LONDON – BP and its partners involved in the Gulf of Mexico oil spill have unleashed a $100 billion-plus barrage of legal claims one year after the rig blast killed 11 workers and created an environmental disaster.
On the anniversary of the disaster, BP filed suits totalling more than $80 billion against Transocean and Halliburton.
And in a separate action on Wednesday, BP sued Cameron International Corp, the maker of the blowout preventer, the so-called fail-safe device that failed to automatically shut down the well.
BP is seeking up to the full cost of the disaster – estimated at $42 billion – plus costs, interest and punitive damages from each of the companies that helped it drill the doomed well.
Meanwhile, BP’s partners in the well, Anadarko and Mitsui, filed a lawsuit against it, challenging BP’s demands that they contribute to the cost of the clean-up.
Wednesday was the deadline for companies connected to the spill to file claims against each other.
Analysts said the companies probably did not want the cases ever to get to court, as this would lead to a spectacle that would only further damage their already battered images.
Instead, the suits were seen as tactical moves ahead of settlements that could see some of the burden shared. The litigation is expected to last for years.
“It’s got a fairly low chance of being successful,” said one analyst who declined to be named because of the legal sensitivities around the case.
“I get the feeling that there is positioning going on here for a settlement.” So far BP has met the full cost of the clean-up alone, and is paying compensatory damages to affected people in the Gulf.
Yesterday afternoon, Transocean shares were off 4.6 per cent, while BP shares traded flat, against a 0.5 per cent rise in the STOXX Europe 600 Oil and Gas index.
BP said Halliburton concealed critical information that could have prevented the disaster.
“Halliburton’s improper conduct, errors and omissions, including fraud and concealment, caused and/or contributed to the Deepwater Horizon incident,” BP said in a court filing.
“Halliburton knew and understood it was misrepresenting material information,” BP added.
The nature of Halliburton’s claims against BP was unclear. In an e-mailed statement, Halliburton said: “We will vigorously defend these claims.”
In January the company disputed a US presidential commission’s characterisation of its cementing work on the blown-out Macondo well, saying that the report omitted key facts.
BP also filed a lawsuit against rig operator Transocean.
Since the outset of the disaster, BP has sought to blame its contractors, namely Transocean – a move that PR experts said had damaged its image. The presidential investigation into the report did criticise these companies, but directed most of its criticism at BP.
Service providers’ contracts with operators usually provide indemnities against any environmental damage which may result from their work. One analyst said this limited BP’s opportunities to recoup cash from Transocean or Halliburton.
If BP can establish gross or wilful negligence on the part of the contractors, it may be able to void such indemnities, but this is seen as hard to achieve.
“I don’t think it’s built into peoples’ expectations,” said the second analyst, who also declined to be named because of the legal sensitivities.
BP was widely criticised for trying to shift blame on to Transocean during the crisis. President Barack Obama called the mudslinging between the companies a “ridiculous spectacle”.
Joseph Lampel, professor of strategy at Cass Business School, said a lawsuit would be even more damaging to all the companies.
“The lawyers may have a go at each other. They will cross-examine witnesses and they will dig into every detail imaginable. This kind of battle is not only fought in the court room but in the arena of public opinion,” he said.
“What we know about any corporate battle in court is that it’s rare for any side to come out better.” – (Reuters)