Commitments and Contingencies	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2013
Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	9. Commitments and Contingencies The Company leases certain offices, shop and warehouse facilities, automobiles and equipment. Total lease expense incurred was $3.5 million, $2.9 million and $3.7 million in 2013, 2012 and 2011, respectively. Future annual minimum lease commitments at December 31, 2013 are as follows: 2014—$1,703,000; 2015—$914,000; 2016—$598,000, 2017—$484,000; 2018—$441,000; and thereafter—$5.6 million. Deepwater Horizon Incident On April 22, 2010, a deepwater U.S. Gulf of Mexico drilling rig known as the Deepwater Horizon, operated by BP, sank after an explosion and fire that began on April 20, 2010. The Company was named, along with other unaffiliated defendants, in both class action and other lawsuits arising from the Deepwater Horizon incident. In 2012, the judge presiding over various lawsuits and proceedings dismissed all claims asserted against the Company in those proceedings with prejudice. On April 9, 2012, the judge issued an order granting a final judgment in favor of the Company with respect to the court’s prior order that granted the Company’s Motion for Summary Judgment. One of the lawsuits against the Company consolidated in the MDL Proceeding was a personal injury lawsuit initially filed in a Texas state court. The plaintiff has filed a motion to remand the lawsuit back to the Texas state court. If the lawsuit is remanded to the Texas state court, the Company intends to vigorously defend that lawsuit and does not believe it will have a material adverse impact on its results of operations. Accordingly, no liability has been accrued in conjunction with this matter. Additional lawsuits may be filed and additional investigations may be launched in the future. An adverse outcome with respect to any of these lawsuits or investigations, or any lawsuits or investigations that may arise in the future, could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s results of operations. The Company intends to continue to vigorously defend any litigation, fine and/or penalty relating to the Deepwater Horizon incident. The Company does not believe this litigation will have a material impact on its results of operations and accordingly, no liability has been accrued in conjunction with these matters. At the time of the Deepwater Horizon incident, the Company had a general liability insurance program with an aggregate coverage limit of $100 million for claims with respect to property damage, injury or death and pollution. The coverage was increased to $200 million in October 2010. The insurance policies may not cover all potential claims and expenses relating to the Deepwater Horizon incident. In addition, the Company’s policies may not cover fines, penalties or costs and expenses related to government-mandated cleanup of pollution. The Company may experience further tightening of the availability of insurance coverage. If liability limits are increased or the insurance market becomes more restricted, the risks and costs of conducting offshore exploration and development activities may increase, which could materially impact the Company’s results of operations. Brazilian Tax Issue From 2002 to 2007, the Company’s Brazilian subsidiary imported goods through the State of Espirito Santo in Brazil and subsequently transferred them to its facility in the State of Rio de Janeiro. During that period, the Company’s Brazilian subsidiary paid taxes to the State of Espirito Santo on its imports. Upon the final sale of these goods, the Company’s Brazilian subsidiary collected taxes from customers and remitted them to the State of Rio de Janeiro net of the taxes paid on importation of those goods to the State of Espirito Santo in accordance with the Company’s understanding of Brazilian tax laws. In August 2007, the State of Rio de Janeiro served the Company’s Brazilian subsidiary with assessments to collect a state tax on the importation of goods through the State of Espirito Santo from 2002 to 2007 claiming that these taxes were due and payable to it under applicable law. The Company settled these assessments with payments to the State of Rio de Janeiro of $12.2 million in March 2010 and $3.9 million in December 2010. Approximately $7.8 million of these settlement payments were attributable to penalties, interest and amounts that had expired under the statute of limitations so that amount was recorded as an expense. The remainder of the settlement payments generated credits (recorded as a prepaid tax) that can be used to offset future state taxes on sales to customers in the State of Rio de Janeiro once certified by the tax authorities under a process that is currently ongoing. When the credits are certified, the Company will have a five-year period in which to utilize them. In December 2010 and January 2011, the Company’s Brazilian subsidiary was served with additional assessments totaling approximately $13.0 million from the State of Rio de Janeiro to cancel the credits associated with the tax payments to the State of Espirito Santo (“Santo Credits”) on the importation of goods from July 2005 to October 2007. The Santo Credits are not related to the credits described in the immediately preceding paragraph. The Company has objected to this assessment as it would represent double taxation on the importation of the same goods and that the Company is entitled to the credits under applicable Brazilian law. The Company believes that these credits are valid and that success in the matter is probable. Based upon this analysis the Company has not accrued any liability in conjunction with this matter. Since 2007, the Company’s Brazilian subsidiary has paid taxes on the importation of goods directly to the State of Rio de Janeiro and the Company does not expect any similar issues to exist for periods subsequent to 2007. General The Company operates its business and markets its products and services in most of the significant oil and gas producing areas in the world and is, therefore, subject to the risks customarily attendant to international operations and dependency on the condition of the oil and gas industry. Additionally, products of the Company are used in potentially hazardous drilling, completion, and production applications that can cause personal injury, product liability, and environmental claims. Although exposure to such risk has not resulted in any significant problems in the past, there can be no assurance that ongoing and future developments will not adversely impact the Company. The Company is also involved in a number of legal actions arising in the ordinary course of business. Although no assurance can be given with respect to the ultimate outcome of such legal action, in the opinion of management, the ultimate liability with respect thereto will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s operations, comprehensive income, financial position or cash flows.

9. Commitments and Contingencies

The Company leases certain offices, shop and warehouse facilities, automobiles and equipment. Total lease expense incurred was $3.5 million, $2.9 million and $3.7 million in 2013, 2012 and 2011, respectively. Future annual minimum lease commitments at December 31, 2013 are as follows: 2014—$1,703,000; 2015—$914,000; 2016—$598,000, 2017—$484,000; 2018—$441,000; and thereafter—$5.6 million.

Deepwater Horizon Incident

On April 22, 2010, a deepwater U.S. Gulf of Mexico drilling rig known as the Deepwater Horizon, operated by BP, sank after an explosion and fire that began on April 20, 2010. The Company was named, along with other unaffiliated defendants, in both class action and other lawsuits arising from the Deepwater Horizon incident. In 2012, the judge presiding over various lawsuits and proceedings dismissed all claims asserted against the Company in those proceedings with prejudice. On April 9, 2012, the judge issued an order granting a final judgment in favor of the Company with respect to the court’s prior order that granted the Company’s Motion for Summary Judgment.

One of the lawsuits against the Company consolidated in the MDL Proceeding was a personal injury lawsuit initially filed in a Texas state court. The plaintiff has filed a motion to remand the lawsuit back to the Texas state court. If the lawsuit is remanded to the Texas state court, the Company intends to vigorously defend that lawsuit and does not believe it will have a material adverse impact on its results of operations. Accordingly, no liability has been accrued in conjunction with this matter. Additional lawsuits may be filed and additional investigations may be launched in the future. An adverse outcome with respect to any of these lawsuits or investigations, or any lawsuits or investigations that may arise in the future, could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s results of operations. The Company intends to continue to vigorously defend any litigation, fine and/or penalty relating to the Deepwater Horizon incident. The Company does not believe this litigation will have a material impact on its results of operations and accordingly, no liability has been accrued in conjunction with these matters.

At the time of the Deepwater Horizon incident, the Company had a general liability insurance program with an aggregate coverage limit of $100 million for claims with respect to property damage, injury or death and pollution. The coverage was increased to $200 million in October 2010. The insurance policies may not cover all potential claims and expenses relating to the Deepwater Horizon incident. In addition, the Company’s policies may not cover fines, penalties or costs and expenses related to government-mandated cleanup of pollution. The Company may experience further tightening of the availability of insurance coverage. If liability limits are increased or the insurance market becomes more restricted, the risks and costs of conducting offshore exploration and development activities may increase, which could materially impact the Company’s results of operations.

Brazilian Tax Issue

From 2002 to 2007, the Company’s Brazilian subsidiary imported goods through the State of Espirito Santo in Brazil and subsequently transferred them to its facility in the State of Rio de Janeiro. During that period, the Company’s Brazilian subsidiary paid taxes to the State of Espirito Santo on its imports. Upon the final sale of these goods, the Company’s Brazilian subsidiary collected taxes from customers and remitted them to the State of Rio de Janeiro net of the taxes paid on importation of those goods to the State of Espirito Santo in accordance with the Company’s understanding of Brazilian tax laws.

In August 2007, the State of Rio de Janeiro served the Company’s Brazilian subsidiary with assessments to collect a state tax on the importation of goods through the State of Espirito Santo from 2002 to 2007 claiming that these taxes were due and payable to it under applicable law. The Company settled these assessments with payments to the State of Rio de Janeiro of $12.2 million in March 2010 and $3.9 million in December 2010. Approximately $7.8 million of these settlement payments were attributable to penalties, interest and amounts that had expired under the statute of limitations so that amount was recorded as an expense. The remainder of the settlement payments generated credits (recorded as a prepaid tax) that can be used to offset future state taxes on sales to customers in the State of Rio de Janeiro once certified by the tax authorities under a process that is currently ongoing. When the credits are certified, the Company will have a five-year period in which to utilize them. In December 2010 and January 2011, the Company’s Brazilian subsidiary was served with additional assessments totaling approximately $13.0 million from the State of Rio de Janeiro to cancel the credits associated with the tax payments to the State of Espirito Santo (“Santo Credits”) on the importation of goods from July 2005 to October 2007. The Santo Credits are not related to the credits described in the immediately preceding paragraph. The Company has objected to this assessment as it would represent double taxation on the importation of the same goods and that the Company is entitled to the credits under applicable Brazilian law. The Company believes that these credits are valid and that success in the matter is probable. Based upon this analysis the Company has not accrued any liability in conjunction with this matter.

Since 2007, the Company’s Brazilian subsidiary has paid taxes on the importation of goods directly to the State of Rio de Janeiro and the Company does not expect any similar issues to exist for periods subsequent to 2007.

General

The Company operates its business and markets its products and services in most of the significant oil and gas producing areas in the world and is, therefore, subject to the risks customarily attendant to international operations and dependency on the condition of the oil and gas industry. Additionally, products of the Company are used in potentially hazardous drilling, completion, and production applications that can cause personal injury, product liability, and environmental claims. Although exposure to such risk has not resulted in any significant problems in the past, there can be no assurance that ongoing and future developments will not adversely impact the Company.

The Company is also involved in a number of legal actions arising in the ordinary course of business. Although no assurance can be given with respect to the ultimate outcome of such legal action, in the opinion of management, the ultimate liability with respect thereto will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s operations, comprehensive income, financial position or cash flows.