Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2018
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Contingencies	Contingencies Brazil Internal Investigation Pride International LLC, formerly Pride International, Inc. (“Pride”), a company we acquired in 2011, commenced drilling operations in Brazil in 2001. In 2008, Pride entered into a drilling services agreement with Petrobras (the "DSA") for ENSCO DS-5, a drillship ordered from Samsung Heavy Industries, a shipyard in South Korea ("SHI"). Beginning in 2006, Pride conducted periodic compliance reviews of its business with Petrobras, and, after the acquisition of Pride, Ensco conducted similar compliance reviews. We commenced a compliance review in early 2015 after the release of media reports regarding ongoing investigations of various kickback and bribery schemes in Brazil involving Petrobras. While conducting our compliance review, we became aware of an internal audit report by Petrobras alleging irregularities in relation to the DSA. Upon learning of the Petrobras internal audit report, our Audit Committee appointed independent counsel to lead an investigation into the alleged irregularities. Further, in June and July 2015, we voluntarily contacted the SEC and the U.S. Department of Justice (the "DOJ"), respectively, to advise them of this matter and of our Audit Committee’s investigation. Independent counsel, under the direction of our Audit Committee, has substantially completed its investigation by reviewing and analyzing available documents and correspondence and interviewing current and former employees involved in the DSA negotiations and the negotiation of the ENSCO DS-5 construction contract with SHI (the "DS-5 Construction Contract"). To date, our Audit Committee has found no credible evidence that Pride or Ensco or any of their current or former employees were aware of or involved in any wrongdoing, and our Audit Committee has found no credible evidence linking Ensco or Pride to any illegal acts committed by our former marketing consultant who provided services to Pride and Ensco in connection with the DSA. We, through independent counsel, have continued to cooperate with the SEC and DOJ, including providing detailed briefings regarding our investigation and findings and responding to inquiries as they arise. We entered into a one-year tolling agreement with the DOJ that expired in December 2016. Our tolling agreement with the SEC expired in June 2018. Subsequent to initiating our Audit Committee investigation, Brazilian court documents connected to the prosecution of former Petrobras directors and employees as well as certain other third parties, including our former marketing consultant, referenced the alleged irregularities cited in the Petrobras internal audit report. Our former marketing consultant has entered into a plea agreement with the Brazilian authorities. On January 10, 2016, Brazilian authorities filed an indictment against a former Petrobras director. This indictment states that the former Petrobras director received bribes paid out of proceeds from a brokerage agreement entered into for purposes of intermediating a drillship construction contract between SHI and Pride, which we believe to be the DS-5 Construction Contract. The parties to the brokerage agreement were a company affiliated with a person acting on behalf of the former Petrobras director, a company affiliated with our former marketing consultant, and SHI. The indictment alleges that amounts paid by SHI under the brokerage agreement ultimately were used to pay bribes to the former Petrobras director. The indictment does not state that Pride or Ensco or any of their current or former employees were involved in the bribery scheme or had any knowledge of the bribery scheme. On January 4, 2016, we received a notice from Petrobras declaring the DSA void effective immediately. Petrobras’ notice alleges that our former marketing consultant both received and procured improper payments from SHI for employees of Petrobras and that Pride had knowledge of this activity and assisted in the procurement of and/or facilitated these improper payments. We disagree with Petrobras’ allegations. See "DSA Dispute" below for additional information. In August 2017, one of our Brazilian subsidiaries was contacted by the Office of the Attorney General for the Brazilian state of Paraná in connection with a criminal investigation procedure initiated against agents of both SHI and Pride in relation to the DSA. The Brazilian authorities requested information regarding our compliance program and the findings of our internal investigations. We cooperated with the Office of the Attorney General and provided documents in response to its request. We cannot predict the scope or ultimate outcome of this procedure or whether any other governmental authority will open an investigation into Pride’s involvement in this matter, or if a proceeding were opened, the scope or ultimate outcome of any such investigation. If the SEC or DOJ determines that violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977 (the "FCPA") have occurred, or if any governmental authority determines that we have violated applicable anti-bribery laws, they could seek civil and criminal sanctions, including monetary penalties, against us, as well as changes to our business practices and compliance programs, any of which could have a material adverse effect on our business and financial condition. Although our internal investigation is substantially complete, we cannot predict whether any additional allegations will be made or whether any additional facts relevant to the investigation will be uncovered during the course of the investigation and what impact those allegations and additional facts will have on the timing or conclusions of the investigation. Our Audit Committee will examine any such additional allegations and additional facts and the circumstances surrounding them. DSA Dispute As described above, on January 4, 2016, Petrobras sent a notice to us declaring the DSA void effective immediately, reserving its rights and stating its intention to seek any restitution to which it may be entitled. We disagree with Petrobras’ declaration that the DSA is void. We believe that Petrobras repudiated the DSA and has therefore accepted the DSA as terminated on April 8, 2016 (the "Termination Date"). At this time, we cannot reasonably determine the validity of Petrobras' claim or the range of our potential exposure, if any. As a result, there can be no assurance as to how this dispute will ultimately be resolved. We did not recognize revenue for amounts owed to us under the DSA from the beginning of the fourth quarter of 2015 through the Termination Date, as we concluded that collectability of these amounts was not reasonably assured. Additionally, our receivables from Petrobras related to the DSA from prior to the fourth quarter of 2015 are fully reserved in our condensed consolidated balance sheet as of June 30, 2018. In August 2016, we initiated arbitration proceedings in the U.K. against Petrobras seeking payment of all amounts owed to us under the DSA, in addition to any other amounts to which we are entitled, and intend to vigorously pursue our claims. Petrobras subsequently filed a counterclaim seeking restitution of certain sums paid under the DSA less value received by Petrobras under the DSA. The arbitral hearing on liability was held in March 2018, and we are awaiting the tribunal's decision. There can be no assurance as to how this arbitration proceeding will ultimately be resolved. In November 2016, we initiated separate arbitration proceedings in the U.K. against SHI for any losses we incur in connection with the foregoing Petrobras arbitration. SHI subsequently filed a statement of defense disputing our claim. In January 2018, the arbitration tribunal for the SHI matter issued an award on liability fully in Ensco’s favor. SHI is liable to us for $10 million or damages that we can prove. As the losses suffered by us will depend in part on the outcome of the Petrobras arbitration described above, the amount of damages to be paid by SHI will be determined after the conclusion of the Petrobras arbitration. We are unable to estimate the ultimate outcome of recovery for damages at this time. 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. In the ordinary course of business with customers and others, we have entered into letters of credit to guarantee our performance as it relates to our drilling contracts, contract bidding, customs duties, tax appeals and other obligations in various jurisdictions. Letters of credit outstanding as of June 30, 2018 totaled $125.4 million and are issued under facilities provided by various banks and other financial institutions. Obligations under these letters of credit and surety bonds are not normally called, as we typically comply with the underlying performance requirement. As of June 30, 2018, we had not been required to make collateral deposits with respect to these agreements.

Contingencies

Brazil Internal Investigation

Pride International LLC, formerly Pride International, Inc. (“Pride”), a company we acquired in 2011, commenced drilling operations in Brazil in 2001. In 2008, Pride entered into a drilling services agreement with Petrobras (the "DSA") for ENSCO DS-5, a drillship ordered from Samsung Heavy Industries, a shipyard in South Korea ("SHI"). Beginning in 2006, Pride conducted periodic compliance reviews of its business with Petrobras, and, after the acquisition of Pride, Ensco conducted similar compliance reviews.

We commenced a compliance review in early 2015 after the release of media reports regarding ongoing investigations of various kickback and bribery schemes in Brazil involving Petrobras. While conducting our compliance review, we became aware of an internal audit report by Petrobras alleging irregularities in relation to the DSA. Upon learning of the Petrobras internal audit report, our Audit Committee appointed independent counsel to lead an investigation into the alleged irregularities. Further, in June and July 2015, we voluntarily contacted the SEC and the U.S. Department of Justice (the "DOJ"), respectively, to advise them of this matter and of our Audit Committee’s investigation. Independent counsel, under the direction of our Audit Committee, has substantially completed its investigation by reviewing and analyzing available documents and correspondence and interviewing current and former employees involved in the DSA negotiations and the negotiation of the ENSCO DS-5 construction contract with SHI (the "DS-5 Construction Contract").

To date, our Audit Committee has found no credible evidence that Pride or Ensco or any of their current or former employees were aware of or involved in any wrongdoing, and our Audit Committee has found no credible evidence linking Ensco or Pride to any illegal acts committed by our former marketing consultant who provided services to Pride and Ensco in connection with the DSA. We, through independent counsel, have continued to cooperate with the SEC and DOJ, including providing detailed briefings regarding our investigation and findings and responding to inquiries as they arise. We entered into a one-year tolling agreement with the DOJ that expired in December 2016. Our tolling agreement with the SEC expired in June 2018.

Subsequent to initiating our Audit Committee investigation, Brazilian court documents connected to the prosecution of former Petrobras directors and employees as well as certain other third parties, including our former marketing consultant, referenced the alleged irregularities cited in the Petrobras internal audit report. Our former marketing consultant has entered into a plea agreement with the Brazilian authorities. On January 10, 2016, Brazilian authorities filed an indictment against a former Petrobras director. This indictment states that the former Petrobras director received bribes paid out of proceeds from a brokerage agreement entered into for purposes of intermediating a drillship construction contract between SHI and Pride, which we believe to be the DS-5 Construction Contract. The parties to the brokerage agreement were a company affiliated with a person acting on behalf of the former Petrobras director, a company affiliated with our former marketing consultant, and SHI. The indictment alleges that amounts paid by SHI under the brokerage agreement ultimately were used to pay bribes to the former Petrobras director. The indictment does not state that Pride or Ensco or any of their current or former employees were involved in the bribery scheme or had any knowledge of the bribery scheme.

On January 4, 2016, we received a notice from Petrobras declaring the DSA void effective immediately. Petrobras’ notice alleges that our former marketing consultant both received and procured improper payments from SHI for employees of Petrobras and that Pride had knowledge of this activity and assisted in the procurement of and/or facilitated these improper payments. We disagree with Petrobras’ allegations. See "DSA Dispute" below for additional information.

In August 2017, one of our Brazilian subsidiaries was contacted by the Office of the Attorney General for the Brazilian state of Paraná in connection with a criminal investigation procedure initiated against agents of both SHI and Pride in relation to the DSA. The Brazilian authorities requested information regarding our compliance program and the findings of our internal investigations. We cooperated with the Office of the Attorney General and provided documents in response to its request. We cannot predict the scope or ultimate outcome of this procedure or whether any other governmental authority will open an investigation into Pride’s involvement in this matter, or if a proceeding were opened, the scope or ultimate outcome of any such investigation. If the SEC or DOJ determines that violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977 (the "FCPA") have occurred, or if any governmental authority determines that we have violated applicable anti-bribery laws, they could seek civil and criminal sanctions, including monetary penalties, against us, as well as changes to our business practices and compliance programs, any of which could have a material adverse effect on our business and financial condition. Although our internal investigation is substantially complete, we cannot predict whether any additional allegations will be made or whether any additional facts relevant to the investigation will be uncovered during the course of the investigation and what impact those allegations and additional facts will have on the timing or conclusions of the investigation. Our Audit Committee will examine any such additional allegations and additional facts and the circumstances surrounding them.

DSA Dispute

As described above, on January 4, 2016, Petrobras sent a notice to us declaring the DSA void effective immediately, reserving its rights and stating its intention to seek any restitution to which it may be entitled. We disagree with Petrobras’ declaration that the DSA is void. We believe that Petrobras repudiated the DSA and has therefore accepted the DSA as terminated on April 8, 2016 (the "Termination Date"). At this time, we cannot reasonably determine the validity of Petrobras' claim or the range of our potential exposure, if any. As a result, there can be no assurance as to how this dispute will ultimately be resolved.

We did not recognize revenue for amounts owed to us under the DSA from the beginning of the fourth quarter of 2015 through the Termination Date, as we concluded that collectability of these amounts was not reasonably assured. Additionally, our receivables from Petrobras related to the DSA from prior to the fourth quarter of 2015 are fully reserved in our condensed consolidated balance sheet as of June 30, 2018. In August 2016, we initiated arbitration proceedings in the U.K. against Petrobras seeking payment of all amounts owed to us under the DSA, in addition to any other amounts to which we are entitled, and intend to vigorously pursue our claims. Petrobras subsequently filed a counterclaim seeking restitution of certain sums paid under the DSA less value received by Petrobras under the DSA. The arbitral hearing on liability was held in March 2018, and we are awaiting the tribunal's decision. There can be no assurance as to how this arbitration proceeding will ultimately be resolved.

In November 2016, we initiated separate arbitration proceedings in the U.K. against SHI for any losses we incur in connection with the foregoing Petrobras arbitration. SHI subsequently filed a statement of defense disputing our claim. In January 2018, the arbitration tribunal for the SHI matter issued an award on liability fully in Ensco’s favor. SHI is liable to us for $10 million or damages that we can prove. As the losses suffered by us will depend in part on the outcome of the Petrobras arbitration described above, the amount of damages to be paid by SHI will be determined after the conclusion of the Petrobras arbitration. We are unable to estimate the ultimate outcome of recovery for damages at this time.

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.

In the ordinary course of business with customers and others, we have entered into letters of credit to guarantee our performance as it relates to our drilling contracts, contract bidding, customs duties, tax appeals and other obligations in various jurisdictions. Letters of credit outstanding as of June 30, 2018 totaled $125.4 million and are issued under facilities provided by various banks and other financial institutions. Obligations under these letters of credit and surety bonds are not normally called, as we typically comply with the underlying performance requirement. As of June 30, 2018, we had not been required to make collateral deposits with respect to these agreements.