Transocean Turns on BP With Scorching Oil-Spill Document

[The Straight Story]

Transocean Turns on BP With Scorching Oil-Spill Document

NEW ORLEANS (CN) - BP prolonged the Gulf of Mexico oil spill by two months by concealing the rate of oil flowing from the broken Macondo well, Transocean claims in a document filed in the damages trial.

A bench trial to apportion damages is being held before U.S. District Judge Carl Barbier. Penalties for Clean Water Act violations alone could range from $4 billion to $17 billion.

Transocean wrote in a heavily redacted "supplemental answer and affirmative defenses" that "BP's fraud was the proximate, intervening and superseding cause of the well continuing to flow until mid-July 2010. BP's misrepresentation and concealment of material information about the flow rate caused source control decision-makers to approve proceeding with the top kill over the BOP-on-BOP strategy in mid-May 2010. Because of that, a well that could have been capped in early May 2010 emitted tens of thousands of barrels per day for another two months causing significant environmental pollution."

BOP-on-BOP was an alternative strategy that BP rejected, according to Transocean's document, which was filed Friday.

http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/03/04/55381.htm

[dreamnightwind]

1. K & R, and never forget

from the link (the referenced Mason is a BP engineer):

'"I just read an article in CNN (May 14, 2010 1:00pm) stating that a researcher at Purdue believes that the Macondo well is leaking up to 70,000 bopd and that BP stands by a 5,000 bopd figure. With the data and knowledge we currently have available we cannot definitively state the oil rate from this well. We should be very cautious standing behind a 5,000 bopd figure as our modeling shows that this well could be making anything up to ~ 100,000 bopd ..."'
Transocean's document states that there "is no evidence that Mason's email, his concern about 'standing behind a 5,000 bopd figure' or the assumptions that had to be made to support a 5,000 bopd case, or the fact that 'modeling shows that this well could be making anything up to ~ 100,000 bopd' were shared with representatives of the United States Government who were involved in source control decision-making or in attempts to estimate flow rates."

No mention in the article about why BP would have gone this route (top-kill instead off BOP-BOP (I don't know what BOP-on-BOP is, multiple blow-out preventers? just guessing)). It says that the top-kill could not work if the flow was > 15,000 bpd. So either they were stalling (were they producing oil from the well during these 2 months?) or they actually didn't know the flow and were hoping the top kill would work.

At this point BP deserves no benefit of the doubt, I'm sure they were maximizing profits/minimizing loss as opposed to minimizing environmental damage. Which is why BP should not have been making these decisions. Their interests were not the public''s interests. It looks to me like the Obama administration was too deferential to BP. In retrospect, it's pretty much what many of us were thinking at the time. BP was vastly understating the likely flow, and was being given too much control over the decision-making.

[annabanana]

2. refresh my memory

What is the relationship of Transocean and Halliburton? I know they were both involved in the mess.

[The Straight Story]

3. Haliburton was the company that cemented the blown-out well.

BP sues Halliburton and Transocean for $80bn over Gulf of Mexico disaster
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/oilandgas/8466229/BP-sues-Halliburton-and-Transocean-for-80bn-over-Gulf-of-Mexico-disaster.html

[annabanana]

6. Ah thanks...

plenty of blame to go around there...

I hope they all get nailed to the wall!

[A HERETIC I AM]

4. Transocean's primary business is operating offshore drilling rigs.

Halliburton's primary business is oilfield services.

[talkingmime]

5. Good.