Deepwater Horizon: RIG blasts BP

Transocean Ltd.'s (RIG) internal investigation blames decisions by BP PLC (BP, BP.LN) for the Deepwater Horizon oil spill disaster, contrasting with at least two earlier reports from U.S. government agencies that put a large share of the blame on Transocean.
wsj
report RIG
back

Deepwater Horizon: Mitsui settles with BP

Mitsui had accepted "the findings by the Presidential Commission into the lethal Macondo blowout that the accident was the result of a number of separate risk factors" although not in proportion to the $37.8 billion before tax charge that BP had put aside for the Gulf of Mexico. With its 10% stake, that would have been close to $4 billion, but as one of its Gulf of Mexico drilling partners agreed to pay $1.1 billion.

Still, analysts expect Anadarko - which owned 25% of the Macondo license - to come under pressure to settle with BP soon. If it settled on the same basis as Moex, Andarko would pay the oil giant nearly $2.7 billion. Moex, part of Japanese commodities trader Mitsui, which owned 10% of the ill-fated Macondo well, agreed to contribute toward the costs of the $41 billion disaster. Anadarko Petroleum, has a 25 percent stake in the project, and its joint operating agreement with BP gives it a 25 percent share of the liability. . Geneva-based Transocean owned the Deepwater Horizon, which was leased to BP PLC to drill its Macondo well in the Gulf of Mexico.
back

In connection with the oil spill incident that occurred on April 2010 in the Gulf of Mexico on the exploratory block designated Mississippi Canyon 252, last year Transocean and certain of its affiliates (collectively, "Transocean"), the owner and operator of the rig, filed a limitation action based on maritime law in an effort to limit its liability (the "Limitation Action"), and in the Limitation Action, on February 18, 2011, Transocean tendered MOECO, MOEX USA Corporation (a 100% subsidiary of MOECO, "MOEX USA") and MOEX Offshore 2007 LLC (a 100% subsidiary of MOEX USA, "MOEX Offshore"), which owns a 10% working interest in the lease for the relevant block.

On April 19, 20 and 21, 2011, Transocean and the defendants in the Limitation Action filed cross-claims primarily seeking contribution and indemnification from one another, and as a result MOECO, MOEX USA and MOEX Offshore were served with cross-claims by Cameron International Corporation, Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. and Transocean. MOEX Offshore filed cross-claims against BP Exploration and Production, Inc. ("BP"), Transocean, Halliburton, Cameron, M-I LLC and Weatherford U.S. L.P. and certain of their affiliates, asserting that they should bear the responsibility, whether in whole or in part, for the alleged damages and seeking contribution and indemnification.

On April 4, 2011, BP sent a Notice of Dispute to its business partners, MOEX Offshore and Anadarko Petroleum Corporation, based on the Operating Agreement entered into by such parties. The Notice of Dispute states that as of February 28, 2011, BP's invoices to MOEX Offshore totaled approximately U.S. $1,856,000,000. In addition, MOEX Offshore has received invoices from BP after that date. The most recent invoice, dated April 5, 2011, states that MOEX Offshore's payment obligation totals approximately U.S. $2,067,000,000. MOEX Offshore expects to receive additional invoices from BP, but it expects to continue to withhold payment given that at the present time it is uncertain whether there will be an obligation to pay. Based on the Operating Agreement, the parties must designate a representative to meet and confer in an effort to resolve the claim made in the Notice of Dispute. MOEX Offshore has designated a representative. Notably, on April 27, 2011, BP filed a motion to stay MOEX Offshore's cross-claims in the Limitation Action referenced above based on the arbitration clause in the Operating Agreement.
Cameron, BP asserted, designed and built a faulty preventer and negligently maintained it.

Deepwater Horizon: 200 lawyers

NEW ORLEANS (CN sep 17, 2010) - More than 200 attorneys filled three courtrooms Thursday for a pretrial conference to chart the course of litigation for hundreds of lawsuits involving the Deepwater Horizon explosion and oil spill. Presiding Judge Carl J. Barbier apologized that the courtroom was not large enough. "Unfortunately, this is the largest we have," he said to the roomful of more than 150 attorneys, packed along walls to the back doors.
The location was changed last minute from Judge Barbier's courtroom to larger courtroom in the Federal Courthouse, and two overspill rooms were opened before the hearing began.
"I'm not sure how many cases we already have," Barbier said, explaining that some cases from other courts have yet to be transferred to the Eastern District of Louisiana.
"Certainly there are currently hundreds and there will be hundreds, if not thousands more, filed," he said. "On top of all that, investigations by the federal government seeking criminal and civil damages are pending."
In August, a federal panel of judges selected New Orleans as the venue for all Deepwater Horizon oil spill-related lawsuits. The panel also appointed Judge Barbier.
FT read more

Deepwater Horizon: second pipe running

This crisp image taken after the section of tubing called a riser had been lifted to the dock. It's the clearest sign yet to back up the theory that a second drill pipe was also running into the blowout preventer, the huge system of valves and rams that are designed to close in the well in an emergency, and fouled up the works when the well blew.

,Anadarko Petroleum, has a 25 percent stake in the project, and its joint operating agreement with BP gives it a 25 percent share of the liability, a potentially ruinous amount. “The mounting evidence clearly demonstrates that this tragedy was preventable and the direct result of BP’s reckless decisions and actions,”

Mitsui Oil Exploration Company of Japan, which owns the remaining 10 percent of the well, said the company had given up its interest in oil from the well. The company may be hoping that relinquishing its interest will shield it from liability,

Lloyd’s of London may cover BP’s “excess liability” in cleanup and other costs. under its Transocean contract affording protection to pollution “originating above the surface of the land or water.”