Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Oct. 31, 2013
Contingencies	12. Contingencies The Company’s drilling activities involve certain operating hazards that can result in personal injury or loss of life, damage and destruction of property and equipment, damage to the surrounding areas, release of hazardous substances or wastes and other damage to the environment, interruption or suspension of drill site operations and loss of revenues and future business. The magnitude of these operating risks is amplified when the Company, as is frequently the case, conducts a project on a fixed-price, bundled basis where the Company delegates certain functions to subcontractors but remains responsible to the customer for the subcontracted work. In addition, the Company is exposed to potential liability under foreign, federal, state and local laws and regulations, contractual indemnification agreements or otherwise in connection with its services and products. Litigation arising from any such occurrences may result in the Company being named as a defendant in lawsuits asserting large claims. Although the Company maintains insurance protection that it considers economically prudent, there can be no assurance that any such insurance will be sufficient or effective under all circumstances or against all claims or hazards to which the Company may be subject or that the Company will be able to continue to obtain such insurance protection. A successful claim or damage resulting from a hazard for which the Company is not fully insured could have a material adverse effect on the Company. In addition, the Company does not maintain political risk insurance with respect to its foreign operations. In connection with the Company updating its Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“FCPA”) policy, questions were raised internally in late September 2010 about, among other things, the legality of certain payments by the Company to agents and other third parties interacting with government officials in certain countries in Africa. The Audit Committee of the Board of Directors engaged outside counsel to conduct an internal investigation to review these payments with assistance from outside accounting firms. The internal investigation has found documents and information suggesting that improper payments, which may violate the FCPA and other local laws, were made over a considerable period of time, by or on behalf of, certain foreign subsidiaries of the Company to third parties interacting with government officials in Africa relating to the payment of taxes, the importing of equipment and the employment of expatriates. We have made a voluntary disclosure to the United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”) and the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) regarding the results of our investigation and we are cooperating with the DOJ and the SEC in connection with their review of the matter. If violations of the FCPA or other local laws occurred, the Company could be subject to fines, civil and criminal penalties, equitable remedies, including profit disgorgement and related interest, and injunctive relief. Often, dispositions for these types of matters result in modifications to business practices and compliance programs and possibly a monitor being appointed to review future business and practices with the goal of ensuring compliance with the FCPA and other applicable laws. In addition, disclosure of the subject matter of the investigation could adversely affect the Company’s reputation and its ability to obtain new business or retain existing business from its current clients and potential clients, to attract and retain employees and to access the capital markets. If it is determined that a violation of the FCPA has occurred, such violation may give rise to an event of default under the agreements governing our debt instruments if such violation were to have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, assets, property, financial condition or prospects or if the amount of any settlement resulted in the Company failing to satisfy any financial covenants. Additional potential FCPA violations or violations of other laws or regulations may be uncovered through the investigation. The Company is engaged in discussions with the DOJ and the SEC regarding a potential negotiated resolution of these matters. The Company believes that it is likely that any settlement will include both the payment of a monetary fine and the disgorgement of any improper benefits. In May 2013, the staff of the SEC orally advised the Company that they calculated the estimated benefits to the Company from allegedly improper payments, plus interest thereon, to be approximately $4.8 million, which amount was accrued by the Company as of April 30, 2013. Based on the results of the Company’s internal investigation, an analysis of the resolution of recent and similar FCPA resolutions, the Company currently estimates a potential settlement range for resolving these matters (including the amount of a monetary penalty and the disgorgement of any improper benefits plus and interest) of $10.4 million to $16.0 million. The Company has increased its reserve for the settlement of these matters from $4.8 million to $10.4 million, representing the low end of this range. At this time, we can provide no assurances as to whether the Company will be able to settle for an amount equal to its current reserve or within its estimated settlement range or whether the SEC or DOJ will accept voluntary settlement terms that would be acceptable to the Company. Furthermore, the Company cannot currently assess the potential liability that might be incurred if a settlement is not reached and the government was to litigate the matter. As such, based on the information available at this time, any additional liability related to this matter is not reasonably estimable. The Company will continue to evaluate the amount of its liability pending final resolution of the investigation, and any related settlement discussions with the government; the amount of the actual liability for any fines, penalties, disgorgement or interest that may be recorded in connection with a final settlement could be significantly higher than the liability accrued to date. Other than the indication of the estimated disgorgement amount noted above, the Company has not received any proposed settlement offers from the SEC or DOJ and there can be no assurance that its discussions with the DOJ and SEC will result in a final settlement of any or all of these issues or, if a settlement is reached, the timing of any such settlement or that the terms of any such settlement would not have a material adverse effect on the Company. On April 17, 2013, an individual person filed a purported class action suit against three of our subsidiaries and two other companies supposedly on behalf of all lessors and royalty owners from 2004 to the present. Plaintiff essentially alleges that we and two other companies allocated the market for mineral leasing rights and restrained trade in mineral leasing within the state of Kansas. Plaintiff seeks certification as a class and unquantified damages. Plaintiff’s suit was initially filed in the District Court of Wilson County, Kansas. On July 3, 2013, the case was removed by a co-defendant to the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas. On July 10, 2013, we and the other defendants filed a motion asking the court to dismiss plaintiff’s case for failure to state a claim. On July 29, 2013, plaintiff filed a motion asking the federal court to send the case back to the District Court of Wilson County, Kansas. We believe we have meritorious legal positions and will continue to represent our interests vigorously in this matter. The Company is involved in various other matters of litigation, claims and disputes which have arisen in the ordinary course of the Company’s business. The Company believes that the ultimate disposition of these matters will not, individually and in the aggregate, have a material adverse effect upon its business or condensed consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

12. Contingencies

The Company’s drilling activities involve certain operating hazards that can result in personal injury or loss of life, damage and destruction of property and equipment, damage to the surrounding areas, release of hazardous substances or wastes and other damage to the environment, interruption or suspension of drill site operations and loss of revenues and future business. The magnitude of these operating risks is amplified when the Company, as is frequently the case, conducts a project on a fixed-price, bundled basis where the Company delegates certain functions to subcontractors but remains responsible to the customer for the subcontracted work. In addition, the Company is exposed to potential liability under foreign, federal, state and local laws and regulations, contractual indemnification agreements or otherwise in connection with its services and products. Litigation arising from any such occurrences may result in the Company being named as a defendant in lawsuits asserting large claims. Although the Company maintains insurance protection that it considers economically prudent, there can be no assurance that any such insurance will be sufficient or effective under all circumstances or against all claims or hazards to which the Company may be subject or that the Company will be able to continue to obtain such insurance protection. A successful claim or damage resulting from a hazard for which the Company is not fully insured could have a material adverse effect on the Company. In addition, the Company does not maintain political risk insurance with respect to its foreign operations.

In connection with the Company updating its Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“FCPA”) policy, questions were raised internally in late September 2010 about, among other things, the legality of certain payments by the Company to agents and other third parties interacting with government officials in certain countries in Africa. The Audit Committee of the Board of Directors engaged outside counsel to conduct an internal investigation to review these payments with assistance from outside accounting firms. The internal investigation has found documents and information suggesting that improper payments, which may violate the FCPA and other local laws, were made over a considerable period of time, by or on behalf of, certain foreign subsidiaries of the Company to third parties interacting with government officials in Africa relating to the payment of taxes, the importing of equipment and the employment of expatriates. We have made a voluntary disclosure to the United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”) and the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) regarding the results of our investigation and we are cooperating with the DOJ and the SEC in connection with their review of the matter.

If violations of the FCPA or other local laws occurred, the Company could be subject to fines, civil and criminal penalties, equitable remedies, including profit disgorgement and related interest, and injunctive relief. Often, dispositions for these types of matters result in modifications to business practices and compliance programs and possibly a monitor being appointed to review future business and practices with the goal of ensuring compliance with the FCPA and other applicable laws. In addition, disclosure of the subject matter of the investigation could adversely affect the Company’s reputation and its ability to obtain new business or retain existing business from its current clients and potential clients, to attract and retain employees and to access the capital markets. If it is determined that a violation of the FCPA has occurred, such violation may give rise to an event of default under the agreements governing our debt instruments if such violation were to have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, assets, property, financial condition or prospects or if the amount of any settlement resulted in the Company failing to satisfy any financial covenants. Additional potential FCPA violations or violations of other laws or regulations may be uncovered through the investigation.

The Company is engaged in discussions with the DOJ and the SEC regarding a potential negotiated resolution of these matters. The Company believes that it is likely that any settlement will include both the payment of a monetary fine and the disgorgement of any improper benefits. In May 2013, the staff of the SEC orally advised the Company that they calculated the estimated benefits to the Company from allegedly improper payments, plus interest thereon, to be approximately $4.8 million, which amount was accrued by the Company as of April 30, 2013. Based on the results of the Company’s internal investigation, an analysis of the resolution of recent and similar FCPA resolutions, the Company currently estimates a potential settlement range for resolving these matters (including the amount of a monetary penalty and the disgorgement of any improper benefits plus and interest) of $10.4 million to $16.0 million. The Company has increased its reserve for the settlement of these matters from $4.8 million to $10.4 million, representing the low end of this range.

At this time, we can provide no assurances as to whether the Company will be able to settle for an amount equal to its current reserve or within its estimated settlement range or whether the SEC or DOJ will accept voluntary settlement terms that would be acceptable to the Company. Furthermore, the Company cannot currently assess the potential liability that might be incurred if a settlement is not reached and the government was to litigate the matter. As such, based on the information available at this time, any additional liability related to this matter is not reasonably estimable. The Company will continue to evaluate the amount of its liability pending final resolution of the investigation, and any related settlement discussions with the government; the amount of the actual liability for any fines, penalties, disgorgement or interest that may be recorded in connection with a final settlement could be significantly higher than the liability accrued to date.

Other than the indication of the estimated disgorgement amount noted above, the Company has not received any proposed settlement offers from the SEC or DOJ and there can be no assurance that its discussions with the DOJ and SEC will result in a final settlement of any or all of these issues or, if a settlement is reached, the timing of any such settlement or that the terms of any such settlement would not have a material adverse effect on the Company.

On April 17, 2013, an individual person filed a purported class action suit against three of our subsidiaries and two other companies supposedly on behalf of all lessors and royalty owners from 2004 to the present. Plaintiff essentially alleges that we and two other companies allocated the market for mineral leasing rights and restrained trade in mineral leasing within the state of Kansas. Plaintiff seeks certification as a class and unquantified damages. Plaintiff’s suit was initially filed in the District Court of Wilson County, Kansas. On July 3, 2013, the case was removed by a co-defendant to the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas. On July 10, 2013, we and the other defendants filed a motion asking the court to dismiss plaintiff’s case for failure to state a claim. On July 29, 2013, plaintiff filed a motion asking the federal court to send the case back to the District Court of Wilson County, Kansas. We believe we have meritorious legal positions and will continue to represent our interests vigorously in this matter.

The Company is involved in various other matters of litigation, claims and disputes which have arisen in the ordinary course of the Company’s business. The Company believes that the ultimate disposition of these matters will not, individually and in the aggregate, have a material adverse effect upon its business or condensed consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.