Page 334 of 344 FirstFirst ... 234284324332333334335336 ... LastLast
Results 6,661 to 6,680 of 6861

Thread: Deepwater Horizon - Transocean Oil Rig Fire

  1. #6661
    Infomania is online now Old Salt
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Lafayette, Louisiana
    Age
    62
    Posts
    391
    Thanks
    43
    Thanked 109 Times in 96 Posts

    Default

    Judge: BP contract shielded Transocean in spill
    QUICK READ

    http://www.newsday.com/business/judg...pill-1.3482532

    Originally published: January 26, 2012 5:26 PM
    Updated: January 26, 2012 8:14 PM
    By The Associated Press CAIN BURDEAU (Associated Press), HARRY R. WEBER (Associated Press)

    Judge: BP contract shields rig owner Transocean from some Gulf spill claims
    (AP) -- The rig owner involved in drilling the ill-fated well that blew out in the Gulf of Mexico and spewed more than 200 million gallons of oil will not have to pay many of the pollution claims because it was shielded in a contract with well-owner BP, a federal judge ruled on Thursday. The ruling comes as BP, the states affected by the disaster and the federal government are discussing a settlement...

    Link to google search on articles related to
    This topic.

    http://www.google.com/search?q=Judge...iw=320&bih=416
    Share on Facebook

  2. #6662
    Infomania is online now Old Salt
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Lafayette, Louisiana
    Age
    62
    Posts
    391
    Thanks
    43
    Thanked 109 Times in 96 Posts

    Default

    Judge: BP Contract Shielded Transocean In Spill

    http://www.manufacturing.net/news/20...ocean-in-spill


    Fri, 01/27/2012 - 9:23am
    Cain Burdeau and Harry R. Weber, Associated Press
    NEW ORLEANS (AP) — The rig owner involved in drilling the ill-fated well that blew out in the Gulf of Mexico and spewed more than 200 million gallons of oil will not have to pay many of the pollution claims because it was shielded in a contract with well-owner BP, a federal judge ruled on Thursday. The ruling comes as BP, the states affected by the disaster and the federal government are discussing a settlement over the nation's largest offshore oil spill.

    The decision may have spared Transocean from having to pay potentially billions of dollars in damage claims. However, U.S. District Judge Carl Barbier said the driller still is not exempt from paying punitive damages and civil penalties that arise from the April 20, 2010, blowout 100 miles off the Louisiana coast. Those penalties could amount to billions of dollars.

    Law experts were split over who is a clear-cut winner.

    BP has been pursuing agreements with multiple parties to reach settlements that would make an upcoming trial involving hundreds of spill lawsuits in New Orleans unnecessary, or at least resolve as many of the issues as possible.

    The Justice Department also is involved, working with the states to create an outline for a settlement that would resolve their potentially multibillion dollar claims against BP and the other companies involved in the disaster, Alabama Attorney General Luther Strange told The Associated Press.

    Justice led a meeting last week in Washington among the states in an effort to formulate an agreement that would satisfy government and state claims, including penalties and fines, Strange said. He also indicated if there is a settlement that officials are discussing what to do with the $20 billion fund set up by BP to pay victims.

    The lead attorneys for individuals and businesses suing BP were not at the meeting.

    According to Strange, a federal magistrate judge has been asked to expedite settlement discussions. The Louisiana attorney general's office said in a statement to the AP that it is in settlement discussions with BP, which would not comment on any deals in the works. A first phase of the trial is set for Feb. 27 to determine liability for the spill.

    "The closer you get to a trial date, the more pressure builds to reach a settlement," Strange said.

    Despite the decision, BP claimed victory and said Barbier's ruling "at a minimum" left Transocean facing "punitive damages, fines and penalties flowing from its own conduct."

    Transocean spokesman Lou Colasuonno said in an emailed statement that the company was pleased to see its position affirmed.

    "This confirms that BP is responsible for all economic damages caused by the oil that leaked from its Macondo well, and discredits BP's ongoing attempts to evade both its contractual and financial obligations," he said.

    Blaine LeCesne, an associate professor at Loyola University law school, however, said Barbier's ruling was a "major victory" for Transocean.

    "If anything is going to compel the parties toward settlement, it's going to be this," he said. "I think BP is in a very bad position now, and they don't have a lot of leverage."

    A University of Michigan Law School professor who served as chief of the Justice Department's environmental crimes section said the ruling had no clear-cut winner. David Uhlmann said it prevents BP from collecting billions of dollars from Transocean to help cover cleanup costs and pay for claims over economic losses and environmental damage from the spill. But the decision leaves Transocean facing potentially billions of dollars in civil and criminal penalties under the Clean Water Act, he added.

    "It's a partial win for each side and a partial loss for each side," Uhlmann said.

    BP PLC, Transocean Ltd. and Halliburton Co. have been sparring over who was at fault for causing the blowout. The out-of-control well was capped in July, 2010. Federal investigators have said that BP bears ultimate responsibility for the spill, but has faulted all three companies to some degree.

    Under a drilling contract, BP and Transocean agreed to indemnify each other in the case of an accident, withBP taking responsibility for pollution originating from the well and Transocean for any pollution or accidents aboard the rig.

    However, in court BP argued that the contract did not shield Transocean if the drilling company acted in manner that was grossly negligent.

    Barbier said the contract was a "clear and unequivocal agreement" to provide "broad indemnity."

    "As we have said from the beginning, Transocean cannot avoid its responsibility for this accident," BP said.

    The British oil giant said it had "stepped up" and admitted its role in the spill and paid billions of dollars in claims.

    BP also is eager to resolve its disputes with its partners on the doomed rig. The companies have sued and countersued each other for billions of dollars to protect themselves when it comes to paying damages to victims and penalties to the government.

    Months ago, BP offered to resolve its dispute with Transocean if Transocean paid BP roughly $4.5 billion, according to a person briefed on the discussions who spoke to the AP on condition of anonymity because the talks are confidential. Transocean rejected the offer, and there have been no substantive discussions between the companies about figures since then, the person said, adding that Thursday's ruling could spur further talks.

    Eric Schaeffer, who led the Environmental Protection Agency's civil enforcement office from 1997 to 2002, said Thursday's ruling will put even more pressure on BP.

    "If BP is less able to shift some of those costs to Transocean, if they understand they are going to bearTransocean's share of compensatory damages, I'd want to get it settled," Schaeffer said. "That's no longer a wild card."
    Share on Facebook

  3. #6663
    New Orleans Lady's Avatar
    New Orleans Lady is offline Top Contributer
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    661
    Thanks
    488
    Thanked 148 Times in 113 Posts

    Default

    BP Responds To U.S. Court Ruling On Deepwater Horizon Disaster - Quick Facts


    (RTTNews.com) - BP Plc (BP, BP_UN.TO, BP.L) issued statement in response to court ruling issued by U.S. District Judge Carl Barbier on Thursday that the company will have to bear all costs related to the Deepwater Horizon disaster that struck the Gulf of Mexicio in 2010. The ruling lowered the potential liability Transocean Ltd. (RIG) faces over the incident.

    The ruling made clear that contractors will be held accountable for their actions under the law. BP noted that while all official investigations concluded that Transocean played a causal role in the accident, the contractor has long contended it is fully indemnified by BP for the liabilities resulting from the oil spill. This view was rejected by the Court.

    Under the decision, Transocean is, at a minimum, financially responsible for any punitive damages, fines and penalties flowing from its own conduct. According to BP, Transocean cannot avoid its responsibility for this accident.

    BP stated that by contrast, since the spill it had stepped up, acknowledged its role and paid above $7.8 billion in claims, advances and other payments to individuals, businesses and governments.

    For comments and feedback: contact editorial@rttnews.com

    http://www.rttnews.com
    Share on Facebook

  4. #6664
    New Orleans Lady's Avatar
    New Orleans Lady is offline Top Contributer
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    661
    Thanks
    488
    Thanked 148 Times in 113 Posts

    Default

    David Hammer, The Times-Picayune 01/27/2012 6:13 PM
    BP email hushed up oil spill rate estimate as Gulf rig was sinking


    On April 22, 2010, as the exploded Deepwater Horizon oil rig was sinking off the Louisiana coast, a maritime expert told BP that its Macondo well would spew 82,000 barrels of crude a day into the Gulf of Mexico if nothing blocked the opening. At that moment, the U.S. government was trying to get BP to say how much oil might be flowing into the sea so they could answer a crescendo of questions from the media and, more importantly, muster the proper equipment to plug the leak.

    But BP officials reacted to the alarming estimate that afternoon by demanding it be kept secret, according to an email that BP agreed to release Friday in federal court in New Orleans.

    When BP finally provided the Coast Guard with an estimate of the leak to announce publicly two days later, it was a paltry 1,000 barrels a day.

    The April 22 email from Rob Marshall, BP's subsea manager for the Gulf of Mexico, to deepwater project manager Gary Imm and corporate vice president Jonathan Sprague is an exhibit in the massive oil spill litigation slated for trial Feb. 27.

    Marshall advised Imm and Sprague that an expert named Alistair Johnston had a new model for how much oil might be spewing from the wellhead a mile below the surface and 50 miles from the Mississippi River delta. Johnston's new estimate, Marshall wrote, was 82,000 barrels a day if the well has an open hole.

    The response from Imm suggests that BP and the Coast Guard were already butting heads over how much oil was coming out of the busted well - and that 82,000 barrels a day wasn't a number BP wanted anyone to hear.

    "A number of people have been looking at this and we already have had difficult discussions with the USCG (Coast Guard) on the numbers," Imm wrote back to Marshall and Sprague. "Please tell Alistair not to communicate to anyone on this."

    "Yes, he knows about confidentiality," Marshall responded.

    BP said it would respond to questions about the email, but had not done so by Friday evening.

    The air of secrecy could be more significant than the estimate because, as it turned out, the hole was not unobstructed. A massive stack of valves and pistons blocked some of the flow and response teams later found the crude coming out of three leaks in the pipes that emanated from the wellhead.

    Months later, after much wrangling and analysis, government scientists determined the oil actually was shooting out at a rate 62,000 barrels a day on April 22.

    But the idea that BP and the Coast Guard weren't being fully honest about the spill rate came to dominate the conversation for months. President Barack Obama's Oil Spill Commission reported on the matter, finding that BP had no scientific support for its initial assertion of 1,000 barrels a day on April 24.

    A federal scientist corrected that to 5,000 barrels a day on April 27 and that remained the official estimate for a whole month, even though independent scientists were insisting the flow rate was at least four times greater and possibly as high as 100,000 barrels a day.

    The flow rate is a critical issue. At first, it was important as the oil industry and the government tried to figure out a safe way to close in the well. It also played a role in establishing how damaging the spill would be for BP, and several large investors have sued BP in federal court in Houston alleging that the company used low-ball estimates to artificially prop up the company's stock price.

    Federal investigators looked into the possibility that BP officials might have engaged in insider trading based on their knowledge of larger flow rates before they were disclosed to the public.

    And it remains a crucial issue because a total flow rate must be used to determine how much oil polluted the waters over more than 86 days so federal prosecutors can set appropriate civil pollution fines. Those fines could total close to $20 billion are based on the current official estimate of 4.9 million total barrels spilled.
    Share on Facebook

  5. #6665
    Infomania is online now Old Salt
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Lafayette, Louisiana
    Age
    62
    Posts
    391
    Thanks
    43
    Thanked 109 Times in 96 Posts

    Default

    House GOP threatens subpoena over offshore drilling ban report
    By Ben Geman - 01/25/12 05:10 PM

    http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-...ing-ban-report

    House Republicans are threatening to subpoena the Interior Department for documents related to a 2010 report that incorrectly implied that outside experts had endorsed a temporary ban on deepwater drilling in the wake of the BP spill.

    Natural Resources Committee Chairman Doc Hastings (R-Wash.), in a letter Wednesday, said Interior has failed to fully comply with requests for information about the late May 2010 drilling safety report that called for the moratorium.

    Interior imposed the drilling freeze shortly after the report was issued, and lifted the ban in the fall of 2010.

    The GOP letter to Interior Secretary Ken Salazar “provides notice of our intent to move to compel cooperation and production of documents” if they’re not provided in February.

    Republicans, who called the deepwater moratorium an overreaction, have championed the cause of outside engineers that Interior consulted for the study, who say the 2010 report wrongly suggested they backed the drilling ban.

    E2 wrote much more about the fracas here.

    The Interior Department’s inspector general, in November 2010 findings, said White House edits to the drilling safety report led to the faulty impression. From the IG's November 2010 findings:

    The version that the White House returned to [Interior] had revised and re-ordered the language in the Executive Summary, placing the peer review language immediately following the moratorium recommendation. This caused the distinction between the Secretary's moratorium recommendation — which had not been peer reviewed — and the safety recommendations contained in the 30-Day Report — which had been peer reviewed — to become effectively lost.

    But the IG report also found that Interior officials were not intentionally trying to suggest the outside experts backed the drilling freeze.

    The new letter to Interior from Hastings and Energy and Minerals subcommittee Chairman Doug Lamborn (R-Colo.) is available here.

    “Americans, especially those in the Gulf, deserve answers as to how these policy decisions were made, who made them and if they were actually based on sound science,” Hastings said in a statement Wednesday.
    Share on Facebook

  6. #6666
    Infomania is online now Old Salt
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Lafayette, Louisiana
    Age
    62
    Posts
    391
    Thanks
    43
    Thanked 109 Times in 96 Posts

    Default

    BP emails reveal company veiling spill rate

    http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/01/27...ng-spill-rate/


    Published January 27, 2012|
    Associated Press
    NEW ORLEANS – On the day the Deepwater Horizon sank, BPofficials warned in an internal memo that if the well was not protected by the blow-out preventer at the drill site, crude oil could burst into the Gulf of Mexico at a rate of 3.4 million gallons a day, an amount a million gallons higher than what the government later believed spilled daily from the site.

    The email conversation, which BP agreed to release Friday as part of federal court proceedings, suggests BP managers recognized the potential of the disaster in its early hours, and company officials sought to make sure that the model-developed information wasn't shared with outsiders. The emails also suggest BP was having heated discussions with Coast Guard officials over the potential of the oil spill.


    The memo was released as part of the court proceedings to determine the division of responsibility for the nation's worst offshore oil disaster, which began when the BP-leasedDeepwater Horizon exploded April 20, 2010, killing 11 men about 50 miles southeast of the Louisiana coast. The first phase of the trial is set to start Feb. 27.

    BP officials declined to comment on the emails late Friday.

    The official amount of oil that flowed from the well was pegged at 206 million gallons from at least April 22 until the well was capped on July 15, a period of 85 days. That's a daily flow rate of about 2.4 million gallons — two-thirds of the way to BP's projection of what could leak from the well if it was an "open hole." BP has disputed the government's estimates.

    Having an accurate flow rate estimate is needed to determine how much in civil and criminal penalties BP and the other companies drilling the well face under the Clean Water Act.

    In the memo, a BP official urges not to share the flow-rate projections and refers to the "difficult discussions" the company was having at the time with the Coast Guard.

    Gary Imm, a BP manager, told Rob Marshall, BP's subsea manager in the Gulf, to tell the modeler doing the estimates "not to communicate to anyone on this."

    "A number of people have been looking at this we already have had difficult discussions with the USCG on the numbers," Imm said in the email string, referring to the Coast Guard and flow estimates.

    On April 23, 2010, the Coast Guard, relying on BP's remotely operated vehicles, said no oil was leaking from the well a mile under the sea. A day later, Coast Guard Rear Adm. Mary Landry announced that oil was leaking an estimated rate of 42,000 gallons a day. The Coast Guard and BP did not divulge how they reached that figure.

    In the second week after the spill, the official flow rate was increased to 210,000 gallons a day, an estimate the government continued to use until May 27.

    On May 24, BP informed Congress they used an "undisclosed method to generate much higher figures" than the official estimates, according to a report from a presidential commission investigating the spill. BP estimated that the flow rates were between 210,000 gallons and 1.6 million gallons a day, the January 2011 report said.

    As the spill grew into weeks and months, and soiled fishing grounds, beaches and coastal marshes, independent scientists questioned the official flow rates. Eventually, the federal government convened teams of government and independent scientists to determine how much oil leaked out of the well. They came up with an official estimate of about 2.4 million gallons of oil a day on average.

    <><><><><><><><><><><>
    from the article:
    "The official amount of oil that flowed from the well was pegged at 206 million gallons from at least April 22 until the well was capped on July 15, a period of 85 days. That's a daily flow rate of about 2.4 million gallons &mdash; two-thirds of the way to BP's projection of what could leak from the well if it was an "open hole." BP has disputed the government's estimates."
    &bull;&bull;&bull;&bull;&bull;&bull;&bull;&bull;&b ull;&bull;&bull;&bull;&bull;&bull;&bull;&bull;&bul l;&bull;&bull;&bull;&bull;&bull;
    BP's projection of what could leak from the well if it was an "open hole.

    Look at the BOP report, this was NOT AN OPEN HOLE.
    Estimating 2/3 the open hole flow rate is plausible, but likely still a high estimate. Does anyone recall the size of the sand cut penetrations at the BSRs.

    The well certainly was not flowing as an open hole 9 5/8" casing.
    Share on Facebook

  7. #6667
    Infomania is online now Old Salt
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Lafayette, Louisiana
    Age
    62
    Posts
    391
    Thanks
    43
    Thanked 109 Times in 96 Posts

    Default

    Court rejects Transocean move in Deepwater Horizon incident

    http://www.offshore.no/international...rizon_incident


    Posted 27.01.2012 09:28:02
    John Bradbury
    BP claims that a US court ruling over the Gulf of Mexico Deepwater Horizon accident has rejected the view that Transocean was indemnified for its liabilities from the disaster.

    Referring to a US District Court Ruling which gave a partial summary judgement over indemnities for the Deepwater Horizon accident, BP said today that the ruling &ldquo;...makes it clear that contractors will be held accountable for their actions under the law.&rdquo;

    BP goes on to state that while all official investigations have concluded &ldquo;...Transocean played a causal role in the accident, the contractor has long contented it is fully indemnified by BP for the liabilities resulting from the oil spill. The court rejected this view,&rdquo; BP stated today.

    &ldquo;Under the decision Transocean is, at a minimum, financially responsible for any punitive damages, fines and penalties flowing from its own conduct. As we have said from the beginning, Transocean cannot avoid its responsibility for this accident,&rdquo; BP adds.

    The operator &ndash; which was drilling the Macondo oil well in April 2010 in the US Gulf of Mexico which led to the loss of 11 oil workers' lives and Transocean's Deepwater Horizon rig &ndash; goes on to point out today its own efforts to acknowledge its role in the accident and BP underlines that it has paid out more than $7.8 billion in compensation claims.

    Last November Transocean filed a 51-page motion with the US District Court in the Eastern District of Louisiana &ldquo;...to enforce BP's contractual obligations including BP's obligation to defend, indemnify and hold Transocean harmless against pollution claims.&rdquo;
    Share on Facebook

  8. #6668
    Infomania is online now Old Salt
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Lafayette, Louisiana
    Age
    62
    Posts
    391
    Thanks
    43
    Thanked 109 Times in 96 Posts

    Default

    Oilfield companies damaged by drilling ban and permit delays, new report says


    http://www.dailycomet.com/article/20...ew-report-says

    The Courier and Daily Comet
    Published: Monday, January 30, 2012 at 11:26 a.m.
    Last Modified: Monday, January 30, 2012 at 11:26 a.m.
    A survey of 102 small and mid-sized oilfield businesses across Louisiana shows 41 percent aren't making a profit and half have laid off workers as a result of federal actions taken in the wake of the 2010 Gulf of Mexico oil spill.

    The survey results were released today by Greater New Orleans Inc., the economic development agency for a 10-parish region.

    The repoort is titled "The Impact of Decreased Drilling permit Approvals on Gulf of Mexico Businesses."

    GNO says the research initiative was prepared to determine the effects of the six-month federal deepwater drilling moratorium after the BP well exploded in April 2010, as well as impacts of the decreased approval rate for deep- and shallow-water drilling permits, on small and mid-sized businesses in Louisiana.

    &ldquo;Offshore service and supply companies are the core of the oil and gas industry in Louisiana,&rdquo; Lizette Terral, president for J.P. Morgan Chase Bank's New Orleans region, said in a news release. &ldquo;These small- and mid-sized companies are dependent on activity in the Gulf for their business, and as a result they have been disproportionally hurt by the ongoing permit slowdown.&rdquo;

    Key findings:

    -- 41 percent of businesses are not making a profit.

    -- 76 percent have lost cash reserves.

    -- 27 percent have lost more than half of their cash reserves.

    -- 50 percent have laid off employees as a result of the moratorium.

    -- 39 percent have retained workers but reduced salaries or hours.

    -- 46 percent have moved all or some of their operations away from the Gulf of Mexico.

    -- 82 percent have lost personal savings as a result of the permit slowdown.

    -- 13 percent have lost all of their personal savings as a result of the slowdown.
    Share on Facebook

  9. #6669
    zdjg02 is offline gCaptain Greenhorn
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    10
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 10 Times in 4 Posts

    Default Re: Deepwater Horizon - Transocean Oil Rig Fire

    If there was "veiling" going on, it wasn't for very long.

    See attached news report from May 5, 2010

    http://www.dallasnews.com/news/state...worst-1308.ece
    Share on Facebook

  10. #6670
    Infomania is online now Old Salt
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Lafayette, Louisiana
    Age
    62
    Posts
    391
    Thanks
    43
    Thanked 109 Times in 96 Posts

    Default

    Halliburton wins ruling vs BP over Gulf oil spill

    http://mobile.reuters.com/article/id...20131?irpc=932

    By Jonathan Stempel

    (Reuters) - A federal judge on Tuesday said Halliburton Co is not liable for some pollution claims arising from the 2010 Gulf of Mexico oil spill, setting back BP Plc's effort to hold other companies responsible for part of the $42 billion cleanup.

    U.S. District Judge Carl Barbier in New Orleans said BP must indemnify Halliburton, which provided cementing services for the Macondo oil well, for third-party compensatory claims under their contract, even if Halliburton is found grossly negligent.

    The indemnification relates to claims arising from pollution or contamination that did not originate from Halliburton property located above the land or water.

    Halliburton would still be responsible for punitive damages, as well as civil fines under the federal Clean Water Act.

    "This is a very positive step for Halliburton, however outstanding issues still remain," wrote Angie Sedita, a UBS Securities LLC analyst who has a "buy" rating on that company. "The claim of fraud against Halliburton and thus a breach of contract does appear to leave an open issue in the court's eyes."

    Barbier issued a similar ruling on January 26 that required BP to indemnify Transocean Ltd, which owned the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig, on compensatory damages claims.

    That ruling meant BP could not shift more than $15 billion of costs for the spill.

    BP spokesman Daren Beaudo said the Halliburton decision sends a "strong signal" that contractors involved in critical well operations will be held accountable. He said it means BP's indemnity "could be void" if Halliburton committed fraud.

    Halliburton spokeswoman Beverly Stafford said that company agrees with Tuesday's decision "to the extent that it requires BP to honor its contractual indemnity obligations."

    Barbier oversees multidistrict litigation over the April 20, 2010, explosion of the Deepwater Horizon.

    The accident caused 11 deaths and the largest offshore oil spill in U.S. history. Barbier has set a February 27 start date for a bench trial to apportion blame.

    Halliburton is based in Houston, and BP in London.

    Halliburton shares closed up 11 cents to $36.78, and BP's American depositary receipts rose $1.77, or 4.01 percent, to $45.91.

    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.
    Share on Facebook

  11. #6671
    Infomania is online now Old Salt
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Lafayette, Louisiana
    Age
    62
    Posts
    391
    Thanks
    43
    Thanked 109 Times in 96 Posts

    Default

    BP contract shielded Halliburton in spill, judge rules | HoumaToday.com
    (contains new info referenced to possible change in status as to future testimony by Halliburton engineer Jesse Gagliano)

    http://www.houmatoday.com/article/20...nion?p=2&tc=pg

    (clip from article)
    Last week, BP asked U.S. Magistrate Sally Shushan to exclude trial testimony by a Halliburton employee who was working on the rig before the explosion and has been identified as a possible subject of a Justice Department criminal investigation of the disaster.

    Jesse Gagliano, who worked on the well's cementing job, has been interviewed by a congressional committee and testified before a government panel probing the disaster. He initially invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and refused to be questioned under oath for the litigation, but he recently waived that right and agreed to be questioned by civil attorneys next week.

    BP suggests Gagliano's change of heart so close to the trial is designed to give Halliburton a strategic advantage. Halliburton counters that "unfounded speculation" about Gagliano's motives shouldn't preclude his testimony.
    Last edited by Infomania; January 31st, 2012 at 11:02 PM.
    Share on Facebook

  12. #6672
    Infomania is online now Old Salt
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Lafayette, Louisiana
    Age
    62
    Posts
    391
    Thanks
    43
    Thanked 109 Times in 96 Posts

    Default

    With trial pending, BP asks judge to cull experts - Houston Chronicle

    http://www.chron.com/news/article/Wi...ts-2848209.php


    NEW ORLEANS (AP) &mdash; With a trial over the Gulf of Mexico oil spill looming, BP PLC is asking a federal judge to block two plaintiffs' experts from testifying about an alleged disregard for safety throughout the energy company that those experts say led to the nation's largest offshore oil spill.

    BP's legal maneuver to limit the two California experts from testifying about the alleged lack of a safety culture at BP was made public Monday after U.S. Magistrate Sally Shushan unsealed 30 court motions to limit and block expert testimony. BP filed 17 of the motions, seeking to block expert testimony on a number of issues behind what happened to cause BP's well to blow out.

    The trial begins Feb. 27 in federal court in New Orleans. It will determine the division of responsibility for the disaster that began with the explosion of the BP-leased Deepwater Horizon on April 20, 2010, which killed 11 men about 50 miles southeast of the Louisiana coast.

    Besides BP, other companies involved in the spill &mdash; including Cameron International, Halliburton Corp. and Anadarko Petroleum Co. &mdash; and the Justice Departmentfiled their own motions to block experts from testifying at trial. The sparring parties are seeking to block testimony about a slew of issues involving how the well was cemented, how drilling fluids were poured into it and how pressure tests were interpreted. The trial is expected to rely heavily on expert testimony.

    But BP's attempt to block Robert Bea, a University of California-Berkeley engineer, and William Gale, a California-based fire and explosion investigator and consultant, from testifying is pivotal for the plaintiffs' case, which charges that BP was reckless in its actions. The plaintiffs and federal and state governments are seeking to get U.S. District Judge Carl Barbier to find BP grossly negligent, a finding that could result in billions of dollars in fines.

    In pretrial depositions and in an expert report, Bea and Gale argued that BP showed a disregard for safety throughout the company.

    Their testimony &mdash; if it is allowed at trial &mdash; would be expected to paint BP as a cavalier company that has failed to learn lessons from previous disasters &mdash; including the 2005 explosion at a BP refinery in Texas City, Texas, that killed 15 workers and injured 170 others and a major spill in 2006 from a BP pipeline in Prudhoe Bay, Alaska.

    In its filing, BP charged that Bea and Gale's report was "the opposite of good science." BP charged the two experts with focusing solely on BP and analyzing documents and evidence "spoon-fed to them" by plaintiffs lawyers. BP accused the experts of ignoring the "safety culture of the other parties" involved in the spill, in particular Transocean Ltd., the drilling company running operations aboard the Deepwater Horizon.

    BP said Bea and Gale failed to take into consideration a report by Lloyd's Register that was done one month before the explosion. Lloyd's report found serious fatigue problems with Transocean's decision to lengthen workers' hitches aboard the Deepwater Horizon by one week, from 14 days to 21 days. Lloyd's specializes in assessing safety aboard maritime facilities.

    The plaintiffs' lawyers declined to comment on BP's filing. Gale did not return a telephone call seeking comment. Bea said he was unable to comment due to a confidentiality agreement with plaintiffs' lawyers.

    Attempts to exclude experts from testifying at trial are standard.

    But Ed Sherman, a Tulane University law professor, said he would be surprised if Barbier excluded experts because this will be a non-jury trial.

    "My guess is that most of them will qualify," Sherman said.

    He said Barbier will want to hear what the experts have to say and that he will discern unreliable expert testimony.
    Share on Facebook

  13. #6673
    Infomania is online now Old Salt
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Lafayette, Louisiana
    Age
    62
    Posts
    391
    Thanks
    43
    Thanked 109 Times in 96 Posts

    Default

    With trial pending, BP asks judge to cull experts - Houston Chronicle

    http://www.chron.com/news/article/Wi...ts-2848209.php

    NEW ORLEANS (AP) &mdash; With a trial over the Gulf of Mexico oil spill looming, BP PLC is asking a federal judge to block two plaintiffs' experts from testifying about an alleged disregard for safety throughout the energy company that those experts say led to the nation's largest offshore oil spill.

    BP's legal maneuver to limit the two California experts from testifying about the alleged lack of a safety culture at BP was made public Monday after U.S. Magistrate Sally Shushan unsealed 30 court motions to limit and block expert testimony. BP filed 17 of the motions, seeking to block expert testimony on a number of issues behind what happened to cause BP's well to blow out.

    The trial begins Feb. 27 in federal court in New Orleans. It will determine the division of responsibility for the disaster that began with the explosion of the BP-leased Deepwater Horizon on April 20, 2010, which killed 11 men about 50 miles southeast of the Louisiana coast.

    Besides BP, other companies involved in the spill &mdash; including Cameron International, Halliburton Corp. and Anadarko Petroleum Co. &mdash; and the Justice Departmentfiled their own motions to block experts from testifying at trial. The sparring parties are seeking to block testimony about a slew of issues involving how the well was cemented, how drilling fluids were poured into it and how pressure tests were interpreted. The trial is expected to rely heavily on expert testimony.

    But BP's attempt to block Robert Bea, a University of California-Berkeley engineer, and William Gale, a California-based fire and explosion investigator and consultant, from testifying is pivotal for the plaintiffs' case, which charges that BP was reckless in its actions. The plaintiffs and federal and state governments are seeking to get U.S. District Judge Carl Barbier to find BP grossly negligent, a finding that could result in billions of dollars in fines.

    In pretrial depositions and in an expert report, Bea and Gale argued that BP showed a disregard for safety throughout the company.

    Their testimony &mdash; if it is allowed at trial &mdash; would be expected to paint BP as a cavalier company that has failed to learn lessons from previous disasters &mdash; including the 2005 explosion at a BP refinery in Texas City, Texas, that killed 15 workers and injured 170 others and a major spill in 2006 from a BP pipeline in Prudhoe Bay, Alaska.

    In its filing, BP charged that Bea and Gale's report was "the opposite of good science." BP charged the two experts with focusing solely on BP and analyzing documents and evidence "spoon-fed to them" by plaintiffs lawyers. BP accused the experts of ignoring the "safety culture of the other parties" involved in the spill, in particular Transocean Ltd., the drilling company running operations aboard the Deepwater Horizon.

    BP said Bea and Gale failed to take into consideration a report by Lloyd's Register that was done one month before the explosion. Lloyd's report found serious fatigue problems with Transocean's decision to lengthen workers' hitches aboard the Deepwater Horizon by one week, from 14 days to 21 days. Lloyd's specializes in assessing safety aboard maritime facilities.

    The plaintiffs' lawyers declined to comment on BP's filing. Gale did not return a telephone call seeking comment. Bea said he was unable to comment due to a confidentiality agreement with plaintiffs' lawyers.

    Attempts to exclude experts from testifying at trial are standard.

    But Ed Sherman, a Tulane University law professor, said he would be surprised if Barbier excluded experts because this will be a non-jury trial.

    "My guess is that most of them will qualify," Sherman said.

    He said Barbier will want to hear what the experts have to say and that he will discern unreliable expert testimony.
    Share on Facebook

  14. #6674
    Infomania is online now Old Salt
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Lafayette, Louisiana
    Age
    62
    Posts
    391
    Thanks
    43
    Thanked 109 Times in 96 Posts

    Default

    BP's Disgusting Move-DailyFinance

    http://m.aol.com/dailyfinance/defaul...id=dsk_df_news

    The recent court ruling on 2010's Gulf oil spill has probably been among the more popular stories about BP (NYS: BP) in the past seven days. A federal judge ruled that the integrated super-major is still obligated to honor its contract with Transocean (NYS: RIG) andHalliburton (NYS: HAL) and cover some of the damage claims awarded against the two contractors. Not surprisingly, the sparring sides were quick to claim victory for themselves. However, what caught my attention was a relatively minor development, which paints a somewhat unflattering picture of BP.
    Not that minor, though
    On Monday, the court unsealed 30 motions -- 17 of them filed by BP -- that sought to limit and block testimony by experts who made thorough investigations into a number of issues behind the well blowout. BP had attempted to block California-based Robert Bea and William Gale from testifying in the trial, which begins Feb. 27.
    In a report (PDF file, Adobe Acrobat required) published last March by the University of California, Berkeley, the two make a comprehensive study on the causes of and factors behind the blowout. One of the conclusions reached: "This disaster was preventable if existing progressive guidelines and practices [had] been followed -- the Best Available and Safest Technology." The report goes on to reveal BP's corporate culture "that was embedded in risk-taking and cost-cutting."
    The study exposes that rather than quantify risk in terms of safety and consequence, BP's business model was primarily based on managing risk in context of the portfolio of assets it controlled. In other words, the company was more interested in cutting down costs, improving capital efficiency, and closing the competitive gap -- all by taking risks and compromising on safety.
    Laughable
    And now, it has been revealed that BP wanted to block those who made this report from testifying in the trial. The reason? The experts have ignored the "safety culture of the other parties" involved. I actually find this downright laughable given the company's history of accidents.
    The Texas City Refinery explosion in 2005, which killed 15 workers, and the Prudhoe Bay oil spill in 2006 never really seemed to have been a wakeup call for the company. In the aftermath of Hurricane Dennis in 2005, BP's 15-story oil platform -- the Thunder Horse -- in the Gulf of Mexico was listing dangerously to one side. According to The New York Times, this platform was meant to be the company's crowning glory, symbolizing the bold gamble to be ahead in the race against its competitors.
    Foolish bottom line
    As Fool analyst Alyce Lomax argues, shoddy corporate management structures are responsible for a tragedy of the scale of the Deepwater Horizon disaster. I find no reasons to disagree. Which is why there are reasons to be disgusted with BP's legal maneuvers to evade a fair judgment.
    Share on Facebook

  15. #6675
    Infomania is online now Old Salt
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Lafayette, Louisiana
    Age
    62
    Posts
    391
    Thanks
    43
    Thanked 109 Times in 96 Posts

    Default

    BP To Call Transocean CEO To Appear In Person At Deepwater Horizon Trial -FT | Fox Business

    http://www.foxbusiness.com/news/2012...izon-trial-ft/

    BP PLC (BP) is looking to call Transocean Ltd. (RIG) Chief Executive Steven Newman to testify in person at the trial later this month over the Deepwater Horizon disaster, theFinancial Times reported on its website Thursday, citing a letter from BP to the magistrate judge for the trial.

    The FT quoted BP as saying it planned to call Newman as a live witness because "live testimony on critical subjects from Mr. Newman will be key evidence showing the relative roles of the well operator and the drilling contractor, the primary role Transocean possessed for safety of the Transocean rig and the personnel aboard, and Transocean Driller's key responsibilities for well monitoring?.?.?.?and well control."

    Newman is the only chief executive put forward as a live witness, the FT reported. Other executives have given evidence by videotaped deposition.

    Full story: http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/b1b0f...#axzz1kzKyZlLx
    Share on Facebook

  16. #6676
    Infomania is online now Old Salt
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Lafayette, Louisiana
    Age
    62
    Posts
    391
    Thanks
    43
    Thanked 109 Times in 96 Posts

    Default

    'The new normal' in the Gulf of Mexico
    theadvertiser.com

    http://www.theadvertiser.com/article...3/-new-normal-

    Oil and gas exploration and production in the Gulf of Mexico will some day return to pre-BP spill levels, the president of Chevron North America Exploration and Production Company, Gary Luquette said Thursday.

    But the rigorous permitting, safety and verification requirements imposed after the April 2010 BP disaster are here to stay, Gary Luquette said during an interview with The Daily Advertiser before the Greater Lafayette Chamber of Commerce annual banquet, where he was keynote speaker.

    "It's a new normal," Luquette said.

    The industry hasn't found its stride since the Deepwater Horizon platform operated by BP off the coast of Louisiana exploded and sunk, creating the largest oil spill in U.S. history.

    That disaster, which killed
    11 workers, led the federal government to impose a six-month moratorium on deepwater drilling that was followed by more stringent permitting and safety regulations.

    "I think activity levels can and will return to pre-Macondo (spill) levels," he said. "The effort and rigor in getting permits approved won't return."

    Luquette said that's a good thing for Louisiana and the industry. The BP disaster tainted the entire industry.

    Tighter permitting, regulations and oversight will help the industry rebuild public trust, he said.

    The "new normal" may be too costly for some of the small independent companies to survive, Luquette said.

    "In the end," he said, "the standards are going up. It's your responsibility to enact them."

    The Gulf of Mexico is still a major source of oil and natural gas and Chevron maintains a presence there, in deepwater and shallow water, said Luquette, a 1978 civil engineering graduate of UL Lafayette.

    More than half of the company's 2012 budget is allocated to Gulf of Mexico activity. Today, Chevron has 10 rigs operating in shallow water, he said.

    Lafayette plays an important role in the industry with numerous supply and service companies operating here.

    Chevron alone has 300 workers in its Lafayette office and another 300 or so working offshore out of the Lafayette office, Luquette said.
    Share on Facebook

  17. #6677
    Infomania is online now Old Salt
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Lafayette, Louisiana
    Age
    62
    Posts
    391
    Thanks
    43
    Thanked 109 Times in 96 Posts

    Default

    BP can't keep settlements out of oil spill trial

    http://mobile.reuters.com/article/id...20207?irpc=932

    * BP request premature -judge

    * Ruling is a victory for Halliburton

    * Halliburton: Settlements could reflect bias in BP favor

    * BP has settled with Anadarko, MOEX, Cameron, Weatherford

    By Jonathan Stempel

    Feb 7 (Reuters) - A federal judge rejected BP Plc's effort to keep evidence about settlements out of the upcoming trial to decide who is responsible for the 2010 Gulf of Mexico oil spill.

    Tuesday's ruling by U.S. District Judge Carl Barbier in New Orleans, scheduled to preside in a non-jury trial beginning Feb. 27, is a victory for Halliburton Co, which had provided cementing services for the Macondo oil well.

    The Houston-based company had argued that evidence of settlements or negotiations could show the settling companies' potential bias in BP's favor, which Halliburton could then use in its defense.

    BP countered that excluding such information was consistent with federal rules on evidence, and that such details are irrelevant to establishing liability.

    Barbier concluded that the London-based oil company's request was premature, even though there were "plausible scenarios" in which settlement evidence could reflect bias.

    "The proper course is to wait until any settlement evidence is actually sought to be introduced to determine admissibility," he wrote.

    BP has reached settlements with two partners in the Macondo well: $4 billion with Anadarko Petroleum Corp, and $1.065 billion with Mitsui & Co's MOEX unit.

    It also reached settlements of $250 million with Cameron International Corp, which made a blowout preventer, and $75 million with Weatherford International Ltd , which made a float collar used in cementing and which controls the flow of drilling fluids.

    Halliburton has not settled with BP. Transocean Ltd , which owned the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig that exploded on April 20, 2010, also has not settled.

    Earlier on Tuesday, BP reported a higher quarterly profit and raised its dividend for the first time since the spill.

    Chief Executive Bob Dudley said BP retains a "bias for settling" spill litigation but is preparing vigorously for trial.

    The Gulf of Mexico disaster caused 11 deaths and the largest offshore oil spill in U.S. history.

    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.
    Share on Facebook

  18. #6678
    Infomania is online now Old Salt
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Lafayette, Louisiana
    Age
    62
    Posts
    391
    Thanks
    43
    Thanked 109 Times in 96 Posts

    Default

    Incentives to settle spill case loom large - Houston Chronicle

    http://www.chron.com/business/articl...ge-3261949.php

    A legal brawl that began with the deadly Deepwater Horizon rig explosion and Gulf of Mexico oil spill nearly two years ago is within weeks of a courtroom showdown that many parties would prefer to avoid through a settlement.

    The British oil giant BP has said as much.

    "We are ready to settle, if we can do so on fair and reasonable terms," CEO Bob Dudley said last week as BP announced its quarterly financial results. "But we are preparing vigorously for trial."

    That trial is scheduled for Feb. 27 before U.S. District Judge Carl Barbier of New Orleans, who will hear the case without a jury.

    In what is just the first phase of a complex plan for litigating all the claims and counterclaims arising from the accident, Barbier will determine how to allocate liability for the damages it caused.

    BP owned the Macondo well that blew out and triggered the April 2010 disaster.

    Other parties are Transocean, which owned and operated the Deepwater Horizon; Halliburton, which cemented the well; federal, state and municipal governments; and more than 100 individual claimants.

    The blowout and explosion killed 11 workers, caused the worst offshore U.S. oil spill and generated one of the most complex environmental law cases ever.

    BP has allocated $36 billion for a potential payout related to the accident, according to its financial statements.

    Several experts following the case believe that many of the parties - especially the corporate and government plaintiffs and defendants - will agree to at least partial settlements before or during the trial.

    The federal government might agree to a settlement of $20 billion to $25 billion - well below what defendants could risk at trial - said David Uhlmann, a University of Michigan law professor who headed the Justice Department's Environmental Crimes Section for seven years.

    "This is a case that should settle, at least as it pertains to the government claims against BP and the other companies involved in the Gulf oil spill," Uhlmann said. "The companies do not have good defenses, and going to trial risks higher penalties and months of bad publicity."

    One uncertainty is the civil penalties that BP and others might face under the Clean Water Act. Those damages vary significantly depending upon whether violations are determined to have resulted from negligence or gross negligence. The penalty is up to $1,100 per barrel spilled through negligence, and up to $4,300 per barrel spilled through gross negligence.

    The government has estimated the three-month spill spewed 4.9 million barrels of crude into the Gulf, but the spill's size is one issue in dispute.

    That means the companies and government would have billions riding on whether the government could meet the higher burden of proving gross negligence - a gamble that gives both an incentive to settle. And that risk only involves the potential civil penalties under the Clean Water Act, not other potential environmental violations.

    The Clean Water Act also carries criminal penalties, and criminal investigations are ongoing but so far have not resulted in any charges.

    Depending upon which if any of the parties settle, Barbier's task starting Feb. 27 will be to determine liability for the accidents and the proportion of liability that each company must assume.

    The next phase of the case would be assessment of compensatory and punitive damages, which are governed by federal maritime law, said Blaine LeCesne, a tort law professor at Loyola University.

    Compensatory damages are for actual harm suffered, and punitive damages punish behavior.

    In the case that arose from the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil tanker spill, compensatory and punitive damages were assessed on a 1-to-1 ratio. But the ratio could be different depending upon whether the judge relies on that earlier case as precedent.

    The majority of corporate civil cases settle before a trial, legal experts said, but the multiple parties involved in the Gulf spill litigation make negotiations much more complicated than in most such cases.

    While most individual plaintiffs signed away their right to sue in exchange for a payment from a $20 billion fund BP set up in 2010, scores of cases still remain.

    "The biggest problem is that there are so many moving parts, so many defendants, so many plaintiffs - some of which are aligned, and some are not," said Dane Ciolino, a Loyola law professor who specializes in maritime law.

    "This is very unusual litigation. It's not just one big class action against one company. In terms of the cleanup efforts, figuring out who was at fault, and the damages - tax losses, economic, environmental - the litigation is sprawling. No one has ever seen anything quite like it."
    Share on Facebook

  19. #6679
    Infomania is online now Old Salt
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Lafayette, Louisiana
    Age
    62
    Posts
    391
    Thanks
    43
    Thanked 109 Times in 96 Posts

    Default

    NOLA.com : Judge in Gulf oil spill trial can handle the numbingly complex trial ahead, colleagues say

    http://mobile.nola.com/advnola/pm_29...tguid=EGc4Z6fU
    Mark Schleifstein, The Times-Picayune02/12/2012 6:25 AM

    On the day in August 2010 that an Idaho gathering of judges tapped U.S. District Judge Carl Barbier of New Orleans to oversee 535 consolidated lawsuits in the BP Deepwater Horizon disaster and Gulf oil spill, Barbier was already warning the attorneys who would appear in his court that the complex litigation was to be dispatched with courtesy and professionalism.

    "It is likely that during the course of this litigation your working relationship will occasionally be strained, communication derailed, and mutual trust questioned," Barbier wrote in his first, 31-page order outlining the scope of the case. "The Court expects, indeed insists, that professionalism and courteous cooperation permeate this proceeding from now until this litigation is concluded."

    For those who had already appeared before the 13-year veteran of the federal bench or against him during his career as a trial lawyer in New Orleans, Barbier was simply describing the standards he has always insisted upon.

    "He brings both intelligence and a good personality to dealing with one of the most complex cases in history," said Tulane Law School professor and former dean Edward Sherman, an expert on complicated litigation.

    "I am a better attorney for having worked for him, and I would say a better person for knowing him," said Suzanne Scalise, a Loyola School of Law professor who was a law clerk with Barbier in 2003 and 2004. "He's incredibly bright and a fantastic mentor. He expected a high level of performance from us and he wanted us to get things right. But he really did everything in is power to make it a wonderful work environment."

    Complex cases don't scare court

    The federal Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigationdecided to transfer the complex case to New Orleans because many of the lawsuits were filed here, close to the accident, and because the New Orleans-based court has had success handling equally complex cases. Among them: a myriad of lawsuits filed after Hurricane Katrina, a multitude of damage suits stemming from contaminated Chinese drywall, and a variety of national class-action cases involving prescription drugs.

    They chose Barbier because of his experience in similar cases.

    "He has a distinguished career as an attorney and now as a jurist," the judges wrote in their transfer order. "We have every confidence that he is well prepared to handle a litigation of this magnitude."

    Unlike other high-profile court cases, the oil spill litigation won't be tried in front of a jury. Barbier will be deciding all questions about the liability of BP and other companies and government agencies, and will have to determine the relative merit of evidence presented as fact as well as the opinions of expert witnesses.

    One of the difficulties Barbier will have is in deciding where the trail of damages ends, trial lawyer Scott Bickford said.

    "If you're a towel salesman on the beach in Pensacola and can't sell towels, do I get to claim the loss of income or revenue for not selling towels?" Bickford said. "The answer is probably yes. But does the towel manufacturer have a valid claim? What about the raw cotton supplier? Do you go back to the cotton farmer?"

    That's where Barbier's experience will help, Sherman said.

    "He did a lot of admiralty and maritime work as an attorney, so the maritime issues that are so important in this case, he understands and has dealt with very deftly," Sherman said. "And the federal court in the eastern district of Louisiana has been a leader in developing creative approaches to mass disasters and mass torts."

    Judge's warmth, humor appreciated

    Although billions of dollars are at stake, attorneys in his courtroom have embraced Barbier's sense of humor and warm personal manner.

    When lead BP attorney Andy Langan brought his son from Chicago last year to sit in on a day of the proceedings, he was welcomed with a courtroom ovation and kind words from the judge.

    The Alabama-Louisiana college football rivalry also surfaced in the courtroom when Alabama Attorney General Luther Strange, a Tulane alumnus who serves as coordinating counsel for state interests, was forced to wear a purple-and-gold striped tie after LSU prevailed during the two teams' regular season match-up in Tuscaloosa.

    When Alabama trounced LSU in the BCS national title game, Louisiana members of the plaintiffs committee wore crimson ties and temporarily broke court rules to don Bear Bryant-style houndstooth hats adorned with red feathers.

    "He's innately a kind man. He has a wonderful sense of humor," Bickford said. "That really comes across. But I've seen him get pissed off, and you do not want to be on his bad side."

    Bickford should know. One of his clients, restaurateur Stan "Pampy" Barre, once referred to Barbier as "one pissed off, fed-up judge" who "turned a little guy into an ax murderer" in sentencing Barre to five years in a City Hall corruption case.

    'Very even-handed, very careful'

    Born in New Orleans, Barbier received a bachelor's degree at Southeastern Louisiana University and a law degree from Loyola. He clerked for William Redman, then a judge with the Louisiana 4th Circuit Court of Appeal, and with the late U.S. District Judge Fred Cassibry in New Orleans.

    Barbier worked as a trial lawyer in New Orleans until he was appointed to the federal bench by President Bill Clinton in 1998. During his private practice, he served as president of the Louisiana Trial Lawyers Association, lobbying successfully against then-Gov. Mike Foster's attempt to gain legislative approval of no-fault automobile insurance.

    His career representing plaintiffs similar to those who have brought suit against BP has led to some concerns about his ability to be impartial. But most dismiss that concern and some even worry he could become too accommodating of the defendants in the name of fairness.

    "All the attorneys I've talked to say he's very even-handed and very careful," Sherman said. "I don't think anybody is claiming he has any predispositions in this case."

    Michael McAlpine, a lawyer who represents corporations and insurance companies, argued a case before Barbier involving a 2008 explosion that sank a dive boat during the decommissioning of a natural gas pipeline in the Gulf of Mexico, killing three men.

    "That case also involved general maritime law and all of the bells and whistles that go with it," McAlpine said. "I was really impressed with the way he handled it."

    Like the BP case, it involved overlapping federal and state laws and the legal limitations of damage liability.

    "He absolutely got it, and used his knowledge of the people involved, the personalities, to steer it to a very satisfactory outcome," McAlpine said.

    A numbingly complex case

    Though the upcoming trial is numbingly complex, most court observers seem to think Barbier will rise to the challenge -- a major part of which involves assigning weight to "fact" witnesses and opinionated testimony given by experts.

    In some cases, fact witnesses have undergone two days of depositions, resulting in 400-page transcripts. Those are often accompanied by dozens of exhibits, each of which can contain up to 2,000 pages. Lawyers are providing Barbier with a two-page summary of each deposition, but the originals are online for his use, including links to the exhibits.

    Expert witnesses are required to submit a written report online, with a similar two-page summary. Several have had their testimony challenged by either the prosecution or the defense, with Barbier as the arbiter.

    Much of the expert testimony will be in response to questions raised by the parties about the opinions contained in the experts' reports. Barbier will participate in the questioning.

    Barbier may rule later that he will ignore an expert's testimony.

    The judge already has made it clear he will set a comparatively fast schedule for the first trial. For instance, he has blocked out 400 minutes for opening arguments, which will begin on Feb. 27, with BP getting 90 minutes, the largest share of time, and the federal government, at 75 minutes, the second-largest share.

    But the trial is likely to be seeded with a variety of land mines as it progresses.

    For starters, there's the sheer volume of evidence. There's no way Barbier will be able to read every line of every deposition, or every page of every exhibit, court observers say.

    But he's likely to review much of it, Scalise said.

    "He reviewed everything that was written, motions, memos, cases," she said. "There was nothing that was ever written that did not get reviewed and edited by him. There was nothing that went out of his chambers that he didn't know more about than we did."

    Barbier also will have to deal with bickering during the trial, among both plaintiffs and defendants. While the most fractious battles may be between Transocean, Halliburton and BP, there may also be conflicts between Louisiana and the U.S. Justice Department as the trial progresses.

    Sorting through the ebb and flow of testimony and evidence during the trial will require concentration, attorneys say. There are likely to be days when "smoking gun" revelations are made, but there will also be many more days of tedium during the first trial phase, which could last three months or more.

    One factor in Barbier's favor is that the trial's high profile means some of the top lawyers in the country will be here, Sherman said, adding: "You're not going to see any courtroom antics by these attorneys."

    &bull;&bull;&bull;&bull;&bull;&bull;&bull;

    Mark Schleifstein can be reached atmschleifstein@timespicayune.com or 504.826.3327.
    Share on Facebook

  20. #6680
    Infomania is online now Old Salt
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Lafayette, Louisiana
    Age
    62
    Posts
    391
    Thanks
    43
    Thanked 109 Times in 96 Posts

    Default

    BP WINS EXCLUSION OF ALL PRIOR FELONY VIOLATIONS AND CONVICTIONS.

    Judge Barbier's 7 page ruling here:
    http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/02/10/bp.pdf
    Attached Images Attached Images
    Share on Facebook

Similar Threads

  1. Transocean Settles First Deepwater Horizon Death Case
    By Jones Act in forum Maritime Law News
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: January 13th, 2011, 06:13 PM
  2. Transocean – Deepwater Horizon to Economic Horizon
    By Jones Act in forum Maritime Law News
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: September 23rd, 2010, 11:47 AM
  3. Transocean Deepwater Horizon - What has been learned?
    By shoot31 in forum Professional Mariner Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: August 25th, 2010, 01:28 PM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: August 16th, 2010, 11:01 PM
  5. Replies: 69
    Last Post: July 8th, 2010, 06:08 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2