Disputes, Litigation and Contingencies	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2014
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Disputes, Litigation and Contingencies	Disputes, Litigation and Contingencies Shareholder Litigation In 2010, three shareholder derivative actions were filed, purportedly on behalf of the Company, asserting breach of duty and other claims against certain current and former officers and directors of the Company related to the United Nations oil-for-food program governing sales of goods into Iraq, the FCPA and trade sanctions related to the U.S. government investigations disclosed above and in our U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) filings since 2007. Those shareholder derivative cases, captioned Neff v. Brady, et al., No. 201040764, Rosner v. Brady, et al., No. 201047343, and Hess v. Duroc-Danner, et al., No. 201040765, were filed in Harris County, Texas state court and consolidated (collectively referred to as the “Neff Case”). In 2014, one of the three cases, Hess v. Duroc-Danner, et al., No. 201040765, was voluntarily dismissed from the Neff Case. Other shareholder demand letters covering the same subject matter were received by the Company in early 2014, and a fourth shareholder derivative action was filed, purportedly on behalf of the Company, also asserting breach of duty and other claims against certain current and former officers and directors of the Company related to the same subject matter as the Neff Case. That case, captioned Erste-Sparinvest KAG v. Duroc-Danner, et al., No. 201420933 (Harris County, Texas) was consolidated into the Neff Case in September 2014. A motion to dismiss the consolidated action is pending. In March 2011, a shareholder derivative action, Iron Workers Mid-South Pension Fund v. Duroc-Danner, et al., No. 201119822, was filed in Harris County, Texas, civil court purportedly on behalf of the Company against certain current and former officers and directors, alleging breaches of duty related to the material weakness and restatement announcements. In February 2012, a second substantially similar shareholder derivative action, Wandel v. Duroc-Danner, et al., No. 1:12-cv-01305-LAK (SDNY), was filed in federal court in the Southern District of New York. In March 2012, a purported securities class action captioned Freedman v. Weatherford International Ltd., et al., No. 1:12-cv-02121-LAK (SDNY) was filed in the Southern District of New York against us and certain current and former officers. That case alleges violation of the federal securities laws related to the restatement of our historical financial statements announced on February 21, 2012, and later added claims related to the announcement of a subsequent restatement on July 24, 2012. In the three months ended December 31, 2014, we advanced settlement negotiations such that settlement is deemed probable and we maintain an accrual of the estimated probable loss. We cannot predict the outcome of these cases including the amount of any possible loss. If one or more negative outcomes were to occur relative to these cases, the aggregate impact to our financial condition could be material. In March 2011, a purported shareholder class action captioned Dobina v. Weatherford International Ltd., et al., No. 1:11-cv-01646-LAK (SDNY), was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, following our announcement on March 1, 2011 of a material weakness in our internal controls over financial reporting for income taxes, and restatement of our historical financial statements (the “2011 Class Action”). The lawsuit alleged violation of the federal securities laws by us and certain current and former officers. During the three months ended December 31, 2013, we entered into negotiations to settle the 2011 Class Action. As a result of these negotiations, settlement became probable and a settlement agreement was signed on January 29, 2014. The settlement was approved by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on January 5, 2015, and final judgment entered on January 30, 2015. The settlement agreement required payments totaling $53 million which was entirely funded by our insurers. U.S. Government and Internal Investigations On January 17, 2014, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas approved the settlement agreements between us and certain of our subsidiaries and the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”). On November 26, 2013, we announced that we and our subsidiaries also entered into settlement agreements with the U.S. Departments of Treasury and Commerce and with the SEC, which the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas entered on December 20, 2013. These agreements collectively resolved investigations of prior alleged violations by us and certain of our subsidiaries relating to certain trade sanctions laws, participation in the United Nations oil-for-food program governing sales of goods into Iraq and non-compliance with FCPA matters. The $253 million payable by us and our subsidiaries was paid in January and February 2014 pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreements. These agreements include a requirement to retain, for a period of at least 18 months, an independent monitor responsible for assessing our compliance with the terms of the agreement so as to address and reduce the risk of recurrence of alleged misconduct, after which we would continue to evaluate our own compliance program and make periodic reports to the DOJ and SEC and maintain agreed compliance monitoring and reporting systems, all of which is costly to us. In April 2014, the independent monitor was retained and the compliance assessment period began. These agreements also require us to retain an independent third party to retroactively audit our compliance with U.S. export control laws during the years 2012, 2013 and 2014. This audit is on-going. The SEC and DOJ are also investigating the circumstances surrounding the material weakness in our internal controls over financial reporting for income taxes that was disclosed in a notification of late filing on Form 12b-25 filed on March 1, 2011 and in current reports on Form 8-K filed on February 21, 2012 and on July 24, 2012 and the subsequent restatements of our historical financial statements. We are cooperating fully with these investigations. We are unable to predict the outcome of these matters due to the inherent uncertainties presented by such investigations, and we are unable to predict potential outcomes or estimate the range of potential loss contingencies, if any. The government, generally, has a broad range of civil and criminal penalties available for these types of matters under applicable law and regulation, including injunctive relief, fines, penalties and modifications to business practices, some of which, if imposed on us, could be material to our business, financial condition or results of operations. In the third quarter of 2014, we settled a compensation dispute with a former Senior Vice President and General Counsel who left the Company in 2009 and recognized an immaterial additional accrual to the amount previously accrued in 2013. Additionally, we are aware of various disputes and potential claims and are a party in various litigation involving claims against us, some of which are covered by insurance. For claims, disputes and pending litigation in which we believe a negative outcome is probable and a loss can be reasonably estimated, we have recorded a liability for the expected loss. These liabilities are immaterial to our financial condition and results of operations. In addition we have certain claims, disputes and pending litigation regarding which we do not believe a negative outcome is probable or for which we can only estimate a range of liability. It is possible, however, an unexpected judgment could be rendered against us, or we could decide to resolve a case or cases, that would result in liability that could be uninsured and beyond the amounts we currently have reserved and in some cases those losses could be material. If one or more negative outcomes were to occur relative to these matters, the aggregate impact to our financial condition could be material.

Disputes, Litigation and Contingencies

Shareholder Litigation

In 2010, three shareholder derivative actions were filed, purportedly on behalf of the Company, asserting breach of duty and other claims against certain current and former officers and directors of the Company related to the United Nations oil-for-food program governing sales of goods into Iraq, the FCPA and trade sanctions related to the U.S. government investigations disclosed above and in our U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) filings since 2007. Those shareholder derivative cases, captioned Neff v. Brady, et al., No. 201040764, Rosner v. Brady, et al., No. 201047343, and Hess v. Duroc-Danner, et al., No. 201040765, were filed in Harris County, Texas state court and consolidated (collectively referred to as the “Neff Case”). In 2014, one of the three cases, Hess v. Duroc-Danner, et al., No. 201040765, was voluntarily dismissed from the Neff Case. Other shareholder demand letters covering the same subject matter were received by the Company in early 2014, and a fourth shareholder derivative action was filed, purportedly on behalf of the Company, also asserting breach of duty and other claims against certain current and former officers and directors of the Company related to the same subject matter as the Neff Case. That case, captioned Erste-Sparinvest KAG v. Duroc-Danner, et al., No. 201420933 (Harris County, Texas) was consolidated into the Neff Case in September 2014. A motion to dismiss the consolidated action is pending.

In March 2011, a shareholder derivative action, Iron Workers Mid-South Pension Fund v. Duroc-Danner, et al., No. 201119822, was filed in Harris County, Texas, civil court purportedly on behalf of the Company against certain current and former officers and directors, alleging breaches of duty related to the material weakness and restatement announcements. In February 2012, a second substantially similar shareholder derivative action, Wandel v. Duroc-Danner, et al., No. 1:12-cv-01305-LAK (SDNY), was filed in federal court in the Southern District of New York. In March 2012, a purported securities class action captioned Freedman v. Weatherford International Ltd., et al., No. 1:12-cv-02121-LAK (SDNY) was filed in the Southern District of New York against us and certain current and former officers. That case alleges violation of the federal securities laws related to the restatement of our historical financial statements announced on February 21, 2012, and later added claims related to the announcement of a subsequent restatement on July 24, 2012. In the three months ended December 31, 2014, we advanced settlement negotiations such that settlement is deemed probable and we maintain an accrual of the estimated probable loss.

We cannot predict the outcome of these cases including the amount of any possible loss. If one or more negative outcomes were to occur relative to these cases, the aggregate impact to our financial condition could be material.

In March 2011, a purported shareholder class action captioned Dobina v. Weatherford International Ltd., et al., No. 1:11-cv-01646-LAK (SDNY), was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, following our announcement on March 1, 2011 of a material weakness in our internal controls over financial reporting for income taxes, and restatement of our historical financial statements (the “2011 Class Action”). The lawsuit alleged violation of the federal securities laws by us and certain current and former officers. During the three months ended December 31, 2013, we entered into negotiations to settle the 2011 Class Action. As a result of these negotiations, settlement became probable and a settlement agreement was signed on January 29, 2014. The settlement was approved by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on January 5, 2015, and final judgment entered on January 30, 2015. The settlement agreement required payments totaling $53 million which was entirely funded by our insurers.

U.S. Government and Internal Investigations

On January 17, 2014, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas approved the settlement agreements between us and certain of our subsidiaries and the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”). On November 26, 2013, we announced that we and our subsidiaries also entered into settlement agreements with the U.S. Departments of Treasury and Commerce and with the SEC, which the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas entered on December 20, 2013. These agreements collectively resolved investigations of prior alleged violations by us and certain of our subsidiaries relating to certain trade sanctions laws, participation in the United Nations oil-for-food program governing sales of goods into Iraq and non-compliance with FCPA matters.

The $253 million payable by us and our subsidiaries was paid in January and February 2014 pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreements. These agreements include a requirement to retain, for a period of at least 18 months, an independent monitor responsible for assessing our compliance with the terms of the agreement so as to address and reduce the risk of recurrence of alleged misconduct, after which we would continue to evaluate our own compliance program and make periodic reports to the DOJ and SEC and maintain agreed compliance monitoring and reporting systems, all of which is costly to us. In April 2014, the independent monitor was retained and the compliance assessment period began. These agreements also require us to retain an independent third party to retroactively audit our compliance with U.S. export control laws during the years 2012, 2013 and 2014. This audit is on-going.

The SEC and DOJ are also investigating the circumstances surrounding the material weakness in our internal controls over financial reporting for income taxes that was disclosed in a notification of late filing on Form 12b-25 filed on March 1, 2011 and in current reports on Form 8-K filed on February 21, 2012 and on July 24, 2012 and the subsequent restatements of our historical financial statements. We are cooperating fully with these investigations. We are unable to predict the outcome of these matters due to the inherent uncertainties presented by such investigations, and we are unable to predict potential outcomes or estimate the range of potential loss contingencies, if any. The government, generally, has a broad range of civil and criminal penalties available for these types of matters under applicable law and regulation, including injunctive relief, fines, penalties and modifications to business practices, some of which, if imposed on us, could be material to our business, financial condition or results of operations.

In the third quarter of 2014, we settled a compensation dispute with a former Senior Vice President and General Counsel who left the Company in 2009 and recognized an immaterial additional accrual to the amount previously accrued in 2013.

Additionally, we are aware of various disputes and potential claims and are a party in various litigation involving claims against us, some of which are covered by insurance. For claims, disputes and pending litigation in which we believe a negative outcome is probable and a loss can be reasonably estimated, we have recorded a liability for the expected loss. These liabilities are immaterial to our financial condition and results of operations. In addition we have certain claims, disputes and pending litigation regarding which we do not believe a negative outcome is probable or for which we can only estimate a range of liability. It is possible, however, an unexpected judgment could be rendered against us, or we could decide to resolve a case or cases, that would result in liability that could be uninsured and beyond the amounts we currently have reserved and in some cases those losses could be material. If one or more negative outcomes were to occur relative to these matters, the aggregate impact to our financial condition could be material.