844 F. Supp. 2d 746
E.D. La.2012Background
- BP and Anadarko were co-lessees of MC252 on the Outer Continental Shelf and co-owned the Macondo Well.
- The DEEPWATER HORIZON, operated by Transocean, drilled the Macondo Well from Feb 2010 to Apr 2010 and suffered a blowout on Apr 20, 2010, causing explosions and the vessel to sink on Apr 22, 2010.
- Oil discharged from the Macondo Well beneath the surface through the BOP and riser until July 15, 2010, creating an offshore oil pollution event.
- The United States filed suit (10-4536) asserting CWA penalties and OPA liability for removal costs and damages; the defendants moved for partial summary judgment, with Anadarko and Transocean also seeking partial judgments.
- The case discusses whether the assignment of Anadarko E&P’s lease interest to Anadarko constitutes retroactive liability and how liability is allocated under OPA for a MODU used as an offshore facility.
- The Court focuses on subsurface discharges and does not resolve surface-discharge liability or certain Section 1004(c)(3) issues at this stage.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Retroactivity of Anadarko E&P lease assignment under OPA/CWA | U.S. contends potential liability; assignment timing may affect liability. | Anadarko E&P argues the assignment retroactivity is unclear and may affect liability. | Anadarko E&P not entitled to summary judgment; retroactivity undecided. |
| OPA liability allocation for subsurface discharge by a MODU used as offshore facility | BP and Anadarko are responsible parties for subsurface discharge; Transocean not liable for subsurface discharge as a vessel. | Transocean argues it is not liable for subsurface discharge and questions party status for subsurface event. | BP and Anadarko are responsible parties for subsurface discharge; Transocean not liable for subsurface discharge under OPA. |
| Whether OPA liability is joint and several for multiple responsible parties | Liability is joint and several among responsible parties. | No explicit joint-and-several language in OPA; invites different treatment. | Liability under OPA for subsurface discharge is joint and several. |
| OPA liability limits applicable to subsurface discharge | Government seeks unlimited liability for certain aspects; caps may not apply. | Limits may apply; need to show proximate causation and applicable exemptions. | Not entitled to summary judgment on liability limits; subsurface discharge liability remains with BP and Anadarko; limit questions reserved. |
| CWA penalties—discharge source under 311(b)(7): Macondo Well vs. DEEPWATER HORIZON | Oil discharged from both Macondo Well (offshore facility) and the vessel should incur penalties. | Discharge from vessel versus offshore facility is disputed; proponents argue mix of sources. | Oil discharged from the Macondo Well (offshore facility) for subsurface discharge; BP and Anadarko liable as owners; Transocean potentially liable as operator or in charge; surface-discharge liability not addressed here. |
Key Cases Cited
- Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. United States, 556 U.S. 599 (2009) (interprets liability frameworks and statutory construction relevant to federal liability schemes)
- Moran Mid-Atl. Corp. v. Nat'l Shipping Co., 924 F. Supp. 1436 (E.D. Va. 1996) (economic liability theory informing OPA/CAA liability allocation)
- Tex-Tow, Inc. v. United States, 589 F.2d 1310 (7th Cir. 1978) (cost internalization and pollution liability for polluting enterprises)
- Peconic Baykeeper, Inc. v. Suffolk County, 600 F.3d 180 (2d Cir. 2010) (defines 'from' in discharge interpretations for CWA penalties)
- United States v. Bestfoods, 524 U.S. 51 (1998) (CERCLA operator standards informing 'operator' concept under environmental acts)
- Int'l. Marine Carriers v. Oil Spill Liab. Tr. Fund, 903 F. Supp. 1097 (S.D. Tex. 1994) (OPAs and cross-reference with maritime liability framework)
- Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Yost, 919 F.2d 27 (5th Cir. 1990) (administrative interpretation and deference principles cited)