Halliburton, the well services company that poured the cement well lining, is still facing liability, and presented testimony from a drilling and well manager for a Norwegian company, Statoil. Under cross examination, he discussed ten steps BP took on the Macondo operation and concluded that, "in each event, the decision that was made did result in a time and cost savings." The government's liability theory has consistently been BP took unreasonable risks by deliberately ignoring safety protocols in an effort to save money on a well that was behind schedule and over budget. According to the government's case the company's ingrained culture of profit before safety amounted to gross negligence in the Macondo operation causing the largest accidental oil spill in history. BP will begin presenting its defense next week after seven weeks of trial. It will attempt to focus some of the blame for the disaster on its two remaining contractors, Halliburton and Transocean, to avoid being assessed punitive damages under the Clean Water Act for its mismanagement of operations as well owner. Halliburton personnel mixed and poured the cement that failed to seal the well, and Transocean drillers botched a negative well pressure test that showed the well was not properly sealed. Both processes were supervised by BP employees on board the Deepwater Horizon drilling platform that was completely consumed by the ensuing fire.
Saturday, April 06, 2013
BP Trial Update V
Judge Barbier granted Cameron International's motion to dismiss claims against it in the first phase of British Petroleum's civil trial for the Deepwater Horizon disaster. The judge stated he had not heard or seen any evidence presented that implicated the manufacturer of the blowout preventer used on the Macondo well with negligence, or that showed the blowout preventer was defective in any way. Rather, the apparent failure of the preventer to close off the Macondo well once it began gushing oil and gas implicates Cameron's sophisticated customers, BP and its rig contractor Transocean, according to the judge. These companies selected the preventer, its components, and installed them. Cameron's lawyer immediately asked Judge Barbier if he could go home once the motion to dismiss was granted from the bench, apparently greatly relieved his company would not be facing potentially four-fold punitive damages. Schlumberger's subsidiary which supplied drilling mud was dismissed from the case earlier.
Halliburton, the well services company that poured the cement well lining, is still facing liability, and presented testimony from a drilling and well manager for a Norwegian company, Statoil. Under cross examination, he discussed ten steps BP took on the Macondo operation and concluded that, "in each event, the decision that was made did result in a time and cost savings." The government's liability theory has consistently been BP took unreasonable risks by deliberately ignoring safety protocols in an effort to save money on a well that was behind schedule and over budget. According to the government's case the company's ingrained culture of profit before safety amounted to gross negligence in the Macondo operation causing the largest accidental oil spill in history. BP will begin presenting its defense next week after seven weeks of trial. It will attempt to focus some of the blame for the disaster on its two remaining contractors, Halliburton and Transocean, to avoid being assessed punitive damages under the Clean Water Act for its mismanagement of operations as well owner. Halliburton personnel mixed and poured the cement that failed to seal the well, and Transocean drillers botched a negative well pressure test that showed the well was not properly sealed. Both processes were supervised by BP employees on board the Deepwater Horizon drilling platform that was completely consumed by the ensuing fire.
Halliburton, the well services company that poured the cement well lining, is still facing liability, and presented testimony from a drilling and well manager for a Norwegian company, Statoil. Under cross examination, he discussed ten steps BP took on the Macondo operation and concluded that, "in each event, the decision that was made did result in a time and cost savings." The government's liability theory has consistently been BP took unreasonable risks by deliberately ignoring safety protocols in an effort to save money on a well that was behind schedule and over budget. According to the government's case the company's ingrained culture of profit before safety amounted to gross negligence in the Macondo operation causing the largest accidental oil spill in history. BP will begin presenting its defense next week after seven weeks of trial. It will attempt to focus some of the blame for the disaster on its two remaining contractors, Halliburton and Transocean, to avoid being assessed punitive damages under the Clean Water Act for its mismanagement of operations as well owner. Halliburton personnel mixed and poured the cement that failed to seal the well, and Transocean drillers botched a negative well pressure test that showed the well was not properly sealed. Both processes were supervised by BP employees on board the Deepwater Horizon drilling platform that was completely consumed by the ensuing fire.