Commitments and Contingencies	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2015
Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Note 18 - Commitments and Contingencies The Noble Homer Ferrington was under contract with a subsidiary of ExxonMobil Corporation (“ExxonMobil”), which entered into an assignment agreement with British Petroleum plc (“BP”) for a two-well farmout of the rig in Libya after successfully drilling two wells with the rig for ExxonMobil. In August 2010, BP attempted to terminate the assignment agreement claiming that the rig was not in the required condition, and ExxonMobil informed us that we must look to BP for payment of the dayrate during the assignment period. In August 2010, we initiated arbitration proceedings under the drilling contract against the Libyan operating subsidiaries of both BP and Exxon (the “Defendants”). The arbitration panel issued an award in our favor for dayrate revenues plus interest and fees. During 2015, BP paid us $150 million and Exxon paid us $27 million under the award, of which approximately $137 million was recognized as contract drilling services revenues, $30 million as interest income, and $10 million for the reimbursement of costs and fees as a reduction of contract drilling services costs. In December 2014, one of our subsidiaries reached a settlement with the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) regarding our drillship, the Noble Discoverer, and the Kulluk, a rig we were providing contract labor services for, in respect of violations of applicable law discovered in connection with a 2012 Coast Guard inspection in Alaska and our own subsequent internal investigation. Under the terms of the agreement, the subsidiary pled guilty to oil record book, ballast record and required hazardous condition reporting violations with respect to the Noble Discoverer and an oil record book violation with respect to the Kulluk. The subsidiary paid $8.2 million in fines and $4 million in community service payments, and was placed on probation for four years, provided that we may petition the court for early dismissal of probation after three years. If, during the term of probation, the subsidiary fails to adhere to the terms of the plea agreement, the DOJ may withdraw from the plea agreement and would be free to prosecute the subsidiary on all charges arising out of its investigation, including any charges dismissed pursuant to the terms of the plea agreement, as well as potentially other charges. We also implemented a comprehensive environmental compliance plan in connection with the settlement. We have used a commercial agent in Brazil in connection with our Petróleo Brasileiro S.A. (“Petrobras”) drilling contracts. We understand that this agent has represented a number of different companies in Brazil over many years, including several offshore drilling contractors. In November 2015, this agent pled guilty in Brazil in connection with the award of a drilling contract to a competitor and implicated a Petrobras official as part of a wider investigation of Petrobras’ business practices. Following news reports relating to the agent’s involvement in the Brazil investigation in connection with his activities with other companies, we have been conducting a review of our relationship with the agent and with Petrobras. We are in contact with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, the Brazilian federal prosecutor’s office and the DOJ about this matter. We are cooperating with these agencies and they are aware of our internal review. To our knowledge, neither the agent, nor the government authorities investigating the matter, has alleged that the agent or Noble acted improperly in connection with our contracts with Petrobras. We are from time to time a party to various lawsuits that are incidental to our operations in which the claimants seek an unspecified amount of monetary damages for personal injury, including injuries purportedly resulting from exposure to asbestos on drilling rigs and associated facilities. At December 31, 2015, there were 43 asbestos related lawsuits in which we are one of many defendants. These lawsuits have been filed in the United States in the states of Louisiana and Mississippi. We intend to vigorously defend against the litigation. We do not believe the ultimate resolution of these matters will have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows. We are a defendant in certain claims and litigation arising out of operations in the ordinary course of business, the resolution of which, in the opinion of management, will not be material to our financial position, results of operations or cash flows. There is inherent risk in any litigation or dispute and no assurance can be given as to the outcome of these claims. We operate in a number of countries throughout the world and our tax returns filed in those jurisdictions are subject to review and examination by tax authorities within those jurisdictions. We recognize uncertain tax positions that we believe have a greater than 50 percent likelihood of being sustained. We cannot predict or provide assurance as to the ultimate outcome of any existing or future assessments. During 2014, the IRS began its examination of our tax reporting in the U.S. for the taxable years ended December 31, 2010 and 2011. We believe that we have accurately reported all amounts in our 2010 and 2011 tax returns. We believe the ultimate resolution of the IRS examination will not have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial statements. Under the TSA entered into at the time of the Spin-off, Noble and Paragon Offshore are each responsible for the taxes that relate to their respective business and provide a corresponding indemnity. In addition, in February 2016, we entered into an agreement in principle with Paragon Offshore (the “Agreement in Principle”) relating to tax matters in Mexico described below in exchange for a full and unconditional release of any claims by Paragon Offshore in connection with the Spin-off (including any claims that could be brought on behalf of its creditors). Audit claims of approximately $174 million attributable to income and other business taxes have been assessed against us in Mexico, as detailed below. Under our Agreement in Principle, we agreed to assume the administration of Paragon Offshore’s Mexican income and value-added taxes for the years 2005 through 2010 and for Paragon Offshore’s Mexican customs taxes through 2010, as well as the related bonding obligations and certain of the tax related liabilities. In addition, under the Agreement in Principle, we would (i) pay all of the ultimate resolved amount of Mexican income and value-added taxes related to Paragon Offshore’s business that were incurred through a Noble-retained entity, (ii) pay 50 percent of the ultimate resolved amount of Mexican income and value-added taxes related to Paragon Offshore’s business that were incurred through a Paragon Offshore-retained entity, (iii) pay 50 percent of the ultimate resolved amount of Mexican custom taxes related to Paragon Offshore’s business, and (iv) be required to post any tax appeal bond that may be required to challenge a final assessment. Tax assessments of approximately $50 million for income and value-added taxes have been made against Noble entities in Mexico. Tax assessments for income and value-added taxes of approximately $202 million have been made against Paragon Offshore entities in Mexico, of which approximately $46 million relates to Noble’s business that operated through Paragon Offshore-retained entities in Mexico prior to the Spin-off. We will only be obligated to post a tax appeal bond in the event a final assessment is made by Mexican authorities. As of February 12, 2016, there have only been $3 million in final assessments that have been bonded. In January, 2015, Noble received an official notification of a ruling from the Second Chamber of the Supreme Court in Mexico. The ruling settled an ongoing dispute in Mexico relating to the classification of a Noble subsidiary’s business activity and the applicable rate of depreciation under the Mexican law applicable to the activities of that subsidiary. The ruling did not result in any additional tax liability to Noble. Additionally, the ruling is only applicable to the Noble subsidiary named in the ruling and, therefore, does not establish the depreciation rate applicable to the assets of other Noble subsidiaries. Under the Agreement in Principle, we would be responsible for any tax liability ultimately incurred because these depreciation liabilities would be incurred by Noble-retained entities, and such amounts are reflected in the discussion of Mexican audit claims in the preceding paragraph. We will continue to contest future assessments received, and do not believe we are liable for additional tax. Paragon Offshore has received tax assessments of approximately $122 million attributable to income, customs and other business taxes in Brazil, of which $38 million relates to Noble’s business that operated through a Paragon Offshore-retained entity in Brazil prior to the Spin-off. Under the TSA, we must indemnify Paragon Offshore for all assessed amounts that are related to Noble’s Brazil business, approximately $38 million, if and when such payments become due. We have contested, or intend to contest or cooperate with Paragon Offshore in Brazil where it is contesting, the assessments described above, including through litigation if necessary, and we believe the ultimate resolution, for which we have not made any accrual, will not have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial statements. Tax authorities may issue additional assessments or pursue legal actions as a result of tax audits and we cannot predict or provide assurance as to the ultimate outcome of such assessments and legal actions or our ability to collect indemnities from Paragon Offshore under the TSA or the Agreement in Principle. We have been notified by Petrobras that it is currently challenging assessments by Brazilian tax authorities of withholding taxes associated with the provision of drilling rigs for its operations in Brazil during 2008 and 2009. Petrobras has also notified us that if Petrobras must ultimately pay such withholding taxes, it will seek reimbursement from us for the portion allocable to our drilling rigs. The amount of withholding tax that Petrobras indicates may be allocable to Noble drilling rigs is R$79 million (approximately $20 million). We believe that our contract with Petrobras requires Petrobras to indemnify us for these withholding taxes. We will, if necessary, vigorously defend our rights. We maintain certain insurance coverage against specified marine perils, which includes physical damage and loss of hire. Damage caused by hurricanes has negatively impacted certain aspects of the energy insurance market, resulting in more restrictive and expensive coverage for U.S. named windstorm perils. Accordingly, we have elected to significantly reduce the named windstorm insurance on our rigs operating in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico. Presently, we insure the Noble Amos Runner for “total loss only” when caused by a named windstorm. For the Noble Bully I, our customer assumes the risk of loss due to a named windstorm event, pursuant to the terms of the drilling contract, through the purchase of insurance coverage (provided that we are responsible for any deductible under such policy) or, at its option, the assumption of the risk of loss up to the insured value in lieu of the purchase of such insurance. The remaining rigs in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico are self-insured for named windstorm perils. In addition, we maintain a physical damage deductible on our rigs of $25 million per occurrence. The loss of hire coverage applies only to our rigs operating under contract with a dayrate equal to or greater than $200,000 a day and is subject to a 45-day waiting period for each unit and each occurrence. Although we maintain insurance in the geographic areas in which we operate, pollution, reservoir damage and environmental risks generally are not fully insurable. Our insurance policies and contractual rights to indemnity may not adequately cover our losses or may have exclusions of coverage for some losses. We do not have insurance coverage or rights to indemnity for all risks, including loss of hire insurance on most of the rigs in our fleet. Uninsured exposures may include expatriate activities prohibited by U.S. laws and regulations, radiation hazards, certain loss or damage to property on board our rigs and losses relating to shore-based terrorist acts, strikes or cyber risks. If a significant accident or other event occurs and is not fully covered by insurance or contractual indemnity, it could materially adversely affect our financial position, results of operations or cash flows. Additionally, there can be no assurance that those parties with contractual obligations to indemnify us will necessarily be financially able to indemnify us against all these risks. We carry protection and indemnity insurance covering marine third party liability exposures, which also includes coverage for employer’s liability resulting from personal injury to our offshore drilling crews. Our protection and indemnity policy currently has a standard deductible of $10 million per occurrence, with maximum liability coverage of $750 million. In connection with our capital expenditure program, we had outstanding commitments, including shipyard and purchase commitments of approximately $598 million at December 31, 2015. We have entered into agreements with certain of our executive officers, as well as certain other employees. These agreements become effective upon a change of control of Noble-UK (within the meaning set forth in the agreements) or a termination of employment in connection with or in anticipation of a change of control, and remain effective for three years thereafter. These agreements provide for compensation and certain other benefits under such circumstances.

Note 18 - Commitments and Contingencies

The Noble Homer Ferrington was under contract with a subsidiary of ExxonMobil Corporation (“ExxonMobil”), which entered into an assignment agreement with British Petroleum plc (“BP”) for a two-well farmout of the rig in Libya after successfully drilling two wells with the rig for ExxonMobil. In August 2010, BP attempted to terminate the assignment agreement claiming that the rig was not in the required condition, and ExxonMobil informed us that we must look to BP for payment of the dayrate during the assignment period. In August 2010, we initiated arbitration proceedings under the drilling contract against the Libyan operating subsidiaries of both BP and Exxon (the “Defendants”). The arbitration panel issued an award in our favor for dayrate revenues plus interest and fees. During 2015, BP paid us $150 million and Exxon paid us $27 million under the award, of which approximately $137 million was recognized as contract drilling services revenues, $30 million as interest income, and $10 million for the reimbursement of costs and fees as a reduction of contract drilling services costs.

In December 2014, one of our subsidiaries reached a settlement with the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) regarding our drillship, the Noble Discoverer, and the Kulluk, a rig we were providing contract labor services for, in respect of violations of applicable law discovered in connection with a 2012 Coast Guard inspection in Alaska and our own subsequent internal investigation. Under the terms of the agreement, the subsidiary pled guilty to oil record book, ballast record and required hazardous condition reporting violations with respect to the Noble Discoverer and an oil record book violation with respect to the Kulluk. The subsidiary paid $8.2 million in fines and $4 million in community service payments, and was placed on probation for four years, provided that we may petition the court for early dismissal of probation after three years. If, during the term of probation, the subsidiary fails to adhere to the terms of the plea agreement, the DOJ may withdraw from the plea agreement and would be free to prosecute the subsidiary on all charges arising out of its investigation, including any charges dismissed pursuant to the terms of the plea agreement, as well as potentially other charges. We also implemented a comprehensive environmental compliance plan in connection with the settlement.

We have used a commercial agent in Brazil in connection with our Petróleo Brasileiro S.A. (“Petrobras”) drilling contracts. We understand that this agent has represented a number of different companies in Brazil over many years, including several offshore drilling contractors. In November 2015, this agent pled guilty in Brazil in connection with the award of a drilling contract to a competitor and implicated a Petrobras official as part of a wider investigation of Petrobras’ business practices. Following news reports relating to the agent’s involvement in the Brazil investigation in connection with his activities with other companies, we have been conducting a review of our relationship with the agent and with Petrobras. We are in contact with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, the Brazilian federal prosecutor’s office and the DOJ about this matter. We are cooperating with these agencies and they are aware of our internal review. To our knowledge, neither the agent, nor the government authorities investigating the matter, has alleged that the agent or Noble acted improperly in connection with our contracts with Petrobras.

We are from time to time a party to various lawsuits that are incidental to our operations in which the claimants seek an unspecified amount of monetary damages for personal injury, including injuries purportedly resulting from exposure to asbestos on drilling rigs and associated facilities. At December 31, 2015, there were 43 asbestos related lawsuits in which we are one of many defendants. These lawsuits have been filed in the United States in the states of Louisiana and Mississippi. We intend to vigorously defend against the litigation. We do not believe the ultimate resolution of these matters will have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

We are a defendant in certain claims and litigation arising out of operations in the ordinary course of business, the resolution of which, in the opinion of management, will not be material to our financial position, results of operations or cash flows. There is inherent risk in any litigation or dispute and no assurance can be given as to the outcome of these claims.

We operate in a number of countries throughout the world and our tax returns filed in those jurisdictions are subject to review and examination by tax authorities within those jurisdictions. We recognize uncertain tax positions that we believe have a greater than 50 percent likelihood of being sustained. We cannot predict or provide assurance as to the ultimate outcome of any existing or future assessments.

During 2014, the IRS began its examination of our tax reporting in the U.S. for the taxable years ended December 31, 2010 and 2011. We believe that we have accurately reported all amounts in our 2010 and 2011 tax returns. We believe the ultimate resolution of the IRS examination will not have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial statements.

Under the TSA entered into at the time of the Spin-off, Noble and Paragon Offshore are each responsible for the taxes that relate to their respective business and provide a corresponding indemnity. In addition, in February 2016, we entered into an agreement in principle with Paragon Offshore (the “Agreement in Principle”) relating to tax matters in Mexico described below in exchange for a full and unconditional release of any claims by Paragon Offshore in connection with the Spin-off (including any claims that could be brought on behalf of its creditors).

Audit claims of approximately $174 million attributable to income and other business taxes have been assessed against us in Mexico, as detailed below. Under our Agreement in Principle, we agreed to assume the administration of Paragon Offshore’s Mexican income and value-added taxes for the years 2005 through 2010 and for Paragon Offshore’s Mexican customs taxes through 2010, as well as the related bonding obligations and certain of the tax related liabilities. In addition, under the Agreement in Principle, we would (i) pay all of the ultimate resolved amount of Mexican income and value-added taxes related to Paragon Offshore’s business that were incurred through a Noble-retained entity, (ii) pay 50 percent of the ultimate resolved amount of Mexican income and value-added taxes related to Paragon Offshore’s business that were incurred through a Paragon Offshore-retained entity, (iii) pay 50 percent of the ultimate resolved amount of Mexican custom taxes related to Paragon Offshore’s business, and (iv) be required to post any tax appeal bond that may be required to challenge a final assessment. Tax assessments of approximately $50 million for income and value-added taxes have been made against Noble entities in Mexico. Tax assessments for income and value-added taxes of approximately $202 million have been made against Paragon Offshore entities in Mexico, of which approximately $46 million relates to Noble’s business that operated through Paragon Offshore-retained entities in Mexico prior to the Spin-off. We will only be obligated to post a tax appeal bond in the event a final assessment is made by Mexican authorities. As of February 12, 2016, there have only been $3 million in final assessments that have been bonded.

In January, 2015, Noble received an official notification of a ruling from the Second Chamber of the Supreme Court in Mexico. The ruling settled an ongoing dispute in Mexico relating to the classification of a Noble subsidiary’s business activity and the applicable rate of depreciation under the Mexican law applicable to the activities of that subsidiary. The ruling did not result in any additional tax liability to Noble. Additionally, the ruling is only applicable to the Noble subsidiary named in the ruling and, therefore, does not establish the depreciation rate applicable to the assets of other Noble subsidiaries. Under the Agreement in Principle, we would be responsible for any tax liability ultimately incurred because these depreciation liabilities would be incurred by Noble-retained entities, and such amounts are reflected in the discussion of Mexican audit claims in the preceding paragraph. We will continue to contest future assessments received, and do not believe we are liable for additional tax.

Paragon Offshore has received tax assessments of approximately $122 million attributable to income, customs and other business taxes in Brazil, of which $38 million relates to Noble’s business that operated through a Paragon Offshore-retained entity in Brazil prior to the Spin-off. Under the TSA, we must indemnify Paragon Offshore for all assessed amounts that are related to Noble’s Brazil business, approximately $38 million, if and when such payments become due.

We have contested, or intend to contest or cooperate with Paragon Offshore in Brazil where it is contesting, the assessments described above, including through litigation if necessary, and we believe the ultimate resolution, for which we have not made any accrual, will not have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial statements. Tax authorities may issue additional assessments or pursue legal actions as a result of tax audits and we cannot predict or provide assurance as to the ultimate outcome of such assessments and legal actions or our ability to collect indemnities from Paragon Offshore under the TSA or the Agreement in Principle.

We have been notified by Petrobras that it is currently challenging assessments by Brazilian tax authorities of withholding taxes associated with the provision of drilling rigs for its operations in Brazil during 2008 and 2009. Petrobras has also notified us that if Petrobras must ultimately pay such withholding taxes, it will seek reimbursement from us for the portion allocable to our drilling rigs. The amount of withholding tax that Petrobras indicates may be allocable to Noble drilling rigs is R$79 million (approximately $20 million). We believe that our contract with Petrobras requires Petrobras to indemnify us for these withholding taxes. We will, if necessary, vigorously defend our rights.

We maintain certain insurance coverage against specified marine perils, which includes physical damage and loss of hire. Damage caused by hurricanes has negatively impacted certain aspects of the energy insurance market, resulting in more restrictive and expensive coverage for U.S. named windstorm perils. Accordingly, we have elected to significantly reduce the named windstorm insurance on our rigs operating in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico. Presently, we insure the Noble Amos Runner for “total loss only” when caused by a named windstorm. For the Noble Bully I, our customer assumes the risk of loss due to a named windstorm event, pursuant to the terms of the drilling contract, through the purchase of insurance coverage (provided that we are responsible for any deductible under such policy) or, at its option, the assumption of the risk of loss up to the insured value in lieu of the purchase of such insurance. The remaining rigs in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico are self-insured for named windstorm perils. In addition, we maintain a physical damage deductible on our rigs of $25 million per occurrence. The loss of hire coverage applies only to our rigs operating under contract with a dayrate equal to or greater than $200,000 a day and is subject to a 45-day waiting period for each unit and each occurrence.

Although we maintain insurance in the geographic areas in which we operate, pollution, reservoir damage and environmental risks generally are not fully insurable. Our insurance policies and contractual rights to indemnity may not adequately cover our losses or may have exclusions of coverage for some losses. We do not have insurance coverage or rights to indemnity for all risks, including loss of hire insurance on most of the rigs in our fleet. Uninsured exposures may include expatriate activities prohibited by U.S. laws and regulations, radiation hazards, certain loss or damage to property on board our rigs and losses relating to shore-based terrorist acts, strikes or cyber risks. If a significant accident or other event occurs and is not fully covered by insurance or contractual indemnity, it could materially adversely affect our financial position, results of operations or cash flows. Additionally, there can be no assurance that those parties with contractual obligations to indemnify us will necessarily be financially able to indemnify us against all these risks.

We carry protection and indemnity insurance covering marine third party liability exposures, which also includes coverage for employer’s liability resulting from personal injury to our offshore drilling crews. Our protection and indemnity policy currently has a standard deductible of $10 million per occurrence, with maximum liability coverage of $750 million.

In connection with our capital expenditure program, we had outstanding commitments, including shipyard and purchase commitments of approximately $598 million at December 31, 2015.

We have entered into agreements with certain of our executive officers, as well as certain other employees. These agreements become effective upon a change of control of Noble-UK (within the meaning set forth in the agreements) or a termination of employment in connection with or in anticipation of a change of control, and remain effective for three years thereafter. These agreements provide for compensation and certain other benefits under such circumstances.