United States v. BP Exploration & Prod., Inc. (In re Oil Spill by the Oil Rig “Deepwater Horizon”)

• Decision Date: 04 September 2014
• Docket Number: 10–4536.,Nos. 10–2771,MDL No. 2179.,s. 10–2771
• Citation: 21 F.Supp.3d 657
• Parties: In re OIL SPILL BY THE OIL RIG “DEEPWATER HORIZON” IN the GULF OF MEXICO, ON APRIL 20, 2010, This Document Applies to: In re The Complaint and Petition of Triton Asset Leasing GmbH, et al. and United States of America v. BP Exploration & Production, Inc., et al.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Louisiana

21 F.Supp.3d 657

In re OIL SPILL BY THE OIL RIG “DEEPWATER HORIZON” IN the GULF OF MEXICO, ON APRIL 20, 2010
This Document Applies to:
In re The Complaint and Petition of Triton Asset Leasing GmbH, et al.
and
United States of America
v.
BP Exploration & Production, Inc., et al.

MDL No. 2179.
Nos. 10–2771
10–4536.

United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana.

Signed Sept. 4, 2014.

21 F.Supp.3d 663

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW PHASE ONE TRIAL

CARL BARBIER, District Judge.

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a), the Court enters these Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law relative to the Phase One trial. If any finding is in truth a conclusion of law, or if any conclusion stated is in truth a finding of fact, it shall be deemed so.

The Court has also issued simultaneously with these Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law a separate order ruling on various motions pertaining to the Phase One trial.

CONTENTS

I.	Introduction and Procedural History	666
II.	Parties to the Phase One Trial	668

A. Defendants 668

i.	The BP Entities	668
ii.	The Transocean Entities	669
iii.	Halliburton	669
iv.	Cameron and M–I	669

B.	Plaintiffs	669
C.	Non–Parties to Phase One Trial	669

III. Substantive Findings of Fact 670

A.	The DEEPWATER HORIZON	670
B.	MC252 and the Macondo Well	671
C.	Drilling the Macondo Well	672

i.	Some Offshore Drilling Concepts	672
ii.	Drilling Operations at Macondo	673
iii.	Post–Drilling Operations: Production Casing and Temporary Abandonment	675

D. Production Casing 676

i.	Long String Casing vs. Liner With Tieback	676
ii.	Running the Production Casing	677

E.	Overview of Cement Issues	678
F.	Cement Placement	679

i.	The Weatherford M45AP Float Collar	679
ii.	The Attempted Conversion of the Float Collar	680
iii.	The Float Collar Did Not Convert	684
iv.	The Shoe Track Breached During the Attempted Float Collar Conversion	685
v.	Cement Was Pumped Through the Breach in the Shoe Track and Placed Improperly; Hydrocarbons Later Entered the Well Casing Through the Breach in the Shoe Track	687
vi.	The Court Is Not Persuaded by BP's Theories Regarding Float Collar Conversion, Cement Placement, and Flow Path	689
vii.	Cement Bond Log	691
viii.	M57B Sand	693

G. Cement Composition 694

i.	Cementing Responsibilities	694
ii.	The Cement Design for the Macondo Well	694
iii.	Parties' Arguments Regarding Cement Composition	695
iv.	The Cement Was Unstable, but Instability Did Not Cause the Blowout	697

H. Pressure Integrity Testing 699

i. The Positive Pressure Test 699

...