BP trial opens with finger-pointing
NEW ORLEANS — BP put profits ahead of safety and bears most of the blame for the disastrous 2010 spill in the Gulf of Mexico, a Justice Department attorney charged on Monday during the opening of a trial that could result in the oil company and its partners being forced to pay tens of billions of dollars more in damages.
The London-based oil giant acknowledged it made “errors in judgment” before the deadly blowout, but it cast blame on the owner of the drilling rig and the contractor involved in cementing the well. It denied it was grossly negligent, as the government contended.
The high-stakes civil case went to trial when attempts to reach an 11th-hour settlement failed.
Eleven workers were killed when the Deepwater Horizon rig leased by the BP exploded on April 20, 2010. An estimated 172 millions of gallons of crude gushed into the gulf in the three months that followed in the worst offshore oil spill in U.S. history.
Justice Department attorney Mike Underhill said the catastrophe resulted from BP's “culture of corporate recklessness.”
“The evidence will show that BP put profits before people, profits before safety and profits before the environment,” Underhill said in opening statements. He added: “Despite BP's attempts to shift the blame to other parties, by far the primary fault for this disaster belongs to BP.”
BP attorney Mike Brock acknowledged that the oil company made mistakes. But he accused rig owner Transocean Ltd. of failing to properly maintain the rig's blowout preventer, which had a dead battery, and he claimed cement contractor Halliburton used a “bad slurry” that failed to prevent oil and gas from traveling up the well.
Jim Roy, who represents individuals and businesses hurt by the spill, said BP executives applied “huge financial pressure” to “cut costs and rush the job.” The project was more than $50 million over budget and behind schedule at the time of the blowout, Roy said.
Roy said the spill also resulted from Transocean's “woeful” safety culture and failure to properly train its crew. And Roy said Halliburton provided BP with a product that was “poorly designed, not properly tested and was unstable.”
Brad Brian, a lawyer for Transocean, said the company had an experienced, well-trained crew on the rig. He said the Transocean workers' worst mistake might have been placing too much trust in the BP supervisors on the rig.
A lawyer for Halliburton defended the company's work and tried to pin the blame on BP and Transocean.
“If BP had shut in the well, we would not be here today,” Halliburton's Donald Godwin said.
BP has pleaded guilty to manslaughter and other criminal charges and has racked up more than $24 billion in spill-related expenses, including cleanup costs, compensation for businesses and individuals, and $4 billion in criminal penalties.
But the federal government, Gulf Coast states and individuals and businesses hope to convince a federal judge that the company and its partners in the ill-fated drilling project are liable for much more in civil damages under the Clean Water Act and other environmental regulations.
One of the biggest questions facing U.S. District Judge Carl Barbier, who is hearing the case without a jury, is whether BP acted with gross negligence.
Under the Clean Water Act, a polluter can be forced to pay a minimum of $1,100 per barrel of spilled oil; the fines nearly quadruple to about $4,300 a barrel for companies found grossly negligent, meaning BP could be on the hook for nearly $18 billion.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Lion cubs jump hurdles in Gaza Strip in journey to Jordan sanctuary
- Santorum charter flight tab broke $400K
- Solar-powered plane crosses Pacific Ocean
- Diebold, heirs of Prohibition agent Ness squabble over stock find
- Ohio got DEA approval to import lethal-injection drugs
- Hiring freeze, budget cuts put West Virginia on better footing
- Northwest wildfire season begins early
- Catholic bishops pressure presidential candidates
- Advocate pushes IRS on nonprofits’ tax forms
- Suspect in San Francisco pier shooting was deported 5 times, federal authorities say
- Lawsuit in deaths of 19 firefighters in Arizona yields little cash