## Facts

- On April 20, 2010, a blowout occurred at the Macondo well on the Outer Continental Shelf in the Gulf of Mexico.
- BP and Anadarko co-owned the Macondo well.
- The well’s cement failed during preparations for temporary abandonment, causing oil and gas to flow uncontrollably.
- The blowout preventer failed to stop the flow; hydrocarbons traveled up the riser to the Deepwater Horizon rig, ignited, and the rig later sank.
- After the rig sank, the riser severed and oil continued to flow into the Gulf until the well was capped and sealed on July 15, 2010.
- The United States sued BP and Anadarko for civil penalties under Clean Water Act (CWA) § 311, 33 U.S.C. § 1321(b)(7)(A), alleging they were owners of an offshore facility from which oil was discharged.
- The district court granted partial summary judgment that BP and Anadarko, as well co-owners, were liable for civil penalties because the “discharge” began at the well when uncontrolled movement started.
- BP and Anadarko appealed, arguing the relevant “facility” and “discharge” should be tied to later points in the release path involving contractor-owned equipment (the rig, blowout preventer, and riser).

## Issues

1. Whether the Macondo well qualified as the “offshore facility from which oil was discharged” under CWA § 311(b)(7)(A) even though oil traveled through a riser and other equipment before entering the Gulf.
2. Whether “discharge” under CWA § 311 is determined at the point of initial loss of control at the well, rather than where oil first entered navigable waters.
3. Whether third-party ownership or alleged fault relating to the rig and blowout preventer limits or shifts CWA civil-penalty liability away from well owners.

## Decision

- The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s partial summary judgment on liability for civil penalties under CWA § 311(b)(7)(A).
- The court held the “discharge” occurred where uncontrolled movement began—at the Macondo well.
- The Macondo well was the “offshore facility from which oil was discharged,” making BP and Anadarko, as co-owners, liable for civil penalties.
- The involvement of contractor-owned equipment and alleged third-party failures did not alter the statutory source of the discharge or displace the well as the relevant facility.
- Because the material facts on ownership and the fact of oil flowing from the well were undisputed, the dispute was legal, and summary judgment was proper.

## Legal Principles

- For CWA § 311(b)(7)(A), “discharge” is located at the point where control over oil is first lost and uncontrolled movement begins.
- The “facility from which oil is discharged” is the facility at the point of that initial loss of control, even if oil later passes through additional structures before reaching navigable waters.
- CWA § 311(b)(7)(A) imposes strict liability for civil penalties on the owner or operator of the facility from which the discharge occurs; proof of fault is not required.
- Third-party involvement, contractual arrangements, or alleged contractor negligence does not defeat or transfer statutory civil-penalty liability from the owner of the discharge-originating facility.

## Conclusion

The Fifth Circuit held that, under Clean Water Act § 311, the relevant “discharge” began when the Macondo well first flowed uncontrollably, making the well the “offshore facility from which oil was discharged” and subjecting its co-owners to strict civil-penalty liability despite the intervening role of contractor-owned drilling equipment.


United States v. B.P. Expl. & Prod., Inc. (In re Deepwater Horizon), 753 F.3d 570 (5th Cir. 2014)