From Bloomberg news:
BP Plc acted with gross negligence in setting off the biggest offshore oil spill in U.S. history, a federal judge ruled, handing down a long-awaited decision that may force the energy company to pay billions of dollars more for the 2010 Gulf of Mexico disaster.
BP's defense had always been that they were merely
negligent, not
grossly so. As such, when the decision came down saying that BP was predominantly responsible, this was considered a big loss for BP:
The case also included Transocean Ltd. and Halliburton Co., though the judge didn’t find them as responsible for the spill as BP. Barbier wrote in his decision today in New Orleans federal court that BP was “reckless,” while Transocean and Halliburton were negligent. He apportioned fault at 67 percent for BP, 30 percent for Transocean and 3 percent for Halliburton.
We all know what big loss amounts to–money. They are on the hook for lots of money. BP says that they weren't the only ones who cut corners, who acted cavalierly with safety rules and regulations. Now, I don't necessarily disagree that some of the other companies may be getting off more lightly than they should–but let's face it, BP was grossly negligent.
Which brings us to today:
The motion filed in Louisiana contends that U.S. District Court Judge Carl Barbier's ruling was based on evidence he had agreed to exclude from the ongoing trial. As such, the oil major said, he should review his decision or give it a new trial.
The evidence in question surrounds expert testimony about how the Macondo well's casing was weakened and breached, part of a series of eight alleged errors linked to the blowout.
The real reason BP is willing to spend mountains of money to appeal numerous aspects of this case is because they don't want to pay the money it costs to be
grossly negligent.
US District Judge Carl Barbier is no push-over. He has just recently sent a message to BP concerning the BS tactics they are already employing in their appeal process. The brief they had to submit, according to Barbier was supposed to be 35 pages, double spaced. It seems like a silly thing but there is time and simplicity needed to expediate these processes and lawyers love to over-load things, take up time, put off rulings, make other people pay while they wait–hope that they can get more and more leniency. Well, they tried the reverse of old 3 and half spaced book report you tried to pass off in junior high. Judge Barbier shut that down.
"BP's counsel filed a brief that, at first blush, appeared just within the 35-page limit. A closer study reveals that BP's counsel abused the page limit by reducing the line spacing to slightly less than double-spaced. As a result, BP exceeded the (already enlarged) page limit by roughly six pages."
"The Court should not have to waste its time policing such simple rules — particularly in a case as massive and complex as this. ... Counsel's tactic would not be appropriate for a college term paper. It certainly is not appropriate here."
In effect, Judge Barbier just told BP to not test his patience any more than they already are. We will see where this ends up but for now it's a strong statement.
As David Yarnold, president of the Audubon Society said after the initial ruling:
“BP said it was above the law; Judge Barbier said the law applies to everyone, even multinational giants.”