Disputes, Litigation and Contingencies	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 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. Securities Class Action Settlement 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. Pursuant to the settlement, we were required to pay $120 million, which was partially funded by insurance proceeds. There was no admission of liability or fault by a party in connection with the settlement. We are pursuing reimbursement from our insurance carriers and recovered $19 million of the settlement amount, of which $4 million was recovered in 2016. On January 30, 2015, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York approved the settlement of a purported shareholder securities class action captioned Dobina v. Weatherford International Ltd., et al., No. 1:11-cv-01646-LAK (S.D.N.Y.) for $53 million. The action named Weatherford and certain current and former officers as defendants. It alleged violation of the federal securities laws in connection with the material weakness in our internal controls over financial reporting for income taxes, and restatement of our historical financial statements announced in March 2011. The settlement was entirely funded by our insurers. There was no admission of liability or fault by any party in connection with the settlement. Shareholder Derivative Actions Settlement We signed an amended stipulation of settlement in November 2014 to resolve two shareholder derivative actions related to the Company’s restatement of its financial statements and material weakness in internal controls over financial reporting for income taxes. On June 24, 2015, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York approved the settlement and entered final judgment in one of the two cases, Wandel v. Duroc-Danner, et al., No. 1:12-cv-01305-LAK. By agreement with the plaintiffs, a substantially identical shareholder derivative case, Iron Workers Mid-South Pension Fund v. Duroc-Danner, et al., No. 201119822, pending in Harris County, Texas, state court was voluntarily dismissed with prejudice. The two cases, purportedly brought on behalf of the Company against certain current and former officers and directors, alleged breaches of duty related to our material weakness and restatements. The settlement included an agreed upon set of revised corporate procedures, no monetary payment by the defendants and an award of attorney’s fees and reimbursement of expenses for a total amount of $0.6 million for the plaintiff’s counsel, which we paid in July 2015. There was no admission of liability or fault by any party in connection with the settlement. U.S. Government and Internal Investigations The SEC and the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) were investigating certain accounting issues associated with 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. During the first quarter 2016, we recorded a loss contingency in the amount of $65 million, and increased it to $140 million in the second quarter to reflect our best estimate of the potential settlement. As disclosed on the Form 8-K filed on September 27, 2016, the Company settled with the SEC without admitting or denying the findings of the SEC, by consenting to the entry of an administrative order that requires the Company to cease and desist from committing or causing any violations and any future violations of the anti-fraud provisions of the Securities Act of 1933, and the anti-fraud, reporting, books and records, and internal controls provisions of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the rules promulgated thereunder. As part of the terms of the SEC settlement, the Company agreed to pay a total civil monetary penalty of $140 million, with 50 million due within 21 days from the settlement agreement and three installments of $30 million due within 120, 240 and 360 days. In addition, certain reports and certifications must be delivered to the SEC in the following two years regarding our tax internal controls. The first installment of $50 million was paid during the fourth quarter of 2016. The second installment of $30 million was paid in January of 2017. Other Disputes and Litigation In August 2016, after a bench trial in Harris County, Texas, the court entered a judgment in favor of Spitzer Industries, Inc. (“Spitzer”) in connection with Spitzer’s fabrication work on a two mobile capture vessels used in the cleanup of marine oil spills. The Company has taken a reserve in the full amount of the judgment and has initiated an appeal of the judgment to the First Court of Appeals in Houston, Texas. 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 an agreement was reached and settled during 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. Accrued litigation and settlements recorded in “Other Current Liabilities” on the accompanying Consolidated Balance Sheets as of December 31, 2016 and 2015 were $181 million and $53 million, respectively. The accrued litigation balance as of December 31, 2016 included the remaining SEC settlement obligation of $90 million.

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.

Securities Class Action Settlement

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. Pursuant to the settlement, we were required to pay $120 million, which was partially funded by insurance proceeds. There was no admission of liability or fault by a party in connection with the settlement. We are pursuing reimbursement from our insurance carriers and recovered $19 million of the settlement amount, of which $4 million was recovered in 2016.

On January 30, 2015, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York approved the settlement of a purported shareholder securities class action captioned Dobina v. Weatherford International Ltd., et al., No. 1:11-cv-01646-LAK (S.D.N.Y.) for $53 million. The action named Weatherford and certain current and former officers as defendants. It alleged violation of the federal securities laws in connection with the material weakness in our internal controls over financial reporting for income taxes, and restatement of our historical financial statements announced in March 2011. The settlement was entirely funded by our insurers. There was no admission of liability or fault by any party in connection with the settlement.

Shareholder Derivative Actions Settlement

We signed an amended stipulation of settlement in November 2014 to resolve two shareholder derivative actions related to the Company’s restatement of its financial statements and material weakness in internal controls over financial reporting for income taxes. On June 24, 2015, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York approved the settlement and entered final judgment in one of the two cases, Wandel v. Duroc-Danner, et al., No. 1:12-cv-01305-LAK. By agreement with the plaintiffs, a substantially identical shareholder derivative case, Iron Workers Mid-South Pension Fund v. Duroc-Danner, et al., No. 201119822, pending in Harris County, Texas, state court was voluntarily dismissed with prejudice. The two cases, purportedly brought on behalf of the Company against certain current and former officers and directors, alleged breaches of duty related to our material weakness and restatements. The settlement included an agreed upon set of revised corporate procedures, no monetary payment by the defendants and an award of attorney’s fees and reimbursement of expenses for a total amount of $0.6 million for the plaintiff’s counsel, which we paid in July 2015. There was no admission of liability or fault by any party in connection with the settlement.

U.S. Government and Internal Investigations

The SEC and the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) were investigating certain accounting issues associated with 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. During the first quarter 2016, we recorded a loss contingency in the amount of $65 million, and increased it to $140 million in the second quarter to reflect our best estimate of the potential settlement. As disclosed on the Form 8-K filed on September 27, 2016, the Company settled with the SEC without admitting or denying the findings of the SEC, by consenting to the entry of an administrative order that requires the Company to cease and desist from committing or causing any violations and any future violations of the anti-fraud provisions of the Securities Act of 1933, and the anti-fraud, reporting, books and records, and internal controls provisions of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the rules promulgated thereunder. As part of the terms of the SEC settlement, the Company agreed to pay a total civil monetary penalty of $140 million, with 50 million due within 21 days from the settlement agreement and three installments of $30 million due within 120, 240 and 360 days. In addition, certain reports and certifications must be delivered to the SEC in the following two years regarding our tax internal controls. The first installment of $50 million was paid during the fourth quarter of 2016. The second installment of $30 million was paid in January of 2017.

Other Disputes and Litigation

In August 2016, after a bench trial in Harris County, Texas, the court entered a judgment in favor of Spitzer Industries, Inc. (“Spitzer”) in connection with Spitzer’s fabrication work on a two mobile capture vessels used in the cleanup of marine oil spills. The Company has taken a reserve in the full amount of the judgment and has initiated an appeal of the judgment to the First Court of Appeals in Houston, Texas.

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 an agreement was reached and settled during 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.

Accrued litigation and settlements recorded in “Other Current Liabilities” on the accompanying Consolidated Balance Sheets as of December 31, 2016 and 2015 were $181 million and $53 million, respectively. The accrued litigation balance as of December 31, 2016 included the remaining SEC settlement obligation of $90 million.