## Facts

- A blowout at BP’s Macondo well on April 20, 2010 caused explosions aboard the Deepwater Horizon, killing 11 workers, sinking the rig, and triggering a large oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.
- BP (as operator and majority owner) contracted with Transocean (owner/operator of the rig) to drill and temporarily abandon the well; Halliburton designed and pumped cement for the production casing.
- The cementing and related operations involved critical well barriers, including the production casing “shoe track” and a float collar conversion; the court found the shoe track was breached during conversion and cement was placed improperly, allowing hydrocarbons to later enter the casing.
- On the day of the incident, BP and Transocean personnel conducted a negative-pressure test intended to confirm well integrity; the test produced abnormal, conflicting pressure readings.
- BP’s on-scene leadership treated the negative-pressure test as a success and proceeded to displace heavy drilling mud from the riser with seawater, reducing hydrostatic pressure.
- Hydrocarbons flowed into the well and up the riser; the rig crew failed to recognize and respond to influx indicators in time, and attempts to control the well and operate the blowout preventer did not stop the blowout.
- The litigation was consolidated in an MDL; the court conducted a Phase One bench trial to determine causes, allocate fault among BP, Transocean, and Halliburton, and classify conduct for Clean Water Act (CWA) penalty purposes.

## Issues

1. What operational and technical failures caused the blowout, explosion, and resulting oil spill.
2. Whether BP, Transocean, and Halliburton acted negligently, grossly negligently, or with willful misconduct for purposes of CWA consequences.
3. How comparative fault for the blowout and spill should be allocated among BP, Transocean, and Halliburton.
4. Whether the conduct met the CWA “gross negligence or willful misconduct” threshold affecting maximum civil penalty exposure.

## Decision

- The court found BP’s conduct, considered as a whole, amounted to gross negligence and willful misconduct under the CWA.
- The court found Transocean was negligent in well control and in participation in the misinterpretation of the negative-pressure test, but not grossly negligent or willful.
- The court found Halliburton was negligent in cement design/testing and related communications, but not grossly negligent or willful.
- The court allocated fault for the blowout and spill: BP 67%, Transocean 30%, Halliburton 3%.
- The court determined that the negative-pressure test was not successful and that proceeding despite abnormal readings was a central failure supporting BP’s reckless-conduct finding.

## Legal Principles

- In a Rule 52(a) bench trial, the court makes findings of fact and conclusions of law on causation, comparative fault, and conduct characterizations required for statutory consequences.
- Gross negligence / willful misconduct for CWA purposes requires an extreme departure from the standard of care and conscious disregard of known risks; it is more blameworthy than ordinary negligence.
- Comparative fault in maritime-related casualty litigation can be allocated among operator and contractors based on each party’s causal contribution to the casualty and resulting discharge.
- An operator’s decisions on well design, testing interpretation, displacement steps, and risk management may support a finding of recklessness when they disregard clear well-integrity warnings.
- Contractor negligence may be found where performance (e.g., cement testing/design or well-control monitoring) falls below the standard of care, even if the operator retains ultimate decision authority.

## Conclusion

The court’s Phase One findings attributed the blowout and spill to a sequence of barrier and decision failures, held BP reckless (grossly negligent and willful) for CWA purposes, found Transocean and Halliburton negligent, and apportioned comparative fault 67% to BP, 30% to Transocean, and 3% to Halliburton.


In re Oil Spill by the Oil Rig Deepwater Horizon in the Gulf of Mexico, on April 20, 2010, 21 F. Supp. 3d 657 (E.D. La. 2014)