BP faces billions in fines as spill trial nears

February 25, 2012 By CAIN BURDEAU , Associated Press
In this April 21, 2010 photo provided by the U.S. Coast Guard, fire boat response crews spray water on the burning remnants of BP's Deepwater Horizon offshore oil rig. The gargantuan legal bill for the 2010 catastrophic oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico is coming due for BP as a federal trial opens Monday, Feb. 27, 2012 to determine the company’s liability for the blowout of its Macondo well. On the cusp of trial, phalanxes of lawyers, company officials and state officials spent the final hours in high-stakes settlement talks that law experts believed could still yield a deal right before the courtroom doors open Monday morning. (AP Photo/US Coast Guard, File)

(AP) -- On the cusp of trial over the catastrophic 2010 oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, phalanxes of lawyers, executives and public officials have spent the waning days in settlement talks. Holed up in small groups inside law offices, war rooms and hotel suites in New Orleans and Washington, they are trying to put a number on what BP and its partners in the doomed Macondo well project should pay to make up for the worst offshore spill in U.S. history.

It is a complex equation, and the answer is proving elusive.

The federal government, Gulf states, plaintiffs' attorneys, BP PLC, rig owner Transocean Ltd. and cementer Halliburton Energy Services Inc. have been in simultaneous and separate negotiations in New Orleans, according to a person with direct knowledge of the talks and others who had been briefed on them.

Trial is set for Monday, and by Friday, no deal had been reached, several people familiar with the negotiations told The Associated Press on condition of anonymity. The biggest stumbling block appeared to be the sheer size and sprawling uncertainty over the unprecedented dollar amounts at stake.

Financial analysts estimate BP's potential settlement payout at $15 billion to roughly $30 billion. The company itself estimated it would cost about $41 billion in the weeks after the explosion to account for all of its costs, including cleanup, compensating businesses, and paying fines and .

"This one is off the charts in terms of size and significance," said Eric Schaeffer, the director of the Project in Washington and former head of the Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Regulatory Enforcement.

BP has to weigh its chances of getting off cheaper by piecing together a sweeping settlement or put its fate in the hands of one man, a federal judge who will hear testimony in lieu of a jury. If the judge sides with plaintiffs on the amount of oil spilled and determines BP was grossly negligent, the company conceivably could face up to $52 billion in environmental fines and compensation alone, according to an AP analysis.

While such a scenario is unlikely, it illustrates the broad range and staggering sums at play.

No matter what, the case is all but guaranteed to set records as the most expensive environmental disaster in history, far surpassing the Exxon Valdez disaster in 1989. Exxon ultimately settled with the U.S. government for $1 billion, which would be about $1.8 billion today.

If BP settles, it's almost certain to dwarf previous deals the U.S. has reached with corporate offenders in any industry. That record now stands at $2.3 billion against Pfizer Inc. in 2009 to settle claims over the painkiller Bextra, according to the Justice Department.

And once the civil case is resolved, depending on the scope of any settlement, BP still could face criminal fines; penalties for violations of oil pollution, clean water and wildlife protection laws; and still-pending economic losses due to the partial shutdown of the Gulf. Morgan Stanley analysts estimated criminal fines would come in between $5 billion and $15 billion in any eventual settlement.

Robert Wiygul, an environmental lawyer in New Orleans who represents spill plaintiffs but is not involved in the settlement talks, said putting a dollar figure on what is the right sum for BP to pay is extremely difficult.

"There is going to be a lot of voodoo there," he said.

The bill will be commensurate to the magnitude of the disaster: An epic engineering failure that highlighted the dangers of drilling in extreme conditions miles from shore and miles under water.

The April 20, 2010, blowout of BP's deepwater Macondo well killed 11 workers and injured 17. The burning drilling rig Deepwater Horizon toppled and sank to the Gulf floor, where it sits today.

It took engineers 85 days to permanently cap the well. By then, more than 200 million gallons of oil leaked from the well and had covered much of the northern half of the - endangering fisheries, killing marine life and shutting down offshore oil drilling operations.

About 900 miles of shoreline were fouled and beaches were closed for months. The spill forced President Barack Obama in June 2010 to make his first Oval Office speech, in which he called the BP spill "the worst environmental disaster the nation has ever faced."

Under the Clean Water Act, which is designed to punish companies and prevent future spills, a polluter pays a minimum of $1,100 per barrel of spilled oil; the fines nearly quadruple for companies found guilty of grossly negligent behavior. Under this statute, BP could owe $5 billion to $21 billion. Transocean and Anadarko Petroleum Corp., a minority owner of the Macondo well, also face paying hefty fines.

One of the biggest questions facing U.S. District Judge Carl Barbier, a maritime law expert presiding over the trial, will be to determine if BP was guilty of gross negligence.

Under the Oil Pollution Act, companies must pay to restore what they fouled. Based on criteria from what Exxon paid after the 1989 Exxon Valdez spill in Alaska, BP could pay about $31 billion, or $148 per gallon, to cover the ecosystem damage to the Gulf. Exxon paid $900 million for 11 million gallons of spilled oil, or about $81 per gallon. Adjusted for inflation, that's $148 per gallon.

Experts said Barbier will weigh a number of factors in determining what BP should pay to restore damaged natural resources, and BP's liability under the Oil Pollution Act could be much higher or much lower than what Exxon paid per gallon.

BP likely will argue that it should be much lower because it has spent billions on cleanup already and provided $1 billion for early ecosystem restoration. It's also likely the company will argue the spill's effects were minimized by the Gulf's warm waters, oil-eating bacteria and other factors.

The company also likely will argue that the Gulf has been soiled by past spills and natural oil seeps, making it hard to pinpoint what is BP damage and what isn't, said Mark Davis, a Tulane University law professor who specializes in water resources.

State and federal lawyers are likely to argue that the damage was extensive and that the Gulf's marine environment is more varied and rich than even that of Prince William Sound, where the Exxon Valdez went aground.

Beyond that, there are more than 110,000 people and businesses - among them large fishing and hotel operations - who have not settled with BP and have outstanding claims against the company. Technically, people have until April 20, 2013, to file claims against BP, which committed to pay $20 billion to cover damage claims and so far has spent about $7 billion.

What makes this trial so good for plaintiffs - and a nightmare for BP, Halliburton and - is that the spill was a chronicle of corporate failures. Federal investigators have concluded cost-cutting by BP and shoddy work by all three companies caused the blowout.

"It's the perfect case for plaintiffs' lawyers," said Blaine LeCesne, a tort law specialist at Loyola University New Orleans who's analyzed the case. "They have everything to gain by going to trial."

While the settlement haggling stretches through the weekend, the hundreds of lawyers who have come to New Orleans are primed for battle.

Garret Graves, an aide to Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal and a member of a federal and state council assessing damage from the spill, was adamant that any last-minute settlement in the price range of $20 billion would let BP off too easily.

"We're not going to sell short the citizens and we're not going to let BP walk away," Graves said.

Mike Brock, a BP trial lawyer, said BP was ready to prove "that no single action, person or party was the sole cause of the blowout."

At trial, BP will try to spread blame to the other companies and try to convince the judge that what happened at the Macondo well was an accident, not an act of gross negligence or willful misconduct.

"How culpable was BP? How bad were they? How bad was the violation and how sloppy was their conduct?" said Schaeffer, the former EPA official. "There are risks for both sides, but they are significantly greater for BP. They don't want this potential of billions of dollars hanging over them."

Explore further: US eyes first BP criminal charges over Gulf spill: WSJ


Related Stories

US eyes first BP criminal charges over Gulf spill: WSJ

December 29, 2011

US prosecutors are readying criminal charges against British oil giant BP employees over the 2010 Deepwater Horizon accident that led to the catastrophic Gulf oil spill, The Wall Street Journal reported online.

BP sues Gulf rig firm, shifting blame for oil spill

April 21, 2011

BP is taking legal action to shift the blame for the Gulf of Mexico oil disaster which devastated the environment and the group's image a year ago, suing rig operator Transocean for damages of $40 billion (24 billion pounds).

US may file civil complaint against BP over Gulf spill

September 15, 2010

The US government has said in a Louisiana court it is considering filing a civil complaint against BP under the Clean Water Act to claim 1,100 dollars for each barrel of oil spilled in the Gulf of Mexico.

BP, Transocean, Halliburton cited for violations

October 13, 2011

The US government slapped BP, Transocean and Halliburton with citations for violating oil industry regulations in what is expected to lead to massive fines for the deadly 2010 oil spill.

Recommended for you

Mysterious deep-Earth seismic signature explained

November 22, 2017

New research on oxygen and iron chemistry under the extreme conditions found deep inside the Earth could explain a longstanding seismic mystery called ultralow velocity zones. Published in Nature, the findings could have ...

Scientists dispute missing dryland forests

November 21, 2017

Scientists are disputing the possibility that a significant portion of the world's forests have been missed in an earlier accounting of ecological diversity.


Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

1 / 5 (1) Feb 25, 2012

Whatever the verdict, BP et al won't be ponying up until or unless any decision against is subsequently upheld in federal appeals court.
The costs of a massive civil/criminal lawsuit
--even when steadily accrued over years-- pale in comparison to the fines, damages, and restitution that would be levied if a guilty verdict is finally upheld.
Don't look for this to be settled any time soon.

3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 25, 2012
BP faces billions in fines as spill trial nears

Too bad. The damage being only as bad as the press, politicians, and sponges* can make it.

*sponge: n. 1) a two legged critter what lives off the makings of others. 2) a person who takes largess from the public treasury.
not rated yet Feb 25, 2012
They could always pull a sugarland and blame it on an act of god and the people hurt by it are really at fault.
1.5 / 5 (16) Feb 26, 2012
Everyone that uses oil is responsible for that spill. It's an industrial accident that existed by virtue of the perceived necessity of drilling that far off the coast, and the very real demand for oil.

Following or during such crisis the probability for such poor management decisions, increases exponentially, as is the case in all forms of accident.

The same gov that gave that rig an A rating now wishes to use that accident for political purposes. The novelty Obama administration with their naiveté Wants the price of oil to go up, inorder to artificially force alternative competition. An 'affirmative action' for green energy. It will fail because it is not reality, yet.
4.7 / 5 (3) Feb 26, 2012
There is a lot of fault to go around here:
1) People still drive huge gas guzzling vehicles.
2) People still go out "Cruizing" for no good reason.
3) People all too often don't plan their vehicle useage to minimize consumption.
4) People don't want to see oil rigs, so they make laws pushing drilling rigs further and further away from the coast into ever deeper water. This forces the oil companies to push the edge of drilling technology and to drill at ever increasing depths and at ever greater risk.

Eventually something gives, or in this case several somethings give. Policies and procedures break down, equipment breaks down. This is one of those areas where better regulation is needed, not more or less regulation, just better and more effective regulation.
1.5 / 5 (16) Feb 26, 2012
For {1,2,3} - regulation would imply social engineering and control of energy use. This is counter to the nature of a free society.

For {4} - regulation has itself pushed drilling far off the coast, and was considered 'better regulation'.

Apart from seeking responsibility for those who broke specific rules or laws, demonizing oil companies for industrial accidents that are inevitable and purely a consequence of the volume of oil necessary for the existent economy, is senseless political fraud.
1.5 / 5 (16) Feb 26, 2012
Points {1,2,3} are not "problems" to be fixed, they're consequences of a free society.

It is not a New discovery that government control over people's lives can reduce the ills of society in principal, ...it was an Old discovery that socialistic government reduces liberty and freedom and therefore is not worth the attempt at a liberal utopia fantasy world.

Restrictng energy oil based energy use is not a solution in any case, as other economies becoming more sophisticated such demand will continue to grow despite such control. Supply ad demand will result in alternative markets when the time is ripe for it, not before.
5 / 5 (1) Feb 28, 2012
Supply and(sp) demand will result in alternative markets when the time is ripe for it, not before.

I think the time is ripe right now!

5 / 5 (1) Mar 01, 2012
@Noumenon - I was merely addressing causality, and not specifically as problems.

People want to assign blame and usually look elsewhere for the source and usually don't assume accountability for their own actions. My suggestion is that if we are in such a hurry to demonize a provider of energy, we may want to also consider why they are having to take such risks in the first place.

And I agree with Howhot - we are long past the time for significant investment in alternative energy sources. It wouldn't be popular, but I'd be for an energy tax on consumption that would only be used for alternative energy research and development. But, as the history of politicians has shown us they could never use the funds only for the intended purpose.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.