BP says Halliburton should pay oil spill costs

BRITISH oil giant BP is pushing the US energy services firm Halliburton, to pay for all the costs BP incurred in the 2010 Gulf of Mexico oil spill.

The spill is the worst environmental disaster in US history.

In a US federal court filing, BP said that it was seeking full repayment of damages from Halliburton, alleging it fraudulently put a defective cement seal on a deepwater well, causing a deadly explosion and pollution of the Gulf and neighbouring states.

BP previously put the bill at around $42 billion (€32bn). BP filed a suit with the US district court in New Orleans seeking damages from Halliburton including “the amount of costs and expenses incurred by BP to clean up and remediate the oil spill” and “all other costs and damages incurred by BP” related to the Deepwater Horizon rig blowout and resulting oil spill.

The latest court filing marked an expansion of the scope of BP’s 2010 lawsuit, in which the British company had sought reimbursement from Halliburton “for all or a part of the damages, costs and expenses”.

BP could still be liable for billions more in fines, compensation and restoration costs. A BP spokesman declined to comment on the case.

In October, the US government slapped BP, Transocean — the Swiss owner and operator of the drilling rig — and Halliburton with citations for violating oil industry regulations in what is expected to lead to massive fines.

Last week The Wall Street Journal reported that US prosecutors are readying criminal charges against BP employees, which would be the first criminal charges over the disaster.

The explosion at the Deepwater Horizon rig on April 20, 2010, killed 11 people, and the Macondo well gushed oil into the ocean for 87 days, blackening the southern US shoreline and crippling the local tourism and fishing sectors.

By the time the well was capped, 4.9 million barrels of oil had spilled out of the runaway well 5,000 feet below the surface of the Gulf of Mexico.

BP alleges Halliburton used defoaming and dispersant additives that should not be used with foamed cement slurry it used to seal the bottom of the Macondo well, and the contractor failed to inform BP of problems with the slurry, both before and after the incident.

“Halliburton’s knowing misrepresentations were a cause-in-fact and also a legal cause of BP’s injuries,” the British firm said in its April lawsuit. Halliburton officials were not available for comment.

The ‘multi-district litigation’ is expected to decide who will compensate those hurt by the oil spill, the extent of government fines and who will be remembered as the negligent party.

BP has said it is ready to settle with its contractors, the parties who have suffered property and other damage, and the government, but not at any cost.

Company sources said the company expects if it does manage to cut a settlement of the cases, it will represent one of the largest legal settlements in US corporate history.

BP had been paying the costs of the response effort alone but Europe’s second-largest oil group by market value has now cut deals with its two partners in the doomed Macondo well, Anadarko and Mitsui.

The two at first refuted their responsibility to contribute to oil spill bill, citing BP’s negligence.