View Filing Data

Document And Entity Information - USD ($)	6 Months Ended
Document And Entity Information - USD ($)	Jun. 30, 2011	Jul. 15, 2011	Jun. 30, 2010
Entity Registrant Name	Halliburton Company
Entity Central Index Key	0000045012
Current Fiscal Year End Date	--12-31
Entity Well-known Seasoned Issuer	Yes
Entity Voluntary Filers	No
Entity Current Reporting Status	Yes
Entity Filer Category	Large Accelerated Filer
Entity Public Float			$ 22,217,000,000
Entity Common Stock, Shares Outstanding		919,636,645
Document Fiscal Year Focus	2011
Document Fiscal Period Focus	Q2
Document Type	10-Q
Amendment Flag	false
Document Period End Date	Jun. 30, 2011

Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations - USD ($) shares in Millions, $ in Millions	3 Months Ended		6 Months Ended
	Jun. 30, 2011	Jun. 30, 2010	Jun. 30, 2011	Jun. 30, 2010
Revenue:
Services	$ 4,727	$ 3,371	$ 8,918	$ 6,216
Product sales	1,208	1,016	2,299	1,932
Total revenue	5,935	4,387	11,217	8,148
Operating costs and expenses:
Cost of services	3,659	2,716	7,087	5,184
Cost of sales	1,050	862	2,020	1,648
General and administrative	65	47	135	105
Total operating costs and expenses	4,774	3,625	9,242	6,937
Operating income	1,161	762	1,975	1,211
Interest expense, net of interest income of $2, $3, $3, and $6	(63)	(76)	(132)	(152)
Other, net	(5)	(9)	(9)	(49)
Income from continuing operations before income taxes	1,093	677	1,834	1,010
Provision for income taxes	(352)	(200)	(581)	(321)
Income from continuing operations	741	477	1,253	689
Income (loss) from discontinued operations, net of income tax (provision) benefit of $1, $(3), $1, and $(0)	0	6	(1)	1
Net income	741	483	1,252	690
Noncontrolling interest in net income of subsidiaries	(2)	(3)	(2)	(4)
Net income attributable to company	739	480	1,250	686
Amounts attributable to company shareholders:
Income from continuing operations	739	474	1,251	685
Income (loss) from discontinued operations, net	0	6	(1)	1
Net income attributable to company	$ 739	$ 480	$ 1,250	$ 686
Basic income per share attributable to company shareholders:
Income from continuing operations (in dollars per share)	$ 0.81	$ 0.52	$ 1.37	$ 0.76
Income from discontinued operations, net (in dollars per share)	0	0.01	0	0
Net income per share (in dollars per share)	0.81	0.53	1.37	0.76
Diluted income per share attributable to company shareholders:
Income from continuing operations (in dollars per share)	0.80	0.52	1.36	0.75
Income from discontinued operations, net (in dollars per share)	0	0.01	0	0.01
Net income per share (in dollars per share)	0.80	0.53	1.36	0.76
Cash dividends per share (in dollars per share)	$ 0.09	$ 0.09	$ 0.18	$ 0.18
Basic weighted average common shares outstanding (in shares)	916	906	915	906
Diluted weighted average common shares outstanding (in shares)	921	909	920	908

Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations (Parenthetical) - USD ($)	3 Months Ended		6 Months Ended
	Jun. 30, 2011	Jun. 30, 2010	Jun. 30, 2011	Jun. 30, 2010
Income Statement [Abstract]
Interest income	$ 2,000,000	$ 3,000,000	$ 3,000,000	$ 6,000,000
Income (loss) from discontinued operations, income tax (provision) benefit	$ 1,000,000	$ (3,000,000)	$ 1,000,000	$ (0)

Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets - USD ($) $ in Millions	Jun. 30, 2011	Dec. 31, 2010
Current assets:
Cash and equivalents	$ 1,438	$ 1,398
Receivables (less allowance for bad debts of $128 and $91)	4,448	3,924
Inventories	2,235	1,940
Investments in marketable securities	451	653
Current deferred income taxes	258	257
Other current assets	710	714
Total current assets	9,540	8,886
Property, plant, and equipment, net of accumulated depreciation of $6,611 and $6,064	7,626	6,842
Goodwill	1,369	1,315
Other assets	1,421	1,254
Total assets	19,956	18,297
Current liabilities:
Accounts payable	1,554	1,139
Accrued employee compensation and benefits	706	716
Deferred revenue	260	266
Other current liabilities	646	636
Total current liabilities	3,166	2,757
Long-term debt	3,824	3,824
Employee compensation and benefits	483	487
Other liabilities	825	842
Total liabilities	8,298	7,910
Shareholders' equity:
Common shares, par value $2.50 per share - authorized 2,000 shares, issued 1,072 and 1,069 shares	2,680	2,674
Paid-in capital in excess of par value	360	339
Accumulated other comprehensive loss	(237)	(240)
Retained earnings	13,456	12,371
Treasury stock, at cost - 154 and 159 shares	(4,617)	(4,771)
Company shareholders' equity	11,642	10,373
Noncontrolling interest in consolidated subsidiaries	16	14
Total shareholders' equity	11,658	10,387
Total liabilities and shareholders' equity	$ 19,956	$ 18,297

Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets (Parenthetical) - USD ($) $ in Millions	Jun. 30, 2011	Dec. 31, 2010
Current assets:
Allowance for bad debts	$ 128	$ 91
Accumulated depreciation	$ 6,611	$ 6,064
Shareholders' equity
Common stock, par value (in dollars per share)	$ 2.50	$ 2.50
Common stock, shares authorized (in shares)	2,000	2,000
Common stock, shares issued (in shares)	1,072	1,069
Treasury shares (in shares)	154	159

Statement of Cash Flows - USD ($) $ in Millions	6 Months Ended
Statement of Cash Flows - USD ($) $ in Millions	Jun. 30, 2011	Jun. 30, 2010
Cash flows from operating activities:
Net income	$ 1,252	$ 690
Adjustments to reconcile net income to net cash flows from operating activities:
Depreciation, depletion, and amortization	651	533
Payments related to KBR TSKJ matters	(6)	(94)
Other changes:
Receivables	(583)	(547)
Accounts payable	397	296
Inventories	(290)	(162)
Other	(33)	92
Total cash flows from operating activities	1,388	808
Cash flows from investing activities:
Capital expenditures	(1,423)	(855)
Sales of marketable securities	701	550
Purchases of marketable securities	(501)	(1,182)
Acquisitions of business assets, net of cash acquired	(70)	(190)
Other investing activities	50	82
Total cash flows from investing activities	(1,243)	(1,595)
Cash flows from financing activities:
Dividends to shareholders	(165)	(163)
Proceeds from exercises of stock options	93	40
Other financing activities	(13)	5
Total cash flows from financing activities	(85)	(118)
Effect of exchange rate changes on cash	(20)	(17)
Increase (decrease) in cash and equivalents	40	(922)
Cash and equivalents at beginning of period	1,398	2,082
Cash and equivalents at end of period	1,438	1,160
Cash payments during the period for:
Interest	136	155
Income taxes	$ 536	$ 361

Basis of Presentation

6 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2011

Basis of Presentation [Abstract]

Basis of Presentation [Text Block]

Note 1. Basis of Presentation

The accompanying unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements were prepared using generally accepted accounting principles for interim financial information and the instructions to Form 10-Q and Regulation S-X. Accordingly, these financial statements do not include all information or notes required by generally accepted accounting principles for annual financial statements and should be read together with our 2010 Annual Report on Form 10-K.

Our accounting policies are in accordance with United States generally accepted accounting principles. The preparation of financial statements in conformity with these accounting principles requires us to make estimates and assumptions that affect:

	-	the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements; and
	-	the reported amounts of revenue and expenses during the reporting period.

Ultimate results could differ from our estimates.

In our opinion, the condensed consolidated financial statements included herein contain all adjustments necessary to present fairly our financial position as of June 30, 2011, the results of our operations for the three and six months ended June 30, 2011 and 2010, and our cash flows for the six months ended June 30, 2011 and 2010. Such adjustments are of a normal recurring nature. In addition, certain reclassifications of prior period balances have been made to conform to 2011 classifications. The results of operations for the three and six months ended June 30, 2011 may not be indicative of results for the full year.

Business Segment and Geographic Information

6 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2011

Business Segment and Geographic Information [Abstract]

Business Segment and Geographic Information [Text Block]

Note 2. Business Segment and Geographic Information

We operate under two divisions, which form the basis for the two operating segments we report: the Completion and Production segment and the Drilling and Evaluation segment.

The following table presents information on our business segments. "Corporate and other" includes expenses related to support functions and corporate executives. Also included are certain gains and losses not attributable to a particular business segment.

Intersegment revenue was immaterial. Our equity in earnings and losses of unconsolidated affiliates that are accounted for by the equity method are included in revenue and operating income of the applicable segment.

	Three Months Ended						Six Months Ended
	June 30						June 30
Millions of dollars	2011			2010			2011			2010
Revenue:
Completion and Production	$	3,618		$	2,393		$	6,790		$	4,357
Drilling and Evaluation		2,317			1,994			4,427			3,791
Total revenue	$	5,935		$	4,387		$	11,217		$	8,148

Operating income:
Completion and Production	$	918		$	497		$	1,578		$	735
Drilling and Evaluation		324			318			554			588
Total operations		1,242			815			2,132			1,323
Corporate and other		(81	)		(53	)		(157	)		(112	)
Total operating income	$	1,161		$	762		$	1,975		$	1,211
Interest expense, net of interest income		(63	)		(76	)		(132	)		(152	)
Other, net		(5	)		(9	)		(9	)		(49	)
Income from continuing operations before
income taxes	$	1,093		$	677		$	1,834		$	1,010

Receivables

As of June 30, 2011, 43% of our gross trade receivables were from customers in the United States. As of December 31, 2010, 36% of our gross trade receivables were from customers in the United States.

Inventories

6 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2011

Inventories - (Policies) [Abstract]

Inventories [Text Block]

Note 3. Inventories

Inventories are stated at the lower of cost or market. In the United States, we manufacture certain finished products and parts inventories for drill bits, completion products, bulk materials, and other tools that are recorded using the last-in, first-out method, which totaled $129 million as of June 30, 2011 and $108 million as of December 31, 2010. If the average cost method had been used, total inventories would have been $40 million higher than reported as of June 30, 2011 and $34 million higher than reported as of December 31, 2010. The cost of the remaining inventory was recorded on the average cost method. Inventories consisted of the following:

	June 30,		December 31,
Millions of dollars	2011		2010
Finished products and parts	$	1,559	$	1,369
Raw materials and supplies		621		496
Work in process		55		75
Total	$	2,235	$	1,940

Finished products and parts are reported net of obsolescence reserves of $104 million as of June 30, 2011 and $88 million as of December 31, 2010.

Debt	6 Months Ended
Debt	Jun. 30, 2011
Debt [Abstract]
Debt	Note 4. Debt On February 22, 2011, we entered into a new unsecured $2.0 billion five-year revolving credit facility that replaced our then existing $1.2 billion unsecured credit facility established in July 2007. The purpose of the facility is to provide commercial paper support, general working capital, and credit for other corporate purposes. The full amount of the revolving credit facility was available as of June 30, 2011. During the second quarter of 2011, we entered into a series of interest rate swaps relating to two of our debt instruments. The first series of swaps were for a notional amount of $600 million in order to hedge a portion of the changes in the fair value of our 6.15% senior notes due 2019. Under the terms of these swaps, we will receive interest at a fixed rate of 6.15% and will pay interest at a floating rate of three-month LIBOR plus a spread semiannually. The second series of swaps were for a notional amount of $400 million in order to hedge changes in the fair value of our 5.9% senior notes due 2018. Under the terms of these swaps, we will receive interest at a fixed rate of 5.9% and will pay interest at a floating rate of three-month LIBOR plus a spread semiannually. These interest rate swaps are designated as fair value hedges of the underlying debt. These derivative instruments are marked to market with gains and losses recognized currently in interest expense to offset the respective gains and losses recognized on changes in the fair value of the hedged debt.

Shareholders' Equity

6 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2011

Shareholders' Equity [Abstract]

Shareholders' Equity [Text Block]

Note 5. Shareholders' Equity

The following tables summarize our shareholders' equity activity.

							Noncontrolling
	Total			Company			interest in
	shareholders'			shareholders'			consolidated
Millions of dollars	equity			equity			subsidiaries
Balance at December 31, 2010	$	10,387		$	10,373		$	14
Transactions with shareholders		181			181			-
Comprehensive income:
Net income		1,252			1,250			2
Other comprehensive income		3			3			-
Total comprehensive income		1,255			1,253			2
Payments of dividends to shareholders		(165	)		(165	)		-
Balance at June 30, 2011	$	11,658		$	11,642		$	16

							Noncontrolling
	Total			Company			interest in
	shareholders'			shareholders'			consolidated
Millions of dollars	equity			equity			subsidiaries
Balance at December 31, 2009	$	8,757		$	8,728		$	29
Transactions with shareholders		96			98			(2	)
Comprehensive income:
Net income		690			686			4
Other comprehensive income		4			4			-
Total comprehensive income		694			690			4
Payments of dividends to shareholders		(163	)		(163	)		-
Balance at June 30, 2010	$	9,384		$	9,353		$	31

The following table summarizes comprehensive income for the quarterly periods presented.

	Three Months Ended
	June 30
Millions of dollars	2011		2010
Net income	$	741	$	483
Other comprehensive income (loss)		1		(3	)
Total comprehensive income	$	742	$	480
Comprehensive income attributable to noncontrolling interest		2		3
Comprehensive income attributable to company		740		477

Accumulated other comprehensive loss consisted of the following:

	June 30,		December 31,
Millions of dollars	2011		2010
Defined benefit and other postretirement liability adjustments	$	(176)	$	(175)
Cumulative translation adjustments		(64)		(66)
Unrealized gains on investments		3		1
Total accumulated other comprehensive loss	$	(237)	$	(240)

KBR Separation	6 Months Ended
KBR Separation	Jun. 30, 2011
KBR Separation [Abstract]
KBR Separation [Text Block]	Note 6. KBR Separation During 2007, we completed the separation of KBR, Inc. (KBR) from us by exchanging KBR common stock owned by us for our common stock. In addition, we recorded a liability reflecting the estimated fair value of the indemnities provided to KBR as described below. Since the separation, we have recorded adjustments to reflect changes to our estimation of our remaining obligation. All such adjustments are recorded in "Income (loss) from discontinued operations, net of income tax benefit." We entered into various agreements relating to the separation of KBR, including, among others, a master separation agreement and a tax sharing agreement. We agreed to provide indemnification in favor of KBR under the master separation agreement for all out-of-pocket cash costs and expenses, or cash settlements or cash arbitration awards in lieu thereof, KBR may incur after the effective date of the master separation agreement as a result of the replacement of the subsea flowline bolts installed in connection with the Barracuda-Caratinga project. Also, under the master separation agreement, we have indemnified KBR for certain losses arising from investigations and charges brought under the United States Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) or similar foreign statutes, laws, rules, or regulations in each case related to the construction of a natural gas liquefaction complex and related facilities at Bonny Island in Rivers State, Nigeria by a consortium of engineering firms comprised of Technip SA of France, Snamprogetti Netherlands B.V., JGC Corporation of Japan, and Kellogg Brown & Root LLC (TSKJ), each of which had an approximate 25% beneficial interest in the venture. Part of KBR's ownership in TSKJ was held through M.W. Kellogg Limited, a United Kingdom joint venture and subcontractor on the Bonny Island project in which KBR beneficially owned a 55% interest at the time of the execution of the master separation agreement. The TSKJ investigations and charges have been resolved. At this time, no other claims by governmental authorities in any jurisdictions have been asserted against the indemnified parties. The tax sharing agreement provides for allocations of United States and certain other jurisdiction tax liabilities between us and KBR. The tax sharing agreement is complex, and finalization of amounts owed between KBR and us under the tax sharing agreement can occur only after income tax audits are completed by the taxing authorities and both parties have had time to analyze the results. There can be no guarantee that the parties will agree on the allocations of tax liabilities, and the process may take several quarters or more to complete. Amounts accrued relating to our remaining KBR liabilities are primarily included in "Other liabilities" on the condensed consolidated balance sheets and totaled $53 million as of June 30, 2011 and $63 million as of December 31, 2010. See Note 7 for further discussion of the Barracuda-Caratinga matter.

Commitments and Contingencies

6 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2011

Commitments and Contingencies [Abstract]

Commitments and Contingencies [Text Block]

Note 7. Commitments and Contingencies

The Gulf of Mexico/Macondo well incident

Overview. The semisubmersible drilling rig, Deepwater Horizon, sank on April 22, 2010 after an explosion and fire onboard the rig that began on April 20, 2010. The Deepwater Horizon was owned by Transocean Ltd. and had been drilling the Macondo exploration well in Mississippi Canyon Block 252 in the Gulf of Mexico for the lease operator, BP Exploration & Production, Inc. (BP Exploration), an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of BP p.l.c. We performed a variety of services for BP Exploration, including cementing, mud logging, directional drilling, measurement-while-drilling, and rig data acquisition services. Crude oil flowing from the well site spread across thousands of square miles of the Gulf of Mexico and reached the United States Gulf Coast. Numerous attempts at estimating the volume of oil spilled have been made by various groups, and on August 2, 2010 the federal government published an estimate that approximately 4.9 million barrels of oil were discharged from the well. Efforts to contain the flow of hydrocarbons from the well were led by the United States government and by BP p.l.c., BP Exploration, and their affiliates (collectively, BP). The flow of hydrocarbons from the well ceased on July 15, 2010, and the well was permanently capped on September 19, 2010. There were eleven fatalities and a number of injuries as a result of the Macondo well incident.

As of June 30, 2011, we had not accrued any amounts related to this matter because we do not believe that a loss is probable. We are currently unable to estimate the full impact the Macondo well incident will have on us. Further, an estimate of a reasonably possible loss or range of loss related to this matter cannot be made. Considering the complexity of the Macondo well, however, and the number of investigations being conducted and lawsuits pending, as discussed below, new information or future developments may require us to adjust our liability assessment, and liabilities arising out of this matter could have a material adverse effect on our liquidity, consolidated results of operations, and consolidated financial condition.

Investigations and Regulatory Action. The United States Coast Guard, a component of the United States Department of Homeland Security, and the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement (BOE) (formerly known as the Minerals Management Service), a bureau of the United States Department of the Interior, share jurisdiction over the investigation into the Macondo well incident and have formed a joint investigation team that continues to review information and hold hearings regarding the incident (Marine Board Investigation). We are named as one of the 16 parties-in-interest in the Marine Board Investigation. In addition, other investigations are underway by the Chemical Safety Board and the National Academy of Sciences to, among other things, examine the relevant facts and circumstances concerning the causes of the Macondo well incident and develop options for guarding against future oil spills associated with offshore drilling. We are assisting in efforts to identify the factors that led to the Macondo well incident and have participated and intend to continue participating in various hearings relating to the incident that are held by, among others, certain of the agencies referred to above and various committees and subcommittees of the House of Representatives and the Senate of the United States.

In May 2010, the United States Department of the Interior effectively suspended all offshore deepwater drilling projects in the United States Gulf of Mexico. The suspension was lifted in October 2010. Later, the Department of the Interior issued new guidance for drillers that intend to resume deepwater drilling activity. Despite the fact that the drilling suspension was lifted, the BOE did not issue permits for the resumption of drilling for an extended period of time, and we have experienced a significant reduction in our Gulf of Mexico operations since the Macondo well incident. In the first quarter of 2011, the BOE resumed the issuance of drilling permits, and activity began to slowly recover in the second quarter although there can be no assurance of whether or when operations in the Gulf of Mexico will return to pre-suspension levels. For additional information, see Part II, Item 1(a), "Risk Factors" and "Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations - Business Environment and Results of Operations."

DOJ Investigations and Actions. On June 1, 2010, the United States Attorney General announced that the Department of Justice (DOJ) was launching civil and criminal investigations into the Macondo well incident to closely examine the actions of those involved, and that the DOJ was working with attorneys general of states affected by the Macondo well incident. The DOJ announced that it was reviewing, among other traditional criminal statutes, possible violations of and liabilities under The Clean Water Act (CWA), The Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA), The Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (MBTA), and the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA).

The CWA provides authority for civil and criminal penalties for discharges of oil into or upon navigable waters of the United States, adjoining shorelines, or in connection with the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act in quantities that are deemed harmful. A single discharge event may result in the assertion of numerous violations under the CWA. Criminal sanctions under the CWA can be assessed for negligent discharges (up to $50,000 per day per violation), for knowing discharges (up to $100,000 per day per violation), and for knowing endangerment (up to $2 million per violation), and federal agencies could be precluded from contracting with a company that is criminally sanctioned under the CWA. Civil proceedings under the CWA can be commenced against an "owner, operator or person in charge of any vessel or offshore facility that discharged oil or a hazardous substance." The civil penalties that can be imposed against responsible parties range from up to $1,100 per barrel of oil discharged in the case of those found strictly liable to $4,300 per barrel of oil discharged in the case of those found to have been grossly negligent.

The OPA establishes liability for discharges of oil from vessels, onshore facilities, and offshore facilities into or upon the navigable waters of the United States. Under the OPA, the "responsible party" for the discharging vessel or facility is liable for removal and response costs as well as for damages, including recovery costs to contain and remove discharged oil and damages for injury to natural resources, lost revenues, lost profits and lost earning capacity. The cap on liability under the OPA is the full cost of removal of the discharged oil plus up to $75 million for damages, except that the $75 million cap does not apply in the event the damage was proximately caused by gross negligence or the violation of certain federal safety, construction or operating standards. The OPA defines the set of responsible parties differently depending on whether the source of the discharge is a vessel or an offshore facility. Liability for vessels is imposed on owners and operators; liability for offshore facilities is imposed on the holder of the permit or lessee of the area in which the facility is located.

The MBTA and the ESA provide penalties for injury and death to wildlife and bird species. The MBTA provides that violators are strictly liable and provides for fines of up to $15,000 per bird killed and imprisonment of up to six months. The ESA provides for civil penalties for knowing violations that can range up to $25,000 per violation and, in the case of criminal penalties, up to $50,000 per violation.

In addition, the Alternative Fines Act may be applied in lieu of the express amount of the criminal fines that may be imposed under the statutes described above in the amount of twice the gross economic loss suffered by third parties (or twice the gross economic gain realized by the defendant, if greater).

On December 15, 2010, the DOJ filed a civil action seeking damages and injunctive relief against BP Exploration, Anadarko Petroleum Corporation and Anadarko E&P Company LP (together, Anadarko), certain subsidiaries of Transocean Ltd. and others for violations of the CWA and the OPA. The DOJ's complaint seeks an action declaring that the defendants are strictly liable under the CWA as a result of harmful discharges of oil into the Gulf of Mexico and upon U.S. shorelines as a result of the Macondo well incident. The complaint also seeks an action declaring that the defendants are strictly liable under the OPA for the discharge of oil that has resulted in, among other things, injury to, loss of, loss of use of or destruction of natural resources and resource services in and around the Gulf of Mexico and the adjoining U.S. shorelines and resulting in removal costs and damages to the United States far exceeding $75 million. BP has been designated, and has accepted the designation, as a responsible party for the pollution under the CWA and the OPA. Others have also been named as responsible parties, and all responsible parties may be held jointly and severally liable for any damages under the OPA. A responsible party may make a claim for contribution against any other responsible party or against third parties it alleges contributed to or caused the oil spill. In connection with the proceedings discussed below under "Litigation," in April 2011 BP Exploration filed a claim against us for contribution with respect to liabilities incurred by BP Exploration under the OPA and requested a judgment that the DOJ assert its claims for OPA financial liability directly against us.

We were not named as a responsible party under the CWA or the OPA in the DOJ civil action, and we do not believe we are a responsible party under the CWA or the OPA. While we were not included in the DOJ's complaint, there can be no assurance that the DOJ or other federal or state governmental authorities will not bring an action, whether civil or criminal, against us under the CWA, the OPA or other statutes or regulations. In connection with the DOJ's filing of the action, it announced that its criminal and civil investigations are continuing and that it will employ efforts to hold accountable those who are responsible for the incident. The DOJ has convened a grand jury in Louisiana to investigate potential criminal conduct in connection with the Macondo well incident. As of July 21, 2011, the DOJ has not commenced any civil or criminal proceedings against us.

In June 2010, we received a letter from the DOJ requesting thirty days advance notice of any event that may involve substantial transfers of cash or other corporate assets outside of the ordinary course of business. In our reply to the June 2010 DOJ letter, we conveyed our interest in briefing the DOJ on the services we provided on the Deepwater Horizon but indicated that we would not bind ourselves to the DOJ request. Subsequently, we have had and expect to continue to have discussions with the DOJ regarding the Macondo well incident and the request contained in the June 2010 DOJ letter.

Investigative Reports. On September 8, 2010, an incident investigation team assembled by BP issued the Deepwater Horizon Accident Investigation Report (BP Report). The BP Report outlines eight key findings of BP related to the possible causes of the Macondo well incident, including failures of cement barriers, failures of equipment provided by other service companies and the drilling contractor, and failures of judgment by BP and the drilling contractor. With respect to the BP Report's assessment that the cement barrier did not prevent hydrocarbons from entering the wellbore after cement placement, the BP Report concluded that, among other things, there were "weaknesses in cement design and testing." According to the BP Report, the BP incident investigation team did not review its analyses or conclusions with us or any other entity or governmental agency conducting a separate or independent investigation of the incident. In addition, the BP incident investigation team did not conduct any testing using our cementing products.

On June 22, 2011, Transocean released its internal investigation report on the causes of the Macondo well incident. Transocean's report, among other things, alleges deficiencies with our cementing services on the Deepwater Horizon. Like the BP Report, the Transocean incident investigation team did not review its analyses or conclusions with us and did not conduct any testing using our cementing products.

On January 11, 2011, the National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling (National Commission) released "Deep Water -- The Gulf Oil Disaster and the Future of Offshore Drilling," its investigation report (Investigation Report) to the President of the United States regarding, among other things, the National Commission's conclusions of the causes of the Macondo well incident. According to the Investigation Report, the "immediate causes" of the incident were the result of a series of missteps, oversights, miscommunications and failures to appreciate risk by BP, Transocean, and us, although the National Commission acknowledged that there were still many things it did not know about the incident, such as the role of the blowout preventer. The National Commission also acknowledged that it may never know the extent to which each mistake or oversight caused the Macondo well incident, but concluded that the immediate cause was "a failure to contain hydrocarbon pressures in the well," and pointed to three things that could have contained those pressures: "the cement at the bottom of the well, the mud in the well and in the riser, and the blowout preventer." In addition, the Investigation Report stated that "primary cement failure was a direct cause of the blowout" and that cement testing performed by an independent laboratory "strongly suggests" that the foam cement slurry used on the Macondo well was unstable. The Investigation Report, however, acknowledges a fact widely accepted by the industry that cementing wells is a complex endeavor utilizing an inherently uncertain process in which failures are not uncommon and that, as a result, the industry utilizes the negative-pressure test and cement bond log test, among others, to identify cementing failures that require remediation before further work on a well is performed.

The Investigation Report also sets forth the National Commission's findings on certain missteps, oversights and other factors that may have caused, or contributed to the cause of, the incident, including BP's decision to use a long string casing instead of a liner casing, BP's decision to use only six centralizers, BP's failure to run a cement bond log, BP's reliance on the primary cement job as a barrier to a possible blowout, BP's and Transocean's failure to properly conduct and interpret a negative-pressure test, BP's temporary abandonment procedures, and the failure of the drilling crew and our surface data logging specialist to recognize that an unplanned influx of oil, gas or fluid into the well (known as a "kick") was occurring. With respect to the National Commission's finding that our surface data logging specialist failed to recognize a kick, the Investigation Report acknowledged that there were simultaneous activities and other monitoring responsibilities that may have prevented the surface data logging specialist from recognizing a kick.

The Investigation Report also identified two general root causes of the Macondo well incident: systemic failures by industry management, which the National Commission labeled "the most significant failure at Macondo," and failures in governmental and regulatory oversight. The National Commission cited examples of failures by industry management such as BP's lack of controls to adequately identify or address risks arising from changes to well design and procedures, the failure of BP's and our processes for cement testing, communication failures among BP, Transocean, and us, including with respect to the difficulty of our cement job, Transocean's failure to adequately communicate lessons from a recent near-blowout, and the lack of processes to adequately assess the risk of decisions in relation to the time and cost those decisions would save. With respect to failures of governmental and regulatory oversight, the National Commission concluded that applicable drilling regulations were inadequate, in part because of a lack of resources and political support of the Minerals Management Service (MMS), and a lack of expertise and training of MMS personnel to enforce regulations that were in effect.

As a result of the factual and technical complexity of the Macondo well incident, the Chief Counsel of the National Commission issued a separate, more detailed report regarding the technical, managerial and regulatory causes of the Macondo well incident in February 2011.

In March 2011, a third party retained by the BOE to undertake a forensic examination and evaluation of the blowout preventer stack, its components and associated equipment, released a report detailing its findings. The forensic examination report found, among other things, that the blowout preventer stack failed primarily because the blind sheer rams did not fully close and seal the well due to a portion of drill pipe that had become trapped between the blocks. The forensic examination report recommended further examination, investigation and testing, which we understand is underway. We had no part in manufacturing or servicing the blowout preventer stack.

The Cementing Job and Reaction to Reports. We disagree with the BP Report, the National Commission, and Transocean's report regarding many of their findings and characterizations with respect to the cementing and surface data logging services on the Deepwater Horizon. We have provided information to the National Commission and its staff that we believe has been overlooked or selectively omitted from the Investigation Report. We intend to continue to vigorously defend ourselves in any investigation relating to our involvement with the Macondo well that we believe inaccurately evaluates or depicts our services on the Deepwater Horizon.

The cement slurry on the Deepwater Horizon was designed and prepared pursuant to well condition data provided by BP. Regardless of whether alleged weaknesses in cement design and testing are or are not ultimately established, and regardless of whether the cement slurry was utilized in similar applications or was prepared consistent with industry standards, we believe that had BP and others properly interpreted a negative-pressure test, this test would have revealed any problems with the cement. In addition, had BP designed the Macondo well to allow a full cement bond log test or if BP had conducted even a partial cement bond log test, the test likely would have revealed any problems with the cement. BP, however, elected not to conduct any cement bond log test, and with others misinterpreted the negative-pressure test, both of which could have resulted in remedial action, if appropriate, with respect to the cementing services.

At this time we cannot predict the impact of the Investigation Report or the conclusions of future reports of the Marine Board Investigation, the Chemical Safety Board, the National Academy of Sciences, Congressional committees, or any other governmental or private entity. We also cannot predict whether their investigations or any other report or investigation will have an influence on or result in our being named as a party in any action alleging violation of a statute or regulation, whether federal or state and whether criminal or civil.

We intend to continue to cooperate fully with all governmental hearings, investigations, and requests for information relating to the Macondo well incident. We cannot predict the outcome of, or the costs to be incurred in connection with, any of these hearings or investigations, and therefore we cannot predict the potential impact they may have on us.

Litigation. Since April 21, 2010, plaintiffs have been filing lawsuits relating to the Macondo well incident. Generally, those lawsuits allege either (1) damages arising from the oil spill pollution and contamination (e.g., diminution of property value, lost tax revenue, lost business revenue, lost tourist dollars, inability to engage in recreational or commercial activities) or (2) wrongful death or personal injuries. To date, we have been named along with other unaffiliated defendants in more than 400 complaints, most of which are alleged class actions, involving pollution damage claims and at least 40 personal injury lawsuits involving seven decedents and at least 59 allegedly injured persons who were on the drilling rig at the time of the incident. Another six lawsuits naming us and others relate to alleged personal injuries sustained by those responding to the explosion and oil spill. Plaintiffs originally filed the lawsuits described above in federal and state courts throughout the United States, including Alabama, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia. Except for certain lawsuits not yet consolidated (including one lawsuit that is proceeding in Louisiana state court, nine lawsuits that are pending in Delaware federal court, two lawsuits that are pending in Texas federal court, and two lawsuits that are proceeding in Texas state court), the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation ordered all of the lawsuits against us consolidated in a multi-district litigation (MDL) proceeding before Judge Carl Barbier in the U.S. Eastern District of Louisiana. The pollution complaints generally allege, among other things, negligence and gross negligence, property damages, taking of protected species, and potential economic losses as a result of environmental pollution and generally seek awards of unspecified economic, compensatory, and punitive damages, as well as injunctive relief. Plaintiffs in these pollution cases have brought suit under various legal provisions, including the OPA, the CWA, the MBTA, the ESA, the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, the Longshoremen and Harbor Workers Compensation Act, general maritime law, state common law, and various state environmental and products liability statutes.

Furthermore, the pollution complaints include suits brought against us by governmental entities, including the State of Alabama, the State of Louisiana, Plaquemines Parish, the City of Greenville, and three Mexican states. The wrongful death and other personal injury complaints generally allege negligence and gross negligence and seek awards of compensatory damages, including unspecified economic damages and punitive damages. We have retained counsel and are investigating and evaluating the claims, the theories of recovery, damages asserted, and our respective defenses to all of these claims.

Judge Barbier is also presiding over a separate proceeding filed by Transocean under the Limitation of Liability Act (Limitation Action). In the Limitation Action, Transocean seeks to limit its liability for claims arising out of the Macondo well incident to the value of the rig and its freight. Although the Limitation Action is not consolidated in the MDL, to this point the judge is effectively treating the two proceedings as associated cases. On February 18, 2011, Transocean tendered us, along with all other defendants, into the Limitation Action. As a result of the tender, we and all other defendants will be treated as direct defendants to the plaintiffs' claims as if the plaintiffs had sued each of us and the other defendants directly. In the Limitation Action, the judge intends to determine the allocation of liability among all defendants in the hundreds of lawsuits associated with the Macondo well incident, including those in the MDL proceeding, that are pending in his court. Specifically, the judge will determine the liability, limitation, exoneration and fault allocation with regard to all of the defendants in a trial, which may occur in several phases, that is set to begin in the first quarter 2012. We do not believe, however, that a single apportionment of liability in the Limitation Action is properly applied to the hundreds of lawsuits pending in the MDL proceeding. Damages for the cases tried in the first quarter 2012, including punitive damages, are currently scheduled to be tried in a later phase of the Limitation Action. Under ordinary MDL procedures, such cases would, unless waived by the respective parties, be tried in the courts from which they were transferred into the MDL. It remains unclear, however, what impact the overlay of the Limitation Action will have on where these matters are tried. Document discovery and depositions among the parties to the MDL are underway.

In April and May 2011, certain defendants in the proceedings described above filed numerous cross claims and third party claims against certain other defendants. BP Exploration and BP America Production Company filed claims against us seeking subrogation and contribution, including with respect to liabilities under the OPA, and alleging negligence, gross negligence, fraudulent conduct, and fraudulent concealment. Transocean filed claims against us seeking indemnification, and subrogation and contribution, including with respect to liabilities under the OPA and for the total loss of the Deepwater Horizon, and alleging comparative fault and breach of warranty of workmanlike performance. Anadarko filed claims against us seeking tort indemnity and contribution, and alleging negligence, gross negligence and willful misconduct, and MOEX Offshore 2007 LLC (MOEX), who has an approximate 10% interest in the Macondo well, filed a claim against us alleging negligence. Cameron International Corporation (Cameron) (the manufacturer and designer of the blowout preventer), M-I Swaco (provider of drilling fluids and services, among other things), Weatherford U.S. L.P. and Weatherford International, Inc. (together, Weatherford) (providers of casing components, including float equipment and centralizers, and services), and Dril-Quip, Inc. (Dril-Quip) (provider of wellhead systems), each filed claims against us seeking indemnification and contribution, including with respect to liabilities under the OPA in the case of Cameron, and alleging negligence. Additional civil lawsuits may be filed against us. In addition to the claims against us, generally the defendants in the proceedings described above filed claims, including for liabilities under the OPA and other claims similar to those described above, against the other defendants described above. BP has since announced that it has settled those claims between it and each of Weatherford and MOEX.

In April 2011, we filed claims against BP Exploration, BP p.l.c. and BP America Production Company (BP Defendants), M-I Swaco, Cameron, Anadarko, MOEX, Weatherford, Dril-Quip, and numerous entities involved in the post-blowout remediation and response efforts, in each case seeking contribution and indemnification and alleging negligence. Our claims also alleged gross negligence and willful misconduct on the part of the BP Defendants, Anadarko, and Weatherford. We also filed claims against M-I Swaco and Weatherford for contractual indemnification, and against Cameron, Weatherford and Dril-Quip for strict products liability. We filed our answer to Transocean's Limitation petition denying Transocean's right to limit its liability, denying all claims and responsibility for the incident, seeking contribution and indemnification, and alleging negligence and gross negligence.

We intend to vigorously defend any litigation, fines, and/or penalties relating to the Macondo well incident. We have incurred and expect to continue to incur significant legal fees and costs, some of which we expect to be covered by indemnity or insurance, as a result of the numerous investigations and lawsuits relating to the incident.

Macondo derivative case. In February 2011, a shareholder who had previously made a demand on our board of directors with respect to another derivative lawsuit filed a shareholder derivative lawsuit relating to the Macondo well incident. See "Shareholder derivative cases" below.

Indemnification and Insurance. Our contract with BP Exploration relating to the Macondo well provides for our indemnification by BP Exploration for potential claims and expenses relating to the Macondo well incident, including those resulting from pollution or contamination (other than claims by our employees, loss or damage to our property, and any pollution emanating directly from our equipment). Also, under our contract with BP Exploration, we have, among other things, generally agreed to indemnify BP Exploration and other contractors performing work on the well for claims for personal injury of our employees and subcontractors, as well as for damage to our property. In turn, we believe that BP Exploration was obligated to obtain agreement by other contractors performing work on the well to indemnify us for claims for personal injury of their employees or subcontractors, as well as for damages to their property.

In addition to the contractual indemnity, we have a general liability insurance program of $600 million. Our insurance is designed to cover claims by businesses and individuals made against us in the event of property damage, injury or death and, among other things, claims relating to environmental damage, as well as legal fees incurred in defending against those claims. We have received and expect to continue to receive payments from our insurers with respect to covered legal fees incurred in connection with the Macondo well incident. To the extent we incur any losses beyond those covered by indemnification, there can be no assurance that our insurance policies will cover all potential claims and expenses relating to the Macondo well incident. Insurance coverage can be the subject of uncertainties and, particularly in the event of large claims, potential disputes with insurance carriers, as well as other potential parties claiming insured status under our insurance policies.

In April 2011, we filed a lawsuit against BP Exploration in Harris County, Texas to enforce BP Exploration's contractual indemnity and alleging BP Exploration breached certain terms of the contractual indemnity provision. BP Exploration removed that lawsuit to federal court in the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, where the judge has issued a stay order pending determination of a conditional order by the MDL panel to transfer the lawsuit to the MDL. We have taken and will continue to take actions to oppose the removal and the transfer to the MDL.

BP Exploration, in connection with filing its claims with respect to the MDL proceeding, asked that court to declare that it is not liable to us in contribution, indemnification or otherwise with respect to liabilities arising from the Macondo well incident. Other defendants in the litigation discussed above have generally denied any obligation to contribute to any liabilities arising from the Macondo well incident.

Indemnification for criminal or civil fines or penalties, if any, may not be available if a court were to find such indemnification unenforceable as against public policy. We do not expect, however, public policy to limit substantially the enforceability of our contractual right to indemnification with respect to liabilities other than criminal fines and penalties, if any. We may not be insured with respect to civil or criminal fines or penalties, if any, pursuant to the terms of our insurance policies.

We believe the law likely to be held applicable to matters relating to the Macondo well incident does not allow for enforcement of indemnification of persons who are found to be grossly negligent, although we do not believe the performance of our services on the Deepwater Horizon constituted gross negligence. In addition, certain state laws, if deemed to apply, may not allow for enforcement of indemnification of persons who are found to be negligent with respect to personal injury claims. Also, financial analysts and the press have speculated about the financial capacity of BP, and whether it might seek to avoid indemnification obligations in bankruptcy proceedings. BP's public filings indicate that BP recognized a $40.9 billion pre-tax charge in 2010 and a $0.4 billion pre-tax charge in the first quarter of 2011 as a result of the Macondo well incident and that the amount of, among other things, any natural resource damages with respect to OPA claims by the United States and by state, tribal and foreign trustees, some of which may be included in such charges, cannot be reliably estimated as of the date of those filings. We consider, however, the likelihood of a BP bankruptcy to be remote.

Barracuda-Caratinga arbitration

We provided indemnification in favor of KBR under the master separation agreement for all out-of-pocket cash costs and expenses (except for legal fees and other expenses of the arbitration so long as KBR controls and directs it), or cash settlements or cash arbitration awards, KBR may incur after November 20, 2006 as a result of the replacement of certain subsea flowline bolts installed in connection with the Barracuda-Caratinga project. Under the master separation agreement, KBR currently controls the defense, counterclaim, and settlement of the subsea flowline bolts matter. As a condition of our indemnity, for any settlement to be binding upon us, KBR must secure our prior written consent to such settlement's terms. We have the right to terminate the indemnity in the event KBR enters into any settlement without our prior written consent.

At Petrobras' direction, KBR replaced certain bolts located on the subsea flowlines that failed through mid-November 2005, and KBR has informed us that additional bolts have failed thereafter, which were replaced by Petrobras. These failed bolts were identified by Petrobras when it conducted inspections of the bolts. We understand KBR believes several possible solutions may exist, including replacement of the bolts. Initial estimates by KBR indicated that costs of these various solutions ranged up to $148 million. In March 2006, Petrobras commenced arbitration against KBR claiming $220 million plus interest for the cost of monitoring and replacing the defective bolts and all related costs and expenses of the arbitration, including the cost of attorneys' fees. The arbitration panel held an evidentiary hearing in March 2008 to determine which party is responsible for the designation of the material used for the bolts. On May 13, 2009, the arbitration panel held that KBR and not Petrobras selected the material to be used for the bolts. Accordingly, the arbitration panel held that there is no implied warranty by Petrobras to KBR as to the suitability of the bolt material and that the parties' rights are to be governed by the express terms of their contract. The parties presented evidence and witnesses to the panel in May 2010, and final arguments were presented in August 2010. We are awaiting a final decision from the arbitration panel. Our estimation of the indemnity obligation regarding the Barracuda-Caratinga arbitration is recorded as a liability in our condensed consolidated financial statements as of June 30, 2011. See Note 6 for additional information regarding the KBR indemnification.

Securities and related litigation

In June 2002, a class action lawsuit was filed against us in federal court alleging violations of the federal securities laws after the SEC initiated an investigation in connection with our change in accounting for revenue on long-term construction projects and related disclosures. In the weeks that followed, approximately twenty similar class actions were filed against us. Several of those lawsuits also named as defendants several of our present or former officers and directors. The class action cases were later consolidated, and the amended consolidated class action complaint, styled Richard Moore, et al. v. Halliburton Company, et al., was filed and served upon us in April 2003. As a result of a substitution of lead plaintiffs, the case is now styled Archdiocese of Milwaukee Supporting Fund (AMSF) v. Halliburton Company, et al. AMSF has changed its name to Erica P. John Fund, Inc. (Erica P. John Fund). We settled with the SEC in the second quarter of 2004.

In June 2003, the lead plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a second amended consolidated complaint, which was granted by the court. In addition to restating the original accounting and disclosure claims, the second amended consolidated complaint included claims arising out of the 1998 acquisition of Dresser Industries, Inc. by Halliburton, including that we failed to timely disclose the resulting asbestos liability exposure.

In April 2005, the court appointed new co-lead counsel and named Erica P. John Fund the new lead plaintiff, directing that it file a third consolidated amended complaint and that we file our motion to dismiss. The court held oral arguments on that motion in August 2005, at which time the court took the motion under advisement. In March 2006, the court entered an order in which it granted the motion to dismiss with respect to claims arising prior to June 1999 and granted the motion with respect to certain other claims while permitting Erica P. John Fund to re-plead some of those claims to correct deficiencies in its earlier complaint. In April 2006, Erica P. John Fund filed its fourth amended consolidated complaint. We filed a motion to dismiss those portions of the complaint that had been re-pled. A hearing was held on that motion in July 2006, and in March 2007 the court ordered dismissal of the claims against all individual defendants other than our Chief Executive Officer (CEO). The court ordered that the case proceed against our CEO and Halliburton.

In September 2007, Erica P. John Fund filed a motion for class certification, and our response was filed in November 2007. The court held a hearing in March 2008, and issued an order November 3, 2008 denying Erica P. John Fund's motion for class certification. Erica P. John Fund appealed the district court's order to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's order denying class certification. On May 13, 2010, Erica P. John Fund filed a writ of certiorari in the United States Supreme Court. In early January 2011, the Supreme Court granted Erica P. John Fund's writ of certiorari and accepted the appeal. The Court heard oral arguments in April 2011 and issued its decision in June 2011, reversing the Fifth Circuit ruling that Erica P. John Fund needed to prove loss causation in order to obtain class certification. The Court's ruling was limited to the Fifth Circuit's loss causation requirement, and the case was returned to the Fifth Circuit for further consideration of Halliburton's other arguments for denying class certification. As of June 30, 2011, we had not accrued any amounts related to this matter because we do not believe that a loss is probable. Further, an estimate of possible loss or range of loss related to this matter cannot be made.

Shareholder derivative cases

In May 2009, two shareholder derivative lawsuits involving us and KBR were filed in Harris County, Texas, naming as defendants various current and retired Halliburton directors and officers and current KBR directors. These cases allege that the individual Halliburton defendants violated their fiduciary duties of good faith and loyalty, to the detriment of Halliburton and its shareholders, by failing to properly exercise oversight responsibilities and establish adequate internal controls. The District Court consolidated the two cases, and the plaintiffs filed a consolidated petition against only current and former Halliburton directors and officers containing various allegations of wrongdoing including violations of the FCPA, claimed KBR offenses while acting as a government contractor in Iraq, claimed KBR offenses and fraud under United States government contracts, Halliburton activity in Iran, and illegal kickbacks. Subsequently, a shareholder made a demand that the board take remedial action respecting the FCPA claims in the pending lawsuit. Our Board of Directors designated a special committee of independent directors to oversee the investigation of the allegations made in the lawsuits and shareholder demand. Upon receipt of its special committee's findings and recommendations, the Board determined that the shareholder claims were without merit and not otherwise in the best interest of the company to pursue. The Board directed company counsel to report its determinations to the plaintiffs and demanding shareholder. As of June 30, 2011, we had not accrued any amounts related to this matter because we do not believe that a loss is probable. Further, an estimate of possible loss or range of loss related to this matter cannot be made.

In February 2011, the same shareholder who had made the demand on our board of directors in connection with one of the derivative lawsuits discussed above filed a shareholder derivative lawsuit in Harris County, Texas naming us as a nominal defendant and certain of our directors and officers as defendants. This case alleges that these defendants, among other things, breached fiduciary duties of good faith and loyalty by failing to properly exercise oversight responsibilities and establish adequate internal controls, including controls and procedures related to cement testing and the communication of test results, as they relate to the Deepwater Horizon incident. Due to the preliminary status of the lawsuit and uncertainties related to litigation, we are unable to evaluate the likelihood of either a favorable or unfavorable outcome.

Environmental

We are subject to numerous environmental, legal, and regulatory requirements related to our operations worldwide. In the United States, these laws and regulations include, among others:

		-	the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act;
		-	the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act;
		-	the Clean Air Act;
		-	the Federal Water Pollution Control Act; and
		-	the Toxic Substances Control Act.

In addition to the federal laws and regulations, states and other countries where we do business often have numerous environmental, legal, and regulatory requirements by which we must abide. We evaluate and address the environmental impact of our operations by assessing and remediating contaminated properties in order to avoid future liabilities and comply with environmental, legal, and regulatory requirements. Our Health, Safety and Environment group has several programs in place to maintain environmental leadership and to help prevent the occurrence of environmental contamination. On occasion, in addition to the matters relating to the Macondo well incident described above, we are involved in other environmental litigation and claims, including the remediation of properties we own or have operated, as well as efforts to meet or correct compliance-related matters. We do not expect costs related to those remediation requirements to have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position or our results of operations. Our accrued liabilities for those environmental matters were $46 million as of June 30, 2011 and $47 million as of December 31, 2010. Our total liability related to environmental matters covers numerous properties.

We have subsidiaries that have been named as potentially responsible parties along with other third parties for 10 federal and state superfund sites for which we have established reserves. As of June 30, 2011, those 10 sites accounted for approximately $7 million of our total $46 million reserve. For any particular federal or state superfund site, since our estimated liability is typically within a range and our accrued liability may be the amount on the low end of that range, our actual liability could eventually be well in excess of the amount accrued. Despite attempts to resolve these superfund matters, the relevant regulatory agency may at any time bring suit against us for amounts in excess of the amount accrued. With respect to some superfund sites, we have been named a potentially responsible party by a regulatory agency; however, in each of those cases, we do not believe we have any material liability. We also could be subject to third-party claims with respect to environmental matters for which we have been named as a potentially responsible party.

Guarantee arrangements

In the normal course of business, we have agreements with financial institutions under which approximately $1.5 billion of letters of credit, bank guarantees, or surety bonds were outstanding as of June 30, 2011, including $240 million of surety bonds related to Venezuela. Some of the outstanding letters of credit have triggering events that would entitle a bank to require cash collateralization.

Income per Share

6 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2011

Earnings Per Share [Abstract]

Income per Share

Note 8. Income per Share

Basic income per share is based on the weighted average number of common shares outstanding during the period. Diluted income per share includes additional common shares that would have been outstanding if potential common shares with a dilutive effect had been issued.

A reconciliation of the number of shares used for the basic and diluted income per share calculations is as follows:

	Three Months Ended				Six Months Ended
	June 30				June 30
Millions of shares	2011		2010		2011		2010
Basic weighted average common shares outstanding		916		906		915		906
Dilutive effect of stock options		5		3		5		2
Diluted weighted average common shares outstanding		921		909		920		908

Excluded from the computation of diluted income per share are options to purchase two million and one million shares of common stock that were outstanding during the three and six months ended June 30, 2011 and six million shares that were outstanding during both the three and six months ended June 30, 2010. These options were outstanding during these periods but were excluded because they were antidilutive, as the option exercise price was greater than the average market price of the common shares.

Fair Value of Financial Instruments	6 Months Ended
Fair Value of Financial Instruments	Jun. 30, 2011
Fair Value of Financial Instruments [Abstract]
Fair Value of Financial Instruments	Note 9. Fair Value of Financial Instruments At June 30, 2011, we held $451 million of non-cash equivalents in United States Treasury securities with maturities that extend through February 2012. These securities are accounted for as available-for-sale and recorded at fair value, based on quoted market prices, in "Investments in marketable securities" on our condensed consolidated balance sheets. The carrying amount of cash and equivalents, investments in marketable securities, receivables, and accounts payable, as reflected in the condensed consolidated balance sheets, approximates fair value due to the short maturities of these instruments. We have no financial instruments measured at fair value using unobservable inputs. The fair value of our long-term debt was $4.6 billion as of both June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, which differs from the carrying amount of $3.8 billion as of both June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, on our condensed consolidated balance sheets. The fair value of our long-term debt was calculated using either quoted market prices or significant observable inputs for similar liabilities for the respective periods. We maintain an interest rate management strategy that is intended to mitigate the exposure to changes in interest rates in the aggregate for our investment portfolio. We utilize interest rate swaps to effectively convert a portion of our fixed rate debt to floating rates. The fair value of the swap agreements was not material at June 30, 2011. See Note 4 for further discussion of our interest rate swaps. At June 30, 2011, we had fixed rate debt aggregating $2.8 billion and variable rate debt aggregating $1 billion, after taking into account the effects of the interest rate swaps.

Accounting Standards Recently Adopted	6 Months Ended
Accounting Standards Recently Adopted	Jun. 30, 2011
Accounting Standards Recently Adopted [Abstract]
Accounting Standards Recently Adopted [Text Block]	Note 10. Accounting Standards Recently Adopted On January 1, 2011, we adopted an update issued by the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) to existing guidance on revenue recognition for arrangements with multiple deliverables. This update allows companies to allocate consideration for qualified separate deliverables using estimated selling price for both delivered and undelivered items when vendor-specific objective evidence or third-party evidence is unavailable. It also requires additional disclosures on the nature of multiple element arrangements, the types of deliverables under the arrangements, the general timing of their delivery, and significant factors and estimates used to determine estimated selling prices. The update is effective for fiscal years beginning after June 15, 2010. The adoption of this update did not have a material impact on our condensed consolidated financial statements or existing revenue recognition policies.

Inventories (Policies)	6 Months Ended
Inventories (Policies)	Jun. 30, 2011
Inventories - (Policies) [Abstract]
Inventory Policy	Inventories are stated at the lower of cost or market.

Business Segment and Geographic Information (Tables)

6 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2011

Business Segment and Geographic Information [Abstract]

Schedule of Segment Reporting Information, by Segment [Table]

	Three Months Ended						Six Months Ended
	June 30						June 30
Millions of dollars	2011			2010			2011			2010
Revenue:
Completion and Production	$	3,618		$	2,393		$	6,790		$	4,357
Drilling and Evaluation		2,317			1,994			4,427			3,791
Total revenue	$	5,935		$	4,387		$	11,217		$	8,148

Operating income:
Completion and Production	$	918		$	497		$	1,578		$	735
Drilling and Evaluation		324			318			554			588
Total operations		1,242			815			2,132			1,323
Corporate and other		(81	)		(53	)		(157	)		(112	)
Total operating income	$	1,161		$	762		$	1,975		$	1,211
Interest expense, net of interest income		(63	)		(76	)		(132	)		(152	)
Other, net		(5	)		(9	)		(9	)		(49	)
Income from continuing operations before
income taxes	$	1,093		$	677		$	1,834		$	1,010

Inventories (Tables)

6 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2011

Inventories - (Policies) [Abstract]

Inventories [Table]

	June 30,		December 31,
Millions of dollars	2011		2010
Finished products and parts	$	1,559	$	1,369
Raw materials and supplies		621		496
Work in process		55		75
Total	$	2,235	$	1,940

Shareholders' Equity (Tables)

6 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2011

Shareholders' Equity [Abstract]

Shareholders' Equity Activity Summarization [Table]

							Noncontrolling
	Total			Company			interest in
	shareholders'			shareholders'			consolidated
Millions of dollars	equity			equity			subsidiaries
Balance at December 31, 2010	$	10,387		$	10,373		$	14
Transactions with shareholders		181			181			-
Comprehensive income:
Net income		1,252			1,250			2
Other comprehensive income		3			3			-
Total comprehensive income		1,255			1,253			2
Payments of dividends to shareholders		(165	)		(165	)		-
Balance at June 30, 2011	$	11,658		$	11,642		$	16

							Noncontrolling
	Total			Company			interest in
	shareholders'			shareholders'			consolidated
Millions of dollars	equity			equity			subsidiaries
Balance at December 31, 2009	$	8,757		$	8,728		$	29
Transactions with shareholders		96			98			(2	)
Comprehensive income:
Net income		690			686			4
Other comprehensive income		4			4			-
Total comprehensive income		694			690			4
Payments of dividends to shareholders		(163	)		(163	)		-
Balance at June 30, 2010	$	9,384		$	9,353		$	31

Comprehensive Income [Table]

	Three Months Ended
	June 30
Millions of dollars	2011		2010
Net income	$	741	$	483
Other comprehensive income (loss)		1		(3	)
Total comprehensive income	$	742	$	480
Comprehensive income attributable to noncontrolling interest		2		3
Comprehensive income attributable to company		740		477

Accumulated other comprehensive income [Table]

	June 30,			December 31,
Millions of dollars	2011			2010
Defined benefit and other postretirement liability adjustments	$	(176	)	$	(175	)
Cumulative translation adjustments		(64	)		(66	)
Unrealized gains on investments		3			1
Total accumulated other comprehensive loss	$	(237	)	$	(240	)

Income per Share (Tables)

6 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2011

Earnings Per Share [Abstract]

Reconciliation of the number of shares used for the basic and diluted income per share calculations

	Three Months Ended				Six Months Ended
	June 30				June 30
Millions of shares	2011		2010		2011		2010
Basic weighted average common shares outstanding		916		906		915		906
Dilutive effect of stock options		5		3		5		2
Diluted weighted average common shares outstanding		921		909		920		908

Business Segment and Geographic Information (Details) - USD ($) $ in Millions	3 Months Ended		6 Months Ended
	Jun. 30, 2011	Jun. 30, 2010	Jun. 30, 2011	Jun. 30, 2010	Dec. 31, 2010
Business Segment and Geographic Information [Abstract]
The number of business segments into which the company's operations are divided	2		2
Revenue:
Total revenue	$ 5,935	$ 4,387	$ 11,217	$ 8,148
Operating income:
Total operations	1,242	815	2,132	1,323
Corporate and other	(81)	(53)	(157)	(112)
Total operating income	1,161	762	1,975	1,211
Interest expense, net of interest income of $2, $3, $3, and $6	(63)	(76)	(132)	(152)
Other, net	(5)	(9)	(9)	(49)
Income from continuing operations before income taxes	$ 1,093	677	$ 1,834	1,010
Receivables
Gross trade receivables from United States (in hundredths)	43.00%		43.00%		36.00%
Completion and Production [Member]
Revenue:
Total revenue	$ 3,618	2,393	$ 6,790	4,357
Operating income:
Total operations	918	497	1,578	735
Drilling and Evaluation [Member]
Revenue:
Total revenue	2,317	1,994	4,427	3,791
Operating income:
Total operations	$ 324	$ 318	$ 554	$ 588

Inventories (Details) - USD ($) $ in Millions	Jun. 30, 2011	Dec. 31, 2010
Inventories - (Policies) [Abstract]
LIFO Inventory Amount	$ 129	$ 108
LIFO Reserve	40	34
Finished products and parts	1,559	1,369
Raw materials and supplies	621	496
Work in process	55	75
Total	2,235	1,940
Obsolescence reserves	$ 104	$ 88

Debt (Details) $ in Millions	3 Months Ended	6 Months Ended	12 Months Ended
Debt (Details) $ in Millions	Jun. 30, 2011 USD ($)	Jun. 30, 2011 USD ($)	Dec. 31, 2010 USD ($)
Line of Credit Facility [Line Items]
Number of debt instruments related to interest rate swaps	2
New Revolving Credit Facility [Member]
Line of Credit Facility [Line Items]
Maximum borrowing capacity of credit facility	$ 2,000	$ 2,000
Expiration of Credit facility (in years)		5
Initiation date of credit facility		February 22 2011
Existing Revolving Credit Facility [Member]
Line of Credit Facility [Line Items]
Maximum borrowing capacity of credit facility			$ 1,200
Initiation date of credit facility			July 2007
Interest Rate Swaps on 6.15 Percent Senior Notes Due 2019 [Member]
Derivative [Line Items]
Series of interest rate swaps, notional amount	$ 600	$ 600
Fixed rate received on series of interest rate swaps (in hundredths)	6.15%	6.15%
Variable rate paid on series of interest rate swaps	floating rate of three-month LIBOR plus a spread
Interest Rate Swaps on 5.9 Percent Senior Notes Due 2018 [Member]
Derivative [Line Items]
Series of interest rate swaps, notional amount	$ 400	$ 400
Fixed rate received on series of interest rate swaps (in hundredths)	5.90%	5.90%
Variable rate paid on series of interest rate swaps	floating rate of three-month LIBOR plus a spread

Shareholders' Equity (Details) - USD ($) $ in Millions	3 Months Ended		6 Months Ended
Shareholders' Equity (Details) - USD ($) $ in Millions	Jun. 30, 2011	Jun. 30, 2010	Jun. 30, 2011	Jun. 30, 2010	Dec. 31, 2010
Shareholders' Equity Activity Summarization [Line Items]
Beginning balance			$ 10,387	$ 8,757
Transactions with shareholders			181	96
Payments of dividends to shareholders			(165)	(163)
Ending balance	$ 11,658	$ 9,384	11,658	9,384
Comprehensive income:
Net income	741	483	1,252	690
Other comprehensive income	1	(3)	3	4
Total comprehensive income	742	480	1,255	694
Comprehensive income attributable to noncontrolling interest	2	3
Comprehensive income attributable to company	740	477
Accumulated other comprehensive loss
Defined benefit and other postretirement liability adjustments	(176)		(176)		$ (175)
Cumulative translation adjustments	(64)		(64)		(66)
Unrealized gains on investments	3		3		1
Total accumulated other comprehensive loss	(237)		(237)		$ (240)
Company shareholders' equity [Member]
Shareholders' Equity Activity Summarization [Line Items]
Beginning balance			10,373	8,728
Transactions with shareholders			181	98
Payments of dividends to shareholders			(165)	(163)
Ending balance	11,642	9,353	11,642	9,353
Comprehensive income:
Net income			1,250	686
Other comprehensive income			3	4
Total comprehensive income			1,253	690
Noncontrolling interest in consolidated subsidiaries [Member]
Shareholders' Equity Activity Summarization [Line Items]
Beginning balance			14	29
Transactions with shareholders			0	(2)
Payments of dividends to shareholders			0	0
Ending balance	$ 16	$ 31	16	31
Comprehensive income:
Net income			2	4
Other comprehensive income			0	0
Total comprehensive income			$ 2	$ 4

KBR Separation (Details) - USD ($) $ in Millions	Jun. 30, 2011	Dec. 31, 2010
KBR Separation [Abstract]
Beneficial Interest in TSKJ of owners (in hundredths)	25.00%
KBR Beneficial Interest in MWKL (in hundredths)	55.00%
KBR indemnities and guarantees excluding amounts related to the DOJ and SEC settlements	$ 53	$ 63

Commitments and Contingencies (Details)	3 Months Ended	6 Months Ended	12 Months Ended
Commitments and Contingencies (Details)	Mar. 31, 2011 USD ($)	Jun. 30, 2011 USD ($)	Dec. 31, 2010 USD ($)
The Gulf of Mexico/Macondo well incident
Federal government estimate of oil discharged from the well (in barrels)		4.9
Number of fatalities		11
Number of parties-of-interest in the Marine Board Investigation		16
Maximum per day assessment for negligent discharges under the CWA		$ 50,000
Maximum per day assessment for knowing discharges under the CWA		100,000
Maximum per day assessment for knowing endangerment under the CWA		2,000,000
Maximum per day civil penalty for strict liability under the CWA		1,100
Maximum per day civil penalty for gross negligence under the CWA		4,300
Liability cap under the OPA in addition to the full cost of removal of the discharged oil		75,000,000
Maximum fine per bird killed under the MBTA		$ 15,000
Maximum imprisonment under the MBTA (in months)		6M
Maximum civil penalty per violation under the ESA		$ 25,000
Maximum criminal penalty per violation under the ESA		50,000
DOJ minimum estimate of removal costs and damages to the United States due to discharges of oil into the Gulf of Mexico		$ 75,000,000
Number of days of advance notice to DOJ of any event that may involve substantial transfers of cash or other corporate assets outside the ordinary course of business		30D
Number of key findings related to possible causes of Macondo well incident (number of findings)		8
Number of things that could have contained hydrocarbon pressures		3
Number of centralizers used by BP		6
Number of general root causes of the Macondo well incident identified by the Investigation Report		2
Litigation
Minimum number of environmental class-action complaints related to the Macondo incident (number of complaints)		400
Minimum number of wrongful death and personal injury multiple plaintiff lawsuits related to the Macondo incident (in lawsuits)		40
Number of decedents in personal injury lawsuits		7
Number of allegedly injured persons in personal injury lawsuits		59
Minimum number of lawsuits relating to the Macondo well incident naming the company		6
Number of Louisiana lawsuits not consolidated		1
Number of Texas federal court lawsuits not consolidated		2
Number of Texas state court lawsuits not consolidated		2
Number of Delaware lawsuits not yet consolidated		9
Number of Mexican states included in pollution complaint		3
Number Of Proceedings Treated As Associated Cases		2
Interest of MOEX in Macondo well (in hundreths)		10.00%
Indemnification and insurance
Total amount of general liability insurance program		$ 600,000,000
Pre-tax charge recognized by BP as a result of the Macondo well incident	$ 400,000,000		$ 40,900,000,000
Barracuda-Caratinga arbitration
Upper level of range of KBR cost estimates for Barracuda Creating solutions		148,000,000
Petrobras arbitration claim against KBR		$ 220,000,000
Securities and related litigation
Number of similar class action lawsuits in connecton with the change in accounintg for revenue on long-term construction projects and related disclosures that were later consolidated into one suit		20
Shareholder derivative cases
Number of shareholder derivative lawsuits involving us and KBR were filed in Harris County		2
Environmental
Accrued liabilities for environmental matters		$ 46,000,000	$ 47,000,000
Number of Superfund sites (in sites)		10
Accrued Liabilities for superfund sites		$ 7,000,000
Total Company Guarantee Obligations [Member]
Guarantee arrangements
Guarantee arrangements outstanding		1,500,000,000
Venezuela surety bonds [Member]
Guarantee arrangements
Guarantee arrangements outstanding		$ 240,000,000

Income per Share (Details) - shares shares in Millions	3 Months Ended		6 Months Ended
Income per Share (Details) - shares shares in Millions	Jun. 30, 2011	Jun. 30, 2010	Jun. 30, 2011	Jun. 30, 2010
Earnings Per Share [Abstract]
Basic weighted average common shares outstanding (in shares)	916	906	915	906
Dilutive effect of stock options (in shares)	5	3	5	2
Diluted weighted average common shares outstanding (in shares)	921	909	920	908
Antidilutive options excluded from the computation of diluted income per share (in shares)	2	6	1	6

Fair Value of Financial Instruments (Details) - USD ($) $ in Millions	Jun. 30, 2011	Dec. 31, 2010
Carrying Value [Member]
Fair values of other financial assets and liabilities
Marketable securities	$ 451
Long-term debt	3,800	$ 3,800
Fixed rate debt, after interest rate swaps	2,800
Variable rate debt, after interest rate swaps	1,000
Fair Value [Member]
Fair values of other financial assets and liabilities
Long-term debt	$ 4,600	$ 4,600