Full Lawsuit Filed By US Against BP Et Al

Tyler Durden's picture

Attached is the full lawsuit against BP and various other defendants which "seeks in this action a declaration that the Defendants are responsible and strictly liable for unlimited removal costs and damages under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990."

The full list of defendants is as follows:

The Defendants named in this action are BP Exploration & Production Inc. (“BP”), Anadarko Exploration & Production LP (“Anadarko Exploration”), Anadarko Petroleum Corporation (“Anadarko Petroleum”) (Anadarko Exploration and Anadarko Petroleum, unless stated otherwise, collectively shall be referred to as the “Anadarko Defendants”), MOEX Offshore 2007 LLC (“MOEX”), Triton Asset Leasing GmbH (“Triton”), Transocean Holdings LLC (“Transocean Holdings”), Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling Inc. (“Transocean Offshore”), Transocean Deepwater Inc. (“Transocean Deepwater”) (Triton, Transocean Holdings, Transocean Offshore, and Transocean Deepwater, unless stated otherwise, collectively shall be referred to as the “Transocean Defendants”), and QBE Underwriting Ltd., Lloyd’s Syndicate 1036 (“Lloyd’s”), in personam.

Here are the key lawsuit allegation details:

On information and belief, on or about October 2009, drilling began of an exploratory well pursuant to the Lease at and within Block 252, Mississippi Canyon, OCS Official Protraction Diagram, NH 16-10. The well hereinafter shall be referred to as the “Macondo Well.” At all times material herein, the Macondo Well was an "offshore facility" within the meaning of OPA, 33 U.S.C. § 2701, et seq., and the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1321(b)(7). On  information and belief, from at least October 1, 2009, the MODU Transocean Marianas was owned and/or operated by the Transocean Defendants.  In or about October 2009, the Transocean Marianas began to be used for drilling of the Macondo Well. Beginning in or about February 2010, the MODU Deepwater Horizon replaced the Transocean Marianas for the purpose of continuing the drilling of the Macondo Well. Drilling of the Macondo Well using the Deepwater Horizon continued in February 2010 and through March and a portion of April 2010. As of April 20, 2010, various sub-sea equipment and components of the Macondo Well had been installed on or below the seafloor of the Outer Continental Shelf, including, but not limited to, the well casing and the well head. As of April 20, 2010, Deepwater Horizon and various appurtenances of the Deepwater Horizon, including, but not limited to, the BOP stack and marine riser, were installed on and/or attached to the seafloor of the Outer Continental Shelf, purportedly for purposes of, inter alia, operation of the Macondo Well, including well control.

The Defendants’ Failure to Maintain Control of the Well

On April 20, 2010, the Macondo Well experienced an uncontrolled well event and an uncontrolled blowout of, inter alia, oil and methane gas. On information and belief, the April 20, 2010 uncontrolled well event and uncontrolled blowout of oil and methane gas was not prevented by  Defendants, or any of them, or by the Deepwater Horizon or its equipment and appurtenances, including, but not limited to, the BOP stack. On information and belief, in violation of federal regulations, including, but not limited to, 30 C.F.R. § 250.401, each Defendant (other than Lloyd’s) failed, inter alia, to take necessary precautions to keep the Macondo Well under control, including, but not limited to, on April 20, 2010. On information and belief, in violation of federal regulations, including, but not limited to, 30 C.F.R. § 250.401, each Defendant (other than Lloyd’s)  failed, inter alia, to use the best available and safest drilling technology to monitor and evaluate the Macondo Well’s conditions and to minimize the potential for the Macondo Well to flow or kick. On information and belief, in violation of federal regulations, including, but not limited to, 30 C.F.R. § 250.401, each Defendant (other than Lloyd’s) failed, inter alia, to fulfill its respective responsibilities to maintain well control of the Macondo Well. On information and belief, in violation of federal regulations, including, but not limited to, 30 C.F.R. § 250.401, each Defendant (other than Lloyd’s) failed, inter alia, at times relevant herein to maintain continuous surveillance on the rig floor. On information and belief, in violation of federal regulations, including, but not limited to, 30 C.F.R. § 250.401, each Defendant (other than Lloyd’s) failed, inter alia, to maintain equipment and materials, including, but not limited to, the BOP stack, that were available and necessary to ensure the safety and protection of personnel,  equipment, natural resources, and the environment. On information and belief, each Defendant (other than Lloyd’s) failed, inter alia, to comply with applicable federal regulations at 30 C.F.R. Part 250, including, but not limited to, 30 C.F.R. §§ 250.107, 250.198 (and industry standards expressly
incorporated therein), 250.300, 250.401, 250.420, 250.440, 250.442, 250.446, and 250.451. On information and belief, each Defendant (other than Lloyd’s) caused and/or contributed to the Deepwater Horizon Spill by failing to assure well control of the Macondo Well through, inter alia: actions, corporate actions, and/or corporate practices of disregarding federal regulations, as evidenced by various safety and other audits of Deepwater Horizon, reflecting the known failure, prior to the Deepwater Horizon Spill, to properly design, install, maintain, repair, and operate equipment intended to prevent personal injury, loss of life, harm to the environment, and disasters like the Deepwater Horizon Spill.

On information and belief, each Defendant (other than Lloyd’s) caused and/or contributed to the Deepwater Horizon Spill by failing to assure well control of the Macondo Well through, inter alia:  Failing to assure that well control was maintained by proper and adequate cementing of the Macondo Well; Failing to assure that well control was maintained by mechanical barriers, including, but not limited to, the BOP stack;  Failing to assure that well control was maintained by proper and adequate inspection and maintenance of the BOP stack; Failing to assure that well control was maintained by proper and adequate pressure testing; Failing to assure that well control was maintained by the use of appropriate fluids to maintain hydrostatic pressure on the wellbore; Failing to assure that well control was maintained by proper and adequate well monitoring;  Failing to assure that, once well control initially was lost, well control was regained by proper and adequate well control response; Failing to assure that, once well control initially was lost, well control was regained by proper and adequate surface containment and overboard discharge and diversion of hydrocarbons; and Failing to assure that, once well control initially was lost, well control was regained by proper and adequate BOP stack emergency operations.

Much more in full below.

Full lawsuit: