Deepwater Horizon - Transocean Oil Rig Fire

Rocks found on supply boat are not from the Macondo well explosion
Rebecca Mowbray, The Times-Picayune 01/19/2012 2:09 PM

http://mobile.nola.com/advnola/pm_29227/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=QkfIGtlF

The cement chunks found on the deck of the M/V Damon B. Bankston supply boat after the Deepwater Horizon rig exploded did not come from Halliburton’s cement job on the Macondo well, a U.S. Department of Justice official told lawyers gathered Thursday for the monthly status conference in the Gulf of Mexico oil disaster litigation. U.S. Department of Justice attorney Michael Underhill said the testing results not only clear up a point of intrigue, but make the rocks irrelevant to the case.

“To give away the punch line at the end of the mystery, the cement rocks were deemed not to be part of the production casing of the Macondo well,” Underhill said.

<><><><><><><>
Always sounded a bit farfetched to me, but, you never know. Sh*t happens.

The closer we get to trial and testimony under oath the more these “mysteries” will be clarified.

Scientists asked to downplay Deepwater Horizon spill - latimes.com

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/environment/la-me-gs-scientists-asked-downplay-deepwater-horizon-spill-20120125,0,2061380.story

(assorted snippets from article)

When live video footage of the damaged wellhead system was publicly released, independent scientists analyzing images of the oil plume billowing from nearly a mile below the gulf’s surface concluded the leak was far larger.

Nearly a month into the spill, a group of federal and university scientists was assembled to devise more precise numbers. Teams within the group employed different techniques to estimate the flow, and on May 27, 2010, some preliminary results were announced…

“I was expressing to the [group] my frustration with how to simply convey the results from multiple methods for measuring flow rate. This is clearly not a simple problem. The [group] worked as quickly as possible to develop accurate estimates of flows five thousand feet below the surface, mindful of the importance of this information to the response effort. We communicated complex scientific information.

Early official estimates pegged the flow at 5,000 barrels a day

A U.S. Interior Department news release said the group’s “overall best initial estimate for the lower and upper boundaries of flow rates of oil is in the range of 12,000 and 19,000 barrels per day.”

One team, she said, pegged the daily release rate “between 12,000 to [sic] 19,000 barrels.” But she added that a second team concluded the flow’s lower bound was 12,000 to 25,000 barrels a day. Then, later in the briefing, she said that “the flow rate could be as much as 19,000 barrels per day.”

No,” she remarked in parenthesis, “because the 25,000 is a LOWER bound, not an UPPER bound.”

McNutt’s group revised its flow estimates upward several times during the course of the three-month spill. Ultimately the government said the wellhead leak spilled 62,000 barrels a day, slowing to 53,000 barrels.

It turns out that was not the last word, however. In apaper published online last month in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, McNutt and other scientists conclude the well gushed 50,000 to 70,000 barrels a day. Of the total spilled, they say more than 2 million barrels of oil remained in the deep sea.

The authors also found that the analytic method that yielded the low flow estimates (and which Lehr’s report emphasized) “was inappropriate for this application and resulted in oil flow rates that were biased too low by a factor of two.”

<><><><><><><><><><><>
I’m wondering here;

WHO provided the live video for these assessments??

Did the Government, DOI or the Incident Command EVER contract out the proper ROVS and surface vessels and/or video processing equipment to independently ascertain the flow and damage at the wellhead.

If the video provided to the Government by BP were totally eliminated from the pool of evidence, what exactly could Department of Justice prosecutors enter as evidence into the case file as far as actual video of the well flowing???
•••••••••••••

Referenced the assessment of total barrels spilled in the report below
Did the assumption that the flow was maximum at day one and slowly decreased as pressure declined take into account that a well doesn’t usually “come in” at maximum production rate until the flow paths in the formation and casing tend to “clean out”?
That the flow rate was limited to some extent by the kinked riser until it was cut days later?
That the wear paths eroded by sand into the BOP wall and BSR interface were not instantly cut to the size seen when the BOP was inspected on the bank, but rather it took days for the produced sand to cut out a crude variable production choke that limited maximum flow to varying extent during the 87 flowing days.

National Incident Command Document.
Assessment of Flow Rate.

http://www.doi.gov/deepwaterhorizon/loader.cfm?csModule=security/getfile&PageID=237763
Excerpt from Page 1 of the Executive Summary
Pic below

Judge: BP contract shielded Transocean in spill
QUICK READ

http://www.newsday.com/business/judge-bp-contract-shielded-transocean-in-spill-1.3482532

Originally published: January 26, 2012 5:26 PM
Updated: January 26, 2012 8:14 PM
By The Associated Press CAIN BURDEAU (Associated Press), HARRY R. WEBER (Associated Press)

Judge: BP contract shields rig owner Transocean from some Gulf spill claims
(AP) – The rig owner involved in drilling the ill-fated well that blew out in the Gulf of Mexico and spewed more than 200 million gallons of oil will not have to pay many of the pollution claims because it was shielded in a contract with well-owner BP, a federal judge ruled on Thursday. The ruling comes as BP, the states affected by the disaster and the federal government are discussing a settlement…

Link to google search on articles related to
This topic.

http://www.google.com/search?q=Judge:+BP+contract+shielded+Transocean+in+spill&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&client=safari#q=Judge%3A+BP+contract+shielded+Transocean+in+spill&hl=en&safe=off&client=safari&prmd=imvnsu&ei=NOEiT-6HFpLBtgfbnv1f&start=0&sa=N&bav=cf.osb&fp=70a3e500beb5acf5&biw=320&bih=416

Judge: BP Contract Shielded Transocean In Spill

Fri, 01/27/2012 - 9:23am
Cain Burdeau and Harry R. Weber, Associated Press
NEW ORLEANS (AP) — The rig owner involved in drilling the ill-fated well that blew out in the Gulf of Mexico and spewed more than 200 million gallons of oil will not have to pay many of the pollution claims because it was shielded in a contract with well-owner BP, a federal judge ruled on Thursday. The ruling comes as BP, the states affected by the disaster and the federal government are discussing a settlement over the nation’s largest offshore oil spill.

The decision may have spared Transocean from having to pay potentially billions of dollars in damage claims. However, U.S. District Judge Carl Barbier said the driller still is not exempt from paying punitive damages and civil penalties that arise from the April 20, 2010, blowout 100 miles off the Louisiana coast. Those penalties could amount to billions of dollars.

Law experts were split over who is a clear-cut winner.

BP has been pursuing agreements with multiple parties to reach settlements that would make an upcoming trial involving hundreds of spill lawsuits in New Orleans unnecessary, or at least resolve as many of the issues as possible.

The Justice Department also is involved, working with the states to create an outline for a settlement that would resolve their potentially multibillion dollar claims against BP and the other companies involved in the disaster, Alabama Attorney General Luther Strange told The Associated Press.

Justice led a meeting last week in Washington among the states in an effort to formulate an agreement that would satisfy government and state claims, including penalties and fines, Strange said. He also indicated if there is a settlement that officials are discussing what to do with the $20 billion fund set up by BP to pay victims.

The lead attorneys for individuals and businesses suing BP were not at the meeting.

According to Strange, a federal magistrate judge has been asked to expedite settlement discussions. The Louisiana attorney general’s office said in a statement to the AP that it is in settlement discussions with BP, which would not comment on any deals in the works. A first phase of the trial is set for Feb. 27 to determine liability for the spill.

“The closer you get to a trial date, the more pressure builds to reach a settlement,” Strange said.

Despite the decision, BP claimed victory and said Barbier’s ruling “at a minimum” left Transocean facing “punitive damages, fines and penalties flowing from its own conduct.”

Transocean spokesman Lou Colasuonno said in an emailed statement that the company was pleased to see its position affirmed.

“This confirms that BP is responsible for all economic damages caused by the oil that leaked from its Macondo well, and discredits BP’s ongoing attempts to evade both its contractual and financial obligations,” he said.

Blaine LeCesne, an associate professor at Loyola University law school, however, said Barbier’s ruling was a “major victory” for Transocean.

“If anything is going to compel the parties toward settlement, it’s going to be this,” he said. “I think BP is in a very bad position now, and they don’t have a lot of leverage.”

A University of Michigan Law School professor who served as chief of the Justice Department’s environmental crimes section said the ruling had no clear-cut winner. David Uhlmann said it prevents BP from collecting billions of dollars from Transocean to help cover cleanup costs and pay for claims over economic losses and environmental damage from the spill. But the decision leaves Transocean facing potentially billions of dollars in civil and criminal penalties under the Clean Water Act, he added.

“It’s a partial win for each side and a partial loss for each side,” Uhlmann said.

BP PLC, Transocean Ltd. and Halliburton Co. have been sparring over who was at fault for causing the blowout. The out-of-control well was capped in July, 2010. Federal investigators have said that BP bears ultimate responsibility for the spill, but has faulted all three companies to some degree.

Under a drilling contract, BP and Transocean agreed to indemnify each other in the case of an accident, withBP taking responsibility for pollution originating from the well and Transocean for any pollution or accidents aboard the rig.

However, in court BP argued that the contract did not shield Transocean if the drilling company acted in manner that was grossly negligent.

Barbier said the contract was a “clear and unequivocal agreement” to provide “broad indemnity.”

“As we have said from the beginning, Transocean cannot avoid its responsibility for this accident,” BP said.

The British oil giant said it had “stepped up” and admitted its role in the spill and paid billions of dollars in claims.

BP also is eager to resolve its disputes with its partners on the doomed rig. The companies have sued and countersued each other for billions of dollars to protect themselves when it comes to paying damages to victims and penalties to the government.

Months ago, BP offered to resolve its dispute with Transocean if Transocean paid BP roughly $4.5 billion, according to a person briefed on the discussions who spoke to the AP on condition of anonymity because the talks are confidential. Transocean rejected the offer, and there have been no substantive discussions between the companies about figures since then, the person said, adding that Thursday’s ruling could spur further talks.

Eric Schaeffer, who led the Environmental Protection Agency’s civil enforcement office from 1997 to 2002, said Thursday’s ruling will put even more pressure on BP.

“If BP is less able to shift some of those costs to Transocean, if they understand they are going to bearTransocean’s share of compensatory damages, I’d want to get it settled,” Schaeffer said. “That’s no longer a wild card.”

BP Responds To U.S. Court Ruling On Deepwater Horizon Disaster - Quick Facts

(RTTNews.com) - BP Plc (BP, BP_UN.TO, BP.L) issued statement in response to court ruling issued by U.S. District Judge Carl Barbier on Thursday that the company will have to bear all costs related to the Deepwater Horizon disaster that struck the Gulf of Mexicio in 2010. The ruling lowered the potential liability Transocean Ltd. (RIG) faces over the incident.

The ruling made clear that contractors will be held accountable for their actions under the law. BP noted that while all official investigations concluded that Transocean played a causal role in the accident, the contractor has long contended it is fully indemnified by BP for the liabilities resulting from the oil spill. This view was rejected by the Court.

Under the decision, Transocean is, at a minimum, financially responsible for any punitive damages, fines and penalties flowing from its own conduct. According to BP, Transocean cannot avoid its responsibility for this accident.

BP stated that by contrast, since the spill it had stepped up, acknowledged its role and paid above $7.8 billion in claims, advances and other payments to individuals, businesses and governments.

For comments and feedback: contact editorial@rttnews.com

http://www.rttnews.com

David Hammer, The Times-Picayune 01/27/2012 6:13 PM
BP email hushed up oil spill rate estimate as Gulf rig was sinking

On April 22, 2010, as the exploded Deepwater Horizon oil rig was sinking off the Louisiana coast, a maritime expert told BP that its Macondo well would spew 82,000 barrels of crude a day into the Gulf of Mexico if nothing blocked the opening. At that moment, the U.S. government was trying to get BP to say how much oil might be flowing into the sea so they could answer a crescendo of questions from the media and, more importantly, muster the proper equipment to plug the leak.

But BP officials reacted to the alarming estimate that afternoon by demanding it be kept secret, according to an email that BP agreed to release Friday in federal court in New Orleans.

When BP finally provided the Coast Guard with an estimate of the leak to announce publicly two days later, it was a paltry 1,000 barrels a day.

The April 22 email from Rob Marshall, BP’s subsea manager for the Gulf of Mexico, to deepwater project manager Gary Imm and corporate vice president Jonathan Sprague is an exhibit in the massive oil spill litigation slated for trial Feb. 27.

Marshall advised Imm and Sprague that an expert named Alistair Johnston had a new model for how much oil might be spewing from the wellhead a mile below the surface and 50 miles from the Mississippi River delta. Johnston’s new estimate, Marshall wrote, was 82,000 barrels a day if the well has an open hole.

The response from Imm suggests that BP and the Coast Guard were already butting heads over how much oil was coming out of the busted well - and that 82,000 barrels a day wasn’t a number BP wanted anyone to hear.

“A number of people have been looking at this and we already have had difficult discussions with the USCG (Coast Guard) on the numbers,” Imm wrote back to Marshall and Sprague. “Please tell Alistair not to communicate to anyone on this.”

“Yes, he knows about confidentiality,” Marshall responded.

BP said it would respond to questions about the email, but had not done so by Friday evening.

The air of secrecy could be more significant than the estimate because, as it turned out, the hole was not unobstructed. A massive stack of valves and pistons blocked some of the flow and response teams later found the crude coming out of three leaks in the pipes that emanated from the wellhead.

Months later, after much wrangling and analysis, government scientists determined the oil actually was shooting out at a rate 62,000 barrels a day on April 22.

But the idea that BP and the Coast Guard weren’t being fully honest about the spill rate came to dominate the conversation for months. President Barack Obama’s Oil Spill Commission reported on the matter, finding that BP had no scientific support for its initial assertion of 1,000 barrels a day on April 24.

A federal scientist corrected that to 5,000 barrels a day on April 27 and that remained the official estimate for a whole month, even though independent scientists were insisting the flow rate was at least four times greater and possibly as high as 100,000 barrels a day.

The flow rate is a critical issue. At first, it was important as the oil industry and the government tried to figure out a safe way to close in the well. It also played a role in establishing how damaging the spill would be for BP, and several large investors have sued BP in federal court in Houston alleging that the company used low-ball estimates to artificially prop up the company’s stock price.

Federal investigators looked into the possibility that BP officials might have engaged in insider trading based on their knowledge of larger flow rates before they were disclosed to the public.

And it remains a crucial issue because a total flow rate must be used to determine how much oil polluted the waters over more than 86 days so federal prosecutors can set appropriate civil pollution fines. Those fines could total close to $20 billion are based on the current official estimate of 4.9 million total barrels spilled.

House GOP threatens subpoena over offshore drilling ban report
By Ben Geman - 01/25/12 05:10 PM

House Republicans are threatening to subpoena the Interior Department for documents related to a 2010 report that incorrectly implied that outside experts had endorsed a temporary ban on deepwater drilling in the wake of the BP spill.

Natural Resources Committee Chairman Doc Hastings (R-Wash.), in a letter Wednesday, said Interior has failed to fully comply with requests for information about the late May 2010 drilling safety report that called for the moratorium.

Interior imposed the drilling freeze shortly after the report was issued, and lifted the ban in the fall of 2010.

The GOP letter to Interior Secretary Ken Salazar “provides notice of our intent to move to compel cooperation and production of documents” if they’re not provided in February.

Republicans, who called the deepwater moratorium an overreaction, have championed the cause of outside engineers that Interior consulted for the study, who say the 2010 report wrongly suggested they backed the drilling ban.

E2 wrote much more about the fracas here.

The Interior Department’s inspector general, in November 2010 findings, said White House edits to the drilling safety report led to the faulty impression. From the IG’s November 2010 findings:

The version that the White House returned to [Interior] had revised and re-ordered the language in the Executive Summary, placing the peer review language immediately following the moratorium recommendation. This caused the distinction between the Secretary’s moratorium recommendation — which had not been peer reviewed — and the safety recommendations contained in the 30-Day Report — which had been peer reviewed — to become effectively lost.

But the IG report also found that Interior officials were not intentionally trying to suggest the outside experts backed the drilling freeze.

The new letter to Interior from Hastings and Energy and Minerals subcommittee Chairman Doug Lamborn (R-Colo.) is available here.

“Americans, especially those in the Gulf, deserve answers as to how these policy decisions were made, who made them and if they were actually based on sound science,” Hastings said in a statement Wednesday.

BP emails reveal company veiling spill rate

Published January 27, 2012|
Associated Press
NEW ORLEANS – On the day the Deepwater Horizon sank, BPofficials warned in an internal memo that if the well was not protected by the blow-out preventer at the drill site, crude oil could burst into the Gulf of Mexico at a rate of 3.4 million gallons a day, an amount a million gallons higher than what the government later believed spilled daily from the site.

The email conversation, which BP agreed to release Friday as part of federal court proceedings, suggests BP managers recognized the potential of the disaster in its early hours, and company officials sought to make sure that the model-developed information wasn’t shared with outsiders. The emails also suggest BP was having heated discussions with Coast Guard officials over the potential of the oil spill.

The memo was released as part of the court proceedings to determine the division of responsibility for the nation’s worst offshore oil disaster, which began when the BP-leasedDeepwater Horizon exploded April 20, 2010, killing 11 men about 50 miles southeast of the Louisiana coast. The first phase of the trial is set to start Feb. 27.

BP officials declined to comment on the emails late Friday.

The official amount of oil that flowed from the well was pegged at 206 million gallons from at least April 22 until the well was capped on July 15, a period of 85 days. That’s a daily flow rate of about 2.4 million gallons — two-thirds of the way to BP’s projection of what could leak from the well if it was an “open hole.” BP has disputed the government’s estimates.

Having an accurate flow rate estimate is needed to determine how much in civil and criminal penalties BP and the other companies drilling the well face under the Clean Water Act.

In the memo, a BP official urges not to share the flow-rate projections and refers to the “difficult discussions” the company was having at the time with the Coast Guard.

Gary Imm, a BP manager, told Rob Marshall, BP’s subsea manager in the Gulf, to tell the modeler doing the estimates “not to communicate to anyone on this.”

“A number of people have been looking at this we already have had difficult discussions with the USCG on the numbers,” Imm said in the email string, referring to the Coast Guard and flow estimates.

On April 23, 2010, the Coast Guard, relying on BP’s remotely operated vehicles, said no oil was leaking from the well a mile under the sea. A day later, Coast Guard Rear Adm. Mary Landry announced that oil was leaking an estimated rate of 42,000 gallons a day. The Coast Guard and BP did not divulge how they reached that figure.

In the second week after the spill, the official flow rate was increased to 210,000 gallons a day, an estimate the government continued to use until May 27.

On May 24, BP informed Congress they used an “undisclosed method to generate much higher figures” than the official estimates, according to a report from a presidential commission investigating the spill. BP estimated that the flow rates were between 210,000 gallons and 1.6 million gallons a day, the January 2011 report said.

As the spill grew into weeks and months, and soiled fishing grounds, beaches and coastal marshes, independent scientists questioned the official flow rates. Eventually, the federal government convened teams of government and independent scientists to determine how much oil leaked out of the well. They came up with an official estimate of about 2.4 million gallons of oil a day on average.

<><><><><><><><><><><>
from the article:
“The official amount of oil that flowed from the well was pegged at 206 million gallons from at least April 22 until the well was capped on July 15, a period of 85 days. That’s a daily flow rate of about 2.4 million gallons — two-thirds of the way to BP’s projection of what could leak from the well if it was an “open hole.” BP has disputed the government’s estimates.”
••••••••••••••••••••••
BP’s projection of what could leak from the well if it was an "open hole.

Look at the BOP report, this was NOT AN OPEN HOLE.
Estimating 2/3 the open hole flow rate is plausible, but likely still a high estimate. Does anyone recall the size of the sand cut penetrations at the BSRs.

The well certainly was not flowing as an open hole 9 5/8" casing.

Court rejects Transocean move in Deepwater Horizon incident

http://www.offshore.no/international/article/Court_rejects_Transocean_move_in_Deepwater_Horizon_incident

Posted 27.01.2012 09:28:02
John Bradbury
BP claims that a US court ruling over the Gulf of Mexico Deepwater Horizon accident has rejected the view that Transocean was indemnified for its liabilities from the disaster.

Referring to a US District Court Ruling which gave a partial summary judgement over indemnities for the Deepwater Horizon accident, BP said today that the ruling “…makes it clear that contractors will be held accountable for their actions under the law.”

BP goes on to state that while all official investigations have concluded “…Transocean played a causal role in the accident, the contractor has long contented it is fully indemnified by BP for the liabilities resulting from the oil spill. The court rejected this view,” BP stated today.

“Under the decision Transocean is, at a minimum, financially responsible for any punitive damages, fines and penalties flowing from its own conduct. As we have said from the beginning, Transocean cannot avoid its responsibility for this accident,” BP adds.

The operator – which was drilling the Macondo oil well in April 2010 in the US Gulf of Mexico which led to the loss of 11 oil workers’ lives and Transocean’s Deepwater Horizon rig – goes on to point out today its own efforts to acknowledge its role in the accident and BP underlines that it has paid out more than $7.8 billion in compensation claims.

Last November Transocean filed a 51-page motion with the US District Court in the Eastern District of Louisiana “…to enforce BP’s contractual obligations including BP’s obligation to defend, indemnify and hold Transocean harmless against pollution claims.”

Oilfield companies damaged by drilling ban and permit delays, new report says

http://www.dailycomet.com/article/20120130/HURBLOG/120139962?Title=Oilfield-companies-damaged-by-drilling-ban-and-permit-delays-new-report-says

The Courier and Daily Comet
Published: Monday, January 30, 2012 at 11:26 a.m.
Last Modified: Monday, January 30, 2012 at 11:26 a.m.
A survey of 102 small and mid-sized oilfield businesses across Louisiana shows 41 percent aren’t making a profit and half have laid off workers as a result of federal actions taken in the wake of the 2010 Gulf of Mexico oil spill.

The survey results were released today by Greater New Orleans Inc., the economic development agency for a 10-parish region.

The repoort is titled “The Impact of Decreased Drilling permit Approvals on Gulf of Mexico Businesses.”

GNO says the research initiative was prepared to determine the effects of the six-month federal deepwater drilling moratorium after the BP well exploded in April 2010, as well as impacts of the decreased approval rate for deep- and shallow-water drilling permits, on small and mid-sized businesses in Louisiana.

“Offshore service and supply companies are the core of the oil and gas industry in Louisiana,” Lizette Terral, president for J.P. Morgan Chase Bank’s New Orleans region, said in a news release. “These small- and mid-sized companies are dependent on activity in the Gulf for their business, and as a result they have been disproportionally hurt by the ongoing permit slowdown.”

Key findings:

– 41 percent of businesses are not making a profit.

– 76 percent have lost cash reserves.

– 27 percent have lost more than half of their cash reserves.

– 50 percent have laid off employees as a result of the moratorium.

– 39 percent have retained workers but reduced salaries or hours.

– 46 percent have moved all or some of their operations away from the Gulf of Mexico.

– 82 percent have lost personal savings as a result of the permit slowdown.

– 13 percent have lost all of their personal savings as a result of the slowdown.

If there was “veiling” going on, it wasn’t for very long.

See attached news report from May 5, 2010

Halliburton wins ruling vs BP over Gulf oil spill

By Jonathan Stempel

(Reuters) - A federal judge on Tuesday said Halliburton Co is not liable for some pollution claims arising from the 2010 Gulf of Mexico oil spill, setting back BP Plc’s effort to hold other companies responsible for part of the $42 billion cleanup.

U.S. District Judge Carl Barbier in New Orleans said BP must indemnify Halliburton, which provided cementing services for the Macondo oil well, for third-party compensatory claims under their contract, even if Halliburton is found grossly negligent.

The indemnification relates to claims arising from pollution or contamination that did not originate from Halliburton property located above the land or water.

Halliburton would still be responsible for punitive damages, as well as civil fines under the federal Clean Water Act.

“This is a very positive step for Halliburton, however outstanding issues still remain,” wrote Angie Sedita, a UBS Securities LLC analyst who has a “buy” rating on that company. “The claim of fraud against Halliburton and thus a breach of contract does appear to leave an open issue in the court’s eyes.”

Barbier issued a similar ruling on January 26 that required BP to indemnify Transocean Ltd, which owned the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig, on compensatory damages claims.

That ruling meant BP could not shift more than $15 billion of costs for the spill.

BP spokesman Daren Beaudo said the Halliburton decision sends a “strong signal” that contractors involved in critical well operations will be held accountable. He said it means BP’s indemnity “could be void” if Halliburton committed fraud.

Halliburton spokeswoman Beverly Stafford said that company agrees with Tuesday’s decision “to the extent that it requires BP to honor its contractual indemnity obligations.”

Barbier oversees multidistrict litigation over the April 20, 2010, explosion of the Deepwater Horizon.

The accident caused 11 deaths and the largest offshore oil spill in U.S. history. Barbier has set a February 27 start date for a bench trial to apportion blame.

Halliburton is based in Houston, and BP in London.

Halliburton shares closed up 11 cents to $36.78, and BP’s American depositary receipts rose $1.77, or 4.01 percent, to $45.91.

The case is In re: Oil Spill by the Oil Rig “Deepwater Horizon” in the Gulf of Mexico, on April 20, 2010, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, No. 10-md-02179.

BP contract shielded Halliburton in spill, judge rules | HoumaToday.com
(contains new info referenced to possible change in status as to future testimony by Halliburton engineer Jesse Gagliano)

(clip from article)
Last week, BP asked U.S. Magistrate Sally Shushan to exclude trial testimony by a Halliburton employee who was working on the rig before the explosion and has been identified as a possible subject of a Justice Department criminal investigation of the disaster.

Jesse Gagliano, who worked on the well’s cementing job, has been interviewed by a congressional committee and testified before a government panel probing the disaster. He initially invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and refused to be questioned under oath for the litigation, but he recently waived that right and agreed to be questioned by civil attorneys next week.

BP suggests Gagliano’s change of heart so close to the trial is designed to give Halliburton a strategic advantage. Halliburton counters that “unfounded speculation” about Gagliano’s motives shouldn’t preclude his testimony.

With trial pending, BP asks judge to cull experts - Houston Chronicle

http://www.chron.com/news/article/With-trial-pending-BP-asks-judge-to-cull-experts-2848209.php

NEW ORLEANS (AP) — With a trial over the Gulf of Mexico oil spill looming, BP PLC is asking a federal judge to block two plaintiffs’ experts from testifying about an alleged disregard for safety throughout the energy company that those experts say led to the nation’s largest offshore oil spill.

BP’s legal maneuver to limit the two California experts from testifying about the alleged lack of a safety culture at BP was made public Monday after U.S. Magistrate Sally Shushan unsealed 30 court motions to limit and block expert testimony. BP filed 17 of the motions, seeking to block expert testimony on a number of issues behind what happened to cause BP’s well to blow out.

The trial begins Feb. 27 in federal court in New Orleans. It will determine the division of responsibility for the disaster that began with the explosion of the BP-leased Deepwater Horizon on April 20, 2010, which killed 11 men about 50 miles southeast of the Louisiana coast.

Besides BP, other companies involved in the spill — including Cameron International, Halliburton Corp. and Anadarko Petroleum Co. — and the Justice Departmentfiled their own motions to block experts from testifying at trial. The sparring parties are seeking to block testimony about a slew of issues involving how the well was cemented, how drilling fluids were poured into it and how pressure tests were interpreted. The trial is expected to rely heavily on expert testimony.

But BP’s attempt to block Robert Bea, a University of California-Berkeley engineer, and William Gale, a California-based fire and explosion investigator and consultant, from testifying is pivotal for the plaintiffs’ case, which charges that BP was reckless in its actions. The plaintiffs and federal and state governments are seeking to get U.S. District Judge Carl Barbier to find BP grossly negligent, a finding that could result in billions of dollars in fines.

In pretrial depositions and in an expert report, Bea and Gale argued that BP showed a disregard for safety throughout the company.

Their testimony — if it is allowed at trial — would be expected to paint BP as a cavalier company that has failed to learn lessons from previous disasters — including the 2005 explosion at a BP refinery in Texas City, Texas, that killed 15 workers and injured 170 others and a major spill in 2006 from a BP pipeline in Prudhoe Bay, Alaska.

In its filing, BP charged that Bea and Gale’s report was “the opposite of good science.” BP charged the two experts with focusing solely on BP and analyzing documents and evidence “spoon-fed to them” by plaintiffs lawyers. BP accused the experts of ignoring the “safety culture of the other parties” involved in the spill, in particular Transocean Ltd., the drilling company running operations aboard the Deepwater Horizon.

BP said Bea and Gale failed to take into consideration a report by Lloyd’s Register that was done one month before the explosion. Lloyd’s report found serious fatigue problems with Transocean’s decision to lengthen workers’ hitches aboard the Deepwater Horizon by one week, from 14 days to 21 days. Lloyd’s specializes in assessing safety aboard maritime facilities.

The plaintiffs’ lawyers declined to comment on BP’s filing. Gale did not return a telephone call seeking comment. Bea said he was unable to comment due to a confidentiality agreement with plaintiffs’ lawyers.

Attempts to exclude experts from testifying at trial are standard.

But Ed Sherman, a Tulane University law professor, said he would be surprised if Barbier excluded experts because this will be a non-jury trial.

“My guess is that most of them will qualify,” Sherman said.

He said Barbier will want to hear what the experts have to say and that he will discern unreliable expert testimony.

With trial pending, BP asks judge to cull experts - Houston Chronicle

http://www.chron.com/news/article/With-trial-pending-BP-asks-judge-to-cull-experts-2848209.php

NEW ORLEANS (AP) — With a trial over the Gulf of Mexico oil spill looming, BP PLC is asking a federal judge to block two plaintiffs’ experts from testifying about an alleged disregard for safety throughout the energy company that those experts say led to the nation’s largest offshore oil spill.

BP’s legal maneuver to limit the two California experts from testifying about the alleged lack of a safety culture at BP was made public Monday after U.S. Magistrate Sally Shushan unsealed 30 court motions to limit and block expert testimony. BP filed 17 of the motions, seeking to block expert testimony on a number of issues behind what happened to cause BP’s well to blow out.

The trial begins Feb. 27 in federal court in New Orleans. It will determine the division of responsibility for the disaster that began with the explosion of the BP-leased Deepwater Horizon on April 20, 2010, which killed 11 men about 50 miles southeast of the Louisiana coast.

Besides BP, other companies involved in the spill — including Cameron International, Halliburton Corp. and Anadarko Petroleum Co. — and the Justice Departmentfiled their own motions to block experts from testifying at trial. The sparring parties are seeking to block testimony about a slew of issues involving how the well was cemented, how drilling fluids were poured into it and how pressure tests were interpreted. The trial is expected to rely heavily on expert testimony.

But BP’s attempt to block Robert Bea, a University of California-Berkeley engineer, and William Gale, a California-based fire and explosion investigator and consultant, from testifying is pivotal for the plaintiffs’ case, which charges that BP was reckless in its actions. The plaintiffs and federal and state governments are seeking to get U.S. District Judge Carl Barbier to find BP grossly negligent, a finding that could result in billions of dollars in fines.

In pretrial depositions and in an expert report, Bea and Gale argued that BP showed a disregard for safety throughout the company.

Their testimony — if it is allowed at trial — would be expected to paint BP as a cavalier company that has failed to learn lessons from previous disasters — including the 2005 explosion at a BP refinery in Texas City, Texas, that killed 15 workers and injured 170 others and a major spill in 2006 from a BP pipeline in Prudhoe Bay, Alaska.

In its filing, BP charged that Bea and Gale’s report was “the opposite of good science.” BP charged the two experts with focusing solely on BP and analyzing documents and evidence “spoon-fed to them” by plaintiffs lawyers. BP accused the experts of ignoring the “safety culture of the other parties” involved in the spill, in particular Transocean Ltd., the drilling company running operations aboard the Deepwater Horizon.

BP said Bea and Gale failed to take into consideration a report by Lloyd’s Register that was done one month before the explosion. Lloyd’s report found serious fatigue problems with Transocean’s decision to lengthen workers’ hitches aboard the Deepwater Horizon by one week, from 14 days to 21 days. Lloyd’s specializes in assessing safety aboard maritime facilities.

The plaintiffs’ lawyers declined to comment on BP’s filing. Gale did not return a telephone call seeking comment. Bea said he was unable to comment due to a confidentiality agreement with plaintiffs’ lawyers.

Attempts to exclude experts from testifying at trial are standard.

But Ed Sherman, a Tulane University law professor, said he would be surprised if Barbier excluded experts because this will be a non-jury trial.

“My guess is that most of them will qualify,” Sherman said.

He said Barbier will want to hear what the experts have to say and that he will discern unreliable expert testimony.

BP’s Disgusting Move-DailyFinance

http://m.aol.com/dailyfinance/default/articleStory.do?category=main&url=http://www.dailyfinance.com/2012/02/01/bps-disgusting-move/&icid=dsk_df_news

The recent court ruling on 2010’s Gulf oil spill has probably been among the more popular stories about BP (NYS: BP) in the past seven days. A federal judge ruled that the integrated super-major is still obligated to honor its contract with Transocean (NYS: RIG) andHalliburton (NYS: HAL) and cover some of the damage claims awarded against the two contractors. Not surprisingly, the sparring sides were quick to claim victory for themselves. However, what caught my attention was a relatively minor development, which paints a somewhat unflattering picture of BP.
Not that minor, though
On Monday, the court unsealed 30 motions – 17 of them filed by BP – that sought to limit and block testimony by experts who made thorough investigations into a number of issues behind the well blowout. BP had attempted to block California-based Robert Bea and William Gale from testifying in the trial, which begins Feb. 27.
In a report (PDF file, Adobe Acrobat required) published last March by the University of California, Berkeley, the two make a comprehensive study on the causes of and factors behind the blowout. One of the conclusions reached: “This disaster was preventable if existing progressive guidelines and practices [had] been followed – the Best Available and Safest Technology.” The report goes on to reveal BP’s corporate culture "that was embedded in risk-taking and cost-cutting."
The study exposes that rather than quantify risk in terms of safety and consequence, BP’s business model was primarily based on managing risk in context of the portfolio of assets it controlled. In other words, the company was more interested in cutting down costs, improving capital efficiency, and closing the competitive gap – all by taking risks and compromising on safety.
Laughable
And now, it has been revealed that BP wanted to block those who made this report from testifying in the trial. The reason? The experts have ignored the “safety culture of the other parties” involved. I actually find this downright laughable given the company’s history of accidents.
The Texas City Refinery explosion in 2005, which killed 15 workers, and the Prudhoe Bay oil spill in 2006 never really seemed to have been a wakeup call for the company. In the aftermath of Hurricane Dennis in 2005, BP’s 15-story oil platform – the Thunder Horse – in the Gulf of Mexico was listing dangerously to one side. According to The New York Times, this platform was meant to be the company’s crowning glory, symbolizing the bold gamble to be ahead in the race against its competitors.
Foolish bottom line
As Fool analyst Alyce Lomax argues, shoddy corporate management structures are responsible for a tragedy of the scale of the Deepwater Horizon disaster. I find no reasons to disagree. Which is why there are reasons to be disgusted with BP’s legal maneuvers to evade a fair judgment.

BP To Call Transocean CEO To Appear In Person At Deepwater Horizon Trial -FT | Fox Business

http://www.foxbusiness.com/news/2012/02/01/bp-to-call-transocean-ceo-to-appear-in-person-at-deepwater-horizon-trial-ft/

BP PLC (BP) is looking to call Transocean Ltd. (RIG) Chief Executive Steven Newman to testify in person at the trial later this month over the Deepwater Horizon disaster, theFinancial Times reported on its website Thursday, citing a letter from BP to the magistrate judge for the trial.

The FT quoted BP as saying it planned to call Newman as a live witness because “live testimony on critical subjects from Mr. Newman will be key evidence showing the relative roles of the well operator and the drilling contractor, the primary role Transocean possessed for safety of the Transocean rig and the personnel aboard, and Transocean Driller’s key responsibilities for well monitoring?.?.?.?and well control.”

Newman is the only chief executive put forward as a live witness, the FT reported. Other executives have given evidence by videotaped deposition.

Full story: http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/b1b0f232-4cf8-11e1-bdd1-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1kzKyZlLx

‘The new normal’ in the Gulf of Mexico

http://www.theadvertiser.com/article/20120203/BUSINESS/202030313/-new-normal-

Oil and gas exploration and production in the Gulf of Mexico will some day return to pre-BP spill levels, the president of Chevron North America Exploration and Production Company, Gary Luquette said Thursday.

But the rigorous permitting, safety and verification requirements imposed after the April 2010 BP disaster are here to stay, Gary Luquette said during an interview with The Daily Advertiser before the Greater Lafayette Chamber of Commerce annual banquet, where he was keynote speaker.

“It’s a new normal,” Luquette said.

The industry hasn’t found its stride since the Deepwater Horizon platform operated by BP off the coast of Louisiana exploded and sunk, creating the largest oil spill in U.S. history.

That disaster, which killed
11 workers, led the federal government to impose a six-month moratorium on deepwater drilling that was followed by more stringent permitting and safety regulations.

“I think activity levels can and will return to pre-Macondo (spill) levels,” he said. “The effort and rigor in getting permits approved won’t return.”

Luquette said that’s a good thing for Louisiana and the industry. The BP disaster tainted the entire industry.

Tighter permitting, regulations and oversight will help the industry rebuild public trust, he said.

The “new normal” may be too costly for some of the small independent companies to survive, Luquette said.

“In the end,” he said, “the standards are going up. It’s your responsibility to enact them.”

The Gulf of Mexico is still a major source of oil and natural gas and Chevron maintains a presence there, in deepwater and shallow water, said Luquette, a 1978 civil engineering graduate of UL Lafayette.

More than half of the company’s 2012 budget is allocated to Gulf of Mexico activity. Today, Chevron has 10 rigs operating in shallow water, he said.

Lafayette plays an important role in the industry with numerous supply and service companies operating here.

Chevron alone has 300 workers in its Lafayette office and another 300 or so working offshore out of the Lafayette office, Luquette said.

BP can’t keep settlements out of oil spill trial

  • BP request premature -judge

  • Ruling is a victory for Halliburton

  • Halliburton: Settlements could reflect bias in BP favor

  • BP has settled with Anadarko, MOEX, Cameron, Weatherford

By Jonathan Stempel

Feb 7 (Reuters) - A federal judge rejected BP Plc’s effort to keep evidence about settlements out of the upcoming trial to decide who is responsible for the 2010 Gulf of Mexico oil spill.

Tuesday’s ruling by U.S. District Judge Carl Barbier in New Orleans, scheduled to preside in a non-jury trial beginning Feb. 27, is a victory for Halliburton Co, which had provided cementing services for the Macondo oil well.

The Houston-based company had argued that evidence of settlements or negotiations could show the settling companies’ potential bias in BP’s favor, which Halliburton could then use in its defense.

BP countered that excluding such information was consistent with federal rules on evidence, and that such details are irrelevant to establishing liability.

Barbier concluded that the London-based oil company’s request was premature, even though there were “plausible scenarios” in which settlement evidence could reflect bias.

“The proper course is to wait until any settlement evidence is actually sought to be introduced to determine admissibility,” he wrote.

BP has reached settlements with two partners in the Macondo well: $4 billion with Anadarko Petroleum Corp, and $1.065 billion with Mitsui & Co’s MOEX unit.

It also reached settlements of $250 million with Cameron International Corp, which made a blowout preventer, and $75 million with Weatherford International Ltd , which made a float collar used in cementing and which controls the flow of drilling fluids.

Halliburton has not settled with BP. Transocean Ltd , which owned the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig that exploded on April 20, 2010, also has not settled.

Earlier on Tuesday, BP reported a higher quarterly profit and raised its dividend for the first time since the spill.

Chief Executive Bob Dudley said BP retains a “bias for settling” spill litigation but is preparing vigorously for trial.

The Gulf of Mexico disaster caused 11 deaths and the largest offshore oil spill in U.S. history.

The case is In re: Oil Spill by the Oil Rig “Deepwater Horizon” in the Gulf of Mexico, on April 20, 2010, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, No. 10-md-02179.

Incentives to settle spill case loom large - Houston Chronicle

A legal brawl that began with the deadly Deepwater Horizon rig explosion and Gulf of Mexico oil spill nearly two years ago is within weeks of a courtroom showdown that many parties would prefer to avoid through a settlement.

The British oil giant BP has said as much.

“We are ready to settle, if we can do so on fair and reasonable terms,” CEO Bob Dudley said last week as BP announced its quarterly financial results. “But we are preparing vigorously for trial.”

That trial is scheduled for Feb. 27 before U.S. District Judge Carl Barbier of New Orleans, who will hear the case without a jury.

In what is just the first phase of a complex plan for litigating all the claims and counterclaims arising from the accident, Barbier will determine how to allocate liability for the damages it caused.

BP owned the Macondo well that blew out and triggered the April 2010 disaster.

Other parties are Transocean, which owned and operated the Deepwater Horizon; Halliburton, which cemented the well; federal, state and municipal governments; and more than 100 individual claimants.

The blowout and explosion killed 11 workers, caused the worst offshore U.S. oil spill and generated one of the most complex environmental law cases ever.

BP has allocated $36 billion for a potential payout related to the accident, according to its financial statements.

Several experts following the case believe that many of the parties - especially the corporate and government plaintiffs and defendants - will agree to at least partial settlements before or during the trial.

The federal government might agree to a settlement of $20 billion to $25 billion - well below what defendants could risk at trial - said David Uhlmann, a University of Michigan law professor who headed the Justice Department’s Environmental Crimes Section for seven years.

“This is a case that should settle, at least as it pertains to the government claims against BP and the other companies involved in the Gulf oil spill,” Uhlmann said. “The companies do not have good defenses, and going to trial risks higher penalties and months of bad publicity.”

One uncertainty is the civil penalties that BP and others might face under the Clean Water Act. Those damages vary significantly depending upon whether violations are determined to have resulted from negligence or gross negligence. The penalty is up to $1,100 per barrel spilled through negligence, and up to $4,300 per barrel spilled through gross negligence.

The government has estimated the three-month spill spewed 4.9 million barrels of crude into the Gulf, but the spill’s size is one issue in dispute.

That means the companies and government would have billions riding on whether the government could meet the higher burden of proving gross negligence - a gamble that gives both an incentive to settle. And that risk only involves the potential civil penalties under the Clean Water Act, not other potential environmental violations.

The Clean Water Act also carries criminal penalties, and criminal investigations are ongoing but so far have not resulted in any charges.

Depending upon which if any of the parties settle, Barbier’s task starting Feb. 27 will be to determine liability for the accidents and the proportion of liability that each company must assume.

The next phase of the case would be assessment of compensatory and punitive damages, which are governed by federal maritime law, said Blaine LeCesne, a tort law professor at Loyola University.

Compensatory damages are for actual harm suffered, and punitive damages punish behavior.

In the case that arose from the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil tanker spill, compensatory and punitive damages were assessed on a 1-to-1 ratio. But the ratio could be different depending upon whether the judge relies on that earlier case as precedent.

The majority of corporate civil cases settle before a trial, legal experts said, but the multiple parties involved in the Gulf spill litigation make negotiations much more complicated than in most such cases.

While most individual plaintiffs signed away their right to sue in exchange for a payment from a $20 billion fund BP set up in 2010, scores of cases still remain.

“The biggest problem is that there are so many moving parts, so many defendants, so many plaintiffs - some of which are aligned, and some are not,” said Dane Ciolino, a Loyola law professor who specializes in maritime law.

“This is very unusual litigation. It’s not just one big class action against one company. In terms of the cleanup efforts, figuring out who was at fault, and the damages - tax losses, economic, environmental - the litigation is sprawling. No one has ever seen anything quite like it.”