Story Summary

Oil in the Gulf

Photo by U.S. Coast Guard

In April 2010, an explosion on BP’s Deepwater Horizon rig killed 11 workers and fouled the Louisiana coastline and other parts of the Gulf with millions of barrels of oil. It was one of the worst oil spills in history.

Story Timeline
Previous Next
This story has 9 updates

NEW ORLEANS (WGNO) - Sunday marked the four year anniversary of the BP oil spill.

The spill sent nearly 5-million barrels of oil spewing into the water.  The Deepwater Horizon burst into flames late on April 20th 2010. Eleven workers that were on that rig were never found.

Meanwhile, underwater, oil continued to gush from the BP operated well for close to 90 days. The well was not capped until mid-July.

At the Westwego Seafood Market families are buying the seafood they plan to enjoy with loved ones this Easter Sunday. Suppliers say they’re happy the customers are still there, but they say four years after the BP oil spill the shrimp, and the crabs are not what they used to be. They say most of all they are still struggling to come up with enough seafood.

Vendors tell us the last week of Lent is one of the busiest times of the year at the Westwego Seafood Market, but because of the lack of seafood many aren’t working.  They say because the seafood is harder to find prices have gone up.

The oyster beds have been affected by fresh water diversions. It was done in an effort to keep the oil out. Those in the in the seafood and oyster industry say four years later oysters are struggling to reproduce.

Meanwhile advocates for Vietnamese-American fishermen in Biloxi say the disaster is still having an impact on their livelihoods, and environmentalists are issuing warnings. They say more than 800-pounds of oil and tar were removed from barrier islands just this year.

A federal judge has accepted a plea agreement that calls for Halliburton to pay a $200,000 fine for destroying evidence after the BP oil spill.

Halliburton pleaded guilty Thursday to a misdemeanor charge.

The company was accused of deleting data during a post-spill review of the cement job on BP’s blown-out well.

BP oil claims administrator Patrick Juneau has just a couple of weeks left to respond to BP’s fraud allegations.

The company says it’s uncovered new cases of fraud and conflicts of interest in the settlement process.

But a federal judge refused to let BP stop making payments during the investigation.

The BBC reports that BP’s compensation fund for oil spill victims is running out of cash. Apparently the fund, which began with $20 billion, has just $300 million left.

BP says claims will have to come from future profits once the fund runs out and that could be as early as September.

That’s also when the oil giant is expected to go to trial on civil charges related to the spill.

The Feds say they’ve got a guilty plea from Halliburton in reference to its role in the BP oil disaster of 2010.

According to the Department of Justice, Halliburton hid evidence in the case by throwing out test results related to the leak. The tests focused on the cement casing in the well at the center of the disaster.

Halliburton, BP, and rig operator Transocean all have admitted some criminal wrongdoing in connection with the blowout that killed 11 rig workers and drenched the Gulf coast with oil.

How should BP pay to help the Gulf Coast recover? Cleaning up beaches is one thing, but should we be using BP money to bring Top Chef to New Orleans?

The city and state tourism folks paid Bravo $375,000 to have season 11 filmed here with $200,000 of that money coming from BP. Here’s the reaction we’re getting on our WGNO Facebook page:

Rob says, “Food job, Louisiana! You spent money appropriately and wisely.”

Jamie adds, “I love Top Chef, but we shouldn’t waste money this state needs on a TV show.”

And Jennifer says, “If they highlight Gulf seafood, then it’s cool.”

News with a Twist

The questionable politics of the Louisiana Seafood Board

The Louisiana Seafood Promotion and Marketing Board has just one job and one job only, to let the everyone know that we have arguably the worlds best seafood, Louisiana seafood.

The organization got a boost that many could only dream of: BP gave the board $30 million – or about $800,000 a month – to be spent on promoting Louisiana seafood.  Problem is where is the money going?   I don’t see much promotion of Louisiana seafood.

What’s worse is, is the board qualified to spend the money wisely?

Remember, the Louisiana Seafood Promotion and Marketing Board had a member who was selling shrimp labeled “Louisiana wild” when in truth they were actually shrimp from Mexico!   That’s right, the board that is entrusted to market and promote Louisiana seafood had a key, influential board member selling Mexican shrimp labeled “caught in Louisiana”.

Can we trust and organization that can’t trust itself?   Louisiana seafood is the best in the world.  With all this free BP money, don’t we deserve an organization to promote our seafood that is world class as well?

The Louisiana Seafood Board’s Communications Manager, Ashley Roth, sent this reply to Kaare’s commentary:

Mr. Johnson’s claims are not factual. The Louisiana seafood marketing campaign funded through the BP dollars aggressively promotes Louisiana seafood both in state and across the nation. In fact, we currently have a commercial running on WGNO announcing the Louisiana seafood certification program.  This program identifies seafood that is harvested in Louisiana with labels on packaging and menus so that consumers can be confident they are getting authentic Louisiana seafood. 


It could be weeks before the judge in the civil BP trial makes any decisions.  But on the first day Monday, all of the companies involved wasted no time pointing fingers.

Some protestors waited outside the Hale Boggs Federal Building to make their points to all the parties involved about how the worse environmental disaster in American history affected their lives.

Inside the courtroom, attorneys for the companies began deflecting blame and assigning it where they could.

BP has received most of the public criticism for the massive oil leak because it oversaw drilling operations on the platform.

But BP is trying to place blame on Halliburton.

The company that made the blowout preventer  is already saying its device could only prevent a blowout, not stop one that was already underway.

“It’s like hitting the brakes on your car after the accident,” an attorney for the Cameron International Corporation told U.S. District Judge Carl Barbier.

The trial is expected to take weeks.  The companies could face billions of dollars in fines and penalties.

BP prepared to defend itself against claims by US Government, States and private plaintiffs in Deepwater Horizon civil liability trial in US District Court

(BP news release) – BP is preparing for the federal civil trial beginning next Monday in the Deepwater Horizon Multi-District Litigation pending in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. This proceeding is the first of at least two phases the Court has set for the trial. The first phase will be focused on the causes of the Deepwater Horizon accident, who should be held responsible, and to what degree. Judge Carl J Barbier will preside over the trial.

“We have always been open to settlements on reasonable terms, failing which we have always been prepared to defend our case at trial. Faced with demands that are excessive and not based on reality or the merits of the case, we are going to trial,” said Rupert Bondy, Group General Counsel of BP. “We have confidence in our case and in the legal team representing the company and defending our interests.”

BP will vigorously defend against gross negligence allegations

The Court will ultimately determine the legal and factual issues at the heart of the case, including whether BP or any other party was grossly negligent.

“Gross negligence is a very high bar that BP believes cannot be met in this case,” said Mr Bondy. “This was a tragic accident, resulting from multiple causes and involving multiple parties. We firmly believe we were not grossly negligent.”

Inflated Government flow rate estimate will be subject of
phase two of trial set for September 2013

Oil flow rate and quantification of barrels of oil spilled are issues that will be addressed in the second phase of the trial, which is scheduled to begin in September 2013. As BP previously said, although there is inherent uncertainty in this quantification, the company believes that the government’s public estimate of 4.9 million barrels of oil released is at least 20 per cent overstated.

“These issues are extremely complicated as a technical matter, and there is still further analysis to do,” said Mr Bondy. “But it is clear, based on our analysis so far, that the government’s public estimate is simply wrong and overstated by at least 20 per cent.”

Whatever the final number of barrels released from the reservoir is proven to be, BP does not believe that the 810,000 barrels of oil that the company successfully captured from the Macondo reservoir without it entering the Gulf of Mexico waters should be considered in the Court’s future determination of Clean Water Act penalties. Under the Clean Water Act, civil penalties are assessed only on oil that has actually entered the environment and potentially caused harm. The US Department of Justice has indicated that it agrees with BP’s position on this issue. On the basis that the 4.9 million barrels figure includes an over-estimate of at least 20 per cent, and given that a further 810,000 barrels need to be deducted from the volume that flowed from the reservoir, BP believes that a figure of 3.1 million barrels should be the uppermost limit of the number of barrels spilled that should be used in calculating a Clean Water Act penalty.

BP will litigate penalties based on statute requiring analysis of eight different factors

Finally, the Court has broad discretion to assess a per-barrel Clean Water Act penalty between zero and the statutory maximum. In deciding on the per-barrel fine, the Court must consider not only the level of culpability, but also seven other statutory penalty factors. The intent behind the statute is to enable courts to account for the violating company’s conduct following the violation where public policy merits such treatment. In practice, courts have historically awarded only a fraction of the statutory maximum penalty, generally choosing penalties that are far closer to zero than to the statutory maximum.

“We believe that consideration of all eight legal factors together weighs in favour of a penalty that is lower than the statutory maximum,” continued Mr Bondy. “In determining the penalty, we believe the Court should consider, among other things, the fact that BP immediately stepped up and acknowledged our role in the accident. We waived the statutory cap on liability, and to date, we’ve spent more than $23 billion in response, clean-up, and payments on claims by individuals, businesses, and governments. No company has done more, faster, to meet its commitment to economic and environmental restoration efforts in the wake of an industrial accident, and although the Court will ultimately decide, we believe that both the statute and public policy more generally contemplate consideration of our efforts to do the right thing in determining an appropriate penalty.”

BP is engaged in a continuous effort to further enhance safety and risk management throughout its global operations and across the deepwater drilling industry. Immediately after the accident, the company launched an internal investigation. BP then publicly released the investigation’s results, and began the process of implementing all 26 of the investigation’s recommendations. The company has also, among other things, made key leadership changes, reorganized its upstream business, created a more robust centralized Safety and Operational Risk organization, and adopted new deepwater drilling standards in the Gulf of Mexico that exceed current regulatory requirements. BP has shared what it has learned with industry and regulators around the world.

“Our actions show that we have been willing to settle. We settled with our partners in the well and with some of our contractors. We began paying claims immediately after the accident and have settled with the PSC the substantial majority of all legitimate private economic loss and medical claims. In addition, we settled all of the federal government’s criminal and securities claims against the company,” said Mr Bondy. “There are remaining claims which we have been unable to settle on reasonable terms. Consequently, we are prepared to go to trial and present our case to Judge Barbier.”

BP will be represented at trial by Robert C (“Mike”) Brock of Covington & Burling LLP; Hariklia (“Carrie”) Karis, J Andrew (“Andy”) Langan and Matthew T Regan of Kirkland & Ellis LLP; and Don Haycraft of Liskow & Lewis.