Macondo rig fire was too big to fight: Transocean officer

Macondo rig fire was too big to fight: Transocean officer Mon, Mar 25 18:16 PM EDT By Kathy Finn NEW ORLEANS (Reuters) - The officer in charge of safety on Transocean's Deepwater Horizon drilling rig, destroyed in a BP well accident that caused the worst-ever U.S. offshore oil spill, said the post-blowout fire was too big to fight and the evacuation saved lives. In the fifth week of a trial to apportion blame among BP Plc (BP.L), Transocean Ltd (RIG.N) and other contractors for the Macondo oil well disaster, David Young, the rig's chief mate, said the captain told him to do whatever he needed to do to get the fire on April 20, 2010, under control. "I pulled him outside and showed him the size of the fire we were dealing with and ... basically told him we couldn't fight that fire," Young said on Monday in a New Orleans federal court before U.S. District Judge Carl Barbier. Young then helped load injured and other crew into lifeboats and rafts before jumping into a raft himself, he said. Later, he and others in his raft were pulled onto one of the lifeboats. "Do you believe the Deepwater Horizon's emergency training saved lives that night?" Transocean attorney Luis Li asked. "I do, because we got 115 people off," Young replied. Eleven workers died as a result of the blowout and fire, and more than 4 million barrels of oil gushed into the Gulf from the damaged well. BP and its contractors are being sued by the U.S. Justice Department along with the Gulf states, companies and individuals affected. Transocean's chief executive testified last week that his workers made mistakes that day, but were not responsible for overall safety at the site. While BP accepts its role in the accident, it believes Transocean and well-cementing provider Halliburton Co (HAL.N) share the blame. Young, who worked on the Deepwater Horizon for 3-1/2 years, oversaw equipment maintenance and all "marine aspects" of the rig, including firefighting and lifesaving equipment, while the captain had overall responsibility for rig safety. Young said the first priority of all the rig managers was "for everybody to go home safely, back to their families."

In cross-examination, plaintiffs' attorney Jim Roy asked why it was Young, rather than rig captain Curt Kuchta, who pushed the button to sound the general alarm as he left the bridge. "Isn't the truth, sir, that you were tired of waiting for the captain or anybody else to sound the general alarm," Roy asked, "and for the safety of yourself and the crew you decided you're going to hit it?" Young responded: "No, there was nothing to get tired of, so I wouldn't agree with that."

Transocean has pleaded guilty to federal charges connected with Clean Water Act violations and agreed to pay $1.4 billion in criminal and civil fines and penalties. In the civil case before Barbier, the companies must show any mistakes do not meet the legal definition of gross negligence required for the highest amount of damages. BP has already spent or committed $37 billion for cleanup, restoration, payouts, settlements and fines. Transocean is expected to call its final witnesses on Tuesday, beginning with Bill Ambrose, Transocean's director of special projects. Other defendants then will begin calling their witnesses. The case is In re: Oil Spill by the Oil Rig "Deepwater Horizon" in the Gulf of Mexico, on April 20, 2010, No. 10-md-02179, in the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana. (Writing by Braden Reddall; Editing by Richard Chang and David Gregorio) UPDATE 1-BP spill report ignored phone call on key test -lawyer Mon, Mar 04 20:39 PM EST By Stephanie Grace NEW ORLEANS, March 4 (Reuters) - BP's own investigation of the 2010 Gulf of Mexico spill ignored a phone call between BP supervisors about a critical pressure test that was misinterpreted with deadly consequences, a lawyer for rig owner Transocean Ltd contended in aggressive questioning on Monday. As a civil trial that will determine blame for the disaster entered its second week, Transocean lawyer Brad Brian pushed BP's global head of safety and operational risk on why the report did not mention that call even though investigators mentioned it in their notes. The report by BP Plc placed most of the blame for the explosion and spill on Transocean, whose Deepwater Horizon rig, under contract with BP, had been drilling a mile-deep well when a surge of gas caused a blowout that killed 11 workers. "I think my team's thinking was ... it was mentioned, it wasn't in the form of consulting about it," replied Mark Bly, the BP executive who headed the company's investigation. The U.S. Justice Department, Gulf Coast states affected by the spill, and other plaintiffs - all of whom are suing BP, Transocean and other companies - argue that BP put profits over safety in the drilling job, which was over-budget and overdue. Lawyers for the plaintiffs have argued that had well site leader Don Vidrine heeded concerns of onshore senior drilling engineer Mark Hafle about that pressure test and stopped the operation, the disaster at the Macondo well could have been averted. London-based BP has acknowledged that engineers misinterpreted the results of the test, but holds both itself and Transocean responsible for that. Brian also questioned whether Bly and his investigative team looked into whether BP's decisions were driven by saving time and money. "We didn't look at that specific question," Bly said. The trial has now entered its second week before U.S. District Judge Carl Barbier in the first of three phases. The first phase focuses on allocation of blame among the companies involved. Later on Monday, Andrew Hurst, a geology and petroleum geology professor at the University of Aberdeen, Scotland, testified on behalf of the plaintiffs that rock layers where Macondo was drilled are particularly fragile because the area is the site of the second-largest underwater landslide in the world and was the site of an undersea earthquake in 2006. He said the drilling operation could have left the rock so fragile that cement pumped into it could not bind to the rock as required. "My opinion is that formation around the bore hole disintegrated," Hurst testified. "I can't see how anything else could have happened." Under cross examination, BP attorney Matt Regan stressed that Hurst's observations about thermal conditions and pressure where BP drilled would apply to the vast majority of such sites, and that many in the industry do not follow his prescribed procedures. He also asked Hurst whether his conclusions were based on "Macondo specific data" or general observations. Hurst responded that he based his opinions on science, conceding that he did not try to "form a prognosis" for the Macondo well. The case is In re: Oil Spill by the Oil Rig "Deepwater Horizon" in the Gulf of Mexico, on April 20, 2010, No. 10-md-02179, in the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana. ============== Analysis: BP's legal gamble may trim spill bill by billions Mon, Apr 22 01:27 AM EDT By Kathy Finn and Braden Reddall NEW ORLEANS/SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - BP Plc's attempt to get a U.S. federal court to pin at least a sizeable amount of the blame for the Deepwater Horizon disaster on other companies may have saved it billions of dollars. After failing to settle claims from the 2010 Gulf of Mexico spill through negotiations, the British oil company opted in February to go to trial with plaintiffs ranging from small businesses to the U.S. government over the damages it will face. The decision rests with U.S. District Court Judge Carl Barbier, who could issue findings on blame and the level of negligence as early as July. Legal experts say BP appeared to succeed in shifting some of the blame for the disaster to rig owner Transocean Ltd and cement provider Halliburton Co. In doing so, it may have shaved a slice off a liability that could stretch into the tens of billions of dollars.

BP "put their faith in the hands of the court," said Blaine LeCesne, a tort law professor at Loyola University in New Orleans who has followed the trial closely. "It looks like that might have paid off."

Of course, if Barbier determines that BP was grossly negligent then it could more than offset anything it has saved by getting the rap for the disaster shared more broadly. LeCesne, and two other legal experts who followed the trial but spoke privately on the matter, believed BP had some success in offloading blame for the worst U.S. offshore spill, which was caused by a blowout on the Deepwater Horizon rig that killed 11 people exactly three years ago on Saturday. During the trial last Wednesday, Transocean may have taken a hit from BP's final witness, Andrew Mitchell, a 40-year veteran of the offshore oil industry and now an International Safety Management Code consultant. Mitchell described the rig captain's response to the crisis as "completely inadequate." That came on top of Transocean's previous admission that its employees misinterpreted a crucial pressure test on the well and evidence that a dead battery in the blow-out preventer kept the device from closing the well hole. Transocean declined to comment on specifics of the trial, but said it remained confident in the case it presented. Halliburton also took some blows. Last month the company belatedly introduced cement samples into evidence. Then this month, Halliburton produced documents, including test results BP lawyer Mike Brock said he would have liked to have had while Halliburton witnesses were still on the stand. Another document included an email in which a Halliburton executive said their company was one of the "contributing parties" responsible for ensuring a sound cement job. "It's very troubling the way Halliburton has handled this entire matter," Judge Barbier said of the documents, adding that he was considering whether to impose sanctions in response. Halliburton did not respond to a request for comment. Testimony in the first phase of the trial ended April 17. With an estimated 70 million pages of evidence to weigh, the parties have 80 days to file legal briefs as Barbier considers blame and negligence in the non-jury trial. Phase two would determine exactly how much oil spilled so damages can be assessed, a process due to start in September. Legal sources say it is possible Barbier could delay announcing his phase-one trial conclusions until after the next phase, so total fines and penalties may not be known until 2014. LeCesne expects BP could shoulder about 70 percent of the blame and that Halliburton might bear a heavier share of the rest due to testimony regarding the failure of its cement mixture in attempts to plug the well. "I'd say Halliburton is likely to have an equal or higher percentage attributed to it than Transocean," LeCesne said. BP spokesman Geoff Morrell said the evidence presented at the trial showed BP was not grossly negligent and the accident was the result of "multiple causes, involving multiple parties." HISTORY LESSON BP has been determined from the start of the oil spill to avoid the decades of litigation that Exxon Mobil Corp endured after the 1989 Valdez accident in Alaska. But the complexity of BP's case meant a last-minute deal in February was elusive, so it landed in court. BP has already allocated $42 billion to cover clean-up, fines and other costs. A gross negligence finding by Barbier could add billions to the civil penalties and expose BP to punitive damages claims. BP's liability under the U.S. Clean Water Act alone could reach $17.5 billion if BP is found grossly negligent. Billions more could be piled on in economic damage claims from Gulf Coast states, while a third set of claims, for natural resource damage, have not yet been filed. Just in the past few days, the states of Mississippi and Florida have filed suit against BP over the spill. Louisiana and Alabama have been parties to the civil litigation for two years. While some observers think the results of the trial's first phase will prompt a settlement of many remaining claims, LeCesne believes the parties will continue to duke it out in court. He also thinks even if BP did reduce its share of the blame during the trial, a very costly ruling against BP is in the cards. "It's by no means a certainty, but I think it's more likely than not there will be a finding of gross negligence," he said. John Levy, a maritime and complex litigation expert at Montgomery, McCracken, Walker & Rhoads, said all the money at stake is what made the Deepwater Horizon case special among maritime cases. "On smaller cases, people will just work it out," he said. "Here, you're talking about numbers that end with the word billion. It's worth fighting over." The case is In re: Oil Spill by the Oil Rig "Deepwater Horizon" in the Gulf of Mexico, on April 20, 2010, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, No. 10-md-02179. (Reporting by Kathy Finn in New Orleans and Braden Reddall in San Francisco; Editing by Patricia Kranz and Matt Driskill) =====================