Edgar Filing: Transocean Ltd.

form10_q1q2012.htm

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

_________________________

FORM 10-Q

(Mark one)

þ	QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the quarterly period ended March 31, 2012

¨ TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the transition period from _____ to _____

_________________________

Commission file number 000-53533

TRANSOCEAN LTD.

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

Zug, Switzerland	98-0599916
(State or other jurisdiction of incorporation or organization)	(I.R.S. Employer Identification No.)

Chemin de Blandonnet 10 Vernier, Switzerland	1214
(Address of principal executive offices)	(Zip Code)

+41 (22) 930-9000
(Registrant’s telephone number, including area code)

_________________________

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.Yes þ No ¨

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files).Yes þ No ¨

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer” and “smaller reporting company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.

Large accelerated filer þ Accelerated filer ¨ Non-accelerated filer (do not check if a smaller reporting company) ¨ Smaller reporting company ¨

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act). Yes ¨ No þ

As of April 24, 2012, 350,503,380 shares were outstanding.

TRANSOCEAN LTD. AND SUBSIDIARIES

INDEX TO FORM 10-Q

QUARTER ENDED MARCH 31, 2012

		Page
PART I.	FINANCIAL INFORMATION
Item 1.	Financial Statements (Unaudited)
	Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations	1
	Condensed Consolidated Statements of Comprehensive Income	2
	Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets	3
	Condensed Consolidated Statements of Equity	4
	Condensed Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows	5
	Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements	6
Item 2.	Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations	36
Item 3.	Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk	55
Item 4.	Controls and Procedures	56

PART II.	OTHER INFORMATION
Item 1.	Legal Proceedings	57
Item 1A.	Risk Factors	57
Item 2.	Unregistered Sales of Equity Securities and Use of Proceeds	57
Item 6.	Exhibits	58

PART I. FINANCIAL INFORMATION

Item 1.

Financial Statements

TRANSOCEAN LTD. AND SUBSIDIARIES

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS

(In millions, except per share data)

(Unaudited)

	Three months ended March 31,
	2012			2011
Operating revenues
Contract drilling revenues	$	2,203		$	1,950
Contract drilling intangible revenues		11			10
Other revenues		117			184
		2,331			2,144
Costs and expenses
Operating and maintenance		1,410			1,359
Depreciation and amortization		351			354
General and administrative		69			67
		1,830			1,780
Loss on impairment		(227	)		—
Gain (loss) on disposal of assets, net		(4	)		8
Operating income		270			372

Other income (expense), net
Interest income		15			15
Interest expense, net of amounts capitalized		(180	)		(145	)
Other, net		(7	)		3
		(172	)		(127	)
Income from continuing operations before income tax expense		98			245
Income tax expense		24			81
Income from continuing operations		74			164
Income (loss) from discontinued operations, net of tax		(15	)		176

Net income		59			340
Net income attributable to noncontrolling interest		17			30
Net income attributable to controlling interest	$	42		$	310

Earnings per share-basic
Earnings from continuing operations	$	0.16		$	0.42
Earnings (loss) from discontinued operations		(0.04	)		0.54
Earnings per share	$	0.12		$	0.96

Earnings per share-diluted
Earnings from continuing operations	$	0.16		$	0.42
Earnings (loss) from discontinued operations		(0.04	)		0.54
Earnings per share	$	0.12		$	0.96

Weighted-average shares outstanding
Basic		350			319
Diluted		350			320

See accompanying notes.

- 1 -

TRANSOCEAN LTD. AND SUBSIDIARIES

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF COMPREHENSIVE INCOME

(In millions)

(Unaudited)

	Three months ended March 31,
	2012			2011
Net income	$	59		$	340

Other comprehensive income (loss) before income taxes
Unrecognized components of net periodic benefit costs		(28	)		(6	)
Unrecognized gain on derivative instruments		2			1
Recognized components of net periodic benefit costs		13			6
Recognized (gain) loss on derivative instruments		(3	)		2

Other comprehensive income (loss) before income taxes		(16	)		3
Income taxes related to other comprehensive income (loss)		(3	)		(2	)
Other comprehensive income (loss), net of income taxes		(19	)		1

Total comprehensive income		40			341
Total comprehensive income attributable to noncontrolling interest		17			34

Total comprehensive income attributable to controlling interest	$	23		$	307

See accompanying notes.

- 2 -

TRANSOCEAN LTD. AND SUBSIDIARIES

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS

(In millions, except share data)

(Unaudited)

	March 31, 2012			December 31, 2011
Assets
Cash and cash equivalents	$	3,982		$	4,017
Accounts receivable, net of allowance for doubtful accounts of $28 at March 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011		2,238			2,176
Materials and supplies, net of allowance for obsolescence of $76 and $73 at March 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011, respectively		663			627
Deferred income taxes, net		142			142
Assets held for sale		53			26
Other current assets		595			621
Total current assets		7,673			7,609

Property and equipment		28,960			29,037
Property and equipment of consolidated variable interest entities		2,255			2,252
Less accumulated depreciation		8,892			8,760
Property and equipment, net		22,323			22,529
Goodwill		3,087			3,205
Other assets		1,632			1,745
Total assets	$	34,715		$	35,088

Liabilities and equity
Accounts payable	$	841		$	880
Accrued income taxes		70			89
Debt due within one year		2,695			1,942
Debt of consolidated variable interest entities due within one year		97			97
Other current liabilities		2,061			2,350
Total current liabilities		5,764			5,358

Long-term debt		9,940			10,756
Long-term debt of consolidated variable interest entities		724			741
Deferred income taxes, net		512			523
Other long-term liabilities		1,914			1,903
Total long-term liabilities		13,090			13,923

Commitments and contingencies
Redeemable noncontrolling interest		138			116

Shares, CHF 15.00 par value, 402,282,355 authorized, 167,617,649 conditionally authorized, 365,135,298 issued at March 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011; 350,500,518 and 349,805,793 outstanding at March 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011, respectively		4,991			4,982
Additional paid-in capital		7,216			7,211
Treasury shares, at cost, 2,863,267 held at March 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011		(240	)		(240	)
Retained earnings		4,286			4,244
Accumulated other comprehensive loss		(515	)		(496	)
Total controlling interest shareholders’ equity		15,738			15,701
Noncontrolling interest		(15	)		(10	)
Total equity		15,723			15,691
Total liabilities and equity	$	34,715		$	35,088

See accompanying notes.

- 3 -

TRANSOCEAN LTD. AND SUBSIDIARIES

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF EQUITY

(In millions)

(Unaudited)

	Three months ended March 31,
	2012			2011
Shares outstanding
Balance, beginning of period		350			319
Issuance of shares under share-based compensation plans		1			1
Balance, end of period		351			320
Shares
Balance, beginning of period	$	4,982		$	4,482
Issuance of shares under share-based compensation plans		9			6
Balance, end of period	$	4,991		$	4,488
Additional paid-in capital
Balance, beginning of period	$	7,211		$	7,504
Share-based compensation		23			27
Issuance of shares under share-based compensation plans		(17	)		(16	)
Other, net		(1	)		3
Balance, end of period	$	7,216		$	7,518
Treasury shares, at cost
Balance, beginning of period	$	(240	)	$	(240	)
Balance, end of period	$	(240	)	$	(240	)
Retained earnings
Balance, beginning of period	$	4,244		$	9,969
Net income attributable to controlling interest		42			310
Balance, end of period	$	4,286		$	10,279
Accumulated other comprehensive loss
Balance, beginning of period	$	(496	)	$	(332	)
Other comprehensive loss attributable to controlling interest		(19	)		(3	)
Balance, end of period	$	(515	)	$	(335	)
Total controlling interest shareholders’ equity
Balance, beginning of period	$	15,701		$	21,383
Total comprehensive income attributable to controlling interest		23			307
Share-based compensation		23			27
Issuance of shares under share-based compensation plans		(8	)		(10	)
Other, net		(1	)		3
Balance, end of period	$	15,738		$	21,710
Noncontrolling interest
Balance, beginning of period	$	(10	)	$	(8	)
Total comprehensive income (loss) attributable to noncontrolling interest		(5	)		3
Balance, end of period	$	(15	)	$	(5	)
Total equity
Balance, beginning of period	$	15,691		$	21,375
Total comprehensive income		18			310
Share-based compensation		23			27
Issuance of shares under share-based compensation plans		(8	)		(10	)
Other, net		(1	)		3
Balance, end of period	$	15,723		$	21,705

See accompanying notes.

- 4 -

TRANSOCEAN LTD. AND SUBSIDIARIES

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS

(In millions)

(Unaudited)

	Three months ended March 31,
	2012			2011
Cash flows from operating activities
Net income	$	59		$	340
Adjustments to reconcile to net cash provided by operating activities:
Amortization of drilling contract intangibles		(11	)		(10	)
Depreciation and amortization		351			354
Share-based compensation expense		23			27
Loss on impairment		227			—
(Gain) loss on disposal of assets, net		4			(8	)
(Gain) loss on disposal of discontinued operations, net		14			(173	)
Amortization of debt issue costs, discounts and premiums, net		18			26
Deferred income taxes		(30	)		11
Other, net		21			(3	)
Changes in deferred revenue, net		(12	)		46
Changes in deferred expenses, net		(49	)		(36	)
Changes in operating assets and liabilities		(75	)		(184	)
Net cash provided by operating activities		540			390

Cash flows from investing activities
Capital expenditures		(260	)		(240	)
Proceeds from disposal of assets, net		41			13
Proceeds from disposal of discontinued operations, net		—			259
Other, net		12			(6	)
Net cash provided by (used in) investing activities		(207	)		26

Cash flows from financing activities
Changes in short-term borrowings, net		—			51
Proceeds from debt		—			5
Repayments of debt		(147	)		(47	)
Proceeds from restricted cash investments		108			—
Deposits to restricted cash investments		(42	)		—
Distribution of qualifying additional paid-in capital		(278	)		—
Other, net		(9	)		(7	)
Net cash provided by (used in) financing activities		(368	)		2

Net increase (decrease) in cash and cash equivalents		(35	)		418
Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of period		4,017			3,394
Cash and cash equivalents at end of period	$	3,982		$	3,812

See accompanying notes.

- 5 -

TRANSOCEAN LTD. AND SUBSIDIARIES

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

(Unaudited)

Note 1—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. We specialize in technically demanding sectors of the offshore drilling business with a particular focus on deepwater and harsh environment drilling services. Our mobile offshore drilling fleet is considered one of the most versatile fleets in the world. We contract our drilling rigs, related equipment and work crews predominantly on a dayrate basis to drill oil and gas wells. At March 31, 2012, we owned or had partial ownership interests in and operated 130 mobile offshore drilling units. As of this date, our fleet consisted of 50 High-Specification Floaters (Ultra-Deepwater, Deepwater and Harsh Environment semisubmersibles and drillships), 25 Midwater Floaters, nine High-Specification Jackups, 45 Standard Jackups and one swamp barge. In addition, we had two Ultra-Deepwater drillships and four High-Specification Jackups under construction. See Note 10—Drilling Fleet.

We also provide oil and gas drilling management services, drilling engineering and drilling project management services through Applied Drilling Technology Inc., our wholly owned subsidiary, and through ADT International, a division of one of our United Kingdom (“U.K”). subsidiaries (together, “ADTI”). ADTI conducts drilling management services primarily on either a dayrate or a completed-project, fixed-price (or “turnkey”) basis.

Note 2—Significant Accounting Policies

Basis of presentation—We have prepared our accompanying unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements 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 noted. Operating results for the three months ended March 31, 2012 are not necessarily indicative of the results that may be expected for the year ending December 31, 2012 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 as of December 31, 2011 and 2010 and for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2011 included in our annual report on Form 10-K filed on February 27, 2012.

Accounting estimates—To prepare financial statements in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the U.S., we are required to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets, liabilities, revenues and expenses and the disclosures of contingent assets and liabilities. On an ongoing basis, we evaluate our estimates and assumptions, including those related to our allowance for doubtful accounts, materials and supplies obsolescence, property and equipment, investments, notes receivable, goodwill and other intangible assets, income taxes, defined benefit pension plans and other postretirement benefits, contingencies and share-based compensation. 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 amounts of assets and liabilities that are not readily apparent from other sources. Actual results could differ from such estimates.

Fair value measurements—We estimate fair value at a price that would be received to sell an asset or paid to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants in the principal market for the asset or liability. Our valuation techniques require inputs that we categorize using a three-level hierarchy, from highest to lowest level of observable inputs, as follows: (1) significant observable inputs, including unadjusted quoted prices for identical assets or liabilities in active markets (“Level 1”), (2) significant other observable inputs, including direct or indirect market data for similar assets or liabilities in active markets or identical assets or liabilities in less active markets (“Level 2”), and (3) significant unobservable inputs, including those that require considerable judgment for which there is little or no market data (“Level 3”). When multiple input levels are required for a valuation, we categorize the entire fair value measurement according to the lowest level of input that is significant to the measurement even though we may have also utilized significant inputs that are more readily observable.

Consolidation—We consolidate entities in which we have a majority voting interest and entities that meet the criteria for variable interest entities for which we are deemed to be the primary beneficiary for accounting purposes. We eliminate intercompany transactions and accounts in consolidation. We apply the equity method of accounting for investments in entities if we have the ability to exercise significant influence over an entity that (a) does not meet the variable interest entity criteria or (b) meets the variable interest entity criteria, but for which we are not deemed to be the primary beneficiary. We apply the cost method of accounting for investments in other entities if we do not have the ability to exercise significant influence over the unconsolidated entity. See Note 4—Variable Interest Entities.

Share-based compensation—Share-based compensation expense was $23 million and $27 million for the three months ended March 31, 2012 and 2011, respectively.

- 6 -

TRANSOCEAN LTD. AND SUBSIDIARIES

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (continued)

(Unaudited)

Capitalized interest—We capitalize interest costs for qualifying construction and upgrade projects. We capitalized interest costs on construction work in progress of $13 million and $15 million for the three months ended March 31, 2012 and 2011, respectively.

Reclassifications—We have made certain reclassifications, which did not have an effect on net income, to prior period amounts to conform with the current period’s presentation. These reclassifications did not have a material effect on our condensed consolidated statement of financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

Subsequent events—We evaluate subsequent events through the time of our filing on the date we issue our financial statements. See Note 19—Subsequent Events.

Note 3—New Accounting Pronouncements

Recently Adopted Accounting Standards

Intangibles-goodwill and other—Effective January 1, 2012, we adopted the accounting standards update that amends the goodwill impairment testing requirements by giving an entity the option to first assess qualitative factors to determine whether the existence of events or circumstances leads to a determination that it is more likely than not that the fair value of a reporting unit is less than its carrying amount and whether the two-step impairment test is required. The update is effective for goodwill impairment tests performed for annual and interim periods beginning after December 15, 2011. Our adoption did not have an effect on our condensed consolidated financial statements.

Fair value measurements—Effective January 1, 2012, we adopted the accounting standards update that requires additional disclosure about fair value measurements that involve significant unobservable inputs, including additional quantitative information about the unobservable inputs, a description of valuation techniques used, and a qualitative evaluation of the sensitivity of these measurements. Our adoption did not have a material effect on the disclosures contained in our notes to condensed consolidated financial statements.

Recently Issued Accounting Standards

Balance sheet—Effective January 1, 2013, we will adopt the accounting standards update that expands the disclosure requirements for the offsetting of assets and liabilities related to certain financial instruments and derivative instruments. The update requires disclosures to present both gross information and net information for financial instruments and derivative instruments that are eligible for net presentation due to a right of offset, an enforceable master netting arrangement or similar agreement. The update is effective for interim and annual periods beginning on or after January 1, 2013. We do not expect that our adoption will have a material effect on our condensed consolidated balance sheet or the disclosures contained in our notes to condensed consolidated financial statements.

Note 4—Variable Interest Entities

Consolidated variable interest entities—We consolidate the operating results, assets and liabilities of Transocean Pacific Drilling Inc. (“TPDI”), a consolidated British Virgin Islands joint venture company, and Angola Deepwater Drilling Company Limited (“ADDCL”), a consolidated Cayman Islands joint venture company, which are two variable interest entities for which we are the primary beneficiary. The carrying amounts associated with our consolidated variable interest entities, after eliminating the effect of intercompany transactions, were as follows (in millions):

	March 31, 2012						December 31, 2011
	Assets		Liabilities		Net carrying amount		Assets		Liabilities		Net carrying amount
Variable interest entity
TPDI	$	1,591	$	660	$	931	$	1,562	$	673	$	889
ADDCL		929		327		602		930		334		596
Total	$	2,520	$	987	$	1,533	$	2,492	$	1,007	$	1,485

See Note 15—Redeemable Noncontrolling Interest.

- 7 -

TRANSOCEAN LTD. AND SUBSIDIARIES

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (continued)

(Unaudited)

Unconsolidated variable interest entities—As holder of two notes receivable and a lender under a working capital loan, we have a variable interest in Awilco Drilling plc (“Awilco”), a U.K. company listed on the Oslo Stock Exchange. In the three months ended March 31, 2012, Awilco encountered operational downtime, both planned and unplanned, and disputed billings. In the three months ended March 31, 2012, we reevaluated whether Awilco met the definition of a variable interest entity. Based on our reevaluation, we determined that Awilco now met the definition of a variable interest entity since its equity at risk is insufficient to permit it to carry on its activities without additional subordinated financial support. We also continue to believe that we were not the primary beneficiary since we did not have the power to direct the activities that most significantly impact the entity’s economic performance.

The notes receivable were originally accepted in exchange for and are secured by two drilling units. The notes receivable have stated interest rates of nine percent and are payable in scheduled quarterly installments of principal and interest through maturity in January 2015. The working capital loan, also secured by the two drilling units, has a stated interest rate of 10 percent and is payable in scheduled quarterly installments of principal and interest through maturity in January 2013. We evaluate the credit quality and financial condition of Awilco quarterly. The aggregate carrying amount of the notes receivable was $109 million and $110 million at March 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011, respectively. The aggregate carrying amount of the working capital loan receivable was $20 million and $29 million at March 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011, respectively. At March 31, 2012, our aggregate exposure to loss on these receivable instruments was $129 million.

Note 5—Business Combination

As of October 3, 2011, the acquisition date, we held 99 percent of the shares of Aker Drilling ASA (“Aker Drilling”), a Norwegian company formerly listed on the Oslo Stock Exchange, having paid an aggregate amount of NOK 7.9 billion, equivalent to $1.4 billion. On October 4, 2011, we acquired the remaining noncontrolling interest from holders of Aker Drilling that were required to tender their shares pursuant to Norwegian law. We believe the acquisition of Aker Drilling enhances the composition of our High-Specification Floater fleet and strengthens our presence in Norway. In accounting for the business combination, we applied the acquisition method of accounting, recording the assets and liabilities of Aker Drilling at their estimated fair values as of the acquisition date.

As of October 3, 2011, the acquisition price included the following, measured at estimated fair value: current assets of $323 million, drilling rigs and other property and equipment of $1.8 billion, other assets of $756 million, and the assumption of current liabilities of $272 million and long-term debt of $1.6 billion. The acquired assets included $901 million of cash investments restricted for the payment of certain assumed debt instruments. The excess of the purchase price over the estimated fair value of net assets acquired was approximately $273 million, which was recorded as goodwill. Certain fair value measurements have not been completed, and the acquisition price allocation remains preliminary due to the timing of the acquisition and due to the number of acquired assets and assumed liabilities. We continue to review the estimated fair values of property and equipment and other assets and to evaluate the assumed tax positions and contingencies.

In the three months ended March 31, 2012, our operating revenues included approximately $95 million of contract drilling revenues associated with the operations of the two Harsh Environment, Ultra-Deepwater semisubmersibles that we acquired in our acquisition of Aker Drilling.

Unaudited pro forma combined operating results, assuming the acquisition was completed as of January 1, 2011, were as follows (in millions, except per share data):

	Three months ended March 31,
	2011
Operating revenues	$	2,244
Operating income		420
Income from continuing operations		167

Per share earnings from continuing operations
Basic	$	0.43
Diluted	$	0.43

The pro forma financial information includes various adjustments, primarily related to additional depreciation expense resulting from the fair value adjustments to the acquired property and equipment. The pro forma information is not necessarily indicative of the results of operations had the acquisition of Aker Drilling been completed on the assumed dates or the results of operations for any future periods.

- 8 -

TRANSOCEAN LTD. AND SUBSIDIARIES

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (continued)

(Unaudited)

Note 6—Impairments

Assets held for sale—During the three months ended March 31, 2012, we recognized a loss of $17 million ($0.05 per diluted share from continuing operations), which had no tax effect, associated with the impairment of GSF Rig 136, which was classified as an asset held for sale at the time of impairment. We measured the impairment of the drilling unit and related equipment as the amount by which the carrying amount exceeded the estimated fair value less costs to sell. We estimated the fair value of the assets using significant observable inputs, representing a Level 1 fair value measurement, including a binding sale and purchase agreement for the drilling unit and related equipment.

Definite-lived intangible assets—During the three months ended March 31, 2012, we determined that the customer relationships intangible asset associated with our drilling management services reporting unit was impaired due to the declining market outlook for these services in the shallow water of U.S. Gulf of Mexico as well as the increased regulatory environment for obtaining drilling permits and the diminishing demand for our drilling management services. We estimated the fair value of the customer relationships intangible asset using the multiperiod excess earnings method, a valuation methodology that applies the income approach. Our valuation required us to project the future performance of the drilling management services reporting unit based on significant unobservable inputs, representing a Level 3 fair value measurement, including assumptions for future commodity prices, projected demand for our services, rig availability and dayrates. As a result of our valuation, we determined that the carrying amount of the customer relationships intangible asset exceeded its fair value, and we recognized a loss on impairment of $53 million ($37 million, or $0.11 per diluted share from continuing operations, net of tax) in the three months ended March 31, 2012.

Goodwill and other indefinite-lived intangible assets—As a result of our annual impairment test, performed as of October 1, 2011, we determined that the goodwill associated with our contract drilling services reporting unit was impaired due to a decline in projected cash flows and market valuations for this reporting unit. In the year ended December 31, 2011, we recognized a loss on impairment, representing our best estimate, in the amount of $5.2 billion ($16.15 per diluted share from continuing operations), which had no tax effect. In the three months ended March 31, 2012, we completed our analysis and recognized an incremental adjustment to our original estimate in the amount of $118 million ($0.34 per diluted share from continuing operations), which had no tax effect. We estimated the implied fair value of the goodwill using a variety of valuation methods, including cost, income, and market approaches. Our valuation required us to project the future performance of our contract drilling services reporting unit based on significant unobservable inputs, representing a Level 3 fair value measurement, including assumptions for future commodity prices, projected demand for our services, rig availability and dayrates.

During the three months ended March 31, 2012, we determined that the trade name intangible asset associated with our drilling management services reporting unit was impaired due to the declining market outlook for these services in the shallow water of U.S. Gulf of Mexico as well as the increased regulatory environment for obtaining drilling permits and the diminishing demand for drilling management services. We estimated the fair value of the trade name intangible asset using the relief from royalty method, a valuation methodology that applies the income approach. Our valuation required us to project the future performance of the drilling management services reporting unit based on significant unobservable inputs, representing a Level 3 fair value measurement, including assumptions for future commodity prices, projected demand for drilling management services, rig availability and dayrates. As a result of our valuation, we determined that the carrying amount of the trade name intangible asset exceeded its fair value, and we recognized a loss on impairment of $39 million ($25 million, or $0.07 per diluted share from continuing operations, net of tax) in the three months ended March 31, 2012.

- 9 -

TRANSOCEAN LTD. AND SUBSIDIARIES

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (continued)

(Unaudited)

Note 7—Income Taxes

Tax rate—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 provision for income taxes is based on the tax laws and rates applicable in the jurisdictions in which we operate and earn income. The relationship between our provision for or benefit from income taxes and our income or loss before income taxes can vary significantly from period to period considering, among other factors, (a) the overall level of income before income taxes, (b) changes in the blend of income that is taxed based on gross revenues rather than income before taxes, (c) rig movements between taxing jurisdictions and (d) our rig operating structures. Generally, our annual marginal tax rate is lower than our annual effective tax rate.

Our estimated annual effective tax rates were 25.5 percent and 19.3 percent for the three months ended March 31, 2012 and 2011, respectively. These rates were based on estimated annual income before income taxes for each period after adjusting for various discrete items, including certain immaterial adjustments to prior period tax expense.

Deferred taxes—The valuation allowance for our non-current deferred tax assets was as follows (in millions):

		March 31, 2012				December 31, 2011
Valuation allowance for non-current deferred tax assets		$	181			$	183

Unrecognized tax benefits—The liabilities related to our unrecognized tax benefits, including related interest and penalties that we recognize as a component of income tax expense, were as follows (in millions):

	March 31, 2012		December 31, 2011
Unrecognized tax benefits, excluding interest and penalties	$	493	$	509
Interest and penalties		271		272
Unrecognized tax benefits, including interest and penalties	$	764	$	781

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 2003. For the three months ended March 31, 2012, the amount of current tax benefit recognized from the settlement of disputes with tax authorities and from the expiration of statutes of limitations was $38 million.

We engage in ongoing discussions with tax authorities regarding the resolution of tax matters in the various jurisdictions in which we operate. Both the ultimate resolutions of these tax matters and the timing of any resolution or closure of the tax audits are highly uncertain. It is reasonably possible that the total amount of our existing liabilities for unrecognized tax benefits could decrease by up to 15 percent or increase by up to 10 percent in the next 12 months.

Our tax returns in the major jurisdictions in which we operate, other than the U.S., Norway and Brazil which are mentioned below, 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 major jurisdictions for up to 17 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 statement of financial position or results of operations, although it may have a material adverse effect on our consolidated cash flows.

U.S. tax investigations—With respect to our 2004 U.S. federal income tax return, the U.S. tax authorities withdrew all of their previously proposed tax adjustments, including all claims related to transfer pricing. In January 2012, a judge in the U.S. Tax Court entered a decision of no deficiency for the 2004 tax year and cancelled the trial previously scheduled to take place in February 2012. With respect to our 2005 U.S. federal income tax returns, the U.S. tax 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, resulting in a total proposed adjustment of approximately $50 million, excluding interest. We believe an unfavorable outcome on this assessment with respect to 2005 activities would not result in a material adverse effect on our consolidated statement of financial position, results of operations or cash flows. Although we believe the transfer pricing for these charters is materially correct, we have been unable to reach a resolution with the tax authorities.

- 10 -

TRANSOCEAN LTD. AND SUBSIDIARIES

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (continued)

(Unaudited)

In May 2010, we received an assessment from the U.S. tax authorities related to our 2006 and 2007 U.S. federal income tax returns. In July 2010, we filed a protest letter with the U.S. tax authorities responding to this assessment. The significant issues raised in the assessment relate to transfer pricing for certain charters of drilling rigs between our subsidiaries and the creation of intangible assets resulting from the performance of engineering services between our subsidiaries. These two items would result in net adjustments of approximately $278 million of additional taxes, excluding interest. An unfavorable outcome on these adjustments could result in a material adverse effect on our consolidated statement of financial position, results of operations or cash flows. We believe our U.S. federal income tax returns are materially correct as filed, and we intend to continue to vigorously defend against all such claims.

In addition, the May 2010 assessment included adjustments related to a series of restructuring transactions that occurred between 2001 and 2004. These restructuring transactions impacted our basis in our former subsidiary, TODCO, which we disposed of in 2004 and 2005. The authorities are disputing the amount of capital losses that resulted from the disposition of TODCO. We utilized a portion of the capital losses to offset capital gains on our U.S federal income tax returns for 2006 through 2009. The majority of the capital losses were unutilized and expired on December 31, 2009. The adjustments would also impact the amount of certain net operating losses and other carryovers in 2006 and later years. The authorities are also contesting the characterization of certain amounts of income received in 2006 and 2007 as capital gain and thus the availability of the capital loss to offset such gains. These claims with respect to our U.S. federal income tax returns for 2006 through 2009 could result in net tax adjustments of approximately $295 million. An unfavorable outcome on these potential adjustments could result in a material adverse effect on our consolidated statement of financial position, results of operations or cash flows. We believe that our U.S federal income tax returns are materially correct as filed, and we intend to vigorously defend against any potential claims.

The May 2010 assessment also included certain claims with respect to withholding taxes and certain other items resulting in net tax adjustments of approximately $160 million, excluding interest. In addition, the tax authorities assessed penalties associated with the various tax adjustments for the 2006 and 2007 audits in the aggregate amount of approximately $88 million, excluding interest. An unfavorable outcome on these adjustments could result in a material adverse effect on our consolidated statement of financial position, results of operations and cash flows. We believe that our U.S. federal income tax returns are materially correct as filed, and we intend to vigorously defend against potential claims.

In February 2012, we received an assessment from the U.S. tax authorities related to our 2008 and 2009 U.S. federal income tax returns. The significant issues raised in the assessment relate to transfer pricing for certain charters of drilling rigs between our subsidiaries and the creation of intangible assets resulting from the performance of engineering services between our subsidiaries. These items would result in net adjustments of approximately $473 million of additional taxes, excluding interest. An unfavorable outcome on these adjustments could result in a material adverse effect on our consolidated statement of financial position, results of operations or cash flows. Furthermore, if the authorities were to continue to pursue these positions with respect to subsequent years and were successful in such assertions, our effective tax rate on worldwide earnings with respect to years following 2009 could increase substantially, and could have a material adverse effect on our consolidated results of operations and cash flows. We believe our U.S. federal income tax returns are materially correct as filed, and we intend to continue to vigorously defend against all such claims.

Norway tax investigations—Norwegian civil tax and criminal authorities are investigating various transactions undertaken by our subsidiaries in 2001 and 2002 as well as the actions of certain employees of our former external tax advisors on these transactions. The authorities issued tax assessments of approximately $274 million, plus interest, related to certain restructuring transactions, approximately $120 million, plus interest, related to the migration of a subsidiary that was previously subject to tax in Norway, approximately $72 million, plus interest, related to a 2001 dividend payment, and approximately $7 million, plus interest, related to certain foreign exchange deductions and dividend withholding tax. We have filed or expect to file appeals to these tax assessments. We have provided a parent company guarantee in the amount of approximately $123 million, with respect to one of these tax disputes. Furthermore, we may be required to provide some form of additional financial security, in an amount up to $754 million, including interest and penalties, for other assessed amounts as these disputes are appealed and addressed by the Norwegian courts. The authorities have indicated that they plan to seek penalties of 60 percent on most but not all matters. In June 2011, the Norwegian authorities issued criminal indictments against two of our subsidiaries alleging misleading or incomplete disclosures in Norwegian tax returns for the years 1999 through 2002, as well as inaccuracies in Norwegian statutory financial statements for the years ended December 31, 1996 through 2001. The criminal trial has been scheduled for December 2012. Two employees of our former external tax advisors were also issued indictments with respect to the disclosures in our tax returns. In October 2011, the Norwegian authorities issued criminal indictments against a Norwegian tax attorney related to certain of our restructuring transactions and to the 2001 dividend payment. The indicted Norwegian tax attorney worked for us in an advisory capacity on these transactions. We believe these charges are without merit and do not alter our technical assessment of the underlying claims. In January 2012, the Norwegian authorities supplemented the previously issued criminal indictments by issuing a financial claim of approximately $323 million, jointly and severally, against our two subsidiaries, the two external advisors and the external tax attorney. This compensation claim directly overlaps with an existing civil tax assessment and does not represent an incremental financial exposure to us. In February 2012, the authorities dropped the previously existing tax assessment related to a certain restructuring transaction. We believe our Norwegian tax returns are materially correct as filed, and we intend to vigorously contest any assertions by the Norwegian civil and criminal authorities in connection with the various transactions being investigated. An unfavorable outcome on the Norwegian civil and criminal tax matters could result in a material adverse effect on our consolidated statement of financial position, results of operations or cash flows. 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 statement of financial position or results of operations, although it may have a material adverse effect on our consolidated cash flows. See Note 19—Subsequent Events.

- 11 -

TRANSOCEAN LTD. AND SUBSIDIARIES

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (continued)

(Unaudited)

Brazil tax investigations—Certain of our Brazilian income tax returns for the years 2000 through 2004 are currently under examination. The Brazilian tax authorities have issued tax assessments totaling $114 million, plus a 75 percent penalty in the amount of $86 million and interest through December 31, 2011 in the amount of $163 million. An unfavorable outcome on these proposed assessments could result in a material adverse effect on our consolidated statement of financial position, results of operations or cash flows. We believe our returns are materially correct as filed, and we are vigorously contesting these assessments. On January 25, 2008, we filed a protest letter with the Brazilian tax authorities, and we are currently engaged in the appeals process.

Other tax matters—We conduct operations through our various subsidiaries in a number of countries throughout the world. Each country has its own tax regimes with varying nominal rates, deductions and tax attributes. From time to time, we may identify changes to previously evaluated tax positions that could result in adjustments to our recorded assets and liabilities. Although we are unable to predict the outcome of these changes, we do not expect the effect, if any, resulting from these assessments to have a material adverse effect on our consolidated statement of financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

Note 8—Discontinued Operations

Oil and gas properties—In March 2011, in connection with our efforts to dispose of non-strategic assets, we engaged an unaffiliated advisor to coordinate the sale of the assets of our oil and gas properties reporting unit, a component of our other operations segment, which comprises the exploration, development and production activities performed by Challenger Minerals Inc. and Challenger Minerals (North Sea) Limited, our wholly owned oil and gas subsidiaries. In October 2011, we completed the sale of Challenger Minerals (North Sea) Limited for net cash proceeds of $24 million, and we recognized a gain on the disposal of the discontinued operations of $12 million. Additionally, in February 2012, we entered into an agreement to sell the assets of Challenger Minerals Inc. See Note 19—Subsequent Events.

Caspian Sea operations—In February 2011, in connection with our efforts to dispose of non-strategic assets, we sold the subsidiary that owns the High-Specification Jackup Trident 20, located in the Caspian Sea. The disposal of this subsidiary, a component of our contract drilling services segment, reflects our decision to discontinue operations in the Caspian Sea. As a result of the sale, we received net cash proceeds of $259 million and recognized a gain on the disposal of the discontinued operations of $169 million ($0.52 per diluted share from discontinued operations), which had no tax effect. Through June 2011, we continued to operate Trident 20 under a bareboat charter to perform services for the customer and the buyer reimbursed us for the approximate cost of providing these services. Additionally, we provided certain transition services to the buyer through September 2011.

Summarized results of discontinued operations—The summarized results of operations included in income from discontinued operations were as follows (in millions):

	Three months ended March 31,
	2012			2011
Operating revenues	$	3		$	26
Costs and expenses		(2	)		(23	)
Loss on impairment (a)		(6	)		—
Gain (loss) on disposal of discontinued operations, net		(14	)		173
Income (loss) from discontinued operations before income tax expense		(19	)		176
Income tax benefit		4			—
Income (loss) from discontinued operations, net of tax	$	(15	)	$	176

_____________________

(a)

During the three months ended March 31, 2012, we recognized a loss on impairment of our oil and gas properties, which were classified as assets held for sale, in the amount of $6 million ($4 million or $0.01 per diluted share from discontinued operations, net of tax) since the carrying amount of the properties exceeded the estimated fair value less costs to sell the properties. We estimated fair value based on significant observable inputs, representing a Level 1 fair value measurement, including a binding sale and purchase agreement for the properties.

- 12 -

TRANSOCEAN LTD. AND SUBSIDIARIES

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (continued)

(Unaudited)

Assets and liabilities of discontinued operations— As a result of our decision to discontinue the operations of our oil and gas properties reporting unit and the operations of our Caspian Sea subsidiary, we have classified the related assets and liabilities of these components of our business to other current assets and other current liabilities as of December 31, 2011. The carrying amounts of the major classes of assets and liabilities associated with these operations were classified as follows (in millions):

	March 31, 2012		December 31, 2011
Assets
Oil and gas properties, net	$	19	$	24
Other related assets		2		2
Assets held for sale	$	21	$	26

Accounts receivable	$	2	$	6
Other assets		11		25
Other current assets	$	13	$	31

Liabilities
Accounts payable	$	1	$	3
Other liabilities		8		14
Other current liabilities	$	9	$	17

Note 9—Earnings Per Share

The numerator and denominator used for the computation of basic and diluted per share earnings from continuing operations were as follows (in millions, except per share data):

	Three months ended March 31,
	2012				2011
	Basic		Diluted		Basic			Diluted
Numerator for earnings per share
Income from continuing operations attributable to controlling interest	$	57	$	57	$	134		$	134
Undistributed earnings allocable to participating securities		—		—		(1	)		(1	)
Income from continuing operations available to shareholders	$	57	$	57	$	133		$	133

Denominator for earnings per share
Weighted-average shares outstanding		350		350		319			319
Effect of stock options and other share-based awards		—		—		—			1
Weighted-average shares for per share calculation		350		350		319			320

Per share earnings from continuing operations	$	0.16	$	0.16	$	0.42		$	0.42

For the three months ended March 31, 2012 and 2011, respectively, 1.8 million and 1.2 million share-based awards were excluded from the calculation since the effect would have been anti-dilutive.

The 1.50% Series B Convertible Senior Notes and 1.50% Series C Convertible Senior Notes did not have an effect on the calculation for the periods presented. See Note 11—Debt.

- 13 -

TRANSOCEAN LTD. AND SUBSIDIARIES

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (continued)

(Unaudited)

Note 10—Drilling Fleet

Expansion—Construction work in progress, recorded in property and equipment, was $1.6 billion and $1.4 billion at March 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011, respectively. Capital expenditures and other capital additions, including capitalized interest, for our major construction projects during the three months ended March 31, 2012 or during the year ended December 31, 2011 were as follows (in millions):

	Three months ended March 31, 2012		Through December 31, 2011		Total costs
Transocean Andaman (a)	$	19	$	119	$	138
Transocean Siam Driller (a)		19		119		138
Transocean Honor (b)		16		216		232
Ultra-Deepwater Floater TBN1 (c)		14		138		152
Ultra-Deepwater Floater TBN2 (c)		8		137		145
Deepwater Champion (d) (e)		2		776		778
Transocean Ao Thai (f)		1		79		80
Capitalized interest		13		108		121
Mobilization costs		5		26		31
Total	$	97	$	1,718	$	1,815

_____________________

(a)	In December 2010, we purchased Transocean Siam Driller and Transocean Andaman, two Keppel FELS Super B class design jackups, which are under construction at Keppel FELS’ yard in Singapore and are expected to commence operations in the first quarter of 2013.

(b)	In November 2010, we purchased Transocean Honor, a PPL Pacific Class 400 design jackup, which was offshore Angola undergoing testing and final customer acceptance as of March 31, 2012 and is expected to commence operations in the second quarter of 2012.

(c)

The costs for Ultra-Deepwater Floater TBN1 and Ultra-Deepwater Floater TBN2 include our initial investment of $136 million each, representing the estimated fair value of the rigs at the time of our acquisition of Aker Drilling, completed in October 2011. Currently under construction at the Daewoo Shipbuilding & Marine Engineering Co. Ltd. shipyard in Korea, we expect to take delivery of the two Ultra-Deepwater drillships in the first and second quarter of 2014.

(d)	The accumulated construction costs of this rig are no longer included in construction work in progress as of March 31, 2012.

(e)	The costs for Deepwater Champion include our initial investment of $109 million, representing the estimated fair value of the rig at the time of our merger with GlobalSantaFe Corporation in November 2007. Deepwater Champion commenced operations in May 2011.

(f)	In June 2011, we purchased Transocean Ao Thai, a Keppel FELS Super B class design jackup, which is under construction at Keppel FELS’ yard in Singapore and is expected to commence operations in the fourth quarter of 2013.

Dispositions—During the three months ended March 31, 2012, in connection with our efforts to dispose of non-strategic assets, we sold the Standard Jackup GSF Rig 136 and related equipment. As a result of the sale, we received net cash proceeds of $36 million (See Note 6—Impairments). For the three months ended March 31, 2012, we recognized a net loss on disposal of unrelated assets of $4 million.

During the three months ended March 31, 2011, in connection with our efforts to dispose of non-strategic assets, we sold the High-Specification Jackup Trident 20 and the Standard Jackup Transocean Mercury. The sale of Trident 20 reflected our decision to discontinue operations in the Caspian Sea (see Note 8—Discontinued Operations). In connection with the sale of Transocean Mercury, we received net cash proceeds of $10 million and recognized a net gain on disposal of the drilling unit of $9 million ($0.03 per diluted share from continuing operations), which had no tax effect. For the three months ended March 31, 2011, we recognized a net loss on disposal of unrelated assets in the amount of $1 million.

Assets held for sale—During the three months ended March 31, 2012, we committed to plans to sell our Standard Jackups, Roger W. Mowell, Transocean Nordic, Transocean Shelf Explorer and Trident 17. At March 31, 2012, these drilling units and related equipment were classified as assets held for sale with an aggregate net carrying amount of $31 million. See Note 19—Subsequent Events.

- 14 -

TRANSOCEAN LTD. AND SUBSIDIARIES

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (continued)

(Unaudited)

Note 11—Debt

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

	March 31, 2012						December 31, 2011
	Transocean Ltd. and subsidiaries		Consolidated variable interest entities		Consolidated total		Transocean Ltd. and subsidiaries		Consolidated variable interest entities		Consolidated total
5% Notes due February 2013	$	253	$	—	$	253	$	253	$	—	$	253
5.25% Senior Notes due March 2013 (a)		507		—		507		507		—		507
TPDI Credit Facilities due March 2015		—		455		455		—		473		473
4.95% Senior Notes due November 2015 (a)		1,120		—		1,120		1,120		—		1,120
Aker Revolving Credit and Term Loan Facility due December 2015		572		—		572		594		—		594
5.05% Senior Notes due December 2016 (a)		999		—		999		999		—		999
Callable Bonds due February 2016		278		—		278		267		—		267
ADDCL Credit Facilities due December 2017		—		218		218		—		217		217
Eksportfinans Loans due January 2018		852		—		852		884		—		884
6.00% Senior Notes due March 2018 (a)		998		—		998		998		—		998
7.375% Senior Notes due April 2018 (a)		247		—		247		247		—		247
TPDI Notes due October 2019		—		148		148		—		148		148
6.50% Senior Notes due November 2020 (a)		899		—		899		899		—		899
6.375% Senior Notes due December 2021 (a)		1,199		—		1,199		1,199		—		1,199
7.45% Notes due April 2027 (a)		97		—		97		97		—		97
8% Debentures due April 2027 (a)		57		—		57		57		—		57
7% Notes due June 2028		311		—		311		311		—		311
Capital lease contract due August 2029		671		—		671		676		—		676
7.5% Notes due April 2031 (a)		598		—		598		598		—		598
1.50% Series B Convertible Senior Notes due December 2037 (a)		—		—		—		30		—		30
1.50% Series C Convertible Senior Notes due December 2037 (a)		1,678		—		1,678		1,663		—		1,663
6.80% Senior Notes due March 2038 (a)		999		—		999		999		—		999
7.35% Senior Notes due December 2041 (a)		300		—		300		300		—		300
Total debt		12,635		821		13,456		12,698		838		13,536
Less debt due within one year
5% Notes due February 2013		253		—		253		—		—		—
5.25% Senior Notes due March 2013 (a)		507		—		507		—		—		—
TPDI Credit Facilities due March 2015		—		70		70		—		70		70
Aker Revolving Credit and Term Loan Facility due December 2015		90		—		90		90		—		90
ADDCL Credit Facilities due November 2017		—		27		27		—		27		27
Eksportfinans Loans due January 2018		149		—		149		142		—		142
Capital lease contract due August 2029		18		—		18		17		—		17
1.50% Series B Convertible Senior Notes due December 2037 (a)		—		—		—		30		—		30
1.50% Series C Convertible Senior Notes due December 2037 (a)		1,678		—		1,678		1,663		—		1,663
Total debt due within one year		2,695		97		2,792		1,942		97		2,039
Total long-term debt	$	9,940	$	724	$	10,664	$	10,756	$	741	$	11,497

_____________________

(a)

Transocean Inc., a 100 percent owned subsidiary 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 Five-Year Revolving Credit Facility. Transocean Ltd. and Transocean Inc. are not subject to any significant restrictions on their ability to obtain funds from their consolidated subsidiaries by dividends, loans or return of capital distributions. See Note 18—Condensed Consolidating Financial Information.

- 15 -

TRANSOCEAN LTD. AND SUBSIDIARIES

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (continued)

(Unaudited)

Scheduled maturities—In preparing the scheduled maturities of our debt, we assume the noteholders will exercise their options to require us to repurchase the 1.50% Series C Convertible Senior Notes in December 2012. At March 31, 2012, the scheduled maturities of our debt were as follows (in millions):

	Transocean Ltd. and subsidiaries			Consolidated variable interest entities		Consolidated total
Twelve months ending March 31,
2013	$	2,728		$	97	$	2,825
2014		260			98		358
2015		1,336			373		1,709
2016		1,762			33		1,795
2017		175			35		210
Thereafter		6,377			185		6,562
Total debt, excluding unamortized discounts, premiums and fair value adjustments		12,638			821		13,459
Total unamortized discounts, premiums and fair value adjustments, net		(3	)		—		(3	)
Total debt	$	12,635		$	821	$	13,456

Five-Year Revolving Credit Facility—We have a $2.0 billion revolving credit facility established by the Five-Year Revolving Credit Facility Agreement dated November 1, 2011 (the “Five-Year Revolving Credit Facility”). Throughout the term of the Five-Year Revolving Credit Facility, we pay a facility fee on the daily unused amount of the underlying commitment, which ranges from 0.13 percent to 0.33 percent, based on our Debt Rating, and was 0.275 percent at March 31, 2012. At March 31, 2012, we had $24 million in letters of credit issued and outstanding, we had no borrowings outstanding, and we had $2.0 billion available borrowing capacity under the Five-Year Revolving Credit Facility.

TPDI Credit Facilities—TPDI has a bank credit agreement for a $1.265 billion secured credit facility (the “TPDI Credit Facilities”), comprised of a $1.0 billion senior term loan, a $190 million junior term loan and a $75 million revolving credit facility, which was established to finance the construction of and is secured by Dhirubhai Deepwater KG1 and Dhirubhai Deepwater KG2. One of our subsidiaries participates as a lender in the senior and junior term loans with an aggregate commitment of $595 million. At March 31, 2012, $910 million was outstanding under the TPDI Credit Facilities, of which $455 million was due to one of our subsidiaries and was eliminated in consolidation. On March 31, 2012, the weighted-average interest rate was 2.1 percent. See Note 12—Derivatives and Hedging.

At March 31, 2012, TPDI had an outstanding letter of credit in the amount of $60 million to satisfy its liquidity requirements under the TPDI Credit Facilities. The letter of credit was issued under an uncommitted credit facility that has been established by one of our subsidiaries. Additionally TPDI is required to maintain certain cash balances in accounts restricted for the payment of the scheduled installments on the TPDI Credit Facilities. TPDI had restricted cash investments of $26 million and $23 million at March 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011, respectively.

Aker Revolving Credit and Term Loan Facility—Aker Drilling has a credit facility established by the Revolving Credit and Term Loan Facility Agreement dated February 21, 2011 (the “Aker Revolving Credit and Term Loan Facility”), comprised of a $500 million revolving credit facility and a $400 million term loan, which is secured by Transocean Spitsbergen and Transocean Barents. At March 31, 2012, aggregate borrowings of $570 million were outstanding under the Aker Revolving Credit and Term Loan Facility at a weighted-average interest rate of 3.0 percent.

Callable Bonds—Aker Drilling is the obligor on the FRN Aker Drilling ASA Senior Unsecured Callable Bond Issue 2011/2016 (the “FRN Callable Bonds”) and the 11% Aker Drilling ASA Senior Unsecured Callable Bond Issue 2011/2016 (the “11% Callable Bonds,” and together with the FRN Callable Bonds, the “Callable Bonds”), which are publicly traded on the Oslo Stock Exchange. At March 31, 2012, the total aggregate principal amounts of the FRN Callable Bonds and the 11% Callable Bonds were NOK 940 million and NOK 560 million, equivalent to $165 million and $98 million, respectively, using an exchange rate of NOK 5.69 to US $1.00. At March 31, 2012, the interest rate on the FRN Callable Bonds was 9.7 percent. See Note 12—Derivatives and Hedging.

- 16 -

TRANSOCEAN LTD. AND SUBSIDIARIES

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (continued)

(Unaudited)

ADDCL Credit Facilities—ADDCL has a senior secured bank credit agreement for a credit facility (the “ADDCL Primary Loan Facility”) comprised of Tranche A and Tranche C for $215 million and $399 million, respectively, which was established to finance the construction of and is secured by Discoverer Luanda. Unaffiliated financial institutions provide the commitment for and borrowings under Tranche A, and one of our subsidiaries provides the commitment for Tranche C. At March 31, 2012, $190 million was outstanding under Tranche A at a weighted-average interest rate of 1.5 percent. At March 31, 2012, $399 million was outstanding under Tranche C, which was eliminated in consolidation.

Additionally, ADDCL has a secondary bank credit agreement for a $90 million credit facility (the “ADDCL Secondary Loan Facility” and together with the ADDCL Primary Loan Facility, the “ADDCL Credit Facilities”), for which one of our subsidiaries provides 65 percent of the total commitment. At March 31, 2012, $79 million was outstanding under the ADDCL Secondary Loan Facility, of which $51 million was due to one of our subsidiaries and has been eliminated in consolidation. On March 31, 2012, the weighted-average interest rate was 3.6 percent.

ADDCL is required to maintain certain cash balances in accounts restricted for the payment of the scheduled installments on the ADDCL Credit Facilities. ADDCL had restricted cash investments of $30 million and $16 million at March 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011, respectively.

Eksportfinans Loans—The Eksportfinans Loans require cash collateral to remain on deposit at a financial institution (the “Aker Restricted Cash Investments”) through expiration. The aggregate principal amount of the Aker Restricted Cash Investments was $857 million and $889 million at March 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011, respectively.

TPDI Notes—TPDI has issued promissory notes (the “TPDI Notes”) payable to its two shareholders, Quantum Pacific Management Limited (“Quantum”) and one of our subsidiaries, which have maturities through October 2019. At March 31, 2012, the aggregate outstanding principal amount was $296 million, of which $148 million was due to one of our subsidiaries and has been eliminated in consolidation. On March 31, 2012, the weighted-average interest rate was 2.7 percent. See Note 15—Redeemable Noncontrolling Interest.

1.50% Series B and 1.50% Series C Convertible Senior Notes—Including amortization of the unamortized discount, the effective interest rates for the Series C Convertible Senior Notes was 5.28 percent. At March 31, 2012, the remaining period over which the discount will be amortized is less than one year. Interest expense, excluding amortization of debt issue costs, was as follows (in millions):

	Three months ended March 31,
	2012		2011
Interest expense
Series B Convertible Senior Notes due 2037	$	—	$	20
Series C Convertible Senior Notes due 2037		21		20

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

	March 31, 2012							December 31, 2011
	Principal amount		Unamortized discount			Carrying amount		Principal amount		Unamortized discount			Carrying amount
Carrying amount of liability component
Series B Convertible Senior Notes due 2037	$	—	$	—		$	—	$	30	$	—		$	30
Series C Convertible Senior Notes due 2037		1,722		(44	)		1,678		1,722		(59	)		1,663

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

	March 31, 2012		December 31, 2011
Carrying amount of equity component
Series B Convertible Senior Notes due 2037	$	—	$	4
Series C Convertible Senior Notes due 2037		276		276

In February 2012, we redeemed the remaining $30 million of aggregate principal amount of our Series B Convertible Senior Notes for an aggregate cash payment of $30 million.

- 17 -

TRANSOCEAN LTD. AND SUBSIDIARIES

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (continued)

(Unaudited)

Note 12—Derivatives and Hedging

Derivatives designated as hedging instruments—Two of our wholly owned subsidiaries have entered into interest rate swaps, which are designated and have qualified as fair value hedges, to reduce our exposure to changes in the fair values of the 5% Notes due February 2013, the 5.25% Senior Notes due March 2013 and the 4.95% Senior Notes due November 2015. The interest rate swaps have aggregate notional amounts equal to the corresponding face values of the hedged instruments and have stated maturities that coincide with those of the hedged instruments. We have determined that the hedging relationships qualify 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. Accordingly, changes in the fair value of the interest rate swaps recognized in interest expense offset changes in the fair value of the hedged fixed-rate notes. Through the stated maturities of the interest rate swaps, we receive semi-annual interest at a fixed rate equal to that of the underlying debt instrument and pay variable interest semi-annually at three-month London Interbank Offered Rate plus a margin.

TPDI has entered into interest rate swaps, which have been designated and qualify as a cash flow hedge, to reduce the variability of cash interest payments associated with the variable rate borrowings under the TPDI Credit Facilities through December 31, 2014. The aggregate notional amount corresponds with the aggregate outstanding amount of the borrowings under the TPDI Credit Facilities.

Aker Drilling has entered into cross-currency interest rate swaps, which have been designated and qualify as a cash flow hedge, to reduce the variability of cash interest payments and the final principal payment, due at maturity in February 2016, associated with the changes in the U.S. dollar to Norwegian kroner exchange rate. The aggregate notional amount corresponds with the aggregate outstanding amount of the 11% Callable Bonds.

At March 31, 2012, the aggregate notional amounts and the weighted average interest rates associated with our interest rate derivatives designated as hedging instruments were as follows (in millions, except weighted average interest rates):

	Aggregate notional amount		Weighted average variable rate			Weighted average fixed rate
Interest rate swaps, fair value hedges	$	1,400		3.7	%		5.1	%
Interest rate swaps, cash flow hedges		438		0.5	%		2.3	%

At March 31, 2012, the aggregate notional amounts and weighted average interest rates associated with our cross-currency derivatives designated as hedging instruments were as follows (in millions, except weighted average interest rates):

	Pay					Receive
	Notional amount		Weighted average fixed rate			Notional amount		Weighted average fixed rate
Cross-currency swaps, cash flow hedges	$	102		8.9	%	NOK	560		11	%

The effect on our condensed consolidated statements of operations resulting from changes in the fair values of derivatives designated as cash flow hedges was as follows (in millions):

		Three months ended March 31,
	Statement of operations classification	2012			2011
Loss associated with effective portion	Interest expense, net of amounts capitalized	$	2		$	2
Gain associated with ineffective portion	Interest expense, net of amounts capitalized		(1	)		—
Gain associated with effective portion	Other, net		(5	)		—

The balance sheet classification and aggregate carrying amount of our derivatives designated as hedging instruments, measured at fair value, were as follows (in millions):

	Balance sheet classification	March 31, 2012		December 31, 2011
Interest rate swaps, fair value hedges	Other current assets	$	14	$	5
Interest rate swaps, fair value hedges	Other assets		21		31
Interest rate swaps, cash flow hedges	Other current liabilities		1		—
Interest rate swaps, cash flow hedges	Other long-term liabilities		16		16
Cross-currency swaps, cash flow hedges	Other current assets		1		—
Cross-currency swaps, cash flow hedges	Other long-term liabilities		2		7

- 18 -

TRANSOCEAN LTD. AND SUBSIDIARIES

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (continued)

(Unaudited)

Derivatives not designated as hedging instruments—We have certain derivatives not designated as hedging instruments that we assumed in connection with our acquisition of Aker Drilling for which we receive interest at a fixed rate and we pay interest at a variable rate. At March 31, 2012, the aggregate notional amounts and the weighted average interest rates associated with our interest rate derivatives not designated as hedging instruments were as follows (in millions, except weighted average interest rates):

		Aggregate notional amount				Weighted average variable rate				Weighted average fixed rate
Interest rate swaps not designated as hedging instruments		$	241				0.5	%			4.2	%

The effect on our condensed consolidated statements of operations resulting from changes in the fair values of derivatives not designated as hedging instruments was as follows (in millions):

		Three months ended March 31,
	Statement of operations classification	2012		2011
Interest rate swaps not designated as hedging instruments	Interest expense, net of amounts capitalized	$	1	$	—

The balance sheet classification and aggregate carrying amount of our derivatives not designated as hedging instruments, measured at fair value, were as follows (in millions):

		Balance sheet classification		March 31, 2012				December 31, 2011
Interest rate swaps not designated as hedging instruments		Other long-term liabilities		$	13			$	15

Note 13—Postemployment Benefit Plans

We have several defined benefit pension plans, both funded and unfunded, covering substantially all of our U.S. employees, including certain frozen plans, assumed in connection with our mergers, that cover certain current employees and certain former employees and directors of our predecessors (the “U.S. Plans”). We also have various defined benefit plans in the U.K., Norway, Nigeria, Egypt and Indonesia that cover our employees in those areas (the “Non-U.S. Plans”). Additionally, we offer several unfunded contributory and noncontributory other postretirement employee benefit plans covering substantially all of our U.S. employees (the “OPEB Plans”).

The components of net periodic benefit costs, before tax, and funding contributions for these plans were as follows (in millions):

	Three months ended March 31, 2012											Three months ended March 31, 2011
	U.S. Plans			Non-U.S. Plans			OPEB Plans		Total			U.S. Plans			Non-U.S. Plans			OPEB Plans		Total
Net periodic benefit costs
Service cost	$	12		$	7		$	—	$	19		$	11		$	5		$	—	$	16
Interest cost		14			5			1		20			14			5			1		20
Expected return on plan assets		(15	)		(5	)		—		(20	)		(16	)		(5	)		—		(21	)
Settlements and curtailments		2			—			—		2			—			—			—		—
Actuarial losses, net		10			1			—		11			6			—			—		6
Prior service cost, net		—			—			—		—			—			—			—		—
Transition obligation, net		—			—			—		—			—			—			—		—
Net periodic benefit costs	$	23		$	8		$	1	$	32		$	15		$	5		$	1	$	21

Funding contributions	$	3		$	8		$	1	$	12		$	13		$	7		$	1	$	21

- 19 -

TRANSOCEAN LTD. AND SUBSIDIARIES

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (continued)

(Unaudited)

Note 14—Contingencies

Macondo well incident

Overview—On April 22, 2010, the Ultra-Deepwater Floater Deepwater Horizon sank after a blowout of the Macondo well caused a fire and explosion on the rig. Eleven persons were declared dead and others were injured as a result of the incident. At the time of the explosion, Deepwater Horizon was located approximately 41 miles off the coast of Louisiana in Mississippi Canyon Block 252 and was contracted to BP America Production Co. (“BP”).

We are currently unable to estimate the full impact the Macondo well incident will have on us. We have recognized a liability for estimated loss contingencies that we believe are probable and for which a reasonable estimate can be made. As of March 31, 2012, we have recognized a liability for such loss contingencies in the amount of $1.2 billion. This liability takes into account certain events related to the litigation and investigations arising out of the incident. There are loss contingencies related to the Macondo well incident that we believe are reasonably possible and for which we do not believe a reasonable estimate can be made. These contingencies could increase the liabilities we ultimately recognize. As of March 31, 2012, we have also recognized an asset of $222 million associated with the portion of our estimated losses that we believe is recoverable from insurance. Although we have available policy limits that could result in additional amounts recoverable from insurance, we are not currently able to estimate the amount of such additional recoverable amounts. Our estimates involve a significant amount of judgment. As a result of new information or future developments, we may adjust our estimated loss contingencies arising out of the Macondo well incident, and the resulting liabilities could have a material adverse effect on our consolidated statement of financial position, results of operations and cash flows. As of December 31, 2011, the amount of the estimated liability was $1.2 billion, and the estimated recoverable amount was $220 million.

Many of the Macondo well related claims are pending in the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana (the “MDL Court”). The first phase of a three-phase trial was scheduled to commence on March 5, 2012. However, on March 2, 2012, BP and the Plaintiff’s Steering Committee (the “PSC”) announced that they had agreed to a partial settlement related primarily to private party environmental and economic loss claims as well as response effort related claims (the “BP/PSC Settlement”). The BP/PSC Settlement has resulted in the trial being stayed until the court has issued an order outlining a new trial plan. BP has disclosed that (a) the BP/PSC Settlement is subject to a final written agreement and court approvals, (b) the proposed settlement provides that to the extent provided by law, BP will assign to the PSC certain of its claims, rights and recoveries against us for damages with protections such that the PSC is barred from collecting any amounts from us unless it is finally determined that we cannot recover such amounts from BP, and (c) BP will have the right to approve any settlement between us and the PSC. We are unable to predict the form of the new trial plan or when trial will commence. Further, there can be no assurance as to the outcome of the trial, that the trial will proceed according to a new proposed schedule, that we will not enter into a settlement as to some or all of the matters related to the Macondo well incident, including those to be determined at a trial, or the timing or terms of any such settlement.

In April 2011, several defendants in the Macondo well litigation before the Multi-District Litigation Panel (the “MDL”) filed cross-claims or third-party claims against us and certain of our subsidiaries, and other defendants. BP filed a claim seeking contribution under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (“OPA”) and maritime law, subrogation and claimed breach of contract, unseaworthiness, negligence and gross negligence. BP also sought a declaration that it is not liable in contribution, indemnification, or otherwise to us. Anadarko Petroleum Corporation (“Anadarko”), which owns a 25 percent non-operating interest in the Macondo well, asserted claims of negligence, gross negligence, and willful misconduct and is seeking indemnity under state and maritime law and contribution under maritime and state law as well as OPA. MOEX Offshore 2007 LLC (“MOEX”), which owns a 10 percent non-operating interest in the Macondo well, filed claims of negligence under state and maritime law, gross negligence under state law, gross negligence and willful misconduct under maritime law and is seeking indemnity under state and maritime law and contribution under maritime law and OPA. Cameron International Corporation (“Cameron”), the manufacturer and designer of the blowout preventer, asserted multiple claims for contractual indemnity and declarations regarding contractual obligations under various contracts and quotes and is also seeking non-contractual indemnity and contribution under maritime law and OPA. As part of the BP/PSC Settlement, one or more of these claims against us and certain of our subsidiaries may be assigned to the PSC. Halliburton Company (“Halliburton”), which provided cementing and mud-logging services to the operator, filed a claim seeking contribution and indemnity under maritime law, contractual indemnity and alleging negligence and gross negligence. Additionally, certain other third parties filed claims for indemnity and contribution.

On April 20, 2011, we filed cross-claims and counter-claims against BP, Halliburton, Cameron, Anadarko, MOEX, certain of these parties’ affiliates, the U.S. and certain other third parties. We seek indemnity, contribution (including contribution under OPA), and subrogation under OPA, and we have asserted claims for breach of warranty of workmanlike performance, strict liability for manufacturing and design defect, breach of express contract, and damages for the difference between the fair market value of Deepwater Horizon and the amount received from insurance proceeds. We are not pursuing arbitration on the key contractual issues with BP; instead, we are relying on the court to resolve the disputes. With regard to the U.S., we are not currently seeking recovery of monetary damages, but rather a declaration regarding relative fault and contribution via credit, setoff, or recoupment.

- 20 -

TRANSOCEAN LTD. AND SUBSIDIARIES

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (continued)

(Unaudited)

Notices of alleged non-compliance—The final Joint Investigation Team report was issued on September 14, 2011. Subsequently, the Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement issued four notices of alleged non-compliance with regulatory requirements to us on October 12, 2011. While we cannot predict or provide assurance as to the full outcome of these citations, they could result in the assessment of civil penalties. Our appeal is stayed by mutual agreement with the Department of Interior until a ruling is issued in the MDL.

Insurance coverage—In May 2010, we received notice from BP maintaining that it believes that it is entitled to additional insured status under our excess liability insurance program. In response, many of our insurers filed declaratory judgment actions in the Houston Division of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas in May 2010 seeking a judgment declaring that they have limited additional insured obligation to the operator. Our insurers have also received notices from Anadarko and MOEX advising of their intent to preserve any rights they may have to our insurance policies as an additional insured under the drilling contract. We, Anadarko and MOEX each have entered into the declaratory judgment actions. The actions have been transferred to the MDL for discovery purposes in the MDL Court. On November 15, 2011, the court ruled that coverage rights are limited to the scope of Transocean’s indemnity of BP in the drilling contract. A final judgment has been entered, and BP has filed a notice of appeal. While we cannot predict when the appellate court will hear arguments, or the outcome of the appeal, briefs are due by May 7, 2012 and responses are due by June 6, 2012.

At the time of the Macondo well incident, our excess liability insurance program offered aggregate insurance coverage of $950 million, exclusive of a $15 million deductible and a $50 million self-insured layer through our wholly owned captive insurance subsidiary. This excess liability insurance coverage consisted of a first and a second layer of $150 million each, a third and fourth layer of $200 million each and a fifth layer of $250 million. The $250 million fifth layer contained different contractual terms, compared to the first four layers, with regard to additional insured status, such that we believe with reasonable certainty that BP, Anadarko and MOEX do not have contractual right to additional insured status under that layer of our insurance program.

Additionally, our first layer of excess insurers filed interpleader actions on June 17, 2011. The insurers contend that they face multiple, and potentially competing, claims to the relevant insurance proceeds. In these actions, the insurers effectively ask the court to manage disbursement of the funds to the alleged claimants, as appropriate, and discharge the insurers of any additional liability. The parties to the suits have executed a protocol, and claims have been submitted to the court for review. The parties to the interpleaders have agreed to a protocol to facilitate the reimbursement and funding of settlements of personal injury and fatality claims of our crew and vendors using insurance funds. To date, no payments have yet been received.

Litigation—As of March 31, 2012, 373 actions or claims were pending against us, along with other unaffiliated defendants, in state and federal courts. Additionally, government agencies have initiated investigations into the Macondo well incident. We have categorized below the nature of the legal actions or claims. We are evaluating all claims and intend to vigorously defend any claims and pursue any and all defenses available. In addition, we believe we are entitled to contractual defense and indemnity for all wrongful death and personal injury claims made by non-employees and third-party subcontractors’ employees as well as all liabilities for pollution or contamination, other than for pollution or contamination originating on or above the surface of the water. See “—Contractual indemnity.”

Wrongful death and personal injury—As of March 31, 2012, we have been named, along with other unaffiliated defendants, in 19 complaints that were pending in state and federal courts in Louisiana and Texas involving multiple plaintiffs that allege wrongful death and other personal injuries arising out of the Macondo well incident. Per the order of the MDL, these claims have been centralized for discovery purposes in the MDL Court. The complaints generally allege negligence and seek awards of unspecified economic damages and punitive damages. BP, MI-SWACO, Weatherford Ltd. and Cameron and certain of their affiliates, have, based on contractual arrangements, also made indemnity demands upon us with respect to personal injury and wrongful death claims asserted by our employees or representatives of our employees against these entities. See “—Contractual indemnity.”

Economic loss—As of March 31, 2012, we and certain of our subsidiaries were named, along with other unaffiliated defendants, in 139 individual complaints as well as 185 putative class-action complaints that were pending in the federal and state courts in Louisiana, Texas, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, Florida and possibly other courts. The complaints generally allege, among other things, potential economic losses as a result of environmental pollution arising out of the Macondo well incident and are based primarily on the OPA and state OPA analogues. The plaintiffs are generally seeking awards of unspecified economic, compensatory and punitive damages, as well as injunctive relief. These actions have been transferred to the MDL. See “—Contractual indemnity.”

- 21 -

TRANSOCEAN LTD. AND SUBSIDIARIES

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (continued)

(Unaudited)

Federal securities claims—Two federal securities law class actions were pending in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, naming us and certain of our officers and directors as defendants. One of these actions, which was dismissed on March 20, 2012, generally alleged violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”), Rule 10b-5, as promulgated under the Exchange Act, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act in connection with the Macondo well incident. The plaintiffs sought awards of unspecified economic damages, including damages resulting from the decline in our stock price after the Macondo well incident. The plaintiffs could file an appeal to the dismissal of this action. The other action, which is still pending, was filed by a former GlobalSantaFe Corporation shareholder, alleging that the proxy statement related to our shareholder meeting in connection with our merger with GlobalSantaFe Corporation violated Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act, Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The plaintiff claims that GlobalSantaFe Corporation shareholders received inadequate consideration for their shares as a result of the alleged violations and seeks rescission and compensatory damages. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the claim, but on March 30, 2012, the court denied defendant’s motion. Defendants have the ability to appeal the ruling but have not yet done so. A pretrial scheduling conference is set for May 17, 2012, at which time discovery and motion practice deadlines will be established.

Other federal statutes—Several of the claimants have made assertions under the statutes, including the Clean Water Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, the Clean Air Act, the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act and the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act.

Shareholder derivative claims—In June 2010, two shareholder derivative suits were filed by our shareholders naming us as a nominal defendant and certain of our officers and directors as defendants in the District Courts of the State of Texas. The first case generally alleges breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, abuse of control, gross mismanagement and waste of corporate assets in connection with the Macondo well incident and the other generally alleges breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment and waste of corporate assets in connection with the Macondo well incident. The plaintiffs are generally seeking, on behalf of us, restitution and disgorgement of all profits, benefits and other compensation from the defendants. Under current schedule orders, an amended consolidated complaint must be filed by the plaintiffs by June 5, 2012.

Government claims—On December 15, 2010, the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) filed a civil lawsuit against us and other unaffiliated defendants. The complaint alleges violations under OPA and the Clean Water Act, including claims for per barrel civil penalties of up to $1,100 per barrel or up to $4,300 per barrel if gross negligence or willful misconduct is established, and the DOJ reserved its rights to amend the complaint to add new claims and defendants. The U.S. government has estimated that up to 4.1 million barrels of oil were discharged and subject to penalties. The complaint asserts that all defendants named are jointly and severally liable for all removal costs and damages resulting from the Macondo well incident. On December 6, 2011, the DOJ filed a motion for partial summary judgment seeking a ruling that we were jointly and severely liable under OPA, and liable for civil penalties under the Clean Water Act, for all of the discharges from the Macondo well on the theory that discharges not only came from the well but also from the blowout preventer and riser, appurtenances of Deepwater Horizon.

On January 9, 2012, we filed our opposition to the motion and filed a cross-motion for partial summary judgment seeking a ruling that we are not liable for the subsurface discharge of hydrocarbons. On February 22, 2012, the MDL Court ruled that we are not liable as a responsible party for damages under OPA with respect to the below surface discharges from the Macondo well. The court also ruled that the below surface discharge was discharged from the well facility, and not from the Deepwater Horizon vessel, within the meaning of the Clean Water Act, and that we therefore are not liable for such discharges as an owner of the vessel under the Clean Water Act. However, the court ruled that the issue of whether we could be held liable for such discharge under the Clean Water Act as an “operator” of the well facility could not be resolved on summary judgment. The court did not determine whether we could be liable for removal costs under OPA, or the extent of such removal costs.

In addition to the civil complaint, the DOJ served us with civil investigative demands on December 8, 2010. These demands were part of an investigation by the DOJ to determine if we made false claims, or false statements in support of claims, in connection with the operator’s acquisition of the leasehold interest in the Mississippi Canyon Block 252, Gulf of Mexico and drilling operations on Deepwater Horizon.

The DOJ is also conducting a criminal investigation into the Macondo well incident. On March 7, 2011, the DOJ announced the formation of a new task force to lead the criminal investigation. The task force served us with informal requests for documents in March 2011, and a grand jury issued a subpoena requesting documents from us on April 13, 2011. We have had a number of communications with the task force since that time, and the task force has made informal requests for additional information from us from time to time. The task force is investigating possible violations by us and certain unaffiliated parties of the Clean Water Act, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, the Refuse Act, the Endangered Species Act, and the Seaman’s Manslaughter Act, among other federal statutes, and possible criminal liabilities including fines under those statutes and under the Alternative Fines Act. Under the Alternatives Fines Act, a corporate defendant convicted of a criminal offense may be subject to a fine in the amount of twice the gross pecuniary loss suffered by third parties as a result of the offense. If we are charged with or convicted of certain criminal environmental offenses, we may be subject to suspension or debarment as a contractor or subcontractor on certain government contracts, including leases.

In June 2010, the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (the “LDEQ”) issued a consolidated compliance order and notice of potential penalty to us and certain of our subsidiaries asking us to eliminate and remediate discharges of oil and other pollutants into waters and property located in the State of Louisiana, and to submit a plan and report in response to the order. In October 2010, the LDEQ rescinded its enforcement actions against us and our subsidiaries but reserved its rights to seek civil penalties for future violations of the Louisiana Environmental Quality Act.

- 22 -

TRANSOCEAN LTD. AND SUBSIDIARIES

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (continued)

(Unaudited)

In September 2010, the State of Louisiana filed a declaratory judgment seeking to designate us as a responsible party under OPA and the Louisiana Oil Spill Prevention and Response Act for the discharges emanating from the Macondo well.

Additionally, suits have been filed by the State of Alabama and the cities of Greenville, Evergreen, Georgiana and McKenzie, Alabama in the U.S. District Court, Middle District of Alabama; the Mexican States of Veracruz, Quintana Roo and Tamaulipas in the U.S. District Court, Western District of Texas; and the City of Panama City Beach, Florida in the U.S. District Court, Northern District of Florida. Suits were also filed by the City of New Orleans, by and on behalf of multiple Parishes, and by or on behalf of the Town of Grand Isle, Grand Isle Independent Levee District, the Town of Jean Lafitte, the Lafitte Area Independent Levee District, the City of Gretna, the City of Westwego, and the City of Harahan in the MDL Court. Additional suits were filed by or on behalf of other Parishes in the respective Parish courts and were removed to federal court. A local government master complaint also was filed in which cities, municipalities, and other local government entities can and have joined. Generally, these governmental entities allege economic losses under OPA and other statutory environmental state claims and also assert various common law state claims. The claims have been centralized in the MDL and will proceed in accordance with the MDL scheduling order. The city of Panama City Beach’s claim was voluntarily dismissed.

On August 26, 2011, the MDL Court ruled on the motion to dismiss certain economic loss claims. The court ruled that state law, both statutory and common law, is preempted by maritime law, notwithstanding OPA’s savings provisions. Accordingly, all claims brought under state law were dismissed. Secondly, general maritime law claims that do not allege physical damage to a proprietary interest were dismissed, unless the claim falls into the commercial fisherman exception. The court ruled that OPA claims for economic loss do not require physical damage to a proprietary interest. Third, the MDL Court ruled that presentment under OPA is a mandatory condition precedent to filing suit against a responsible party. Finally, the MDL Court ruled that claims for punitive damages may be available under general maritime law in claims against responsible parties and non-responsible parties. Certain Louisiana parishes have appealed portions of this ruling, and briefs are due by May 14, 2012 and responses are due by June 13, 2012.

The Mexican States’ OPA claims were dismissed for failure to demonstrate that recovery under OPA was authorized by treaty or executive agreement. This ruling may be appealed.

By letter dated May 5, 2010, the Attorneys General of the five Gulf Coast states of Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas informed us that they intend to seek recovery of pollution clean-up costs and related damages arising from the Macondo well incident. In addition, by letter dated June 21, 2010, the Attorneys General of the 11 Atlantic Coast states of Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, North Carolina, Rhode Island and South Carolina informed us that their states have not sustained any damage from the Macondo well incident but they would like assurances that we will be responsible financially if damages are sustained. We responded to each letter from the Attorneys General and indicated that we intend to fulfill our obligations as a responsible party for any discharge of oil from Deepwater Horizon on or above the surface of the water, and we assume that the operator will similarly fulfill its obligations under OPA for discharges from the undersea well.

Wreck removal—By letter dated December 6, 2010, the U.S. Coast Guard requested us to formulate and submit a comprehensive oil removal plan to remove any diesel fuel contained in the sponsons and fuel tanks that can be recovered from Deepwater Horizon. We have conducted a survey of the rig wreckage and have confirmed that no diesel fuel remains on the rig. We have insurance coverage for wreck removal for up to 25 percent of Deepwater Horizon’s insured value, or $140 million, with any excess wreck removal liability generally covered to the extent of our remaining excess liability limits. The U.S. Coast Guard has not requested that we remove the rig wreckage from the sea floor.

Contractual indemnity—Under our drilling contract for Deepwater Horizon, the operator has agreed, among other things, to assume full responsibility for and defend, release and indemnify us from any loss, expense, claim, fine, penalty or liability for pollution or contamination, including control and removal thereof, arising out of or connected with operations under the contract other than for pollution or contamination originating on or above the surface of the water from hydrocarbons or other specified substances within the control and possession of the contractor, as to which we agreed to assume responsibility and protect, release and indemnify the operator. Although we do not believe it is applicable to the Macondo well incident, we also agreed to indemnify and defend the operator up to a limit of $15 million for claims for loss or damage to third parties arising from pollution caused by the rig while it is off the drilling location, while the rig is underway or during drive off or drift off of the rig from the drilling location. The operator has also agreed, among other things, (1) to defend, release and indemnify us against loss or damage to the reservoir, and loss of property rights to oil, gas and minerals below the surface of the earth and (2) to defend, release and indemnify us and bear the cost of bringing the well under control in the event of a blowout or other loss of control. We agreed to defend, release and indemnify the operator for personal injury and death of our employees, invitees and the employees of our subcontractors while the operator agreed to defend, release and indemnify us for personal injury and death of its employees, invitees and the employees of its other subcontractors, other than us. We have also agreed to defend, release and indemnify the operator for damages to the rig and equipment, including salvage or removal costs.

Although we believe we are entitled to contractual defense and indemnity, given the potential amounts involved in connection with the Macondo well incident, the operator has sought to avoid its indemnification obligations. In particular, the operator, in response to our request for indemnification, has generally reserved all of its rights and stated that it could not at this time conclude that it is obligated to indemnify us. In doing so, the operator has asserted that the facts are not sufficiently developed to determine who is responsible and has cited a variety of possible legal theories based upon the contract and facts still to be developed. We believe this reservation of rights is without justification and that the operator is required to honor its indemnification obligations contained in our contract and described above.

- 23 -

TRANSOCEAN LTD. AND SUBSIDIARIES

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (continued)

(Unaudited)

In April 2011, BP filed a claim seeking a declaration that it is not liable to us in contribution, indemnification, or otherwise. On November 1, 2011, we filed a motion for partial summary judgment, seeking enforcement of the indemnity obligations for pollution and civil fines and penalties contained in the drilling contract with BP. On January 26, 2012, the court ruled that the drilling contract requires BP to indemnify us for compensatory damages asserted by third parties against us related to pollution that did not originate on or above the surface of the water, even if the claim is the result of our strict liability, negligence, or gross negligence. The court also held that BP does not owe us indemnity to the extent that we are held liable for civil penalties under the Clean Water Act or for punitive damages. The court deferred ruling on BP’s argument that we breached the drilling contract or materially increased BP’s risk or prejudiced its rights so as to vitiate BP’s indemnity obligations. Our motion for partial summary judgment and the court’s ruling did not address the issue of contractual indemnity for criminal fines and penalties. The law generally considers contractual indemnity for criminal fines and penalties to be against public policy.

Other legal proceedings

Brazil Frade field incident—On or about November 7, 2011, oil was released from fissures in the ocean floor in the vicinity of a development well being drilled by Chevron off the coast of Rio de Janeiro in the Frade field with Sedco 706. The release was ultimately controlled, the well was plugged, and the released oil is being contained by Chevron.

On March 15, 2012, Chevron publicly announced that it had identified a new sheen in Frade field whose source was determined to be seepage from an 800-meter fissure 3 kilometers away from the location of the November incident. Chevron and the Brazilian National Agency of Petroleum have publicly stated that, while further studies are being conducted, the new seepage, which is estimated by Chevron at five liters, appears to be unrelated to the November incident.

On or about December 13, 2011, a federal prosecutor in the town of Campos in Rio de Janeiro State filed a civil public action against Chevron and us seeking BRL 20.0 billion, equivalent to approximately $11.0 billion, and seeking a preliminary and permanent injunction preventing Chevron and us from operating in Brazil. The prosecutor amended the requested injunction on December 15, 2011, to seek to prevent Chevron and us from conducting extraction or transportation activities in Brazil and to seek to require Chevron to stop the release and remediate its effects. On January 11, 2012, a judge of the federal court in Campos issued an order finding that the case should be transferred to the federal court in Rio de Janeiro. The prosecutor has appealed this jurisdictional decision, and that appeal remains pending. On February 24, 2012, the court in Rio de Janeiro issued an order denying the federal prosecutor’s request for a preliminary injunction. On March 27, 2012, the federal prosecutor filed an appeal of that denial, citing the new March 2012 seepage as a reason to overrule the decision denying the preliminary injunction. On March 30, 2012, the appellate court issued a decision denying the federal prosecutor’s appeal and upholding the trial court’s decision to deny the preliminary injunction. On March 28, 2012, the original trial court complaint was served on us. The lawsuit will continue in the trial court, and there remains a risk that Brazilian authorities could temporarily or permanently enjoin us from further operations in Brazil.

On December 21, 2011, a federal police marshal investigating the release filed a report with the federal court in Rio de Janeiro State recommending the indictment of Chevron, us, and 17 individuals, five of whom are our employees. The report recommended indictment on four counts, three alleging environmental offenses and one alleging false statements by Chevron in connection with its cleanup efforts. The federal court in Rio de Janeiro State forwarded the report to the federal court in Campos for a decision on the proper jurisdiction for the matter. On March 16, 2012, the Campos federal prosecutor sought and obtained from a special duty judge in Rio de Janeiro injunctions against the 17 individuals preventing them from leaving the country without court permission and requiring the Campos court to obtain their passports. On March 21, 2012, the Campos prosecutor issued the recommended indictments against the two companies and the 17 individuals. The prosecutor requested that the defendants be enjoined from disposing of property and that bail be set at BRL 10 million for the companies and BRL 1 million for the individuals. The indictments must be approved by a court of competent jurisdiction to become effective. As of March 31, 2012, the court has not yet approved the indictments.

On March 27, 2012, the union of oil industry workers in Brazil, Federacao Unica dos Petroleiros (“FUP”), filed a civil lawsuit in federal court in Rio de Janeiro against Chevron and us seeking revocation of Chevron's and our contracts and permits in Brazil. The lawsuit also seeks unspecified damages. FUP does not represent our workers. As of March 31, 2012, we had not yet been served with this lawsuit.

- 24 -

TRANSOCEAN LTD. AND SUBSIDIARIES

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (continued)

(Unaudited)

The drilling services and charter contracts between Chevron and us provide, among other things, for Chevron to indemnify and defend us for claims based on pollution or contamination originating from below the surface of the water, including claims for control or removal or property loss or damage, including but not limited to third-party claims and liabilities, with an excludable amount of $250,000 per occurrence if the claim arises from our negligence. We have submitted a claim for indemnity and defense to Chevron under these contracts. Chevron has responded that our request is premature, and has requested that we confirm our intent to indemnify and defend Chevron regarding alleged violations of safety regulations aboard Sedco 706 that have resulted in the issuance of notices of infractions and any other claims or liabilities that may fall within our legal obligations. Discussions between Chevron and us are ongoing.

We intend to defend vigorously against any claims that are brought based on the incident. 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. See Note 19—Subsequent Events

Asbestos Litigation–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. Each individual plaintiff was subsequently required to 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. As a result of the acquisition of GlobalSantaFe Corporation, we are defending an additional seven cases. We have or may have an indirect interest in an additional 12 cases, for a total of 26 cases of interest. The complaints generally allege that the defendants used or manufactured asbestos-containing drilling mud additives for use 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. All of these cases are being governed for discovery and trial setting by a single Case Management Order entered by a Special Master appointed by the court to reside over all the cases, and none of the seven cases in which we are a named defendant have been scheduled for trial or pre-trial discovery. 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. None of our companies have manufactured or distributed drilling mud or additives for same, and the handling of such additives by one of our employees would be a relatively infrequent occurrence that likely would have involved a non-asbestos product. In 2011, the Special Master issued a ruling that a Jones Act employer defendant, such as us, cannot be sued for punitive damages, and we expect this ruling to apply to each of our seven cases. To date, seven of the 769 cases have gone to trial against defendants who allegedly manufactured or distributed drilling mud additives. None of these cases have involved an individual Jones Act employer, and we have not been a defendant in any of these cases. Two of the cases resulted in defense verdicts, and one case ended with a hung jury. Four cases resulted in verdicts for the plaintiff. Because the jury awarded punitive damages, two of these cases resulted in a substantial verdict in favor of the plaintiff; however both of these verdicts have since been vacated by the trial court. One was vacated on the basis that the plaintiff failed to meet its burden of proof. While the court’s decision is consistent with our general evaluation of the strength of these cases, it is currently being reviewed on appeal. The second plaintiff verdict was vacated because the presiding judge was removed from hearing any asbestos cases due to a conflict of interest. The two remaining plaintiff verdicts are under appeal by the defendants. 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 was 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, with its insurers and, either directly or indirectly as the beneficiary of a qualified settlement fund, funding from settlements with insurers, assigned rights from insurers and coverage-in-place settlement agreements with insurers, and funds received from the commutation of certain insurance policies. The subsidiary has been named as a defendant, along with numerous other companies, in lawsuits alleging bodily injury or personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos. As of March 31, 2012, the subsidiary was a defendant in approximately 990 lawsuits, some of which include multiple plaintiffs, and we estimate that there are approximately 2,158 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 the subsidiary in 1990. Through March 31, 2012, the costs incurred to resolve claims, including both defense fees and expenses and settlement costs, have not been material, all known deductibles have been satisfied or are inapplicable, and the subsidiary’s defense fees and expenses and settlement costs have been met by insurance made available to the subsidiary. 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 $1.0 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 funding from settlements and claims payments from insurers, assigned rights from insurers and coverage-in-place settlement agreements with insurers 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.

- 25 -

TRANSOCEAN LTD. AND SUBSIDIARIES

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (continued)

(Unaudited)

Rio de Janeiro tax assessment—In the third quarter of 2006, we received tax assessments of approximately $196 million from the state tax authorities of Rio de Janeiro in Brazil against one of our Brazilian subsidiaries for 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.

Brazilian import license assessment—In the fourth quarter of 2010, one of our Brazilian subsidiaries received an assessment from the Brazilian federal tax authorities in Rio de Janeiro of approximately $235 million based upon the alleged failure to timely apply for import licenses for certain equipment and for allegedly providing improper information on import license applications. We responded to the assessment on December 22, 2010, and we currently believe that a substantial majority of the assessment is without merit. 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.

Other matters—We are involved in various tax matters and various regulatory matters. We are also 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. As of March 31, 2012, we were 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.

Other environmental matters

Hazardous waste disposal sites—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 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.

One of our subsidiaries has been ordered by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board (“CRWQCB”) 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. 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. Testing has been completed at the property but no contaminants of concern were detected. In discussions with CRWQCB staff, we were advised of their intent to issue us a “no further action” letter but it has not yet been received. Based on the test results, we would contest any potential liability. 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.

- 26 -

TRANSOCEAN LTD. AND SUBSIDIARIES

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (continued)

(Unaudited)

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 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 number 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 statement of financial position or 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 19 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 (the “Co-Defendant”), 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 Co-Defendant settled the actions with the three landowners (the “Settlement”). The Co-Defendant subsequently filed suit in 2008 against the subsidiary and certain of its insurers in the Court of Avoyelles Parish to determine their liability for the Settlement.

On March 11, 2010, the Co-Defendant filed a motion for leave to amend the pending litigation in Avoyelles Parish to add GlobalSantaFe Corporation, Transocean Worldwide Inc., its successor, and two other subsidiaries under th