Legal Matters	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2011
Legal Matters [Abstract]
LEGAL MATTERS	NOTE 11 — LEGAL MATTERS We are named from time to time in legal proceedings related to our activities prior to our bankruptcy in 1988. However, we believe that we were discharged from liability for all such claims in the bankruptcy and believe the likelihood of a material loss relating to any such legal proceeding is remote. We are also involved in litigation or proceedings that have arisen in our ordinary business activities. We insure against these risks to the extent deemed prudent by our management and to the extent insurance is available, but no assurance can be given that the nature and amount of that insurance will be sufficient to fully indemnify us against liabilities arising out of pending and future legal proceedings. Many of these insurance policies contain deductibles or self-insured retentions in amounts we deem prudent and for which we are responsible for payment. If there is a claim, dispute or pending litigation in which we believe a negative outcome is probable and a loss by the Company can be reasonably estimated, we record a liability for the expected loss but at this time any such expected loss are immaterial to our financial condition and results of operations. In addition we have certain claims, disputes and pending litigation in which we do not believe a negative outcome is probable or for which the loss cannot be reasonably estimated. Shortly following the announcement of the merger agreement with Seawell (now Archer) in August 2010, ten putative stockholder class-action petitions and complaints were filed against various combinations of us, members of our board of directors and the Archer parties to the merger agreement. Seven of the lawsuits were filed in Texas and three lawsuits were filed in Delaware. These lawsuits had challenged the proposed merger and generally allege, among other things, that our directors have breached their fiduciary duties owed to our public stockholders by approving the merger and failing to take steps to maximize our value to our public stockholders. The lawsuits generally sought, among other things, compensatory damages, attorneys’ and experts’ fees, declaratory and injunctive relief concerning the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties, and injunctive relief prohibiting the defendants from consummating the merger. In February 2011, the plaintiffs’ request for an injunction was denied by the Delaware court and the merger closed on February 23, 2011. In July 2011, plaintiffs and defendants jointly filed a stipulation and order for the dismissal of all claims as moot with the plaintiffs reserving only their application for attorney’s fees and expenses, which the Company and other defendants oppose. The proposed stipulation and order is pending before the court. The case of Nexen Petroleum U.S.A., Inc. et al v. Allis-Chalmers Rental Services, LLC, Cameron, Hydril and Tri-City Pipe & Machine, Cause No. 88810 in the 15th Judicial District, State of Louisiana is presently scheduled for trial in September 2011. The case involves a blow out on a well operated by Nexen in Vermilion Parish. During drilling operations, Nexen lost control of the well, activated and closed ‘blow out preventers’ rented from Allis-Chalmers Rental Services, LLC (ACRS) thereby sealing the well. Nexen then re-opened the blow out preventers to attempt an unsuccessful dynamic kill. Nexen alleges that it then again attempted to reseal the well using the blow out preventers but was unable to obtain a complete seal. The well allegedly then flowed uncontrolled for up to a day causing damage to the rig and other equipment, and the hole. The blow out preventers were manufactured by Cameron and Hydril and some of the components of the Cameron equipment were machined by Tri-City. Nexen alleges that the blow out preventers failed due to the fault of the defendants. ACRS contends that Nexen actions in specifying the equipment for the well, designing the well, and operating the well including its acts and omissions for the well control event caused any failure of the equipment rented to Nexen by ACRS. There is conflicting evidence and expert testimony affecting several aspects of this case. It is impossible to predict the outcome with any degree of certainty. ACRS and its insurers are treating this case as highly defensible and continue to vigorously contest it.

NOTE 11 — LEGAL MATTERS

We are named from time to time in legal proceedings related to our activities prior to our bankruptcy in 1988. However, we believe that we were discharged from liability for all such claims in the bankruptcy and believe the likelihood of a material loss relating to any such legal proceeding is remote.

We are also involved in litigation or proceedings that have arisen in our ordinary business activities. We insure against these risks to the extent deemed prudent by our management and to the extent insurance is available, but no assurance can be given that the nature and amount of that insurance will be sufficient to fully indemnify us against liabilities arising out of pending and future legal proceedings. Many of these insurance policies contain deductibles or self-insured retentions in amounts we deem prudent and for which we are responsible for payment. If there is a claim, dispute or pending litigation in which we believe a negative outcome is probable and a loss by the Company can be reasonably estimated, we record a liability for the expected loss but at this time any such expected loss are immaterial to our financial condition and results of operations. In addition we have certain claims, disputes and pending litigation in which we do not believe a negative outcome is probable or for which the loss cannot be reasonably estimated.

Shortly following the announcement of the merger agreement with Seawell (now Archer) in August 2010, ten putative stockholder class-action petitions and complaints were filed against various combinations of us, members of our board of directors and the Archer parties to the merger agreement. Seven of the lawsuits were filed in Texas and three lawsuits were filed in Delaware. These lawsuits had challenged the proposed merger and generally allege, among other things, that our directors have breached their fiduciary duties owed to our public stockholders by approving the merger and failing to take steps to maximize our value to our public stockholders. The lawsuits generally sought, among other things, compensatory damages, attorneys’ and experts’ fees, declaratory and injunctive relief concerning the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties, and injunctive relief prohibiting the defendants from consummating the merger. In February 2011, the plaintiffs’ request for an injunction was denied by the Delaware court and the merger closed on February 23, 2011. In July 2011, plaintiffs and defendants jointly filed a stipulation and order for the dismissal of all claims as moot with the plaintiffs reserving only their application for attorney’s fees and expenses, which the Company and other defendants oppose. The proposed stipulation and order is pending before the court.

The case of Nexen Petroleum U.S.A., Inc. et al v. Allis-Chalmers Rental Services, LLC, Cameron, Hydril and Tri-City Pipe & Machine, Cause No. 88810 in the 15th Judicial District, State of Louisiana is presently scheduled for trial in September 2011. The case involves a blow out on a well operated by Nexen in Vermilion Parish. During drilling operations, Nexen lost control of the well, activated and closed ‘blow out preventers’ rented from Allis-Chalmers Rental Services, LLC (ACRS) thereby sealing the well. Nexen then re-opened the blow out preventers to attempt an unsuccessful dynamic kill. Nexen alleges that it then again attempted to reseal the well using the blow out preventers but was unable to obtain a complete seal. The well allegedly then flowed uncontrolled for up to a day causing damage to the rig and other equipment, and the hole. The blow out preventers were manufactured by Cameron and Hydril and some of the components of the Cameron equipment were machined by Tri-City. Nexen alleges that the blow out preventers failed due to the fault of the defendants. ACRS contends that Nexen actions in specifying the equipment for the well, designing the well, and operating the well including its acts and omissions for the well control event caused any failure of the equipment rented to Nexen by ACRS. There is conflicting evidence and expert testimony affecting several aspects of this case. It is impossible to predict the outcome with any degree of certainty. ACRS and its insurers are treating this case as highly defensible and continue to vigorously contest it.