Condensed Consolidated Statements Of Operations (Unaudited) (USD $) In Millions, except Share data, unless otherwise specified	3 Months Ended		9 Months Ended
	Sep. 30, 2009	Sep. 30, 2008	Sep. 30, 2009	Sep. 30, 2008
Operating revenues
Contract drilling revenues	$ 2,602	$ 2,699	$ 8,061	$ 7,926
Contract drilling intangible revenues	58	143	237	557
Other revenues	163	350	525	921
Total revenues	2,823	3,192	8,823	9,404
Costs and expenses
Operating and maintenance	1,396	1,426	3,844	3,947
Depreciation, depletion and amortization	367	336	1,082	1,040
General and administrative	54	46	163	140
Total costs and expenses	1,817	1,808	5,089	5,127
Impairment loss	(46)	0	(334)	0
Loss from disposal of assets, net	(3)	(1)	(3)	(4)
Operating income	957	1,383	3,397	4,273
Other income (expense) , net
Interest income	0	7	2	30
Interest expense, net of amounts capitalized	(115)	(143)	(365)	(473)
Loss on retirement of debt	(7)	0	(17)	(3)
Other, net	9	(12)	9	(20)
Total other income (expense) , net	(113)	(148)	(371)	(466)
Income before income tax expense	844	1,235	3,026	3,807
Income tax expense	138	175	573	533
Net income	706	1,060	2,453	3,274
Net loss attributable to noncontrolling interest	(4)	(3)	(5)	(3)
Net income attributable to controlling interest	$ 710	$ 1,063	$ 2,458	$ 3,277
Earnings per share
Basic	$ 2.20	$ 3.32	$ 7.63	$ 10.27
Diluted	$ 2.19	$ 3.30	$ 7.61	$ 10.19
Weighted average shares outstanding
Basic	321	319	320	318
Diluted	322	321	321	321

Condensed Consolidated Statements Of Comprehensive Income (Unaudited) (USD $) In Millions, unless otherwise specified	3 Months Ended		9 Months Ended
	Sep. 30, 2009	Sep. 30, 2008	Sep. 30, 2009	Sep. 30, 2008
Net income	$ 706	$ 1,060	$ 2,453	$ 3,274
Other comprehensive income (loss) before income taxes
Unrecognized components of net periodic benefit cost	0	0	(39)	(7)
Recognized components of net periodic benefit cost	4	2	13	3
Unrealized gain (loss) on derivative instruments	(8)	0	1	0
Other, net	0	(1)	0	(3)
Other comprehensive income (loss) before income taxes	(4)	1	(25)	(7)
Income taxes related to other comprehensive income (loss)	0	0	3	3
Other comprehensive income (loss), net of income taxes	(4)	1	(22)	(4)
Total comprehensive income	702	1,061	2,431	3,270
Total comprehensive loss attributable to noncontrolling interest	(14)	0	(4)	0
Total comprehensive income attributable to controlling interest	$ 716	$ 1,061	$ 2,435	$ 3,270

Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets (Unaudited) (USD $) In Millions, unless otherwise specified	9 Months Ended	12 Months Ended
	Sep. 30, 2009	Dec. 31, 2008
ASSETS
Cash and cash equivalents	$ 886	$ 963
Short-term investments	180	333
Accounts receivable, net of allowance for doubtful accounts of $76 and $114 at September 30, 2009 and December 31, 2008, respectively	2,614	2,864
Materials and supplies, net of allowance for obsolescence of $57 and $49 at September 30, 2009 and December 31, 2008, respectively	457	432
Deferred income taxes, net	87	63
Assets held for sale	186	464
Other current assets	193	230
Total current assets	4,603	5,349
Property and equipment	28,513	25,836
Less accumulated depreciation	5,983	4,975
Property and equipment, net	22,530	20,861
Goodwill	8,134	8,128
Other assets	751	844
Total assets	36,018	35,182
LIABILITIES AND EQUITY
Accounts payable	827	914
Accrued income taxes	136	317
Debt due within one year	702	664
Other current liabilities	919	806
Total current liabilities	2,584	2,701
Long-term debt	11,220	12,893
Deferred income taxes, net	772	666
Other long-term liabilities	1,736	1,755
Total long-term liabilities	13,728	15,314
Commitments and contingencies
Shares, CHF 15.00 par value, 502,852,947 authorized, 167,617,649 contingently authorized, 335,235,298 issued and 321,139,451 outstanding at September 30, 2009; 502,852,947 authorized, 167,617,649 contingently authorized, 335,235,298 issued and 319,262,113 outstanding at December 31, 2008	4,470	4,444
Additional paid-in capital	7,394	7,313
Retained earnings	8,285	5,827
Accumulated other comprehensive loss	(442)	(420)
Total controlling interest shareholders' equity	19,707	17,164
Noncontrolling interest	(1)	3
Total equity	19,706	17,167
Total liabilities and equity	$ 36,018	$ 35,182

Statement - Parenthetical Data To The Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets (Unaudited) (USD $) In Millions, except Share data, unless otherwise specified	Sep. 30, 2009	Dec. 31, 2008
ASSETS
Accounts receivable, allowance for doubtful accounts	$ 76	$ 114
Materials and supplies, allowance for obsolescence	$ 57	$ 49
LIABILITIES AND EQUITY
Shares, par value CHF per share	$ 15	$ 15
Shares, authorized	502,852,947	502,852,947
Shares, contingently authorized	167,617,649	167,617,649
Shares, issued	335,235,298	335,235,298
Shares, outstanding	321,139,451	319,262,113

Condensed Consolidated Statements Of Cash Flows (Unaudited) (USD $) In Millions, unless otherwise specified	3 Months Ended		9 Months Ended
	Sep. 30, 2009	Sep. 30, 2008	Sep. 30, 2009	Sep. 30, 2008
Cash flows from operating activities
Net income	$ 706	$ 1,060	$ 2,453	$ 3,274
Adjustments to reconcile net income to net cash provided by operating activities
Amortization of drilling contract intangibles	(58)	(143)	(237)	(557)
Depreciation, depletion and amortization	367	336	1,082	1,040
Share-based compensation expense	23	16	66	49
Excess tax benefit from share-based compensation plans	(9)	0	(10)	(11)
Impairment loss	46	16	334	16
Loss from disposal of assets, net	3	1	3	4
Loss on retirement of debt	(7)	0	(17)	(3)
Amortization of debt issue costs, discounts and premiums, net	51	44	160	129
Deferred revenue, net	29	(3)	72	22
Deferred expenses, net	(3)	(3)	(38)	(132)
Deferred income taxes	24	60	50	4
Other, net	7	7	30	(1)
Changes in operating assets and liabilities	213	(121)	441	(77)
Net cash provided by operating activities	1,406	1,270	4,423	3,763
Cash flows from investing activities
Capital expenditures	(540)	(514)	(2,195)	(1,703)
Proceeds from disposal of assets, net	2	5	10	352
Proceeds from short-term investments	29	14	422	14
Purchases of short-term investments	(34)	(408)	(268)	(408)
Joint ventures and other investments, net	5	0	5	(3)
Net cash used in investing activities	(538)	(903)	(2,026)	(1,748)
Cash flows from financing activities
Change in short-term borrowings, net	254	202	(246)	(153)
Proceeds from debt	26	303	345	2,354
Repayments of debt	(1,173)	(1,000)	(2,583)	(4,673)
Payments for warrant exercises, net	0	0	(13)	(4)
Proceeds from (taxes paid for) share-based compensation plans, net	(6)	(12)	16	49
Excess tax benefit from share-based compensation plans	9	0	10	11
Other, net	1	(7)	(3)	(11)
Net cash used in financing activities	(889)	(514)	(2,474)	(2,427)
Net decrease in cash and cash equivalents	(21)	(147)	(77)	(412)
Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of period	907	976	963	1,241
Cash and cash equivalents at end of period	$ 886	$ 829	$ 886	$ 829

NATURE OF BUSINESS AND PRINCIPLES OF CONSOLIDATION (Unaudited)

9 Months Ended

Sep. 30, 2009

Nature of Business and Principles of Consolidation [Abstract]

Nature of Business

Note 1—Nature of Business and Principles of Consolidation

Nature of business—Transocean Ltd. (together with its subsidiaries and predecessors, unless the context requires otherwise, “Transocean,” the “Company,” “we,” “us” or “our”) is a leading international provider of offshore contract drilling services for oil and gas wells. Our mobile offshore drilling fleet is considered one of the most modern and versatile fleets in the world. Specializing in technically demanding sectors of the offshore drilling business with a particular focus on deepwater and harsh environment drilling services, we contract our drilling rigs, related equipment and work crews primarily on a dayrate basis to drill oil and gas wells. At September 30, 2009, we owned, had partial ownership interests in or operated 135 mobile offshore drilling units. As of this date, our fleet consisted of 41 High-Specification Floaters (Ultra-Deepwater, Deepwater and Harsh Environment semisubmersibles and drillships), 26 Midwater Floaters, 10 High-Specification Jackups, 55 Standard Jackups and three Other Rigs. We also have eight Ultra-Deepwater Floaters under construction (see Note 7—Drilling Fleet Expansion and Dispositions).

We also provide oil and gas drilling management services, drilling engineering and drilling project management services, and we participate in oil and gas exploration and production activities. Drilling management services are provided through Applied Drilling Technology Inc., our wholly owned subsidiary, and through ADT International, a division of one of our U.K. subsidiaries (together, “ADTI”). ADTI conducts drilling management services primarily on either a dayrate or a completed-project, fixed-price (or “turnkey”) basis. Oil and gas properties consist of exploration, development and production activities performed by Challenger Minerals Inc. and Challenger Minerals (North Sea) Limited (together, “CMI”), our oil and gas subsidiaries.

In December 2008, Transocean Ltd. completed a transaction pursuant to an Agreement and Plan of Merger among Transocean Ltd., Transocean Inc., which was our former parent holding company, and Transocean Cayman Ltd., a company organized under the laws of the Cayman Islands that was a wholly owned subsidiary of Transocean Ltd., pursuant to which Transocean Inc. merged by way of schemes of arrangement under Cayman Islands law with Transocean Cayman Ltd., with Transocean Inc. as the surviving company (the “Redomestication Transaction”). In the Redomestication Transaction, Transocean Ltd. issued one of its shares in exchange for each ordinary share of Transocean Inc. In addition, Transocean Ltd. issued 16 million of its shares to Transocean Inc. for future use to satisfy Transocean Ltd.’s obligations to deliver shares in connection with awards granted under our incentive plans, warrants or other rights to acquire shares of Transocean Ltd. The Redomestication Transaction effectively changed the place of incorporation of our parent holding company from the Cayman Islands to Switzerland. As a result of the Redomestication Transaction, Transocean Inc. became a direct, wholly owned subsidiary of Transocean Ltd. In connection with the Redomestication Transaction, we relocated our principal executive offices to Vernier, Switzerland.

Principles of consolidation

Note 1—Nature of Business and Principles of Consolidation

Principles of consolidation—We consolidate those investments that meet the criteria of a variable interest entity where we are deemed to be the primary beneficiary for accounting purposes and for entities in which we have a majority voting interest. Intercompany transactions and accounts are eliminated in consolidation. For investments in joint ventures and other entities that do not meet the criteria of a variable interest entity or where we are not deemed to be the primary beneficiary for accounting purposes of those entities that meet the variable interest entity criteria, we use the equity method of accounting if we have the ability to exercise significant influence over the unconsolidated affiliate. We use the cost method of accounting for investments in joint ventures and other entities if we do not have the ability to exercise significant influence over the unconsolidated affiliate.

Transocean Pacific Drilling Inc. (“TPDI”) and Angola Deepwater Drilling Company Limited (“ADDCL”), two joint venture companies in which we hold interests, were formed to commission the construction, ownership and operation of certain ultra-deepwater drillships. We have determined that each of these joint venture companies meets the criteria of a variable interest entity for which we are the primary beneficiary for accounting purposes because its equity at risk is insufficient to permit it to carry on its activities without additional subordinated financial support from us. As a result, we consolidate TPDI and ADDCL in our consolidated financial statements, we eliminate intercompany transactions, and we present the interests that are not owned by us as noncontrolling interest on our condensed consolidated balance sheets. The carrying values associated with these two joint ventures, after eliminating the effect of intercompany transactions, were as follows (in millions):

	September 30, 2009						December 31, 2008
	Assets		Liabilities		Net carrying value		Assets		Liabilities		Net carrying value
Variable interest entity
TPDI	$	1,175	$	609	$	566	$	803	$	413	$	390
ADDCL		558		484		74		354		307		47
Total	$	1,733	$	1,093	$	640	$	1,157	$	720	$	437

- Definition

Describes an entity's accounting policy regarding (1) the principles it follows in consolidating or combining the separate financial statements, including the principles followed in determining the inclusion or exclusion of subsidiaries or other entities in the consolidated or combined financial statements and (2) its treatment of interests (for example common stock, a partnership interest or other means of exerting influence) in other entities, for example consolidation or use of the equity or cost methods of accounting. An entity also may describe its accounting treatment for intercompany accounts and transactions, noncontrolling interest, and the income statement treatment in consolidation for issuances of stock by a subsidiary.

+ References+ Details

SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES (Unaudited)	9 Months Ended
SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES (Unaudited)	Sep. 30, 2009
Summary of Significant Accounting Policies [Abstract]
Summary of Significant Accounting Policies	Note 2—Summary of Significant Accounting Policies Basis of presentation—Our accompanying condensed consolidated financial statements have been prepared without audit in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States (“U.S.”) for interim financial information and with the instructions to Form 10-Q and Article 10 of Regulation S-X of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”). Pursuant to such rules and regulations, these financial statements do not include all disclosures required by accounting principles generally accepted in the U.S. for complete financial statements. The condensed consolidated financial statements reflect all adjustments, which are, in the opinion of management, necessary for a fair presentation of financial position, results of operations and cash flows for the interim periods. Such adjustments are considered to be of a normal recurring nature unless otherwise identified. Operating results for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2009 are not necessarily indicative of the results that may be expected for the year ending December 31, 2009 or for any future period. The accompanying condensed consolidated financial statements and notes thereto should be read in conjunction with the audited consolidated financial statements and notes thereto included in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008. Accounting estimates—The preparation of financial statements in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the U.S. requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets, liabilities, revenues, expenses and disclosures of contingent assets and liabilities. On an ongoing basis, we evaluate our estimates and assumptions, including those related to bad debts, materials and supplies obsolescence, investments, goodwill and other intangible assets, property and equipment and other long-lived assets, income taxes, share-based compensation, pensions and other postretirement benefits, other employment benefits and contingent liabilities. We base our estimates and assumptions on historical experience and on various other factors we believe are reasonable under the circumstances, the results of which form the basis for making judgments about the carrying values of assets and liabilities that are not readily apparent from other sources. Actual results could differ from such estimates. Capitalized interest—We capitalize interest costs for qualifying construction and upgrade projects. We capitalized interest costs on construction work in progress of $48 million and $143 million for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2009, respectively. Capitalized interest costs for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2008 were $41 million and $117 million, respectively, as adjusted for the adoption of the accounting standards update regarding convertible debt instruments that may be settled in cash upon conversion. See Note 3—New Accounting Pronouncements and Note 8—Debt. Share-based compensation—Share-based compensation expense for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2009 was $23 million ($21 million, or $.07 per diluted share, net of tax) and $66 million ($60 million, or $0.19 per diluted share, net of tax), respectively. Share-based compensation expense for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2008 was $16 million ($15 million, or $0.05 per diluted share, net of tax) and $49 million ($43 million, or $0.13 per diluted share, net of tax), respectively. Reclassifications—Certain reclassifications have been made to prior period amounts to conform with the current period’s presentation. Except for certain reclassifications associated with our adoption of the accounting standards update regarding convertible debt instruments that may be settled in cash upon conversion (see Note 3—New Accounting Pronouncements and Note 8—Debt), these reclassifications did not have a material effect on our consolidated statement of financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

NEW ACCOUNTING PRONOUNCEMENTS (Unaudited)	9 Months Ended
NEW ACCOUNTING PRONOUNCEMENTS (Unaudited)	Sep. 30, 2009
New Accounting Pronouncements [Abstract]
New Accounting Pronouncements	Note 3—New Accounting Pronouncements Recently Adopted Accounting Standards Generally accepted accounting principles—Effective July 1, 2009, we adopted the accounting principles established by The FASB Accounting Standards Codification™, declared by the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) as the source of authoritative accounting principles to be applied by nongovernmental entities in the preparation of financial statements in conformity with accounting standards generally accepted in the U.S. Our adoption did not have an effect on our condensed consolidated statement of financial position, results of operations or cash flows or on the disclosures contained within the notes thereto. Earnings per share—Effective January 1, 2009, we adopted the accounting standards update relating to participating securities, which clarifies that all outstanding unvested share-based payment awards containing rights to nonforfeitable dividends are considered participating securities and the holders of the unvested awards, therefore, participate in undistributed earnings with common shareholders. Accordingly, the two-class method of computing basic and diluted earnings per share must be applied to the unvested awards. The update is effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2008, and for interim periods within those years. As a result of our adoption, we have adjusted our earnings per share for each period presented by deducting the proportionate amount of our undistributed earnings allocable to the participating securities from net income to arrive at net income attributable to shareholders. Our adoption did not have a material effect on basic or diluted earnings per share for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2008. See Note 6—Earnings per Share. Investments – debt and equity securities—Effective April 1, 2009, we adopted the accounting standards update related to other-than-temporary impairments of investments in debt and equity securities, which modified the recognition requirements for and enhanced the presentation and disclosure of such impairments in the financial statements. The update was effective for interim and annual reporting periods ending after June 15, 2009. Our adoption did not have a material effect on our condensed consolidated statement of financial position, results of operations or cash flows. Intangibles – goodwill and other—Effective January 1, 2009, we adopted the accounting standards update related to intangible assets, which amends factors that should be considered in developing renewal or extension assumptions used to determine the useful life of a recognized intangible on an interim basis. Because of the prospective application requirement, our adoption did not have an effect on our historical condensed consolidated statement of financial position, results of operations or cash flows. Debt—Effective January 1, 2009, we adopted the accounting standards update regarding convertible debt instruments that may be settled in cash upon conversion, which requires the issuer of certain convertible debt instruments to separately account for the liability and equity components of the instrument and reflect interest expense at the issuer’s market rate of borrowing for non-convertible debt instruments. As a result of our adoption, we retrospectively restated all periods presented with the cumulative effect of the change in accounting principles on prior periods being recognized in retained earnings as of the beginning of the first period presented. We have applied these provisions in accounting and reporting for our convertible senior notes. In addition to the reduction of debt balances and increase of shareholders’ equity on our condensed consolidated balance sheets for each period presented, the retrospective application resulted in a non-cash increase to our annual historical interest expense, net of amounts capitalized, of $171 million and $9 million for the years ended December 31, 2008 and 2007, respectively. See Note 8—Debt. Business combinations—Effective January 1, 2009, we adopted the accounting standards update regarding business combinations, which requires (a) primarily all acquired assets, liabilities, noncontrolling interest and certain contingencies be measured at fair value, (b) broader scope of business combinations to include all transactions in which one entity gains control over one or more other businesses and (c) acquisition-related costs and anticipated restructuring costs of the acquired company to be recognized separately from the acquisition. Assets and liabilities arising from contingencies related to a business combination must be recognized at their acquisition-date fair values if the fair values can be determined during the measurement period. If the fair values of such contingencies cannot be determined during the measurement period, they must be recognized at the acquisition date if the contingencies are probable and an amount can be reasonably estimated. We will apply such principles with respect to any business combinations occurring after January 1, 2009 and with respect to certain income tax matters related to business combinations that occurred prior to our adoption. Because of the prospective application requirement, our adoption did not have an effect on our historical condensed consolidated statement of financial position, results of operations or cash flows. Consolidation—Effective January 1, 2009, we adopted the accounting standards update related to noncontrolling interests that established accounting and reporting requirements for (a) noncontrolling interests in a subsidiary and (b) the deconsolidation of a subsidiary. The update requires that noncontrolling interests be reported as equity in the consolidated balance sheet and requires that net income attributable to controlling interest and to noncontrolling interests be shown separately on the face of the statement of operations. As a result of our adoption, we modified our condensed consolidated statements of operations to separately present net income (loss) attributable to noncontrolling interest and net income attributable to controlling interest. Additionally, on our condensed consolidated balance sheet, presented as of December 31, 2008, we reclassified to equity the balance of $3 million associated with noncontrolling interests. Derivatives and hedging—Effective January 1, 2009, we adopted the accounting standards update related to derivative instruments and hedging activities, which required enhanced disclosures about (1) how and why an entity uses derivative instruments, (2) how derivative instruments and related hedged items are accounted for and (3) how derivative instruments and related hedged items affect an entity’s financial position, financial performance and cash flows. Because of our limited use of derivative instruments, our adoption did not have a significant impact on the disclosures contained in our notes to condensed consolidated financial statements. Effective January 1, 2009, we adopted the accounting standards update related to stock-indexed instruments, which provided guidance in determining whether an instrument or embedded feature is indexed to an entity’s own stock. An instrument or embedded feature that is both indexed to an entity’s own stock and potentially settled in shares may be exempt, if certain other criteria are met, from mark-to-market accounting of derivative financial instruments. The update also addressed instruments with contingent and other adjustment features that may change the exercise price or notional amount or otherwise alter the payoff at settlement. We have convertible notes outstanding that are convertible into our shares. Our adoption did not have a material effect on our condensed consolidated statement of financial position, results of operations or cash flows. Fair value measurements and disclosures—Effective January 1, 2008, we adopted the accounting standards update related to fair value measurement of financial instruments that (a) defines fair value, thereby offering a single source of guidance for the application of fair value measurement, (b) establishes a framework for measuring fair value that contains a three-level hierarchy for the inputs to valuation techniques, and (c) expands disclosure requirements about fair value measurements. To estimate fair value, we use various generally accepted valuation methodologies. Our valuation techniques require inputs that we categorize using a three-level hierarchy as follows: (1) unadjusted quoted prices for identical assets or liabilities in active markets (“Level 1”), (2) direct or indirect observable inputs, including quoted prices or other market data, for similar assets or liabilities in active markets or identical assets or liabilities in less active markets (“Level 2”) and (3) unobservable inputs that require significant judgment for which there is little or no market data (“Level 3”). Our adoption did not have a material effect on our consolidated statement of financial position, results of operations or cash flows. Effective January 1, 2009, we adopted the remaining provisions of the accounting standards update for fair value measurement of nonfinancial assets and nonfinancial liabilities that are recognized or disclosed at fair value in the financial statements on a nonrecurring basis, which we have applied in estimating the fair value of our intangible assets and assets held for sale (see Note 4—Impairment Loss). Our adoption did not have a material effect on our condensed consolidated statement of financial position, results of operations or cash flows. Effective April 1, 2009, we adopted the accounting standards update related to measuring fair value when the volume and level of activity for the assets or liability have significantly decreased and identifying transactions that are not orderly, which provides additional guidance for estimating fair value when there is no active market or where the activity represents distressed sales on an interim and annual reporting basis. Our adoption did not have a material effect on our condensed consolidated statement of financial position, results of operations or cash flows. Financial instruments—Effective for the quarter ended June 30, 2009, we adopted the accounting standards update that requires disclosures about fair value of financial instruments for interim and annual reporting periods of publicly traded companies. The update was effective for interim reporting periods ending after June 15, 2009. We have included the additional disclosures in our notes to condensed consolidated financial statements. See Note 10—Fair Value of Financial Instruments. Subsequent events—Effective for events occurring subsequent to June 30, 2009, we adopted the accounting standards update regarding subsequent events, which (a) establishes the period after the balance sheet date during which management should evaluate events or transactions that may occur for potential recognition or disclosure in the financial statements, (b) the circumstances under which an entity should recognize events or transactions occurring after the balance sheet date in its financial statements, and (c) the disclosures that an entity should make about events or transactions that occurred after the balance sheet date. Adoption was effective for interim or annual financial periods ending after June 15, 2009. Our adoption did not have a material impact on the disclosures contained in our notes to condensed consolidated financial statements. See Note 14—Subsequent Events. Recently Issued Accounting Standards Not Yet Adopted Compensation – retirement benefits—Effective for the year ending December 31, 2009, we will adopt the accounting standards update regarding employers’ disclosures about postretirement benefit plan assets, which provides additional guidance for required disclosures related to plan assets of a defined benefit pension or other postretirement plan. The update is effective for fiscal years ending after December 15, 2009. We will include the additional disclosures in the notes to our financial statements for the year ending December 31, 2009 and do not expect the adoption to have a material effect on the disclosures contained therein. Consolidation—Effective January 1, 2010, we will adopt the accounting standards update requiring enhanced transparency of our involvement with variable interest entities. The update is effective as of the first annual reporting period that begins after November 15, 2009, for interim periods within that first annual reporting period and for interim and annual reporting periods thereafter. We are evaluating these requirements, particularly with regard to our interests in TPDI and ADDCL, and have not yet determined the effect that our adoption will have on our condensed consolidated statement of financial position, results of operations or cash flows. See Note 1—Nature of Business and Principles of Consolidation. Fair value measurements and disclosures—Effective October 1, 2009, we will adopt the accounting standards update related to measuring liabilities at fair value, which requires that, if a quoted price for an identical liability is not available, then fair value should be measured using a valuation technique that considers either (a) the quoted price of an identical liability when traded as an asset or the quoted prices of similar liabilities or similar liabilities when traded as assets or (b) an income approach or a market approach. This update also clarifies that a reporting entity is not required to include inputs relating to the existence of a restriction that prevents the transfer of a liability. We do not expect our adoption to have a material effect on our condensed consolidated statement of financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

IMPAIRMENTLOSS (Unaudited)	9 Months Ended
IMPAIRMENTLOSS (Unaudited)	Sep. 30, 2009
Impairment Loss [Abstract]
Impairment Loss	Note 4—Impairment Loss Assets held for sale—During the nine months ended September 30, 2009, we determined that GSF Arctic II and GSF Arctic IV, both classified as assets held for sale, were impaired due to the continued global economic downturn and continued pressure on commodity prices, both of which have had an adverse effect on our industry. We estimated the fair values of these rigs based on an exchange price that would be received for the assets in the principal or most advantageous market for the assets in an orderly transaction between market participants as of the measurement date and considering our undertakings to the Office of Fair Trading in the U.K. (“OFT”) that require the sale of the rigs with certain limitations and in a limited amount of time. We based our estimates on unobservable inputs that require significant judgment, for which there is little or no market data, including non-binding price quotes from unaffiliated parties with consideration of the current market conditions and restrictions imposed by the OFT. As a result of our evaluation, we recognized an impairment loss of $279 million (or $0.87 per diluted share), which had no tax effect, for the nine months ended September 30, 2009. We did not recognize an impairment loss related to our assets held for sale during the three months ended September 30, 2009. Intangible assets—During the three and nine months ended September 30, 2009, we determined that the customer relationships and trade name intangible assets associated with our drilling management services reporting unit were impaired due to market conditions resulting from the continued global economic downturn and continued pressure on commodity prices. We estimated the fair value of the customer relationships intangible asset using the multi-period excess earnings method, and we estimated the fair value of the trade name using the relief from royalty method, both generally accepted valuation methodologies that apply the income approach. Our valuations were based on projections of the future performance of the drilling management services reporting unit using unobservable inputs that require significant judgment, for which there is little or no market data, including assumptions for future commodity prices, projected demand for our services, rig availability and dayrates. As a result of our impairment testing, we determined that the carrying amount of the customer relationships intangible asset exceeded its fair value, and we recognized impairment losses of $40 million and $49 million (or $0.12 and $0.15 per diluted share), respectively, for the three months and nine months ended September 30, 2009, which had no tax effect in either period. Additionally, we determined that the carrying amount of the trade name intangible asset exceeded its fair value, and we recognized an impairment loss of $6 million (or $0.02 per diluted share), which had no tax effect, during the three months and nine months ended September 30, 2009. The carrying amounts of the customer relationships and the trade name intangible assets, recorded in other assets, were $65 million and $39 million at September 30, 2009 and $121 million and $45 million at December 31, 2008, respectively.

INCOME TAXES (Unaudited)	9 Months Ended
INCOME TAXES (Unaudited)	Sep. 30, 2009
Income Taxes [Abstract]
Income Taxes	Note 5—Income Taxes Overview—Transocean Ltd., a holding company and Swiss resident, is exempt from cantonal and communal income tax in Switzerland, but is subject to Swiss federal income tax. At the federal level, qualifying net dividend income and net capital gains on the sale of qualifying investments in subsidiaries are exempt from Swiss federal income tax. Consequently, Transocean Ltd. expects dividends from its subsidiaries and capital gains from sales of investments in its subsidiaries to be exempt from Swiss federal income tax. Our operations are conducted through our various subsidiaries in a number of countries throughout the world. We have provided for income taxes based upon the tax laws and rates in the countries in which operations are conducted and income is earned. The countries in which we operate have taxation regimes with varying nominal rates, deductions, credits and other tax attributes. Consequently, there is little to no expected relationship between the provision for or benefit from income taxes and income or loss before income taxes. Tax provision—Our estimated annual effective tax rates for the nine months ended September 30, 2009 and September 30, 2008 were 15.7 percent and 13.8 percent, respectively. These rates were based on estimated annual income before income taxes for each period after adjusting for certain items, such as the 2008 net tax gains on rig sales, impairment losses and various other discrete items. During the nine months ended September 30, 2009, our liability for unrecognized tax benefits increased by $127 million to a total of $648 million, including $193 million of interest and penalties and net of foreign exchange rate fluctuations. We accrue interest and penalties related to our liabilities for unrecognized tax benefits as a component of income tax expense. For the nine months ended September 30, 2009, we increased the liability related to interest and penalties on our unrecognized tax benefits by $44 million. A valuation allowance for deferred tax assets is recorded when it is more likely than not that some or all of the benefit from the deferred tax asset will not be realized. We provide a valuation allowance to offset deferred tax assets for net operating losses incurred during the year in certain jurisdictions and for other deferred tax assets where, in the opinion of management, it is more likely than not that the financial statement benefit of these losses will not be realized. As of September 30, 2009, the valuation allowance for non-current deferred tax assets was $41 million. Tax returns—We file federal and local tax returns in several jurisdictions throughout the world. With few exceptions, we are no longer subject to examinations of our U.S. and non-U.S. tax matters for years prior to 1999. The amount of current tax benefit recognized in the nine months ended September 30, 2009 from the settlement of disputes with tax authorities and the expiration of statutes of limitations was insignificant. Our tax returns in the other major jurisdictions in which we operate are generally subject to examination for periods ranging from three to six years. We have agreed to extensions beyond the statute of limitations in two jurisdictions for up to 12 years. Tax authorities in certain jurisdictions are examining our tax returns and in some cases have issued assessments. We are defending our tax positions in those jurisdictions. While we cannot predict or provide assurance as to the final outcome of these proceedings, we do not expect the ultimate liability to have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows. Tax positions—With respect to our 2004 and 2005 U.S. federal income tax returns, the U.S. taxing authorities have withdrawn all of their previously proposed tax adjustments, except a claim regarding transfer pricing for certain charters of drilling rigs between our subsidiaries, reducing the total proposed adjustments to approximately $79 million, exclusive of interest. An unfavorable outcome on this assessment with respect to 2004 and 2005 activities would not result in a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows. We believe the transfer pricing for these charters is materially correct as filed and intend to defend against such claims vigorously. The U.S. tax authorities’ original assessment also asserted that one of our key subsidiaries maintains a permanent establishment in the U.S. and is, therefore, subject to U.S. taxation on certain earnings effectively connected to such U.S. business. In March 2009, we received verbal indications that this position may be withdrawn by the U.S. tax authorities. We believe the tax treatment asserted in the original assessment with respect to the 2004 and 2005 activity would not result in a material tax liability. We believe our returns are materially correct as filed, and we will continue to vigorously defend against any such claim. Norwegian civil tax and criminal authorities are investigating various transactions undertaken by our subsidiaries in 2001 and 2002. The authorities issued tax assessments of approximately $271 million, plus interest, related to certain restructuring transactions, approximately $71 million, plus interest, related to a 2001 dividend payment, approximately $5 million, plus interest, related to foreign exchange deductions and approximately $2 million, plus interest, related to dividend withholding tax. We plan to appeal these tax assessments. We may be required to provide some form of financial security, in an amount up to $740 million, including interest and penalties, for these assessed amounts as this dispute is appealed and addressed by the Norwegian courts. Furthermore, the authorities have also issued notification of their intent to issue a tax assessment of approximately $174 million, plus interest, related to the migration of a subsidiary that was previously subject to tax in Norway. The authorities have indicated that they plan to seek penalties of 60 percent on all matters. We have and will continue to respond to all information requests from the Norwegian authorities. We plan to vigorously contest any assertions by the Norwegian authorities in connection with the various transactions being investigated. During the nine months ended September 30, 2009, our long-term liability for unrecognized tax benefits related to these Norwegian tax issues increased by $33 million to $179 million due to the accrual of interest and exchange rate fluctuations. While we cannot predict or provide assurance as to the final outcome of these proceedings, we do not expect the ultimate resolution of these matters to have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position or results of operations, although it may have a material adverse effect on our consolidated cash flows. Certain of our Brazilian income tax returns for the years 2000 through 2004 are currently under examination. The Brazil tax authorities have issued tax assessments totaling $110 million, plus a 75 percent penalty of $83 million and interest of $93 million through September 30, 2009. We believe our returns are materially correct as filed, and we are vigorously contesting these assessments. We filed a protest letter with the Brazilian tax authorities on January 25, 2008, and we are currently engaged in the appeals process. See also Note 14—Subsequent Events.

DRILLING FLEET EXPANSION AND DISPOSITIONS (Unaudited)

9 Months Ended

Sep. 30, 2009

Drilling Fleet Expansion and Dispositions [Abstract]

Drilling Fleet Expansion and Dispositions

Note 7—Drilling Fleet Expansion and Dispositions

Drilling fleet expansion—Construction work in progress, recorded in property and equipment, was $5.9 billion and $4.5 billion at September 30, 2009 and December 31, 2008, respectively. The following table summarizes actual capital expenditures, including capitalized interest, for our major construction and conversion projects (in millions):

	Nine months ended September 30, 2009		Through December 31, 2008		Total costs
			(As adjusted)
Petrobras 10000 (a)	$	735	$	—	$	735
Dhirubhai Deepwater KG1 (b) (c)		295		384		679
Discoverer India		223		250		473
Discoverer Luanda (d)		184		315		499
Discoverer Americas		146		478		624
Deepwater Champion (e)		143		264		407
Discoverer Clear Leader (b)		110		516		626
Discoverer Inspiration		108		443		551
Dhirubhai Deepwater KG2 (c)		106		270		376
Development Driller III (e)		101		483		584
Sedco 700-series upgrades (b)		50		520		570
Capitalized interest		143		240		383
Mobilization costs		118		—		118
Total	$	2,462	$	4,163	$	6,625

____________________

(a)

In June 2008, we reached an agreement with a joint venture formed by subsidiaries of Petrobras and Mitsui to acquire Petrobras 10000 under a capital lease contract. In connection with the agreement, we agreed to provide assistance and advisory services for the construction of the rig and operating management services once the rig commenced operations. On August 4, 2009, we accepted delivery of Petrobras 10000 and recorded non-cash additions of $716 million to property and equipment, net along with a corresponding increase to long-term debt. Total capital additions include $716 million in capital costs incurred by Petrobras and Mitsui for the construction of the drillship and $19 million of other capital expenditures. The capital lease agreement has a 20-year term, after which we will have the right and obligation to acquire the drillship for one dollar. See Note 8—Debt and Note 12—Commitments and Contingencies.

(b)	The accumulated construction costs of these rigs are no longer included in construction work in progress, as their construction or conversion projects had been completed as of September 30, 2009.

(c)

The costs for Dhirubhai Deepwater KG1 and Dhirubhai Deepwater KG2 represent 100 percent of expenditures incurred prior to our investment in the joint venture ($277 million and $178 million, respectively) and 100 percent of expenditures incurred since our investment in the joint venture. TPDI is responsible for these costs. We hold a 50 percent interest in TPDI, and Pacific Drilling Limited holds the remaining 50 percent interest.

(d)	The costs for Discoverer Luanda represent 100 percent of expenditures incurred since inception. ADDCL is responsible for these costs. We hold a 65 percent interest in ADDCL, and Angco Cayman Limited holds the remaining 35 percent interest.

(e)	These costs include our initial investments in Development Driller III and Deepwater Champion of $356 million and $109 million, respectively, representing the estimated fair values of the rigs at the time of our merger with GlobalSantaFe Corporation (“GlobalSantaFe”) in November 2007.

Dispositions—During the nine months ended September 30, 2009, we completed the sale of Sedco 135-D. We received net proceeds from the sale of $4 million and recognized a gain of $2 million, which had no tax effect and an immaterial effect on diluted earnings per share. Additionally, we recognized a net loss of $5 million on other property and equipment disposed of during the nine months ended September 30, 2009. See Note 14—Subsequent Events.

In July 2009, we received net sale proceeds of $4 million in exchange for our 45 percent ownership interest in Caspian Drilling Company Limited, which operates Dada Gorgud and Istiglal under long-term bareboat charters with the owner and our former partner.

During the nine months ended September 30, 2008, we completed the sale of three of our Standard Jackups (GSF High Island VIII, GSF Adriatic III and GSF High Island I). We received cash proceeds of $320 million associated with the sales, which had no effect on earnings.

DEBT (Unaudited)

9 Months Ended

Sep. 30, 2009

Debt [Abstract]

Debt

Note 8—Debt

Debt, net of unamortized discounts, premiums and fair value adjustments, is comprised of the following (in millions):

	September 30,		December 31,
	2009		2008
			(As adjusted)
Commercial paper program (a) (b)	$	417	$	663
Term Loan due March 2010 (b)		―		2,000
6.625% Notes due April 2011 (b)		171		174
5% Notes due February 2013		248		248
5.25% Senior Notes due March 2013 (b)		497		499
TPDI Credit Facilities due June 2015 (a)		453		288
TPDI Notes due October 2017		121		111
ADDCL Credit Facilities due December 2017 (a)		450		280
6.00% Senior Notes due March 2018 (b)		997		997
7.375% Senior Notes due April 2018 (b)		247		247
GSF Explorer capital lease obligation due July 2026 (a)		15		16
8% Debentures due April 2027 (b)		57		57
7.45% Notes due April 2027 (b)		96		96
7% Senior Notes due June 2028		312		313
Petrobras 10000 capital lease obligation due August 2029 (a)		715		―
7.5% Notes due April 2031 (b)		598		598
1.625% Series A Convertible Senior Notes due December 2037 (b)		1,527		2,070
1.50% Series B Convertible Senior Notes due December 2037 (b)		2,040		1,990
1.50% Series C Convertible Senior Notes due December 2037 (b)		1,962		1,911
6.80% Senior Notes due March 2038 (b)		999		999
Total debt		11,922		13,557
Less debt due within one year (a)		702		664
Total long-term debt	$	11,220	$	12,893

____________________

(a)

The commercial paper program is classified as debt due within one year at September 30, 2009 and December 31, 2008. The TPDI Credit Facilities and the ADDCL Credit Facilities had $35 million and $234 million, respectively, classified as debt due within one year at September 30, 2009. The GSF Explorer capital lease obligation had less than $1 million classified as debt due within one year at both September 30, 2009 and December 31, 2008. The Petrobras 10000 capital lease obligation had $16 million classified as debt due within one year at September 30, 2009.

(b)

Transocean Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary and the principal asset of Transocean Ltd., is the issuer of the notes and debentures, which have been guaranteed by Transocean Ltd. Transocean Ltd. has also guaranteed borrowings under the commercial paper program, the Term Loan, the 364-Day Revolving Credit Facility and the Five-Year Revolving Credit Facility. Transocean Ltd. has no independent assets or operations, its guarantee of debt securities of Transocean Inc. is full and unconditional and its only other subsidiaries not owned indirectly through Transocean Inc. are minor. Transocean Ltd. is not subject to any significant restrictions on its ability to obtain funds from its consolidated subsidiaries or entities accounted for under the equity method by dividends, loans or return of capital distributions.

Scheduled maturities—In preparing the scheduled maturities of our debt, we assume the bondholders exercise their options to require us to repurchase the 1.625% Series A, 1.50% Series B and 1.50% Series C Convertible Senior Notes in December 2010, 2011 and 2012, respectively. At September 30, 2009, the scheduled maturities of our debt were as follows (in millions):

Twelve months ending September 30,
2010	$	702
2011		1,863
2012		2,315
2013		3,069
2014		103
Thereafter		4,323
Total debt, excluding unamortized discounts, premiums and fair value adjustments		12,375
Total unamortized discounts, premiums and fair value adjustments		(453	)
Total debt	$	11,922

Commercial paper program—We maintain a commercial paper program (the “Program”) under which we may issue unsecured commercial paper notes on a private placement basis from time to time up to a maximum aggregate amount outstanding of $1.5 billion. The 364-Day Revolving Credit Facility and the Five-Year Revolving Credit Facility provide liquidity for the Program. The proceeds from the commercial paper issuance may be used for general corporate purposes. At September 30, 2009, $417 million was outstanding. The weighted-average interest rate on September 30, 2009 was 0.4 percent.

364-Day Revolving Credit Facility—We have a 364-day, $1.08 billion revolving credit facility under the 364-Day Revolving Credit Agreement dated November 25, 2008 (the “364-Day Revolving Credit Facility”). At September 30, 2009, no amounts were outstanding under the 364-Day Revolving Credit Facility.

Term Loan—We repaid the outstanding borrowings under the $2.0 billion term credit facility subject to the Term Credit Agreement dated March 13, 2008, as amended (the “Term Loan”), during the nine months ended September 30, 2009. As a result, we terminated the Term Loan and recognized a loss on retirement of debt in the amount of $1 million during the nine months ended September 30, 2009. See Note 9—Derivatives and Hedging.

Five-Year Revolving Credit Facility—We have a $2.0 billion, five-year revolving credit facility under the Five-Year Revolving Credit Facility Agreement dated November 27, 2007, as amended (the “Five-Year Revolving Credit Facility”). Throughout the term of the Five-Year Revolving Credit Facility, we pay a facility fee on the daily amount of the underlying commitment, whether used or unused, which ranges from 0.10 percent to 0.30 percent and was 0.15 percent at September 30, 2009. At September 30, 2009, we had $152 million in letters of credit issued and outstanding and no borrowings outstanding under the Five-Year Revolving Credit Facility.

TPDI Credit Facilities—In October 2008, TPDI entered into a credit agreement for a $1.190 billion secured term loan and a $75 million revolving credit facility (together, the “TPDI Credit Facilities”). The TPDI Credit Facilities will finance the construction of Dhirubhai Deepwater KG1 and Dhirubhai Deepwater KG2. One of our subsidiaries participates in the secured term loan with an aggregate commitment of $595 million. At September 30, 2009, $889 million was outstanding, of which $436 million was due to one of our subsidiaries and was eliminated in consolidation. The weighted-average interest rate on September 30, 2009 was 3.9 percent. See Note 9—Derivatives and Hedging.

TPDI Notes—As of September 30, 2009, the TPDI Notes due October 2017 were outstanding in the principal amount of $242 million, $121 million of which was due to one of our subsidiaries and has been eliminated in consolidation. The debt bears interest at the adjusted London Interbank Offered Rate (“LIBOR”) plus an applicable spread, and the weighted-average interest rate was 3.0 percent at September 30, 2009.

ADDCL Credit Facilities—ADDCL has a senior credit agreement for a credit facility comprised of Tranche A, Tranche B and Tranche C for $215 million, $270 million and $399 million, respectively (collectively, the “ADDCL Primary Loan Facility”). Tranche A and Tranche B are provided by external lenders. One of our subsidiaries is the lender for Tranche C and has agreed to provide financial security for borrowings under Tranche A and Tranche B until customer acceptance of Discoverer Luanda, the newbuild for which the facility was established. At September 30, 2009, $191 million and $234 million were outstanding under Tranche A and Tranche B, respectively. The weighted-average interest rate on September 30, 2009 was 1.6 percent. At September 30, 2009, no amounts were outstanding under Tranche C.

Additionally, ADDCL has a secondary loan agreement for a $90 million credit facility (the “ADDCL Secondary Loan Facility”), for which one of our subsidiaries provides 65 percent of the total commitment and an external lender provides the remaining 35 percent. At September 30, 2009, the borrowings under ADDCL Secondary Loan Facility were $73 million, of which $47 million was provided by one of our subsidiaries and has been eliminated in consolidation. The weighted-average interest rate on September 30, 2009 was 4.3 percent.

Petrobras 10000 capital lease obligation—On August 4, 2009, we accepted delivery of Petrobras 10000 and recorded non-cash additions of $716 million to property and equipment, net along with a corresponding increase to long-term debt. Total capital costs incurred by the lessor for the construction of the drillship were $716 million. The capital lease agreement has an implicit interest rate of 7.8 percent and a 20-year term, after which we will have the right and obligation to acquire the drillship from the lessor for one dollar. See Note 7—Drilling Fleet Expansion and Dispositions and Note 12—Commitments and Contingencies.

1.625% Series A, 1.50% Series B and 1.50% Series C Convertible Senior Notes—Holders may convert their notes under certain circumstances at a rate of 5.9310 shares per $1,000 note, subject to adjustment upon the occurrence of certain events and increase upon the occurrence of certain fundamental changes. Upon conversion, we are required to deliver, in lieu of shares, cash up to the aggregate principal amount of notes to be converted and shares in respect of the remainder, if any, of our conversion obligation in excess of the aggregate principal amount of the notes being converted. The Redomestication Transaction triggered the right of holders to convert the convertible notes at any time from December 3, 2008 through February 3, 2009. During the conversion period, we received conversion notices with respect to $490,000 principal amount of convertible notes. During the nine months ended September 30, 2009, as a result of these conversions, we paid an aggregate amount of $150,000 and recognized a gain on the retirement of debt of $247,000.

During the nine months ended September 30, 2009, we repurchased an aggregate principal amount of $615 million of the 1.625% Series A Convertible Senior Notes for an aggregate cash payment of $581 million. We recognized a loss of $16 million associated with the debt component of the instrument and recorded additional paid-in capital of $18 million associated with the equity component of the instrument. See Note 14—Subsequent Events.

Accounting standards update—The following presents the incremental effect of our adoption of an accounting standards update, effective January 1, 2009 (see Note 3—New Accounting Pronouncements), related to convertible debt instruments that may be settled in cash upon conversion on our condensed consolidated statement of operations for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2008 (in millions, except per share data):

	Three months ended September 30, 2008									Nine months ended September 30, 2008
	Prior to adoption			Effect of adoption			As adjusted			Prior to adoption			Effect of adoption			As adjusted
Interest expense, net of amounts capitalized	$	(100	)	$	(43	)	$	(143	)	$	(348	)	$	(125	)	$	(473	)
Income before income tax expense		1,278			(43	)		1,235			3,932			(125	)		3,807
Net income (a)		1,103			(43	)		1,060			3,399			(125	)		3,274
Net income attributable to controlling interest (a)	$	1,106		$	(43	)	$	1,063		$	3,402		$	(125	)	$	3,277
Earnings per share (b)
Basic	$	3.47		$	(0.14	)	$	3.33		$	10.69		$	(0.39	)	$	10.30
Diluted	$	3.44		$	(0.13	)	$	3.31		$	10.59		$	(0.39	)	$	10.20

____________________

(a)	As adjusted for our adoption of the accounting standards update related to noncontrolling interest. See Note 3—New Accounting Pronouncements.

(b)	Excludes the effect of our adoption of the accounting standards update relating to participating securities. See Note 3—New Accounting Pronouncements.

The following table presents the incremental effect of our adoption on our condensed consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 2008 (in millions):

	December 31, 2008
	Prior to adoption		Effect of adoption			As adjusted
Property and equipment	$	25,802	$	34		$	25,836
Property and equipment, net		20,827		34			20,861
Other assets		867		(23	)		844
Total assets	$	35,171	$	11		$	35,182

Long-term debt	$	13,522	$	(629	)	$	12,893
Total long-term liabilities		15,943		(629	)		15,314
Additional paid-in capital		6,492		821			7,313
Retained earnings		6,008		(181	)		5,827
Total controlling interest shareholders’ equity (a)		16,524		640			17,164
Total equity (a)		16,527		640			17,167
Total liabilities and equity	$	35,171	$	11		$	35,182

____________________

(a)	As adjusted for our adoption of the accounting standards update related to noncontrolling interest. See Note 3—New Accounting Pronouncements.

Property and equipment increased $34 million due to increased capitalization of interest related to our construction in progress, which resulted from the higher effective interest rates on the Convertible Senior Notes following our adoption of the accounting standards update regarding convertible debt instruments.

Debt issue costs, recorded in other assets, decreased $23 million, representing the cumulative adjustment caused by increased amortization recognized in interest expense for the two years ended December 31, 2008 due to the reduced recognition period required by the accounting standards update regarding convertible debt instruments and the portion of debt issue costs reclassified to additional paid-in capital.

The cumulative effect of the change in accounting principles was $9 million, recorded as an adjustment to retained earnings as of January 1, 2008, from the retrospective increase in interest expense for the year ended December 31, 2007.

The carrying amounts of the liability components of the Convertible Senior Notes were as follows (in millions):

	September 30, 2009							December 31, 2008
	Principal amount		Unamortized discount			Carrying amount		Principal amount		Unamortized discount			Carrying amount
Carrying amount of liability component
Series A Convertible Senior Notes due 2037	$	1,585	$	(58	)	$	1,527	$	2,200	$	(130	)	$	2,070
Series B Convertible Senior Notes due 2037		2,200		(160	)		2,040		2,200		(210	)		1,990
Series C Convertible Senior Notes due 2037		2,200		(238	)		1,962		2,200		(289	)		1,911

Upon adoption, we reclassified to additional paid-in capital $193 million for the Series A Convertible Senior Notes, $275 million for the Series B Convertible Senior Notes and $352 million for the Series C Convertible Senior Notes, representing the carrying amounts of the equity components. As of September 30, 2009, no shares were issuable upon conversion of any series of the Convertible Senior Notes since the closing price per share did not exceed the conversion price of $168.61 during the previous 30 trading days.

Following our adoption of the accounting standards update regarding convertible debt instruments, the effective interest rates were 4.88% for the Series A Convertible Senior Notes, 5.08% for the Series B Convertible Senior Notes, and 5.28% for the Series C Convertible Senior Notes. The remaining period over which the discount will be amortized is 1.2 years for the Series A Convertible Senior Notes, 2.2 years for the Series B Convertible Senior Notes and 3.2 years for the Series C Convertible Senior Notes. Interest expense, excluding amortization of debt issue costs, was as follows (in millions):

	Three months ended September 30,				Nine months ended September 30,
	2009		2008		2009		2008
Interest expense
Series A Convertible Senior Notes due 2037	$	19	$	24	$	66	$	72
Series B Convertible Senior Notes due 2037		25		25		75		72
Series C Convertible Senior Notes due 2037		25		25		75		72

DERIVATIVE INSTRUMENTS AND HEDGING ACTIVITIES (Unaudited)	9 Months Ended
	Sep. 30, 2009
Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities [Abstract]
Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities	Note 9—Derivatives and Hedging Cash flow hedges—For derivative instruments that are designated and qualify as cash flow hedges, we initially recognize the gains and losses associated with the effective portions of the hedges as a component of other comprehensive income and subsequently reclassify such gains and losses into interest expense in the same period or periods during which the hedged transaction affects earnings. We recognize the gains and losses associated with the ineffective portion of the hedges in interest expense in the period in which they are realized. During the nine months ended September 30, 2009, TPDI entered into interest rate swaps, which are designated and have qualified as a cash flow hedge, to reduce the variability of cash interest payments associated with the variable rate borrowings under the TPDI Credit Facilities. The notional value increases proportionately with the forecasted borrowings under the TPDI Credit Facilities to a maximum amount of $1.190 billion, of which $595 million will be attributable to one of our subsidiaries. As of September 30, 2009, the aggregate notional value of these swaps was $972 million, $486 million of which was attributed to one of our subsidiaries and the related balances for this intercompany portion have been eliminated in consolidation. Under the interest rate swaps, TPDI receives interest at three-month LIBOR and pays interest at a weighted-average fixed rate of 2.34 percent during the expected term of the TPDI Credit Facilities. At September 30, 2009, the weighted-average variable interest rate was 3.94 percent, and the carrying value represented an asset measured at a fair value of $1 million, with $2 million recorded in other long-term assets and $1 million recorded in other long-term liabilities on our condensed consolidated balance sheet, with a corresponding decrease to other comprehensive loss for the nine-month period then ended. In February 2009, we entered into interest rate swaps with an aggregate notional value of $1 billion, which were designated and qualified as a cash flow hedge, to reduce the variability of our cash interest payments on the borrowings under the Term Loan. Under the interest rate swaps, we received interest at one-month LIBOR and paid interest at a fixed rate of 0.768 percent over the six-month period ended August 6, 2009. Upon their stated maturity, we settled these interest rate swaps with no gain or loss recognized. Fair value hedges—For derivative instruments that are designated and qualify as fair value hedges, we recognize the gains and losses on the derivative and the offsetting losses or gains on the underlying hedged item attributable to the hedged risk in current period earnings. In September 2009, we entered into interest rate swaps, which are designated and have qualified as a fair value hedge, to reduce our exposure to changes in the fair values of our 5.25% Senior Notes and our 5.00% Notes. The interest rate swaps have aggregate notional values of $500 million and $250 million, respectively, equal to the face values of the hedged instruments. The hedging relationship qualifies for and we have applied the shortcut method of accounting, under which the interest rate swaps are considered to have no ineffectiveness and no ongoing assessment of effectiveness is required. Through the stated maturities of the interest rate swaps, which coincide with those of the hedged instruments, we receive interest at a fixed rate equal to that of the underlying debt instrument and pay interest at three-month LIBOR plus a margin. At September 30, 2009, the weighted-average variable interest rate was 3.46 percent and the carrying value of the interest rate swaps represented a liability measured at a fair value of $3 million, recorded in other long-term liabilities on our condensed consolidated balance sheet, with a corresponding decrease in the carrying value of the underlying debt instrument.

FAIR VALUE OF FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS (Unaudited)

9 Months Ended

Sep. 30, 2009

Fair Value of Financial Instruments [Abstract]

Fair Value of Financial Instruments

Note 10—Fair Value of Financial Instruments

We estimate the fair value of each class of financial instruments, for which estimating fair value is practicable, by applying the following methods and assumptions:

Cash and cash equivalents—The carrying amount approximates fair value because of the short maturities of those instruments.

Accounts receivable—The carrying amount, net of valuation allowance, approximates fair value because of the short maturities of those instruments.

Short-term investments—The carrying amount represents the estimated fair value, measured using (a) quoted prices for identical instruments in active markets and (b) pricing data that are representative of quoted prices for similar instruments in active markets or identical instruments in less active markets. Our short-term investments include investments in The Reserve International Liquidity Fund Ltd., The Reserve Primary Fund and U.S. Treasury bills. As of September 30, 2009, the carrying value of our short-term investments was $180 million, with scheduled maturities through December 31, 2009.

Debt—The fair value of our fixed-rate debt is measured using quoted prices for identical instruments in active markets. Our variable-rate debt is included in the fair values stated below at its carrying value since the short-term interest rates cause the face value to approximate its fair value. The TPDI Notes are included in the fair values stated below at their aggregate carrying value of $121 million and $111 million at September 30, 2009 and December 31, 2008, respectively, since there is no available market price for such related party debt. The carrying values and estimated fair values of our long-term debt, including debt due within one year, were as follows (in millions):

		September 30, 2009					December 31, 2008
	Carrying value			Fair value			Carrying value		Fair value
							(As adjusted)
Long-term debt, including current maturities		$	11,922		$	12,640	$	13,557		$	12,838

Derivative Instruments—The carrying amount of our derivative instruments represents the estimated fair value, measured using pricing data, including quoted prices and other observable market data, for the instruments. As of September 30, 2009, the carrying value of our derivative instruments was $2 million and $4 million, recorded in other assets and other long-term liabilities, respectively, on our condensed consolidated balance sheet. We did not have any derivative instruments outstanding as of December 31, 2008.

- Definition

This item represents the complete disclosure regarding the fair value of financial instruments (as defined), including financial assets and financial liabilities (collectively, as defined), and the measurements of those instruments, assets, and liabilities. Such disclosures about the financial instruments, assets, and liabilities would include: (1) the fair value of the required items together with their carrying amounts (as appropriate); (2) for items for which it is not practicable to estimate fair value, disclosure would include: (a) information pertinent to estimating fair value (including, carrying amount, effective interest rate, and maturity, and (b) the reasons why it is not practicable to estimate fair value; (3) significant concentrations of credit risk including: (a) information about the activity, region, or economic characteristics identifying a concentration, (b) the maximum amount of loss the Company is exposed to based on the gross fair value of the related item, (c) policy for requiring collateral or other security and information as to accessing such collateral or security, and (d) the nature and brief description of such collateral or security; (4) quantitative information about market risks and how such risk is are managed; (5) for items measured on both a recurring and nonrecurring basis information regarding the inputs used to develop the fair value measurement; and (6) for items presented in the financial statement for which fair value measurement is elected: (a) information necessary to understand the reasons for the election, (b) discussion of the effect of fair value changes on earnings, (c) a description of [similar groups] items for which the election is made and the relation thereof to the balance sheet, the aggregate carrying value of items included in the balance sheet that are not eligible for the election; (7) all other required (as defined) and desired information.

+ References+ Details

RETIREMENT PLANS AND OTHER POSTEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS (Unaudited)

9 Months Ended

Sep. 30, 2009

Retirement Plans and Other Postemployment Benefits [Abstract]

Retirement Plans and Other Postemployment Benefits

Note 11—Retirement Plans and Other Postemployment Benefits

Defined benefit pension plans—We have several defined benefit pension plans, both funded and unfunded, covering substantially all of our U.S. employees. We also have various defined benefit plans in the U.K., Norway, Nigeria, Egypt and Indonesia that cover our employees in those areas, and we have certain frozen plans assumed in connection with our mergers that cover certain of our current employees and former employees and directors of our predecessors. Net periodic benefit cost for these defined benefit pension plans includes the following components (in millions):

	Three months ended September 30,						Nine months ended September 30,
	2009			2008			2009			2008
Components of net periodic benefit cost (a)
Service cost	$	16		$	12		$	46		$	35
Interest cost		16			16			49			49
Expected return on plan assets		(16	)		(19	)		(50	)		(55	)
Recognized net actuarial losses		4			2			13			3
Settlements and curtailments		3			—			5			—
Benefit cost	$	23		$	11		$	63		$	32

____________________

(a) Amounts are before income tax effect.

We expect to contribute approximately $71 million to our defined benefit pension plans in 2009, which we intend to fund from cash flow from operations. We contributed approximately $64 million to the defined benefit pension plans in the nine months ended September 30, 2009.

Postretirement benefits other than pensions—We have several unfunded contributory and noncontributory other postretirement employee benefits (“OPEB”) plans covering substantially all of our U.S. employees. Components of net periodic benefit cost for the OPEB plans, including service cost, interest cost, amortization of prior service cost and recognized net actuarial losses, were less than $1 million for each of the three months ended September 30, 2009 and 2008, and $2 million for each of the nine months ended September 30, 2009 and 2008, respectively.

We contributed $3 million to the OPEB plans during the nine months ended September 30, 2009. We expect to contribute an immaterial amount to the OPEB plans prior to December 31, 2009.

Severance plan—Following our merger with GlobalSantaFe in 2007, we established a plan to consolidate operations and administrative functions. As of September 30, 2009, we had identified 309 employees who have been or will be involuntarily terminated pursuant to this plan. We recognized $12 million and $4 million of severance expense for the nine months ended September 30, 2009 and September 30, 2008, respectively, in either operating and maintenance expense or general and administrative expense. The liability associated with the severance plan, recorded in accrued liabilities, was $20 million and $21 million at September 30, 2009 and December 31, 2008, respectively. Since the plan’s inception in 2007, we have paid $48 million in termination benefits under the plan, including $13 million paid during the nine months ended September 30, 2009. We expect to accrue substantially all of the remaining amounts by December 31, 2009.

- Definition

Description containing the entire pension and other postretirement benefits disclosure as a single block of text.

+ References

Reference 1: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef

-Publisher FASB

-Name Statement of Financial Accounting Standard (FAS)

-Number 158

-Paragraph 7, 21, 22

Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef

-Publisher FASB

-Name Statement of Financial Accounting Standard (FAS)

-Number 132R

-Paragraph 5, 6, 7, 8

Reference 3: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef

-Publisher FASB

-Name Statement of Financial Accounting Standard (FAS)

-Number 132R

-Paragraph 8

-Subparagraph m

Reference 4: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef

-Publisher FASB

-Name Statement of Financial Accounting Standard (FAS)

-Number 106

-Paragraph 518

Reference 5: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef

-Publisher FASB

-Name Statement of Financial Accounting Standard (FAS)

-Number 87

-Paragraph 264

Reference 6: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef

-Publisher FASB

-Name Statement of Financial Accounting Standard (FAS)

-Number 132R

-Paragraph 5

-Subparagraph b

Reference 7: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef

-Publisher FASB

-Name Statement of Financial Accounting Standard (FAS)

-Number 132R

-Paragraph 5

-Subparagraph a

Reference 8: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef

-Publisher FASB

-Name Statement of Financial Accounting Standard (FAS)

-Number 132R

-Paragraph 5

-Subparagraph h

Reference 9: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef

-Publisher FASB

-Name Statement of Financial Accounting Standard (FAS)

-Number 132R

-Paragraph 5

-Subparagraph q

Reference 10: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef

-Publisher FASB

-Name FASB Staff Position (FSP)

-Number FAS106-2

-Paragraph 20, 21, 22

Reference 11: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef

-Publisher FASB

-Name Emerging Issues Task Force (EITF)

-Number 03-2

-Paragraph 8

Reference 12: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef

-Publisher AICPA

-Name Accounting Principles Board Opinion (APB)

-Number 30

-Paragraph 26

Reference 13: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef

-Publisher FASB

-Name Implementation Guide (Q and A)

-Number FAS88

-Paragraph 63

+ Details

CONTINGENCIES (Unaudited)

9 Months Ended

Sep. 30, 2009

Contingencies [Abstract]

Contingencies

Note 12—Commitments and Contingencies

Lease obligations—We have operating lease commitments expiring at various dates, principally for real estate, office space and office equipment. In August 2009, we accepted delivery of Petrobras 10000, an asset held under a capital lease through 2029. Additionally, GSF Explorer is held under a capital lease through 2026. As of September 30, 2009, future minimum rental payments related to noncancellable operating leases and our capital leases are as follows (in millions):

	Capital leases			Operating leases
Years ending September 30,
2010	$	74		$	39
2011		74			33
2012		74			21
2013		74			18
2014		74			14
Thereafter		1,101			47
Total future minimum rental payment	$	1,471		$	172
Less amount representing imputed interest		(741	)
Present value of future minimum rental payments under capital leases		730
Less current portion included in debt due within one year		(16	)
Long-term capital lease obligation	$	714

Legal proceedings—In 2004, several of our subsidiaries were named, along with numerous other unaffiliated defendants, in 21 complaints filed on behalf of 769 plaintiffs in the Circuit Courts of the State of Mississippi and which claimed injuries arising out of exposure to asbestos allegedly contained in drilling mud during these plaintiffs’ employment in drilling activities between 1965 and 1986. A Special Master, appointed to administer these cases pre-trial, subsequently required that each individual plaintiff file a separate lawsuit, and the original 21 multi-plaintiff complaints were then dismissed by the Circuit Courts. The amended complaints resulted in one of our subsidiaries being named as a direct defendant in seven cases. We have or may have an indirect interest in an additional 24 cases. The complaints generally allege that the defendants used or manufactured asbestos-containing products in connection with drilling operations and have included allegations of negligence, products liability, strict liability and claims allowed under the Jones Act and general maritime law. The plaintiffs generally seek awards of unspecified compensatory and punitive damages. In each of these cases, the complaints have named other unaffiliated defendant companies, including companies that allegedly manufactured the drilling-related products that contained asbestos. None of the cases in which one of our subsidiaries is a named defendant has been scheduled for trial in 2009 or 2010, and the preliminary information available on these claims is not sufficient to determine if there is an identifiable period for alleged exposure to asbestos, whether any asbestos exposure in fact occurred, the vessels potentially involved in the claims, or the basis on which the plaintiffs would support claims that their injuries were related to exposure to asbestos. However, the initial evidence available would suggest that we would have significant defenses to liability and damages. Earlier this year, two cases that were part of the original 2004 multi-plaintiff suits went to trial in Mississippi against unaffiliated defendant companies which allegedly manufactured drilling-related products containing asbestos. We were not a defendant in either of these cases. One of the cases resulted in a substantial jury verdict in favor of the plaintiff, although this case has not been reviewed on appeal. The second case resulted in a verdict completely in favor of the defendants. There have been no other trials involving any of the parties to the original 21 complaints. We intend to defend these lawsuits vigorously, although there can be no assurance as to the ultimate outcome. We historically have maintained broad liability insurance, although we are not certain whether insurance will cover the liabilities, if any, arising out of these claims. Based on our evaluation of the exposure to date, we do not expect the liability, if any, resulting from these claims to have a material adverse effect on our consolidated statement of financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

One of our subsidiaries is involved in an action with respect to a customs matter relating to the Sedco 710 semisubmersible drilling rig. Prior to our merger with Sedco Forex, this drilling rig, which was working for Petrobras in Brazil at the time, had been admitted into the country on a temporary basis under authority granted to a Schlumberger entity. When the drilling contract with Petrobras was transferred from Schlumberger to us in the merger, the temporary import permit was not transferred. When the temporary import permit granted to Schlumberger expired in 2000, renewal filings were not immediately made and the Brazilian authorities threatened to cancel the temporary import permit and to collect customs duties as if the rig had been nationalized in Brazil. Together with Schlumberger, we jointly filed an action for the purpose of avoiding cancellation of, and extending, the temporary import permit and to avoid collection of any customs duty. Other proceedings were also initiated to secure the transfer of the temporary import permit to us. The court initially permitted the transfer of the temporary import permit but did not rule on whether the temporary admission could be extended without the payment of a financial penalty in the form of Brazilian customs duties. In 2004, the Brazilian authorities issued an assessment totaling approximately $161 million against our subsidiary based on the expiration of the temporary import permit.

In April 2007, the trial court ruled that the temporary admission granted to Schlumberger and then later transferred to us had expired. This ruling allowed the Brazilian authorities to execute on their assessment. The assessment includes five separate elements of tax and penalty. Following this ruling, the Brazilian authorities issued a revised assessment against our subsidiary and, as of September 30, 2009, we believe that the U.S. dollar equivalent of this assessment, including penalties and interest, was approximately $260 million in aggregate. In September 2007, we received a temporary ruling in our favor from a Brazilian federal court that the valuation method used by the Brazilian authorities could be judged by the administrative courts, as requested. This temporary ruling was confirmed in January 2008 by the same Brazilian federal court, but it is still subject to review at the administrative levels in Brazil. As a result of this ruling, one of the elements of the assessment and the valuation method was sent to the administrative level for further proceedings. These proceedings are ongoing. We appealed the trial court’s ruling concerning expiration of the temporary admission and also filed for a renewed stay of execution, which was granted but recently has been revoked in light of the appellate decision set forth below. In June 2009, we received an unfavorable ruling on the merits regarding our appeal of the trial court’s decision regarding expiration of the temporary admission at the first appellate court, which ruling remains subject to appeal. Our motion for clarification of the appellate court’s adverse ruling has recently been denied and the government has now moved to collect the assessment by serving a notice of execution on us, and the government later filed another petition also requesting the inclusion of Schlumberger in such execution, which, as far as we are aware, has not yet received a similar notice of execution. We expect that another order should nonetheless prevent enforcement of the whole amount in dispute, and it is likely that further judicial or administrative proceedings will result from this matter. While the court had previously granted us the right to continue our appeal without the posting of a bond, it now is likely that we may be required to post a bond for up to the full amount of the assessment in connection with these proceedings. In its ruling, the appellate court effectively reversed prior precedent supporting our position and refused all clarifications of its decision. We are preparing an appeal to the next level but in light of the appellate court’s rulings we have a heightened risk that the appeal will be rejected on procedural grounds. The first appellate court further found that Schlumberger is jointly and severally liable in this matter and has also rejected Schlumberger’s motion for clarification. We previously put Schlumberger on notice that we consider any assessment to be solely the responsibility of Schlumberger, and we have initiated proceedings against Schlumberger seeking a declaratory judgment in this respect. These proceedings may be put on hold pending resolution of the assessment. At this point, we do not know whether the Brazilian authorities will continue to seek to recover the assessment solely from us or may now also seek recovery from Schlumberger. Schlumberger has denied any responsibility for this matter, but remains a party to the proceedings. Brazil currently has a tax amnesty program in effect which could eliminate various penalties and a portion of the accumulated interest for this assessment. We are filing our motion for appeal and are evaluating whether to participate in the amnesty program while preserving our claim against Schlumberger. This is complicated by discrepancies in the estimates provided by various authorities involved in the execution of the assessment. Based on the facts currently available, we have accrued the amount of our estimated liability under the amnesty program in other current liabilities on our condensed consolidated balance sheet. Due to the considerable uncertainties that exist, we are unable to predict the final outcome of this matter and, consequently, the ultimate liability to which we may be subject could differ from our estimate.

In the third quarter of 2006, we received tax assessments of approximately $158 million from the state tax authorities of Rio de Janeiro in Brazil against one of our Brazilian subsidiaries for customs taxes on equipment imported into the state in connection with our operations. The assessments resulted from a preliminary finding by these authorities that our subsidiary’s record keeping practices were deficient. We currently believe that the substantial majority of these assessments are without merit. We filed an initial response with the Rio de Janeiro tax authorities on September 9, 2006 refuting these additional tax assessments. In September 2007, we received confirmation from the state tax authorities that they believe the additional tax assessments are valid, and as a result, we filed an appeal on September 27, 2007 to the state Taxpayer’s Council contesting these assessments. While we cannot predict or provide assurance as to the final outcome of these proceedings, we do not expect it to have a material adverse effect on our consolidated statement of financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

One of our subsidiaries is involved in lawsuits arising out of the subsidiary’s involvement in the design, construction and refurbishment of major industrial complexes. The operating assets of the subsidiary were sold and its operations discontinued in 1989, and the subsidiary has no remaining assets other than the insurance policies involved in its litigation, fundings from settlements with the primary insurers and funds received from the cancellation of certain insurance policies. The subsidiary has been named as a defendant, along with numerous other companies, in lawsuits alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos. As of September 30, 2009, the subsidiary was a defendant in approximately 1,045 lawsuits. Some of these lawsuits include multiple plaintiffs and we estimate that there are approximately 2,736 plaintiffs in these lawsuits. For many of these lawsuits, we have not been provided with sufficient information from the plaintiffs to determine whether all or some of the plaintiffs have claims against the subsidiary, the basis of any such claims, or the nature of their alleged injuries. The first of the asbestos-related lawsuits was filed against this subsidiary in 1990. Through September 30, 2009, the amounts expended to resolve claims (including both attorneys’ fees and expenses, and settlement costs) have not been material, and all deductibles with respect to the primary insurance have been satisfied. The subsidiary continues to be named as a defendant in additional lawsuits and we cannot predict the number of additional cases in which it may be named a defendant nor can we predict the potential costs to resolve such additional cases or to resolve the pending cases. However, the subsidiary has in excess of $1 billion in insurance limits potentially available to the subsidiary. Although not all of the policies may be fully available due to the insolvency of certain insurers, we believe that the subsidiary will have sufficient insurance and funds from the settlements of litigation with insurance carriers available to respond to these claims. While we cannot predict or provide assurance as to the final outcome of these matters, we do not believe that the current value of the claims where we have been identified will have a material impact on our consolidated statement of financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

We are involved in various tax matters and various regulatory matters. We are involved in lawsuits relating to damage claims arising out of hurricanes Katrina and Rita, all of which are insured and which are not material to us. We are also involved in a number of other lawsuits, including a dispute for municipal tax payments in Brazil and a dispute involving customs procedures in India, neither of which is material to us, and all of which have arisen in the ordinary course of our business. We do not expect the liability, if any, resulting from these other matters to have a material adverse effect on our consolidated statement of financial position, results of operations or cash flows. We cannot predict with certainty the outcome or effect of any of the litigation matters specifically described above or of any such other pending or threatened litigation. There can be no assurance that our beliefs or expectations as to the outcome or effect of any lawsuit or other litigation matter will prove correct and the eventual outcome of these matters could materially differ from management’s current estimates.

Environmental matters—We have certain potential liabilities under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (“CERCLA”) and similar state acts regulating cleanup of various hazardous waste disposal sites, including those described below. CERCLA is intended to expedite the remediation of hazardous substances without regard to fault. Potentially responsible parties (“PRPs”) for each site include present and former owners and operators of, transporters to and generators of the substances at the site. Liability is strict and can be joint and several.

We have been named as a PRP in connection with a site located in Santa Fe Springs, California, known as the Waste Disposal, Inc. site. We and other PRPs have agreed with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) and the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) to settle our potential liabilities for this site by agreeing to perform the remaining remediation required by the EPA. The form of the agreement is a consent decree, which has been entered by the court. The parties to the settlement have entered into a participation agreement, which makes us liable for approximately eight percent of the remediation and related costs. The remediation is complete, and we believe our share of the future operation and maintenance costs of the site is not material. There are additional potential liabilities related to the site, but these cannot be quantified, and we have no reason at this time to believe that they will be material.

We have also been named as a PRP in connection with a site in California known as the Casmalia Resources Site. We and other PRPs have entered into an agreement with the EPA and the DOJ to resolve potential liabilities. Under the settlement, we are not likely to owe any substantial additional amounts for this site beyond what we have already paid. There are additional potential liabilities related to this site, but these cannot be quantified at this time, and we have no reason at this time to believe that they will be material.

We have been named as one of many PRPs in connection with a site located in Carson, California, formerly maintained by Cal Compact Landfill. On February 15, 2002, we were served with a required 90-day notification that eight California cities, on behalf of themselves and other PRPs, intend to commence an action against us under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (“RCRA”). On April 1, 2002, a complaint was filed by the cities against us and others alleging that we have liabilities in connection with the site. However, the complaint has not been served. The site was closed in or around 1965, and we do not have sufficient information to enable us to assess our potential liability, if any, for this site.

One of our subsidiaries has recently been ordered by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board to develop a testing plan for a site known as Campus 1000 Fremont in Alhambra, California. This site was formerly owned and operated by certain of our subsidiaries. It is presently owned by an unrelated party, which has received an order to test the property, the cost of which is expected to be in the range of $200,000. We have also been advised that one or more of our subsidiaries is likely to be named by the EPA as a PRP for the San Gabriel Valley, Area 3, Superfund site, which includes this property. We have no knowledge at this time of the potential cost of any remediation, who else will be named as PRPs, and whether in fact any of our subsidiaries is a responsible party. The subsidiaries in question do not own any operating assets and have limited ability to respond to any liabilities.

Resolutions of other claims by the EPA, the involved state agency or PRPs are at various stages of investigation. These investigations involve determinations of:

the actual responsibility attributed to us and the other PRPs at the site;

appropriate investigatory and/or remedial actions; and

allocation of the costs of such activities among the PRPs and other site users.

Our ultimate financial responsibility in connection with those sites may depend on many factors, including:

the volume and nature of material, if any, contributed to the site for which we are responsible;

the numbers of other PRPs and their financial viability; and

the remediation methods and technology to be used.

It is difficult to quantify with certainty the potential cost of these environmental matters, particularly in respect of remediation obligations. Nevertheless, based upon the information currently available, we believe that our ultimate liability arising from all environmental matters, including the liability for all other related pending legal proceedings, asserted legal claims and known potential legal claims which are likely to be asserted, is adequately accrued and should not have a material effect on our financial position or ongoing results of operations. Estimated costs of future expenditures for environmental remediation obligations are not discounted to their present value.

Contamination litigation—On July 11, 2005, one of our subsidiaries was served with a lawsuit filed on behalf of three landowners in Louisiana in the 12th Judicial District Court for the Parish of Avoyelles, State of Louisiana. The lawsuit named nineteen other defendants, all of which were alleged to have contaminated the plaintiffs’ property with naturally occurring radioactive material, produced water, drilling fluids, chlorides, hydrocarbons, heavy metals and other contaminants as a result of oil and gas exploration activities. Experts retained by the plaintiffs issued a report suggesting significant contamination in the area operated by the subsidiary and another codefendant, and claimed that over $300 million would be required to properly remediate the contamination. The experts retained by the defendants conducted their own investigation and concluded that the remediation costs would amount to no more than $2.5 million.

The plaintiffs and the codefendant threatened to add GlobalSantaFe as a defendant in the lawsuit under the “single business enterprise” doctrine contained in Louisiana law. The single business enterprise doctrine is similar to corporate veil piercing doctrines. On August 16, 2006, our subsidiary and its immediate parent company, each of which is an entity that no longer conducts operations or holds assets, filed voluntary petitions for relief under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware. Later that day, the plaintiffs dismissed our subsidiary from the lawsuit. Subsequently, the codefendant filed various motions in the lawsuit and in the Delaware bankruptcies attempting to assert alter ego and single business enterprise claims against GlobalSantaFe and two other subsidiaries in the lawsuit. The efforts to assert alter ego and single business enterprise theory claims against GlobalSantaFe were rejected by the Court in Avoyelles Parish, and the lawsuit against the other defendant went to trial on February 19, 2007. This lawsuit was resolved at trial with a settlement by the codefendant that included a $20 million payment and certain cleanup activities to be conducted by the codefendant.

The codefendant sought to dismiss the bankruptcies. In addition, the codefendant filed proofs of claim against both our subsidiary and its parent with regard to its claims arising out of the settlement of the lawsuit. On February 15, 2008, the Bankruptcy Court denied the codefendant’s request to dismiss the bankruptcy case but modified the automatic stay to allow the codefendant to proceed on its claims against the debtors, our subsidiary and its parent, and their insurance companies. The codefendant subsequently filed suit against the debtors and certain of its insurers in the Court of Avoyelles Parish to determine their liability for the settlement.

The codefendant filed a Notice of Appeal of the rulings of the Bankruptcy Court. GlobalSantaFe and its two subsidiaries also filed Notices of Appeal to the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. On January 27, 2009, the codefendant’s appeal was granted by the District Court and the bankruptcy case was remanded to the Bankruptcy Court with instructions to have the case dismissed. On February 10, 2009, the Bankruptcy Court entered an order dismissing the bankruptcy case. The debtors, GlobalSantaFe and the two subsidiaries have filed Notices of Appeal of the District Court’s ruling with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. On February 18, 2009, the District Court stayed its ruling which instructed the Bankruptcy Court to dismiss the case. The appeal was heard on September 14, 2009, but the Court of Appeals has not yet issued its ruling.

We believe that these legal theories should not be applied against GlobalSantaFe or these other two subsidiaries, and that in any event the manner in which the parent and its subsidiaries conducted their businesses does not meet the requirements of these theories for imposition of liability. Our subsidiary, its parent and GlobalSantaFe intend to continue to vigorously defend against any action taken in an attempt to impose liability against them under the theories discussed above or otherwise and believe they have good and valid defenses thereto. We are unable to determine the value of these claims as of the date of the merger with GlobalSantaFe. We do not believe that these claims will have a material impact on our consolidated statement of financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

Retained risk—Our insurance program is a 12-month policy period beginning May 1, 2009. Under the program, we generally maintain a $125 million per occurrence deductible on our hull and machinery, which is subject to an aggregate deductible of $250 million. However, in the event of a total loss or a constructive total loss of a drilling unit, such loss would be subject to a deductible ranging from $500,000 to $1.5 million. Additionally, we maintain a $10 million per occurrence deductible on crew personal injury liability and $5 million per occurrence deductible on third-party property claims, which together are subject to an aggregate deductible of $50 million that is applied to any occurrence in excess of the per occurrence deductible until the aggregate deductible is exhausted. We also carry $950 million of third-party liability coverage exclusive of the personal injury liability deductibles, third-party property liability deductibles and retention amounts described above. We retain the risk for any liability losses in excess of the $950 million limit. We have elected to self-insure operators extra expense coverage for our subsidiaries ADTI and CMI. This coverage provides protection against expenses related to well control and redrill liability associated with blowouts. Generally, ADTI’s customers assume, and indemnify ADTI for, liability associated with blowouts in excess of $50 million.

At present, the insured value of our drilling rig fleet is approximately $38 billion in aggregate. We do not generally have commercial market insurance coverage for physical damage losses to our fleet due to named windstorms in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico and war perils worldwide. We do not carry insurance for loss of revenue, except on Dhirubhai Deepwater KG1, with respect to which loss of revenue insurance is contractually required. In the opinion of management, adequate accruals have been made based on known and estimable losses related to such exposures.

Letters of credit and surety bonds—We had letters of credit outstanding totaling $590 million and $751 million at September 30, 2009 and December 31, 2008, respectively. These letters of credit guarantee various obligations, including contract bidding and performance activities, and are issued under various committed and uncommitted lines provided by several banks.

As is customary in the contract drilling business, we also have various surety bonds in place that secure customs obligations relating to the importation of our rigs and certain performance and other obligations. Surety bonds outstanding totaled $31 million and $37 million at September 30, 2009 and December 31, 2008, respectively.

Entity Information (USD $)	9 Months Ended
Entity Information (USD $)	Sep. 30, 2009	Oct. 27, 2009	Jun. 30, 2008
Entity Information [Line Items]
Entity Registrant Name	Transocean Ltd.
Entity Central Index Key	0001451505
Current Fiscal Year End Date	--12-31
Entity Well-known Seasoned Issuer	Yes
Entity Voluntary Filers	No
Entity Current Reporting Status	Yes
Entity Filer Category	Large Accelerated Filer
Entity Public Float			$ 48,600,000,000
Entity Common Stock, Shares Outstanding		321,145,301

STOCK WARRANTS (Unaudited)	9 Months Ended
STOCK WARRANTS (Unaudited)	Sep. 30, 2009
Stock Warrants [Abstract]
Stock Warrants	Note 13—Stock Warrants We assumed stock warrants in connection with our merger with R&B Falcon Corporation in January 2001. Under the amended warrant agreement, each warrant holder could elect to receive 12.243 shares and $578.025 in cash upon exercise at a price of $332.50. At December 31, 2008, the cash payment feature represented a liability of $31 million recorded in other current liabilities. During the nine months ended September 30, 2009, we issued 651,570 shares and paid $13 million, net of an $18 million aggregate exercise price, upon the exercise of 53,220 warrants. No warrants remained outstanding and the cash payment feature had been fully satisfied as of the stated expiration date of May 1, 2009.

SUBSEQUENT EVENTS (Unaudited)	9 Months Ended
SUBSEQUENT EVENTS (Unaudited)	Sep. 30, 2009
Subsequent Events [Abstract]
Subsequent Events	Note 14—Subsequent Events We have evaluated subsequent events through the time of our filing on November 4, 2009, the date on which we issued our financial statements. Income Taxes—In October 2009, we received verbal notification from the U.S. tax authorities of potential adjustments related to a series of restructuring transactions that occurred between 2001 and 2004, but we have not received a formal assessment or an explanation of the items that may be considered in the assessment. These restructuring transactions ultimately resulted in the disposition of our TODCO entity in 2004. We believe that our tax returns are materially correct as filed, and we will vigorously defend against any potential claim. Debt—Subsequent to September 30, 2009, we repurchased $151 million aggregate principal amount of the 1.1625% Series A Convertible Senior Notes for an aggregate cash payment of $150 million.

Document Information	9 Months Ended
Document Information	Sep. 30, 2009
Document Information [Line Items]
Document Type	10-Q
Document Period End Date	Sep. 30, 2009
Amendment Flag	false