Table of Contents

UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
     Washington, D.C. 20549     

FORM 10-Q

(Mark One)

OR

Commission File Number 1-8097

ENSCO International Incorporated
(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

Registrant's telephone number, including area code: (214) 397-3000

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 ý        No  o

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 (§232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files).  Yes ý        No  o

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.
 

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

There were 142,444,604 shares of Common Stock, $.10 par value, of the registrant outstanding as of July 22, 2009.
 
 

ENSCO INTERNATIONAL INCORPORATED

INDEX TO FORM 10-Q

FOR THE QUARTER ENDED JUNE 30, 2009

Table of Contents

FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS

       This report contains forward-looking statements that are subject to a number of risks and uncertainties and are based on information as of the date of this report. We assume no obligation to update these statements based on information after the date of this report.

       Forward-looking statements include words or phrases such as "anticipate," "believe," "estimate," "expect," "intend," "plan," "project," "could," "may," "might," "should," "will" and words and phrases of similar import. The forward-looking statements include, but are not limited to, statements regarding future operations, industry trends or conditions and the business environment; statements regarding future levels of, or trends in, utilization, day rates, revenues, operating expenses, contract term, contract backlog, capital expenditures, insurance, financing and funding; statements regarding future construction (including construction in progress and completion thereof), enhancement, upgrade or repair of rigs and timing thereof; statements regarding future mobilization, relocation or other movement of rigs and timing thereof; statements regarding future availability or suitability of rigs and timing thereof; and statements regarding the likely outcome of litigation, legal proceedings, investigations or insurance or other claims and timing thereof.

       Forward-looking statements are made pursuant to safe harbor provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Numerous factors could cause actual results to differ materially from those in the forward-looking statements, including:
 

       In addition to the numerous factors described above, you should carefully read and consider "Item 1A. Risk Factors" in Part I and "Item 7. Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations" in Part II of our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008, as updated in this report.

2

Table of Contents

PART I - FINANCIAL INFORMATION

Item 1.  Financial Statements

REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

The Board of Directors and Shareholders
ENSCO International Incorporated:

We have reviewed the condensed consolidated balance sheet of ENSCO International Incorporated and subsidiaries as of June 30, 2009, the related condensed consolidated statements of income for the three-month and six-month periods ended June 30, 2009 and 2008, and the related condensed consolidated statements of cash flows for the six-month periods ended June 30, 2009 and 2008. These condensed consolidated financial statements are the responsibility of the Company's management.

We conducted our review in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). A review of interim financial information consists principally of applying analytical procedures and making inquiries of persons responsible for financial and accounting matters. It is substantially less in scope than an audit conducted in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), the objective of which is the expression of an opinion regarding the financial statements taken as a whole. Accordingly, we do not express such an opinion.

Based on our review, we are not aware of any material modifications that should be made to the condensed consolidated financial statements referred to above for them to be in conformity with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles.

We have previously audited, in accordance with standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), the consolidated balance sheet of ENSCO International Incorporated and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2008, and the related consolidated statements of income and cash flows for the year then ended (not presented herein); and in our report dated February 26, 2009, we expressed an unqualified opinion on those consolidated financial statements. In our opinion, the information set forth in the accompanying condensed consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 2008, is fairly stated, in all material respects, in relation to the consolidated balance sheet from which it has been derived.

/s/ KPMG LLP

Dallas, Texas
July 23, 2009

3

ENSCO INTERNATIONAL INCORPORATED AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF INCOME
(In millions, except per share amounts)
(Unaudited)

ENSCO INTERNATIONAL INCORPORATED AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF INCOME
(In millions, except per share amounts)
(Unaudited)

Table of Contents

ENSCO INTERNATIONAL INCORPORATED AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS
(In millions, except par value amounts)

Table of Contents

ENSCO INTERNATIONAL INCORPORATED AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
(In millions)
(Unaudited)

Table of Contents

ENSCO INTERNATIONAL INCORPORATED AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(Unaudited)

Note 1 - Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements

       We prepared the accompanying condensed consolidated financial statements of ENSCO International Incorporated and subsidiaries (the "Company" or "Ensco") in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America ("GAAP"), pursuant to the rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") included in the instructions to Form 10-Q and Article 10 of Regulation S-X. The financial information included in this report is unaudited but, in our opinion, includes all adjustments (consisting of normal recurring adjustments) that are necessary for a fair presentation of our financial position, results of operations and cash flows for the interim periods presented. The December 31, 2008 condensed consolidated balance sheet data were derived from our 2008 audited consolidated financial statements but do not include all disclosures required by GAAP. Certain previously reported amounts have been reclassified to conform to the current year presentation. The preparation of our condensed consolidated financial statements requires management to make certain estimates, judgments and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities, the related revenues and expenses and disclosures of gain and loss contingencies as of the date of the financial statements. Actual results could differ from those estimates.

       The financial data for the three-month and six-month periods ended June 30, 2009 and 2008 included herein have been subjected to a limited review by KPMG LLP, our independent registered public accounting firm. The accompanying independent registered public accounting firm's review report is not a report within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of the Securities Act of 1933, and the independent registered public accounting firm's liability under Section 11 does not extend to it.

       Results of operations for the three-month and six-month periods ended June 30, 2009 are not necessarily indicative of the results of operations that will be realized for the year ending December 31, 2009. It is recommended that these condensed consolidated financial statements be read in conjunction with our audited consolidated financial statements and notes thereto for the year ended December 31, 2008 included in our Annual Report on Form 10-K filed with the SEC on February 26, 2009.

Note 2 - Noncontrolling Interests

       On January 1, 2009, we adopted SFAS No. 160, "Noncontrolling Interests in Consolidated Financial Statements" ("SFAS 160"). This standard amends Accounting Research Bulletin No. 51, "Consolidated Financial Statements", to establish accounting and reporting standards for the noncontrolling interest in a subsidiary and for the deconsolidation of a subsidiary. SFAS 160 clarifies that a noncontrolling interest should be reported as equity in the consolidated financial statements and requires net income attributable to both the parent and the noncontrolling interest to be disclosed separately on the face of the consolidated statement of income. The presentation and disclosure requirements of SFAS 160 require retrospective application to all prior periods presented.

       In accordance with SFAS 160, we classified noncontrolling interests as equity on our condensed consolidated balance sheets as of June 30, 2009 and December 31, 2008 and presented net income attributable to noncontrolling interests separately on our condensed consolidated statements of income for the three-month and six-month periods ended June 30, 2009 and 2008. Prior year amounts were previously included in other liabilities and contract drilling expense on our consolidated balance sheets and consolidated statements of income, respectively. Local third parties hold a noncontrolling ownership interest in three of our international subsidiaries. No changes in the ownership interests of these subsidiaries occurred during the six-month period ended June 30, 2009.

8

Table of Contents

       Income from continuing operations attributable to Ensco during the three-month and six-month periods ended June 30, 2009 and 2008 was as follows (in millions):

       Income (loss) from discontinued operations, net, for the three-month and six-month periods ended June 30, 2009 and 2008 was attributable to Ensco.

Note 3 - Earnings Per Share

       On January 1, 2009, we adopted FASB Staff Position EITF 03-6-1, "Determining Whether Instruments Granted in Share-Based Payment Transactions are Participating Securities". This staff position addresses whether instruments granted in share-based payment transactions are participating securities prior to vesting and, therefore, need to be included in the earnings allocation in computing earnings per share ("EPS") under the two-class method described in SFAS No. 128, "Earnings Per Share". Non-vested share awards granted to our employees and non-employee directors contain nonforfeitable dividend rights and, therefore, are now considered participating securities. We have prepared our current period basic and diluted EPS computations and retrospectively revised our comparative prior period computations to exclude net income allocated to non-vested share awards.

       The following table is a reconciliation of net income attributable to Ensco common shares used in our basic and diluted EPS computations for the three-month and six-month periods ended June 30, 2009 and 2008 (in millions):

       The following table is a reconciliation of the weighted-average common shares used in our basic and diluted EPS computations for the three-month and six-month periods ended June 30, 2009 and 2008 (in millions):
 

9

Table of Contents

       Antidilutive share options totaling 1.1 million and 268,000 were excluded from the computation of diluted EPS during the three-month periods ended June 30, 2009 and 2008, respectively. Antidilutive share options totaling 1.3 million and 628,000 were excluded from the computation of diluted EPS during the six-month periods ended June 30, 2009 and 2008, respectively.

Note 4 - Derivative Financial Instruments

       On January 1, 2009, we adopted SFAS No. 161, "Disclosures about Derivative and Hedging Activities" ("SFAS 161"). This standard amends SFAS No. 133, "Accounting for Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities" ("SFAS 133"), to change the disclosure requirements for derivative instruments and hedging activities. SFAS 161 requires enhanced disclosures about (a) how and why an entity uses derivative instruments, (b) how derivative instruments and related hedged items are accounted for under SFAS 133 and its related interpretations and (c) how derivative instruments and related hedged items affect an entity's financial position, operating results and cash flows.

       We use derivative financial instruments ("derivatives") to reduce our exposure to various market risks, primarily foreign currency risk. We maintain a foreign currency risk management strategy that utilizes derivatives to reduce our exposure to unanticipated fluctuations in earnings and cash flows caused by changes in foreign currency exchange rates. Although no interest rate related derivatives were outstanding as of June 30, 2009 and December 31, 2008, we occasionally employ an interest rate risk management strategy that utilizes derivatives to minimize or eliminate unanticipated fluctuations in earnings and cash flows arising from changes in, and volatility of, interest rates. We minimize our credit risk relating to our derivative counterparties by transacting with multiple, high-quality financial institutions, thereby limiting exposure to individual counterparties, and by monitoring the financial condition of our counterparties. We do not enter into derivatives for trading or other speculative purposes.

       All derivatives were recorded on our condensed consolidated balance sheets at fair value. Accounting for the gains and losses resulting from changes in the fair value of derivatives depends on the use of the derivative and whether it qualifies for hedge accounting in accordance with SFAS 133. As of June 30, 2009 and December 31, 2008, our condensed consolidated balance sheets included net foreign currency derivative assets of $1.6 million and net foreign currency derivative liabilities of $20.3 million, respectively. See "Note 7 - Fair Value Measurements" for additional information on the fair value measurement of our derivatives.

       Derivatives recorded at fair value in our condensed consolidated balance sheets as of June 30, 2009 and December 31, 2008 consisted of the following (in millions):

10

Table of Contents

       We utilize derivatives to hedge forecasted foreign currency denominated transactions ("cash flow hedges"), primarily to reduce our exposure to foreign currency risk associated with the portion of our remaining ENSCO 8500 Series® construction obligations denominated in Singapore dollars and contract drilling expenses denominated in various other currencies. As of June 30, 2009, we had cash flow hedges outstanding to exchange an aggregate $419.3 million for foreign currencies, including $270.2 million for Singapore dollars, $74.8 million for British pounds, $37.9 million for Australian dollars and $36.4 million for various other foreign currencies.

       Gains and losses on derivatives designated as cash flow hedges in accordance with SFAS 133 included in our condensed consolidated statements of income for the three-month and six-month periods ended June 30, 2009 and 2008 were as follows (in millions):

Three Months Ended June 30, 2009 and 2008

Six Months Ended June 30, 2009 and 2008

11

Table of Contents

       We have net assets and liabilities denominated in numerous foreign currencies and use various methods to manage our exposure to foreign currency risk. We predominantly structure our drilling contracts in U.S. dollars, which significantly reduces the portion of our cash flows and assets denominated in foreign currencies. We occasionally enter into derivatives that hedge the fair value of recognized foreign currency denominated assets or liabilities but do not designate such derivatives as hedging instruments, or the derivatives otherwise do not qualify for hedge accounting under SFAS 133. In these situations, a natural hedging relationship generally exists whereby changes in the fair value of the derivatives offset changes in the fair value of the underlying hedged items. As of June 30, 2009, we had derivatives not designated as hedging instruments outstanding to exchange an aggregate $43.5 million for foreign currencies, including $13.6 million for Danish kroner, $11.8 million for Australian dollars, $8.8 million for British pounds and $9.3 million for various other currencies.

       Net gains of $3.2 million and $1.5 million associated with our derivatives not designated as hedging instruments under SFAS 133 were included in other income, net, in our condensed consolidated statements of income for the quarters ended June 30, 2009 and 2008, respectively. Net gains of $2.2 million and $4.7 million associated with our derivatives not designated as hedging instruments under SFAS 133 were included in other income, net, in our condensed consolidated statements of income for the six-month periods ended June 30, 2009 and 2008, respectively.

       If we were to incur a hypothetical 10% adverse change in foreign currency exchange rates, net unrealized losses associated with our foreign currency denominated assets and liabilities and related derivatives as of June 30, 2009 would approximate $39.6 million, including $26.8 million related to our Singapore dollar exposures. All of our outstanding derivatives mature during the next three years.

       As of June 30, 2009, the estimated amount of net unrealized gains associated with derivatives, net of tax, that will be reclassified to earnings during the next twelve months was as follows (in millions):

Note 5 - Share-Based Compensation

       During the quarter ended June 30, 2009, we granted 115,002 share options to certain officers as annual equity awards made pursuant to our 2005 Long-Term Incentive Plan ("LTIP"). The share options granted become exercisable in annual 33% increments over a three-year period and, to the extent not exercised, expire on the seventh anniversary of the date of grant. The following table summarizes the value of share options granted during the quarter ended June 30, 2009 (per share):

       The exercise price of share options granted during the period equals the market value of the underlying stock on the date of grant. The fair value of each option award was estimated on the date of grant using the Black-Scholes option valuation model with the following weighted-average assumptions for the quarter ended June 30, 2009:

12

Table of Contents

       Expected volatility is based on the historical volatility of our common stock over the period of time equivalent to the expected term of the options granted. The expected term of options granted is derived from historical exercise patterns over a period of time equivalent to the contractual term of the options granted. We have not experienced significant differences in the historical exercise patterns among employees, officers and non-employee directors for them to be considered separately for valuation purposes. The risk-free interest rate is based on the implied yield of U.S. Treasury zero-coupon issues on the date of grant with a remaining term approximating the expected term of the options granted.

       During the quarter ended June 30, 2009, we granted 526,383 non-vested share awards to our employees, officers and non-employee directors for annual equity awards and for equity awards granted to new or recently promoted employees, pursuant to our LTIP. Grants of non-vested share awards generally vest at a rate of 20% per year, as determined by a committee of the Board of Directors. Beginning in June 2009, non-vested share awards granted to certain officers vest at a rate of 33% per year. All non-vested share awards have voting and dividend rights effective on the date of grant and are measured using the market value of our common stock on the date of grant. The weighted-average grant-date fair value of non-vested share awards granted during the quarter ended June 30, 2009 was $40.83 per share.

Note 6 - Comprehensive Income

       Accumulated other comprehensive loss as of June 30, 2009 and December 31, 2008 was comprised of net unrealized losses on derivative instruments, net of tax. The components of comprehensive income, net of tax, for the three-month and six-month periods ended June 30, 2009 and 2008 were as follows (in millions):
 

13

Table of Contents

Note 7 - Fair Value Measurements

       The following fair value hierarchy table categorizes information regarding our assets and liabilities measured at fair value on a recurring basis as of June 30, 2009 and December 31, 2008 (in millions):
 

    Derivative Instruments

       Our derivative instruments were measured at fair value on a recurring basis using Level 2 inputs as of June 30, 2009 and December 31, 2008. See "Note 4 - Derivative Financial Instruments" for additional information on our derivatives, including a description of our foreign currency hedging activities and related methodologies used to manage foreign currency risk. The fair value measurement of our derivatives was based on market prices that are generally observable for similar assets or liabilities at commonly quoted intervals.

14

Table of Contents

    Auction Rate Securities

       As of June 30, 2009 and December 31, 2008, we held long-term debt instruments with variable interest rates that periodically reset through an auction process ("auction rate securities") totaling $69.7 million and $72.3 million (par value), respectively. Auction rate securities were classified as long-term investments on our condensed consolidated balance sheets. Our auction rate securities were originally acquired in January 2008 and have maturity dates ranging from 2025 to 2047. Our auction rate securities were measured at fair value on a recurring basis using significant Level 3 inputs as of June 30, 2009 and December 31, 2008. The following table summarizes our fair value measurements using significant Level 3 inputs, and changes therein, for the three-month and six-month periods ended June 30, 2009 and 2008 (in millions):
 

       Before utilizing Level 3 inputs in our fair value measurement, we considered whether observable inputs were available. As a result of continued auction failures, quoted prices for our auction rate securities did not exist as of June 30, 2009. Accordingly, we concluded that Level 1 inputs were not available. Brokerage statements received from the five broker/dealers that held our auction rate securities included their estimated market value as of June 30, 2009. Four broker/dealers valued our auction rate securities at par and the fifth valued our auction rate securities at 93% of par. Due to the lack of transparency into the methodologies used to determine the estimated market values, we have concluded that estimated market values provided on our brokerage statements do not constitute valid inputs, and we do not utilize them in measuring the fair value of our auction rate securities.

15

Table of Contents

       We determined that use of a valuation model was the best available technique for measuring the fair value of our auction rate securities. We used an income approach valuation model to estimate the price that would be received in exchange for our auction rate securities in an orderly transaction between market participants ("exit price") as of June 30, 2009. The exit price was derived as the weighted-average present value of expected cash flows over various periods of illiquidity, using a risk-adjusted discount rate that was based on the credit risk and liquidity risk of our auction rate securities.

       While our valuation model was based on both Level 2 (credit quality and interest rates) and Level 3 inputs, we determined that Level 3 inputs were most significant to the overall fair value measurement, particularly the estimates of risk-adjusted discount rates and ranges of expected periods of illiquidity. We believe that we have the ability to maintain our investment in these securities until they are redeemed, repurchased or sold in a market that facilitates orderly transactions.

    Other Financial Instruments

       During the second quarter of 2009, we adopted FASB Staff Position No. FAS 107-1 and APB 28-1, "Interim Disclosures about Fair Value of Financial Instruments". This staff position amends SFAS No. 107, "Disclosures about Fair Value of Financial Instruments", to require disclosures about the fair value of financial instruments of publicly-traded companies for interim reporting periods as well as in annual financial statements. This staff position also amends APB Opinion No. 28, "Interim Financial Reporting", to require the aforementioned disclosures in summarized financial information at interim reporting periods.

       The carrying values and estimated fair values of our debt instruments as of June 30, 2009 and December 31, 2008 were as follows (in millions):
 

       The estimated fair value of our 7.20% Debentures was determined using quoted market prices. The estimated fair values of our 4.65% Bonds and 6.36% Bonds were determined using an income approach valuation model. The estimated fair value of our cash and cash equivalents, receivables, trade payables and other liabilities approximated their carrying values as of June 30, 2009 and December 31, 2008.

16

Table of Contents

Note 8 - Discontinued Operations

    ENSCO 69

       From May 2007 to June 2009, ENSCO 69 was contracted to Petrosucre, a subsidiary of Petróleos de Venezuela S.A., the national oil company of Venezuela ("PDVSA"). PDVSA subsidiaries reportedly lack funds and, since late 2008, generally have not been paying their contractors and service providers. In January 2009, we suspended drilling operations on ENSCO 69 after Petrosucre failed to satisfy its contractual obligations and meet commitments relative to the payment of past due invoices. Petrosucre then took over complete control of ENSCO 69 drilling operations utilizing Petrosucre employees and a portion of the Venezuelan rig crews we had utilized. When Petrosucre initially advised us that it temporarily was taking over operations on the rig, we placed our supervisory rig personnel on ENSCO 69 to observe Petrosucre's operations.

       On April 30, 2009, we submitted a notice of termination to Petrosucre for non-payment of past due invoices. The terms of the ENSCO 69 drilling contract provided for termination of the contract upon Petrosucre's failure to satisfy its contractual payment obligations during the 30-day period subsequent to our notice. On June 4, 2009, after Petrosucre's failure to satisfy its contractual payment obligations, failure to reach a mutually acceptable agreement with us and denial of our request to demobilize ENSCO 69 from Venezuela, Petrosucre advised that it would not return the rig and would continue to operate it without our consent. Petrosucre further advised that it would release ENSCO 69 after a six-month period, subject to a mutually agreed accord addressing the resolution of all remaining obligations under the ENSCO 69 drilling contract. On June 6, 2009, we terminated our contract with Petrosucre and removed all remaining Ensco employees from the rig. On July 17, 2009, we received an $11.5 million payment from Petrosucre, which represented less than 25% of the $47.9 million contractually due to us as of June 30, 2009.

       Due to Petrosucre's longstanding failure to satisfy its contractual obligations and meet payment commitments, and in consideration of the Venezuelan government's recent nationalization of assets owned by international oil and gas companies and oilfield service companies, we believe it is remote that ENSCO 69 will be returned to us by Petrosucre and operated again by Ensco. Therefore, we recorded the disposal of ENSCO 69 during the quarter ended June 30, 2009, and both the ENSCO 69 results of operations and loss on disposal were reclassified as discontinued operations in our condensed consolidated statements of income. We have filed an insurance claim under our package policy, which includes coverage for certain political risks, and are evaluating legal remedies against Petrosucre for contractual and other ENSCO 69 related damages.

       ENSCO 69 had a net book value of $17.3 million and inventory and other assets totaling $800,000. In connection with the disposal of ENSCO 69, we recognized a pre-tax loss of $18.1 million, which was classified as loss on disposal of discontinued operations, net, in our condensed consolidated statements of income for the three-month and six-month periods ended June 30, 2009.

       After considering the $11.5 million payment received on July 17, 2009, we recognized a $5.4 million bad debt provision during the quarter ended June 30, 2009 to fully reserve our remaining net receivable from Petrosucre. We had previously recognized bad debt provisions of $2.6 million and $14.3 million during the quarters ended March 31, 2009 and December 31, 2008, respectively. Bad debt provisions recognized during the three-month and six-month periods ended June 30, 2009 were included in loss on discontinued operations, net, in our condensed consolidated statements of income. We did not recognize revenue associated with ENSCO 69 drilling operations subsequent to January 2009 when Petrosucre initially assumed control of our rig. We deferred $14.1 million of revenue earned during the period between January 2009 and our termination of the ENSCO 69 drilling contract in June 2009.

17

Table of Contents

       The ENSCO 69 drilling contract is governed by Venezuelan law and there can be no assurances relative to the recovery of outstanding contract entitlements. As of June 30, 2009, ENSCO 69 had an insured value of $65.0 million under a package policy, including coverage for certain political risks, subject to a $10.0 million deductible. We are in the early stages of the insurance claim process and, therefore, were unable to conclude that collection of insurance proceeds associated with the loss of ENSCO 69 was probable as of June 30, 2009. Accordingly, no ENSCO 69 related insurance recoveries were recognized in our condensed consolidated statements of income for the three-month and six-month periods ended June 30, 2009.

    ENSCO 74

       In September 2008, ENSCO 74 was lost as a result of Hurricane Ike. Thereafter, we conducted extensive aerial and sonar reconnaissance but failed to locate the rig hull. The rig was a total loss, as defined under the terms of our insurance policies. In March 2009, the sunken hull of ENSCO 74 was located on the seabed approximately 95 miles from the original drilling location when it was reportedly struck by an oil tanker. The operating results of ENSCO 74 were reclassified as discontinued operations in our condensed consolidated statements of income for the three-month and six-month periods ended June 30, 2008. See "Note 9 - Contingencies" for additional information on the loss of ENSCO 74.

       The following table summarizes our (loss) income from discontinued operations for the three-month and six-month periods ended June 30, 2009 and 2008 (in millions):
 

       Debt and interest expense are not allocated to our discontinued operations.

Note 9 - Contingencies

    FCPA Internal Investigation

       Following disclosures by other offshore service companies announcing internal investigations involving the legality of amounts paid to and by customs brokers in connection with temporary importation of rigs and vessels into Nigeria, the Audit Committee of our Board of Directors and management commenced an internal investigation in July 2007. The investigation initially focused on our payments to customs brokers relating to the temporary importation of ENSCO 100, our only rig that recently operated offshore Nigeria.

18

Table of Contents

       As is customary for companies operating offshore Nigeria, we had engaged independent customs brokers to process customs clearance of routine shipments of equipment, materials and supplies and to process the ENSCO 100 temporary importation permits, extensions and renewals. One or more of the customs brokers that our subsidiary in Nigeria used to obtain the ENSCO 100 temporary import permits, extensions and renewals also provided this service to other offshore service companies that have undertaken Foreign Corrupt Practices Act ("FCPA") compliance internal investigations.

       The principal purpose of our investigation was to determine whether any of the payments made to or by our customs brokers were inappropriate under the anti-bribery provisions of the FCPA or whether any violations of the recordkeeping or internal accounting control provisions of the FCPA occurred. Our Audit Committee engaged a Washington, D.C. law firm with significant experience in investigating and advising upon FCPA matters to assist in the internal investigation.

       Following notification to the Audit Committee and to KPMG LLP, our independent registered public accounting firm, in consultation with the Audit Committee's outside legal counsel, we voluntarily notified the United States Department of Justice and SEC that we had commenced an internal investigation. We expressed our intention to cooperate with both agencies, comply with their directives and fully disclose the results of the investigation. The internal investigation process has involved extensive reviews of documents and records, as well as production to the authorities, and interviews of relevant personnel. In addition to the temporary importation of ENSCO 100, the investigation has examined our customs clearance of routine shipments and immigration activities in Nigeria.

       Our internal investigation has essentially been concluded. A meeting to review the results of the investigation with the authorities was held on February 24, 2009. We expect to discuss a possible negotiated disposition with the authorities during the second half of 2009. It currently is anticipated that the matter will be concluded within that period.

       Although we believe the U.S. authorities will take into account our voluntary disclosure, our cooperation with the agencies and the remediation and compliance enhancement activities that are underway, we are unable to predict the ultimate disposition of this matter, whether we will be charged with violation of the anti-bribery, recordkeeping or internal accounting control provisions of the FCPA or whether the scope of the investigation will be extended to other issues in Nigeria or to other countries. We also are unable to predict what potential corrective measures, fines, sanctions or other remedies, if any, the agencies may seek against us or any of our employees.

       In November 2008, our Board of Directors approved enhanced FCPA compliance recommendations issued by the Audit Committee's outside counsel, and the Company embarked upon an enhanced compliance initiative that included appointment of a Chief Compliance Officer and a Director - Corporate Compliance. We have engaged consultants to assist us in implementing the compliance recommendations approved by our Board of Directors, which will include an enhanced compliance policy, increased training and testing, prescribed contractual provisions for our service providers that interface with foreign government officials, due diligence for the selection of such service providers and an increased Company-wide awareness initiative that includes periodic issuance of FCPA Alerts.

       Since ENSCO 100 completed its contract commitment and departed Nigeria in August 2007, this matter is not expected to have a material effect on or disrupt our current operations. As noted above, we are unable to predict the outcome of this matter or estimate the extent to which we may be exposed to any resulting potential liability, sanctions or significant additional expense.

19

Table of Contents

    ENSCO 74 Loss

       In September 2008, ENSCO 74 was lost as a result of Hurricane Ike and was presumed to have sunk in the Gulf of Mexico, however, portions of its legs remained underwater adjacent to the customer's platform. Thereafter, we conducted extensive aerial and sonar reconnaissance but failed to locate the rig hull. The rig was a total loss, as defined under the terms of our insurance policies.

       In March 2009, the sunken rig hull of ENSCO 74 was located on the seabed approximately 95 miles from the original drilling location when it was reportedly struck by an oil tanker. Following discovery of the sunken rig hull, we removed the hydrocarbons remaining onboard and began planning for removal of the wreckage. As an interim measure, the wreckage has been appropriately marked, and the U.S. Coast Guard has issued a Notice to Mariners.

       Physical damage to our rigs caused by a hurricane, the associated "sue and labor" costs to mitigate the insured loss and removal, salvage and recovery costs are all covered by our property insurance policies subject to a $50.0 million per occurrence retention (deductible). The insured value of ENSCO 74 was $100.0 million, and we have received the net $50.0 million due for loss of the rig.

       Coverage for ENSCO 74 sue and labor costs and wreckage and debris removal costs under our property insurance policies is limited to $25.0 million and $50.0 million, respectively. Supplemental wreckage and debris removal coverage is provided under our liability insurance policies, subject to an annual aggregate limit of $500.0 million. We also have a customer contractual indemnification that provides for reimbursement of any ENSCO 74 wreckage and debris removal costs that are not recovered under our insurance policies.

       We believe it is probable that we will be required to remove the leg sections of ENSCO 74 remaining adjacent to the customer's platform because they may interfere with the customer's future operations. We also believe it is probable that we will be required to remove the ENSCO 74 rig hull and related debris from the seabed due to the navigational risk it imposes. We estimate the leg removal costs could range from $16.0 million to $30.0 million, and the hull and related debris removal costs could range from $30.0 million to $55.0 million. A $16.0 million liability, representing the low end of the range of estimated leg removal costs, and a corresponding receivable for recovery of those costs, was recorded as of June 30, 2009. A $30.0 million liability, representing the low end of the range of estimated hull and related debris removal costs, and a corresponding receivable for recovery of those costs, was recorded as of June 30, 2009. The aggregate $46.0 million liability and receivable for the leg and hull and related debris removal costs were included in accrued liabilities and other and other assets, net, on our June 30, 2009 condensed consolidated balance sheet.

       On March 17, 2009, we received notice from counsel representing certain underwriters in a subrogation claim alleging that ENSCO 74 caused a pipeline to rupture during Hurricane Ike. The letter requests that we retain all documents/records concerning the ENSCO 74 loss and permit the underwriters' representatives to attend the salvage operations and participate in a joint survey of the rig. The underwriters' counsel has advised that the subrogated claim is in the amount of $22.0 million to $25.0 million and indicated that the letter was submitted due to the proximity (approximately 2 miles) of the pipeline to the sunken ENSCO 74 hull and the assumed path of the rig. An investigation of the matter is in process. Based on information currently available, we have not concluded that it is probable that a liability exists with respect to this matter.

       On March 18, 2009, the owner of the oil tanker that struck the hull of ENSCO 74 commenced civil litigation against us seeking monetary damages in the aggregate amount of $10.0 million for losses incurred. Based on information currently available, primarily the adequacy of available defenses, we have not concluded that it is probable a liability exists with respect to the claim of the tanker owner.

       On June 9, 2009, we received notice from legal counsel representing another pipeline owner which reportedly sustained damages to a subsea pipeline. The letter asserts these unquantified damages may have been caused by ENSCO 74 during Hurricane Ike. We presently are unable to determine whether the pipeline damages were caused by ENSCO 74 or the extent of the cost and losses associated with the damage. Based on information currently available, we have not concluded that it is probable that a liability exists with respect to this matter.

20

Table of Contents

       We have liability insurance policies that provide coverage for third-party claims such as the tanker and pipeline claims, subject to a $10.0 million per occurrence self-insured retention (in the event of multiple occurrences the self-insured retention is $15.0 million for two occurrences and $1.0 million for each occurrence thereafter) and an annual aggregate limit of $500.0 million. Although we do not expect the final disposition of the claims associated with the ENSCO 74 loss to have a material adverse effect upon our financial position, operating results or cash flows, there can be no assurances as to the ultimate outcome.

    ENSCO 29 Wreck Removal

       A portion of the ENSCO 29 platform drilling rig was lost over the side of a customer's platform as a result of Hurricane Katrina during 2005. Although beneficial ownership of ENSCO 29 was transferred to our insurance underwriters when the rig was determined to be a total loss, management believes we may be legally required to remove ENSCO 29 wreckage and debris from the seabed and currently estimates that the removal cost could range from $5.0 million to $15.0 million. Our property insurance policies include coverage for ENSCO 29 wreckage and debris removal costs up to $3.8 million. We also have liability insurance policies that provide specified coverage for wreckage and debris removal costs in excess of the $3.8 million coverage provided under our property insurance policies.

       Our liability insurance underwriters have issued letters reserving rights and effectively denying coverage by questioning the applicability of coverage for the potential ENSCO 29 wreckage and debris removal costs. In August 2007, we commenced litigation against certain underwriters alleging breach of contract, wrongful denial, bad faith and other claims which seek a declaration that removal of wreckage and debris is covered under our liability insurance, monetary damages, attorneys' fees and other remedies. The litigation is in an early stage and is currently pending a decision from the United States Court of Appeals.

       While we anticipate that any ENSCO 29 wreckage and debris removal costs incurred will be largely or fully covered by insurance, a $1.2 million provision, representing the portion of the $5.0 million low end of the range of estimated removal cost we believe is subject to liability insurance coverage, was recognized during 2006.

    Asbestos Litigation

       In August 2004, we and certain current and former subsidiaries were named as defendants, along with numerous other third-party companies as co-defendants, in three multi-party lawsuits filed in the Circuit Courts of Jones County (Second Judicial District) and Jasper County (First Judicial District), Mississippi. The lawsuits sought an unspecified amount of monetary damages on behalf of individuals alleging personal injury or death, primarily under the Jones Act, purportedly resulting from exposure to asbestos on drilling rigs and associated facilities during the period 1965 through 1986.

       In compliance with the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure, the individual claimants in the original multi-party lawsuits whose claims were not dismissed were ordered to file either new or amended single plaintiff complaints naming the specific defendant(s) against whom they intended to pursue claims. As a result, out of more than 600 initial multi-party claims, we have been named as a defendant by 65 individual plaintiffs. Of these claims, 62 claims or lawsuits are pending in Mississippi state courts and three are pending in the U.S. District Court as a result of their removal from state court.

       The Mississippi state court cases are under an informal stay of discovery issued by a Special Master presiding over these matters while discovery is conducted for a designated group of plaintiffs, several of which involve us. To date, written discovery and plaintiff depositions have taken place in seven cases pending against us. No further activity will occur in these cases until they are selected for trial. Currently, none of the cases pending against us in Mississippi have been set for trial. Plaintiffs and defendants have until August 15, 2009 to select plaintiffs to fill five trial settings during 2010.

21

Table of Contents

       The three cases pending in federal court were consolidated with 441 other lawsuits filed by a Houston law firm. These cases were referred to a Magistrate Judge, who ordered parties to conduct general discovery in these matters. Discovery specific to each plaintiff will take place at a later designated time, if deemed necessary by the parties and the court.

       We intend to vigorously defend against these claims and have filed responsive pleadings preserving all defenses and challenges to jurisdiction and venue. However, discovery is still ongoing and, therefore, available information regarding the nature of all pending claims is limited. At present, we cannot reasonably determine how many of the claimants may have valid claims under the Jones Act or estimate a range of potential liability exposure, if any.

       In addition to the pending cases in Mississippi, we have eight other asbestos or lung injury claims pending against us in litigation in various other jurisdictions. Although we do not expect the final disposition of the Mississippi and other asbestos lawsuits to have a material adverse effect upon our financial position, operating results or cash flows, there can be no assurances as to the ultimate outcome of the lawsuits.

    Working Time Directive

       Legislation known as the U.K. Working Time Directive ("WTD") was introduced in August 2003 and may be applicable to our employees and employees of other drilling contractors that work offshore in United Kingdom ("U.K.") territorial waters or in the U.K. sector of the North Sea. Certain trade unions representing offshore employees have claimed that drilling contractors are not in compliance with the WTD in respect of paid time off (vacation time) for employees working offshore on a rotational basis (generally equal time working and off).

       A Labor Tribunal in Aberdeen, Scotland, rendered decisions in claims involving other offshore drilling contractors and offshore service companies on February 21, 2008. The Tribunal decisions effectively held that employers of offshore workers in the U.K. sector employed on an equal time on/time off rotation are obligated to accord such rotating personnel two-weeks annual paid time off from their scheduled offshore work assignment period. Both sides of the matter, employee and employer groups, appealed the Tribunal decision. The appeals were heard by the Employment Appeal Tribunal ("EAT") in December 2008.

       In an opinion rendered on March 9, 2009, the EAT determined that the time off work enjoyed by U.K. offshore oil and gas workers, typically 26 weeks per year, meets the amount of annual leave employers must provide to employees under the WTD. The employer group was successful in all arguments on appeal, as the EAT determined that the statutory entitlement to annual leave under the WTD can be discharged through normal field break arrangements for offshore workers. As a consequence of the EAT decision, an equal on/off time offshore rotation has been deemed to be fully compliant with the WTD.

       The employee group (led by a trade union) was granted leave to appeal to the highest civil court in Scotland (the Court of Session). The trade unions initially submitted an application for a direct reference to the European Court of Justice, which recently was withdrawn. It is expected that a Court of Session ruling on the appeal will not be made for several years.

       We also received inquiries from and responded to the Danish and Dutch authorities regarding applicability of the WTD as adopted by Denmark and The Netherlands to employees on our rigs operating in the Danish and Dutch sectors of the North Sea.

       Based on information currently available, we do not expect the ultimate resolution of these matters to have a material adverse effect on our financial position, operating results or cash flows.

    Other Matters

       In connection with an audit of employee payroll-related returns of an international subsidiary, the local taxing authority issued a letter to us during the second quarter of 2009 communicating its position related to the applicability of certain tax exemptions provided by various tax treaties to non-resident employees of the subsidiary. We believe that the local taxing authority's position is inconsistent with established and current tax law in the jurisdiction. We estimate our exposure associated with this matter to be approximately $5.5 million, but sufficient evidence exists to enable us to conclude that our defenses are adequate and a liability is not probable.

22

Table of Contents

       In addition to the foregoing, we are named defendants in certain other lawsuits, claims or proceedings incidental to our business and are involved from time to time as parties to governmental investigations or proceedings, including matters related to taxation, arising in the ordinary course of business. Although the outcome of such lawsuits or other proceedings cannot be predicted with certainty and the amount of any liability that could arise with respect to such lawsuits or other proceedings cannot be predicted accurately, management does not expect these matters to have a material adverse effect on our financial position, operating results or cash flows.

Note 10 - Segment Information

       Our business consists of four operating segments: (1) Deepwater, (2) Asia Pacific, (3) Europe/Africa and (4) North and South America. Each of our four operating segments provides one service, contract drilling. Segment information for the three-month and six-month periods ended June 30, 2009 and 2008 is presented below. General and administrative expense and depreciation expense incurred by our corporate office are not allocated to our operating segments for purposes of measuring segment operating income and were included in "Reconciling Items." Assets not allocated to our operating segments consisted primarily of cash and cash equivalents and goodwill and were also included in "Reconciling Items."

Three Months Ended June 30, 2009
(in millions)

Three Months Ended June 30, 2008
(in millions)

23

Table of Contents

Six Months Ended June 30, 2009
(in millions)

Six Months Ended June 30, 2008
(in millions)

Note 11 - Subsequent Events

       During the second quarter of 2009, we adopted SFAS No. 165, "Subsequent Events" (as amended) which establishes general standards regarding the accounting for and disclosure of events that occur after the balance sheet date but before financial statements are issued or are available to be issued. Adoption of this standard did not result in significant changes in the subsequent events that we are required to recognize or disclosure in our financial statements.

       We evaluated subsequent events through July 23, 2009, the date these condensed consolidated financial statements were filed with the SEC. On July 17, 2009, we received an $11.5 million payment from Petrosucre, a subsidiary of PDVSA. Petrosucre took over complete control of ENSCO 69 in January 2009, and we terminated our drilling contract with Petrosucre in June 2009 after it failed to satisfy contractual obligations and meet payment commitments. See "Note 8 - Discontinued Operations" for additional information on ENSCO 69.

24

Table of Contents

Item 2.  Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations

BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT

       Depressed oil and natural gas prices and the weak global economy have caused operators in virtually all markets to curtail their shallow water drilling programs leading to a significant decline in jackup rig demand. Although oil and natural gas prices increased during the quarter ended June 30, 2009, we believe incremental drilling activity will be constrained until the global economy shows meaningful signs of recovery. Current economic conditions and depressed commodity prices are expected to continue their adverse effect on jackup rig demand during the remainder of 2009 and possibly beyond.

       As a result of depressed oil and natural gas prices and the weak global economy, jackup rig demand has declined, resulting in an increased number of available rigs. In addition, it has been reported that 2009 newbuild jackup and semisubmersible rigs will increase the worldwide fleet of drilling rigs by almost 10%. Of the 28 jackup rigs projected for delivery during 2009, eleven were delivered during the first six months of the year. The majority of jackup rigs scheduled for delivery during the remainder of 2009 are not contracted.

       Of the 18 semisubmersible rigs projected for delivery during 2009, seven were delivered during the first six months of the year. Although the majority of semisubmersible rigs scheduled for delivery during the remainder of 2009 are contracted, operators have expressed interest in subletting contracted rigs in an attempt to minimize costs until oil and natural gas prices and the global economy recover.

       It is unlikely that the market in general, or any geographic region in particular, will be able to fully absorb newbuild rig deliveries, especially in light of the existing oversupply of available jackup rigs and depressed rig demand. For additional information concerning the potential risks and uncertainties newbuild rigs may have on our business, our industry and global supply, see "Item 1A. Risk Factors" in Part I and "Item 7. Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations" in Part II of our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008, as updated in this report.

    Deepwater

       Although depressed oil and natural gas prices resulted in a modest decline in demand for ultra-deepwater semisubmersible rigs, we expect operators to continue the majority of their ongoing investments in deepwater projects. Deepwater semisubmersible rig day rates declined slightly during the first six months of 2009 as compared to record-high day rates achieved during 2008, partially due to the abundance of sublet slots made available by operators. Despite the recent increase in sublet activity, we anticipate continued high utilization of the worldwide ultra-deepwater semisubmersible rig fleet for the foreseeable future. Day rates for the remainder of 2009 and beyond will depend in large part on the length and magnitude of the current global economic crisis and on expectations of future oil and natural gas prices.

       In addition to ENSCO 8500, which commenced a four-year drilling contract in June 2009, and ENSCO 8501, which was delivered in June 2009 and is expected to commence drilling operations under a three-and-a-half-year contract in October 2009, we have five ENSCO 8500 Series® rigs under construction with scheduled delivery dates during the first and fourth quarters of 2010, the second half of 2011 and the first and second half of 2012. Two of the five ENSCO 8500 Series® rigs under construction have secured long-term drilling contracts in the Gulf of Mexico and three are without contracts. Our ENSCO 7500 ultra-deepwater semisubmersible rig is operating under a long-term contract in Australia.

25

Table of Contents

    Asia Pacific

       During the first half of 2008, Asia Pacific jackup rig utilization remained high and day rates stabilized as strong rig demand was offset by new rig deliveries. During the latter half of 2008, jackup rig demand was significantly impacted by the decline in oil and natural gas prices and the global economic crisis, resulting in a significant reduction in utilization and day rates through the first six months of 2009. With limited contract opportunities currently available and an expected increase in the supply of available jackup rigs from newbuild deliveries, cancelled tenders and unexercised contract extension options, we anticipate that utilization and day rates will remain under pressure for the remainder of 2009.

    Europe/Africa

       Our Europe/Africa offshore drilling operations are mainly conducted in northern Europe. During 2008, shortfalls in rig availability in this region led to sustained high utilization levels and a slight increase in day rates. Although utilization and day rates remained high during the first quarter of 2009, the decline in oil and natural gas prices during the latter half of 2008 resulted in several cancelled tenders and unexercised contract extension options. Tender activity in the region during the second quarter was minimal, and we expect this trend to continue for the remainder of the year. We anticipate that this market will experience excess rig availability in the near-term, which will result in a decline in utilization and day rates during the remainder of 2009.

    North and South America

       Demand for jackup rigs in the Gulf of Mexico stabilized during 2008, and jackup rig supply continued to decline as rigs were relocated to more economically attractive regions. As a result, utilization levels and day rates began to improve during the first half of 2008. In September 2008, damage caused by Hurricanes Gustav and Ike reduced the supply of available jackup rigs, however, the reduction was more than offset by a decrease in demand resulting from the global economic crisis and decline in oil and natural gas prices. As a result, utilization and day rates declined significantly during the first six months of 2009. With depressed oil and natural gas prices, a weakened global economy and the threat of severe weather during hurricane season, we expect continued declines in jackup rig demand resulting in low utilization and day rates for the remainder of the year.

26

Table of Contents

       A growing portion of our North and South America offshore drilling operations are conducted in Mexico, where demand for rigs increased during 2008 as Petróleos Mexicanos, the national oil company of Mexico ("PEMEX"), accelerated drilling activities in an attempt to offset continued depletion of its major oil and natural gas fields. During the first six months of 2009, demand for jackup rigs in Mexico remained high and day rates remained comparable with international rates despite the global economic crisis and depressed oil and natural gas prices. PEMEX is expected to issue additional tenders during the next several quarters, however, it is unclear whether these requirements relate to renewals of incumbent rigs. We expect future day rates to face pressure as drilling contractors with idle rigs in other geographic regions pursue contract opportunities in Mexico.

RESULTS OF OPERATIONS

       The following table highlights our condensed consolidated results of operations for the three-month and six-month periods ended June 30, 2009 and 2008 (in millions):
 

27

Table of Contents

       For the quarter ended June 30, 2009, revenues declined by $97.8 million, or 16%, and operating income declined by $77.4 million, or 22%, as compared to the prior year quarter. The declines were primarily due to decreased utilization of jackup rigs across our worldwide fleet, partially offset by an increase in average day rates earned by our contracted jackup rigs in North and South America and ENSCO 7500. For the six-month period ended June 30, 2009, revenues declined by $148.4 million, or 13%, and operating income declined by $113.9 million, or 17%, as compared to the prior year period. The declines were primarily due to decreased utilization of our Asia Pacific and North and South America jackup fleets, partially offset by an increse in average day rates earned by our contracted jackup rigs in North and South America.

       Oil and natural gas prices have declined substantially from their 2008 levels. As a result, operators continue to defer and/or curtail drilling programs, which will likely result in a reduction in demand for drilling rigs and a decline in utilization and day rates. If current economic conditions persist, we believe it is unlikely the operating results achieved during 2008 and the six-month period ended June 30, 2009 will be sustained during the remainder of the year.

Rig Locations, Utilization and Average Day Rates