occurrences and $1.0 million for each occurrence thereafter. Although we do not expect final disposition of the claims associated with the ENSCO 74 loss to have a material adverse effect upon our financial position, operating results or cash flows, there can be no assurances as to the ultimate outcome. ENSCO 69 By letter dated June 4, 2009, we were informed by Petrosucre, a subsidiary of Petróleos de Venezuela S.A., the national oil company of Venezuela, of its intention to assume complete custody and control of ENSCO 69. We have filed an insurance claim under our package policy, which includes coverage for certain political risks. ENSCO 69 has an insured value of $65.0 million under our package policy, subject to a $10.0 million deductible. With the exception of one underwriter who represents approximately 10% of the claim, we have been able to reach a mutually agreeable settlement for our claim under our package policy, which resulted in a gain of $10.8 million upon receipt of cash settlements during the third quarter of 2011. The first phase of the arbitration with the remaining underwriter was held on September 19, 2011. The arbitration panel has not yet returned a decision. Until the arbitration proceedings are concluded, there can be no assurances as to the ultimate outcome with regard to the underwriter who has not agreed to settle this matter. ENSCO 29 Wreck Removal A portion of the ENSCO 29 platform drilling rig was lost over the side of a customer's platform as a result of Hurricane Katrina during 2005. Although beneficial ownership of ENSCO 29 was transferred to our insurance underwriters when the rig was determined to be a total loss, management believes we may be legally required to remove ENSCO 29 wreckage and debris from the seabed and currently estimates the removal cost could range from $5.0 million to $15.0 million. Our property insurance policies include coverage for ENSCO 29 wreckage and debris removal costs up to $3.8 million. We also have liability insurance policies that provide specified coverage for wreckage and debris removal costs in excess of the $3.8 million coverage provided under our property insurance policies. Our liability insurance underwriters have issued letters reserving rights and effectively denying coverage by questioning the applicability of coverage for the potential ENSCO 29 wreckage and debris removal costs. During 2007, we commenced litigation against certain underwriters alleging breach of contract, wrongful denial, bad faith and other claims and seeking a declaration that removal of wreckage and debris is covered under our liability insurance, monetary damages, attorneys' fees and other remedies. The court heard several pretrial motions on May 25, 2011 and on July 31, 2011 issued an order compelling the matter to be submitted to arbitration. While we anticipate that any ENSCO 29 wreckage and debris removal costs incurred will be largely or fully covered by insurance, a $1.2 million provision, representing the portion of the $5.0 million low end of the range of estimated removal cost we believe is subject to liability insurance coverage, was recognized in 2006. Asbestos Litigation During 2004, we and certain current and former subsidiaries were named as defendants, along with numerous other third-party companies as co-defendants, in three multi-party lawsuits filed in Mississippi. The lawsuits sought an unspecified amount of monetary damages on behalf of individuals alleging personal injury or death, primarily under the Jones Act, purportedly resulting from exposure to asbestos on drilling rigs and associated facilities during the period 1965 through 1986. In compliance with the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure, the individual claimants in the original multi-party lawsuits whose claims were not dismissed were ordered to file either new or amended single plaintiff complaints naming the specific defendant(s) against whom they intended to pursue claims. As a result, out of more than 600 initial multi-party claims, we have been named as a defendant by 65 individual plaintiffs. Of these claims, 62 claims or lawsuits are pending in Mississippi state courts and three are pending in the U.S. District Court as a result of their removal from state court. To date, written discovery and plaintiff depositions have taken place in eight cases involving us. While several cases have been selected for trial during 2011 and 2012, none of the cases pending against us in Mississippi state court are included within those selected cases. We intend to continue to vigorously defend against these claims and have filed responsive pleadings preserving all defenses and challenges to jurisdiction and venue. However, discovery is still ongoing and, therefore, available information regarding the nature of all pending claims is limited. At present, we cannot reasonably determine how many of the claimants may have valid claims under the Jones Act or estimate a range of potential liability exposure, if any. In addition to the pending cases in Mississippi, we have other asbestos or lung injury claims pending against us in litigation in other jurisdictions. Although we do not expect the final disposition of the Mississippi and other asbestos or lung injury lawsuits to have a material adverse effect upon our financial position, operating results or cash flows, there can be no assurances as to the ultimate outcome of the lawsuits. Working Time Directive Legislation known as the U.K. Working Time Directive ("WTD") was introduced during 2003 and may be applicable to our employees and employees of other drilling contractors that work offshore in U.K. territorial waters or in the U.K. sector of the North Sea. Certain trade unions representing offshore employees have claimed that drilling contractors are not in compliance with the WTD in respect of paid time off (vacation time) for employees working offshore on a rotational basis (generally equal time working and off). A Labor Tribunal in Aberdeen, Scotland, rendered decisions in claims involving other offshore drilling contractors and offshore service companies in February 2008. The Tribunal decisions effectively held that employers of offshore workers in the U.K. sector employed on an equal time on/time off rotation are obligated to accord such rotating personnel two-weeks annual paid time off from their scheduled offshore work assignment period. Both sides of the matter, employee and employer groups, appealed the Tribunal decision. The appeals were heard by the Employment Appeal Tribunal ("EAT") in December 2008. In an opinion rendered in March 2009, the EAT determined that the time off work enjoyed by U.K. offshore oil and gas workers, typically 26 weeks per year, meets the amount of annual leave employers must provide to employees under the WTD. The employer group was successful in all arguments on appeal, as the EAT determined that the statutory entitlement to annual leave under the WTD can be discharged through normal field break arrangements for offshore workers. As a consequence of the EAT decision, an equal time on/time off offshore rotation has been deemed to be fully compliant with the WTD. The employee group (led by a trade union) was granted leave to appeal to the highest civil court in Scotland (the Court of Session). A hearing on the appeal occurred in June 2010, and a decision was rendered in October 2010 in favor of the employer group. The employee group has appealed to the U.K. Supreme Court, and a hearing was held in October 2011. We expect a decision from the U.K. Supreme Court in the near-term. Based on information currently available, we do not expect the ultimate resolution of these matters to have a material adverse effect on our financial position, operating results or cash flows. Environmental Matters We are currently subject to pending notices of assessment issued from 2008 to 2011 pursuant to which governmental authorities in Brazil are seeking fines in an aggregate amount of $2.0 million for the release of drilling fluid from drilling rigs operating offshore Brazil. We are contesting these notices and intend to defend ourselves vigorously. Although we do not expect the outcome of these assessments to have a material adverse effect on our financial position, operating results or cash flows, there can be no assurance as to the ultimate outcome of these assessments. A $2.0 million liability related to these matters was recorded as of September 30, 2011 and included in accrued liabilities and other on our condensed consolidated balance sheet. We are currently subject to a pending administrative proceeding initiated in July 2009 by a governmental authority of Spain pursuant to which such governmental authority is seeking payment in an aggregate amount of $4.0 million for an alleged environmental spill originating from the ENSCO 5006 while it was operating offshore Spain. We expect to be indemnified for any payments resulting from this incident by our customer under the terms of the drilling contract. Our customer has posted guarantees with the Spanish government to cover potential penalties. In addition, a criminal investigation of the incident was initiated in July 2010 by a prosecutor in Tarragona, Spain, and the administrative proceedings have been suspended pending the outcome of this investigation. We do not know at this time what, if any, involvement we may have in this investigation. We intend to defend ourselves vigorously in the administrative proceeding and any criminal investigation. At this time, we are unable to predict the outcome of these matters or estimate the extent to which we may be exposed to any resulting liability. Although we do not expect the outcome of the proceedings to have a material adverse effect on our financial position, operating results or cash flows, there can be no assurance as to the ultimate outcome of the proceedings. Other Matters In addition to the foregoing, we are named defendants or parties in certain other lawsuits, claims or proceedings incidental to our business and are involved from time to time as parties to governmental investigations or proceedings, including matters related to taxation, arising in the ordinary course of business. Although the outcome of such lawsuits or other proceedings cannot be predicted with certainty and the amount of any liability that could arise with respect to such lawsuits or other proceedings cannot be predicted accurately, we do not expect these matters to have a material adverse effect on our financial position, operating results or cash flows.

Note 14 - Contingencies

Demand Letter, Derivative Cases and Shareholder Class Actions

In June 2009, Pride received a demand letter from a purported shareholder that alleged certain of Pride's then-current and former officers and directors violated their fiduciary duties in regards to certain matters involving Pride's previously disclosed Foreign Corrupt Practices Act ("FCPA") investigation. The letter requested that Pride's board of directors take appropriate action against the individuals in question. In September 2009, Pride's board of directors formed a special committee, which retained independent legal counsel and commenced an evaluation of the issues raised by the letter in an effort to determine a course of action.

In April 2010, two purported shareholders of Pride filed derivative actions against all of Pride's then-current directors and against Pride, as nominal defendant. The lawsuits alleged that the individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties in regards to certain matters involving Pride's previously disclosed FCPA investigation. Among other remedies, the lawsuits seek damages in an unspecified amount and equitable relief against the individual defendants, along with an award of attorney fees and other costs and expenses to the plaintiff. After the conclusion of Pride's investigation, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended petition in January 2011, raising allegations substantially similar to those made in the prior lawsuits.

In December 2010, the special committee completed its evaluation of the issues surrounding Pride's FCPA investigation and again reviewed its conclusion in January 2011 in connection with the amended petition described above. The committee concluded that it was not in the interest of Pride or its shareholders to pursue litigation related to the matter.

During the first quarter of 2011, a number of putative shareholder class action complaints or petitions were filed against various combinations of Pride, Pride's directors, Ensco and certain of our subsidiaries. These lawsuits challenged the proposed Merger and generally alleged, among other matters, that the individual members of the Pride board of directors breached their fiduciary duties by approving the proposed Merger, failing to take steps to maximize value to Pride's shareholders and failing to disclose material information concerning the proposed Merger in the registration statement on Form S-4; that Pride, Ensco and certain of our subsidiaries aided and abetted such breaches of fiduciary duties; and that the Merger Agreement improperly favored Ensco and unduly restricted Pride's ability to negotiate with other bidders. These lawsuits generally sought, among other remedies, compensatory damages, declaratory and injunctive relief concerning the alleged fiduciary breaches, and injunctive relief prohibiting the defendants from consummating the Merger. In addition, the plaintiffs in the derivative class action lawsuits related to Pride's previously disclosed FCPA investigation amended their petition to add claims related to the Merger.

In May 2011, Ensco and the other named defendants signed a memorandum of understanding with the plaintiffs to settle the previously disclosed shareholder class action lawsuits filed related to the Merger Agreement. As provided in the memorandum of understanding, Pride provided additional information to Pride's shareholders regarding the Merger. The Merger Agreement was amended to reduce the fee payable by Pride in connection with certain terminations of the Merger Agreement to $195.0 million from $260.0 million. The amendment also shortened the "tail period" for certain transactions that could trigger a termination fee from 12 months to nine months after termination and eliminated the "force the vote" provision applicable to Pride such that Pride would not be required to submit the adoption of the Merger Agreement to its shareholders if the Pride board of directors made an adverse change in their recommendation.

On August 29, 2011, the parties to the memorandum of understanding entered into a stipulation of settlement, which provides for, among other matters, the release of certain claims following notice by mailing, certification of a non-opt-out class for settlement purposes, a settlement hearing and final approval of the settlement. The stipulation of settlement also provides that Pride or its successor has agreed not to oppose any application by attorneys for the class for fees and expenses not exceeding $1.1 million. The stipulation of settlement is subject to customary conditions, including court approval. There can be no assurance that the stipulation of settlement receives such approval. The settlement hearing is scheduled for November 23, 2011.

At this time, we are unable to predict the outcome of these matters or estimate the extent to which we may be exposed to any resulting liability. Although the outcome cannot be predicted, we do not expect these matters to have a material adverse effect on our financial position, operating results or cash flows.

Seahawk Tax-Related Credit Support

In August 2009, Pride completed the spin-off of Seahawk Drilling, Inc. ("Seahawk"), which held the assets and liabilities that were associated with Pride's mat-supported jackup rig business.

In 2006, 2007 and 2009, Seahawk received tax assessments from the Mexican government related to their operations. Pursuant to local statutory requirements, Seahawk has provided and may provide additional surety bonds, letters of credit or other suitable collateral to contest these assessments. Pursuant to a tax support agreement between Pride and Seahawk, Pride agreed, at Seahawk's request, to guarantee or indemnify the issuer of any such surety bonds, letters of credit or other collateral issued for Seahawk's account in respect of such Mexican tax assessments made prior to the spin-off date. In September 2010, Seahawk requested that Pride provide credit support for four letters of credit issued for the appeals of four of Seahawk's tax assessments. The amount of the request totaled approximately $50.0 million. In October 2010, Pride provided credit support in satisfaction of this request. A liability of $700,000 related to this matter was recorded as of September 30, 2011 and included in accrued liabilities and other on our condensed consolidated balance sheet. Pursuant to the tax support agreement, Seahawk is required to pay Pride a fee based on the actual credit support provided. Seahawk's quarterly fee payment due on December 31, 2010 was not made, which had the effect of terminating Pride's obligation to provide further credit support under the tax support agreement.

In February 2011, Pride sent a notice to Seahawk requesting that it provide cash collateral for the credit support previously provided by Pride, as provided under the terms of the agreement. Seahawk did not post the cash collateral, thereby further repudiating its obligations under the tax support agreement. Pride filed a proof of claim in Seahawk's bankruptcy for all damages arising from or relating to Seahawk's repudiation of its obligations under the tax support agreement. In connection with Seahawk's bankruptcy filing, a committee of Seahawk's equity security holders filed a lawsuit against Pride seeking, among others, a determination that Seahawk has no liability to Pride under the tax support agreement or that such liability is offset by Seahawk's asserted claims against Pride. The trial of Pride's claims against Seahawk and Seahawk's claims against Pride is scheduled to commence on December 12, 2011. We believe Seahawk's claims are without merit and we intend to vigorously defend our position. For additional information regarding Seahawk's bankruptcy, including alleged claims it may have against Pride, see "Seahawk Drilling, Inc. Bankruptcy" in Part II, Item 1, Legal Proceedings of this quarterly report on Form 10-Q.

ENSCO 74 Loss

In September 2008, ENSCO 74 was lost as a result of Hurricane Ike in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico. Portions of its legs remained underwater adjacent to the customer's platform, and the sunken rig hull of ENSCO 74 was located approximately 95 miles from the original drilling location when it was struck by an oil tanker in March 2009. During the fourth quarter of 2010, wreck removal operations on the sunken rig hull of ENSCO 74 were completed.

We believe it is probable that we are required to remove the leg sections of ENSCO 74 remaining adjacent to the customer's platform because they may interfere with the customer's future operations, in addition to the removal of related debris. We estimate the leg and related debris removal costs to range from $21.0 million to $35.0 million. We expect the cost of removal of the legs and related debris to be fully covered by our insurance.

Physical damage to our rigs caused by a hurricane, the associated "sue and labor" costs to mitigate the insured loss and removal, salvage and recovery costs are all covered by our property insurance policies subject to a $50.0 million per occurrence self-insured retention. Coverage for ENSCO 74 sue and labor costs and wreckage and debris removal costs under our property insurance policies is limited to $25.0 million and $50.0 million, respectively. Supplemental wreckage and debris removal coverage is provided under our liability insurance policies, subject to an annual aggregate limit of $500.0 million. We also have a customer contractual indemnification that provides for reimbursement of any ENSCO 74 wreckage and debris removal costs that are not recovered under our insurance policies.

A $21.0 million liability, representing the low end of the range of estimated leg and related debris removal costs, and a corresponding receivable for recovery of those costs was recorded as of September 30, 2011 and included in accrued liabilities and other and other assets, net, on our condensed consolidated balance sheet.

In March 2009, we received notice from legal counsel representing certain underwriters in a subrogation claim alleging that ENSCO 74 caused a pipeline to rupture during Hurricane Ike. In September 2009, civil litigation was filed seeking damages for the cost of repairs and business interruption in an amount in excess of $26.0 million. Based on information currently available, primarily the adequacy of available defenses, we have not concluded that it is probable a liability exists with respect to this matter.

In March 2009, the owner of the oil tanker that struck the hull of ENSCO 74 commenced civil litigation against us seeking monetary damages of $10.0 million for losses incurred when the tanker struck the sunken hull of ENSCO 74. Based on information currently available, primarily the adequacy of available defenses, we have not concluded that it is probable a liability exists with respect to this matter.

We filed a petition for exoneration or limitation of liability under U.S. admiralty and maritime law in September 2009. The petition seeks exoneration from or limitation of liability for any and all injury, loss or damage caused, occasioned or occurred in relation to the ENSCO 74 loss in September 2008. The owner of the tanker that struck the hull of ENSCO 74 and the owners of four subsea pipelines have presented claims in the exoneration/limitation proceedings. The matter is scheduled for trial in March 2012.

We have liability insurance policies that provide coverage for claims such as the tanker and pipeline claims as well as removal of wreckage and debris in excess of the property insurance policy sublimit, subject to a $10.0 million per occurrence self-insured retention for third-party claims and an annual aggregate limit of $500.0 million. We believe all liabilities associated with the ENSCO 74 loss during Hurricane Ike resulted from a single occurrence under the terms of the applicable insurance policies. However, legal counsel for certain liability underwriters have asserted that the liability claims arise from separate occurrences. In the event of multiple occurrences, the self-insured retention is $15.0 million for two occurrences and $1.0 million for each occurrence thereafter.

Although we do not expect final disposition of the claims associated with the ENSCO 74 loss to have a material adverse effect upon our financial position, operating results or cash flows, there can be no assurances as to the ultimate outcome.

ENSCO 69

By letter dated June 4, 2009, we were informed by Petrosucre, a subsidiary of Petróleos de Venezuela S.A., the national oil company of Venezuela, of its intention to assume complete custody and control of ENSCO 69. We have filed an insurance claim under our package policy, which includes coverage for certain political risks. ENSCO 69 has an insured value of $65.0 million under our package policy, subject to a $10.0 million deductible.

With the exception of one underwriter who represents approximately 10% of the claim, we have been able to reach a mutually agreeable settlement for our claim under our package policy, which resulted in a gain of $10.8 million upon receipt of cash settlements during the third quarter of 2011.

The first phase of the arbitration with the remaining underwriter was held on September 19, 2011. The arbitration panel has not yet returned a decision. Until the arbitration proceedings are concluded, there can be no assurances as to the ultimate outcome with regard to the underwriter who has not agreed to settle this matter.

ENSCO 29 Wreck Removal

A portion of the ENSCO 29 platform drilling rig was lost over the side of a customer's platform as a result of Hurricane Katrina during 2005. Although beneficial ownership of ENSCO 29 was transferred to our insurance underwriters when the rig was determined to be a total loss, management believes we may be legally required to remove ENSCO 29 wreckage and debris from the seabed and currently estimates the removal cost could range from $5.0 million to $15.0 million. Our property insurance policies include coverage for ENSCO 29 wreckage and debris removal costs up to $3.8 million. We also have liability insurance policies that provide specified coverage for wreckage and debris removal costs in excess of the $3.8 million coverage provided under our property insurance policies.

Our liability insurance underwriters have issued letters reserving rights and effectively denying coverage by questioning the applicability of coverage for the potential ENSCO 29 wreckage and debris removal costs. During 2007, we commenced litigation against certain underwriters alleging breach of contract, wrongful denial, bad faith and other claims and seeking a declaration that removal of wreckage and debris is covered under our liability insurance, monetary damages, attorneys' fees and other remedies. The court heard several pretrial motions on May 25, 2011 and on July 31, 2011 issued an order compelling the matter to be submitted to arbitration.

While we anticipate that any ENSCO 29 wreckage and debris removal costs incurred will be largely or fully covered by insurance, a $1.2 million provision, representing the portion of the $5.0 million low end of the range of estimated removal cost we believe is subject to liability insurance coverage, was recognized in 2006.

Asbestos Litigation

During 2004, we and certain current and former subsidiaries were named as defendants, along with numerous other third-party companies as co-defendants, in three multi-party lawsuits filed in Mississippi. The lawsuits sought an unspecified amount of monetary damages on behalf of individuals alleging personal injury or death, primarily under the Jones Act, purportedly resulting from exposure to asbestos on drilling rigs and associated facilities during the period 1965 through 1986.

In compliance with the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure, the individual claimants in the original multi-party lawsuits whose claims were not dismissed were ordered to file either new or amended single plaintiff complaints naming the specific defendant(s) against whom they intended to pursue claims. As a result, out of more than 600 initial multi-party claims, we have been named as a defendant by 65 individual plaintiffs. Of these claims, 62 claims or lawsuits are pending in Mississippi state courts and three are pending in the U.S. District Court as a result of their removal from state court.

To date, written discovery and plaintiff depositions have taken place in eight cases involving us. While several cases have been selected for trial during 2011 and 2012, none of the cases pending against us in Mississippi state court are included within those selected cases.

We intend to continue to vigorously defend against these claims and have filed responsive pleadings preserving all defenses and challenges to jurisdiction and venue. However, discovery is still ongoing and, therefore, available information regarding the nature of all pending claims is limited. At present, we cannot reasonably determine how many of the claimants may have valid claims under the Jones Act or estimate a range of potential liability exposure, if any.

In addition to the pending cases in Mississippi, we have other asbestos or lung injury claims pending against us in litigation in other jurisdictions. Although we do not expect the final disposition of the Mississippi and other asbestos or lung injury lawsuits to have a material adverse effect upon our financial position, operating results or cash flows, there can be no assurances as to the ultimate outcome of the lawsuits.

Working Time Directive

Legislation known as the U.K. Working Time Directive ("WTD") was introduced during 2003 and may be applicable to our employees and employees of other drilling contractors that work offshore in U.K. territorial waters or in the U.K. sector of the North Sea. Certain trade unions representing offshore employees have claimed that drilling contractors are not in compliance with the WTD in respect of paid time off (vacation time) for employees working offshore on a rotational basis (generally equal time working and off).

A Labor Tribunal in Aberdeen, Scotland, rendered decisions in claims involving other offshore drilling contractors and offshore service companies in February 2008. The Tribunal decisions effectively held that employers of offshore workers in the U.K. sector employed on an equal time on/time off rotation are obligated to accord such rotating personnel two-weeks annual paid time off from their scheduled offshore work assignment period. Both sides of the matter, employee and employer groups, appealed the Tribunal decision. The appeals were heard by the Employment Appeal Tribunal ("EAT") in December 2008.

In an opinion rendered in March 2009, the EAT determined that the time off work enjoyed by U.K. offshore oil and gas workers, typically 26 weeks per year, meets the amount of annual leave employers must provide to employees under the WTD. The employer group was successful in all arguments on appeal, as the EAT determined that the statutory entitlement to annual leave under the WTD can be discharged through normal field break arrangements for offshore workers. As a consequence of the EAT decision, an equal time on/time off offshore rotation has been deemed to be fully compliant with the WTD. The employee group (led by a trade union) was granted leave to appeal to the highest civil court in Scotland (the Court of Session). A hearing on the appeal occurred in June 2010, and a decision was rendered in October 2010 in favor of the employer group. The employee group has appealed to the U.K. Supreme Court, and a hearing was held in October 2011. We expect a decision from the U.K. Supreme Court in the near-term.

Based on information currently available, we do not expect the ultimate resolution of these matters to have a material adverse effect on our financial position, operating results or cash flows.

Environmental Matters

We are currently subject to pending notices of assessment issued from 2008 to 2011 pursuant to which governmental authorities in Brazil are seeking fines in an aggregate amount of $2.0 million for the release of drilling fluid from drilling rigs operating offshore Brazil. We are contesting these notices and intend to defend ourselves vigorously. Although we do not expect the outcome of these assessments to have a material adverse effect on our financial position, operating results or cash flows, there can be no assurance as to the ultimate outcome of these assessments. A $2.0 million liability related to these matters was recorded as of September 30, 2011 and included in accrued liabilities and other on our condensed consolidated balance sheet.

We are currently subject to a pending administrative proceeding initiated in July 2009 by a governmental authority of Spain pursuant to which such governmental authority is seeking payment in an aggregate amount of $4.0 million for an alleged environmental spill originating from the ENSCO 5006 while it was operating offshore Spain. We expect to be indemnified for any payments resulting from this incident by our customer under the terms of the drilling contract. Our customer has posted guarantees with the Spanish government to cover potential penalties. In addition, a criminal investigation of the incident was initiated in July 2010 by a prosecutor in Tarragona, Spain, and the administrative proceedings have been suspended pending the outcome of this investigation. We do not know at this time what, if any, involvement we may have in this investigation.

We intend to defend ourselves vigorously in the administrative proceeding and any criminal investigation. At this time, we are unable to predict the outcome of these matters or estimate the extent to which we may be exposed to any resulting liability. Although we do not expect the outcome of the proceedings to have a material adverse effect on our financial position, operating results or cash flows, there can be no assurance as to the ultimate outcome of the proceedings.

Other Matters

In addition to the foregoing, we are named defendants or parties in certain other lawsuits, claims or proceedings incidental to our business and are involved from time to time as parties to governmental investigations or proceedings, including matters related to taxation, arising in the ordinary course of business. Although the outcome of such lawsuits or other proceedings cannot be predicted with certainty and the amount of any liability that could arise with respect to such lawsuits or other proceedings cannot be predicted accurately, we do not expect these matters to have a material adverse effect on our financial position, operating results or cash flows.