Judge: BP Must Cover Some Halliburton Damages for Macondo

Deepwater Horizon Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill

U.S. District Judge Carl Barbier on Tuesday upheld Halliburton's claim that its contract with BP requires BP to defend and indemnify Halliburton against any and all claims related to a blowout or uncontrolled well condition and relating to pollution and/or contamination from the reservoir.

BP must indemnify Halliburton for third-party compensatory claims that arise from pollution or contamination that did not originate from the property or equipment of Halliburton located above the surface of the land or water, even if Halliburton's gross negligence caused the pollution.

Halliburton may still be liable for punitive damages and for civil penalties under Section 311(b)(7) of the Clean Water Act.

BP has previously claimed that Halliburton's shoddy cement work on the Macondo oil well resulted in the Deepwater Horizon incident which killed 11 workers in April 2010 and released millions of gallons of oil into the Gulf of Mexico.

BP also has alleged that Halliburton made fraudulent statements and concealed information concerning cement tests it conducted. BP alleges that the unstable cement slurry poured into the well led to the well blowout.

BP had argued that it was not required to indemnify Halliburton for punitive damages, fines or penalties, and that it opposed Halliburton's motion on the grounds that Halliburton had committed fraud and breached the contract, which would discharge BP from indemnity obligations.

The court deferred ruling on whether Halliburton breached the contract, and if that breach would invalidate the indemnity clause. BP also is not obligated to fund Halliburton's defense at this time.

While the court agreed that fraud could void an indemnity clause on public policy grounds, it ruled that mere failure to perform contractual obligations as promised does not constitute fraud but is instead breach of contract.

Earlier this month, Barbier ruled that BP must indemnify Transocean for some of the costs related to the Macondo oil spill. 

Karen Boman has more than 10 years of experience covering the upstream oil and gas sector. Email Karen at kboman@rigzone.com

WHAT DO YOU THINK?

Click on the button below to add a comment.
Post a Comment
Generated by readers, the comments included herein do not reflect the views and opinions of Rigzone. All comments are subject to editorial review. Off-topic, inappropriate or insulting comments will be removed.
DON GG | Feb. 1, 2012
I THINK BP/ AND ALL ITS HELP DONE THE BEST THEY COULD DO TO HANDLE THIS OUT OF CONTROL BROKEN WELL HEAD AT VERY DEEP PARTS AND DARK WATERS WE ARE ALL WANTING TO GET THIS OILBEAST BACK IN SOME KIND OF CONTROL RIGHT AWAY BUT THINGS DONT ALWAYS WORK AT FIRST BUT WITH PRAYER AND HAVING MUCH FAITH IN EACH OTHER AND THATS WHAT WE MUST DO

Mike | Feb. 1, 2012
Bad cement jobs are not uncommon, especially in deep liner jobs. Not running a CBL is just one of several procedural/design mistakes BP made on the Macondo. Why did they pump foam cement?


Related Companies
Events  SUBSCRIBE TO OUR NEWSLETTER

Our Privacy Pledge
SUBSCRIBE

Deepwater Horizon Images
Diagram & Photos of Horizon Riser / Pipe Deepwater Horizon & Vessel (Apr 22) ROV Cutting the Macondo Riser ROV Cutting Macondo Riser
Development Driller III Smoke from Deepwater Horizon (Apr 21) Satellite view of Horizon Fire (Apr 21) Oil Containment Boom
71 more images view image library


From the Career Center
Jobs that may interest you
Attorney I
Expertise: Contracts Administration|Legal
Location: Houston, 
 
United States Alvarado: Explosive Products Tester
Expertise: Environmental, Safety & Training
Location: Alvarado, TX
 
United States Elmendorf: HSE Engineer
Expertise: HSE Manager / Advisor
Location: Elmendorf, TX
 
search for more jobs

Brent Crude Oil : $55.49/BBL 2.45%
Light Crude Oil : $52.42/BBL 2.04%
Natural Gas : $3.2/MMBtu 5.04%
Updated in last 24 hours