Commitments and Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2015
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Operating Lease Agreements—The Company records rent expense under its lease agreements on a straight-line basis. Differences between actual lease payments and rent expense recognized under these leases results in a deferred rent asset or a deferred rent liability at each reporting period. The Company had a deferred rent liability of $7.4 million and $2.5 million as of as of September 30, 2015 and December 31, 2014, respectively. Rent expense was $3.0 million and $8.7 million for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2015, respectively, and $2.6 million and $7.9 million for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2014, respectively. Contractual Obligations—As of September 30, 2015 the Company had non-cancelable purchase obligations of $2.3 million. The Company has various manufacturing, research, and other contracts with vendors in the conduct of the normal course of its business. All contracts are terminable with varying provisions regarding termination. If a contract with a specific vendor were to be terminated, the Company would only be obligated for the products or services that the Company had received at the time the termination became effective. Guarantees and Indemnifications—The Company makes certain indemnities, commitments, and guarantees under which it may be required to make payments in relation to certain transactions. The Company, as permitted under Delaware law and in accordance with its amended and restated certificate of incorporation and amended and restated bylaws, indemnifies its officers and directors for certain events or occurrences, subject to certain limits, while the officer or director is or was serving at the Company’s request in such capacity. The duration of these indemnifications, commitments, and guarantees varies and, in certain cases, is indefinite. The maximum amount of potential future indemnification is unlimited; however, the Company has a director and officer insurance policy that may enable it to recover all or a portion of any future amounts paid. The Company believes the fair value of these indemnification agreements is minimal. The Company has not recorded any liability for these indemnities in the accompanying condensed consolidated balance sheets. However, the Company accrues for losses for any known contingent liability, including those that may arise from indemnification provisions, when future payment is probable. No such losses have been recorded to date. In February 2013, the Solazyme Bunge JV entered into a loan agreement with BNDES under which it may borrow up to R$245.7 million (approximately USD $59.9 million based on the exchange rate as of September 30, 2015), which has supported the production facility in Brazil, including a portion of the construction costs of the facility. As a condition of the Solazyme Bunge JV drawing funds under the BNDES Loan, the Company may be required to provide a bank guarantee and a corporate guarantee for a portion of the BNDES Loan (in an amount not to exceed its ownership percentage in the Solazyme Bunge JV). As of September 30, 2015 the bank guarantee was in place and the corporate guarantee was not. See also Note 11. Legal Matters Securities Class Action Litigation In June 2015, a securities class action complaint entitled Norfolk County Retirement System v. Solazyme, Inc. et al. was filed against the Company, its CEO, Jonathan Wolfson, its CFO/COO, Tyler Painter, certain of its current and former directors, and the underwriters of its March 2014 equity and debt offerings, Goldman, Sachs & Co., Inc. and Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The complaint asserts claims for alleged violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1934, as well as Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint seeks unspecified damages on behalf of a purported class that would comprise all individuals who acquired the Company's securities (i) between February 27, 2014 and November 5, 2014 and (ii) pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's public equity and debt offerings in March 2014. The complaint alleges that investors were misled by statements made during that period about the construction progress, development, and production capacity associated with the production facility located in Brazil owned by the Company’s joint venture, Solazyme Bunge Produtos Renovaveis Ltda. The Company believes the complaint lacks merit, and intends to defend itself vigorously. Derivative Litigation In July 2015, a complaint entitled Jim Bertonis, derivatively on behalf of Solazyme, Inc. v. Jonathan Wolfson et al. was filed in the Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo. The complaint seeks unspecified damages, purportedly on behalf of the Company from certain of its current and former directors and officers and alleges these defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the Company and unjustly enriched themselves by making allegedly false and misleading statements and omitting certain material facts in the Company's securities filings and other public disclosures. This purported stockholder derivative action is based on substantially the same facts as the securities class action described above. Based on a review of the plaintiffs’ allegations, the Company believes that the plaintiff has not demonstrated standing to sue on its behalf. In August 2015, a complaint entitled Gregory M. Miller, derivatively on behalf of Solazyme, Inc. v. Jonathan S. Wolfson et al. was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The complaint seeks unspecified damages, purportedly on behalf of the Company from certain of its current and former directors and officers and alleges these defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the Company and aided and abetted the Company in making allegedly false and misleading statements and omitting certain material facts in the Company's securities filings and other public disclosures. This purported stockholder derivative action is based on substantially the same facts as the securities class action and derivative action described above. Based on a review of the plaintiffs’ allegations, the Company believes that the plaintiff has not demonstrated standing to sue on its behalf. Roquette Frères, S.A. On November 3, 2010, the Company entered into a joint venture with Roquette Frères, S.A. (“Roquette”), and formed Solazyme Roquette Nutritionals, LLC (“SRN”), which was 50% owned by the Company and 50% owned by Roquette. The purpose of SRN was to pursue certain opportunities in microalgae-based products for the food, nutraceuticals and animal feed markets. The Company determined that this joint venture was a VIE and the Company was not required to consolidate its 50% ownership in this joint venture. Therefore, this joint venture was accounted for under the equity method of accounting. In June 2013, the Company and Roquette agreed to dissolve SRN and on July 18, 2013, SRN was dissolved. In September 2013, an arbitration was initiated with Roquette (the “Roquette Arbitration”) in connection with the dissolution of SRN. The Company sought a declaration that, in accordance with the terms of the joint venture agreement between the parties, the Company should be assigned all improvements made by or on behalf of SRN to the Company’s intellectual property. On February 19, 2015 the arbitration panel released its decision, ordering, inter alia, the assignment to the Company of (i) all SRN patent applications, (ii) all SRN know-how related to high lipid algal flour and high protein algal powder and (iii) all Roquette patent applications filed since November 2010 relating to algal food and food ingredients, as well as methods for making and using them. In addition, the arbitration panel ordered Roquette to pay to the Company, $2.3 million in legal costs and fees. In November 2014, Roquette filed an action against the Company in U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware for declaratory judgment related to the Roquette Arbitration. Roquette seeks a declaration that (i) the arbitrators in the Roquette Arbitration exceeded their authority by failing to render a timely arbitration award, (ii) the award issued by the arbitrators is void and (iii) all intangible assets of SRN should be assigned jointly to Roquette and the Company. The Company filed an Answer to the Complaint in January 2015, denying substantially all of Roquette’s claims and all of its prayers for relief. In April 2015, Roquette filed a motion for summary judgment in the action. In February 2015, Roquette filed a second action against the Company in U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware for declaratory judgment related to the Roquette Arbitration. Roquette seeks a declaration that (A) the order of the arbitrators in the Roquette Arbitration for more discovery and new hearings is unenforceable and (B) in the alternative, the new discovery and hearings concerned an issue that is outside the scope of the arbitration. In February 2015, the two Delaware declaratory judgment actions were consolidated. The Company filed its Answer to the second Complaint in February 2015, denying all claims made in the Complaint and all related prayers for relief. In addition, the Company cross-claimed for (x) confirmation of the arbitration award, (y) an order compelling Roquette to comply with the arbitration award and (z) damages for misappropriation of the Company’s trade secrets, misuse of the Company’s confidential information and breach of contract. In April 2015, Roquette filed a motion for summary judgment in the action. In March 2015 the Company filed a motion for an order confirming the award rendered in the Roquette Arbitration. In response, in April 2015, Roquette filed a motion to vacate the arbitration award, which included counterclaims alleging Company misuse of Roquette trade secrets. In March 2015, the Company filed a motion for a preliminary injunction preventing Roquette’s continued use of trade secrets misappropriated from the Company. A hearing on the main motions pending in the Delaware proceedings (including the Company's motion for preliminary injunction) was held on July 28, 2015. A decision on the outcome of the motions is pending. The Company may be involved, from time to time, in additional legal proceedings and claims arising in the ordinary course of its business. Such matters are subject to many uncertainties and outcomes are not predictable with assurance. While there can be no assurances as to the ultimate outcome of any legal proceeding or other loss contingencies involving the Company, management does not believe any pending matters individually and in the aggregate will be resolved in a manner that would have a material effect on the Company’s consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Operating Lease Agreements—The Company records rent expense under its lease agreements on a straight-line basis. Differences between actual lease payments and rent expense recognized under these leases results in a deferred rent asset or a deferred rent liability at each reporting period. The Company had a deferred rent liability of $7.4 million and $2.5 million as of as of September 30, 2015 and December 31, 2014, respectively. Rent expense was $3.0 million and $8.7 million for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2015, respectively, and $2.6 million and $7.9 million for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2014, respectively.

Contractual Obligations—As of September 30, 2015 the Company had non-cancelable purchase obligations of $2.3 million.

The Company has various manufacturing, research, and other contracts with vendors in the conduct of the normal course of its business. All contracts are terminable with varying provisions regarding termination. If a contract with a specific vendor were to be terminated, the Company would only be obligated for the products or services that the Company had received at the time the termination became effective.

Guarantees and Indemnifications—The Company makes certain indemnities, commitments, and guarantees under which it may be required to make payments in relation to certain transactions. The Company, as permitted under Delaware law and in accordance with its amended and restated certificate of incorporation and amended and restated bylaws, indemnifies its officers and directors for certain events or occurrences, subject to certain limits, while the officer or director is or was serving at the Company’s request in such capacity. The duration of these indemnifications, commitments, and guarantees varies and, in certain cases, is indefinite. The maximum amount of potential future indemnification is unlimited; however, the Company has a director and officer insurance policy that may enable it to recover all or a portion of any future amounts paid. The Company believes the fair value of these indemnification agreements is minimal. The Company has not recorded any liability for these indemnities in the accompanying condensed consolidated balance sheets. However, the Company accrues for losses for any known contingent liability, including those that may arise from indemnification provisions, when future payment is probable. No such losses have been recorded to date.

In February 2013, the Solazyme Bunge JV entered into a loan agreement with BNDES under which it may borrow up to R$245.7 million (approximately USD $59.9 million based on the exchange rate as of September 30, 2015), which has supported the production facility in Brazil, including a portion of the construction costs of the facility. As a condition of the Solazyme Bunge JV drawing funds under the BNDES Loan, the Company may be required to provide a bank guarantee and a corporate guarantee for a portion of the BNDES Loan (in an amount not to exceed its ownership percentage in the Solazyme Bunge JV). As of September 30, 2015 the bank guarantee was in place and the corporate guarantee was not. See also Note 11.

Legal Matters

Securities Class Action Litigation

In June 2015, a securities class action complaint entitled Norfolk County Retirement System v. Solazyme, Inc. et al. was filed against the Company, its CEO, Jonathan Wolfson, its CFO/COO, Tyler Painter, certain of its current and former directors, and the underwriters of its March 2014 equity and debt offerings, Goldman, Sachs & Co., Inc. and Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The complaint asserts claims for alleged violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1934, as well as Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint seeks unspecified damages on behalf of a purported class that would comprise all individuals who acquired the Company's securities (i) between February 27, 2014 and November 5, 2014 and (ii) pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's public equity and debt offerings in March 2014. The complaint alleges that investors were misled by statements made during that period about the construction progress, development, and production capacity associated with the production facility located in Brazil owned by the Company’s joint venture, Solazyme Bunge Produtos Renovaveis Ltda. The Company believes the complaint lacks merit, and intends to defend itself vigorously.

Derivative Litigation

In July 2015, a complaint entitled Jim Bertonis, derivatively on behalf of Solazyme, Inc. v. Jonathan Wolfson et al. was filed in the Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo. The complaint seeks unspecified damages, purportedly on behalf of the Company from certain of its current and former directors and officers and alleges these defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the Company and unjustly enriched themselves by making allegedly false and misleading statements and omitting certain material facts in the Company's securities filings and other public disclosures. This purported stockholder derivative action is based on substantially the same facts as the securities class action described above. Based on a review of the plaintiffs’ allegations, the Company believes that the plaintiff has not demonstrated standing to sue on its behalf.

In August 2015, a complaint entitled Gregory M. Miller, derivatively on behalf of Solazyme, Inc. v. Jonathan S. Wolfson et al. was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The complaint seeks unspecified damages, purportedly on behalf of the Company from certain of its current and former directors and officers and alleges these defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the Company and aided and abetted the Company in making allegedly false and misleading statements and omitting certain material facts in the Company's securities filings and other public disclosures. This purported stockholder derivative action is based on substantially the same facts as the securities class action and derivative action described above. Based on a review of the plaintiffs’ allegations, the Company believes that the plaintiff has not demonstrated standing to sue on its behalf.

Roquette Frères, S.A.

On November 3, 2010, the Company entered into a joint venture with Roquette Frères, S.A. (“Roquette”), and formed Solazyme Roquette Nutritionals, LLC (“SRN”), which was 50% owned by the Company and 50% owned by Roquette. The purpose of SRN was to pursue certain opportunities in microalgae-based products for the food, nutraceuticals and animal feed markets. The Company determined that this joint venture was a VIE and the Company was not required to consolidate its 50% ownership in this joint venture. Therefore, this joint venture was accounted for under the equity method of accounting. In June 2013, the Company and Roquette agreed to dissolve SRN and on July 18, 2013, SRN was dissolved.

In September 2013, an arbitration was initiated with Roquette (the “Roquette Arbitration”) in connection with the dissolution of SRN. The Company sought a declaration that, in accordance with the terms of the joint venture agreement between the parties, the Company should be assigned all improvements made by or on behalf of SRN to the Company’s intellectual property. On February 19, 2015 the arbitration panel released its decision, ordering, inter alia, the assignment to the Company of (i) all SRN patent applications, (ii) all SRN know-how related to high lipid algal flour and high protein algal powder and (iii) all Roquette patent applications filed since November 2010 relating to algal food and food ingredients, as well as methods for making and using them. In addition, the arbitration panel ordered Roquette to pay to the Company, $2.3 million in legal costs and fees.

In November 2014, Roquette filed an action against the Company in U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware for declaratory judgment related to the Roquette Arbitration. Roquette seeks a declaration that (i) the arbitrators in the Roquette Arbitration exceeded their authority by failing to render a timely arbitration award, (ii) the award issued by the arbitrators is void and (iii) all intangible assets of SRN should be assigned jointly to Roquette and the Company. The Company filed an Answer to the Complaint in January 2015, denying substantially all of Roquette’s claims and all of its prayers for relief. In April 2015, Roquette filed a motion for summary judgment in the action.

In February 2015, Roquette filed a second action against the Company in U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware for declaratory judgment related to the Roquette Arbitration. Roquette seeks a declaration that (A) the order of the arbitrators in the Roquette Arbitration for more discovery and new hearings is unenforceable and (B) in the alternative, the new discovery and hearings concerned an issue that is outside the scope of the arbitration. In February 2015, the two Delaware declaratory judgment actions were consolidated. The Company filed its Answer to the second Complaint in February 2015, denying all claims made in the Complaint and all related prayers for relief. In addition, the Company cross-claimed for (x) confirmation of the arbitration award, (y) an order compelling Roquette to comply with the arbitration award and (z) damages for misappropriation of the Company’s trade secrets, misuse of the Company’s confidential information and breach of contract. In April 2015, Roquette filed a motion for summary judgment in the action.

In March 2015 the Company filed a motion for an order confirming the award rendered in the Roquette Arbitration. In response, in April 2015, Roquette filed a motion to vacate the arbitration award, which included counterclaims alleging Company misuse of Roquette trade secrets.

In March 2015, the Company filed a motion for a preliminary injunction preventing Roquette’s continued use of trade secrets misappropriated from the Company.

A hearing on the main motions pending in the Delaware proceedings (including the Company's motion for preliminary injunction) was held on July 28, 2015. A decision on the outcome of the motions is pending.

The Company may be involved, from time to time, in additional legal proceedings and claims arising in the ordinary course of its business. Such matters are subject to many uncertainties and outcomes are not predictable with assurance. While there can be no assurances as to the ultimate outcome of any legal proceeding or other loss contingencies involving the Company, management does not believe any pending matters individually and in the aggregate will be resolved in a manner that would have a material effect on the Company’s consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.