View Filing Data

General and administrative

^[1]

1,208

105

Total operating costs and expenses

7,598

6,378

Interest expense, net of interest income

(548)

970

(106)

(93)

Other, net

(224)

(31)

Income (loss) from continuing operations before income taxes

(878)

846

Provision for income taxes

241

(229)

Income (loss) from continuing operations

(637)

617

Income (loss) from discontinued operations, net of income tax (provision) benefit

(4)

(1)

Net income (loss)

(641)

616

Net (income) loss attributable to noncontrolling interest

(2)

Net income (loss) attributable to company

(643)

622

Amounts attributable to company shareholders:

Income (loss) from continuing operations

(639)

623

Income (loss) from discontinued operations, net

(4)

(1)

Net income (loss) attributable to company

$ (643)

$ 622

Basic income per share attributable to company shareholders:

Income (loss) from continuing operations (in dollars per share)

$ (0.75)

$ 0.73

Income (loss) from discontinued operations, net (in dollars per share)

(0.01)

Net income (loss) per share (in dollars per share)

(0.76)

0.73

Diluted income per share attributable to company shareholders:

Income from continuing operations (in dollars per share)

(0.75)

0.73

Income from discontinued operations, net (in dollars per share)

(0.01)

0.00

Net income per share (in dollars per share)

(0.76)

0.73

Cash dividends per share (in dollars per share)

$ 0.18

$ 0.15

Basic weighted average common shares outstanding (in shares)

850

849

Diluted weighted average common shares outstanding (in shares)

850

853

[1]	(a) Includes $510 million attributable to Completion and Production, $638 million attributable to Drilling and Evaluation, and $60 million attributable to Corporate and other during the three months ended March 31, 2015.

Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations (Unaudited) (Parenthetical) - USD ($) $ in Millions	3 Months Ended
	Mar. 31, 2015	Mar. 31, 2014
Interest income	$ 3	$ 3
Income (loss) from discontinued operations, income tax benefit (provision)	$ 2	$ 1

Amount of tax expense (benefit) related to a discontinued operation. Includes, but is not limited to, tax expense (benefit) related to income (loss) from operations during the phase-out period, tax expense (benefit) related to gain (loss) on disposal, tax expense (benefit) related to gain (loss) for reversal of write-down (write-down) to fair value, less cost to sell, and tax expense (benefit) related to adjustments of a prior period gain (loss) on disposal.

Cash flows from operating activities:

Condensed Consolidated Statements of Comprehensive Income (Unaudited) - USD ($) $ in Millions	3 Months Ended
	Mar. 31, 2015	Mar. 31, 2014
Net income (loss)	$ (641)	$ 616
Other comprehensive income (loss), net of income taxes:
Defined benefit and other postretirement plan adjustments	3	3
Other	(6)	1
Other comprehensive income (loss), net of income taxes	(3)	4
Comprehensive income (loss)	(644)	620
Comprehensive (income) loss attributable to noncontrolling interest	(2)	6
Comprehensive income (loss) attributable to company shareholders	$ (646)	$ 626

Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets (Unaudited) - USD ($) $ in Millions	Mar. 31, 2015	Dec. 31, 2014
Current assets:
Cash and equivalents	$ 2,294	$ 2,291
Receivables less allowance for bad debts	6,419	7,564
Inventories	3,467	3,571
Other current assets	1,645	1,642
Total current assets	13,825	15,068
Property, plant, and equipment, net of accumulated depreciation	12,299	12,475
Goodwill	2,332	2,330
Other assets	2,131	2,367
Total assets	30,587	32,240
Current liabilities:
Accounts payable	2,424	2,814
Accrued employee compensation and benefits	774	1,033
Loss contingency related to Macondo well (current)	367	367
Other current liabilities	1,453	1,669
Total current liabilities	5,018	5,883
Long-term debt	7,841	7,840
Employee compensation and benefits	643	691
Loss contingency related to Macondo well incident (non-current)	439	439
Other liabilities	1,023	1,089
Total liabilities	14,964	15,942
Shareholders' equity:
Common shares, par value $2.50 per share - authorized 2,000 shares, issued 1,071 shares	2,678	2,679
Paid-in capital in excess of par value	309	309
Accumulated other comprehensive loss	(402)	(399)
Retained earnings	21,013	21,809
Treasury stock, at cost	(8,007)	(8,131)
Company shareholders' equity	15,591	16,267
Noncontrolling interest in consolidated subsidiaries	32	31
Total shareholders' equity	15,623	16,298
Total liabilities and shareholders' equity	$ 30,587	$ 32,240

Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets (Unaudited) (Parenthetical) - USD ($) shares in Millions, $ in Millions	Mar. 31, 2015	Dec. 31, 2014
Current assets:
Allowance for bad debts	$ 175	$ 137
Accumulated depreciation	$ 11,246	$ 11,007
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)	1,071	1,071
Treasury shares (in shares)	222	223

Condensed Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows (Unaudited) - USD ($)
$ in Millions

3 Months Ended

Mar. 31, 2015

Mar. 31, 2014

Net income (loss)

$ (641)

$ 616

Adjustments to reconcile net income (loss) to net cash flows from operating activities:

Depreciation, depletion, and amortization

^[1]

1,208

560

510

Other changes:

Receivables

763

(175)

Accounts payable

(318)

160

Inventories

(132)

(105)

Other

(628)

(52)

Total cash flows from operating activities

812

954

Cash flows from investing activities:

Capital expenditures

(704)

(643)

Purchases of investment securities

(27)

(55)

Sales of investment securities

Other investing activities

(26)

Total cash flows from investing activities

(682)

(674)

Cash flows from financing activities:

Dividends to shareholders

(153)

(127)

Payments to reacquire common stock

(500)

Other financing activities

113

Total cash flows from financing activities

(102)

(514)

Effect of exchange rate changes on cash

(25)

Increase (decrease) in cash and equivalents

(233)

Cash and equivalents at beginning of period

2,291

2,356

Cash and equivalents at end of period

2,294

2,123

Cash payments (receipts) during the period for:

Interest

167

Income taxes

$ 135

$ (25)

[1]	(a) Includes $510 million attributable to Completion and Production, $638 million attributable to Drilling and Evaluation, and $60 million attributable to Corporate and other during the three months ended March 31, 2015.

Acquisitions and Dispositions (Notes)	3 Months Ended
Acquisitions and Dispositions (Notes)	Mar. 31, 2015
Acquisitions and Dispositions [Abstract]
Mergers, Acquisitions and Dispositions Disclosures [Text Block]	Acquisitions and Dispositions Pending acquisition of Baker Hughes On November 16, 2014, we and Baker Hughes entered into a merger agreement under which, subject to the conditions set forth in the merger agreement, we will acquire all the outstanding shares of Baker Hughes in a stock and cash transaction. Baker Hughes is a leading supplier of oilfield services, products, technology and systems to the worldwide oil and natural gas industry. Under the terms of the merger agreement, at the effective time of the acquisition, each share of Baker Hughes common stock will be converted into the right to receive 1.12 shares of our common stock and $19.00 in cash. Because the exchange ratio was fixed at the time of the merger agreement and the market value of our common stock will continue to fluctuate, the total value of the consideration exchanged will not be determinable until the closing date. The number of shares to be issued will not fluctuate based upon changes in the price of shares of our common stock or shares of Baker Hughes common stock prior to the closing date, but the exact number of Halliburton shares to be issued with respect to Baker Hughes stock awards will not be determinable until the closing of the transaction. We have estimated the total consideration expected to be issued and paid to Baker Hughes stockholders in the acquisition to consist of approximately 490 million shares of our common stock and approximately $8.3 billion to be paid in cash. We intend to finance the cash portion of the acquisition through a combination of cash on hand and debt financing. We have obtained a commitment letter for an $8.6 billion senior unsecured bridge facility, which is greater than the expected cash consideration required upon closing of the Baker Hughes acquisition. We may issue debt securities, obtain bank loans or other debt financings, or use cash on hand in lieu of utilizing all or a portion of the bridge facility. The merger agreement has been unanimously approved by both companies' Board of Directors, our stockholders have approved the issuance of shares necessary to complete the acquisition of Baker Hughes, and Baker Hughes’ stockholders have adopted the merger agreement and thereby approved the acquisition. In April 2015, we announced we will market for sale some of our businesses to obtain competition authorities' approvals of the pending transaction. See Note 11 for further information on these anticipated divestitures. The closing of the transaction, which is subject to receipt of certain regulatory approvals and other conditions specified in the merger agreement, is expected to occur late in the second half of 2015.

Basis of Presentation

3 Months Ended

Mar. 31, 2015

Organization, Consolidation and Presentation of Financial Statements [Abstract]

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 2014 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 March 31, 2015, the results of our operations for the three months ended March 31, 2015 and 2014, and our cash flows for the three months ended March 31, 2015 and 2014. Such adjustments are of a normal recurring nature. In addition, certain reclassifications of prior period balances have been made to conform to the current period presentation. The results of our operations for the three months ended March 31, 2015 may not be indicative of results for the full year.

Restructuring and Other Charges (Notes)

3 Months Ended

Mar. 31, 2015

Restructuring and Related Activities [Abstract]

Restructuring, Impairment, and Other Activities Disclosure [Text Block]

Impairments and Other Charges

We carry a variety of long-lived assets on our balance sheet including property, plant and equipment, goodwill, and other intangibles. We conduct impairment tests on long-lived assets whenever events or changes in circumstances indicate that the carrying value may not be recoverable. We review the recoverability of the carrying value of our assets based upon estimated future cash flows while taking into consideration assumptions and estimates including the future use of the asset, remaining useful life of the asset, and service potential of the asset. Additionally, inventories are valued at the lower of cost or market.

During the first quarter of 2015, as a result of the recent downturn in the energy market and its corresponding impact on our business outlook, we determined the carrying amount of a number of our long-lived assets exceeded their respective fair values due to projected declines in asset utilization, and that the cost of some of our inventory exceeded its market value; therefore, we recorded corresponding impairments and other charges. Additionally, we initiated a company-wide reduction in workforce during the quarter intended to reduce costs and better align our workforce with anticipated activity levels in the near-term, which resulted in us recording severance costs relating to termination benefits. We also recorded a write-off of our operations in both Libya and Yemen due to our decision to exit our operations in these countries.

Primarily as a result of the events described above, we recorded a total of approximately $1.2 billion in charges during the first quarter of 2015, which consisted of asset impairments and write-offs, inventory write-downs, impairments of intangible assets, severance costs, country and facility closures, and other items. We also recorded a $199 million foreign currency exchange loss in Venezuela during the quarter as discussed in further detail below.

The following table presents various charges we recorded during the first quarter of 2015 as a result of the economic downturn and other matters:



Millions of dollars	March 31, 2015		Income Statement Classification
Economic downturn:
Inventory write-downs	$	309	Impairments and other charges
Fixed asset impairments	303		Impairments and other charges
Intangible asset impairments	165		Impairments and other charges
Severance costs	134		Impairments and other charges
Other	150		Impairments and other charges
Other matters:
Country closures	75		Impairments and other charges
Other	72		Impairments and other charges
Total impairments and other charges	$	1,208
Venezuela currency devaluation loss	199		Other, net
Total charges	$	1,407

Additionally, we determined that these recent events constituted a triggering event that would require us to update our goodwill impairment assessment through March 31, 2015. As a result of our analysis, we determined that the fair value of each reporting unit exceeded its net book value and therefore, no goodwill impairment was necessary as of March 31, 2015. A prolonged reduction in oil and natural gas prices may require us to record further asset impairments and other charges, including a potential impairment of the carrying value of our goodwill.

In February 2015, the Venezuelan government created a new foreign exchange rate mechanism, called the Marginal Currency System, or SIMADI. The new mechanism, which is the third system in a three-tier exchange control mechanism, is a floating market rate for the conversion of Bolívares to United States dollars based on supply and demand. We intend to utilize the SIMADI mechanism for liquidity purposes in our Venezuelan operations. We have historically remeasured our net monetary assets denominated in Bolívares using the official exchange rate of 6.3 Bolívares per United States dollar. During the first quarter of 2015, we began utilizing SIMADI to remeasure our net monetary assets denominated in Bolívares with a market rate of 192 Bolívares per United States dollar, which resulted in us recording a foreign currency loss of $199 million during the first quarter of 2015.

Business Segment and Geographic Information

3 Months Ended

Mar. 31, 2015

Segment Reporting [Abstract]

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 expenses not attributable to a particular business segment, such as costs related to the pending Baker Hughes acquisition that were incurred during the first quarter of 2015.

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



	Three Months Ended March 31
Millions of dollars	2015			2014
Revenue:
Completion and Production	$	4,246		$	4,420
Drilling and Evaluation	2,804			2,928
Total revenue	$	7,050		$	7,348
Operating income (loss):
Completion and Production	$	462		$	661
Drilling and Evaluation	306			398
Total operations	768			1,059
Corporate and other	(108		)	(89		)
Impairments and other charges (a)	(1,208		)	—
Total operating income (loss)	$	(548	)	$	970
Interest expense, net of interest income	(106		)	(93		)
Other, net	(224		)	(31		)
Income (loss) from continuing operations before income taxes	$	(878	)	$	846

(a) Includes $510 million attributable to Completion and Production, $638 million attributable to Drilling and Evaluation, and $60 million attributable to Corporate and other during the three months ended March 31, 2015.

Receivables

As of March 31, 2015, 36% of our gross trade receivables were from customers in the United States. As of December 31, 2014, 39% of our gross trade receivables were from customers in the United States. No other country or single customer accounted for more than 10% of our gross trade receivables at these dates.

Venezuela. During the first quarter of 2015, we began utilizing the new SIMADI exchange rate mechanism to remeasure our net monetary assets denominated in Bolívares, at a market rate of 192 Bolívares per United States dollar as compared to the official exchange rate of 6.3 Bolívares per United States dollar we historically utilized. As a result, the United States dollar value of our trade receivables in Venezuela significantly declined. Our total outstanding trade receivables in Venezuela were $437 million, or approximately 7% of our gross trade receivables, as of March 31, 2015, compared to $670 million, or approximately 9% of our gross trade receivables, as of December 31, 2014. Of the $437 million of receivables in Venezuela as of March 31, 2015, $130 million have been classified as long-term and included within “Other assets” on our condensed consolidated balance sheets. Of the $670 million of receivables in Venezuela as of December 31, 2014, $256 million have been classified as long-term and included within “Other assets” on our condensed consolidated balance sheets. For additional information about the new currency system, see Note 3 and “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations – Business Environment and Results of Operations.”

Stockholders' Equity Note [Abstract]

The entire disclosure for reporting segments including data and tables. Reportable segments include those that meet any of the following quantitative thresholds a) it's reported revenue, including sales to external customers and intersegment sales or transfers is 10 percent or more of the combined revenue, internal and external, of all operating segments b) the absolute amount of its reported profit or loss is 10 percent or more of the greater, in absolute amount of 1) the combined reported profit of all operating segments that did not report a loss or 2) the combined reported loss of all operating segments that did report a loss c) its assets are 10 percent or more of the combined assets of all operating segments.

+ References

Reference 1: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef
-Publisher FASB
-Name Accounting Standards Codification
-Topic 280
-SubTopic 10
-Section 50
-Paragraph 34
-URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=51669610&loc=d3e8981-108599

Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef
-Publisher FASB
-Name Accounting Standards Codification
-Topic 280
-SubTopic 10
-Section 50
-Paragraph 41
-URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=51669610&loc=d3e9038-108599

Reference 3: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef
-Publisher FASB
-Name Accounting Standards Codification
-Topic 280
-SubTopic 10
-Section 50
-Paragraph 33
-URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=51669610&loc=d3e8971-108599

Reference 4: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef
-Publisher FASB
-Name Accounting Standards Codification
-Topic 280
-SubTopic 10
-Section 50
-Paragraph 12
-URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=51669610&loc=d3e8595-108599

Reference 5: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef
-Publisher FASB
-Name Accounting Standards Codification
-Topic 280
-SubTopic 10
-Section 50
-Paragraph 1
-URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=51669610&loc=d3e8380-108599

Reference 6: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef
-Publisher FASB
-Name Accounting Standards Codification
-Topic 280
-SubTopic 10
-Section 50
-Paragraph 32
-URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=51669610&loc=d3e8933-108599

Reference 7: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef
-Publisher FASB
-Name Accounting Standards Codification
-Topic 280
-SubTopic 10
-Section 50
-Paragraph 26
-URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=51669610&loc=d3e8844-108599

Reference 8: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef
-Publisher FASB
-Name Accounting Standards Codification
-Topic 280
-SubTopic 10
-Section 50
-Paragraph 35
-URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=51669610&loc=d3e8984-108599

Reference 9: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef
-Publisher FASB
-Name Accounting Standards Codification
-Topic 280
-SubTopic 10
-Section 50
-Paragraph 40
-URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=51669610&loc=d3e9031-108599

Reference 10: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef
-Publisher FASB
-Name Accounting Standards Codification
-Topic 280
-SubTopic 10
-Section 50
-Paragraph 42
-URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=51669610&loc=d3e9054-108599

Reference 11: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef
-Publisher FASB
-Name Accounting Standards Codification
-Topic 280
-SubTopic 10
-Section 50
-Paragraph 10
-URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=51669610&loc=d3e8538-108599

Reference 12: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef
-Publisher FASB
-Name Accounting Standards Codification
-Topic 280
-SubTopic 10
-Section 50
-Paragraph 29
-URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=51669610&loc=d3e8864-108599

Reference 13: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef
-Publisher FASB
-Name Accounting Standards Codification
-Topic 280
-SubTopic 10
-Section 50
-Paragraph 31
-URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=51669610&loc=d3e8924-108599

Reference 14: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef
-Publisher FASB
-Name Accounting Standards Codification
-Topic 280
-SubTopic 10
-Section 50
-Paragraph 30
-URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=51669610&loc=d3e8906-108599

+ Details

Inventories

3 Months Ended

Mar. 31, 2015

Inventory Disclosure [Abstract]

Inventories

Inventories are stated at the lower of cost or market value. 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 $187 million as of March 31, 2015 and $227 million as of December 31, 2014. If the average cost method had been used, total inventories would have been $36 million higher than reported as of March 31, 2015 and $38 million higher than reported as of December 31, 2014. The cost of the remaining inventory was recorded on the average cost method. Inventories consisted of the following:



Millions of dollars	March 31, 2015		December 31, 2014
Finished products and parts	$	2,367	$	2,606
Raw materials and supplies	883		754
Work in process	217		211
Total	$	3,467	$	3,571

During the first quarter of 2015, as a result of the recent downturn in the energy market and its corresponding impact on our business outlook, we determined the cost of some of our inventory exceeded its market value; therefore, we recorded corresponding inventory write-downs. See Note 3 for further information about the impairments and other charges taken in the first quarter of 2015.

Finished products and parts are reported net of obsolescence reserves of $190 million as of March 31, 2015 and $161 million as of December 31, 2014.

Shareholders' Equity

3 Months Ended

Mar. 31, 2015

Stockholders' Equity

Shareholders’ Equity

The following tables summarize our shareholders’ equity activity:



Millions of dollars	Total shareholders' equity			Company shareholders' equity			Noncontrolling interest in consolidated subsidiaries
Balance at December 31, 2014	$	16,298		$	16,267		$	31
Stock plans	129			129			—
Payments of dividends to shareholders	(153		)	(153		)	—
Other	(7		)	(6		)	(1		)
Comprehensive income (loss)	(644		)	(646		)	2
Balance at March 31, 2015	$	15,623		$	15,591		$	32



Millions of dollars	Total shareholders' equity			Company shareholders' equity			Noncontrolling interest in consolidated subsidiaries
Balance at December 31, 2013	$	13,615		$	13,581		$	34
Shares repurchased	(500		)	(500		)	—
Stock plans	146			146			—
Payments of dividends to shareholders	(127		)	(127		)	—
Other	(2		)	(1		)	(1		)
Comprehensive income	620			626			(6		)
Balance at March 31, 2014	$	13,752		$	13,725		$	27

Our Board of Directors has authorized a program to repurchase our common stock from time to time. Approximately $5.7 billion remains authorized for repurchases as of March 31, 2015. From the inception of this program in February 2006 through March 31, 2015, we repurchased approximately 201 million shares of our common stock for a total cost of approximately $8.4 billion.

Accumulated other comprehensive loss consisted of the following:



Millions of dollars	March 31, 2015			December 31, 2014
Defined benefit and other postretirement liability adjustments	$	(323	)	$	(326	)
Cumulative translation adjustments	(73		)	(70		)
Other	(6		)	(3		)
Total accumulated other comprehensive loss	$	(402	)	$	(399	)

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

The entire disclosure for shareholders' equity comprised of portions attributable to the parent entity and noncontrolling interest, including other comprehensive income. Includes, but is not limited to, balances of common stock, preferred stock, additional paid-in capital, other capital and retained earnings, accumulated balance for each classification of other comprehensive income and amount of comprehensive income.

+ References

Reference 1: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef
-Publisher FASB
-Name Accounting Standards Codification
-Topic 235
-SubTopic 10
-Section S99
-Paragraph 1
-Subparagraph (SX 210.4-08.(d),(e))
-URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=26873400&loc=d3e23780-122690

Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef
-Publisher FASB
-Name Accounting Standards Codification
-Topic 505
-SubTopic 10
-Section 50
-Paragraph 4
-URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6928386&loc=d3e21484-112644

Reference 3: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef
-Publisher FASB
-Name Accounting Standards Codification
-Topic 310
-SubTopic 10
-Section S99
-Paragraph 2
-Subparagraph (SAB TOPIC 4.E)
-URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=27010918&loc=d3e74512-122707

Reference 4: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef
-Publisher FASB
-Name Accounting Standards Codification
-Topic 505
-SubTopic 10
-Section 50
-Paragraph 5
-URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6928386&loc=d3e21488-112644

Reference 5: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef
-Publisher FASB
-Name Accounting Standards Codification
-Topic 210
-SubTopic 10
-Section S99
-Paragraph 1
-Subparagraph (SX 210.5-02.29-31)
-URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6877327&loc=d3e13212-122682

Reference 6: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef
-Publisher FASB
-Name Accounting Standards Codification
-Topic 505
-SubTopic 10
-Section S99
-Paragraph 4
-Subparagraph (SAB TOPIC 4.C)
-URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=27012166&loc=d3e187143-122770

Reference 7: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef
-Publisher FASB
-Name Accounting Standards Codification
-Topic 505
-SubTopic 10
-Section 50
-Paragraph 6
-URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6928386&loc=d3e21506-112644

Reference 8: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef
-Publisher FASB
-Name Accounting Standards Codification
-Topic 505
-SubTopic 10
-Section S99
-Paragraph 1
-Subparagraph (SX 210.3-04)
-URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=27012166&loc=d3e187085-122770

Reference 9: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef
-Publisher FASB
-Name Accounting Standards Codification
-Topic 505
-SubTopic 30
-Section 50
-Paragraph 2
-URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6405834&loc=d3e23285-112656

Reference 10: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef
-Publisher FASB
-Name Accounting Standards Codification
-Topic 505
-SubTopic 10
-Section 50
-Paragraph 3
-URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6928386&loc=d3e21475-112644

Reference 11: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef
-Publisher FASB
-Name Accounting Standards Codification
-Glossary Preferred Stock
-URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6521494

Reference 12: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef
-Publisher FASB
-Name Accounting Standards Codification
-Topic 505
-SubTopic 10
-Section 50
-Paragraph 2
-URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6928386&loc=d3e21463-112644

Reference 13: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef
-Publisher FASB
-Name Accounting Standards Codification
-Topic 505
-SubTopic 10
-Section 50
-Paragraph 11
-URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6928386&loc=d3e21564-112644

Reference 14: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef
-Publisher SEC
-Name Staff Accounting Bulletin (SAB)
-Number Topic 4
-Section E

Reference 15: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef
-Publisher SEC
-Name Staff Accounting Bulletin (SAB)
-Number Topic 4
-Section C

+ Details

Commitments and Contingencies

3 Months Ended

Mar. 31, 2015

Commitments and Contingencies

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 an affiliate of 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. 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, as applicable, BP). There were eleven fatalities and a number of injuries as a result of the Macondo well incident.

Litigation. Numerous lawsuits relating to the Macondo well incident were filed against us, BP, Transocean and others in federal and state courts throughout the United States, most of which have been consolidated in a Multi-District Litigation (MDL) proceeding before Judge Carl Barbier in the United States Eastern District of Louisiana. Generally, those lawsuits allege either (1) damages arising from the oil spill pollution and contamination or (2) wrongful death or personal injuries. The pollution complaints include suits brought against us by governmental entities, including all of the coastal states of the Gulf of Mexico, numerous local governmental entities, the Mexican State of Yucatan, and the United Mexican States, and 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 compensatory damages, including unspecified economic damages, and punitive damages, as well as injunctive relief. 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.

The defendants in the proceedings described above have filed numerous cross claims, third party claims, and other actions against certain other defendants, including us, seeking subrogation, contribution, indemnification, including with respect to liabilities under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA), and direct damages, and alleging negligence, gross negligence, fraudulent conduct, willful misconduct, fraudulent concealment, comparative fault, and breach of warranty of workmanlike performance.

Judge Barbier issued an order, among others, clarifying certain aspects of law applicable to the lawsuits pending in his court. The court ruled that: (1) general maritime law will apply, and therefore all claims brought under state law causes of action were dismissed; (2) general maritime law claims may be brought directly against defendants who are non-“responsible parties” under the OPA with the exception of pure economic loss claims by plaintiffs other than commercial fishermen; (3) all claims for damages, including pure economic loss claims, may be brought under the OPA directly against responsible parties; and (4) punitive damage claims may be brought against both responsible and non-responsible parties under general maritime law. The rulings in the court's order remain subject to each applicable party's right to appeal. Certain parishes in Louisiana appealed the dismissal of their state law claims, and the United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (Fifth Circuit) affirmed the dismissal. The parishes filed a petition for writ of certiorari in the United States Supreme Court (Supreme Court), which the Court denied.

We have not been named as a responsible party under the OPA, but BP has filed a claim against us for contribution with respect to liabilities incurred by BP under the OPA. In an order dismissing certain other claims, the MDL court noted that we are not liable with respect to those claims under the OPA because we are not a “responsible party” under the OPA. A group of plaintiffs appealed the order, but the Fifth Circuit dismissed the appeal.

In April 2012, BP announced that it had reached definitive settlement agreements with the Plaintiffs' Steering Committee (PSC) in the MDL to resolve the substantial majority of eligible private economic loss and medical claims stemming from the Macondo well incident (BP MDL Settlements). The PSC acts on behalf of individuals and business plaintiffs in the MDL. The BP MDL Settlements do not include claims against BP made by the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) or other federal agencies or by states and local governments. The BP MDL Settlements provide that the settlement classes are precluded from asserting compensatory damages claims against us. The economic loss settlement (BP Economic Loss Settlement) provides that, to the extent permitted by law, BP assigns to the settlement class certain of its claims, rights, and recoveries against Transocean and us for damages, including BP's alleged direct damages such as damages for clean-up expenses and damage to the well and reservoir. The MDL court has since certified the classes and granted final approval for the BP MDL Settlements. BP's medical claims settlement was final as of February 2014. BP challenged certain provisions of the BP Economic Loss Settlement in the MDL court and applicable appellate courts. In March 2014, the Fifth Circuit upheld the settlement, and BP subsequently filed a petition for writ of certiorari in the Supreme Court. In December 2014, the Supreme Court denied BP’s petition.

The first phase of the MDL trial, which concluded in April 2013, covered issues arising out of the conduct and degree of culpability of various parties allegedly relevant to the loss of well control, the ensuing fire and explosion on and sinking of the Deepwater Horizon, and the initiation of the release of hydrocarbons from the Macondo well. At the conclusion of the plaintiffs' case, in March 2013, the MDL court dismissed all claims against certain defendants, leaving BP, Transocean, and us as the remaining defendants with respect to the matters addressed during the first phase of the trial.

In September 2014, we reached an agreement, subject to court approval, to settle a substantial portion of the plaintiffs’ claims asserted against us relating to the Macondo well incident (our MDL Settlement). Pursuant to our MDL Settlement, we agreed to pay an aggregate of $1.1 billion, which includes legal fees and costs, into a settlement fund in three installments over two years, except that one installment of legal fees will not be paid until all of the conditions to the settlement have been satisfied or waived. Under our MDL Settlement, (1) a class of plaintiffs alleging physical damage to property or damages associated with the commercial fishing industry arising from the Macondo well incident agree to release all claims against us for punitive damages and (2) class members of the BP Economic Loss Settlement agree to release the claims against us that BP assigned to them in that settlement. We also agreed to release BP for any damages, consideration, or other relief that we provide under our MDL Settlement.

Certain conditions must be satisfied before our MDL Settlement becomes effective and the funds are released from the settlement fund. These conditions include, among others, the BP Economic Loss Settlement becoming final and effective and the issuance of a final order of the MDL court, including the resolution of any appeals, that (1) affirms we have no liability for compensatory damages to the class members of the BP Economic Loss Settlement, (2) adopts the MDL court’s January 2012 order enforcing our indemnity rights against BP (see “Indemnification and Insurance” below), and (3) adopts the MDL court’s prior order that, under general maritime law, pure economic loss claims by plaintiffs other than commercial fishermen may not be brought against us. In addition, we have the right to terminate our MDL Settlement if more than an agreed number of plaintiffs elect to opt out of the settlement prior to the expiration of the opt out deadline to be established by the MDL court.

Our MDL Settlement does not cover claims against us by the state governments of Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana, or Texas, claims by our own employees, compensatory damages claims by plaintiffs in the MDL that opted out of or were excluded from the settlement class in the BP MDL Settlements, or claims by other defendants in the MDL or their respective employees. However, as discussed below, these claims have either been dismissed, are subject to dismissal, are subject to indemnification by BP pursuant to rulings of the MDL court, or are not believed to be material.

Before approving our MDL Settlement, the MDL court must certify the settlement class, the numerous class members must be notified of the proposed settlement, and the court must hold a fairness hearing. We are unable to predict when the MDL court will approve our MDL Settlement.

Subsequently in September 2014, the MDL court ruled (Phase One Ruling) that, among other things, (1) in relation to the Macondo well incident, BP’s conduct was reckless, Transocean’s conduct was negligent, and our conduct was negligent,

(2) fault for the Macondo blowout, explosion, and spill is apportioned 67% to BP, 30% to Transocean, and 3% to us, and (3) the indemnity and release clauses in our contract with BP are valid and enforceable against BP. The MDL court did not find that our conduct was grossly negligent, thereby, subject to any appeals, eliminating our exposure in the MDL for punitive damages.

In October 2014, BP filed a motion in the MDL court to amend the court’s findings, alter or amend the court’s judgment, or for a new trial, and in November 2014, the MDL court denied the motion. BP has filed a notice of appeal of both the MDL court’s denial of its motion and of the Phase One Ruling.

The second phase of the MDL trial was held in October 2013. In January 2015, the MDL court ruled that, giving effect to the amount of oil collected as a result of BP’s cleanup efforts, a total of 3.19 million barrels of oil were discharged into the Gulf of Mexico for the purposes of determining the maximum penalty under the Clean Water Act (CWA).

The DOJ's civil action for CWA violations, fines, and penalties against BP Exploration, Anadarko Petroleum Corporation and Anadarko E&P Company LP, which had an approximate 25% interest in the Macondo well, was addressed by the MDL court in another phase of the trial during January 2015; testimony was completed but no ruling has been made yet.

Also, the MDL court has scheduled a trial of seven OPA test cases which are limited to the plaintiffs and BP. The plaintiffs have dropped their general maritime law claims against us in these test cases, although BP asserts in its affirmative defenses that the damages involved were caused by third parties such as Transocean and us.

Damages for the cases tried in the MDL proceeding, including punitive damages, if any, are expected to be tried pursuant to a process to be determined by the MDL court. 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. Discovery is underway for a trial of the State of Alabama’s OPA and general maritime law damages claims, with a potential trial commencing in the fourth quarter of 2015. Pursuant to a court-approved stipulation, we are not actively participating in this trial, but retain the right to participate should we determine that it is in our interest to do so.

Subject to all applicable appeals and final approvals, the following briefly summarizes the status of the various claims against us based on the various settlements and MDL court rulings described above:


•	compensatory damages claims asserted against us by the members of the settlement class in the BP MDL Settlements may not be pursued under the terms of that settlement;

•

compensatory damages claims asserted against us by plaintiffs in the MDL that are not members of the settlement class in the BP MDL Settlements, including plaintiffs who opted out of or were excluded from those settlements, the state governments of Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas, the Mexican State of Yucatan, and the United Mexican States, are either dismissed, subject to dismissal, or subject to indemnification by BP pursuant to rulings of the MDL court;


•	punitive damages claims asserted against us by the members of the settlement class in our MDL Settlement are released pursuant to that settlement, and we should not otherwise be held liable for punitive damages claims asserted by any other plaintiffs in the MDL because the Phase One Ruling did not find that our conduct was grossly negligent;


•	BP’s direct damages claims against us, such as claims for clean-up expenses and damage to the well and reservoir, that are assigned to members of the settlement class in the BP Economic Loss Settlement are released pursuant to our MDL Settlement;


•	BP’s claims against us for contribution, indemnity, or subrogation with respect to fines and penalties under the CWA or other federal or state statute are unresolved, although we believe that the claims are without merit and are subject to a release given by BP in our contract relating to the Macondo well; and


•	claims against us asserted by Transocean, and claims against us that are not included in the MDL, are unresolved, but these claims are subject to indemnification by BP pursuant to the rulings of the MDL court and we do not believe that these claims are material.

As of March 31, 2015, our remaining loss contingency liability related to the Macondo well incident was

$805 million, consisting of a current portion of $366.6 million and a non-current portion of $438.7 million. The $805 million represents a $733 million loss contingency related to our MDL Settlement and a loss contingency of $72 million unrelated to that settlement. Our loss contingency liability does not include potential recoveries from our insurers or indemnification by BP. See “Indemnification and Insurance” below for information regarding amounts that we could potentially recover from insurance and are currently unable to classify as probable.

Subject to the satisfaction of the conditions of our MDL Settlement and to the resolution of appeals of the Phase One Ruling, we believe our MDL Settlement and the Phase One Ruling have eliminated any additional material financial exposure to us in relation to the Macondo well incident. However, because our MDL Settlement is subject to court approval and other conditions and the Phase One Ruling is subject to appeals, we are unable to predict the ultimate outcome of the many lawsuits, investigations, and other matters relating to the Macondo well incident, including appeals of the Phase One Ruling, further orders and rulings of the MDL court and other courts, and indemnification and insurance arrangements. We are also unable to predict whether the court will approve our MDL Settlement or whether the conditions of our MDL Settlement will be satisfied. Accordingly, there are additional loss contingencies relating to the Macondo well incident that are reasonably possible but for which we cannot make a reasonable estimate and we may adjust our estimated loss contingency liability and our amounts recoverable from insurance in the future. In addition, applicable accounting rules and guidance may require us to recognize a loss contingency for which we may be fully indemnified, without recognizing a corresponding receivable for the amount of the

indemnity payment. Depending on the developments discussed above, liabilities arising out of the Macondo well incident could have a material adverse effect on our liquidity, consolidated results of operations, and consolidated financial condition.

We intend to continue defending any litigation, fines, and/or penalties relating to the Macondo well incident and to vigorously pursue any damages, remedies, or other rights available to us as a result of the Macondo well incident. We have incurred and expect to continue to incur significant legal fees and costs, some of which we intend to seek recovery of through indemnity or insurance arrangements, as a result of the numerous investigations and lawsuits relating to the incident.

Regulatory Action. In October 2011, the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) issued a notification of Incidents of Noncompliance (INCs) to us for allegedly violating federal regulations relating to the failure to take measures to prevent the unauthorized release of hydrocarbons, the failure to take precautions to keep the Macondo well under control, the failure to cement the well in a manner that would, among other things, prevent the release of fluids into the Gulf of Mexico, and the failure to protect health, safety, property, and the environment as a result of a failure to perform operations in a safe and workmanlike manner. We have appealed the INCs, but the appeal has been suspended pending certain proceedings in the MDL trial and potential appeals. The BSEE has announced that the INCs will be reviewed for possible imposition of civil penalties once the appeal has ended. We understand that the regulations in effect at the time of the alleged violations provide for fines of up to $35,000 per day per violation.

DOJ Investigations and Actions. On June 1, 2010, the United States Attorney General announced that the DOJ was launching civil and criminal investigations into the Macondo well incident. The DOJ announced that it was reviewing, among other traditional criminal statutes, possible violations of and liabilities under the CWA, the OPA, and the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA).

Under the CWA, civil penalties of up to $1,100 per barrel of oil discharged (or $4,300 per barrel in the case of those found to have been grossly negligent) may be assessed against responsible parties, which include an “owner, operator, or person in charge of any vessel, onshore facility, or offshore facility from which oil or a hazardous substance is discharged.” Under the OPA, responsible parties can be liable for removal and response costs for discharges of oil from vessels, onshore facilities, and offshore facilities into or upon the navigable waters of the United States, as well as for damages, including recovery costs to contain and remove discharged oil and damages for injury to natural resources and real or personal property, lost revenues, lost profits, and lost earning capacity. The cap on liability under the OPA during 2010 was 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 ESA establishes liability for injury and death to wildlife. The ESA provides for civil penalties for knowing violations that can range up to $25,000 per violation.

The DOJ has filed a civil action seeking damages and injunctive relief against BP Exploration, subsidiaries of Transocean Ltd., and others for violations of the CWA and the OPA. The DOJ’s complaint seeks a declaration that the defendants are strictly liable under the CWA as a result of the Macondo well incident, and seeks a declaration that the defendants are strictly liable under the OPA, with removal costs and damages to the United States far exceeding $75 million. BP Exploration 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. 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 above under “Litigation,” in April 2011 BP filed a claim against us for statutory and equitable contribution with respect to liabilities incurred by BP under the OPA or another law, which subsequent court filings have indicated may include the CWA, and requested a judgment that the DOJ assert its claims for OPA financial liability directly against us. We filed a motion to dismiss BP’s claim, and that motion is pending. In July 2013, we also filed a motion for summary judgment requesting a court order that we are not liable to BP or Transocean for equitable indemnification or contribution with regard to any CWA fines and penalties that have been assessed or may be assessed against BP or Transocean. That motion is also pending.

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 civil complaint, there can be no assurance that federal governmental authorities will not bring a civil action against us under the CWA, the OPA, and/or other statutes or regulations.

In 2013, we settled the federal government's criminal investigation of us in relation to the Macondo well incident by pleading guilty to one misdemeanor violation of federal law concerning the deletion of certain computer files created after the occurrence of the Macondo well incident, paying a criminal fine of $0.2 million and agreeing to three years' probation.

Indemnification and Insurance. Our contract with BP relating to the Macondo well generally provides for our indemnification by BP for certain 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, we have, among other things, generally agreed to indemnify BP 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 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. We have entered into separate indemnity agreements with Transocean and others, under which we have agreed to indemnify those parties for claims for personal injury of our employees and subcontractors and they have agreed to indemnify us for claims for personal injury of their employees and subcontractors.

In January 2012, the MDL court entered an order regarding certain indemnification matters. The court held that BP is required to indemnify us for third-party compensatory claims, or actual damages, that arise from pollution or contamination that did not originate from our property or equipment located above the surface of the land or water, even if we were found to be grossly negligent. The court also held, however, that BP does not owe us indemnity for punitive damages or for civil penalties under the CWA, if any. As discussed above, the DOJ is not seeking civil penalties from us under the CWA, but BP has filed a claim for contribution against us with respect to its liabilities.

As discussed above, the Phase One Ruling found that the indemnification provisions in our contract with BP are valid and enforceable against BP.

In addition to our contractual indemnity arrangements, we had a general liability insurance program of $600 million at the time of the Macondo well incident. Our insurance was 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 payments from our insurers with respect to covered legal fees incurred in connection with the Macondo well incident. Through March 31, 2015, we have incurred legal fees and related expenses of approximately $322 million, of which $283 million has been reimbursed under our insurance program. With respect to our MDL Settlement, we have collected $93 million under our general liability insurance program.

With regard to the approximately $200 million of remaining insurance coverage relating to the Macondo well incident, most of the insurance carriers for that layer of coverage notified us that they do not intend to reimburse us with respect to our MDL Settlement. During the first quarter of 2015, we settled with one insurance carrier. We have initiated arbitration proceedings to pursue recovery of the remaining balance of approximately $170 million. Due to the uncertainty surrounding such recovery, no related amounts have been recognized in the consolidated financial statements as of March 31, 2015.

Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) Claim

In 2014, the U.S. Department of Labor Wage and Hour Division (DOL) commenced an audit to determine whether certain workers have been properly classified by us as exempt under the FLSA. In addition, litigation was commenced against us alleging that certain field professionals were not properly classified. During the first quarter of 2015, upon completion of a detailed analysis of the potential exposure involved and settlement of the pending litigation, we recorded corresponding loss contingency liabilities.

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 Securities and Exchange Commission (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 was styled Archdiocese of Milwaukee Supporting Fund (AMSF) v. Halliburton Company, et al. AMSF has changed its name to Erica P. John Fund, Inc. (the 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 our 1998 acquisition of Dresser Industries, Inc., including that we failed to timely disclose the resulting asbestos liability exposure.

In April 2005, the court appointed new co-lead counsel and named the 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. 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 the Fund to re-plead some of those claims to correct deficiencies in its earlier complaint. In April 2006, the 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 us.

In September 2007, the Fund filed a motion for class certification, and our response was filed in November 2007. The district court held a hearing in March 2008, and issued an order in November 2008 denying the motion for class certification. The 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. In May 2010, the Fund filed a writ of certiorari in the United States Supreme Court. In January 2011, the Supreme Court granted the 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 the 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 our other arguments for denying class certification. The Fifth Circuit returned the case to the district court, and in January 2012 the court issued an order certifying the class. We filed a Petition for Leave to Appeal with the Fifth Circuit, which was granted. In April 2013, the Fifth Circuit issued an order affirming the District Court's order certifying the class.

We filed a writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court seeking an appeal of the Fifth Circuit decision. In November 2013, the Supreme Court granted our writ. Oral argument was held before the Supreme Court in March 2014. The Supreme Court issued its decision in June 2014, maintaining the presumption of class member reliance through the “fraud on the market” theory, but holding that we are entitled to rebut that presumption by presenting evidence that there was no impact on our stock price from the alleged misrepresentation. Because the district court and the Fifth Circuit denied us that opportunity, the Supreme Court vacated the Fifth Circuit’s decision and remanded for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court decision. In December 2014, the district court held a hearing to consider whether there was an impact on our stock price from the alleged misrepresentations. Fact discovery and other pretrial deadlines have been stayed. The court has not yet issued a ruling on class certification. We cannot predict the outcome or consequences of this case, which we intend to vigorously defend.

Investigations

We are conducting internal investigations of certain areas of our operations in Angola and Iraq, focusing on compliance with certain company policies, including our Code of Business Conduct (COBC), and the FCPA and other applicable laws.

In December 2010, we received an anonymous e-mail alleging that certain current and former personnel violated our COBC and the FCPA, principally through the use of an Angolan vendor. The e-mail also alleges conflicts of interest, self-dealing, and the failure to act on alleged violations of our COBC and the FCPA. We contacted the DOJ to advise them that we were initiating an internal investigation.

During the second quarter of 2012, in connection with a meeting with the DOJ and the SEC regarding the above investigation, we advised the DOJ and the SEC that we were initiating unrelated, internal investigations into payments made to a third-party agent relating to certain customs matters in Angola and to third-party agents relating to certain customs and visa matters in Iraq.

Since the initiation of the investigations described above, we have participated in meetings with the DOJ and the SEC to brief them on the status of the investigations and produced documents to them both voluntarily and as a result of SEC subpoenas to us and certain of our current and former officers and employees.

We expect to continue to have discussions with the DOJ and the SEC regarding issues relevant to the Angola and Iraq matters described above. We have engaged outside counsel and independent forensic accountants to assist us with these investigations.

Because these investigations are ongoing, we cannot predict their outcome or the consequences thereof.

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;


-	the Toxic Substances Control Act; and


-	the Oil Pollution 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 claims and remediation requirements to have a material adverse effect on our liquidity, consolidated results of operations, or consolidated financial position. Excluding our loss contingency for the Macondo well incident, our accrued liabilities for environmental matters were $58 million as of March 31, 2015 and $57 million as of December 31, 2014. Because 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. Our total liability related to environmental matters covers numerous properties.

Additionally, we have subsidiaries that have been named as potentially responsible parties along with other third parties for eight federal and state Superfund sites for which we have established reserves. As of March 31, 2015, those eight sites accounted for approximately $1 million of our $58 million total environmental reserve. 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 $2 billion of letters of credit, bank guarantees, or surety bonds were outstanding as of March 31, 2015. Some of the outstanding letters of credit have triggering events that would entitle a bank to require cash collateralization.

Income (Loss) per Share	3 Months Ended
Income (Loss) per Share	Mar. 31, 2015
Earnings Per Share [Abstract]
Income (Loss) per Share	Income per Share Basic income or loss 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. For the three months ended March 31, 2015, we incurred losses from continuing operations attributable to company shareholders and accordingly excluded all potentially dilutive securities from the determination of diluted loss per share as their impact was antidilutive. Antidilutive securities during the quarter totaled eleven million shares, which includes options to purchase nine million shares of common stock where the exercise price was greater than the average market price and options to purchase two million shares of common stock which ordinarily would be considered dilutive if not for us being in a net loss position during the quarter. For the three months ended March 31, 2014, differences between basic and diluted weighted average common shares outstanding resulted from the dilutive effect of awards granted under our stock incentive plans. There were no antidilutive shares outstanding for the quarter.

Fair Value of Financial Instruments

3 Months Ended

Mar. 31, 2015

Fair Value Disclosures [Abstract]

Fair Value of Financial Instruments

At March 31, 2015, we held $105 million of investments in fixed income securities with maturities ranging from less than one year to November 2019, of which $61 million are classified as “Other current assets” and $44 million are classified as “Other assets” on our condensed consolidated balance sheets. At December 31, 2014, we held $103 million of investments in fixed income securities, of which $56 million are classified as “Other current assets” and $47 million are classified as “Other assets” on our condensed consolidated balance sheets.

These securities consist primarily of corporate bonds and other debt instruments, are accounted for as available-for-sale and recorded at fair value, and are classified as Level 2 assets. Our Level 2 asset fair values are based on quoted prices for identical assets in less active markets. We have no financial instruments measured at fair value based on quoted prices in active markets (Level 1) or using unobservable inputs (Level 3). The carrying amount of cash and equivalents, receivables, and accounts payable, as reflected in the condensed consolidated balance sheets, approximates fair value due to the short maturities of these instruments.

The carrying amount and fair value of our long-term debt is as follows:



	March 31, 2015								December 31, 2014
Millions of dollars	Level 1		Level 2		Total fair value		Carrying value		Level 1		Level 2		Total fair value		Carrying value
Long-term debt	$	5,511	$	3,753	$	9,264	$	7,841	$	4,822	$	4,257	$	9,079	$	7,840

Our Level 1 debt fair values are calculated using quoted prices in active markets for identical liabilities with transactions occurring on the last two days of period-end. Our Level 2 debt fair values are calculated using significant observable inputs for similar liabilities where estimated values are determined from observable data points on our other bonds and on other similarly rated corporate debt or from observable data points of transactions occurring prior to two days from period-end and adjusting for changes in market conditions. We have no debt measured at fair value using unobservable inputs (Level 3).

The entire disclosure for the fair value of financial instruments (as defined), including financial assets and financial liabilities (collectively, as defined), and the measurements of those instruments as well as disclosures related to the fair value of non-financial assets and liabilities. Such disclosures about the financial instruments, assets, and liabilities would include: (1) the fair value of the required items together with their carrying amounts (as appropriate); (2) for items for which it is not practicable to estimate fair value, disclosure would include: (a) information pertinent to estimating fair value (including, carrying amount, effective interest rate, and maturity, and (b) the reasons why it is not practicable to estimate fair value; (3) significant concentrations of credit risk including: (a) information about the activity, region, or economic characteristics identifying a concentration, (b) the maximum amount of loss the entity is exposed to based on the gross fair value of the related item, (c) policy for requiring collateral or other security and information as to accessing such collateral or security, and (d) the nature and brief description of such collateral or security; (4) quantitative information about market risks and how such risks are managed; (5) for items measured on both a recurring and nonrecurring basis information regarding the inputs used to develop the fair value measurement; and (6) for items presented in the financial statement for which fair value measurement is elected: (a) information necessary to understand the reasons for the election, (b) discussion of the effect of fair value changes on earnings, (c) a description of [similar groups] items for which the election is made and the relation thereof to the balance sheet, the aggregate carrying value of items included in the balance sheet that are not eligible for the election; (7) all other required (as defined) and desired information.

Accounting Standards Recently Adopted	3 Months Ended
Accounting Standards Recently Adopted	Mar. 31, 2015
New Accounting Pronouncements and Changes in Accounting Principles [Abstract]
New Accounting Pronouncements and Changes in Accounting Principles [Text Block]	New Accounting Pronouncements Revenue Recognition In May 2014, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) and the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) issued a comprehensive new revenue recognition standard that will supersede existing revenue recognition guidance under United States generally accepted accounting principles (U.S. GAAP) and International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS). The issuance of this guidance completes the joint effort by the FASB and the IASB to improve financial reporting by creating common revenue recognition guidance for U.S. GAAP and IFRS. The core principle of the new guidance is that a company should recognize revenue to depict the transfer of promised goods or services to customers in an amount that reflects the consideration to which the company expects to be entitled in exchange for those goods or services. The standard creates a five-step model that requires companies to exercise judgment when considering the terms of a contract and all relevant facts and circumstances. The standard allows for several transition methods: (a) a full retrospective adoption in which the standard is applied to all of the periods presented, or (b) a modified retrospective adoption in which the standard is applied only to the most current period presented in the financial statements, including additional disclosures of the standard’s application impact to individual financial statement line items. This standard is effective for annual reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2016, including interim periods within that reporting period. In April 2015, the FASB agreed to propose a one-year deferral of the revenue recognition standard's effective date for all entities, which would change the effectiveness to annual reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2017, including interim periods within that reporting period. We are currently evaluating this standard and our existing revenue recognition policies to determine which contracts in the scope of the guidance will be affected by the new requirements and what impact they would have on our consolidated financial statements upon adoption of this standard. We have not yet determined which transition method we will utilize upon adoption. Discontinued Operations On January 1, 2015, we adopted an accounting standard update issued by the FASB related to discontinued operations, which added criteria providing that only those disposals of a component of an entity or a group of components of an entity that represent a strategic shift in operations should be presented as discontinued operations. The update allows an entity to present a disposal as discontinued operations even when it has continuing cash flows and significant continuing involvement with the disposed component. The update also requires expanded disclosures for discontinued operations and individually significant components of an entity that does not qualify for discontinued operations reporting. The adoption of this update did not impact our condensed consolidated financial statements. This new pronouncement may have a material impact on our consolidated financial statements in connection with the anticipated divestitures related to the pending acquisition of Baker Hughes. The anticipated divestitures discussed in Note 11 will not be presented as discontinued operations under this new standard, as it does not represent a strategic shift in our business.

The entire disclosure of changes in accounting principles, including adoption of new accounting pronouncements, that describes the new methods, amount and effects on financial statement line items.

+ References

Reference 1: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef
-Publisher FASB
-Name Accounting Standards Codification
-Glossary Change in Accounting Principle
-URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6507316

Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef
-Publisher FASB
-Name Accounting Standards Codification
-Glossary Direct Effects of a Change in Accounting Principle
-URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6510796

Reference 3: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef
-Publisher FASB
-Name Accounting Standards Codification
-Topic 250
-SubTopic 10
-Section 50
-Paragraph 3
-URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=56949863&loc=d3e22583-107794

Reference 4: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef
-Publisher FASB
-Name Accounting Standards Codification
-Glossary Indirect Effects of a Change in Accounting Principle
-URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6515603

Reference 5: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef
-Publisher FASB
-Name Accounting Standards Codification
-Topic 250
-SubTopic 10
-Section 50
-Paragraph 2
-URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=56949863&loc=d3e22580-107794

Reference 6: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef
-Publisher FASB
-Name Accounting Standards Codification
-Topic 270
-SubTopic 10
-Section S99
-Paragraph 1
-Subparagraph (SX 210.10-01.(b)(6))
-URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=27015980&loc=d3e46468-122699

Reference 7: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef
-Publisher FASB
-Name Accounting Standards Codification
-Glossary Accounting Change
-URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6503790

Reference 8: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef
-Publisher FASB
-Name Accounting Standards Codification
-Topic 250
-SubTopic 10
-Section 50
-Paragraph 1
-URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=56949863&loc=d3e22499-107794

Reference 9: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef
-Publisher FASB
-Name Accounting Standards Codification
-Glossary Retrospective Application
-URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6523989

Reference 10: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef
-Publisher FASB
-Name Accounting Standards Codification
-Topic 270
-SubTopic 10
-Section 45
-Paragraph 13
-URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=51655806&loc=d3e765-108305

Reference 11: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef
-Publisher FASB
-Name Accounting Standards Codification
-Topic 270
-SubTopic 10
-Section 45
-Paragraph 12
-URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=51655806&loc=d3e725-108305

+ Details

Subsequent Events (Notes)	3 Months Ended
Subsequent Events (Notes)	Mar. 31, 2015
Subsequent Events [Abstract]
Disclosure of Long Lived Assets Held-for-sale [Table Text Block]	Subsequent Events On April 7, 2015, we announced our decision to market for sale our Fixed Cutter and Roller Cone Drill Bits, our Directional Drilling, and our Logging-While-Drilling/Measurement-While-Drilling businesses as part of the regulatory review of the pending Baker Hughes acquisition. The aggregate carrying amount of assets associated with these businesses is approximately $2.8 billion; primarily consisting of property, plant, and equipment, receivables, and inventories; the carrying amount of total liabilities associated with businesses to be sold will depend upon the structure of the underlying sales transactions. These businesses will be classified as held for sale beginning in the second quarter of 2015. When an asset is classified as held for sale, the asset’s book value is evaluated and adjusted to the lower of its carrying amount or fair value less cost to sell. In addition, depreciation and amortization on the asset is ceased while it is classified as held for sale. The final sale of these businesses will be subject to our ability to negotiate acceptable terms and conditions, the approval of our Board of Directors and final approval of the Baker Hughes acquisition by competition authorities. We anticipate that we will complete the sale of these businesses in the same timeframe as the closing of the Baker Hughes acquisition, which is currently expected to occur late in the second half of 2015. See Note 2 for further information.

Restructuring and Other Charges (Policies)	3 Months Ended
Restructuring and Other Charges (Policies)	Mar. 31, 2015
Restructuring and Related Activities [Abstract]
Inventory, Policy [Policy Text Block]	inventories are valued at the lower of cost or market. Inventories are stated at the lower of cost or market value.

Disclosure of accounting policy for major classes of inventories, bases of stating inventories (for example, lower of cost or market), methods by which amounts are added and removed from inventory classes (for example, FIFO, LIFO, or average cost), loss recognition on impairment of inventories, and situations in which inventories are stated above cost. If inventory is carried at cost, this disclosure includes the nature of the cost elements included in inventory.

Inventories (Policies)	3 Months Ended
Inventories (Policies)	Mar. 31, 2015
Inventory Disclosure [Abstract]
Inventory, Policy	inventories are valued at the lower of cost or market. Inventories are stated at the lower of cost or market value.

Restructuring and Related Activities [Abstract]

Restructuring and Other Charges (Tables)

3 Months Ended

Mar. 31, 2015

Restructuring and Related Costs [Table Text Block]

The following table presents various charges we recorded during the first quarter of 2015 as a result of the economic downturn and other matters:



Millions of dollars	March 31, 2015		Income Statement Classification
Economic downturn:
Inventory write-downs	$	309	Impairments and other charges
Fixed asset impairments	303		Impairments and other charges
Intangible asset impairments	165		Impairments and other charges
Severance costs	134		Impairments and other charges
Other	150		Impairments and other charges
Other matters:
Country closures	75		Impairments and other charges
Other	72		Impairments and other charges
Total impairments and other charges	$	1,208
Venezuela currency devaluation loss	199		Other, net
Total charges	$	1,407

Business Segment and Geographic Information (Tables)

3 Months Ended

Mar. 31, 2015

Segment Reporting [Abstract]

Information on business segments



	Three Months Ended March 31
Millions of dollars	2015			2014
Revenue:
Completion and Production	$	4,246		$	4,420
Drilling and Evaluation	2,804			2,928
Total revenue	$	7,050		$	7,348
Operating income (loss):
Completion and Production	$	462		$	661
Drilling and Evaluation	306			398
Total operations	768			1,059
Corporate and other	(108		)	(89		)
Impairments and other charges (a)	(1,208		)	—
Total operating income (loss)	$	(548	)	$	970
Interest expense, net of interest income	(106		)	(93		)
Other, net	(224		)	(31		)
Income (loss) from continuing operations before income taxes	$	(878	)	$	846

Inventories (Tables)

3 Months Ended

Mar. 31, 2015

Inventory Disclosure [Abstract]

Inventories

The cost of the remaining inventory was recorded on the average cost method. Inventories consisted of the following:



Millions of dollars	March 31, 2015		December 31, 2014
Finished products and parts	$	2,367	$	2,606
Raw materials and supplies	883		754
Work in process	217		211
Total	$	3,467	$	3,571

Shareholders' Equity (Tables)

3 Months Ended

Mar. 31, 2015

Stockholders' Equity Note [Abstract]

Summary of shareholders' equity activity

The following tables summarize our shareholders’ equity activity:



Millions of dollars	Total shareholders' equity			Company shareholders' equity			Noncontrolling interest in consolidated subsidiaries
Balance at December 31, 2014	$	16,298		$	16,267		$	31
Stock plans	129			129			—
Payments of dividends to shareholders	(153		)	(153		)	—
Other	(7		)	(6		)	(1		)
Comprehensive income (loss)	(644		)	(646		)	2
Balance at March 31, 2015	$	15,623		$	15,591		$	32



Millions of dollars	Total shareholders' equity			Company shareholders' equity			Noncontrolling interest in consolidated subsidiaries
Balance at December 31, 2013	$	13,615		$	13,581		$	34
Shares repurchased	(500		)	(500		)	—
Stock plans	146			146			—
Payments of dividends to shareholders	(127		)	(127		)	—
Other	(2		)	(1		)	(1		)
Comprehensive income	620			626			(6		)
Balance at March 31, 2014	$	13,752		$	13,725		$	27

Schedule of comprehensive income (loss)

Accumulated other comprehensive loss consisted of the following:



Millions of dollars	March 31, 2015			December 31, 2014
Defined benefit and other postretirement liability adjustments	$	(323	)	$	(326	)
Cumulative translation adjustments	(73		)	(70		)
Other	(6		)	(3		)
Total accumulated other comprehensive loss	$	(402	)	$	(399	)

Fair Value of Financial Instruments Fair value by balance sheet grouping table (Tables)

3 Months Ended

Mar. 31, 2015

Fair Value Disclosures [Abstract]

Available-for-sale Securities

These securities consist primarily of corporate bonds and other debt instruments, are accounted for as available-for-sale and recorded at fair value, and are classified as Level 2 assets.

Schedule of Carrying Values and Estimated Fair Values of Debt Instruments

The carrying amount and fair value of our long-term debt is as follows:



	March 31, 2015								December 31, 2014
Millions of dollars	Level 1		Level 2		Total fair value		Carrying value		Level 1		Level 2		Total fair value		Carrying value
Long-term debt	$	5,511	$	3,753	$	9,264	$	7,841	$	4,822	$	4,257	$	9,079	$	7,840

Acquisitions and Dispositions (Details) $ / shares in Units, $ in Billions	Mar. 31, 2015 USD ($) shares $ / shares
Business Acquisition, Equity Interests Issued or Issuable [Line Items]
Stock conversion rate \| shares	1.12
Cash Consideration per share \| $ / shares	$ 19.00
Total Share Consideration \| shares	490,000,000
Total cash consideration \| $	$ 8.3
Senior unsecured bridge facility \| $	$ 8.6

Restructuring and Other Charges (Details)

3 Months Ended

Mar. 31, 2015

USD ($)

Mar. 31, 2014

USD ($)

Tangible Asset Impairment Charges

$ 303,000,000

Inventory Write-down

309,000,000

Goodwill, Impairment Loss

^[1]

1,208,000,000

$ 0

Impairment of Intangible Assets (Excluding Goodwill)

165,000,000

Severance Costs

134,000,000

Other Restructuring Costs

150,000,000

Business Exit Costs

75,000,000

Other Deductions and Charges

72,000,000

Deductions (Charges)

1,407,000,000

Completion And Production [Member]

Drilling And Evaluation [Member]

510,000,000

638,000,000

VENEZUELA

Foreign Currency Transaction Gain (Loss), Realized

$ 199,000,000

Historical Exchange Rate_Venezuela

6.3

Foreign Currency Exchange Rate, Remeasurement

192

[1]	(a) Includes $510 million attributable to Completion and Production, $638 million attributable to Drilling and Evaluation, and $60 million attributable to Corporate and other during the three months ended March 31, 2015.

Business Segment and Geographic Information (Narrative) (Details) $ in Millions	3 Months Ended	12 Months Ended
	Mar. 31, 2015 USD ($) Division Countries Customers	Dec. 31, 2014 USD ($) Countries Customers
Concentration Risk [Line Items]
Number of business segments \| Division	2
Maximum Percentage Gross Trade Receivables From One Geographic Segment	10.00%	10.00%
Maximum Percentage Gross Trade Receivables From One Customer	10.00%	10.00%
Number of Countries Exceed Receivables Threshold \| Countries	0	0
Number of Customers Exceed Receivables Threshold \| Customers	0	0
VENEZUELA
Concentration Risk [Line Items]
Accounts Receivable, Gross	$ 437	$ 670
Accounts Receivable, Gross, Noncurrent	$ 130	$ 256
Foreign Currency Exchange Rate, Remeasurement	192
Historical Exchange Rate_Venezuela	6.3
Accounts Receivable \| VENEZUELA
Concentration Risk [Line Items]
Concentration Risk, Percentage	7.00%	9.00%
Geographic Concentration Risk \| UNITED STATES \| Accounts Receivable
Concentration Risk [Line Items]
Concentration Risk, Percentage	36.00%	39.00%

Business Segment and Geographic Information (Details) - USD ($)
$ in Millions

3 Months Ended

Mar. 31, 2015

Mar. 31, 2014

Revenue:

$ 7,050

$ 7,348

(548)

970

Interest expense, net of interest income

^[1]

1,208

(106)

(93)

Other, net

(224)

(31)

Income (loss) from continuing operations before income taxes

(878)

846

Completion and Production

Revenue:

4,246

4,420

462

661

510

Drilling and Evaluation

Revenue:

2,804

2,928

306

398

638

Total operations

Revenue:

7,050

7,348

768

1,059

Corporate and other

(108)

$ (89)

$ 60

[1]	(a) Includes $510 million attributable to Completion and Production, $638 million attributable to Drilling and Evaluation, and $60 million attributable to Corporate and other during the three months ended March 31, 2015.

Inventories (Details) - USD ($) $ in Millions	Mar. 31, 2015	Dec. 31, 2014
LIFO Method Related Items [Abstract]
Inventory, LIFO reserve	$ 36	$ 38
LIFO Inventory Amount	187	227
Inventory, Net [Abstract]
Finished products and parts	2,367	2,606
Raw materials and supplies	883	754
Work in process	217	211
Inventory, net	3,467	3,571
Obsolescence reserves	$ 190	$ 161

Shareholders' Equity (Details) - USD ($) $ in Millions	3 Months Ended
Shareholders' Equity (Details) - USD ($) $ in Millions	Mar. 31, 2015	Mar. 31, 2014
Shareholders' equity activity [Roll Forward]
Balance at beginning of period	$ 16,298	$ 13,615
Shares repurchased		(500)
Stock plans	129	146
Payments of dividends to shareholders	(153)	(127)
Other	(7)	(2)
Comprehensive income (loss)	(644)	620
Balance at end of period	15,623	13,752
Company shareholders' equity
Shareholders' equity activity [Roll Forward]
Balance at beginning of period	16,267	13,581
Shares repurchased		(500)
Stock plans	129	146
Payments of dividends to shareholders	(153)	(127)
Other	(6)	(1)
Comprehensive income (loss)	(646)	626
Balance at end of period	15,591	13,725
Noncontrolling interest in consolidated subsidiaries
Shareholders' equity activity [Roll Forward]
Balance at beginning of period	31	34
Shares repurchased		0
Stock plans	0	0
Payments of dividends to shareholders	0	0
Other	(1)	(1)
Comprehensive income (loss)	2	(6)
Balance at end of period	$ 32	$ 27

Shareholders' Equity (Schedule of Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income (Loss)) (Details) - USD ($) $ in Millions	Mar. 31, 2015	Dec. 31, 2014
Stockholders' Equity Note [Abstract]
Defined benefit and other postretirement liability adjustments	$ (323)	$ (326)
Cumulative translation adjustments	(73)	(70)
Other	(6)	(3)
Total accumulated other comprehensive income (loss)	$ (402)	$ (399)

Accumulated change in equity from transactions and other events and circumstances from non-owner sources, net of tax effect, at period end. Excludes Net Income (Loss), and accumulated changes in equity from transactions resulting from investments by owners and distributions to owners. Includes foreign currency translation items, certain pension adjustments, unrealized gains and losses on certain investments in debt and equity securities, other than temporary impairment (OTTI) losses related to factors other than credit losses on available-for-sale and held-to-maturity debt securities that an entity does not intend to sell and it is not more likely than not that the entity will be required to sell before recovery of the amortized cost basis, as well as changes in the fair value of derivatives related to the effective portion of a designated cash flow hedge.