Legal Proceedings	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2015
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
LEGAL PROCEEDINGS	NOTE 9 – LEGAL PROCEEDINGS Since December 11, 2009, the Company, has been involved in a lawsuit where it was named as a Defendant, along with its CEO and transfer agent in Case Number 09-CA-030763, filed in the Circuit Court of Hillsborough County, Florida. The lawsuit was brought in the name of 31 individuals and 1 corporation. The lawsuit alleges that the Company, its CEO, and its transfer agent wrongfully refused to remove the restrictive legend from certain shares of the Company’s common stock that are collectively owned by the plaintiffs, which prevented the plaintiffs from selling or transferring their shares of the Company’s common stock. The plaintiffs allege that they have lost approximately $1,041,000 as of the date of the lawsuit. Such lawsuit continued to a hearing of the Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment against the Defendants including Seafarer, which was heard on September 1, 2011 and denied by the Court. Litigation of the matter has continued and the Company has presented evidence and arguments of law that the shares were distributed from their original recipient, Micah Eldred, in an illegal sale to another corporate entity. The Company further contends in its pleadings that such shares were then illegally purchased back by Eldred, then distributed in a manner by Eldred to others including the 31 other Plaintiffs to avoid reporting requirements under the Securities Act and as Eldred had a duty to report as a principal of a brokerage. The actions by Eldred, as pled by the Corporation, is that on or about October 8, 2008, Eldred gifted most of the 34,700,000 shares to certain friends, family, and employees (i.e., the Plaintiffs named in this Complaint), and kept ownership of 4,140,000 shares. On September 11, 2013, the Parties attended a voluntary mediation, which ended in an impasse. Some discovery had progressed to the point that Seafarer had, on September 25, 2013, filed a Motion to File Counterclaims and Third-Party Complaint (“Motion for Leave to File Counterclaim”) along with a proposed Counterclaim. Such counterclaims were filed in December 2013. Included in the counterclaim was an allegation of conspiracy between Eldred and Sean Murphy for the publication of false information which Seafarer sued Murphy for and received a judgment for libel against Murphy on April 1, 2011 for $5,080,000. Thus the counterclaim was filed against the Plaintiffs: Micah Eldred, Michael J. Daniels, Carl Dilley, Heather Dilley, James Eldred, Mary R. Eldred, Michole Eldred, Nathan Eldred, Toni A. Eldred, Diane J. Harrison, Ioulia Hess, Olessia Kritskaia, Anna Krokhina, George Lindner, Elizabeth Lizzano, Karen Lizzano, Robert Lizzano, Abby Lord, Jillian Mally, Ekaterina Messinger, Susan Miller, Michael Mona, Matthew J. Presy, Oksana Savchenko, Vanessa A. Verbosh, Alan Wolper, Sarah Wolper, and Christine Zitman. On April 23, 2014, the trial court ruled on the Counter-Claim Defendants’ motion to dismiss and ordered the dismissal of the claims for section 517.301 violations, conspiracy and fraud. The court ruled that the Corporation did not have standing and was not in privity with the counter-claim defendants at the time of their alleged actions so the company could not maintain the action, unlike private shareholders who could have standing. Thus the Company attempted to protect the shareholders by such suit, but was ruled against as not having standing to do so. On October 18, 2013, the Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Removal to Federal Court in the Tampa Division of the United States District Court, citing the allegation that such lawsuit should be moved to Federal Court based upon the Defendants proposed counterclaims of Federal law. The pleading for removal contained the allegation by the Plaintiffs that they had the consent of all the listed Plaintiffs to remove the matter to Federal Court. On November 4, 2013, Seafarer filed a Motion to Remand back to State Court in the Federal Court, citing legal argument and the undisputed facts that removal to Federal Court was improper as having no basis in law, and asking for attorney’s fees from the Plaintiffs for such removal. On November 7, 2013, Judge James Moody of the United States District Court entered an Order granting the Remand Motion of Seafarer, finding that “Plaintiffs removed the case based on their assumption that the counterclaim would establish federal jurisdiction. Plaintiffs’ removal is patently without merit.” Judge Moody further held “Plaintiffs’ removal had no basis under the law or facts. Simply put, the removal was not objectively reasonable.” Accordingly, the Court Ordered the case sent back to State Court and that the Federal Court would award Defendants [Seafarer] a reasonable amount of attorney’s fees and costs.” Seafarer collected such attorney’s fees through counsel. Such case was remanded to the Circuit Court in Hillsborough County, where Seafarer had the motion to file the Counterclaims and Third Party Claims heard and an Order Granting the filing and service of such claims was made by Circuit Judge Paul Huey on December 13, 2013. Seafarer filed such complaint and served such Counterclaim Defendants and Third Party Defendants during the months of December 2013 and January 2014. Such complaint included claims by Seafarer for damages including punitive damages against the Plaintiffs for their actions, which is alleged to have materially damaged the Corporation and its shareholders. Such litigation continues and the Company will continue to fight the release of such shares for sale. It is the position of Seafarer that due to the actions involved with such shares, they are tainted and should be ordered to be cancelled. Seafarer intends to continuously pursue this defense. In early October 2013, counsel for Seafarer was contacted by counsel representing the listed Plaintiff, CADEF: The Childhood Autism Foundation (CADEF), as to their being named in the lawsuit as Plaintiffs in the State Court action and the litigation being done in their name. Pursuant to those discussions, on November 5, 2013, Seafarer, Kyle Kennedy (individually), Cleartrust LLC and CADEF entered into a Settlement Agreement and Release from Litigation. CADEF agreed to surrender all rights to the 1,000,000 shares in its name, as well as causing dismissal of any such claims against the Seafarer, Kennedy and Cleartrust that had been brought in their name in the lawsuit. Specifically, CADEF agreed: “CADEF agrees that the following matters of fact exist based upon the knowledge of its Board of Directors and Principals: A) The Board of Directors of CADEF had no knowledge of the share certificate ever being issued for its benefit or the existence of such share certificate until recently in the month of October 2013 when such shares were sent to them. B) The Board of Directors of CADEF never authorized the filing of the lawsuit cited above or to be a party to such. C) Because of the above in B) CADEF’s Board of Directors was never advised of any settlement offer being made by the Defendants nor of the mediation held on September 11, 2013. On approximately October 30, 2013 CADEF delivered such 1,000,000 shares to counsel for Seafarer. Such shares were cancelled subsequently. During the fall of 2014, the Company through counsel, conducted a number of depositions in the matter, including Micah Eldred and other parties. As well the Company filed three motions against the Defendants. Included in these motions were a motion to dismiss for fraudulent conduct in the naming of a party as a plaintiff which had no knowledge of the lawsuit, and failure to related settlement offers to the Plaintiffs. The second motion was for sanctions for intentional destruction of documentary evidence related to such shares. As to the second motion, the Court entered an order granting the motion for sanctions, finding that the Defendants had intentionally destroyed evidence, but the Court abated determining the sanctions until a later date. The third motion was to dismiss for fraudulent conduct, wherein the Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant, Eldred had made illicit offers to elicit false testimony. Both of the motions for sanctions are currently pending before the Court. As well in the first week of January 2015, the Defendants filed two simultaneous motions for summary judgment for dismissal of all counts in the case. That motion for summary judgment is currently pending before the Court. In the ongoing litigation in the above case against Micah Eldred and associated persons to protect the interests of the shareholders, the Corporation followed up on its counter-claims against Eldred by the filing of a notice of appeal of the dismissal of such claims, to the Second District Court of Appeal for Florida on May 17, 2014. On May 29, 2014, the Company was served a secondary lawsuit in Hillsborough County. The lawsuit challenges the creation of the Preferred B Series of Shares and the increase in authorized shares. The lawsuit in the opinion of the Corporation and multiple counsel has no merit since the corporation’s articles of incorporation and Florida statutes allow for the creation of the preferred shares, and thus the increase in authorized shares. The Corporation is defending such lawsuit and seeking dismissal by motion and judgment through the motion for summary judgment. On March 2, 2010, the Company filed a complaint naming, Sean Murphy as a Defendant who formerly provided services as a captain, diver, and general laborer to the Company as a defendant in the Circuit Court of Hillsborough County, Florida case number 10-CA-004674. The lawsuit contains numerous counts against the defendant, including civil theft, breach of contract, libel and negligence. On April 5, 2011, a six person jury in Hillsborough County, Florida found in favor of the Company and found that the Defendant was responsible for $5,080,000 in compensatory damages. In 2012, the Company attempted to schedule a trial for the punitive damages, but the Court cancelled the trial due to scheduling of priority cases. The Company is currently seeking final entry of not only the judgment, but will be exercising collection matters against the Defendant. The Company intends to pursue collection, no matter the ability of the Defendant to pay. On June 18, 2013, Seafarer began litigation against Tulco Resources, LLC, in a lawsuit filed in the Circuit Court in and for Hillsborough County, Florida. Such suit was filed for against Tulco based upon for breach of contract, equitable relief and injunctive relief. Tulco was the party holding the rights under a permit to a treasure site at Juno Beach, Florida. Tulco and Seafarer had entered into contracts in March 2008, and later renewed under an amended agreement on June 11, 2010. Such permit was committed to by Tulco to be an obligation and contractual duty to which they would be responsible for payment of all costs in order for the permit to be reissued. Such obligation is contained in the agreement of March 2008 which was renewed in the June 2010 agreement between Seafarer and Tulco. Tulco made the commitment to be responsible for payments of all necessary costs for the gaining of the new permit. Tulco never performed on such obligation, and Seafarer during the period of approximately March 2008 and April 2012 had endeavored and even had to commence a lawsuit to gain such permit which was awarded in April 2012. Seafarer alleges in their complaint the expenditure of large amounts of shares and monies for financing and for delays due to Tulco’s non-performance. Seafarer seeks monetary damages and injunctive relief for the award of all rights held by Tulco to Seafarer. As of March 24, 2014, Seafarer, through Counsel with the assistance of a licensed investigator, established there was no party or individual to be served from Tulco due to the death of the former Manager, and having no other legal person or entity to serve, has established that it will seek the entry of a default judgment, and final judgment for award of all rights to such site for contractual and other rights held by Tulco. Seafarer gained a default and final Judgment on such matter on July 23, 2014. Seafarer is now working with the State for the renewed permit to be in Seafarer’s name and rights only, with Tulco removed per the Order of the Court. On March 4, 2015, the Court awarded full rights to the Juno site to Seafarer Exploration, erasing all rights of Tulco Resources. The company is currently filing an Admiralty Claim over such site as well in the United States District Court. On September 3, 2014, the Company filed a lawsuit against Darrel Volentine, of California. Mr. Volentine was sued in two counts of libel per se under Florida law, as well as a count for injunction against the Defendant to exclude and prohibit internet postings. Such lawsuit was filed in the Circuit Court in Hillsborough County, Florida. Such suit is based upon internet postings on www.investorshub.com . On or about October 15, 2014, the Company and Volentine entered into a stipulation whereby Volentine admitted to his tortious conduct, however the stipulated damages agreed to were rejected by the Court, and the Company is proceeding to trial on damages against Volentine in a non-jury trial on December 1, 2015. The Defendant is the subject of a contempt of court motion by the Company for continued internet postings and communications that violate his injunction imposed upon him, and the Company will be seeking further damages and an order of contempt against Mr. Volentine for a number of sanctions available.

Legal Proceedings

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2015

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

NOTE 9 – LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

Since December 11, 2009, the Company, has been involved in a lawsuit where it was named as a Defendant, along with its CEO and transfer agent in Case Number 09-CA-030763, filed in the Circuit Court of Hillsborough County, Florida. The lawsuit was brought in the name of 31 individuals and 1 corporation. The lawsuit alleges that the Company, its CEO, and its transfer agent wrongfully refused to remove the restrictive legend from certain shares of the Company’s common stock that are collectively owned by the plaintiffs, which prevented the plaintiffs from selling or transferring their shares of the Company’s common stock. The plaintiffs allege that they have lost approximately $1,041,000 as of the date of the lawsuit. Such lawsuit continued to a hearing of the Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment against the Defendants including Seafarer, which was heard on September 1, 2011 and denied by the Court. Litigation of the matter has continued and the Company has presented evidence and arguments of law that the shares were distributed from their original recipient, Micah Eldred, in an illegal sale to another corporate entity. The Company further contends in its pleadings that such shares were then illegally purchased back by Eldred, then distributed in a manner by Eldred to others including the 31 other Plaintiffs to avoid reporting requirements under the Securities Act and as Eldred had a duty to report as a principal of a brokerage. The actions by Eldred, as pled by the Corporation, is that on or about October 8, 2008, Eldred gifted most of the 34,700,000 shares to certain friends, family, and employees (i.e., the Plaintiffs named in this Complaint), and kept ownership of 4,140,000 shares.

On September 11, 2013, the Parties attended a voluntary mediation, which ended in an impasse.

Some discovery had progressed to the point that Seafarer had, on September 25, 2013, filed a Motion to File Counterclaims and Third-Party Complaint (“Motion for Leave to File Counterclaim”) along with a proposed Counterclaim. Such counterclaims were filed in December 2013. Included in the counterclaim was an allegation of conspiracy between Eldred and Sean Murphy for the publication of false information which Seafarer sued Murphy for and received a judgment for libel against Murphy on April 1, 2011 for $5,080,000. Thus the counterclaim was filed against the Plaintiffs: Micah Eldred, Michael J. Daniels, Carl Dilley, Heather Dilley, James Eldred, Mary R. Eldred, Michole Eldred, Nathan Eldred, Toni A. Eldred, Diane J. Harrison, Ioulia Hess, Olessia Kritskaia, Anna Krokhina, George Lindner, Elizabeth Lizzano, Karen Lizzano, Robert Lizzano, Abby Lord, Jillian Mally, Ekaterina Messinger, Susan Miller, Michael Mona, Matthew J. Presy, Oksana Savchenko, Vanessa A. Verbosh, Alan Wolper, Sarah Wolper, and Christine Zitman. On April 23, 2014, the trial court ruled on the Counter-Claim Defendants’ motion to dismiss and ordered the dismissal of the claims for section 517.301 violations, conspiracy and fraud. The court ruled that the Corporation did not have standing and was not in privity with the counter-claim defendants at the time of their alleged actions so the company could not maintain the action, unlike private shareholders who could have standing. Thus the Company attempted to protect the shareholders by such suit, but was ruled against as not having standing to do so.

On October 18, 2013, the Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Removal to Federal Court in the Tampa Division of the United States District Court, citing the allegation that such lawsuit should be moved to Federal Court based upon the Defendants proposed counterclaims of Federal law. The pleading for removal contained the allegation by the Plaintiffs that they had the consent of all the listed Plaintiffs to remove the matter to Federal Court. On November 4, 2013, Seafarer filed a Motion to Remand back to State Court in the Federal Court, citing legal argument and the undisputed facts that removal to Federal Court was improper as having no basis in law, and asking for attorney’s fees from the Plaintiffs for such removal. On November 7, 2013, Judge James Moody of the United States District Court entered an Order granting the Remand Motion of Seafarer, finding that “Plaintiffs removed the case based on their assumption that the counterclaim would establish federal jurisdiction. Plaintiffs’ removal is patently without merit.” Judge Moody further held “Plaintiffs’ removal had no basis under the law or facts. Simply put, the removal was not objectively reasonable.” Accordingly, the Court Ordered the case sent back to State Court and that the Federal Court would award Defendants [Seafarer] a reasonable amount of attorney’s fees and costs.” Seafarer collected such attorney’s fees through counsel. Such case was remanded to the Circuit Court in Hillsborough County, where Seafarer had the motion to file the Counterclaims and Third Party Claims heard and an Order Granting the filing and service of such claims was made by Circuit Judge Paul Huey on December 13, 2013. Seafarer filed such complaint and served such Counterclaim Defendants and Third Party Defendants during the months of December 2013 and January 2014. Such complaint included claims by Seafarer for damages including punitive damages against the Plaintiffs for their actions, which is alleged to have materially damaged the Corporation and its shareholders. Such litigation continues and the Company will continue to fight the release of such shares for sale. It is the position of Seafarer that due to the actions involved with such shares, they are tainted and should be ordered to be cancelled. Seafarer intends to continuously pursue this defense.

In early October 2013, counsel for Seafarer was contacted by counsel representing the listed Plaintiff, CADEF: The Childhood Autism Foundation (CADEF), as to their being named in the lawsuit as Plaintiffs in the State Court action and the litigation being done in their name. Pursuant to those discussions, on November 5, 2013, Seafarer, Kyle Kennedy (individually), Cleartrust LLC and CADEF entered into a Settlement Agreement and Release from Litigation. CADEF agreed to surrender all rights to the 1,000,000 shares in its name, as well as causing dismissal of any such claims against the Seafarer, Kennedy and Cleartrust that had been brought in their name in the lawsuit. Specifically, CADEF agreed: “CADEF agrees that the following matters of fact exist based upon the knowledge of its Board of Directors and Principals: A) The Board of Directors of CADEF had no knowledge of the share certificate ever being issued for its benefit or the existence of such share certificate until recently in the month of October 2013 when such shares were sent to them. B) The Board of Directors of CADEF never authorized the filing of the lawsuit cited above or to be a party to such. C) Because of the above in B) CADEF’s Board of Directors was never advised of any settlement offer being made by the Defendants nor of the mediation held on September 11, 2013. On approximately October 30, 2013 CADEF delivered such 1,000,000 shares to counsel for Seafarer. Such shares were cancelled subsequently.

During the fall of 2014, the Company through counsel, conducted a number of depositions in the matter, including Micah Eldred and other parties. As well the Company filed three motions against the Defendants. Included in these motions were a motion to dismiss for fraudulent conduct in the naming of a party as a plaintiff which had no knowledge of the lawsuit, and failure to related settlement offers to the Plaintiffs. The second motion was for sanctions for intentional destruction of documentary evidence related to such shares. As to the second motion, the Court entered an order granting the motion for sanctions, finding that the Defendants had intentionally destroyed evidence, but the Court abated determining the sanctions until a later date. The third motion was to dismiss for fraudulent conduct, wherein the Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant, Eldred had made illicit offers to elicit false testimony. Both of the motions for sanctions are currently pending before the Court. As well in the first week of January 2015, the Defendants filed two simultaneous motions for summary judgment for dismissal of all counts in the case. That motion for summary judgment is currently pending before the Court.

In the ongoing litigation in the above case against Micah Eldred and associated persons to protect the interests of the shareholders, the Corporation followed up on its counter-claims against Eldred by the filing of a notice of appeal of the dismissal of such claims, to the Second District Court of Appeal for Florida on May 17, 2014. On May 29, 2014, the Company was served a secondary lawsuit in Hillsborough County. The lawsuit challenges the creation of the Preferred B Series of Shares and the increase in authorized shares. The lawsuit in the opinion of the Corporation and multiple counsel has no merit since the corporation’s articles of incorporation and Florida statutes allow for the creation of the preferred shares, and thus the increase in authorized shares. The Corporation is defending such lawsuit and seeking dismissal by motion and judgment through the motion for summary judgment.

On March 2, 2010, the Company filed a complaint naming, Sean Murphy as a Defendant who formerly provided services as a captain, diver, and general laborer to the Company as a defendant in the Circuit Court of Hillsborough County, Florida case number 10-CA-004674. The lawsuit contains numerous counts against the defendant, including civil theft, breach of contract, libel and negligence. On April 5, 2011, a six person jury in Hillsborough County, Florida found in favor of the Company and found that the Defendant was responsible for $5,080,000 in compensatory damages. In 2012, the Company attempted to schedule a trial for the punitive damages, but the Court cancelled the trial due to scheduling of priority cases. The Company is currently seeking final entry of not only the judgment, but will be exercising collection matters against the Defendant. The Company intends to pursue collection, no matter the ability of the Defendant to pay.

On June 18, 2013, Seafarer began litigation against Tulco Resources, LLC, in a lawsuit filed in the Circuit Court in and for Hillsborough County, Florida. Such suit was filed for against Tulco based upon for breach of contract, equitable relief and injunctive relief. Tulco was the party holding the rights under a permit to a treasure site at Juno Beach, Florida. Tulco and Seafarer had entered into contracts in March 2008, and later renewed under an amended agreement on June 11, 2010. Such permit was committed to by Tulco to be an obligation and contractual duty to which they would be responsible for payment of all costs in order for the permit to be reissued. Such obligation is contained in the agreement of March 2008 which was renewed in the June 2010 agreement between Seafarer and Tulco. Tulco made the commitment to be responsible for payments of all necessary costs for the gaining of the new permit. Tulco never performed on such obligation, and Seafarer during the period of approximately March 2008 and April 2012 had endeavored and even had to commence a lawsuit to gain such permit which was awarded in April 2012. Seafarer alleges in their complaint the expenditure of large amounts of shares and monies for financing and for delays due to Tulco’s non-performance. Seafarer seeks monetary damages and injunctive relief for the award of all rights held by Tulco to Seafarer. As of March 24, 2014, Seafarer, through Counsel with the assistance of a licensed investigator, established there was no party or individual to be served from Tulco due to the death of the former Manager, and having no other legal person or entity to serve, has established that it will seek the entry of a default judgment, and final judgment for award of all rights to such site for contractual and other rights held by Tulco. Seafarer gained a default and final Judgment on such matter on July 23, 2014. Seafarer is now working with the State for the renewed permit to be in Seafarer’s name and rights only, with Tulco removed per the Order of the Court. On March 4, 2015, the Court awarded full rights to the Juno site to Seafarer Exploration, erasing all rights of Tulco Resources. The company is currently filing an Admiralty Claim over such site as well in the United States District Court.

On September 3, 2014, the Company filed a lawsuit against Darrel Volentine, of California. Mr. Volentine was sued in two counts of libel per se under Florida law, as well as a count for injunction against the Defendant to exclude and prohibit internet postings. Such lawsuit was filed in the Circuit Court in Hillsborough County, Florida. Such suit is based upon internet postings on www.investorshub.com . On or about October 15, 2014, the Company and Volentine entered into a stipulation whereby Volentine admitted to his tortious conduct, however the stipulated damages agreed to were rejected by the Court, and the Company is proceeding to trial on damages against Volentine in a non-jury trial on December 1, 2015. The Defendant is the subject of a contempt of court motion by the Company for continued internet postings and communications that violate his injunction imposed upon him, and the Company will be seeking further damages and an order of contempt against Mr. Volentine for a number of sanctions available.