DOCSLIB.ORG

Phase One Trial: Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on Gross

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Phase One Trial: Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on Gross Case 2:10-md-02179-CJB-SS Document 13355 Filed 09/04/14 Page 1 of 153 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA In re: Oil Spill by the Oil Rig “Deepwater * Horizon” in the Gulf of Mexico, * MDL 2179 on April 20, 2010, * * * SECTION J This Document Applies To: * * No. 10-2771, In re: The Complaint and Petition * JUDGE BARBIER of Triton Asset Leasing GmbH, et al. * * and * MAG. JUDGE SHUSHAN * No. 10-4536, United States of America v. BP * Exploration & Production, Inc., et al. * ——————————————————————————————————————— FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW PHASE ONE TRIAL Case 2:10-md-02179-CJB-SS Document 13355 Filed 09/04/14 Page 2 of 153 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 ................................................................................. 5 II. Parties to the Phase One Trial ............................................................................................ 9 A. Defendants ........................................................................................................................ 9 i. The BP Entities ................................................................................................................ 9 ii. The Transocean Entities ................................................................................................. 10 iii. Halliburton ..................................................................................................................... 10 iv. Cameron and M-I ........................................................................................................... 10 B. Plaintiffs ......................................................................................................................... 11 C. Non-Parties to Phase One Trial ...................................................................................... 11 III. Substantive Findings of Fact .............................................................................................. 11 A. The DEEPWATER HORIZON ..................................................................................... 11 B. MC252 and the Macondo Well ...................................................................................... 13 C. Drilling the Macondo Well ............................................................................................ 15 i. Some Offshore Drilling Concepts .................................................................................. 15 ii. Drilling Operations at Macondo .................................................................................... 17 iii. Post-Drilling Operations: Production Casing and Temporary Abandonment ............... 20 D. Production Casing .......................................................................................................... 21 i. Long String Casing vs. Liner With Tieback .................................................................. 21 ii. Running the Production Casing ..................................................................................... 24 E. Overview of Cement Issues............................................................................................ 25 F. Cement Placement ............................................................................................................. 26 i. The Weatherford M45AP Float Collar .......................................................................... 26 ii. The Attempted Conversion of the Float Collar.............................................................. 28 iii. The Float Collar Did Not Convert ................................................................................. 34 2 Case 2:10-md-02179-CJB-SS Document 13355 Filed 09/04/14 Page 3 of 153 iv. The Shoe Track Breached During the Attempted Float Collar Conversion .................. 37 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 ........ 40 vi. The Court Is Not Persuaded by BP’s Theories Regarding Float Collar Conversion, Cement Placement, and Flow Path ....................................................................................... 43 vii. Cement Bond Log .......................................................................................................... 46 viii. M57B Sand .................................................................................................................... 50 G. Cement Composition ...................................................................................................... 51 i. Cementing Responsibilities ........................................................................................... 51 ii. The Cement Design for the Macondo Well ................................................................... 51 iii. Parties’ Arguments Regarding Cement Composition .................................................... 53 iv. The Cement Was Unstable, but Instability Did Not Cause the Blowout ....................... 55 H. Pressure Integrity Testing............................................................................................... 59 i. The Positive Pressure Test ............................................................................................ 59 ii. The Negative Pressure Test ........................................................................................... 60 iii. Responsibility for Misinterpretation of the Negative Pressure Test .............................. 65 iv. The “Bladder Effect” ..................................................................................................... 73 v. LCM Spacer ................................................................................................................... 75 I. Well Control During Final Displacement and the Blowout .............................................. 77 i. Well Control Responsibilities ........................................................................................ 77 ii. 8:00 p.m.: Final Displacement Commences .................................................................. 78 iii. 9:01-9:08: First Anomaly ............................................................................................... 80 iv. 9:08-9:14: The Sheen Test and the Second Anomaly .................................................... 81 v. 9:17: Pressure Spike ....................................................................................................... 82 vi. 9:31-9:38: The Transocean Drill Crew Fails to Timely Shut In the Well ..................... 83 vii. Actions by the Transocean Drill Crew Between 9:31 and 9:49 p.m., when the First Explosion Occurred. ............................................................................................................. 85 viii. Diversion to the Mud-Gas Separator ............................................................................. 86 ix. Simultaneous Operations Hindered Well Monitoring ................................................... 89 J. The BOP’s Automatic Functions: AMF and Autoshear .................................................... 90 i. Configuration of the HORIZON’s BOP ........................................................................ 90 ii. AMF and Autoshear ....................................................................................................... 94 iii. Improper Maintenance Prevented AMF from Closing the BSRs on April 20, 2010. .... 95 iv. The BSRs Would Have Sealed the Well if AMF Had Functioned ................................ 97 v. Responsibility for BOP Maintenance ............................................................................ 98 3 Case 2:10-md-02179-CJB-SS Document 13355 Filed 09/04/14 Page 4 of 153 vi. The BSRs Partially Closed, but Did Not Seal, on April 22, 2010, When the Autoshear Plunger Was Cut ................................................................................................................. 100 vii. The Configuration of the BOP Was Not Unreasonable or Not Causal ........................ 101 K. Actions by the Marine Crew ........................................................................................ 102 i. EDS and the Master’s Overriding Authority ............................................................... 102 ii. Other Actions by the HORIZON’s Crew Following the Explosions .......................... 107 L. Alarm Systems and Rig Maintenance .......................................................................... 110 i. General Alarm, Emergency Shut Down, and Other Alarms ........................................ 110 ii. Rig Maintenance .......................................................................................................... 110 M. Process Safety .............................................................................................................. 111 IV. Conclusions of Fact and Law .......................................................................................... 112 A. Jurisdiction ..................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • United States District Court Southern District of Texas Houston Division
    Case 4:10-md-02185 Document 113 Filed in TXSD on 02/14/11 Page 1 of 182 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION In re BP plc Securities Litigation No. 4:10-md-02185 Honorable Keith P. Ellison LEAD PLAINTIFFS NEW YORK AND OHIO’S CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR ALL PURCHASERS OF BP SECURITIES FROM JANUARY 16, 2007 THROUGH MAY 28, 2010 Case 4:10-md-02185 Document 113 Filed in TXSD on 02/14/11 Page 2 of 182 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................2 II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE ........................................................................................11 III. THE PARTIES ..................................................................................................................11 A. Plaintiffs .................................................................................................................11 B. Defendants .............................................................................................................12 C. Non-Party ...............................................................................................................17 IV. BACKGROUND ...............................................................................................................17 A. BP’s Relevant Operations ......................................................................................17 B. BP’s Process Safety Controls Were Deficient Prior to the Class Period ...............18
    [Show full text]
  • 2021 Annual General Meeting and Proxy Statement 2020 Annual Report
    2020 Annual Report and Proxyand Statement 2021 Annual General Meeting Meeting General Annual 2021 Transocean Ltd. • 2021 ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING AND PROXY STATEMENT • 2020 ANNUAL REPORT CONTENTS LETTER TO SHAREHOLDERS NOTICE OF 2021 ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING AND PROXY STATEMENT COMPENSATION REPORT 2020 ANNUAL REPORT TO SHAREHOLDERS ABOUT TRANSOCEAN LTD. Transocean is a leading international provider of offshore contract drilling services for oil and gas wells. The company specializes in technically demanding sectors of the global offshore drilling business with a particular focus on ultra-deepwater and harsh environment drilling services, and operates one of the most versatile offshore drilling fleets in the world. Transocean owns or has partial ownership interests in, and operates a fleet of 37 mobile offshore drilling units consisting of 27 ultra-deepwater floaters and 10 harsh environment floaters. In addition, Transocean is constructing two ultra-deepwater drillships. Our shares are traded on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol RIG. OUR GLOBAL MARKET PRESENCE Ultra-Deepwater 27 Harsh Environment 10 The symbols in the map above represent the company’s global market presence as of the February 12, 2021 Fleet Status Report. ABOUT THE COVER The front cover features two of our crewmembers onboard the Deepwater Conqueror in the Gulf of Mexico and was taken prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. During the pandemic, our priorities remain keeping our employees, customers, contractors and their families healthy and safe, and delivering incident-free operations to our customers worldwide. FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS Any statements included in this Proxy Statement and 2020 Annual Report that are not historical facts, including, without limitation, statements regarding future market trends and results of operations are forward-looking statements within the meaning of applicable securities law.
    [Show full text]
  • Transocean Ltd. Provides Quarterly Fleet Status Report
    Transocean Ltd. Provides Quarterly Fleet Status Report STEINHAUSEN, Switzerland—February 12, 2021—Transocean Ltd. (NYSE: RIG) today issued a quarterly Fleet Status Report that provides the current status of, and contract information for, the company’s fleet of offshore drilling rigs. As of February 12, the company’s total backlog is approximately $7.8 billion. This quarter’s report includes the following updates: Deepwater Corcovado – Customer exercised a 680-day option in Brazil; Deepwater Mykonos – Customer exercised a 815-day option in Brazil; Development Driller III – Awarded a one-well contract extension in Trinidad; Development Driller III – Awarded a one-well contract, plus a one-well option in Trinidad; Transocean Norge – Awarded a one-well contract in Norway; Transocean Barents – Awarded a three-well contract in Norway; Paul B Loyd, Jr. – Awarded a 78-day contract extension in the U.K. North Sea; Dhirubhai Deepwater KG1– Customer exercised a seven-well option in India; and Deepwater Nautilus – Customer provided notice of termination of its drilling contract in Malaysia. Additionally, the company has retired the Leiv Eiriksson. The rig is classified as held for sale. The report can be accessed on the company’s website: www.deepwater.com. About Transocean Transocean is a leading international provider of offshore contract drilling services for oil and gas wells. The company specializes in technically demanding sectors of the global offshore drilling business with a particular focus on ultra-deepwater and harsh environment drilling services, and operates one of the most versatile offshore drilling fleets in the world. Transocean owns or has partial ownership interests in, and operates a fleet of, 37 mobile offshore drilling units consisting of 27 ultra-deepwater floaters and 10 harsh environment floaters.
    [Show full text]
  • Blowout in the Gulf: the BP Oil Spill Disaster and the Future of Energy in America
    UCLA Electronic Green Journal Title Blowout in the Gulf: The BP Oil Spill Disaster and the Future of Energy in America Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/1ps043ht Journal Electronic Green Journal, 1(32) Author Ferrara, Enzo Publication Date 2011 Peer reviewed eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California Review: Blowout in the Gulf: The BP Oil Spill Disaster and the Future of Energy in America By William R. Freudenburg and Robert Gramling Reviewed by Enzo Ferrara L'Istituto Nazionale di Ricerca Metrologica, Italy Freudenburg, William R. and Gramling, Robert. Blowout in the Gulf. The BP Oil Spill Disaster and the Future of Energy in America. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 2011. 240 pp., 5 graphs. ISBN: 9780262015837.US$18.95, cloth. On April 20th 2010, eleven oil workers died as the Deepwater Horizon, a gigantic offshore plant rented by BP to drill deep in the Gulf of Mexico, exploded and, after burning for 36 hours, sank, causing an uncontrolled eruption of oil one mile below the sea level. Oil poured out at a rate of 56,000 barrels per day, until July 15th, causing one of the largest marine disasters in the history – second only to Saddam Hussein’s intentional opening the oil spigots as his forces retreated from Kuwait in 1991 – and frustrating the hopes of the Gulf residents, reassured in vain by BP and the government of a quick solution of the spill. Just like the complexity of its assessment, the magnitude and duration of the Gulf disaster were distinctive, due to its wide-reaching and prolonged impact in the region associated with the extensive use of dispersants.
    [Show full text]
  • Deepwater Mobile Oil Rigs in the Exclusive Economic Zone and the Uncertainty of Coastal State Jurisdiction Rebecca K
    Journal of International Business and Law Volume 10 | Issue 2 Article 10 2011 Deepwater Mobile Oil Rigs in the Exclusive Economic Zone and the Uncertainty of Coastal State Jurisdiction Rebecca K. Richards Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarlycommons.law.hofstra.edu/jibl Recommended Citation Richards, Rebecca K. (2011) "Deepwater Mobile Oil Rigs in the Exclusive Economic Zone and the Uncertainty of Coastal State Jurisdiction," Journal of International Business and Law: Vol. 10: Iss. 2, Article 10. Available at: http://scholarlycommons.law.hofstra.edu/jibl/vol10/iss2/10 This Notes & Student Works is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarly Commons at Hofstra Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of International Business and Law by an authorized administrator of Scholarly Commons at Hofstra Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Richards: Deepwater Mobile Oil Rigs in the Exclusive Economic Zone and the DEEPWATER MOBILE OIL RIGS IN THE EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE AND THE UNCERTAINTY OF COASTAL STATE JURISDICTION Rebecca K. Richards* I. INTRODUCTION The involvement of a deepwater mobile oil rig in the April 2010 BP oil spill disaster in the United States exclusive economic zone ("EEZ") in the Gulf of Mexico forcefully demonstrated the potential that deepwater mobile oil rigs have to cause catastrophic harm to the coastal state in ways not presented by fixed oil rigs operating in shallow water.' Though coastal states have this great risk of catastrophic harm, their plenary jurisdiction over deepwa- ter mobile oil rigs is currently uncertain. 2 The vagueness of coastal state jurisdictional author- ity over these rigs3 unacceptably increases the risk of accidents,4 as seen with the BP Deepwater Horizon spill.
    [Show full text]
  • Oil & Gas, and Mining Associations, Organizations, and Company
    2021 OIL & GAS, AND MINING ASSOCIATIONS, ORGANIZATIONS, AND COMPANY INFORMATION UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO DENVER ASSOCIATIONS AND ORGANIZATIONS Colorado Cleantech Industry Association – https://coloradocleantech.com/ Colorado Energy Coalition – http://www.metrodenver.org/news/news-center/2017/02/colorado-energy-coalition- takes-energy-%E2%80%98asks-to-congressional-delegation-in-washington,-dc/ Colorado Mining Association (CMA) – https://www.coloradomining.org/default.aspx Colorado Oil and Gas Association (COGA) – http://www.coga.org/ Colorado Petroleum Association – http://www.coloradopetroleumassociation.org/ Colorado Renewable Energy Society (CRES) – https://www.cres-energy.org/ Society of Petroleum Engineers – https://www.spe.org/en/ United States Energy Association – https://www.usea.org/ OIL AND GAS Antero Resources – http://www.anteroresources.com/ Antero Resources is an independent exploration and production (E&P) company engaged in the exploitation, development, and acquisition of natural gas, NGLs and oil properties located in the Appalachia Basin. Headquartered in Denver, Colorado, we are focused on creating value through the development of our large portfolio of repeatable, low cost, liquids-rich drilling opportunities in two of the premier North American shale plays. Battalion Oil – https://battalionoil.com/ http://www.forestoil.com/ Battalion Oil (Formerly Halcón Resources Corporation) is an independent energy company focused on the acquisition, production, exploration and development of onshore liquids-rich assets in the United States. While Battalion is a new venture, we operate on a proven strategy used in prior, successful ventures. We have experienced staff and use the most advanced technology, enabling us to make informed and effective business decisions. Spanish for hawk, Halcón embraces the vision and agility to become a resource powerhouse in the oil and gas industry.
    [Show full text]
  • BP Code of Conduct – English
    Our Code Our responsibility Code of Conduct Guiding you to make the right decisions Our values and behaviours are the foundation of our Code What we value Safety Safety is good business. Everything we do relies upon the safety of our workforce and the communities around us. We care about the safe management of the environment. We are committed to safely delivering energy to the world. Respect We respect the world in which we operate. It begins with compliance with laws and regulations. We hold ourselves to the highest ethical standards and behave in ways that earn the trust of others. We depend on the relationships we have and respect each other and those we work with. We value diversity of people and thought. We care about the consequences of our decisions, large and small, on those around us. Excellence We are in a hazardous business and are committed to excellence through the systematic and disciplined management of our operations. We follow and uphold the rules and standards we set for our company. We commit to quality outcomes, have a thirst to learn and to improve. If something is not right, we correct it. Courage What we do is rarely easy. Achieving the best outcomes often requires the courage to face difficulty, to speak up and stand by what we believe. We always strive to do the right thing. We explore new ways of thinking and are unafraid to ask for help. We are honest with ourselves and actively seek feedback from others. We aim for an enduring legacy, despite the short-term priorities of our world.
    [Show full text]
  • Future Supply of Oil and Gas from the Gulf of Mexico
    Future Supply of Oil and Gas From the Gulf of Mexico U.S. GEOLOGICAL SUltyEY PROFESSIONAL PAPER 1294 Future Supply of Oil and Gas From the Gulf of Mexico By E. D. Attanasi and]. L. Haynes U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PROFESSIONAL PAPER 1294 An engineering-economic costing algorithm combined with a discovery process model to forecast long-run incremental costs of undiscovered oil and gas UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON : 1983 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR JAMES G. WATT, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Dallas L. Peck, Director Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Attanasi, E. D. Future supply of oil and gas from the Gulf of Mexico. (U.S. Geological Survey professional paper ; 1294) Bibliography: p. 1. Petroleum in submerged lands Mexico, Gulf of. 2. Gas, Natural, in submerged lands Mexico, Gulf of. I. Haynes, J. (John), 1954- . II. Title. III. Series: Geological Survey professional paper ; 1294. TN872.A5A87 1983 553.2'8'0916364 83-600030 ____ ____________ For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C. 20402 CONTENTS Page Abstract 1 Introduction 1 Engineering-economic model 3 Methodology 3 Engineering data and assumptions 5 Field classification 5 Field design 6 Production schedules of oil and nonassociated gas wells 7 Economic assumptions and variables 8 Field development costs 8 Production costs and production related taxes 9 Assumptions for after-tax net present value calculations 10 Exploration costs 10 Industry behavior and market conditions 10 Forecasting future discoveries 11 Discovery process model 11 Estimated marginal cost functions for undiscovered recoverable oil and gas resources in the Gulf of Mexico 12 Conclusions and implications 16 References cited 16 Appendix A 17 Appendix B 20 ILLUSTRATIONS FIGURE 1.
    [Show full text]
  • 19-1189 BP PLC V. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore
    (Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2020 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Syllabus BP P. L. C. ET AL. v. MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF BALTIMORE CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19–1189. Argued January 19, 2021—Decided May 17, 2021 Baltimore’s Mayor and City Council (collectively City) sued various en- ergy companies in Maryland state court alleging that the companies concealed the environmental impacts of the fossil fuels they promoted. The defendant companies removed the case to federal court invoking a number of grounds for federal jurisdiction, including the federal officer removal statute, 28 U. S. C. §1442. The City argued that none of the defendants’ various grounds for removal justified retaining federal ju- risdiction, and the district court agreed, issuing an order remanding the case back to state court. Although an order remanding a case to state court is ordinarily unreviewable on appeal, Congress has deter- mined that appellate review is available for those orders “remanding a case to the State court from which it was removed pursuant to section 1442 or 1443 of [Title 28].” §1447(d). The Fourth Circuit read this provision to authorize appellate review only for the part of a remand order deciding the §1442 or §1443 removal ground.
    [Show full text]
  • Adams Natural Resources Fund
    ADAMS NATURAL RESOURCES FUND FIRST QUARTER REPORT MARCH 31, 2021 GET THE LATEST NEWS AND INFORMATION adamsfunds.com/sign-up L ETTER TO S HAREHOLDERS Dear Fellow Shareholders, Every new year brings with it the opportunity for a fresh start, resolutions for change, and hope for the future. No year in recent history has held greater expectations than 2021. We all hope to put the pandemic behind us and get back to normal. The year began with a new President in the White House and multiple vaccines already starting to be distributed. As the quarter progressed, we made significant strides towards vaccinating the most vulnerable. While we are moving closer to a return to normalcy as the availability of vaccines continues to grow, new COVID-19 variants threaten to slow progress. The economy continued to show signs of recovering as employers added more jobs in the first quarter and the unemployment rate declined to 6.0%. In February, consumer sentiment rose to its highest level since March 2020, when the COVID-19 shutdowns were just beginning. Over the past year, household savings have grown significantly and should begin to flow through the Energy was the best economy as it reopens. performing sector in the S&P 500 as oil prices The passage of a $1.9 trillion stimulus package and a rebounded. commitment of continued support from the Federal Reserve helped drive the stock market higher in the first quarter. The S&P 500 ended the quarter up 6.2%. Improved growth prospects pushed yields on 10-year Treasury notes higher and raised some concerns that the size of the stimulus could lead to higher inflation.
    [Show full text]
  • Matching Gift Companies to the Archdiocese of Galveston-Houston
    Matching Gift Companies to the Archdiocese of Galveston-Houston AbbVie ConocoPhillips Petroleum Co. Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company ACE INA Foundation Cooper Industries Nuevo Energy Company Administaff Dell Occidental Petroleum Adobe Deutsche Bank Americas Foundation Ocean Energy Aetna Foundation, Inc. Dominion Foundation Pepsico Foundation AIM Foundation Dow Chemical Company Pfizer Foundation Air Liquide America Corp. Dresser-Rand Phillips 66 Air Products & Chemicals, Inc. Duke Energy Foundation/ECO6Q PipeVine, Inc. Albemarle Corporation Dynegy Inc. Procter & Gamble Allstate Foundation ECG Management Consultants Inc. Prospect Capital Management Amerada Hess Corporation Eli Lilly and Company Foundation Prudential American Express Encap Investments LP Rockwell International Corporation American General Corporation Entergy SBC Foundation American International Group Inc. Enterprise Products Shell Oil Company Foundation Ameriprise Financial EP Energy Southdown, Inc. Amica Companies Foundation EOG Resources Southwestern Energy (SWN) Anadarko Petroleum Corp. Equistar Chemicals LP Square D Foundation Anderson Greenwood Equiva Services LLC Teleflex Foundation Anheuser-Busch Foundation Exelon Foundation Tenet Healthcare Foundation Apache Corporation ExxonMobil Foundation Tenneco Apple Inc Fleet Boston Financial Foundation Texaco Inc. Arco Foundation, Inc. Ford Texas Instruments Foundation Arco Steel Inc FMC Technologies, Inc. The Boeing Company ARS National Services, Inc. General Electric The Clorox Company Attachmate General Mills,
    [Show full text]
  • Cooper Cameron Corporation; and M-I, LLC As Follows
    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE NASHVILLE DIVISION CARDEN SIMCOX, and all others similarly situated; Plaintiff, CASE NO. VS. BP, PLC; BP AMERICA, INC.; BP JURY DEMAND CORPORATION NORTH AMERICA, INC.; BP COMPANY NORTH AMERICA, INC.; BP PRODUCTS NORTH AMERICA, INC.; BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION, INC.; ANADARKO PETROLEUM CORP.; MOEX OFFSHORE 2007, LLC; TRANSOCEAN LTD.; TRANSOCEAN, INC.; TRANSOCEAN OFFSHORE DEEPWATER DRILLING, INC.; TRANSOCEAN DEEPWATER, INC.; HALLIBURTON ENERGY SERVICES, INC.; CAMERON INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION f/k/a COOPER CAMERON CORPORATION; and M-I, LLC, Defendants. CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT Plaintiff, Carden Simcox, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, brings this class action against Defendants BP, PLC; BP America, Inc.; BP Corporation North America, Inc.; BP Company North America, Inc.; BP Products North America, Inc.; BP Exploration & Production, Inc.; Anadarko Petroleum Corp.; MOEX Offshore 2007, LLC; Transocean Ltd.; Transocean, Inc.; Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling, Inc.; Transocean Deepwater, Inc.; Halliburton Energy Services, Inc.; Cameron International Corporation f/k/a Cooper Cameron Corporation; and M-I, LLC as follows: Case 3:10-cv-00514 Document-11 Filed 05/25/10 1 of 30 1 879716.1 Page PagelD I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff is an owner ofbeachfront property in Panacea, Wakulla County, Florida, on the Gulf of Mexico. She brings this class action on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated against Defendants for losses and damages arising out of the catastrophic and avoidable oil spill off the Gulf Coast that was caused by the April 20, 2010, explosion and fire aboard the Deepwater Horizon oil rig ("Deepwater Horizon"), and the subsequent sinking of that rig and the discharge of oil into the surrounding water.
    [Show full text]