United States v. B.P. Exploration & Production, Inc., 753 F.3d 570

Background

The Macondo (Deepwater Horizon) exploratory well, co-owned by BP and Anadarko, suffered a blowout on April 20, 2010; cement at the well failed and hydrocarbons flowed up the riser.
The Deepwater Horizon vessel (Transocean entities) was connected to the well by a riser; the blowout preventer also failed and the vessel later sank, severing the riser.
For nearly three months oil flowed from the damaged well/riser into the Gulf until the well was capped and ultimately sealed.
The United States sued under the Clean Water Act, seeking mandatory civil penalties against owners/operators of any vessel or facility "from which oil ... is discharged."
The district court granted summary judgment that the well was a facility "from which" oil was discharged; BP and Anadarko appealed.
The Fifth Circuit affirmed summary judgment as to liability, holding that loss of controlled confinement at the well constitutes a discharge and that third‑party path or fault does not avoid statutory civil‑penalty liability.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the well is a facility "from which" oil was discharged under 33 U.S.C. § 1321(b)(7)(A)	Loss of confinement at the well (cement failure) meant oil was discharged from the well	Discharge occurred later — when oil entered the marine environment or as it left the vessel/riser; or from Transocean’s riser	Held: Discharge is the point of loss of controlled confinement; the well was a facility "from which" oil was discharged; liability affirmed
Whether oil’s traversal through a third party’s vessel or equipment defeats liability	N/A (government argues path irrelevant)	Path through Transocean’s riser/vessel means the well owner did not ‘‘discharge’’ into navigable waters	Held: Path or intermediate traversal does not negate that the well was the source; liability unaffected by third‑party facilities
Whether third‑party fault (e.g., Transocean blowout preventer failure) shifts civil‑penalty liability	Government: liability is mandatory regardless of fault	Defendants: liability should shift to vessel/operator responsible for the riser/blowout preventer	Held: Civil‑penalty liability under §1321 is strict/absolute for owners of the facility from which discharge occurred; third‑party fault may mitigate penalty but does not eliminate liability
Whether factual disputes precluded summary judgment on liability	Government: record establishes cement failure and uncontrolled flow from well	Defendants: contested legal framing of "discharge" and effect of third‑party involvement	Held: No genuine dispute of material fact on loss of confinement and discharge; summary judgment affirmed as to liability

Key Cases Cited

Union Petroleum Corp. v. United States, 651 F.2d 734 (Ct. Cl.) (third‑party traversal does not defeat liability under § 1321)
Pepperell Assocs. v. United States EPA, 246 F.3d 15 (1st Cir. 2001) (administrative penalties where oil traversed a third‑party conduit)
United States v. Tex‑Tow, Inc., 589 F.2d 1310 (7th Cir. 1978) (statutory civil penalties imposed notwithstanding third‑party fault)
United States v. W. of Eng. Ship Owner’s Mut. Prot. & Indent., 872 F.2d 1192 (5th Cir. 1989) (describing § 1321 penalty regime as absolute liability with narrow exceptions)
Kelly v. United States EPA, 203 F.3d 519 (7th Cir. 2000) (confirming strict civil liability under the Clean Water Act)