10-K 1 form10-k.htm TRANSOCEAN 10-K 12-31-2007 form10-k.htm


UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549
 
_________________
 
FORM 10-K
 
(Mark one)
 
þ  ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007
OR
¨  TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
For the transition period from _____ to _____.
 
Commission file number 333-75899
 
_________________

 
TRANSOCEAN INC.
(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

Cayman Islands
66-0582307
(State or other jurisdiction of incorporation or organization)
(I.R.S. Employer Identification No.)
   
   
4 Greenway Plaza, Houston, Texas
77046
(Address of principal executive offices)
(Zip code)
   
70 Harbour Drive, Grand Cayman, Cayman Islands
KYI-1003 
(Address of principal executive offices)
(Zip code) 

 
Registrant’s telephone number, including area code: (713) 232-7500
 
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:

Title of class
Exchange on which registered
Ordinary Shares, par value $0.01 per share
New York Stock Exchange, Inc.
 
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act: None
 
_________________
 
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act. Yes þ   No ¨
 
Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Exchange Act.  Yes ¨   No þ
 
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. Yes þ   No ¨
 
Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of registrant's knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K. ¨
 
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller company. See definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer” and “smaller reporting company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.
Large accelerated filer þ  Accelerated filer  ¨ Non-accelerated filer ¨ (do not check if a smaller reporting company)  Smaller reporting company ¨
 
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined by Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act). Yes ¨   No þ
 
As of June 30, 2007, 289,280,582 ordinary shares were outstanding and the aggregate market value of such shares held by non-affiliates was approximately $30.6 billion (based on the reported closing market price of the ordinary shares on such date of $105.98 and assuming that all directors and executive officers of the Company are “affiliates,” although the Company does not acknowledge that any such person is actually an “affiliate” within the meaning of the federal securities laws). As of February 22, 2008, 317,748,270 ordinary shares were outstanding.

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE
 
Portions of the registrant's definitive Proxy Statement to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission within 120 days of December 31, 2007, for its 2008 annual general meeting of shareholders, are incorporated by reference into Part III of this Form 10-K.
 


-1-

 
TRANSOCEAN INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
INDEX TO ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K
FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2007
 
Item
 
Page
     
 
PART I
 
5
15
23
23
23
27
     
 
PART II
 
29
31
32
59
60
107
107
107
     
 
PART III
 
107
107
107
107
107
     
 
PART IV
 
108
 
-2-


Forward-Looking Information

The statements included in this annual report regarding future financial performance and results of operations and other statements that are not historical facts are forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Forward-looking statements in this annual report include, but are not limited to, statements about the following subjects:
 
 
§      contract commencements,
§      contract option exercises,
§      revenues,
§      expenses,
§      results of operations,
§      commodity prices,
§      customer drilling programs,
§      supply and demand,
§      utilization rates,
§      dayrates,
§      contract backlog,
§      effects and results of the GlobalSantaFe merger and related transactions,
§      planned shipyard projects and rig mobilizations and their effects,
§      newbuild projects and opportunities,
§      the upgrade projects for the Sedco 700-series semisubmersible rigs,
§      other major upgrades,
§      contract awards,
§      newbuild completion delivery and commencement of operations dates,
§      expected downtime and lost revenue,
§      insurance proceeds,
§      cash investments of our wholly-owned captive insurance company,
§      future activity in the deepwater, mid-water and the jackup market sectors,
§      market outlook for our various geographical operating sectors and classes of rigs,
§      capacity constraints for ultra-deepwater rigs and other rig classes,
§      effects of new rigs on the market,
§      income related to and any payments to be received under the TODCO tax sharing agreement,
 
§      refinancing of the Bridge Loan Facility, including timing and components of the refinancing,
§      uses of excess cash,
§      share repurchases under our share repurchase program,
§      issuance of new debt,
§      debt reduction,
§      debt credit ratings,
§      planned asset sales,
§      timing of asset sales,
§      proceeds from asset sales,
§      our effective tax rate,
§      changes in tax laws, treaties and regulations,
§      tax assessments,
§      operations in international markets,
§      investments in joint ventures,
§      investments in recruitment, retention and personnel development initiative,
§      the level of expected capital expenditures,
§      results and effects of legal proceedings and governmental audits and assessments,
§      adequacy of insurance,
§      liabilities for tax issues, including those associated with our activities in Brazil, Norway and the United States,
§      liabilities for customs and environmental matters,
§      liquidity,
§      cash flow from operations,
§      adequacy of cash flow for our obligations,
§      effects of accounting changes,
§      adoption of accounting policies,
§      pension plan and other postretirement benefit plan contributions,
§      benefit payments, and
§      the timing and cost of completion of capital projects.
 
-3-


Forward-looking statements in this annual report are identifiable by use of the following words and other similar expressions among others:
 
§
“anticipates”
 
§
“may”
§
“believes”
 
§
“might”
§
“budgets”
 
§
“plans”
§
“could”
 
§
“predicts”
§
“estimates”
 
§
“projects”
§
“expects”
 
§
“scheduled”
§
“forecasts”
 
§
“should”
§
“intends”
     

 
Such statements are subject to numerous risks, uncertainties and assumptions, including, but not limited to:
 
 
§
those described under “Item 1A. Risk Factors,”
 
§
the adequacy of sources of liquidity,
 
§
our inability to obtain contracts for our rigs that do not have contracts,
 
§
the effect and results of litigation, tax audits and contingencies, and
 
§
other factors discussed in this annual report and in the Company’s other filings with the SEC, which are available free of charge on the SEC’s website at www.sec.gov.
 
Should one or more of these risks or uncertainties materialize, or should underlying assumptions prove incorrect, actual results may vary materially from those indicated.
 
All subsequent written and oral forward-looking statements attributable to the Company or to persons acting on our behalf are expressly qualified in their entirety by reference to these risks and uncertainties. You should not place undue reliance on forward-looking statements. Each forward-looking statement speaks only as of the date of the particular statement, and we undertake no obligation to publicly update or revise any forward-looking statements.
 
-4-

 
PART I
 
 
ITEM 1.
 
Transocean Inc. (together with its subsidiaries and predecessors, unless the context requires otherwise, “Transocean,” the “Company,” “we,” “us” or “our”) is a leading international provider of offshore contract drilling services for oil and gas wells.  As of February 20, 2008, we owned, had partial ownership interests in or operated 139 mobile offshore drilling units.  As of this date, our fleet included 39 High-Specification Floaters (Ultra-Deepwater, Deepwater and Harsh Environment semisubmersibles and drillships), 29 Midwater Floaters, 10 High-Specification Jackups, 57 Standard Jackups and four Other Rigs.  We also have eight Ultra-Deepwater Floaters contracted for or under construction.
 
We believe our mobile offshore drilling fleet is one of the most modern and versatile fleets in the world. Our primary business is to contract these drilling rigs, related equipment and work crews primarily on a dayrate basis to drill oil and gas wells. We specialize in technically demanding segments of the offshore drilling business with a particular focus on deepwater and harsh environment drilling services. We also provide oil and gas drilling management services on either a dayrate basis or a completed-project, fixed-price (or “turnkey”) basis, as well as drilling engineering and drilling project management services, and we participate in oil and gas exploration and production activities.  Our ordinary shares are listed on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol “RIG.”
 
Transocean Inc. is a Cayman Islands exempted company with principal executive offices in the U.S. located at 4 Greenway Plaza, Houston, Texas 77046.  Our telephone number at that address is (713) 232-7500.  Our principal executive offices outside of the U.S. are located at 70 Harbour Drive, Grand Cayman, Cayman Islands KY1-1003.  Our telephone number at that address is (345) 745-4500.
 
Background of Transocean
 
In January 2001, we completed our merger transaction with R&B Falcon Corporation (“R&B Falcon”).  At the time of the R&B Falcon merger, R&B Falcon operated a diverse global drilling rig fleet, consisting of drillships, semisubmersibles, jackups and other units in addition to the Gulf of Mexico Shallow and Inland Water segment fleet.  R&B Falcon and the Gulf of Mexico Shallow and Inland Water segment later became known as TODCO (together with its subsidiaries and predecessors, unless the context requires otherwise, “TODCO”).  In preparation for the initial public offering of TODCO, we transferred all assets and subsidiaries out of TODCO that were unrelated to the Gulf of Mexico Shallow and Inland Water business.
 
In February 2004, we completed an initial public offering (the “TODCO IPO”) of approximately 23 percent of the outstanding shares of TODCO’s common stock.  In September 2004, December 2004 and May 2005, respectively, we completed additional public offerings of TODCO common stock.  In June 2005, we completed the sale of our remaining TODCO common stock pursuant to Rule 144 under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended.
 
In November 2007, we completed our merger transaction (the “Merger”) with GlobalSantaFe Corporation (“GlobalSantaFe”).  Immediately prior to the effective time of the Merger, each of our outstanding ordinary shares was reclassified by way of a scheme of arrangement under Cayman Islands law into (1) 0.6996 of our ordinary shares and (2) $33.03 in cash (the “Reclassification” and together with the Merger, the “Transactions”).  At the effective time of the Merger, each outstanding ordinary share of GlobalSantaFe (the “GlobalSantaFe Ordinary Shares”) was exchanged for (1) 0.4757 of our ordinary shares (after giving effect to the Reclassification) and (2) $22.46 in cash.  We issued approximately 107,752,000 of our ordinary shares in connection with the Merger and paid out $14.9 billion in cash in connection with the Transactions.  We funded the payment of the cash consideration in the Transactions with $15.0 billion of borrowings under a $15.0 billion, one-year senior unsecured bridge loan facility (the “Bridge Loan Facility”) and have since refinanced a portion of those borrowings under the Bridge Loan Facility.  We have included the financial results of GlobalSantaFe in our consolidated financial statements beginning November 27, 2007, the date the GlobalSantaFe Ordinary Shares were exchanged for our ordinary shares.
 
For information about the revenues, operating income, assets and other information relating to our business, our segments and the geographic areas in which we operate, see “Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” and Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements—Note 19—Segments, Geographical Analysis and Major Customers.
 
Drilling Fleet
 
We principally operate three types of drilling rigs:
 
 
§
drillships;
 
§
semisubmersibles; and
 
§
jackups.
 
Also included in our fleet are barge drilling rigs, a mobile offshore production unit and a coring drillship.
 
-5-


Most of our drilling equipment is suitable for both exploration and development drilling, and we normally engage in both types of drilling activity.  Likewise, most of our drilling rigs are mobile and can be moved to new locations in response to client demand.  All of our mobile offshore drilling units are designed for operations away from port for extended periods of time and most have living quarters for the crews, a helicopter landing deck and storage space for pipe and drilling supplies.
 
We categorize our fleet as follows: (i) “High-Specification Floaters,” consisting of our “Ultra-Deepwater Floaters,” “Deepwater Floaters” and “Harsh Environment Floaters,” (ii) “Midwater Floaters,” (iii) “High-Specification Jackups,” (iv) “Standard Jackups” and (v) “Other Rigs.” As of February 20, 2008, our fleet of 139 rigs, which excludes assets held for sale that are not currently operating under a contract and rigs contracted for or under construction, included:
 
 
·
39 High-Specification  Floaters, which are comprised of:
 
- 18 Ultra-Deepwater Floaters;
 
- 16 Deepwater Floaters; and
 
- five Harsh Environment Floaters;
 
 
·
29 Midwater Floaters;
 
 
·
10 High-Specification Jackups;
 
 
·
57 Standard Jackups; and
 
 
·
four Other Rigs, which are comprised of:
 
- two barge drilling rigs;
 
- one mobile offshore production unit; and
 
- one coring drillship.
 
As of February 20, 2008, our fleet was located in the Far East (21 units), U.K. North Sea (19 units), Middle East (18 units), U.S. Gulf of Mexico (16 units), Nigeria (13 units), India (12 units), Angola (11 units), Brazil (eight units), Norway (five units), other West African countries (five units), the Caspian Sea (three units), Trinidad (three units), Australia (two units), the Mediterranean (two units) and Canada (one unit).
 
High-Specification Floaters are specialized offshore drilling units that we categorize into three sub-classifications based on their capabilities.  Ultra-Deepwater Floaters have high-pressure mud pumps and a water depth capability of 7,500 feet or greater.  Deepwater Floaters are generally those other semisubmersible rigs and drillships that have a water depth capacity between 7,500 and 4,500 feet. Harsh Environment Floaters have a water depth capacity between 4,500 and 1,500 feet, are capable of drilling in harsh environments and have greater displacement, resulting in larger variable load capacity, more useable deck space and better motion characteristics.  Midwater Floaters are generally comprised of those non-high-specification semisubmersibles with a water depth capacity of less than 4,500 feet.  High-Specification Jackups consist of our harsh environment and high-performance jackups, and Standard Jackups consist of our remaining jackup fleet.  Other Rigs consists of rigs that are of a different type or use than those mentioned above.
 
Drillships are generally self-propelled, shaped like conventional ships and are the most mobile of the major rig types.  All of our High-Specification drillships are dynamically positioned, which allows them to maintain position without anchors through the use of their onboard propulsion and station-keeping systems.  Drillships typically have greater load capacity than early generation semisubmersible rigs.  This enables them to carry more supplies on board, which often makes them better suited for drilling in remote locations where resupply is more difficult.  However, drillships are typically limited to calmer water conditions than those in which semisubmersibles can operate.  Our three existing Enterprise-class drillships are and five of our seven additional newbuild drillships contracted for or under construction will be equipped with our patented dual-activity technology.  Dual-activity technology includes structures, equipment and techniques for using two drilling stations within a single derrick to perform drilling tasks.  Dual-activity technology allows our rigs to perform simultaneous drilling tasks in a parallel rather than sequential manner.  Dual-activity technology reduces critical path activity and improves efficiency in both exploration and development drilling.
 
Semisubmersibles are floating vessels that can be submerged by means of a water ballast system such that the lower hulls are below the water surface during drilling operations.  These rigs are capable of maintaining their position over the well through the use of an anchoring system or a computer controlled dynamic positioning thruster system.  Some semisubmersible rigs are self-propelled and move between locations under their own power when afloat on pontoons although most are relocated with the assistance of tugs.  Typically, semisubmersibles are better suited than drillships for operations in rougher water conditions.  Our three Express-class semisubmersibles are designed for mild environments and are equipped with the unique tri-act derrick, which was designed to reduce overall well construction costs.  The tri-act derrick allows offline tubular and riser handling operations to occur at two sides of the derrick while the center portion of the derrick is being used for normal drilling operations through the rotary table. Our two operating Development Driller-class semisubmersibles are, and one that is under construction will be, equipped with our patented dual-activity technology.
 
-6-


Jackup rigs are mobile self-elevating drilling platforms equipped with legs that can be lowered to the ocean floor until a foundation is established to support the drilling platform.  Once a foundation is established, the drilling platform is then jacked further up the legs so that the platform is above the highest expected waves.  These rigs are generally suited for water depths of 400 feet or less.
 
We classify certain of our jackup rigs as High-Specification Jackups.  These rigs have greater operational capabilities than Standard Jackups and are able to operate in harsh environments, have higher capacity derricks, drawworks, mud systems and storage, and are typically capable of drilling to deeper depths.  Typically, these jackups also have deeper water depth capacity than a Standard Jackup.
 
Depending on market conditions, we may “warm stack” or “cold stack” non-contracted rigs. “Warm stacked” rigs are not under contract and may require the hiring of additional crew, but are generally ready for service with little or no capital expenditures and are being actively marketed. “Cold stacked” rigs are not actively marketed on short or near term contracts, generally cannot be reactivated upon short notice and normally require the hiring of most of the crew, a maintenance review and possibly significant refurbishment before they can be reactivated.  Cold stacked rigs and some warm stacked rigs would require additional costs to return to service.  The actual cost, which could fluctuate over time, is dependent upon various factors, including the availability and cost of shipyard facilities, cost of equipment and materials and the extent of repairs and maintenance that may ultimately be required.  In certain circumstances, the cost could be significant.  We would take these factors into consideration together with market conditions, length of contract and dayrate and other contract terms in deciding whether to return a particular idle rig to service.  We may consider marketing cold stacked rigs for alternative uses, including as accommodation units, from time to time until drilling activity increases and we obtain drilling contracts for these units.  As of February 20, 2008, GSF High Island I, which is classified as held for sale, is warm stacked and is not included in the tables below (see "Warm Stacked and Held for Sale").
 
We own all of the drilling rigs in our fleet noted in the tables below except for the following: (1) those specifically described as being owned wholly or in part by unaffiliated parties, (2) GSF Explorer, which is subject to a capital lease with a remaining term of 19 years, and (3) GSF Jack Ryan, which is subject to a fully defeased capital lease with a remaining term of 13 years.  None of our offshore drilling rigs are currently subject to any liens or mortgages.
 
In the tables presented below, the location of each rig indicates the current drilling location for operating rigs or the next operating location for rigs in shipyards with a follow-on contract, unless otherwise noted.
 
Rigs Under Construction (8)
 
The following table provides certain information regarding our High-Specification Floaters contracted for or under construction as of February 20, 2008:

Name
 
Type
 
Expected completion
 
Water depth
capacity (in feet)
 
Drilling depth
capacity (in feet)
 
Contracted location
Ultra-Deepwater Floaters (a) (8)
               
Discoverer Americas (b)
 
HSD
 
Mid 2009
 
12,000
 
40,000
 
U.S. Gulf
Discoverer Clear Leader (b)
 
HSD
 
2Q 2009
 
12,000
 
40,000
 
U.S. Gulf
Discoverer Inspiration (b)
 
HSD
 
1Q 2010
 
12,000
 
40,000
 
U.S. Gulf
GSF Newbuild (b)
 
HSD
 
3Q 2010
 
12,000
 
40,000
 
(c)
Deepwater Pacific 1 (d)
 
HSD
 
2Q 2009
 
12,000
 
35,000
 
India
Deepwater Pacific 2 (d)
 
HSD
 
1Q 2010
 
10,000
 
35,000
 
(c)
Discoverer Luanda (b)
 
HSD
 
3Q 2010
 
7,500
 
40,000
 
Angola
GSF Development Driller III (b)
 
HSS
 
Mid-2009
 
7,500
 
30,000
 
Angola
________________________________
“HSD” means high-specification drillship.
“HSS” means high-specification semisubmersible.

(a)
Dynamically positioned.
(b)
Dual-activity.
(c)
Currently without contract.
(d)
Owned through our 50 percent interest in a joint venture company with Pacific Drilling Limited.

-7-

 
High-Specification Floaters (39)
 
 
The following table provides certain information regarding our High-Specification Floaters as of February 20, 2008:
 
Name
 
Type
 
Year entered service/upgraded(a)
 
Water depth capacity (in feet)
 
Drilling depth capacity (in feet)
 
Location
Ultra-Deepwater Floaters (b) (18)
               
Deepwater Discovery
 
HSD
 
2000
 
10,000
 
30,000
 
Nigeria
Deepwater Expedition
 
HSD
 
1999
 
10,000
 
30,000
 
Morocco
Deepwater Frontier
 
HSD
 
1999
 
10,000
 
30,000
 
India
Deepwater Horizon
 
HSS
 
2001
 
10,000
 
30,000
 
U.S. Gulf
Deepwater Millennium
 
HSD
 
1999
 
10,000
 
30,000
 
U.S. Gulf
Deepwater Pathfinder
 
HSD
 
1998
 
10,000
 
30,000
 
Nigeria
Discoverer Deep Seas (c) (d)
 
HSD
 
2001
 
10,000
 
35,000
 
U.S. Gulf
Discoverer Enterprise (c) (d)
 
HSD
 
1999
 
10,000
 
35,000
 
U.S. Gulf
Discoverer Spirit (c) (d)
 
HSD
 
2000
 
10,000
 
35,000
 
U.S. Gulf
GSF C.R. Luigs
 
HSD
 
2000
 
10,000
 
35,000
 
U.S. Gulf
GSF Jack Ryan
 
HSD
 
2000
 
10,000
 
35,000
 
Nigeria
Cajun Express (e)
 
HSS
 
2001
 
8,500
 
35,000
 
U.S. Gulf
Deepwater Nautilus (e)
 
HSS
 
2000
 
8,000
 
30,000
 
U.S. Gulf
GSF Explorer
 
HSD
 
1972/1998
 
7,800
 
30,000
 
Angola
GSF Development Driller I (d)
 
HSS
 
2004
 
7,500
 
37,500
 
U.S. Gulf
GSF Development Driller II (d)
 
HSS
 
2004
 
7,500
 
37,500
 
U.S. Gulf
Sedco Energy (e)
 
HSS
 
2001
 
7,500
 
30,000
 
Nigeria
Sedco Express (e)
 
HSS
 
2001
 
7,500
 
30,000
 
Angola
                     
Deepwater Floaters (16)
                   
Deepwater Navigator (b)
 
HSD
 
2000
 
7,200
 
25,000
 
Brazil
Discoverer 534 (b)
 
HSD
 
1975/1991
 
7,000
 
25,000
 
India
Discoverer Seven Seas (b)
 
HSD
 
1976/1997
 
7,000
 
25,000
 
India
Transocean Marianas
 
HSS
 
1979/1998
 
7,000
 
25,000
 
U.S. Gulf
Sedco 702 (b) (f)
 
HSS
 
1973/(f)
 
6,500
 
25,000
 
Nigeria
Sedco 706 (b) (f)
 
HSS
 
1976/(f)
 
6,500
 
25,000
 
Brazil
Sedco 707 (b)
 
HSS
 
1976/1997
 
6,500
 
25,000
 
Brazil
GSF Celtic Sea
 
HSS
 
1982/1998
 
5,750
 
25,000
 
U.S. Gulf
Jack Bates
 
HSS
 
1986/1997
 
5,400
 
30,000
 
Australia
M.G. Hulme, Jr.
 
HSS
 
1983/1996
 
5,000
 
25,000
 
Nigeria
Sedco 709 (b)
 
HSS
 
1977/1999
 
5,000
 
25,000
 
Nigeria
Transocean Richardson
 
HSS
 
1988
 
5,000
 
25,000
 
Angola
Jim Cunningham
 
HSS
 
1982/1995
 
4,600
 
25,000
 
Angola
Sedco 710 (b)
 
HSS
 
1983/2001
 
4,500
 
25,000
 
Brazil
Sovereign Explorer
 
HSS
 
1984
 
4,500
 
25,000
 
Trinidad
Transocean Rather
 
HSS
 
1988
 
4,500
 
25,000
 
U.K. North Sea
                     
Harsh Environment Floaters (5)
               
Transocean Leader
 
HSS
 
1987/1997
 
4,500
 
25,000
 
Norwegian N. Sea
Henry Goodrich
 
HSS
 
1985
 
2,000
 
30,000
 
U.S. Gulf
Paul B. Loyd, Jr
 
HSS
 
1990
 
2,000
 
25,000
 
U.K. North Sea
Transocean Arctic
 
HSS
 
1986
 
1,650
 
25,000
 
Norwegian N. Sea
Polar Pioneer
 
HSS
 
1985
 
1,500
 
25,000
 
Norwegian N. Sea
_______________________________________
“HSD” means high-specification drillship.
“HSS” means high-specification semisubmersible.

(a)
Dates shown are the original service date and the date of the most recent upgrade, if any.
(b)
Dynamically positioned.
(c)
Enterprise-class rig.
(d)
Dual-activity.
(e)
Express-class rig.
(f)
The Sedco 702 and Sedco 706 are currently being upgraded from Midwater Floaters to Deepwater Floaters. The water depth and drilling depth capacity information assumes the completion of the upgrades. The Sedco 702 and Sedco 706 are currently expected to complete their upgrades and commence their contracts in the first quarter and the fourth quarter of 2008, respectively.
 

-8-

 
Midwater Floaters (29)
 
The following table provides certain information regarding our Midwater Floaters as of February 20, 2008:
 
Name
 
Type
 
Year entered service/upgraded(a)
 
Water depth capacity (in feet)
 
Drilling depth capacity (in feet)
 
Location
Sedco 700
 
OS
 
1973/1997
 
3,600
 
25,000
 
E. Guinea
Transocean Amirante
 
OS
 
1978/1997
 
3,500
 
25,000
 
U.S. Gulf
Transocean Legend
 
OS
 
1983
 
3,500
 
25,000
 
China
GSF Arctic I
 
OS
 
1983/1996
 
3,400
 
25,000
 
Brazil
C. Kirk Rhein, Jr.
 
OS
 
1976/1997
 
3,300
 
25,000
 
India
Transocean Driller
 
OS
 
1991
 
3,000
 
25,000
 
Brazil
GSF Rig 135
 
OS
 
1983
 
2,800
 
25,000
 
Congo
Falcon 100
 
OS
 
1974/1999
 
2,400
 
25,000
 
Brazil
GSF Rig 140
 
OS
 
1983
 
2,400
 
25,000
 
Angola
GSF Aleutian Key
 
 OS
 
1976/2001
 
2,300
 
25,000
 
Angola
Istiglal (b)
 
OS
 
1995/1998
 
2,300
 
20,000
 
Caspian Sea
Sedco 703
 
OS
 
1973/1995
 
2,000
 
25,000
 
Australia
GSF Arctic III
 
OS
 
1984
 
1,800
 
25,000
 
U.K. North Sea
Sedco 711
 
OS
 
1982
 
1,800
 
25,000
 
U.K. North Sea
Transocean John Shaw
 
OS
 
1982
 
1,800
 
25,000
 
U.K. North Sea
Sedco 712
 
OS
 
1983
 
1,600
 
25,000
 
U.K. North Sea
Sedco 714
 
OS
 
1983/1997
 
1,600
 
25,000
 
U.K. North Sea
Actinia
 
OS
 
1982
 
1,500
 
25,000
 
India
Dada Gorgud (b)
 
OS
 
1978/1998
 
1,500
 
25,000
 
Caspian Sea
GSF Arctic IV (c)
 
OS
 
1983/1999
 
1,500
 
25,000
 
U.K. North Sea
GSF Grand Banks
 
OS
 
1984
 
1,500
 
25,000
 
East Canada
Sedco 601
 
OS
 
1983
 
1,500
 
25,000
 
Malaysia
Sedneth 701
 
OS
 
1972/1993
 
1,500
 
25,000
 
Angola
Transocean Prospect
 
OS
 
1983/1992
 
1,500
 
25,000
 
U.K. North Sea
Transocean Searcher
 
OS
 
1983/1988
 
1,500
 
25,000
 
Norwegian N. Sea
Transocean Winner
 
OS
 
1983
 
1,500
 
25,000
 
Norwegian N. Sea
J. W. McLean
 
OS
 
1974/1996
 
1,250
 
25,000
 
U.K. North Sea
GSF Arctic II (c)
 
OS
 
1982
 
1,200
 
25,000
 
U.K. North Sea
Sedco 704
 
OS
 
1974/1993
 
1,000
 
25,000
 
U.K. North Sea
_______________________________________
 “OS” means other semisubmersible.

(a)
Dates shown are the original service date and the date of the most recent upgrade, if any.
(b)
Owned by the State Oil Company of the Azerbaijan Republic.
(c)
On February 15, 2008, we announced our intent to proceed with divestitures of the GSF Arctic II and the GSF Arctic IV semisubmersible rigs and the hiring of a third-party advisor. The divestitures are in furtherance of our previously announced proposed undertakings to the Office of Fair Trading in the U.K. made in connection with the Merger.  As a result, we classified these rigs as held for sale.

-9-

 
High-Specification Jackups (10)
 
The following table provides certain information regarding our High-Specification Jackups as of February 20, 2008:
 
Name
 
Year entered service/upgraded(a)
 
Water depth capacity (in feet)
 
Drilling depth capacity (in feet)
 
Location
GSF Constellation I
 
2003
 
400
 
30,000
 
Trinidad
GSF Constellation II
 
2004
 
400
 
30,000
 
Egypt
GSF Galaxy I
 
1991/2001
 
400
 
30,000
 
U.K. North Sea
GSF Galaxy II
 
1998
 
400
 
30,000
 
U.K. North Sea
GSF Galaxy III
 
1999
 
400
 
30,000
 
U.K. North Sea
GSF Baltic
 
1983
 
375
 
25,000
 
Nigeria
GSF Magellan
 
1992
 
350
 
30,000
 
U.K. North Sea
GSF Monarch
 
1986
 
350
 
30,000
 
U.K. North Sea
GSF Monitor
 
1989
 
350
 
30,000
 
Trinidad
Trident 20
 
2000
 
350
 
25,000
 
Caspian Sea
_______________________________________
 
(a)
Dates shown are the original service date and the date of the most recent upgrades, if any.
 
Standard Jackups (57)
 
The following table provides certain information regarding our Standard Jackups as of February 20, 2008:
 
Name
 
Year entered service/upgraded(a)
 
Water depth capacity (in feet)
 
Drilling depth capacity (in feet)
 
Location
Trident IX
 
1982
 
400
 
21,000
 
Vietnam
Trident 17
 
1983
 
355
 
25,000
 
Malaysia
GSF Adriatic II
 
1981
 
350
 
25,000
 
Angola
GSF Adriatic III (b)
 
1982
 
350
 
25,000
 
U.S. Gulf
GSF Adriatic IX
 
1981
 
350
 
20,000
 
Gabon
GSF Adriatic X
 
1982
 
350
 
25,000
 
Egypt
GSF Key Manhattan
 
1980
 
350
 
25,000
 
Egypt
GSF Key Singapore
 
1982
 
350
 
25,000
 
Egypt
GSF Adriatic VI
 
1981
 
328
 
20,000
 
Nigeria
GSF Adriatic VIII
 
1983
 
328
 
25,000
 
Nigeria
C. E. Thornton
 
1974
 
300
 
25,000
 
India
D. R. Stewart
 
1980
 
300
 
25,000
 
Italy
F. G. McClintock
 
1975
 
300
 
25,000
 
India
George H. Galloway
 
1984
 
300
 
25,000
 
Italy
GSF Adriatic I
 
1981
 
300
 
25,000
 
Angola
GSF Adriatic V
 
1979
 
300
 
20,000
 
Angola
GSF Adriatic XI
 
1983
 
300
 
25,000
 
Vietnam
GSF Compact Driller
 
1992
 
300
 
25,000
 
Thailand
GSF Galveston Key
 
1978
 
300
 
25,000
 
Vietnam
GSF Key Gibraltar
 
1976/1996
 
300
 
25,000
 
Thailand
GSF Key Hawaii
 
1982
 
300
 
25,000
 
Qatar
GSF Labrador
 
1983
 
300
 
25,000
 
U.K. North Sea
GSF Main Pass I
 
1982
 
300
 
25,000
 
Arabian Gulf
GSF Main Pass IV
 
1982
 
300
 
25,000
 
Arabian Gulf
GSF Parameswara
 
1983
 
300
 
25,000
 
Indonesia
GSF Rig 134
 
1982
 
300
 
20,000
 
Malaysia
GSF Rig 136
 
1982
 
300
 
25,000
 
Indonesia
Harvey H. Ward
 
1981
 
300
 
25,000
 
Malaysia
J. T. Angel
 
1982
 
300
 
25,000
 
India
Randolph Yost
 
1979
 
300
 
25,000
 
India
Roger W. Mowell
 
1982
 
300
 
25,000
 
Malaysia
Ron Tappmeyer
 
1978
 
300
 
25,000
 
India
Shelf Explorer
 
1982
 
300
 
25,000
 
Vietnam
Interocean III
 
1978/1993
 
300
 
20,000
 
Egypt
Transocean Nordic
 
1984
 
300
 
25,000
 
Sakhalin Island
Trident II
 
1977/1985
 
300
 
25,000
 
India
Trident IV
 
1980/1999
 
300
 
25,000
 
Nigeria
Trident VIII
 
1981
 
300
 
21,000
 
Nigeria
Trident XII
 
1982/1992
 
300
 
25,000
 
India
Trident XIV
 
1982/1994
 
300
 
20,000
 
Angola
Trident 15
 
1982
 
300
 
25,000
 
Thailand
Trident 16
 
1982
 
300
 
25,000
 
Thailand
GSF High Island II
 
1979
 
270
 
20,000
 
Arabian Gulf
GSF High Island IV
 
1980/2001
 
270
 
20,000
 
Arabian Gulf
GSF High Island V
 
1981
 
270
 
20,000
 
Gabon
GSF High Island VII
 
1982
 
250
 
20,000
 
Cameroon
GSF High Island VIII (b)
 
1981
 
250
 
20,000
 
U.S. Gulf
GSF High Island IX
 
1983
 
250
 
20,000
 
Nigeria
GSF Rig 103
 
1974
 
250
 
20,000
 
U.A.E.
GSF Rig 105
 
1975
 
250
 
20,000
 
Egypt
GSF Rig 124
 
1980
 
250
 
20,000
 
Egypt
GSF Rig 127
 
1981
 
250
 
20,000
 
Qatar
GSF Rig 141
 
1982
 
250
 
20,000
 
Egypt
Transocean Comet
 
1980
 
250
 
20,000
 
Egypt
Transocean Mercury
 
1969/1998
 
250
 
20,000
 
Egypt
GSF Britannia
 
1968
 
230
 
20,000
 
U.K. North Sea
Trident VI
 
1981
 
220
 
21,000
 
Vietnam
 
-10-

______________________________
(a)
Dates shown are the original service date and the date of the most recent upgrade, if any.
(b)
On February 15, 2008, we entered into a definitive agreement with Hercules Offshore, Inc. to sell GSF Adriatic III, GSF High Island I (see "––Warm Stacked and Held for Sale") and GSF High Island VIII. As a result, we classified these rigs as held for sale. 
 
Other Rigs
 
In addition to our floaters and jackups, we also own or operate several other types of rigs as follows: two drilling barges, a mobile offshore production unit and a coring drillship.
 
Warm Stacked and Held for Sale
 
As of February 20, 2008, GSF High Island I was warm stacked.  We classified this rig as held for sale in connection with a definitive agreement executed on February 15, 2008 with Hercules Offshore, Inc. to sell this rig, together with GSF Adriatic III and GSF High Island VIII, which continue to operate under contract.
 
Markets
 
Our operations are geographically dispersed in oil and gas exploration and development areas throughout the world. Rigs can be moved from one region to another, but the cost of moving a rig and the availability of rig-moving vessels may cause the supply and demand balance to vary between regions. However, significant variations between regions do not tend to exist long-term because of rig mobility. Consequently, we operate in a single, global offshore drilling market. Because our drilling rigs are mobile assets and are able to be moved according to prevailing market conditions, we cannot predict the percentage of our revenues that will be derived from particular geographic or political areas in future periods.
 
In recent years, there has been increased emphasis by oil companies on exploring for hydrocarbons in deeper waters. This deepwater focus is due, in part, to technological developments that have made such exploration more feasible and cost-effective. Therefore, water-depth capability is a key component in determining rig suitability for a particular drilling project. Another distinguishing feature in some drilling market sectors is a rig’s ability to operate in harsh environments, including extreme marine and climatic conditions and temperatures.
 
The deepwater and mid-water market sectors are serviced by our semisubmersibles and drillships. While the use of the term “deepwater” as used in the drilling industry to denote a particular sector of the market can vary and continues to evolve with technological improvements, we generally view the deepwater market sector as that which begins in water depths of approximately 4,500 feet and extends to the maximum water depths in which rigs are capable of drilling, which is currently approximately 12,000 feet. We view the mid-water market sector as that which covers water depths of about 300 feet to approximately 4,500 feet.
 
-11-


The global jackup market sector begins at the outer limit of the transition zone and extends to water depths of about 400 feet. This sector has been developed to a significantly greater degree than the deepwater market sector because the shallower water depths have made it much more accessible than the deeper water market sectors.
 
The “transition zone” market sector is characterized by marshes, rivers, lakes, and shallow bay and coastal water areas.  We operate in this sector using our two drilling barges located in Southeast Asia.
 
Contract Backlog
 
We have been successful in building contract backlog in 2007 within all of our asset classes. Prior to the Merger, our contract backlog at October 30, 2007 was approximately $23 billion, a 15 percent and 109 percent increase compared to our contract backlog at December 31, 2006 and 2005, respectively.  Our contract backlog at December 31, 2007 was approximately $32 billion including the effect of the Merger.  See “Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations—Outlook−Drilling Market” and “Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations—Performance and Other Key Indicators.”
 
Operating Revenues and Long-Lived Assets by Country
 
Operating revenues and long-lived assets by country are as follows (in millions):
 
   
Years ended December 31,
 
   
2007
   
2006
   
2005
 
Operating revenues
                 
United States
  $ 1,259     $ 806     $ 648  
United Kingdom
    848       439       335  
India
    761       291       296  
Nigeria
    587       447       218  
Other countries (a)
    2,922       1,899       1,395  
Total operating revenues
  $ 6,377     $ 3,882     $ 2,892  
                         
   
As of December 31,
         
   
2007
   
2006
         
Long-lived assets
                       
United States
  $ 5,856     $ 2,504          
United Kingdom
    2,301       457          
Nigeria
    1,902       856          
Other countries (a)
    10,871       3,509          
Total long-lived assets
  $ 20,930     $ 7,326          
______________________
(a)  Other countries represents countries in which we operate that individually had operating revenues or long-lived assets representing less than 10 percent of total operating revenues earned or total long-lived assets for any of the periods presented.
 
Contract Drilling Services
 
Our contracts to provide offshore drilling services are individually negotiated and vary in their terms and provisions.  We obtain most of our contracts through competitive bidding against other contractors.  Drilling contracts generally provide for payment on a dayrate basis, with higher rates while the drilling unit is operating and lower rates for periods of mobilization or when drilling operations are interrupted or restricted by equipment breakdowns, adverse environmental conditions or other conditions beyond our control.
 
A dayrate drilling contract generally extends over a period of time covering either the drilling of a single well or group of wells or covering a stated term.  These contracts typically can be terminated or suspended by the client without paying a termination fee under various circumstances such as the loss or destruction of the drilling unit or the suspension of drilling operations for a specified period of time as a result of a breakdown of major equipment.  Many of these events are beyond our control.  The contract term in some instances may be extended by the client exercising options for the drilling of additional wells or for an additional term.  Our contracts also typically include a provision that allows the client to extend the contract to finish drilling a well-in-progress.  During periods of depressed market conditions, our clients may seek to renegotiate firm drilling contracts to reduce their obligations or may seek to suspend or terminate their contracts.  Some drilling contracts permit the customer to terminate the contract at the customer’s option without paying a termination fee.  Suspension of drilling contracts will result in the reduction in or loss of dayrate for the period of the suspension.  If our customers cancel some of our significant contracts and we are unable to secure new contracts on substantially similar terms, or if contracts are suspended for an extended period of time, it could adversely affect our consolidated statement of financial position, results of operations or cash flows.
 
-12-

 
Drilling Management Services
 
As a result of the Merger, we provide drilling management services primarily on a turnkey basis through our wholly owned subsidiary, Applied Drilling Technology Inc. (“ADTI”), and through ADT International, a division of one of our U.K. subsidiaries.  ADTI operates primarily in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico, and ADT International operates primarily in the North Sea.  Under a typical turnkey arrangement, we will assume responsibility for the design and execution of a well and deliver a logged or cased hole to an agreed depth for a guaranteed price, with payment contingent upon successful completion of the well program.  As part of our turnkey drilling services, we provide planning, engineering and management services beyond the scope of our traditional contract drilling business and thereby assume greater risk.  In addition to turnkey arrangements, we also participate in project management operations.  In our project management operations, we provide certain planning, management and engineering services, purchase equipment and provide personnel and other logistical services to customers.  Our project management services differ from turnkey drilling services in that the customer retains control of the drilling operations and thus retains the risk associated with the project.  These drilling management services did not represent a material portion of our revenues for the year ended December 31, 2007.
 
Integrated Services
 
From time to time, we provide well and logistics services in addition to our normal drilling services through third party contractors and our employees.  We refer to these other services as integrated services.  The work generally consists of individual contractual agreements to meet specific client needs and may be provided on either a dayrate, cost plus or fixed price basis depending on the daily activity.  As of February 27, 2008, we were performing such services in India.  These integrated service revenues did not represent a material portion of our revenues for any period presented.
 
Oil and Gas Properties
 
As a result of the Merger, we conduct oil and gas exploration, development and production activities through our oil and gas subsidiaries.  We acquire interests in oil and gas properties principally in order to facilitate the awarding of turnkey contracts for our drilling management services operations.  Our oil and gas activities are conducted primarily in the United States offshore Louisiana and Texas and in the U.K. sector of the North Sea.  These oil and gas properties did not represent a material portion of our revenues for the year ended December 31, 2007.
 
Joint Venture, Agency and Sponsorship Relationships and Other Investments
 
In some areas of the world, local customs and practice or governmental requirements necessitate the formation of joint ventures with local participation, which we may or may not control.  We are an active participant in several joint venture drilling companies, principally in Azerbaijan, Indonesia, Malaysia, Angola, Libya and Nigeria.
 
We hold a 50 percent interest in Overseas Drilling Limited (“ODL”), which owns the drillship Joides Resolution.  The drillship is contracted to perform drilling and coring operations in deep waters worldwide for the purpose of scientific research.  We manage and operate the vessel on behalf of ODL.
 
In early October 2007, we exercised our option to purchase a 50 percent equity interest in Transocean Pacific Drilling Inc. (“TPDI”), a joint venture company formed by us and Pacific Drilling Limited (“Pacific Drilling”), a Liberian company, whereby we acquired exclusive marketing rights for two ultra-deepwater drillships to be named Deepwater Pacific 1 and Deepwater Pacific 2, which are currently under construction.  See “Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations—Outlook−Drilling Market.”
 
In Azerbaijan, the semisubmersibles Istiglal and Dada Gorgud operate under long-term bareboat charters between (a) Caspian Drilling Company Limited (“CDC”), a joint venture in which we hold a 45 percent ownership interest, and (b) the owner of both rigs, the State Oil Company of the Azerbaijan Republic (“SOCAR”), our sole equity partner in CDC.  SOCAR has granted exclusive bareboat charter rights to CDC for the life of the joint venture.  During 2005, these bareboat charter rights were extended through October 2011, pursuant to an amendment to the agreement establishing CDC.
 
A joint venture in which we hold a passive minority interest operates primarily in Libya, and to a limited extent in Syria.  Syria is identified by the U.S. State Department as a state sponsor of terrorism.  In addition, Syria is subject to a number of economic regulations, including sanctions administered by the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”), and comprehensive restrictions on the export and re-export of U.S.-origin items to Syria.  On June 30, 2006, Libya was removed from the U.S. government’s list of state sponsors of terrorism and is no longer subject to sanctions or embargoes.  We believe our passive minority investment has been maintained in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations.  Potential investors could view our passive minority interest in our Libyan joint venture negatively, which could adversely affect our reputation and the market for our ordinary shares.  In addition, certain U.S. states have recently enacted legislation regarding investments by their retirement systems in companies that have business activities or contacts with countries that have been identified as terrorist-sponsoring states, and similar legislation may be pending or introduced in other states.  As a result, certain investors may be subject to reporting requirements with respect to investments in companies such as ours or may be subject to limits or prohibitions with respect to those investments.
 
-13-


Local laws or customs in some areas of the world also effectively mandate establishment of a relationship with a local agent or sponsor.  When appropriate in these areas, we enter into agency or sponsorship agreements.
 
Significant Clients
 
We engage in offshore drilling for most of the leading international oil companies (or their affiliates), as well as for many government-controlled and independent oil companies.  Our most significant clients in 2007 were Chevron, Shell and BP accounting for 12 percent, 11 percent and 10 percent, respectively, of our 2007 operating revenues.  No other client accounted for 10 percent or more of our 2007 operating revenues.  The loss of any of these significant clients could, at least in the short term, have a material adverse effect on our results of operations.
 
Environmental Regulation
 
For a discussion of the effects of environmental regulation, see “Item 1A. Risk Factors—Compliance with or breach of environmental laws can be costly and could limit our operations.” We have made and will continue to make expenditures to comply with environmental requirements.  To date we have not expended material amounts in order to comply and we do not believe that our compliance with such requirements will have a material adverse effect upon our results of operations or competitive position or materially increase our capital expenditures.
 
Employees
 
We require highly skilled personnel to operate our drilling units.  As a result, we conduct extensive personnel recruiting, training and safety programs.  At December 31, 2007, we had approximately 21,100 employees, and we also utilized approximately 3,400 persons through contract labor providers.  Some of our employees, most of whom work in the U.K., Nigeria and Norway, are represented by collective bargaining agreements. In addition, some of our contracted labor work under collective bargaining agreements.  Many of these represented individuals are working under agreements that are subject to salary negotiation in 2008.  These negotiations could result in higher personnel expenses, other increased costs or increased operation restrictions.  Additionally, the unions in the U.K. have sought an interpretation of the application of the Working Time Regulations to the offshore sector.  The Tribunal has recently issued its decision and we are currently reviewing the decision to determine its potential impact on our operations and expenses as well as to determine whether the decision should be appealed.   The application of the Working Time Regulations to the offshore sector could result in higher labor costs and could undermine our ability to obtain a sufficient number of skilled workers in the U.K.
 
Available Information
 
Our website address is www.deepwater.com.  We make our website content available for information purposes only.  It should not be relied upon for investment purposes, nor is it incorporated by reference in this Form 10-K.  We make available on this website under “Investor Relations-SEC Filings,” free of charge, our annual reports on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K and amendments to those reports as soon as reasonably practicable after we electronically file those materials with, or furnish those materials to, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”).  The SEC also maintains a website at www.sec.gov that contains reports, proxy statements and other information regarding SEC registrants, including us.
 
You may also find information related to our corporate governance, board committees and company code of business conduct and ethics at our website.  Among the information you can find there is the following:
 
 
§
Audit Committee Charter;
 
§
Corporate Governance Committee Charter;
 
§
Executive Compensation Committee Charter;
 
§
Finance and Benefits Committee Charter;
 
§
Mission Statement;
 
§
Code of Business Conduct and Ethics, including our anti-corruption policy; and
 
§
Corporate Governance Guidelines.
 
We intend to satisfy the requirement under Item 5.05 of Form 8-K to disclose any amendments to our Code of Business Conduct and Ethics and any waiver from a provision of our Code of Business Conduct and Ethics by posting such information in the Corporate Governance section of our website at www.deepwater.com.
 
-14-

 
ITEM 1A.
Risk Factors
 
Our business depends on the level of activity in the offshore oil and gas industry, which is significantly affected by volatile oil and gas prices and other factors.
 
Our business depends on the level of activity in oil and gas exploration, development and production in offshore areas worldwide.  Oil and gas prices and market expectations of potential changes in these prices significantly affect this level of activity.  However, higher commodity prices do not necessarily translate into increased drilling activity since customers' expectations of future commodity prices typically drive demand for our rigs.  Also, increased competition for customers' drilling budgets could come from, among other areas, land-based energy markets in Africa, Russia, Western Asian countries, the Middle East, the U.S. and elsewhere.  The availability of quality drilling prospects, exploration success, relative production costs, the stage of reservoir development and political and regulatory environments also affect customers' drilling campaigns.  Worldwide military, political and economic events have contributed to oil and gas price volatility and are likely to do so in the future.
 
Oil and gas prices are extremely volatile and are affected by numerous factors, including the following:
 
 
§
worldwide demand for oil and gas including economic activity in the U.S. and other energy-consuming markets;
 
§
the ability of OPEC to set and maintain production levels and pricing;
 
§
the level of production in non-OPEC countries;
 
§
the policies of various governments regarding exploration and development of their oil and gas reserves;
 
§
advances in exploration and development technology; and
 
§
the worldwide military and political environment, including uncertainty or instability resulting from an escalation or additional outbreak of armed hostilities or other crises in the Middle East or other geographic areas or further acts of terrorism in the United States, or elsewhere.
 
Our industry is highly competitive and cyclical, with intense price competition.
 
The offshore contract drilling industry is highly competitive with numerous industry participants, none of which has a dominant market share.  Drilling contracts are traditionally awarded on a competitive bid basis.  Intense price competition is often the primary factor in determining which qualified contractor is awarded a job, although rig availability and the quality and technical capability of service and equipment may also be considered.
 
Our industry has historically been cyclical and is impacted by oil and gas price levels and volatility.  There have been periods of high demand, short rig supply and high dayrates, followed by periods of low demand, excess rig supply and low dayrates.  Changes in commodity prices can have a dramatic effect on rig demand, and periods of excess rig supply intensify the competition in the industry and often result in rigs being idle for long periods of time.  We may be required to idle rigs or enter into lower rate contracts in response to market conditions in the future.
 
During prior periods of high utilization and dayrates, industry participants have increased the supply of rigs by ordering the construction of new units.  This has typically resulted in an oversupply of drilling units and has caused a subsequent decline in utilization and dayrates, sometimes for extended periods of time.  There are numerous high-specification rigs and jackups under contract for construction and several mid-water semisubmersibles are being upgraded to enhance their operating capability.  The entry into service of these new and upgraded units will increase supply and could curtail a further strengthening, or trigger a reduction, in dayrates as rigs are absorbed into the active fleet.  Any further increase in construction of new drilling units would likely exacerbate the negative impact on utilization and dayrates.  Lower utilization and dayrates could adversely affect our revenues and profitability.  Prolonged periods of low utilization and dayrates could also result in the recognition of impairment charges on certain classes of our drilling rigs or our goodwill balance if future cash flow estimates, based upon information available to management at the time, indicate that the carrying value of these rigs, or the goodwill balance, may not be recoverable.
 
Our business involves numerous operating hazards.
 
Our operations are subject to the usual hazards inherent in the drilling of oil and gas wells, such as blowouts, reservoir damage, loss of production, loss of well control, punch-throughs, craterings, fires and natural disasters such as hurricanes and tropical storms.  In particular, the Gulf of Mexico area is subject to hurricanes and other extreme weather conditions on a relatively frequent basis, and our drilling rigs in the region may be exposed to damage or total loss by these storms (some of which may not be covered by insurance).  The occurrence of these events could result in the suspension of drilling operations, damage to or destruction of the equipment involved and injury to or death of rig personnel.  We are also subject to personal injury and other claims by rig personnel as a result of our drilling operations.  Operations also may be suspended because of machinery breakdowns, abnormal drilling conditions, failure of subcontractors to perform or supply goods or services, or personnel shortages.  In addition, offshore drilling operations are subject to perils peculiar to marine operations, including capsizing, grounding, collision and loss or damage from severe weather.  Damage to the environment could also result from our operations, particularly through oil spillage or extensive uncontrolled fires.  We may also be subject to property, environmental and other damage claims by oil and gas companies.  Our insurance policies and contractual rights to indemnity may not adequately cover losses, and we do not have insurance coverage or rights to indemnity for all risks.
 
-15-


Consistent with standard industry practice, our clients generally assume, and indemnify us against, well control and subsurface risks under dayrate contracts.  These are risks associated with the loss of control of a well, such as blowout or cratering, the cost to regain control of or redrill the well and associated pollution.  However, there can be no assurance that these clients will be financially able to indemnify us against all these risks.
 
We maintain broad insurance coverage, including coverage for property damage, occupational injury and illness, and general and marine third-party liabilities.  Property damage insurance covers against marine and other perils, including losses due to capsizing, grounding, collision, fire, lightning, hurricanes and windstorms (excluding named storms in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico and war perils worldwide, for which we generally have no coverage), action of waves, punch-throughs, cratering, blowouts and explosion.  However, we maintain large self-insured deductibles for damage to our offshore drilling equipment and third-party liabilities.
 
With respect to hull and machinery we generally maintain a $125 million deductible per occurrence, subject to a $250 million annual aggregate deductible.  In the event that the $250 million annual aggregate deductible has been exceeded, the hull and machinery deductible becomes $10 million per occurrence.  However, in the event of a total loss or a constructive total loss of a drilling unit, then such loss is fully covered by our insurance with no deductible.  For general and marine third-party liabilities we generally maintain a $10 million per occurrence deductible on personal injury liability for crew claims ($5 million for non-crew claims) and a $5 million per occurrence deductible on third-party property damage.  We also self insure the primary $50 million of liability limits in excess of the $5 million and $10 million per occurrence deductibles described in the prior sentence.
 
Pollution and environmental risks generally are not totally insurable.  If a significant accident or other event occurs and is not fully covered by insurance or an enforceable or recoverable indemnity from a client, it could adversely affect our consolidated statement of financial position, results of operations or cash flows.
 
The amount of our insurance may be less than the related impact on enterprise value after a loss.  We do not generally have hull and machinery coverage for losses due to hurricanes in the U.S Gulf of Mexico and war perils worldwide.  Our insurance coverage will not in all situations provide sufficient funds to protect us from all liabilities that could result from our drilling operations.  Our coverage includes annual aggregate policy limits.  As a result, we retain the risk through self-insurance for any losses in excess of these limits.  We do not carry insurance for loss of revenue and certain other claims may also not be reimbursed by insurance carriers.  Any such lack of reimbursement may cause us to incur substantial costs.  In addition, we could decide to retain substantially more risk through self-insurance in the future.  Moreover, no assurance can be made that we will be able to maintain adequate insurance in the future at rates we consider reasonable or be able to obtain insurance against certain risks.  As of February 27, 2008, all of the rigs that we owned or operated were covered by existing insurance policies.
 
Failure to retain key personnel could hurt our operations.
 
We require highly skilled personnel to operate and provide technical services and support for our business worldwide.  Competition for the labor required for drilling operations, including for turnkey drilling and drilling management services businesses and construction projects, has intensified as the number of rigs activated, added to worldwide fleets or under construction has increased, leading to shortages of qualified personnel in the industry and creating upward pressure on wages and higher turnover.  If turnover increases, we could see a reduction in the experience level of our personnel, which could lead to higher downtime and more operating incidents, which in turn could decrease revenues and increase costs.  In response to these labor market conditions, we are increasing efforts in our recruitment, training, development and retention programs as required to meet our anticipated personnel needs.  If these labor trends continue, we may experience further increases in costs or limits on operations.
 
Our labor costs and the operating restrictions under which we operate could increase as a result of collective bargaining negotiations and changes in labor laws and regulations.
 
Some of our employees, most of whom work in the U.K., Nigeria and Norway, are represented by collective bargaining agreements. In addition, some of our contracted labor work under collective bargaining agreements.  Many of these represented individuals are working under agreements that are subject to ongoing salary negotiation in 2008.  These negotiations could result in higher personnel expenses, other increased costs or increased operating restrictions.  Additionally, the unions in the U.K. have sought an interpretation of the application of the Working Time Regulations to the offshore sector.  The Tribunal has recently issued its decision and we are currently reviewing the decision to determine its potential impact on our operations and expenses as well as to determine whether the decision should be appealed.  The application of the Working Time Regulations to the offshore sector could result in higher labor costs and could undermine our ability to obtain a sufficient number of skilled workers in the U.K.
 
-16-

 
Our shipyard projects are subject to delays and cost overruns.
 
We have committed to a total of eight deepwater newbuild rig projects and two Sedco 700-series rig upgrades.  We are also discussing other potential newbuild opportunities with several of our oil and gas company and government-controlled clients.  We also have a variety of other more limited shipyard projects at any given time.  These shipyard projects are subject to the risks of delay or cost overruns inherent in any such construction project resulting from numerous factors, including the following:
 
 
§
shipyard unavailability;
 
§
shortages of equipment, materials or skilled labor;
 
§
unscheduled delays in the delivery of ordered materials and equipment;
 
§
engineering problems, including those relating to the commissioning of newly designed equipment;
 
§
work stoppages;
 
§
client acceptance delays;
 
§
weather interference or storm damage;
 
§
unanticipated cost increases; and
 
§
difficulty in obtaining necessary permits or approvals.
 
These factors may contribute to cost variations and delays in the delivery of our upgraded and newbuild units and other rigs undergoing shipyard projects.  Delays in the delivery of these units would result in delay in contract commencement, resulting in a loss of revenue to us, and may also cause customers to terminate or shorten the term of the drilling contract for the rig pursuant to applicable late delivery clauses.  In the event of termination of one of these contracts, we may not be able to secure a replacement contract on as favorable terms.
 
Our operations also rely on a significant supply of capital and consumable spare parts and equipment to maintain and repair our fleet.  We also rely on the supply of ancillary services, including supply boats and helicopters.  Recently, we have experienced increased delivery times from vendors due to increased drilling activity worldwide and the increase in construction and upgrade projects and have also experienced a tightening in the availability of ancillary services.  We have recently replaced our primary global logistics provider, which may result in delays and disruptions, and potentially increased costs, in some operations.  Shortages in materials, delays in the delivery of necessary spare parts, equipment or other materials, or the unavailability of ancillary services could negatively impact our future operations and result in increases in rig downtime, and delays in the repair and maintenance of our fleet.
 
Failure to secure a drilling contract prior to deployment of two of our newbuild drillships could adversely affect our results of operations.
 
In September 2007, GlobalSantaFe entered into a contract with Hyundai Heavy Industries, Ltd. for the construction of a new drillship the delivery of which is scheduled for the third quarter of 2010. In addition, the drillship Deepwater Pacific 2 that is being constructed by our joint venture with Pacific Drilling is scheduled for delivery in the first quarter of 2010.  We have not yet secured a drilling contract for either drillship.  Historically, the industry has experienced prolonged periods of overcapacity, during which many rigs were idle for long periods of time.  Our failure to secure a drilling contract for either rig prior to its deployment could adversely affect our results of operations.
 
The anticipated benefits of the Merger may not be realized, and there may be difficulties in integrating our operations.
 
We merged with GlobalSantaFe on November 27, 2007, with the expectation that the Merger would result in various benefits, including, among other things, synergies, cost savings and operating efficiencies.  We may not achieve these benefits at the levels expected or at all.
 
We may not be able to integrate our operations with those of GlobalSantaFe without a loss of employees, customers or suppliers, a loss of revenues, an increase in operating or other costs or other difficulties.  In addition, we may not be able to realize the operating efficiencies, synergies, cost savings or other benefits expected from the Merger.  Any unexpected delays incurred in connection with the integration could have an adverse effect on our business, results of operations or financial condition.
 
Our business has changed as a result of our recent combination with GlobalSantaFe.
 
Our business has changed as a result of our recent combination with GlobalSantaFe.  Following the Merger, our relative exposure to the jackup market has increased.  Portions of the jackup market, including the U.S. Gulf of Mexico, have in recent periods experienced lower dayrates than in previous periods.  Additionally, as a result of the Merger, we are now engaged in drilling management services including turnkey drilling operations and own interests in oil and gas properties, which, as described below, will expose us to additional risks.
 
-17-

 
Our overall debt level increased as a result of the Transactions, and we may lose the ability to obtain future financing and suffer competitive disadvantages.
 
We have a substantial amount of debt.  As a result of the Transactions, our overall debt level increased from approximately $3 billion at December 31, 2006, to approximately $17 billion at December 31, 2007.  Our level of debt and other obligations could have significant adverse consequences on our business and future prospects, including the following:
 
 
§
we may not be able to obtain financing in the future for working capital, capital expenditures, acquisitions, debt service requirements or other purposes;
 
§
we may not be able to use operating cash flow in other areas of our business because we must dedicate a substantial portion of these funds to service the debt;
 
§
we could become more vulnerable to general adverse economic and industry conditions, including increases in interest rates, particularly given our substantial indebtedness, some of which bears interest at variable rates;
 
§
less levered competitors could have a competitive advantage because they have lower debt service requirements; and
 
§
we may be less able to take advantage of significant business opportunities and to react to changes in market or industry conditions than our competitors.
 
We may not be successful in refinancing the remaining borrowings under our bridge loan facility, and the terms of any refinancing may not be favorable to us.
 
Our bridge loan facility has a maturity of one year.  Although we expect to refinance the remaining portion of this debt on more favorable terms, such refinancing is subject to conditions in the credit markets, which are currently volatile, and there can be no assurance that we will be successful in refinancing the remaining portion of debt or that the terms of the refinancing will be favorable to us, which could adversely affect our results of operations or financial condition.
 
Our overall debt level and/or our inability to refinance the remaining borrowings under our bridge loan facility on favorable terms could lead the credit rating agencies to lower our corporate credit ratings below currently expected levels and possibly below investment grade.
 
Market conditions could prohibit us from refinancing the bridge loan facility at favorable rates and on favorable terms, which could limit our ability to efficiently repay debt and could cause us to maintain a high level of leverage or issue debt with unfavorable terms and conditions.  This leverage level could lead the credit rating agencies to downgrade our credit ratings below currently expected levels and possibly to non-investment grade levels.  Such ratings levels could negatively impact current and prospective customers' willingness to transact business with us.  Suppliers may lower or eliminate the level of credit provided through payment terms when dealing with us thereby increasing the need for higher levels of cash on hand, which would decrease our ability to repay debt balances.
 
A loss of a major tax dispute or a successful tax challenge to our structure could result in a higher tax rate on our worldwide earnings, which could result in a significant negative impact on our earnings and cash flows from operations.
 
We are a Cayman Islands company and operate through our various subsidiaries in a number of countries throughout the world.  Consequently, we are subject to tax laws, treaties and regulations in and between the countries in which we operate.  Our income taxes are based upon the applicable tax laws and tax rates in effect in the countries in which we operate and earn income as well as upon our operating structures in these countries.
 
Our income tax returns are subject to review and examination.  We do not recognize the benefit of income tax positions we believe are more likely than not to be disallowed upon challenge by a tax authority.  If any tax authority successfully challenges our operational structure, intercompany pricing policies or the taxable presence of our key subsidiaries in certain countries; or if the terms of certain income tax treaties are interpreted in a manner that is adverse to our structure; or if we lose a material tax dispute in any country, particularly in the U.S., Norway or Brazil, our effective tax rate on our worldwide earnings could increase substantially and our earnings and cash flows from operations could be materially adversely affected.  See “Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations—Outlook–Tax Matters” and “—Critical Accounting Estimates–Income Taxes.”
 
A change in tax laws, treaties or regulations, or their interpretation, of any country in which we operate could result in a higher tax rate on our worldwide earnings, which could result in a significant negative impact on our earnings and cash flows from operations.
 
A change in applicable tax laws, treaties or regulations could result in a higher effective tax rate on our worldwide earnings and such change could be significant to our financial results.  One of the income tax treaties that we rely upon is currently in the process of being renegotiated.  This renegotiation will likely result in a change in the terms of the treaty that is adverse to our tax structure, which in turn would increase our effective tax rate, and such increase could be material.  We are monitoring the progress of the treaty renegotiation with a view to determining what, if any, steps are appropriate to mitigate any potential negative impact.  One of these steps could include transactions that would result in certain subsidiaries or the parent entity of our group of companies having a different tax residency or different jurisdiction of incorporation.  We may not be able to fully, or partially, mitigate any negative impact of this treaty renegotiation or any other future changes in treaties that we rely upon.
 
-18-


Various proposals have been made in recent years that, if enacted into law, could have an adverse impact on us.  Examples include, but are not limited to, proposals that would broaden the circumstances in which a non-U.S. company would be considered a U.S. resident and a proposal that could limit treaty benefits on certain payments by U.S. subsidiaries to non-U.S. affiliates.  Such legislation, if enacted, could cause a material increase in our tax liability and effective tax rate, which could result in a significant negative impact on our earnings and cash flows from operations.  In addition, our income tax returns are subject to review and examination in various jurisdictions in which we operate.  See “Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations—Outlook–Tax Matters” and “—Critical Accounting Estimates–Income Taxes.”
 
We may be limited in our use of net operating losses.
 
Our ability to benefit from our deferred tax assets depends on us having sufficient future earnings to utilize our net operating loss (“NOL”) carryforwards before they expire.  We have established a valuation allowance against the future tax benefit for a number of our foreign NOL carryforwards, and we could be required to record an additional valuation allowance against our foreign or U.S. deferred tax assets if market conditions change materially and, as a result, our future earnings are, or are projected to be, significantly less than we currently estimate.  Our NOL carryforwards are subject to review and potential disallowance upon audit by the tax authorities of the jurisdictions where the NOLs are incurred.
 
In 2007, we utilized NOL carryforwards to reduce our 2007 U.S. taxable income. The NOL carryforwards utilized in 2007 included NOL carryforwards of one of our subsidiaries from periods prior to a previous merger of two of our subsidiaries.  The U.S. Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) may take the position that the 2001 merger subjected the NOL carryforwards to various limitations under U.S. tax laws.  If a limitation were imposed, it could result in a portion of our NOL carryforwards expiring unused or in our inability to fully offset taxable income with NOLs in a particular year, even though our NOL carryforwards exceed our taxable income for the year.
 
We may be required to accrue additional tax liability on certain earnings.
 
We have not provided for deferred taxes on the unremitted earnings of certain subsidiaries that are permanently reinvested.  Should a distribution be made of the unremitted earnings of these subsidiaries, we could be required to record additional current and deferred taxes that, if material, could have an adverse effect on our statement of financial position, results of operations and cash flows.
 
Our non-U.S. operations involve additional risks not associated with our U.S. operations.
 
We operate in various regions throughout the world, which may expose us to political and other uncertainties, including risks of:
 
 
§
terrorist acts, war and civil disturbances;
 
§
expropriation or nationalization of equipment; and
 
§
the inability to repatriate income or capital.
 
We are protected to some extent against loss of capital assets, but generally not loss of revenue, from most of these risks through indemnity provisions in our drilling contracts.  Effective May 1, 2007, our assets are generally not insured against risk of loss due to perils such as terrorist acts, civil unrest, expropriation, nationalization and acts of war.
 
Many governments favor or effectively require the awarding of drilling contracts to local contractors or require foreign contractors to employ citizens of, or purchase supplies from, a particular jurisdiction.  These practices may adversely affect our ability to compete.
 
Our non-U.S. contract drilling operations are subject to various laws and regulations in countries in which we operate, including laws and regulations relating to the equipment and operation of drilling units, currency conversions and repatriation, oil and gas exploration and development and taxation of offshore earnings and earnings of expatriate personnel.  We are also subject to OFAC and other U.S. laws and regulations governing our international operations.  Potential investors could view any potential violation of OFAC regulations negatively, which could adversely affect our reputation and the market for our ordinary shares.  In addition, certain U.S. states have recently enacted legislation regarding investments by their retirement systems in companies that have business activities or contacts with countries that have been identified as terrorist-sponsoring states, and similar legislation may be pending or introduced in other states.  As a result, certain investors may be subject to reporting requirements with respect to investments in companies such as ours or may be subject to limits or prohibitions with respect to those investments.  Failure to comply with applicable laws and regulations, including those relating to sanctions and export restrictions, may subject us to criminal sanctions or civil remedies, including fines, denial of export privileges, injunctions or seizures of assets.  Our internal compliance program has discovered a potential OFAC compliance issue.  See “Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations—Outlook–Regulatory Matters.”
 
-19-


Governments in some foreign countries have become increasingly active in regulating and controlling the ownership of concessions and companies holding concessions, the exploration for oil and gas and other aspects of the oil and gas industries in their countries.  In addition, government action, including initiatives by OPEC, may continue to cause oil or gas price volatility.  In some areas of the world, this governmental activity has adversely affected the amount of exploration and development work done by major oil companies and may continue to do so.
 
Another risk inherent in our operations is the possibility of currency exchange losses where revenues are received and expenses are paid in nonconvertible currencies.  We may also incur losses as a result of an inability to collect revenues because of a shortage of convertible currency available in the country of operation.
 
Failure to comply with the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act could result in fines, criminal penalties, drilling contract terminations and an adverse effect on our business.
 
In June 2007, GlobalSantaFe's management retained outside counsel to conduct an internal investigation of its Nigerian and West African operations, focusing on brokers who handled customs matters with respect to its affiliates operating in those jurisdictions and whether those brokers have fully complied with the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“FCPA”) and local laws.  GlobalSantaFe commenced its investigation following announcements by other oilfield service companies that they were independently investigating the FCPA implications of certain actions taken by third parties in respect of customs matters in connection with their operations in Nigeria, as well as another company's announced settlement implicating a third party handling customs matters in Nigeria.  In each case, the customs broker was reported to be Panalpina Inc., which GlobalSantaFe used to obtain temporary import permits for its rigs operating offshore Nigeria.  GlobalSantaFe voluntarily disclosed its internal investigation to the U.S. Department of Justice (the “DOJ”) and the SEC and, at their request, expanded its investigation to include the activities of its customs brokers in other West African countries and the activities of Panalpina Inc. worldwide.  The investigation is focusing on whether the brokers have fully complied with the requirements of their contracts, local laws and the FCPA.  In late November 2007, GlobalSantaFe received a subpoena from the SEC for documents related to its investigation.  In this connection, the SEC advised GlobalSantaFe that it had issued a formal order of investigation.  After the completion of the Merger, outside counsel began formally reporting directly to the audit committee of our board of directors.  Our legal representatives are keeping the DOJ and SEC apprised of the scope and details of their investigation and producing relevant information in response to their requests.
 
On July 25, 2007, our legal representatives met with the DOJ in response to a notice we received requesting such a meeting regarding our engagement of Panalpina Inc. for freight forwarding and other services in the United States and abroad.  The DOJ has informed us that it is conducting an investigation of alleged FCPA violations by oil service companies who used Panalpina Inc. and other brokers in Nigeria and other parts of the world.  We began developing an investigative plan which would allow us to promptly review and produce relevant and responsive information requested by the DOJ and SEC.  Subsequently, we expanded this investigation to include one of our agents for Nigeria.  This investigation and the legacy GlobalSantaFe investigation are being conducted by outside counsel who reports directly to the audit committee of our board of directors.  The investigation has focused on whether the agent and the customs brokers have fully complied with the terms of their respective agreements, the FCPA and local laws.  We prepared and presented an investigative plan to the DOJ and have informed the SEC of the ongoing investigation.  We have begun implementing the investigative plan and are keeping the DOJ and SEC apprised of the scope and details of our investigation and are producing relevant information in response to their requests.
 
We cannot predict the ultimate outcome of these investigations, the effect of implementing any further measures that may be necessary to ensure full compliance with applicable laws or to what extent, if at all, we could be subject to fines, sanctions or other penalties.  Our investigation includes a review of amounts paid to and by customs brokers in connection with the obtaining of permits for the temporary importation of vessels and the clearance of goods and materials.  These permits and clearances are necessary in order for us to operate our vessels in certain jurisdictions.  There is a risk that we may not be able to obtain import permits or renew temporary importation permits in West African countries, including Nigeria, in a manner that complies with the FCPA.  As a result, we may not have the means to renew temporary importation permits for rigs located in the relevant jurisdictions as they expire or to send goods and equipment into those jurisdictions, in which event we may be forced to terminate the pending drilling contracts and relocate the rigs or leave the rigs in these countries and risk permanent importation issues, either of which could have an adverse effect on our financial results.  In addition, termination of drilling contracts could result in damage claims by customers.
 
-20-

 
Our operating and maintenance costs will not necessarily fluctuate in proportion to changes in operating revenues.
 
Our operating and maintenance costs will not necessarily fluctuate in proportion to changes in operating revenues.  Operating revenues may fluctuate as a function of changes in dayrate.  However, costs for operating a rig are generally fixed or only semi-variable regardless of the dayrate being earned.  In addition, should our rigs incur idle time between contracts, we typically will not de-man those rigs because we will use the crew to prepare the rig for its next contract.  During times of reduced activity, reductions in costs may not be immediate as portions of the crew may be required to prepare rigs for stacking, after which time the crew members are assigned to active rigs or dismissed.  In addition, as our rigs are mobilized from one geographic location to another, the labor and other operating and maintenance costs can vary significantly.  In general, labor costs increase primarily due to higher salary levels and inflation.  Equipment maintenance expenses fluctuate depending upon the type of activity the unit is performing and the age and condition of the equipment.  Contract preparation expenses vary based on the scope and length of contract preparation required and the duration of the firm contractual period over which such expenditures are amortized.
 
Our drilling contracts may be terminated due to a number of events.
 
Our customers may terminate or suspend many of our term drilling contracts without paying a termination fee under various circumstances such as the loss or destruction of the drilling unit, downtime or impaired performance caused by equipment or operational issues, some of which will be beyond our control, or sustained periods of downtime due to force majeure events.  Suspension of drilling contracts results in loss of the dayrate for the period of the suspension.  If our customers cancel some of our significant contracts and we are unable to secure new contracts on substantially similar terms, it could adversely affect our results of operations.  In reaction to depressed market conditions, our customers may also seek renegotiation of firm drilling contracts to reduce their obligations.
 
We are subject to litigation that, if not resolved in our favor and not sufficiently insured against, could have a material adverse effect on us.
 
We are subject to a variety of litigation and may be sued in additional cases.  Certain of our subsidiaries are named as defendants in numerous lawsuits alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos or toxic fumes or resulting from other occupational diseases, such as silicosis, and various other medical issues that can remain undiscovered for a considerable amount of time.  Some of these subsidiaries that have been put on notice of potential liabilities have no assets.  Other subsidiaries are subject to litigation relating to environmental damage.  We cannot predict the outcome of these cases involving those subsidiaries or the potential costs to resolve them.  Insurance may not be applicable or sufficient in all cases, insurers may not remain solvent, and policies may not be located.  Suits against non-asset-owning subsidiaries have and may in the future give rise to alter ego or successor-in-interest claims against us and our asset-owning subsidiaries to the extent a subsidiary is unable to pay a claim or insurance is not available or sufficient to cover the claims.  To the extent that one or more pending or future litigation matters are not resolved in our favor and are not covered by insurance, a material adverse effect on our financial results and condition could result.
 
Turnkey drilling operations expose us to additional risks, which can adversely affect our profitability, because we assume the risk for operational problems and the contracts are on a fixed-price basis.
 
We conduct most of our drilling services under dayrate drilling contracts where the customer pays for the period of time required to drill or work over a well.  However, we also enter into a significant number of turnkey contracts each year.  Our compensation under turnkey contracts depends on whether we successfully drill to a specified depth or, under some of the contracts, complete the well.  Unlike dayrate contracts, where ultimate control is exercised by the customer, we are exposed to additional risks when serving as a turnkey drilling contractor because we make all critical decisions.  Under a turnkey contract, the amount of our compensation is fixed at the amount we bid to drill the well.  Thus, we will not be paid if operational problems prevent performance unless we choose to drill a new well at our expense.  Further, we must absorb the loss if problems arise that cause the cost of performance to exceed the turnkey price.  Given the complexities of drilling a well, it is not unusual for unforeseen problems to arise.  We do not generally insure against risks of unbudgeted costs associated with turnkey drilling operations.  By contrast, in a dayrate contract, the customer retains most of these risks.  As a result of the additional risks we assume in performing turnkey contracts, costs incurred from time to time exceed revenues earned.  Accordingly, in prior quarters, GlobalSantaFe incurred losses on certain of its turnkey contracts, and we can expect that will continue to be the case in the future.  Depending on the size of these losses, they may have a material adverse affect on the profitability of our drilling management services business in a given period.
 
-21-

 
Turnkey drilling operations are contingent on our ability to win bids and on rig availability, and the failure to win bids or obtain rigs for any reason may have a material adverse effect on the results of operations of our drilling management services business.
 
Our results of operations from our drilling management services business may be limited by certain factors, including our ability to find and retain qualified personnel, to hire suitable rigs at acceptable rates, and to obtain and successfully perform turnkey drilling contracts based on competitive bids.  Our ability to obtain turnkey drilling contracts is largely dependent on the number of these contracts available for bid, which in turn is influenced by market prices for oil and natural gas, among other factors.  Furthermore, our ability to enter into turnkey drilling contracts may be constrained from time to time by the availability of our or third-party drilling rigs.  Constraints on the availability of rigs may cause delays in our drilling management projects and a reduction in the number of projects that we can complete overall, which could have an adverse effect on the results of operations of our drilling management services business.
 
Public health threats could have a material adverse effect on our operations and our financial results.
 
Public health threats, such as the bird flu, Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome, and other highly communicable diseases, outbreaks of which have already occurred in various parts of the world in which we operate, could adversely impact our operations, the operations of our clients and the global economy, including the worldwide demand for oil and natural gas and the level of demand for our services.  Any quarantine of personnel or inability to access our offices or rigs could adversely affect our operations.  Travel restrictions or operational problems in any part of the world in which we operate, or any reduction in the demand for drilling services caused by public health threats in the future, may materially impact operations and adversely affect our financial results.
 
Compliance with or breach of environmental laws can be costly and could limit our operations.
 
Our operations are subject to regulations controlling the discharge of materials into the environment, requiring removal and cleanup of materials that may harm the environment or otherwise relating to the protection of the environment.  For example, as an operator of mobile offshore drilling units in navigable U.S. waters and some offshore areas, we may be liable for damages and costs incurred in connection with oil spills related to those operations.  Laws and regulations protecting the environment have become more stringent in recent years, and may in some cases impose strict liability, rendering a person liable for environmental damage without regard to negligence.  These laws and regulations may expose us to liability for the conduct of or conditions caused by others or for acts that were in compliance with all applicable laws at the time they were performed.  The application of these requirements or the adoption of new requirements could have a material adverse effect on our consolidated statement of financial position, results of operations or cash flows.
 
We have generally been able to obtain some degree of contractual indemnification pursuant to which our clients agree to protect and indemnify us against liability for pollution, well and environmental damages; however, there is no assurance that we can obtain such indemnities in all of our contracts or that, in the event of extensive pollution and environmental damages, our clients will have the financial capability to fulfill their contractual obligations to us.  Also, these indemnities may not be enforceable in all instances.
 
Our ability to operate our rigs in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico could be restricted by governmental regulation.
 
Hurricanes Ivan, Katrina and Rita caused damage to a number of rigs in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico fleet, and rigs that were moved off location by the storms may have damaged platforms, pipelines, wellheads and other drilling rigs during their movements.  The Minerals Management Service of the U.S. Department of the Interior (“MMS”) has conducted hearings and is undertaking studies to determine methods to prevent or reduce the number of such incidents in the future.  In 2006, the MMS issued interim guidelines requiring that semisubmersibles operating in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico assess their mooring systems against stricter criteria.  In 2007 additional guidelines were issued which impose stricter criteria, requiring rigs to meet 25-year storm conditions.  Although all of our semisubmersibles currently operating in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico meet the 2007 requirements, these guidelines may negatively impact our ability to operate other semisubmersibles in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico in the future.  Moreover, the MMS may issue additional regulations that could increase the cost of operations or reduce the area of operations for our rigs in the future, thus reducing their marketability.  Implementation of additional MMS regulations may subject us to increased costs or limit the operational capabilities of our rigs and could materially and adversely affect our operations in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico.
 
Acts of terrorism and social unrest could affect the markets for drilling services.
 
Acts of terrorism and social unrest, brought about by world political events or otherwise, have caused instability in the world’s financial and insurance markets in the past and may occur in the future.  Such acts could be directed against companies such as ours.  In addition, acts of terrorism and social unrest could lead to increased volatility in prices for crude oil and natural gas and could affect the markets for drilling services.  Insurance premiums could increase and coverages may be unavailable in the future.  U.S. government regulations may effectively preclude us from actively engaging in business activities in certain countries.  These regulations could be amended to cover countries where we currently operate or where we may wish to operate in the future.
 
-22-

 
We are subject to anti-takeover provisions.
 
Our articles of association contain provisions that could prevent or delay an acquisition of the company by means of a tender offer, a proxy contest or otherwise.  These provisions may also adversely affect prevailing market prices for our ordinary shares.  These provisions, among other things:
 
 
§
classify our board into three classes of directors, each of which serve for staggered three-year periods;
 
§
provide that our board may designate the terms of any new series of preference shares;
 
§
provide that any shareholder who wishes to propose any business or to nominate a person or persons for election as director at any annual meeting may only do so if advance notice is given to the Secretary of Transocean;
 
§
provide that the exact number of directors on our board can be set from time to time by a majority of the whole board of directors and not by our shareholders, subject to a minimum of two and a maximum of 14;
 
§
provide that directors can be removed from office only for cause, as defined in our articles of association, by the affirmative vote of the holders of the issued shares generally entitled to vote;
 
§
provide that any vacancy on the board of directors will be filled by the affirmative vote of the remaining directors and not by the shareholders; provided, however, that during the period until November 27, 2009, if the vacancy relates to a director who was a Transocean director prior to the Merger, then the vacancy will be filled by the other Transocean directors, and if the vacancy relates to a director who was a GlobalSantaFe director prior to the Merger, then the vacancy will be filled by the other GlobalSantaFe directors;
 
§
provide that any action required or permitted to be taken by the holders of ordinary shares must be taken at a duly called annual or extraordinary general meeting of shareholders unless taken by written consent of all holders of ordinary shares;
 
§
provide that only a majority of the directors may call extraordinary general meetings of the shareholders;
 
§
limit the ability of our shareholders to amend or repeal some provisions of our articles of association; and
 
§
limit transactions between us and an "interested shareholder," which is generally defined as a shareholder that, together with its affiliates and associates, beneficially, directly or indirectly, owns 15 percent or more of our issued voting shares.
 
Our board of directors is comprised of seven persons who were designated by Transocean and seven persons who were designated by GlobalSantaFe prior to completing the Merger.  Under our articles of association, at each annual general meeting held during the two years following the completion of the Merger, each such director whose term expires during such period will be nominated for re-election (or another person selected by the applicable group of directors will be nominated for election) to our board of directors.
 
ITEM 1B.
Unresolved Staff Comments
 
None
 
ITEM 2.
Properties
 
The description of our property included under “Item 1. Business” is incorporated by reference herein.
 
We maintain offices, land bases and other facilities worldwide, including our principal executive offices in Houston, Texas and regional operational offices in the U.S., France and Singapore.  Our remaining offices and bases are located in various countries in North America, South America, the Caribbean, Europe, Africa, Russia, the Middle East, India, the Far East and Australia.  We lease most of these facilities.
 
Through the Merger, we acquired Challenger Minerals Inc. and Challenger Minerals (North Sea) Limited (collectively, “CMI”), formerly wholly-owned subsidiaries of GlobalSantaFe.  CMI conducts oil and gas activities and holds property interests primarily in the U.S. offshore Louisiana and Texas and in the U.K. sector of the North Sea.
 
ITEM 3.
Legal Proceedings
 
Several of our subsidiaries have been named, along with numerous unaffiliated defendants, in several complaints that have been filed in the Circuit Courts of the State of Mississippi involving approximately 750 plaintiffs that allege personal injury arising out of asbestos exposure in the course of their employment by some of these defendants between 1965 and 1986.  The complaints also name as defendants certain of TODCO’s subsidiaries to which we may owe indemnity.  Further, the complaints name other unaffiliated defendant companies, including companies that allegedly manufactured drilling related products containing asbestos.  The complaints allege that the defendant drilling contractors used those asbestos-containing products in offshore drilling operations, land based drilling operations and in drilling structures, drilling rigs, vessels and other equipment and assert claims based on, among other things, negligence and strict liability, and claims authorized under the Jones Act.  The plaintiffs generally seek awards of unspecified compensatory and punitive damages.  We have not been provided with sufficient information to determine the number of plaintiffs who claim to have been exposed to asbestos aboard our rigs, whether they were employees, their period of employment, the period of their alleged exposure to asbestos, or their medical condition, and we have not entered into any settlements with any plaintiffs.  Accordingly, we are unable to estimate our potential exposure in these lawsuits.  We historically have maintained insurance which we believe will be available to address any liability arising from these claims.  We intend to defend these lawsuits vigorously, but there can be no assurance as to their ultimate outcome.
 
-23-


One of our subsidiaries is involved in an action with respect to a customs matter relating to the Sedco 710 semisubmersible drilling rig.  Prior to our merger with Sedco Forex, this drilling rig, which was working for Petrobras in Brazil at the time, had been admitted into the country on a temporary basis under authority granted to a Schlumberger entity.  Prior to the Sedco Forex merger, the drilling contract with Petrobras was transferred from the Schlumberger entity to an entity that would become one of our subsidiaries, but Schlumberger did not transfer the temporary import permit to any of our subsidiaries.  In early 2000, the drilling contract was extended for another year.  On January 10, 2000, the temporary import permit granted to the Schlumberger entity expired, and renewal filings were not made until later that January.  In April 2000, the Brazilian customs authorities cancelled the temporary import permit.  The Schlumberger entity filed an action in the Brazilian federal court of Campos for the purpose of extending the temporary admission.  Other proceedings were also initiated in order to secure the transfer of the temporary admission to our subsidiary.  Ultimately, the court permitted the transfer of the temporary admission from Schlumberger to our subsidiary but did not rule on whether the temporary admission could be extended without the payment of a financial penalty.  During the first quarter of 2004, the Brazilian customs authorities issued an assessment totaling approximately $133 million against our subsidiary.
 
The first level Brazilian court ruled in April 2007 that the temporary admission granted to our subsidiary had expired which allowed the Brazilian customs authorities to execute on their assessment.  Following this ruling, the Brazilian customs authorities issued a revised assessment against our subsidiary.  As of February 15, 2008, the U.S. dollar equivalent of this assessment was approximately $222 million in aggregate.  We are not certain as to the basis for the increase in the amount of the assessment, and in September 2007, we received a temporary ruling in our favor from a Brazilian federal court that the valuation method used by the Brazilian customs authorities was incorrect.  This temporary ruling was confirmed in January 2008 by a local court, but it is still subject to review at the appellate levels in Brazil.  We intend to continue to aggressively contest this matter and we have appealed the first level Brazilian court’s ruling to a higher level court in Brazil.  There may be further judicial or administrative proceedings that result from this matter.  While the court has granted us the right to continue our appeal without the posting of a bond, it is possible that we may be required to post a bond for up to the full amount of the assessment in connection with these proceedings.  We have also put Schlumberger on notice that we consider any assessment to be solely the responsibility of Schlumberger, not our subsidiary.  Nevertheless, we expect that the Brazilian customs authorities will continue to seek to recover the assessment solely from our subsidiary, not Schlumberger.  Schlumberger has denied any responsibility for this matter, but remains a party to the proceedings.  We do not expect the liability, if any, resulting from this matter to have a material adverse effect on our consolidated statement of financial position, results of operations or cash flows.
 
In the third quarter of 2006, we received tax assessments of approximately $130 million from the state tax authorities of Rio de Janeiro in Brazil against one of our Brazilian subsidiaries for customs taxes on equipment imported into the state in connection with our operations.  The assessments resulted from a preliminary finding by these authorities that our subsidiary’s record keeping practices were deficient.  We currently believe that the substantial majority of these assessments are without merit.  We filed an initial response with the Rio de Janeiro tax authorities on September 9, 2006 refuting these additional tax assessments.  In September 2007, we received confirmation from the state tax authorities that they believe the additional tax assessments are valid, and as a result, we filed an appeal on September 27, 2007 to the state Taxpayer’s Council contesting these assessments.  While we cannot predict or provide assurance as to the final outcome of these proceedings, we do not expect it to have a material adverse effect on our consolidated statement of financial position, results of operations or cash flows.
 
One of our subsidiaries is involved in lawsuits arising out of the subsidiary’s involvement in the design, construction and refurbishment of major industrial complexes.  The operating assets of the subsidiary were sold and its operations discontinued in 1989, and the subsidiary has no remaining assets other than the insurance policies involved in its litigation, fundings from settlements with the primary insurers and funds received from the cancellation of certain insurance policies.  The subsidiary has been named as a defendant, along with numerous other companies, in lawsuits alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos.  As of December 31, 2007, the subsidiary was a defendant in approximately 1,041 lawsuits with 102 filed during 2007.  Some of these lawsuits include multiple plaintiffs and we estimate that there are approximately 3,380 plaintiffs in these lawsuits.  For many of these lawsuits against the subsidiary, we have not been provided with sufficient information from the plaintiffs to determine whether all or some of the plaintiffs have claims against the subsidiary, the basis of any such claims, or the nature of their alleged injuries.  The first of the asbestos-related lawsuits was filed against this subsidiary in 1990.  Through December 31, 2007, the amounts expended to resolve claims (including both attorneys’ fees and expenses, and settlement costs), have not been material, and all deductibles with respect to the primary insurance have been satisfied. The subsidiary continues to be named as a defendant in additional lawsuits and we cannot predict the number of additional cases in which it may be named a defendant nor can we predict the potential costs to resolve such additional cases or to resolve the pending cases.  However, the subsidiary has in excess of $1 billion in insurance limits.  Although not all of the policies may be fully available due to the insolvency of certain insurers, we believe that the subsidiary will have sufficient insurance and funds from the settlements of litigation with insurance carriers available to respond to these claims.  While we cannot predict or provide assurance as to the final outcome of these matters, we do not believe the current value of the claims where we have been identified will have a material impact on our consolidated statement of financial position, results of operations or cash flows.
 
-24-


We are involved in various tax matters as described in "Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations—Outlook–Tax Matters" and various regulatory matters as described in “Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations—Outlook–Regulatory Matters.” We are involved in lawsuits relating to damage claims arising out of hurricanes Katrina and Rita, all of which are insured and which are not material to us.  We are also involved in a number of other lawsuits, including a dispute for municipal tax payments in Brazil and a dispute involving customs procedures in India, neither of which is material to us, and all of which have arisen in the ordinary course of our business.  We do not expect the liability, if any, resulting from these other matters to have a material adverse effect on our consolidated statement of financial position, results of operations or cash flows.  We cannot predict with certainty the outcome or effect of any of the litigation matters specifically described above or of any such other pending or threatened litigation.  There can be no assurance that our beliefs or expectations as to the outcome or effect of any lawsuit or other litigation matter will prove correct and the eventual outcome of these matters could materially differ from management’s current estimates.
 
Environmental Matters
 
We have certain potential liabilities under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (“CERCLA”) and similar state acts regulating cleanup of various hazardous waste disposal sites, including those described below.  CERCLA is intended to expedite the remediation of hazardous substances without regard to fault.  Potentially responsible parties (“PRPs”) for each site include present and former owners and operators of, transporters to and generators of the substances at the site.  Liability is strict and can be joint and several.
 
We have been named as a PRP in connection with a site located in Santa Fe Springs, California, known as the Waste Disposal, Inc. site.  We and other PRPs have agreed with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) and the DOJ to settle our potential liabilities for this site by agreeing to perform the remaining remediation required by the EPA.  The form of the agreement is a consent decree, which has now been entered by the court.  The parties to the settlement have entered into a participation agreement, which makes us liable for approximately eight percent of the remediation and related costs.  The remediation is complete, and we believe our share of the future operation and maintenance costs of the site is not material.  There are additional potential liabilities related to the site, but these cannot be quantified, and we have no reason at this time to believe that they will be material.
 
We have also been named as a PRP in connection with a site in California known as the Casmalia Resources Site.  We and other PRPs have entered into an agreement with the EPA and the DOJ to resolve potential liabilities.  Under the settlement, we are not likely to owe any substantial additional amounts for this site beyond what we have already paid.  There are additional potential liabilities related to this site, but these cannot be quantified at this time, and we have no reason at this time to believe that they will be material.
 
We have been named as one of many PRPs in connection with a site located in Carson, California, formerly maintained by Cal Compact Landfill.  On February 15, 2002, we were served with a required 90-day notification that eight California cities, on behalf of themselves and other PRPs, intend to commence an action against us under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (“RCRA”).  On April 1, 2002, a complaint was filed by the cities against us and others alleging that we have liabilities in connection with the site.  However, the complaint has not been served.  The site was closed in or around 1965, and we do not have sufficient information to enable us to assess our potential liability, if any, for this site.
 
One of our subsidiaries has recently been ordered by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board to develop a testing plan for a site known as Campus 1000 Fremont in Alhambra, California.  This site was formerly owned and operated by certain of our subsidiaries.  It is presently owned by an unrelated party, which has received an order to test the property, the cost of which is expected to be in the range of $200,000.  We have also been advised that one or more of our subsidiaries is likely to be named by the EPA as a PRP for the San Gabriel Valley, Area 3, Superfund site, which includes this property.  We have no knowledge at this time of the potential cost of any remediation, who else will be named as PRPs, and whether in fact any of our subsidiaries is a responsible party.  The subsidiaries in question do not own any operating assets and have limited ability to respond to any liabilities.
 
-25-


One of our subsidiaries has been requested to contribute approximately $140,000 toward remediation costs of the Environmental Protection Corporation (“EPC”) Eastside Disposal Facility near Bakersfield, California, by a company that has taken responsibility for site remediation from the California Department of Toxic Substances Control.  Our subsidiary is alleged to have been a small contributor of the wastes that were improperly disposed by EPC at the site.  We have undertaken an investigation as to whether our subsidiary is a liable party, what the total remediation costs may be and the amount of waste that may have been contributed by other parties.  Until that investigation is complete we are unable to assess our potential liability, if any, for this site.
 
Resolutions of other claims by the EPA, the involved state agency or PRPs are at various stages of investigation.  These investigations involve determinations of:
 
 
§
the actual responsibility attributed to us and the other PRPs at the site;
 
§
appropriate investigatory and/or remedial actions; and
 
§
allocation of the costs of such activities among the PRPs and other site users.
 
Our ultimate financial responsibility in connection with those sites may depend on many factors, including:
 
 
§
the volume and nature of material, if any, contributed to the site for which we are responsible;
 
§
the numbers of other PRPs and their financial viability; and
 
§
the remediation methods and technology to be used.
 
It is difficult to quantify with certainty the potential cost of these environmental matters, particularly in respect of remediation obligations.  Nevertheless, based upon the information currently available, we believe that our ultimate liability arising from all environmental matters, including the liability for all other related pending legal proceedings, asserted legal claims and known potential legal claims which are likely to be asserted, is adequately accrued and should not have a material effect on our financial position or ongoing results of operations.  Estimated costs of future expenditures for environmental remediation obligations are not discounted to their present value.
 
Contamination LitigationOn July 11, 2005, one of our subsidiaries was served with a lawsuit filed on behalf of three landowners in Louisiana in the 12th Judicial District Court for the Parish of Avoyelles, State of Louisiana.  The lawsuit named nineteen other defendants, all of which were alleged to have contaminated the plaintiffs’ property with naturally occurring radioactive material, produced water, drilling fluids, chlorides, hydrocarbons, heavy metals and other contaminants as a result of oil and gas exploration activities.  Experts retained by the plaintiffs issued a report suggesting significant contamination in the area operated by the subsidiary and another codefendant, and claimed that over $300 million would be required to properly remediate the contamination.  The experts retained by the defendants conducted their own investigation and concluded that the remediation costs would amount to no more than $2.5 million.
 
The plaintiffs and the codefendant threatened to add GlobalSantaFe Corporation as a defendant in the lawsuit under the “single business enterprise” doctrine contained in Louisiana law.  The single business enterprise doctrine is similar to corporate veil piercing doctrines.  On August 16, 2006, our subsidiary and its immediate parent company, which is also an entity that no longer conducts operations or holds assets, filed voluntary petitions for relief under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware.  Later that day, the plaintiffs dismissed our subsidiary from the lawsuit.  Subsequently, the codefendant filed various motions in the lawsuit and in the Delaware bankruptcies attempting to assert alter ego and single business enterprise claims against GlobalSantaFe Corporation and two other subsidiaries in the lawsuit.  We believe that these legal theories should not be applied against GlobalSantaFe Corporation or these other two subsidiaries, and that in any event the manner in which the parent and its subsidiaries conducted their businesses does not meet the requirements of these theories for imposition of liability.  The codefendant also seeks to dismiss the bankruptcies.  The efforts to assert alter ego and single business enterprise theory claims against GlobalSantaFe Corporation were rejected by the Court in Avoyelles Parish and the lawsuit against the other defendant went to trial on February 19, 2007.  The action was resolved at trial with a settlement by the codefendant that included a $20 million payment and certain cleanup activities to be conducted by the codefendant.  The settlement also purported to assign the plaintiffs’ claims in the lawsuit against our subsidiary and other parties, including GlobalSantaFe Corporation and the other two subsidiaries, to the codefendant.
 
In the bankruptcy case, our subsidiary has filed suit to obtain declaratory and injunctive relief against the codefendant concerning the matters described above and GlobalSantaFe Corporation has intervened in the matter.  The codefendant is seeking to dismiss the bankruptcy case and a modification of the automatic stay afforded under the Bankruptcy Code to our subsidiary and its parent so that the codefendant may pursue the entities and GlobalSantaFe Corporation for contribution and indemnity and the purported assigned rights from the plaintiffs in the lawsuit including the alter ego and single business enterprise claims and potential insurance rights.  On February 15, 2008, the Bankruptcy Court denied the codefendant’s request to dismiss the bankruptcy case but modified the automatic stay to allow the codefendant to proceed on its claims against the debtors, our subsidiary and its parent, and their insurance companies.  The Bankruptcy Court will hold a hearing to determine the forum where these actions may proceed.  The Bankruptcy Court did not address the codefendant’s pending claims against GlobalSantaFe Corporation and the other two subsidiaries, which will also be the subject of a future hearing.  The Bankruptcy Court also denied the debtors’ requests for preliminary declaratory and injunctive relief.
 
-26-


In addition, the codefendant has filed proofs of claim against both our subsidiary and its parent with regard to its claims arising out of the settlement agreement, including recovery of the settlement funds and remediation costs and damages for the purported assigned claims.  A Motion for Partial Summary Judgment seeking annulment and dismissal of the codefendant’s proofs of claim has also been filed by the debtors and remains pending.  Our subsidiary, its parent and GlobalSantaFe Corporation intend to continue to vigorously defend against any action taken in an attempt to impose liability against them under the theories discussed above or otherwise and believe they have good and valid defenses thereto.  We are unable to determine the value of these claims as of the date of the Merger. We do not believe that these claims will have a material impact on our consolidated statement of financial position, results of operations or cash flows.
 
 
ITEM 4.
Submission of Matters to a Vote of Security Holders
 
At a meeting of shareholders of Transocean Inc. held on November 9, 2007, 216,923,167 shares were presented in person or by proxy out of 290,802,547 shares outstanding and entitled to vote as of the record date, constituting a quorum.  The matters submitted to a vote of shareholders, as set forth in our proxy statement relating to the meeting, and the corresponding voting results were as follows:
 
 
(i)
With respect to the approval of a scheme of arrangement providing for the Reclassification, the following number of votes were cast:
 
For
 
Against /
authority withheld
 
Abstain
213,967,649
 
938,988
 
2,016,530

 
(ii)
With respect to the approval of the issuance of our ordinary shares to GlobalSantaFe shareholders in the Merger, the following number of votes were cast:
 
For
 
Against /
authority withheld
 
Abstain
213,970,926
 
1,038,212
 
1,914,029

 
(iii)
With respect to the approval of the amendment and restatement of our memorandum of association and articles of association, the following number of votes were cast:
 
For
 
Against /
authority withheld
 
Abstain
213,957,432
 
1,017,437
 
1,948,298
 
Executive Officers of the Registrant
 
   
Age as of
Officer
Office
February 27, 2008
Robert L. Long
Chief Executive Officer
62
Jon A. Marshall
President and Chief Operating Officer
56
Jean P. Cahuzac
Executive Vice President, Assets
54
Steven L. Newman
Executive Vice President, Performance
43
Eric B. Brown
Senior Vice President and General Counsel
56
Gregory L. Cauthen
Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
50
David J. Mullen
Senior Vice President, Marketing and Planning
50
Cheryl D. Richard
SeSenior Vice President, Human Resources and Information Technology
51
John H. Briscoe
Vice President and Controller
50

 
The officers of the Company are elected annually by the board of directors.  There is no family relationship between any of the above-named executive officers.
 
Robert L. Long is Chief Executive Officer and a member of the board of directors of the Company.  Mr. Long served as President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company and a member of the board of directors from October 2002 to October 2006, at which time he relinquished the position of President.  Mr. Long served as President of the Company from December 2001 to October 2002.  Mr. Long served as Chief Financial Officer of the Company from August 1996 until December 2001.  Mr. Long served as Senior Vice President of the Company from May 1990 until the time of the Sedco Forex merger, at which time he assumed the position of Executive Vice President.  Mr. Long also served as Treasurer of the Company from September 1997 until March 2001.  Mr. Long has been employed by the Company since 1976 and was elected Vice President in 1987.
 

-27-


Jon A. Marshall is President and Chief Operating Officer and a member of the board of directors of the Company.  Mr. Marshall served as a director and Chief Executive Officer of GlobalSantaFe from May 2003 until November 2007, when GlobalSantaFe merged with a subsidiary of the Company.  Mr. Marshall served as the Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer of GlobalSantaFe from November 2001 until May 2003.  From 1998 to November 2001, Mr. Marshall was employed with Global Marine Inc. (which merged into a subsidiary of Santa Fe International Corporation, which was renamed GlobalSantaFe Corporation in the merger), where he held the same position.  Prior to that, Mr. Marshall served as President of several Global Marine operating subsidiaries.  Mr. Marshall joined Global Marine in 1979 and held numerous operational and managerial positions before his promotion to President.
 
Jean P. Cahuzac is Executive Vice President, Assets of the Company.  Mr. Cahuzac served as President of the Company from October 2006 to November 2007, at which time he assumed his current position.  Mr. Cahuzac served as Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer of the Company from October 2002 to October 2006 and Executive Vice President, Operations of the Company from February 2001 until October 2002.  Mr. Cahuzac served as President of Sedco Forex from January 1999 until the time of the Sedco Forex merger, at which time he assumed the positions of Executive Vice President and President, Europe, Middle East and Africa with the Company.  Mr. Cahuzac served as Vice President-Operations Manager of Sedco Forex from May 1998 to January 1999, Region Manager-Europe, Africa and CIS of Sedco Forex from September 1994 to May 1998 and Vice President/General Manager-North Sea Region of Sedco Forex from February 1994 to September 1994.  He had been employed by Schlumberger Limited since 1979.
 
Steven L. Newman is Executive Vice President, Performance of the Company.  Mr. Newman served as Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer from October 2006 to November 2007 and Senior Vice President of Human Resources and Information Process Solutions from May 2006 to October 2006.  He served as Senior Vice President of Human Resources, Information Process Solutions and Treasury from March 2005 to May 2006.  Mr. Newman served as Vice President of Performance and Technology of the Company from August 2003 until March 2005.  Mr. Newman served as Region Manager, Asia Australia from May 2001 until August 2003.  From December 2000 to May 2001, Mr. Newman served as Region Operations Manager of the Africa-Mediterranean Region of the Company.  From April 1999 to December 2000, Mr. Newman served in various operational and marketing roles in the Africa-Mediterranean and U.K. region offices.  Mr. Newman has been employed by the Company since 1994.
 
Eric B. Brown is Senior Vice President and General Counsel of the Company.  Mr. Brown served as Vice President and General Counsel of the Company since February 1995 and Corporate Secretary of the Company from September 1995 until October 2007.  He assumed the position of Senior Vice President in February 2001.  Prior to assuming his duties with the Company, Mr. Brown served as General Counsel of Coastal Gas Marketing Company.
 
Gregory L. Cauthen is Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company.  He was also Treasurer of the Company until July 2003.  Mr. Cauthen served as Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer from December 2001 until he was elected in July 2002 as Senior Vice President.  Mr. Cauthen served as Vice President, Finance from March 2001 to December 2001.  Prior to joining the Company, he served as President and Chief Executive Officer of WebCaskets.com, Inc., a provider of death care services, from June 2000 until February 2001.  Prior to June 2000, he was employed at Service Corporation International, a provider of death care services, where he served as Senior Vice President, Financial Services from July 1998 to August 1999, Vice President, Treasurer from July 1995 to July 1998, was assigned to various special projects from August 1999 to May 2000 and had been employed in various other positions since February 1991.
 
David J. Mullen is Senior Vice President, Marketing and Planning of the Company.  Mr. Mullen served as Vice President of the Company’s North and South America Unit from January 2005 to October 2006, when he assumed his present position.  From May 2001 to January 2005, Mr. Mullen was President of Schlumberger Oilfield Services for North and South America, and Mr. Mullen served as the Company’s Vice President of Human Resources from January 2000 to May 2001.  Prior to joining the Company at the time of our merger with Sedco Forex, Mr. Mullen served in a variety of roles with Schlumberger Limited, where he had been employed since 1983.
 
Cheryl D. Richard is Senior Vice President, Human Resources and Information Technology of the Company.  Ms. Richard served as Senior Vice President, Human Resources of GlobalSantaFe from June 2003 until the date of the Merger.  Ms. Richard was Vice President, Human Resources, with Chevron Phillips Chemical Company from 2000 to June 2003, prior to which she served in a variety of positions with Phillips Petroleum Company (now ConocoPhillips), including operational, commercial and international positions.
 
John H. Briscoe is Vice President and Controller of the Company.  Mr. Briscoe served as Vice President, Audit and Advisory Services from June 2007 to October 2007 and Director of Investor Relations and Communications from January 2007 to June 2007.  From June 2005 to January 2007, Mr. Briscoe served as Finance Director for the Company’s North and South America Unit.  Prior to joining the Company in June 2005, Mr. Briscoe served as Vice President of Accounting for Ferrellgas Inc. from July 2003 to June 2005, Vice President of Administration from June 2002 to July 2003 and Division Controller from June 1997 to June 2002.  Prior to working for Ferrellgas, Mr. Briscoe served as Controller for Latin America for Dresser Industries Inc., which has subsequently been acquired by Halliburton, Inc.  Mr. Briscoe started his career with seven years in public accounting beginning with the firm of KPMG and ending with Ernst & Young as an Audit Manager.

-28-

 
PART II
 
 
ITEM 5.
Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Shareholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities
 
Our ordinary shares are listed on the New York Stock Exchange (the “NYSE”) under the symbol “RIG.” The following table sets forth the high and low sales prices of our ordinary shares for the periods indicated as reported on the NYSE Composite Tape.
 

   
Price
 
   
High
   
Low
 
2006
           
First quarter (a)
  $ 84.29     $ 70.05  
Second quarter (a)
    90.16       70.75  
Third quarter (a)
    81.63       64.52  
Fourth quarter (a)
    84.23       65.57  
                 
2007
               
First quarter (a)
  $ 83.20     $ 72.47  
Second quarter (a)
    109.20       80.50  
Third quarter (a)
    120.88       92.61  
Fourth quarter
    149.62       107.37  
 
 _________________
(a)
The stock prices presented reflect the historical market prices and have not been restated to reflect the effects of the Reclassification or the Merger.

On February 22, 2008, the last reported sales price of our ordinary shares on the NYSE Composite Tape was $137.96 per share.  On such date, there were 5,250 holders of record of our ordinary shares and 317,748,270 ordinary shares outstanding.
 
On November 27, 2007, each of our ordinary shares outstanding at the time of the Reclassification was reclassified by way of a scheme of arrangement under Cayman Islands law into 0.6996 of our ordinary shares and $33.03 in cash.  The closing price of our ordinary shares on November 26, 2007, the last trading day before the completion of the Transactions, was $129.39.  The opening price of our ordinary shares on November 27, 2007, after the completion of the Transactions, was $133.38.
 
Although our shareholders received cash in the Reclassification, we did not declare or pay a cash dividend in either of the two most recent fiscal years.  Any future declaration and payment of any cash dividends will (1) depend on our results of operations, financial condition, cash requirements and other relevant factors, (2) be subject to the discretion of the board of directors, (3) be subject to restrictions contained in our credit facilities and other debt covenants and (4) be payable only out of our profits or share premium account in accordance with Cayman Islands law.
 
There is currently no reciprocal tax treaty between the Cayman Islands and the United States.  Under current Cayman Islands law, there is no withholding tax on dividends.
 
We are a Cayman Islands exempted company.  Our authorized share capital is $13,000,000, divided into 800,000,000 ordinary shares, par value $0.01, and 50,000,000 preference shares, par value $0.10, of which shares may be designated and created as shares of any other classes or series of shares with the respective rights and restrictions determined by action of our board of directors.  On February 27, 2008, no preference shares were outstanding.
 
The holders of ordinary shares are entitled to one vote per share other than on the election of directors.
 
With respect to the election of directors, each holder of ordinary shares entitled to vote at the election has the right to vote, in person or by proxy, the number of shares held by him for as many persons as there are directors to be elected and for whose election that holder has a right to vote.  The directors are divided into three classes, with only one class being up for election each year.  Although our articles of association contemplate that directors are elected by a plurality of the votes cast in the election, we have adopted a majority vote policy in the election of directors as part of our Corporate Governance Guidelines.  This policy provides that the board may nominate only those candidates for director who have submitted an irrevocable letter of resignation which would be effective upon and only in the event that (1) such nominee fails to receive a sufficient number of votes from shareholders in an uncontested election and (2) the board accepts the resignation.  If a nominee who has submitted such a letter of resignation does not receive more votes cast for than against the nominee’s election, the Corporate Governance Committee must promptly review the letter of resignation and recommend to the board whether to accept the tendered resignation or reject it.  The board must then act on the Corporate Governance Committee’s recommendation within 90 days following the certification of the shareholder vote.  The board must promptly disclose its decision regarding whether or not to accept the nominee’s resignation letter in a Form 8-K furnished to the SEC or other broadly disseminated means of communication.  Cumulative voting for the election of directors is prohibited by our articles of association.
 
-29-


There are no limitations imposed by Cayman Islands law or our articles of association on the right of nonresident shareholders to hold or vote their ordinary shares.
 
The rights attached to any separate class or series of shares, unless otherwise provided by the terms of the shares of that class or series, may be varied only with the consent in writing of the holders of all of the issued shares of that class or series or by a special resolution passed at a separate general meeting of holders of the shares of that class or series.  The necessary quorum for that meeting is the presence of holders of at least a majority of the shares of that class or series.  Each holder of shares of the class or series present, in person or by proxy, will have one vote for each share of the class or series of which he is the holder.  Outstanding shares will not be deemed to be varied by the creation or issuance of additional shares that rank in any respect prior to or equivalent with those shares.
 
Under Cayman Islands law, some matters, like altering the memorandum or articles of association, changing the name of a company, voluntarily winding up a company or resolving to be registered by way of continuation in a jurisdiction outside the Cayman Islands, require approval of shareholders by a special resolution.  A special resolution is a resolution (i) passed by the holders of two-thirds of the shares voted at a general meeting or (ii) approved in writing by all shareholders entitled to vote at a general meeting of the company.
 
The presence of shareholders, in person or by proxy, holding at least a majority of the issued shares generally entitled to vote at a meeting, is a quorum for the transaction of most business.  However, different quorums are required in some cases to approve a change in our articles of association.
 
Our board of directors is authorized, without obtaining any vote or consent of the holders of any class or series of shares unless expressly provided by the terms of issue of that class or series, to provide from time to time for the issuance of classes or series of preference shares and to establish the characteristics of each class or series, including the number of shares, designations, relative voting rights, dividend rights, liquidation and other rights, redemption, repurchase or exchange rights and any other preferences and relative, participating, optional or other rights and limitations not inconsistent with applicable law.
 
Our articles of association contain provisions that could prevent or delay an acquisition of our Company by means of a tender offer, proxy contest or otherwise.  See “Item 1A. Risk Factors—We are subject to anti-takeover provisions.”
 
The foregoing description is a summary.  This summary is not complete and is subject to the complete text of our memorandum and articles of association.  For more information regarding our ordinary shares and our preference shares, see our Current Report on Form 8-K dated May 14, 1999, as amended by our Current Report on Form 8-K/A filed on November 27, 2007, and our memorandum and articles of association.  Our memorandum and articles of association are filed as exhibits to this annual report.
 
-30-

 
Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities
 
                         
Period
 
Total Number
of Shares
Purchased (1)
   
Average Price
Paid Per Share
   
Total Number of Shares Purchased as Part of Publicly Announced Plans or Programs (2)
   
Maximum Number
(or Approximate Dollar Value) of Shares that May Yet Be Purchased Under the Plans or Programs (2)
(in millions)
 
October 2007
        $             600  
November 2007
    203,333       133.82             600  
December 2007
    1,636       136.61             600  
Total
    204,969     $ 133.84             600  
  _________________
(1)
Total number of shares purchased in the fourth quarter of 2007 consists of shares withheld by us in satisfaction of withholding taxes due upon the vesting of restricted shares granted to our employees under our Long-Term Incentive Plan to pay withholding taxes due upon vesting of a restricted share award.

(2)
In May 2006, our board of directors authorized an increase in the amount of ordinary shares which may be repurchased pursuant to our share repurchase program to $4.0 billion from $2.0 billion, which was previously authorized and announced in October 2005.  The shares may be repurchased from time to time in open market or private transactions.  The repurchase program does not have an established expiration date and may be suspended or discontinued at any time.  Under the program, repurchased shares are retired and returned to unissued status.  From inception through December 31, 2007, we have repurchased a total of 46.9 million of our ordinary shares at a total cost of $3.4 billion.  We do not currently expect to make any additional share repurchases under the program in the near future.
 
ITEM 6.
Selected Financial Data
 
The selected financial data as of December 31, 2007 and 2006 and for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2007 has been derived from the audited consolidated financial statements included in “Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data.” The selected financial data as of December 31, 2005, 2004 and 2003, and for the years ended December 31, 2004 and 2003 has been derived from audited consolidated financial statements not included herein.  The following data should be read in conjunction with “Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” and the audited consolidated financial statements and the notes thereto included under “Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data.”
 
We consolidated TODCO in our financial statements as a business segment through December 16, 2004 and that portion of TODCO that we did not own was reported as minority interest in our consolidated statements of operations and balance sheet.  Our ownership and voting interest in TODCO declined to approximately 22 percent on that date and we no longer consolidated TODCO in our financial statements but accounted for our remaining investment using the equity method of accounting.
 
In May 2005 and June 2005, respectively, we completed a public offering and a sale of TODCO common stock pursuant to Rule 144 under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (respectively referred to as the “May Offering” and the “June Sale”).  After the May Offering, we accounted for our remaining investment using the cost method of accounting.  As a result of the June Sale, we no longer own any shares of TODCO’s common stock.
 
In November 2007, we completed our merger with GlobalSantaFe and identified the Company as the acquirer in a purchase business combination for accounting purposes.  The balance sheet data as of December 31, 2007 represents the consolidated statement of financial position of the combined company.  The statement of operations and other financial data for the year ended December 31, 2007 include approximately one month of operating results and cash flows for the combined company.  Per share amounts for all periods have been adjusted for the Reclassification.  The Reclassification was accounted for as a reverse stock split and a dividend, which requires restatement of historical weighted average shares outstanding and historical earnings per share for prior periods.
 
-31-

 
   
Years ended December 31,
 
   
2007
   
2006
   
2005
   
2004
   
2003
 
   
(In millions, except per share data)
 
Statement of operations data
                             
Operating revenues
  $ 6,377     $ 3,882     $ 2,892     $ 2,614     $ 2,434  
Operating income
    3,239       1,641       720       328       240  
Net income (a)
    3,131       1,385       716       152       19  
                                         
Earnings per share
                                       
Basic
  $ 14.65     $ 6.32     $ 3.13     $ 0.68     $ 0.08  
Diluted
  $ 14.14     $ 6.10     $ 3.03     $ 0.67     $ 0.08  
                                         
Balance sheet data (at end of period)
                                       
Total assets
  $ 34,364     $ 11,476     $ 10,457     $ 10,758     $ 11,663  
Debt due within one year
    6,172       95       400       19       46  
Long-term debt
    11,085       3,203       1,197       2,462       3,612  
Total shareholders’ equity
    12,566       6,836       7,982       7,393       7,193  
                                         
Other financial data
                                       
Cash provided by operating activities
  $ 3,073     $ 1,237     $ 864     $ 600     $ 525  
Cash provided by (used in) investing activities
    (5,677 )     (415 )     169       551       (445 )
Cash provided by (used in) financing activities
    3,378       (800 )     (1,039 )     (1,174 )     (820 )
Capital expenditures
    1,380       876       182       127       494  
Operating margin
    51 %     42 %     25 %     13 %     10 %
  _________________
(a)
In the year ended December 31, 2003, we recorded a cumulative effect of an accounting change in the amount of $1 million, with no effect on basic or diluted earnings per share.
 
ITEM 7.
Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations
 
The following information should be read in conjunction with the information contained in “Item 1. Business,” “Item 1A. Risk Factors” and the audited consolidated financial statements and the notes thereto included under “Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data” elsewhere in this annual report.
 
Overview
 
Transocean Inc. (together with its subsidiaries and predecessors, unless the context requires otherwise, “Transocean,” the “Company,” “we,” “us” or “our”) is a leading international provider of offshore contract drilling services for oil and gas wells.  As of February 20, 2008, we owned, had partial ownership interests in or operated 139 mobile offshore drilling units.  As of this date, our fleet included 39 High-Specification Floaters (Ultra-Deepwater, Deepwater and Harsh Environment semisubmersibles and drillships), 29 Midwater Floaters, 10 High-Specification Jackups, 57 Standard Jackups and four Other Rigs.  We also have eight Ultra-Deepwater Floaters contracted for or under construction.
 
We believe our mobile offshore drilling fleet is one of the most modern and versatile fleets in the world.  Our primary business is to contract these drilling rigs, related equipment and work crews primarily on a dayrate basis to drill oil and gas wells.  We specialize in technically demanding segments of the offshore drilling business with a particular focus on deepwater and harsh environment drilling services.  We also provide oil and gas drilling management services on either a dayrate basis or a completed-project, fixed-price (or “turnkey”) basis, as well as drilling engineering and drilling project management services, and we participate in oil and gas exploration and production activities.
 
In November 2007, we completed our merger transaction (the “Merger”) with GlobalSantaFe Corporation (“GlobalSantaFe”).  The Merger was accounted for as a purchase, with the Company as the acquirer for accounting purposes.  See “—Significant Events.”  At the time of the Merger, GlobalSantaFe owned, had partial ownership interests in, operated, had under construction or contracted for construction, 61 mobile offshore drilling units and other units utilized in the support of offshore drilling activities.  The balance sheet data as of December 31, 2007 represents the consolidated statement of financial position of the combined company.  The statement of operations and other financial data for the year ended December 31, 2007 include approximately one month of operating results and cash flows for the combined company.
 
-32-


Key measures of our total company results of operations and financial condition are as follows:
 
   
Years ended December 31,
       
   
2007
   
2006
   
Change
 
   
(In millions, except average daily revenue and percentages)
 
Average daily revenue (a)(b)
  $ 211,900     $ 142,100     $ 69,800  
Utilization (b)(c)
    90 %     84 %     n/a  
Statement of operations data
                       
Operating revenues
  $ 6,377     $ 3,882     $ 2,495  
Operating and maintenance expenses
    2,781       2,155       626  
Operating income
    3,239       1,641       1,598  
Net income
    3,131       1,385       1,746  
Balance sheet data (at end of period)
                       
Cash and cash equivalents
    1,241       467       774  
Total assets
    34,364       11,476       22,888  
Total debt
    17,257       3,298       13,959  
_________________
  “n/a” means not applicable.

(a)
Average daily revenue is defined as contract drilling revenue earned per revenue earning day.  A revenue earning day is defined as a day for which a rig earns dayrate after commencement of operations.
(b)
Excludes a drillship engaged in scientific geological coring activities, the Joides Resolution, that is owned by a joint venture in which we have a 50 percent interest and is accounted for under the equity method of accounting.
(c)
Utilization is the total actual number of revenue earning days as a percentage of the total number of calendar days in the period.

We continue to experience strong demand, which has resulted in high utilization and historically high dayrates.  We are seeing leading dayrates at or near record levels for most rig classes and customer interest for multi-year contracts.  Interest in High-Specification Floaters remains particularly strong.
 
A shortage of qualified personnel in our industry is driving up compensation costs and suppliers are increasing prices as their backlogs grow.  These labor and vendor cost increases, while meaningful, are not expected to be significant in comparison with our expected increase in revenue in 2008 and beyond.
 
Our revenues for the year ended December 31, 2007 increased from the prior year period primarily as a result of increased activity, higher dayrates and the addition of GlobalSantaFe’s operations for one month.  Our operating and maintenance expenses for the year increased primarily as a result of higher labor and rig maintenance costs in connection with such increased activity as well as inflationary cost increases and the addition of GlobalSantaFe’s operations (see “—Outlook”).  In addition, our financial results for the year ended December 31, 2007 included the recognition of gains from the sales of three rigs and other income recognized under the TODCO tax sharing agreement.  Total debt increased as a result of cash payments made in the Reclassification and Merger, which were financed with borrowings under the Bridge Loan Facility and refinanced with the issuance of the convertible senior notes and the senior notes and borrowings under the 364-Day Revolving Credit Facility.  See “—Liquidity and Capital Resources–Sources and Uses of Liquidity.”
 
Prior to the Merger, we operated in one business segment.  As a result of the Merger, we have established two reportable segments: (1) Contract Drilling and (2) Other.  The Contract Drilling segment consists of floaters, jackups and other rigs used in support of offshore drilling activities and offshore support services on a worldwide basis.  Our fleet operates in a single, global market for the provision of contract drilling services.  The location of our rigs and the allocation of resources to build or upgrade rigs are determined by the activities and needs of our customers.  The Other segment includes drilling management services and oil and gas properties.  Drilling management services are provided through Applied Drilling Technology Inc. (“ADTI”), our wholly owned subsidiary, and through ADT International, a division of one of our U.K. subsidiaries.  Drilling management services are provided primarily on a turnkey basis at a fixed bid amount.  Oil and gas properties consist of exploration, development and production activities carried out through Challenger Minerals Inc. and Challenger Minerals (North Sea) Limited (collectively, “CMI”), our oil and gas subsidiaries.
 
Significant Events
 
Merger with GlobalSantaFe—In November 2007, we completed the Merger with GlobalSantaFe.  See Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements—Note 4—Merger with GlobalSantaFe Corporation.
 
Contract Backlog—We have been successful in building contract backlog in 2007 within all of our asset classes.  Prior to the Merger, our contract backlog at October 30, 2007 was approximately $23 billion, a 15 percent and 109 percent increase compared to our contract backlog at December 31, 2006 and 2005, respectively.  Our contract backlog at December 31, 2007 was approximately $32 billion, which includes the effect of the Merger.  See “—Outlook–Drilling Market” and “—Performance and Other Key Indicators.”
 
-33-


TODCO Tax Sharing Agreement (“TSA”)—In July 2007, Hercules Offshore, Inc. (“Hercules”) completed the acquisition of TODCO.  The TSA requires Hercules to make an accelerated change of control payment to our wholly-owned subsidiary, Transocean Holdings Inc. within 30 days of the date of the acquisition as a result of the deemed utilization of TODCO’s pre-IPO tax benefits.  We received a $118 million change of control payment from Hercules in August 2007.  We recognized $276 million as other income in the third quarter of 2007 for this accelerated payment and payments received in prior periods related to TODCO’s 2006 and 2007 tax years.  See Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements—Note 15—Income Taxes.
 
Construction and Upgrade Programs—During 2007, we were awarded a drilling contract requiring the construction of a fourth enhanced Enterprise-class drillship.  We expect the rig to be contributed to a joint venture in which we expect to retain a 65 percent ownership interest.  The newbuild is expected to commence operations during the third quarter of 2010.  During 2006, we were awarded drilling contracts requiring the construction of three enhanced Enterprise-class drillships.  The newbuilds are expected to commence operations during the second quarter of 2009, mid-2009 and the first quarter of 2010, respectively.  See “—Outlook–Drilling Market.”
 
In connection with the Merger, we acquired one Ultra-Deepwater Floater under construction and one contracted for construction.  The newbuilds are expected to commence operations in mid-2009 and the third quarter of 2010.  See “—Outlook−Drilling Market.”
 
During 2005, we entered into agreements with clients to upgrade two of our Sedco 700-series semisubmersible rigs in our Midwater Floaters fleet, the Sedco 702 and the Sedco 706, at a cost expected to be approximately $300 million for each rig.  The upgraded rigs will be dynamically positioned and will have a water depth drilling capacity of up to 6,500 feet.  The Sedco 702 and Sedco 706 entered a shipyard for the upgrade in early 2006 and the fourth quarter of 2007, respectively.  We have completed the upgrade of the Sedco 702 and expect the rig to commence operations in the first quarter of 2008.  We expect the Sedco 706 upgrade to be completed in the fourth quarter of 2008.
 
Pacific Drilling Limited (“Pacific Drilling”)—In October 2007, we exercised our option to purchase a 50 percent interest in a joint venture company through which we and Pacific Drilling own two newbuild Ultra-Deepwater Floaters to be named Deepwater Pacific 1 and Deepwater Pacific 2.  The newbuilds are expected to commence operations during the second quarter of 2009 and first quarter of 2010.  See “—Liquidity and Capital Resources–Acquisitions, Dispositions and Capital Expenditures.”
 
Asset Dispositions—During 2007, we completed the sales of a Deepwater Floater (Peregrine I), a tender rig (Charley Graves) and a swamp barge (Searex VI) for net proceeds of $344 million and recognized gains on the sales of $264 million.  See “—Liquidity and Capital Resources–Acquisitions, Dispositions and Capital Expenditures.”
 
Bank Credit Agreements—In September 2007, we entered into a $15.0 billion, one-year senior unsecured bridge loan facility (“Bridge Loan Facility”).  See “—Liquidity and Capital Resources–Sources and Uses of Cash.”
 
In November 2007, we entered into a $2.0 billion, five-year revolving credit facility under the Five-Year Revolving Credit Facility Agreement dated November 27, 2007 (“Five-Year Revolving Credit Facility”).  See “—Liquidity and Capital Resources–Sources and Uses of Cash.”
 
In December 2007, we entered into a $1.5 billion, 364-Day revolving credit facility under the 364-Day Revolving Credit Facility Agreement dated December 3, 2007 (“364-Day Revolving Credit Facility”).  See “—Liquidity and Capital Resources–Sources and Uses of Cash.”
 
Debt Issuance—In December 2007, we issued $6.6 billion aggregate principal amount of 1.625% Series A Convertible Senior Notes due 2037, 1.50% Series B Convertible Senior Notes due 2037 and 1.50% Series C Convertible Senior Notes due 2037.  See “—Liquidity and Capital Resources–Sources and Uses of Liquidity.”
 
In December 2007, we issued $2.5 billion aggregate principal amount of 5.25% Senior Notes due 2013, 6.00% Senior Notes due 2018 and 6.80% Senior Notes due 2038.  See “—Liquidity and Capital Resources–Sources and Uses of Liquidity.”
 
Debt Repayments—In August 2007, we terminated our existing $1.0 billion two-year term credit facility due August 2008 (“Term Credit Facility”).  See “—Liquidity and Capital Resources–Sources and Uses of Liquidity.”
 
In connection with the Merger, we terminated our existing $1.0 billion five-year revolving credit facility expiring July 2011 (“Former Revolving Credit Facility”).  See “—Liquidity and Capital Resources–Sources and Uses of Liquidity.”
 
-34-


Debt Redemptions—During 2007, we called our Zero Coupon Convertible Debentures due May 2020 and our 1.5% Convertible Debentures due May 2021 for redemption.  See “—Liquidity and Capital Resources–Sources and Uses of Liquidity.”
 
Repurchase of Ordinary Shares—During 2007, we repurchased and retired 5.2 million of our ordinary shares at a total cost of $400 million.  See “—Liquidity and Capital Resources–Sources and Uses of Liquidity.” We do not currently expect to make any additional share repurchases under the program in the near future.
 
Outlook
 
Drilling Market—Demand for offshore drilling units continues to be strong, particularly for rigs capable of drilling in deepwater.  Our High-Specification Floater fleet is fully committed in 2008 and only eight of our High-Specification Floater fleet have any available uncommitted time in 2009.  We have only five rigs remaining in our Midwater Floater fleet that have any available uncommitted time left in 2008 and only 16 rigs remaining in this fleet that have any available uncommitted time left in 2009.  We have two High-Specification Jackups and 20 Standard Jackups that have uncommitted time left in 2008, and eight High-Specification Jackups and 36 Standard Jackups have uncommitted time left in 2009.  Dayrates for new contracts for both floaters and jackups continue to be strong.  Our contract backlog at February 20, 2008 was approximately $32 billion, up from approximately $23 billion at October 30, 2007, with approximately $9 billion of the increase due to the Merger.
 
In April 2007, we entered into a marketing and purchase option agreement with Pacific Drilling that provided us with the exclusive marketing right for two newbuild Ultra-Deepwater Floaters to be named Deepwater Pacific 1 and Deepwater Pacific 2, as well as an option to purchase a 50 percent interest in a joint venture company through which we and Pacific Drilling would own the drillships.  In October 2007, we obtained a firm commitment for the Deepwater Pacific 1, and we exercised our option and acquired a 50 percent interest in the joint venture, TPDI.  The Deepwater Pacific 1 was awarded a firm commitment for a four-year contract which may be converted by the customer to a five-year drilling contract on or prior to October 31, 2008.  The drilling contract is expected to commence in the second quarter of 2009 following shipyard construction, sea trials, mobilization to location and customer acceptance.  The Deepwater Pacific 2 is expected to be completed in the first quarter of 2010.  We are in advanced discussions with a customer regarding the award of a long-term contract for the rig.  We estimate total capital expenditures for the construction of these rigs to be approximately $685 million and $665 million, excluding capitalized interest, respectively.  See “—Liquidity and Capital Resources–Acquisitions, Dispositions and Capital Expenditures.”
 
As of December 31, 2007, we and Pacific Drilling had each paid $238 million in documented costs for the two rigs since the formation of the joint venture in October 2007.
 
We are providing construction management services for the Pacific Drilling newbuilds and have agreed to provide operating management services once the drillships begin operations.  Beginning on October 18, 2010, Pacific Drilling will have the right to exchange its interest in the joint venture for our ordinary shares or cash at a purchase price based on an appraisal of the fair value of the drillships, subject to various adjustments.
 
In June 2007, we were awarded a five-year drilling contract for a fourth enhanced Enterprise-class drillship.  The enhanced Enterprise-class drillship, to be named Discoverer Luanda, is expected to be owned and operated by a joint venture which is expected to be 65 percent owned by us and 35 percent owned by an Angolan partner.  We estimate total capital expenditures for the construction of the Discoverer Luanda to be approximately $640 million, excluding capitalized interest.  We currently expect the Discoverer Luanda to begin operations in Angola during the third quarter of 2010, after construction in South Korea followed by sea trials, mobilization to Angola and customer acceptance.
 
Prior to the Merger, GlobalSantaFe had one Ultra-Deepwater Floater under construction, the GSF Development Driller III, and one contracted for construction.  The GSF Development Driller III was awarded a seven-year drilling contract and is expected to be completed in mid-2009.  Construction on the other newbuild is expected to be completed in the third quarter of 2010.  We estimate total capital expenditures for the construction of the GSF Development Driller III to be approximately $590 million.  We estimate total capital expenditures for the construction of the other newbuild to be approximately $740 million, excluding capitalized interest.  We currently expect the GSF Development Driller III to begin operations in Angola in mid-2009, after construction in Singapore followed by sea trials, mobilization to Angola and customer acceptance.
 
We have been successful in building contract backlog within our High-Specification Floaters fleet with 23 of our 47 current and future High-Specification Floaters, including six of the eight newbuilds and the two Sedco 700-series rig upgrades, contracted into or beyond 2011 as of February 20, 2008.  These 23 units also include 16 of our 26 current Ultra-Deepwater Floaters.  Our total contract backlog of approximately $32 billion as of February 20, 2008 includes an estimated $21 billion of backlog represented by our High-Specification Floaters.  We continue to believe that the long-term outlook for deepwater capable rigs is favorable.  In 2007 we saw successful drilling efforts in the lower tertiary trend of the U.S. Gulf of Mexico; the discovery of light oil and non-associated gas in the deepwaters of Brazil; continued exploration success in the deepwaters offshore India; a discovery in the deepwaters of the South China Sea; and exploration activity in the Orphan Basin in Canada.  Additionally, the continued exploration success in the deepwaters of West Africa and the opening of additional deepwater acreage in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico supports our optimistic outlook for the deepwater drilling market sector.  In November 2007, we sold the Peregrine I as part of our overall strategy to dispose of older rigs that are no longer technologically advanced or otherwise not competitive in the international marketplace.  As of February 20, 2008, none of our High-Specification Floater fleet contract days are uncommitted for the remainder of 2008, while approximately 9 percent, 29 percent and 59 percent are uncommitted in 2009, 2010 and 2011, respectively.
 
-35-


Our Midwater Floaters fleet, comprising 29 semisubmersible rigs, is largely committed to contracts that extend into 2009.  We continue to see customer demand for multi-year contracts for these units.  We completed the reactivation of the C. Kirk RheinJr., which has been awarded a two-year contract in India at a $340,000 dayrate and commenced operations in February 2007.  We are actively pursuing the sale of two Midwater Floaters (GSF Arctic II and GSF Arctic IV) in the North Sea in connection with our previously announced proposed undertakings to the Office of Fair Trading in the U.K.  As of February 20, 2008, seven percent of our Midwater Floater fleet contract days are uncommitted for the remainder of 2008, while approximately 41 percent, 70 percent and 92 percent are uncommitted in 2009, 2010 and 2011, respectively.
 
We continue to see steady growth in demand for Jackups, and we believe that the increase in newbuild supply capacity can be absorbed over the short term.  We do not have the visibility to see beyond the second quarter of 2008, and supply growth is a concern for the second half of 2008.  As of February 20, 2008, 14 percent of our High-Specification Jackup fleet contract days are uncommitted for the remainder of 2008, while approximately 51 percent, 96 percent and 100 percent are uncommitted in 2009, 2010 and 2011, respectively.  In addition, 16 percent of our Standard Jackup fleet contract days are uncommitted for the remainder of 2008, while approximately 56 percent, 77 percent and 90 percent are uncommitted in 2009, 2010 and 2011, respectively.
 
On February 15, 2008, we entered into a definitive agreement with Hercules Offshore, Inc. to sell three of our Standard Jackups (GSF Adriatic III, GSF High Island I and GSF High Island VIII) for approximately $320 million.  At February 27, 2008, these assets were classified as held for sale.
 
We expect our revenues to continue to increase in 2008 due to the inclusion of GlobalSantaFe’s operations as well as the commencement of new contracts with higher dayrates.  The scheduled commencement of the Sedco 702 and Sedco 706 contracts at the end of the rigs’ deepwater upgrade shipyard projects in the first and fourth quarters of 2008, respectively, are also expected to increase our revenues in 2008.  We expect these increases will be partially offset by a decrease in revenue from the sale of the Peregrine I in November 2007.
 
The aggregate amount of out-of-service time we incur in 2008 is expected to increase substantially due to the inclusion of GlobalSantaFe’s operations, partially offset by a decrease in out-of-service time largely due to a decrease in shipyard time for the legacy Transocean rigs.  However, the shipyard projects we intend to undertake in 2008 will involve rigs with higher dayrates than those that underwent shipyard projects in 2007 and, consequently, we expect lost revenue from shipyard projects in 2008 from legacy Transocean rigs to be generally in line with lost revenue in 2007.
 
We expect the inclusion of GlobalSantaFe’s operations, as well as industry inflation in 2008, to continue to increase our operating and maintenance costs including our shipyard and major maintenance program expenditures.  In addition, the types of shipyard projects we forecast for 2008 are generally more costly, so we expect shipyard project costs to increase from 2007 to 2008 with respect to the legacy Transocean rigs despite the expected decrease in out-of-service time.  We expect our operating and maintenance costs in 2008 to further increase as a result of the completion of the Sedco 702 and Sedco 706 deepwater upgrades.  We expect these increases to be partially offset by lower operating costs due to the sale of the Peregrine I in November 2007.  Finally, we expect to continue to invest in a number of recruitment, retention and personnel development initiatives in connection with the manning of the crews of the deepwater upgrades and newbuild rigs and our efforts to mitigate expected personnel attrition.
 
We expect that a number of fixed-price contract options will be exercised by our customers in 2008, which will preclude us from taking full advantage of any increased market rates for rigs subject to these contract options.  We have six existing contracts with fixed-priced or capped options for dayrates that we believe are less than current market dayrates.  Well-in-progress or similar provisions in our existing contracts may delay the start of higher dayrates in subsequent contracts, and some of the delays have been and could be significant.
 
Our operations are geographically dispersed in oil and gas exploration and development areas throughout the world.  Rigs can be moved from one region to another, but the cost of moving a rig and the availability of rig-moving vessels may cause the supply and demand balance to vary somewhat between regions.  However, significant variations between regions do not tend to persist long-term because of rig mobility.  Consequently, we operate in a single, global offshore drilling market.
 
Insurance Matters—We periodically evaluate our hull and machinery and third-party liability insurance limits and self-insured retentions.  Effective May 1, 2007, we renewed our hull and machinery and third-party liability insurance coverages.  Subject to large self-insured retentions, we carry hull and machinery insurance covering physical damage to the rigs for operational risks worldwide, and we carry liability insurance covering damage to third parties.  However, we do not generally have commercial market insurance coverage for physical damage losses to our rigs due to hurricanes in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico and war perils worldwide.  Additionally, we do not carry insurance for loss of revenue.  In the opinion of management, adequate accruals have been made based on known and estimated losses related to such exposures.
 
-36-


Tax Matters—We are a Cayman Islands company and we operate through our various subsidiaries in a number of countries throughout the world.  Consequently, our tax provision is based upon the tax laws, regulations and treaties in effect in and between the countries in which our operations are conducted and income is earned.  Our effective tax rate for financial reporting purposes will fluctuate from year to year as our operations are conducted in different taxing jurisdictions.  We are subject to changes in tax laws, treaties and regulations in and between the countries in which we operate and earn income.  A change in the tax laws, treaties or regulations in any of the countries in which we operate could result in a higher or lower effective tax rate on our worldwide earnings and, as a result, could have a material effect on our financial results.
 
Our income tax return filings in the major jurisdictions in which we operate worldwide are generally subject to examination for periods ranging from three to eight years.  We have agreed to extensions beyond the statute of limitations in three jurisdictions for up to 12 years.  Tax authorities in certain jurisdictions are examining our tax returns and in some cases have issued assessments.  We are defending our tax positions in those jurisdictions.  While we cannot predict or provide assurance as to the final outcome of these proceedings, we do not expect the ultimate liability to have a material adverse effect on our consolidated statement of financial position, results of operations or cash flows.
 
In February 2007, we entered into a settlement agreement with the U.S. Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) regarding our U.S. federal income tax returns for 2001 through 2003.  The IRS agreed to settle all issues for this period.  This settlement resulted in no cash tax payment.
 
Our 2004 and 2005 U.S. federal income tax returns are currently under examination by the IRS.  In October 2007, we received from the IRS examination reports setting forth proposed changes to the U.S. federal taxable income reported for the years 2004 and 2005.  The proposed changes would result in a cash tax payment of approximately $413 million, exclusive of interest.  We filed a letter with the IRS protesting the proposed changes on November 19, 2007.  The protest letter puts forth our position that we believe our returns are materially correct as filed.  We will continue to vigorously defend against these proposed changes.  The IRS audits of GlobalSantaFe’s 2004 and 2005 U.S. federal income tax returns are still in the examination phase.  We do not expect the conclusion of these audits to give rise to a material tax liability.
 
Certain of our Brazilian income tax returns for the years 2000 through 2004 are currently under examination.  The Brazil tax authorities have issued tax assessments totaling $112 million, plus a 75 percent penalty and $70 million of interest through December 31, 2007.  We believe our returns are materially correct as filed, and we intend to vigorously contest these assessments.  We filed a protest letter with the Brazilian tax authorities on January 25, 2008.
 
Norwegian civil tax and criminal authorities are investigating various transactions undertaken in 2001 and 2002.  The authorities initiated inquiries into these transactions in September 2004 and in March 2005 obtained additional information on the transactions pursuant to a Norwegian court order.  In 2006 we filed a formal protest with respect to a notification by the Norwegian tax authorities of their intent to propose assessments that would result in increased tax of approximately $287 million, plus interest, related to certain restructuring transactions.  The authorities indicated penalties imposed on the assessment could range from 15 to 60 percent of the assessment.  In addition, the authorities issued a preliminary notification in February 2008 of their intent to issue a separate tax assessment of approximately $77 million related to a 2001 dividend payment, plus interest and penalties, which could range from 15 to 60 percent of the assessment.  In the course of its investigations, the Norwegian authorities secured certain records located in the United Kingdom related to a Norwegian subsidiary that was previously subject to tax in Norway.  The authorities are assessing the need to impose additional taxes on this Norwegian subsidiary.  We have and will continue to respond to all information requests from the Norwegian authorities.  We plan to vigorously contest any assertions by the Norwegian authorities in connection with the various transactions being investigated.
 
On January 1, 2007, as part of our implementation of FIN 48, we recorded a long-term liability of $142 million related to the Norwegian tax issues described above.  Since January 1, 2007, the long-term liability has increased to $168 million due to the accrual of interest and exchange rate fluctuations.  While we cannot predict or provide assurance as to the final outcome of these proceedings, we do not expect the ultimate resolution of these matters to have a material adverse effect on our consolidated statement of financial position or results of operations although it may have a material adverse effect on our consolidated cash flows.  See Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements—Note 15—Income Taxes.
 
Regulatory Matters—In June 2007, GlobalSantaFe's management retained outside counsel to conduct an internal investigation of its Nigerian and West African operations, focusing on brokers who handled customs matters with respect to its affiliates operating in those jurisdictions and whether those brokers have fully complied with the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“FCPA”) and local laws.  GlobalSantaFe commenced its investigation following announcements by other oilfield service companies that they were independently investigating the FCPA implications of certain actions taken by third parties in respect of customs matters in connection with their operations in Nigeria, as well as another company's announced settlement implicating a third party handling customs matters in Nigeria.  In each case, the customs broker was reported to be Panalpina Inc., which GlobalSantaFe used to obtain temporary import permits for its rigs operating offshore Nigeria.  GlobalSantaFe voluntarily disclosed its internal investigation to the U.S. Department of Justice (the “DOJ”) and the SEC and, at their request, expanded its investigation to include the activities of its customs brokers in other West African countries and the activities of Panalpina Inc. worldwide.  The investigation is focusing on whether the brokers have fully complied with the requirements of their contracts, local laws and the FCPA.  In late November 2007, GlobalSantaFe received a subpoena from the SEC for documents related to its investigation.  In this connection, the SEC advised GlobalSantaFe that it had issued a formal order of investigation.  After the completion of the Merger, outside counsel began formally reporting directly to the audit committee of our board of directors.  Our legal representatives are keeping the DOJ and SEC apprised of the scope and details of their investigation and producing relevant information in response to their requests.
 
-37-


On July 25, 2007, our legal representatives met with the DOJ in response to a notice we received requesting such a meeting regarding our engagement of Panalpina Inc. for freight forwarding and other services in the United States and abroad.  The DOJ has informed us that it is conducting an investigation of alleged FCPA violations by oil service companies who used Panalpina Inc. and other brokers in Nigeria and other parts of the world.  We began developing an investigative plan which would allow us to promptly review and produce relevant and responsive information requested by the DOJ and SEC.  Subsequently, we expanded the investigation to include one of our agents for Nigeria.  This investigation and the legacy GlobalSantaFe investigation are being conducted by outside counsel who reports directly to the audit committee of our board of directors.  The investigations have focused on whether the agent and the customs brokers have fully complied with the terms of their respective agreements, the FCPA and local laws.  We prepared and presented an investigative plan to the DOJ and have informed the SEC of the ongoing investigation.  We have begun implementing the investigative plan and are keeping the DOJ and SEC apprised of the scope and details of our investigation and are producing relevant information in response to their requests.  We cannot predict the ultimate outcome of the investigations, the effect of implementing any further measures that may be necessary to ensure full compliance with applicable laws or to what extent, if at all, we could be subject to fines, sanctions or other penalties.
 
Our internal compliance program has detected a potential violation of U.S. sanctions regulations in connection with the shipment of goods to our operations in Turkmenistan.  Goods bound for our rig in Turkmenistan were shipped through Iran by a freight forwarder.  Iran is subject to a number of economic regulations, including sanctions administered by OFAC, and comprehensive restrictions on the export and re-export of U.S.-origin items to Iran.  Failure to comply with applicable laws and regulations relating to sanctions and export restrictions may subject us to criminal sanctions and civil remedies, including fines, denial of export privileges, injunctions or seizures of our assets. See “Item 1A. Risk Factors–Our non-U.S. operations involve additional risks not associated with our U.S. operations.”   We have self-reported the potential violation to OFAC and have retained outside counsel to conduct a thorough investigation of the matter.
 
Performance and Other Key Indicators
 
Contract Backlog—The following table presents our contract backlog, including firm commitments only, for our Contract Drilling segment at the periods ended December 31, 2007 and 2006.  Firm commitments are typically represented by signed drilling contracts.  Our contract backlog is calculated by multiplying the full contractual operating dayrate by the number of days remaining in the firm contract period, excluding revenues for mobilization, demobilization and contract preparation, which are not expected to be significant to our contract drilling revenues.
 

   
December 31, 2007
   
December 31, 2006
 
   
(In millions)
 
Contract backlog
           
High-Specification Floaters
  $ 20,708     $ 14,354  
Midwater Floaters
    5,728       3,770  
High-Specification Jackups
    768       140  
Standard Jackups
    4,445       1,897  
Other Rigs
    158       65  
Total
  $ 31,807     $ 20,226  

The firm commitments that comprise the contract backlog for our Contract Drilling segment as of December 31, 2007 are presented in the following table along with the associated average contractual dayrates.  The amount of actual revenue earned and the actual periods during which revenues are earned will be different than the amounts and periods shown in the tables below due to various factors, including shipyard and maintenance projects, unplanned downtime and other factors that result in lower applicable dayrates than the full contractual operating dayrate, as well as the ability of our customers to terminate contracts under certain circumstances.  The contract backlog average dayrate is defined as the contracted operating dayrate to be earned per revenue earning day in the period.  A revenue earning day is defined as a day for which a rig earns dayrate during the firm contract period after commencement of operations.
 
-38-

 
   
For the years ending December 31,
 
   
Total
   
2008
   
2009
   
2010
   
2011
   
Thereafter
 
   
(In millions, except average dayrates)
 
Contract backlog
                                   
High-Specification Floaters
  $ 20,708     $ 4,599     $ 4,814     $ 4,017     $ 2,643     $ 4,635  
Midwater Floaters
    5,728       2,650       1,806       869       263       140  
High-Specification Jackups
    768       478       273       17              
Standard Jackups
    4,445       2,322       1,229       592       297       5  
Other Rigs
    158       52       36       26       26       18  
Total
  $ 31,807     $ 10,101     $ 8,158     $ 5,521     $ 3,229     $ 4,798