Disputes, Litigation and Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2016
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 in our U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) filings since 2007. Those shareholder derivative cases were filed in Harris County, Texas state court and consolidated under the caption Neff v. Brady, et al., No. 2010040764 (collectively referred to as 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 was granted May 15, 2015 and an appeal, which remains pending, was filed on June 15, 2015. We cannot reliably predict the outcome of the appeal including the amount of any possible loss. If one or more negative outcomes were to occur relative to the Neff Case, the aggregate impact to our financial condition could be material. On June 30, 2015, we signed a stipulation to settle a shareholder securities class action captioned Freedman v. Weatherford International Ltd., et al., No. 1:12-cv-02121-LAK (S.D.N.Y.) for $120 million subject to notice to the class and court approval. The Freedman lawsuit had been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in March 2012 and alleged that we and certain current and former officers of Weatherford violated the federal securities laws in connection with the restatements of the Company’s historical financial statements announced on February 21, 2012 and July 24, 2012. On November 4, 2015, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York entered a final judgment and an order approving the settlement of the shareholder securities class action captioned Freedman v. Weatherford International Ltd., et al., No. 1:12-cv-02121-LAK (S.D.N.Y.). Pursuant to the settlement, we were required to pay $120 million in 2015, which was partially funded by insurance proceeds. There was no admission of liability or fault by any party in connection with the settlement. We are pursuing reimbursement from our insurance carriers and have recovered a total of $19 million of the settlement amount, of which $4 million have been recovered in 2016. U.S. Government and Other Investigations As previously disclosed, the SEC and the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) are also investigating the circumstances surrounding the material weakness in our internal control 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 and have been discussing a resolution with the SEC. During the first quarter 2016, after progress made in the continued discussion on potential resolutions with the SEC, we recorded a loss contingency in the amount of $65 million. In the second quarter 2016, our negotiations continued to advance, and we have increased our loss contingency to $140 million as our best estimate for the potential settlement of this matter. However, uncertainties remain pending the ultimate resolution of the investigation, and we may ultimately not reach a final settlement with the government. Additionally, we are aware of various disputes and potential claims and are a party in various litigation involving claims against us, including as a defendant in various employment claims alleging our failure to pay certain classes of workers overtime in compliance with the Fair Labor Standards Act for which we have arrived at an agreement during the second quarter 2016. Some of these disputes and claims 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 for 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, that 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. Other Contingencies We have a contractual residual value guarantee at June 30, 2016 of $28 million in the line captioned “Other Non-Current Liabilities” on the accompanying Consolidated Balance Sheets related to certain leased equipment in our North America pressure pumping business. We have supply contract related minimum purchase commitments and maintain a liability at June 30, 2016 of $135 million for expected penalties to be paid, of which $29 million is recorded in current liabilities and $106 million is recorded in other non-current liabilities on our Consolidated Balance Sheets.

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 in our U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) filings since 2007. Those shareholder derivative cases were filed in Harris County, Texas state court and consolidated under the caption Neff v. Brady, et al., No. 2010040764 (collectively referred to as 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 was granted May 15, 2015 and an appeal, which remains pending, was filed on June 15, 2015.

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

On June 30, 2015, we signed a stipulation to settle a shareholder securities class action captioned Freedman v. Weatherford International Ltd., et al., No. 1:12-cv-02121-LAK (S.D.N.Y.) for $120 million subject to notice to the class and court approval. The Freedman lawsuit had been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in March 2012 and alleged that we and certain current and former officers of Weatherford violated the federal securities laws in connection with the restatements of the Company’s historical financial statements announced on February 21, 2012 and July 24, 2012. On November 4, 2015, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York entered a final judgment and an order approving the settlement of the shareholder securities class action captioned Freedman v. Weatherford International Ltd., et al., No. 1:12-cv-02121-LAK (S.D.N.Y.). Pursuant to the settlement, we were required to pay $120 million in 2015, which was partially funded by insurance proceeds. There was no admission of liability or fault by any party in connection with the settlement. We are pursuing reimbursement from our insurance carriers and have recovered a total of $19 million of the settlement amount, of which $4 million have been recovered in 2016.

U.S. Government and Other Investigations

As previously disclosed, the SEC and the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) are also investigating the circumstances surrounding the material weakness in our internal control 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 and have been discussing a resolution with the SEC. During the first quarter 2016, after progress made in the continued discussion on potential resolutions with the SEC, we recorded a loss contingency in the amount of $65 million. In the second quarter 2016, our negotiations continued to advance, and we have increased our loss contingency to $140 million as our best estimate for the potential settlement of this matter. However, uncertainties remain pending the ultimate resolution of the investigation, and we may ultimately not reach a final settlement with the government.

Additionally, we are aware of various disputes and potential claims and are a party in various litigation involving claims against us, including as a defendant in various employment claims alleging our failure to pay certain classes of workers overtime in compliance with the Fair Labor Standards Act for which we have arrived at an agreement during the second quarter 2016. Some of these disputes and claims 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 for 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, that 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.

Other Contingencies

We have a contractual residual value guarantee at June 30, 2016 of $28 million in the line captioned “Other Non-Current Liabilities” on the accompanying Consolidated Balance Sheets related to certain leased equipment in our North America pressure pumping business.

We have supply contract related minimum purchase commitments and maintain a liability at June 30, 2016 of $135 million for expected penalties to be paid, of which $29 million is recorded in current liabilities and $106 million is recorded in other non-current liabilities on our Consolidated Balance Sheets.