BP grossly negligent in 2010 oil spill, judge says

BP was grossly negligent in the 2010 Deepwater Horizon spill in the Gulf of Mexico, a US district judge has ruled. The BP ruling is a critical milestone in a legal case that is looking at the cause of the worst offshore oil spill in US history.

Gerald Herbert/AP/File
In this 2010 file photo, a worker picks up blobs of oil with absorbent snare on Queen Bess Island at the mouth of Barataria Bay near the Gulf of Mexico in Plaquemines Parish, La. A judge ruled Thursday that BP was 'grossly negligent' and bears most of the responsibility for the oil spill. The ruling exposes BP to about $18 million in civil fines under the Clean Water Act.

A federal judge has ruled that BP is guilty of gross negligence in the 2010 Deepwater Horizon spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

U.S. District Judge Carl Barbier also found Halliburton Co. and Transocean Ltd. negligent, but not to the extent that BP was in causing the disaster, which began with an explosion on Transocean’s offshore drilling rig on April 20, 2010 and ended up spilling an estimated 4.9 million barrels of oil into the Gulf for three months.

“BP’s conduct was reckless,” Barbier wrote in his decision handed down in New Orleans federal court on Sept. 4. “Transocean’s conduct was negligent. Halliburton’s conduct was negligent.” He said BP’s share of the blame was 67 percent, Transocean’s was 30 percent, and Halliburton’s fault was 3 percent.

Britain’s BP was the principal defendant in the case because the rig was drilling for BP-owned oil in the Macondo well. Transocean, a Swiss company, also was a defendant because it owned the rig, named Deepwater Horizon. Halliburton, a Houston oilfield services company, was named because it provided the cement for the walls of the well.

The ruling was a critical milestone in a legal case that is looking at the cause of the worst offshore oil spill in U.S. history, the impact on victims of five states with coastlines on the Gulf, and who was liable for how much.

The plaintiffs include the U.S. government, the five states affected, banks, seafood purveyors and fishermen who, combined, lost billions of dollars because of the spill. The ruling resolves some of the issues but appeals may drag on for years before a final settlement is reached.

BP already has set aside $3.5 billion to cover what it may have to pay in compensation.

The judge still has not ruled on exactly how much oil was spilled, which will be an important element in determining the company’s liability. Yet Barbier’s ruling of gross negligence could lead to BP being fined $18 billion, the maximum penalty under the Clean Water Act, if he eventually agrees with U.S. prosecutors that more than 4 million barrels of oil were spilled.

Like this article?

Subscribe to Recharge, the Monitor's weekend digest of global energy news.
Click here for a sample.

The decision could also expose BP to unspecified punitive damages for claimants who weren’t part of the $9.2 billion settlement the company reached with most non-government plaintiffs in 2012. Barbier did not address that in his ruling.

Because Transocean and Halliburton were guilty of only simple negligence, not gross negligence, they will not be liable for the same punitive damages. Further, on Sept. 2, Halliburton reached a settlement in the same court under which it agreed to pay $1.1 billion to resolve most of the claims against it.

As the disaster was unfolding during the summer of 2010, it was discovered that the drilling project had been plagued by equipment failures and questions about proper supervision. The federal government responded with new regulations on safety practices for such offshore projects.

Source: http://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/BP-Halliburton-and-Transocean-Found-Negligent-in-Deepwater-Horizon-Spill.html

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.