This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

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:

 

 

- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Wed, 12/15/2010 - 16:33 | 809260 Mr Lennon Hendrix
Mr Lennon Hendrix's picture

Cool thanks TD.

Wed, 12/15/2010 - 16:36 | 809269 wiskeyrunner
wiskeyrunner's picture

No such thing as a down market, can't have that, not after spending trillions.

Wed, 12/15/2010 - 16:36 | 809270 Boilermaker
Boilermaker's picture

BP down barely 1%...

It's a BS PR routine.  Probably another slap on the wrist fine that is insignificant to the company.

Wed, 12/15/2010 - 16:39 | 809282 RobotTrader
RobotTrader's picture

I'm looking for a rotation out of the land drillers (NOV, HAL, etc.) and into the beaten down offshore names like NE, RIG, DO once this "lawsuit" noise reaches Super Bowl levels.

Wed, 12/15/2010 - 16:49 | 809337 tahoebumsmith
tahoebumsmith's picture

RIG is right at the top of this list? Why would you even go there

Wed, 12/15/2010 - 16:41 | 809286 Mongo
Mongo's picture

Nigel Farage is at it again, this time wishing us merry christmas in his own style and words...

 

The failure of the euro is nothing to do with speculation, its nothing to do with the markets, be they currency or bonds. It’s becuase the north and the south in europe cannot today or at any point be put together in a single monetary union… it won’t work!

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6NuPp-3fjd0

Wed, 12/15/2010 - 16:44 | 809301 Raymond K. Hessel
Raymond K. Hessel's picture

Halliburton with their crap cement gets off scott free. You can't make this shit up.

Wed, 12/15/2010 - 17:45 | 809553 YHC-FTSE
YHC-FTSE's picture

+1

Been thinking the same. Halliburton, Transocean, Cameron International Corp., Andarko Petroleum Corp., M-I Swaco, BP, they're all equally at fault.

 

One thing I've learned out of all this: If an American company suddenly increases the insurance value of its oil rig/skyscraper, then steer clear of that area. Especially if they insist on terrorism cover.

Wed, 12/15/2010 - 19:00 | 809809 NotApplicable
NotApplicable's picture

I don't understand what Transocean has allegedly done wrong, other than owning the rig that they leased to BP. What am I missing?

Wed, 12/15/2010 - 21:59 | 810382 YHC-FTSE
YHC-FTSE's picture

Transocean? Other than being the owners of the faulty rig that exploded, having its employees on it at the time of the incident (BP only had 7 employees on the rig), and suspiciously increasing the insurance value of the rig from its cost of $290M in 2001 to $560M in 2009 when by ordinary accounting rules the asset should have depreciated, nothing.

Wed, 12/15/2010 - 16:49 | 809331 LeBalance
LeBalance's picture

As stated in the earlier thread:

It is impossible for the US Gov to have the Oil Spill both as

(1) Something they can sue for unlimited damages over; AND

(2) Something that did no damage, that the oil merely dissolved, and that the leak stopped in June.  All of which this adminstration claimed while they were playing lap dog to the Queen's Oil Cartel.

This is not even entertaining criminal behavior.

These are scenes in a movie theater where the crowd starts to walk out.

No class. No finesse. No professionalism.

"Time to Change the Batter!" - Rocky Mountain Way - Joe Walsh

Wed, 12/15/2010 - 17:09 | 809418 Cdad
Cdad's picture

LeBalance,

You might be right or you might be wrong...I don't pretend to know because I don't do politics.

I think the only thing that matters is that criminal syndicate Wall Street bankers bought the crap out of this thing exactly when they were telling average Joe to sell it in June.

And so the way this works now is that the syndicate will sell it and tell Average Joe that the lower prices are a great buying opportunity.

So the truth about the yin and the yang hardly come into it as Wall Street arbitrages to death everything on the surface of the planet and gives itself $100 million in bonuses.

But I respect your opinion on the matter while disclosing that I am short the stock.

Wed, 12/15/2010 - 17:34 | 809482 LMAO
LMAO's picture

@ LB

Yes, it's a total disgrace.

The real kicker is that they probably want to be compensated in Oil if they get a ruling in their favour. Thus using the Oil spill to extract the Oil directly from the said Cartel. Here we go in the merry-go-round, on the same day the $ 90 mark gets pierced and we read headlines like this:

WTI Crude Jumps By Over $2, Wipes Out $200 Billion In Annualized GDP In Under Two Hours

 

This headline alone screams "counter-strike" for the US gubbermint.

There we have it, the US gov. driving up the oil-prices by going after the Perps who they previously so "bravely" defended.

 

LMAO

Wed, 12/15/2010 - 17:35 | 809512 squexx
squexx's picture

They'll settle out of court for $10 million, like they usually do. And the officials involved will discover new Swiss numbered bank accounts in their names!

Wed, 12/15/2010 - 17:54 | 809597 squexx
squexx's picture

Et Al?!? Shouldn't someone should inform his next of kin!

Wed, 12/15/2010 - 18:14 | 809671 szjon
szjon's picture

Just two words for the american legislators.

 

Bhopal bitches!

Wed, 12/15/2010 - 18:39 | 809742 digalert
digalert's picture

If this case is United States representing the people, against BP. What was the $20 billion demanded by Obama and who does Obama represent?

Wed, 12/15/2010 - 19:46 | 809973 Money 4 Nothing
Money 4 Nothing's picture

That's all fine and dandy, but it's what they don't say speaks volumes. 

There quoting the Mocondo well, Mississippi canyon block 252, but they failed to mention BP assholes own 2 wells within that block, 1 was exploritory, drilled ran into a problem, then capped, they moved on to site 2 just south west from site 1, that was the blowout well, the one everyone saw on TV gushing shit, the North East well is the one that showed up one day on TV with a cap on it. So my question is.. why are they not mentioning the Lat Long of these locations? Look up there drilling contract with MMS and it states everything I just covered. Sorry, I just wanna know WHICH well there being sued for. One is sealed but the other one is the red headed stepchild that's still leaking to this day. BTW.. Good luck suing the Queen of England.   Floridaoilspillaw.com

Thu, 12/16/2010 - 02:49 | 810923 CEOoftheSOFA
CEOoftheSOFA's picture

It makes sense that Halliburton was not named in the suit.  BP was supposed to run a cement bond log.  Schlumberger was on the rig to run one.  The Schlumberger people refused to run it because they said the well was not dead.  Schlumberger left the rig just a few hours before it blew. 

It also makes sense that the BOP manufacturer was not held liable.  BP didn't attempt to close the BOP until the rig was engulfed in flames and had moved off it's position. 

BP should have recognised that the well was not under control about 10 hours before it blew.  That is the primary source of culpability. 

 

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!