Deepwater Horizon Bp Prosecution Analysis
1. United States v. BP Exploration & Production Inc. (Deepwater Horizon) – 2010
Facts:
On April 20, 2010, the Deepwater Horizon offshore drilling rig, leased by BP, exploded in the Gulf of Mexico.
Eleven workers died, and millions of barrels of oil spilled into the ocean over 87 days.
The spill caused massive environmental and economic damage across Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida.
Charges and Legal Issues:
BP faced civil and criminal liability under the Clean Water Act (CWA) and the Oil Pollution Act (OPA).
Criminal charges included manslaughter, environmental violations, and obstruction of Congress.
Outcome:
BP agreed to a $4.5 billion criminal settlement in 2012.
The settlement included:
$1.256 billion in fines for Clean Water Act violations.
$900 million for the victims of worker deaths.
Admission of gross negligence, which increased civil liability under the CWA.
Legal Significance:
This case set a precedent for corporate liability where environmental negligence leads to catastrophic human and ecological harm.
Highlighted the interplay between civil and criminal penalties in environmental law.
2. United States v. Transocean Ltd. – 2011
Facts:
Transocean operated the Deepwater Horizon rig for BP.
Investigations revealed that the company had ignored safety warnings and used faulty blowout preventers.
Charges:
Negligent conduct leading to willful violations of federal safety regulations.
Outcome:
Transocean agreed to a $1.4 billion settlement for environmental and safety violations.
No criminal convictions of executives, but corporate liability was established.
Legal Significance:
Demonstrated that companies managing rigs can be held separately accountable even if they don’t own the operation.
3. United States v. Halliburton Energy Services Inc. – 2013
Facts:
Halliburton, responsible for cementing the Deepwater Horizon well, was accused of supplying defective cement that failed to prevent blowouts.
Charges:
Violations of federal safety regulations under the Clean Water Act.
Allegations of willful negligence contributing to the spill.
Outcome:
Halliburton agreed to a $200 million civil and criminal settlement.
No individual executives were prosecuted criminally.
Legal Significance:
This case clarified the role of third-party contractors in environmental disasters.
Showed that subcontractors could share liability even if not directly operating the site.
4. United States v. Anadarko Petroleum Corporation – 2015
Facts:
Anadarko owned a minority stake in the Macondo well.
While BP was the operator, Anadarko was implicated in failing to exercise due diligence.
Charges:
Potential civil liability for gross negligence under the Clean Water Act.
Outcome:
Anadarko agreed to $159 million settlement to avoid protracted litigation.
Legal Significance:
Emphasized joint venture liability in offshore drilling.
Minority stakeholders can face civil penalties even without operational control.
5. In re Deepwater Horizon Spill – Civil Class Actions (2011-2015)
Facts:
Following the spill, multiple class-action lawsuits were filed by Gulf Coast residents, fishermen, and businesses.
Claims focused on economic losses, property damage, and health impacts.
Outcome:
BP established a $20 billion settlement fund to compensate victims.
The fund covered:
Business interruption claims
Medical claims
Property damage
Legal Significance:
Highlighted the scale of civil liability in environmental disasters.
Set a model for compensation funds in multi-state environmental catastrophes.
6. United States v. Kerr-McGee (Hypothetical Parallel for Oil Spill Liability)
Facts:
In 2000, Kerr-McGee faced criminal prosecution for an offshore oil spill in the Gulf.
Charges:
Clean Water Act violations and environmental negligence.
Outcome:
Paid $5 million criminal penalty.
Required to implement extensive environmental compliance programs.
Legal Significance:
Provided a precedent used in prosecuting BP and other companies for gross negligence and environmental violations.
7. United States v. Exxon Valdez (1989) – Related Context
Facts:
Exxon Valdez spilled 11 million gallons of crude oil off the coast of Alaska.
Charges:
Federal criminal violations of the Clean Water Act.
Outcome:
Exxon paid $25 million criminal fine and $1 billion in civil penalties.
Corporate liability reinforced the notion that gross negligence in oil transport is punishable.
Legal Significance:
Used as a benchmark in the Deepwater Horizon prosecutions to argue for severe penalties.
Key Takeaways Across Cases
Corporate Liability: Companies (BP, Transocean, Halliburton) were held criminally and civilly responsible, showing that corporate negligence in environmental disasters has real consequences.
Gross Negligence: Admission of gross negligence increases civil penalties and criminal scrutiny.
Third-Party Contractor Responsibility: Even subcontractors (Halliburton) can face liability.
Joint Venture Accountability: Minority stakeholders (Anadarko) may also share liability.
Civil Compensation Funds: Large-scale environmental disasters require extensive victim compensation mechanisms.
RELATED Blog
0 comments