U.S.A. v. BP Exploration & Production, Inc., et al

Filing 1

COMPLAINT against All Defendants (Filed on behalf of USA - Filing Fee not required) filed by United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Summons, # 3 Summons, # 4 Summons, # 5 Summons, # 6 Summons, # 7 Summons, # 8 Summons, # 9 Summons, # 10 Summons)(Smith, Sharon)

United States of America v. BP Exploration & Production, Inc. et al

Doc. 1

Case 2:10-cv-04536-CJB-SS Document 1

Filed 12/15/10 Page 1 of 27

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT E A S T E R N DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA U N IT E D STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) B P EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION INC., ) A N A D A R K O EXPLORATION & ) P R O D U C T IO N LP, ANADARKO ) P E T R O L E U M CORPORATION, MOEX ) O F F S H O R E 2007 LLC, TRITON ASSET ) L E A S IN G GMBH, TRANSOCEAN ) H O L D IN G S LLC, TRANSOCEAN ) O F F S H O R E DEEPWATER DRILLING INC., ) T R A N S O C E A N DEEPWATER INC., AND ) Q B E UNDERWRITING LTD., LLOYD'S ) S Y N D IC A T E 1036, ) ) Defendants. ) ) ______________________________________ ) C iv il No.

IN ADMIRALTY COMPLAINT OF THE UNITED S T A T E S OF AMERICA S e c tio n : M a g is tra te No.:

P la in tif f , the United States of America, alleges upon information and belief as f o llo w s :

Dockets.Justia.com

Case 2:10-cv-04536-CJB-SS Document 1

Filed 12/15/10 Page 2 of 27

NATURE OF THE ACTION 1. T h is civil action arises from one of the worst environmental disasters in

A m e ric a n history: the oil spill into the Gulf of Mexico that began on April 20, 2010, w h e n explosions and fires destroyed the Mobile Offshore Drilling Rig ("MODU") D e e p w a te r Horizon approximately 50 miles from the Mississippi River delta (the " D e e p w a te r Horizon Spill"). Eleven people aboard the rig lost their lives; many other m e n and women were injured. Oil flowed into the Gulf of Mexico unchecked for months. Ultimately, the "Macondo Well" was finally sealed on September 19, 2010, nearly five m o n th s after the blowout began. By that time, millions of barrels of oil had been d is c h a rg e d into the Gulf and upon adjoining shorelines, causing immense environmental a n d economic harm to the entire region. 2. W h ile the full scope and impact of this disaster are not yet known, the

c o n s e q u e n c e s include lost lives, destroyed livelihoods, and grave harm to natural re s o u rc e s across several States and related waters. The spill necessitated a government re s p o n s e unprecedented in size, duration, and expense. 3. A s a result, the United States has sustained, and will continue to sustain,

s ig n if ic a n t costs and damages. The United States thus seeks in this action a declaration th a t the Defendants are responsible and strictly liable for unlimited removal costs and d a m a g e s under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990. 4. F e d e ra l law also imposes civil penalties, under the Clean Water Act, against

th o s e who unlawfully discharge oil into and upon the navigable waters of the United 2

Case 2:10-cv-04536-CJB-SS Document 1

Filed 12/15/10 Page 3 of 27

States and adjoining shorelines, into or upon the waters of the contiguous zone, or in c o n n e c tio n with activities under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act. Polluters are s tric tly liable under this Act, with penalties based in part on the number of barrels of oil d is c h a rg e d . The United States thus also seeks in this action the imposition of Clean W a te r Act civil penalties for each barrel of oil that the Defendants discharged into the G u lf of Mexico. 5. In v e s tig a tio n of other potential claims, ongoing administrative proceedings,

a s s e s sm e n t of damage amounts, and additional removal actions continue. Therefore, the U n ite d States reserves its rights in full to amend this Complaint by, among other things, a d d in g new claims and new defendants. 6. T h is civil action is a case of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction and is

b ro u g h t under the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 et seq., the Clean Water A c t, ("CWA"), 33 U.S.C. §§ 1251 et seq., and Section 1017(f)(2) of the Oil Pollution Act o f 1990 ("OPA"), 33 U.S.C. § 2717(f)(2). 7. T h e Defendants named in this action are BP Exploration & Production Inc.

(" B P " ), Anadarko Exploration & Production LP ("Anadarko Exploration"), Anadarko P e tro le u m Corporation ("Anadarko Petroleum") (Anadarko Exploration and Anadarko P e tro le u m , unless stated otherwise, collectively shall be referred to as the "Anadarko D e f e n d a n ts " ), MOEX Offshore 2007 LLC ("MOEX"), Triton Asset Leasing GmbH (" T rito n " ), Transocean Holdings LLC ("Transocean Holdings"), Transocean Offshore D e e p w a te r Drilling Inc. ("Transocean Offshore"), Transocean Deepwater Inc. 3

Case 2:10-cv-04536-CJB-SS Document 1

Filed 12/15/10 Page 4 of 27

("Transocean Deepwater") (Triton, Transocean Holdings, Transocean Offshore, and T ra n s o c e a n Deepwater, unless stated otherwise, collectively shall be referred to as the " T ra n s o c e a n Defendants"), and QBE Underwriting Ltd., Lloyd's Syndicate 1036 (" L lo yd 's " ), in personam. J U R I S D I C T IO N AND VENUE 8. T h e United States is authorized to bring this suit and the Court has

ju ris d ic tio n pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 (Federal question), 1333 (Admiralty), 1345 (U n ite d States as plaintiff), 1355 (fine, penalty, or forfeiture); 33 U.S.C. §§ 1321(b)(7)(E) a n d 1321(n) (CWA); and 33 U.S.C. § 2717(b) (OPA). 9. V e n u e is proper in the Eastern District of Louisiana ("this District")

p u rs u a n t to 28 U.S.C. §§ 98(a) (Louisiana), 1391(b) (venue generally), and 1395(a) (fine, p e n a lty, or forfeiture); 33 U.S.C. § 1321(b)(7)(E) (CWA); and 33 U.S.C. § 2717(b) (O P A ). THE DEEPWATER HORIZON 10. A t all times material herein, the Deepwater Horizon was flagged under the

la w s of the Republic of the Marshall Islands. Hereafter the Deepwater Horizon and its e n g in e s , gear, tackle, apparel and appurtenances shall be referred to as the "Deepwater H o r iz o n ." 11. A t all material times prior to the Deepwater Horizon Spill, the MODU

D e e p w a te r Horizon was a vessel and/or an offshore facility, capable of being used to drill o f f s h o re wells. 4

Case 2:10-cv-04536-CJB-SS Document 1

Filed 12/15/10 Page 5 of 27

12.

A t all times material herein, the Deepwater Horizon had as part of its

o p e ra tin g equipment and appurtenances a Blowout Preventer ("BOP") and a Lower M a rin e Riser Package ("LMRP") (together the "BOP stack"), a marine riser and a s s o c ia te d piping, and other equipment, all of which constitute, inter alia, " a p p u rte n a n c e s " under Admiralty law. 13. S in c e approximately April 22, 2010, the wrecked hulk of Deepwater

H o r iz o n has rested on the seafloor of the Gulf of Mexico and Outer Continental Shelf of th e United States offshore Louisiana, and in the Exclusive Economic Zone of the United S ta te s. 14. C e rta in appurtenances of Deepwater Horizon, including the BOP stack and

portions of the marine riser, have been recovered and are stored ashore within the ju ris d ic tio n a l boundaries of this Court. T H E DEFENDANTS 15. A t all times material herein, Defendant BP is believed to have been

in c o rp o ra te d in the State of Delaware and to have had a place of business and/or to have b e e n doing business within this District and within the jurisdiction of this Court with re s p e c t to the matters sued upon herein. Furthermore, actions of BP have had direct im p a c ts within the State of Louisiana and within this District, including, but not limited to , direct impacts resulting from the fire, explosion, sinking, and oil spill associated with th e Deepwater Horizon.

5

Case 2:10-cv-04536-CJB-SS Document 1

Filed 12/15/10 Page 6 of 27

16.

A t all times material herein, Defendant Anadarko Exploration is believed to

h a v e been incorporated in the State of Delaware and to have had a place of business a n d /o r to have been doing business within this District and within the jurisdiction of this C o u rt with respect to the matters sued upon herein. Furthermore, actions of Anadarko E x p lo ra tio n have had direct impacts within the State of Louisiana and within this District, in c lu d in g , but not limited to, direct impacts resulting from the fire, explosion, sinking, a n d oil spill associated with the Deepwater Horizon. 17. A t all times material herein, Defendant Anadarko Petroleum is believed to

h a v e been incorporated in the State of Delaware and to have had a place of business a n d /o r to have been doing business within this District and within the jurisdiction of this C o u rt with respect to the matters sued upon herein. Furthermore, actions of Anadarko P e tro le u m have had direct impacts within the State of Louisiana and within this District, in c lu d in g , but not limited to, direct impacts resulting from the fire, explosion, sinking, a n d oil spill associated with the Deepwater Horizon. 18. A t all times material herein, Defendant MOEX is believed to have been

in c o rp o ra te d in the State of Delaware and to have had a place of business and/or to have b e e n doing business within this District and within the jurisdiction of this Court with re s p e c t to the matters sued upon herein. Furthermore, actions of MOEX have had direct im p a c ts within the State of Louisiana and within this District, including, but not limited to , direct impacts resulting from the fire, explosion, sinking, and oil spill associated with th e Deepwater Horizon. 6

Case 2:10-cv-04536-CJB-SS Document 1

Filed 12/15/10 Page 7 of 27

19.

A t all times material herein, Defendant Triton is believed to have been a

f o re ig n corporation and/or entity headquartered in Switzerland and to have had a place of b u s in e s s and/or to have been doing business within this District and within the ju ris d ic tio n of this Court with respect to the matters sued upon herein, including, but not lim ite d to, through its ownership and/or operation and/or demise charter of the Deepwater H o r iz o n . Furthermore, actions of Triton have had direct impacts within the State of L o u is ia n a and within this District, including, but not limited to, direct impacts resulting f ro m the fire, explosion, sinking, and oil spill associated with the Deepwater Horizon. 20. A t all times material herein, Defendant Transocean Holdings is believed to

h a v e been incorporated in the State of Delaware and to have had a place of business a n d /o r to have been doing business within this District and within the jurisdiction of this C o u rt with respect to the matters sued upon herein, including, but not limited to, through its ownership and/or operation and/or demise charter of the Deepwater Horizon. Furthermore, actions of Transocean Holdings have had direct impacts within the State of L o u is ia n a and within this District, including, but not limited to, direct impacts resulting f ro m the fire, explosion, sinking, and oil spill associated with the Deepwater Horizon. 21. A t all times material herein, Defendant Transocean Offshore is believed to

h a v e been incorporated in the State of Delaware and to have had a place of business a n d /o r to have been doing business within this District and within the jurisdiction of this C o u rt with respect to the matters sued upon herein, including, but not limited to, through its ownership and/or operation and/or demise charter of the Deepwater Horizon. 7

Case 2:10-cv-04536-CJB-SS Document 1

Filed 12/15/10 Page 8 of 27

Furthermore, actions of Transocean Offshore have had direct impacts within the State of L o u is ia n a and within this District, including, but not limited to, direct impacts resulting f ro m the fire, explosion, sinking, and oil spill associated with the Deepwater Horizon. 22. A t all times material herein, Defendant Transocean Deepwater is believed

to have been incorporated in the State of Delaware and to have had a place of business a n d /o r to have been doing business within this District and within the jurisdiction of this C o u rt with respect to the matters sued upon herein, including, but not limited to, through its ownership and/or operation and/or demise charter of the Deepwater Horizon. Furthermore, actions of Transocean Deepwater have had direct impacts within the State o f Louisiana and within this District, including, but not limited to, direct impacts resulting f ro m the fire, explosion, sinking, and oil spill associated with the Deepwater Horizon. 23. A t all times material herein, Defendant Lloyd's is believed to have been

d o in g business within the United States of America and within this District and within the ju ris d ic tio n of this Court, including, but not limited to, by insuring and/or providing a C e rtif ic a te of Financial Responsibility ("COFR") and certain guarantees pertaining to lia b ilitie s incurred by or pertaining to the Deepwater Horizon. GENERAL ALLEGATIONS A g r e e m e n ts Between or Among the Lessees and the Transocean Defendants 24. O n or about May 8, 2008, BP, as lessee, executed the document known as

th e "Oil and Gas Lease of Submerged Lands under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands

8

Case 2:10-cv-04536-CJB-SS Document 1

Filed 12/15/10 Page 9 of 27

Act," "Serial number OCS-G 32306" (hereinafter the "Lease"), pertaining to "All of B lo c k 252, Mississippi Canyon, OCS Official Protraction Diagram, NH 16-10." 25. O n or about May 14, 2008, the United States, by and through the Minerals

M a n a g e m e n t Service (hereinafter "MMS"), as lessor, executed the Lease, which became e f f e c tiv e on June 1, 2008. 26. O n various dates, BP, the Anadarko Defendants, and MOEX entered into

v a rio u s agreements whereby BP, the Anadarko Defendants, and MOEX became cole s se e s under the terms of the Lease and, further, whereby said Defendants assumed the o b lig a tio n s of the Lease. 27. E f f e c tiv e October 1, 2009, BP and MOEX entered into the "Macondo

P ro s p e c t Offshore Deepwater Operating Agreement" (hereinafter a "Joint Operating A g re e m e n t" ("JOA")), pursuant to which BP assigned to MOEX an undivided 10% re c o rd title leasehold interest, also known as a "working interest," in the Lease. 28. O n February 23, 2010, the "Assignment of Record Title Interest in Federal

O C S Oil and Gas Lease" pertaining to Lease No. OCS-G 32306, filed by BP and MOEX, w a s approved by the MMS, whereby BP assigned to MOEX a 10% record title/working in te re s t in Lease No. OCS-G 32306. 29. O n December 17, 2009, the Anadarko Defendants and BP entered into a

L e a s e Exchange Agreement, Ratification, and Joinder of the JOA, all of which were id e n tif ie d as effective as of October 1, 2009. Pursuant to the Lease Exchange Agreement,

9

Case 2:10-cv-04536-CJB-SS Document 1

Filed 12/15/10 Page 10 of 27

BP assigned to the Anadarko Defendants a 25% record title/working interest in Lease No. O C S -G 32306. 30. O n February 23, 2010, the "Assignment of Record Title Interest in Federal

O C S Oil and Gas Lease" pertaining to Lease No. OCS-G 32306, filed by BP and A n a d a rk o Exploration, was approved by the MMS, whereby BP assigned to Anadarko E x p lo ra tio n a 22.5% record title/working interest in Lease No. OCS-G 32306. 31. O n February 23, 2010, the "Assignment of Record Title Interest in Federal

O C S Oil and Gas Lease" pertaining to Lease No. OCS-G 32306, filed by BP and A n a d a rk o Petroleum, was approved by the MMS, whereby BP assigned to Anadarko P e tro le u m a 2.5% record title/working interest in Lease No. OCS-G 32306. 32. A s a result of the foregoing agreements between BP, the Anadarko

D e f e n d a n ts , and MOEX, each of said Defendants became co-lessees under the terms of th e Lease, whereby BP held a 65% interest in the Lease, Anadarko Exploration held a 2 2 .5 % interest in the Lease, Anadarko Petroleum held a 2.5% interest in the Lease, and M O E X held a 10% interest in the Lease. 33. A s of April 20, 2010, and continuing until at least April 28, 2010, BP held a

6 5 % interest in the Lease, Anadarko Exploration held a 22.5% interest in the Lease, A n a d a rk o Petroleum held a 2.5% interest in the Lease, and MOEX held a 10% interest in th e Lease. 34. A s of April 28, 2010, a change to the foregoing percentages of interests in

th e Lease was made, such that BP currently holds a 65% interest in the Lease, Anadarko 10

Case 2:10-cv-04536-CJB-SS Document 1

Filed 12/15/10 Page 11 of 27

Petroleum holds a 25% interest in the Lease, and MOEX holds a 10% interest in the L ease. 35. A t all times material herein, the JOA required that BP obtain the approval

o f the Anadarko Defendants and MOEX to proceed with nondiscretionary operations in c o n n e c tio n with the Lease by, inter alia, seeking their authorization for the expenditure of f u n d s and/or by seeking their election or vote to participate in the next stage of o p e ra tio n s . The JOA also provided for the sharing, in amounts proportionate to the w o rk in g interest of each party, of any oil and gas discovered in connection with the Lease a n d of losses resulting from the approved activities. 36. T h e JOA required BP to provide the Anadarko Defendants and MOEX with

d e ta ile d technical information regarding exploration and other operations performed in c o n n e c tio n with the Lease, including applications for and modifications of permits to d rill, mud logs, mud checks, and other information. The Anadarko Defendants and M O E X had the right to obtain "real time" data as set forth in Section 5.7 of the JOA. Pursuant to the JOA, the Anadarko Defendants and MOEX received detailed technical in f o rm a tio n regarding operations conducted in connection with the Lease and the JOA, in c lu d in g daily reports, access to a secure website containing sampling and other data, a n d access to real time data from the rig. 37. T h e JOA provided for the prompt invoicing by BP of costs incurred under

th e JOA and prompt payment of their agreed-upon share by the Anadarko Defendants and M O E X , including, on information and belief, the costs of the well casing and wellhead 11

Case 2:10-cv-04536-CJB-SS Document 1

Filed 12/15/10 Page 12 of 27

and other materials purchased by BP. The JOA was and is an enforceable contract, and p ro v id e d the Anadarko Defendants and MOEX with a mechanism to object to, prevent, c o n tro l, address, and/or abate discharges or health and safety issues in connection with th e Lease. 38. O n various dates, the Anadarko Defendants and MOEX each designated BP

a s the operator and local agent for the Anadarko Defendants and MOEX, with full a u th o rity to act on said co-lessees' behalf in complying with the terms of the Lease and a p p lic a b le regulations. 39. A s co-lessees of the Lease, BP, the Anadarko Defendants, and MOEX, and

e a c h of them, at all material times were subject to, inter alia, the requirements of 30 C .F .R . § 250.400 and the regulations specified therein. 40. O n December 12, 1998, and through subsequent amendments, BP

c o n tra c te d with one or more of the Transocean Defendants for operation and use of a M O D U for, inter alia, the purpose of drilling wells in the federal waters of the Gulf of M e x ic o . Under this contract and its amendments, one or more of the Transocean D e f e n d a n ts drilled an exploratory well at and within Block 252, Mississippi Canyon, O C S Official Protraction Diagram, NH 16-10. Drilling the Macondo Well 41. O n information and belief, on or about October 2009, drilling began of an

e x p lo ra to ry well pursuant to the Lease at and within Block 252, Mississippi Canyon, OCS

12

Case 2:10-cv-04536-CJB-SS Document 1

Filed 12/15/10 Page 13 of 27

Official Protraction Diagram, NH 16-10. The well hereinafter shall be referred to as the " M a c o n d o Well." 42. A t all times material herein, the Macondo Well was an "offshore facility"

w ith in the meaning of OPA, 33 U.S.C. § 2701, et seq., and the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1 3 2 1 (b )(7 ). 43. O n information and belief, from at least October 1, 2009, the MODU

T r a n s o c e a n Marianas was owned and/or operated by the Transocean Defendants. In or a b o u t October 2009, the Transocean Marianas began to be used for drilling of the M a c o n d o Well. 44. B e g in n in g in or about February 2010, the MODU Deepwater Horizon

re p la c e d the Transocean Marianas for the purpose of continuing the drilling of the M a c o n d o Well. Drilling of the Macondo Well using the Deepwater Horizon continued in F e b ru a ry 2010 and through March and a portion of April 2010. 45. A s of April 20, 2010, various sub-sea equipment and components of the

M a c o n d o Well had been installed on or below the seafloor of the Outer Continental Shelf, in c lu d in g , but not limited to, the well casing and the well head. 46. A s of April 20, 2010, Deepwater Horizon and various appurtenances of the

D e e p w a te r Horizon, including, but not limited to, the BOP stack and marine riser, were in s ta lle d on and/or attached to the seafloor of the Outer Continental Shelf, purportedly for p u rp o s e s of, inter alia, operation of the Macondo Well, including well control.

13

Case 2:10-cv-04536-CJB-SS Document 1

Filed 12/15/10 Page 14 of 27

The Defendants' Failure to Maintain Control of the Well 47. O n April 20, 2010, the Macondo Well experienced an uncontrolled well

e v e n t and an uncontrolled blowout of, inter alia, oil and methane gas. 48. O n information and belief, the April 20, 2010 uncontrolled well event and

u n c o n tro lle d blowout of oil and methane gas was not prevented by Defendants, or any of th e m , or by the Deepwater Horizon or its equipment and appurtenances, including, but n o t limited to, the BOP stack. 49. O n information and belief, in violation of federal regulations, including, but

n o t limited to, 30 C.F.R. § 250.401, each Defendant (other than Lloyd's) failed, inter alia, to take necessary precautions to keep the Macondo Well under control, including, but not lim ite d to, on April 20, 2010. 50. O n information and belief, in violation of federal regulations, including, but

n o t limited to, 30 C.F.R. § 250.401, each Defendant (other than Lloyd's) failed, inter alia, to use the best available and safest drilling technology to monitor and evaluate the M a c o n d o Well's conditions and to minimize the potential for the Macondo Well to flow o r kick. 51. O n information and belief, in violation of federal regulations, including, but

n o t limited to, 30 C.F.R. § 250.401, each Defendant (other than Lloyd's) failed, inter alia, to fulfill its respective responsibilities to maintain well control of the Macondo Well.

14

Case 2:10-cv-04536-CJB-SS Document 1

Filed 12/15/10 Page 15 of 27

52.

O n information and belief, in violation of federal regulations, including, but

n o t limited to, 30 C.F.R. § 250.401, each Defendant (other than Lloyd's) failed, inter alia, a t times relevant herein to maintain continuous surveillance on the rig floor. 53. O n information and belief, in violation of federal regulations, including, but

n o t limited to, 30 C.F.R. § 250.401, each Defendant (other than Lloyd's) failed, inter alia, to maintain equipment and materials, including, but not limited to, the BOP stack, that w e re available and necessary to ensure the safety and protection of personnel, equipment, n a tu ra l resources, and the environment. 54. O n information and belief, each Defendant (other than Lloyd's) failed, inter

a lia , to comply with applicable federal regulations at 30 C.F.R. Part 250, including, but n o t limited to, 30 C.F.R. §§ 250.107, 250.198 (and industry standards expressly in c o rp o ra te d therein), 250.300, 250.401, 250.420, 250.440, 250.442, 250.446, and 2 5 0 .4 5 1 . 55. O n information and belief, each Defendant (other than Lloyd's) caused

a n d /o r contributed to the Deepwater Horizon Spill by failing to assure well control of the M a c o n d o Well through, inter alia: actions, corporate actions, and/or corporate practices o f disregarding federal regulations, as evidenced by various safety and other audits of D e e p w a te r Horizon, reflecting the known failure, prior to the Deepwater Horizon Spill, to p ro p e rly design, install, maintain, repair, and operate equipment intended to prevent p e rs o n a l injury, loss of life, harm to the environment, and disasters like the Deepwater H o riz o n Spill. 15

Case 2:10-cv-04536-CJB-SS Document 1

Filed 12/15/10 Page 16 of 27

56.

O n information and belief, each Defendant (other than Lloyd's) caused

a n d /o r contributed to the Deepwater Horizon Spill by failing to assure well control of the M a c o n d o Well through, inter alia: (a) F a ilin g to assure that well control was maintained by proper and adequate

c e m e n tin g of the Macondo Well; (b) F a ilin g to assure that well control was maintained by mechanical barriers,

in c lu d in g , but not limited to, the BOP stack; (c ) F a ilin g to assure that well control was maintained by proper and adequate

in s p e c tio n and maintenance of the BOP stack; (d) F a ilin g to assure that well control was maintained by proper and adequate

p re s s u re testing; (e) F a ilin g to assure that well control was maintained by the use of appropriate

f lu id s to maintain hydrostatic pressure on the wellbore; (f ) F a ilin g to assure that well control was maintained by proper and adequate

w e ll monitoring; (g) F a ilin g to assure that, once well control initially was lost, well control was

re g a in e d by proper and adequate well control response; (h) F a ilin g to assure that, once well control initially was lost, well control was

re g a in e d by proper and adequate surface containment and overboard discharge and d iv e rsio n of hydrocarbons; and

16

Case 2:10-cv-04536-CJB-SS Document 1

Filed 12/15/10 Page 17 of 27

(i)

F a ilin g to assure that, once well control initially was lost, well control was

re g a in e d by proper and adequate BOP stack emergency operations. The Deepwater Horizon Spill 57. A s a result of the April 20, 2010 uncontrolled well event and uncontrolled

b lo w o u t, multiple explosions and fires occurred aboard the Deepwater Horizon. 58. A s a result of the discharge of oil and methane gas, and the resulting

m u ltip le explosions and fires that occurred aboard the Deepwater Horizon, eleven persons a b o a rd Deepwater Horizon lost their lives and other people sustained personal injuries. 59. A s a result of the discharge of oil and methane gas, and the resulting

m u ltip le explosions and fires that occurred aboard the Deepwater Horizon, equipment w a s damaged and/or destroyed, which equipment, on information and belief, could have p re v e n te d and/or limited further damage and injury, including the prevention and/or lim ita tio n of discharge of oil into and upon waters of the Gulf of Mexico and adjoining s h o re lin e s of the United States. 60. A s a result of the uncontrolled well event, uncontrolled blowout, multiple

e x p lo s io n s, and fires, millions of barrels of oil were discharged into and upon waters of th e Gulf of Mexico and adjoining shorelines of the United States. 61. O n and after April 20, 2010, oil flowed from the Macondo Well, associated

e q u ip m e n t, the BOP stack, the marine riser, and the Deepwater Horizon, and into and u p o n waters of the Gulf of Mexico and adjoining shorelines of the United States.

17

Case 2:10-cv-04536-CJB-SS Document 1

Filed 12/15/10 Page 18 of 27

62.

W ith in the meaning of the CWA, oil discharges in "such quantities as may

b e harmful" include oil spills that cause "a film or sheen upon or discoloration of the s u rf a c e of the water or adjoining shorelines or cause a sludge or emulsion to be deposited b e n e a th the surface of the water or upon adjoining shorelines." 40 C.F.R. § 110.3(b). 63. T h e Deepwater Horizon Spill caused large quantities of oil to coat the

s u rf a c e of and flow through the waters of the Gulf of Mexico and be deposited upon s h o re lin e s of the United States. Oil from the spill remains in the waters of the Gulf of M e x ic o and upon the adjoining shorelines of the United States. 64. T h e Deepwater Horizon Spill was a discharge of oil "in such quantities as

m a y be harmful," within the meaning of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1321(b)(3). 65. A s a result of the Deepwater Horizon Spill, "natural resources," as that term

is defined in OPA, 33 U.S.C. § 2701(20), have been injured, destroyed, or lost. 66. N a tu ra l resources under the trusteeship of the United States and other

s o v e re ig n s have been injured, destroyed, or lost as a result of discharged oil and a s s o c ia te d removal efforts. The discharged oil is harmful to natural resources exposed to th e oil, including aquatic organisms, birds, wildlife, vegetation, and habitats. Discharged o il and some of the response activities to address the discharges of oil have resulted in in ju ry to, loss of, loss of use of or destruction of natural resources in and around the Gulf o f Mexico and along adjoining shorelines of the United States, and also have impaired or c a u s e d the loss of services that those resources provide. The full extent of potential in ju rie s , destruction, loss and loss of services is not yet fully known and may not be fully 18

Case 2:10-cv-04536-CJB-SS Document 1

Filed 12/15/10 Page 19 of 27

known for many years. On information and belief, resources and resource services that h a v e been injured, destroyed, or lost include, but are not limited to, hundreds of miles of c o a s ta l habitats, including salt marshes, sandy beaches, and mangroves; a variety of w ild lif e , including birds, sea turtles, and marine mammals; lost human-use opportunities a s s o c ia te d with various natural resources in the Gulf region, including but, not limited to f ish in g , swimming, beach-going, and viewing of birds and wildlife; and waters of the G u lf of Mexico, including various biota, benthic communities, marine organisms, coral, f ish , and water-column habitat. 67. T h e amount of damages and the extent of injuries sustained by the United

S ta te s as a result of the Deepwater Horizon Spill are not yet fully known, but far exceed $ 7 5 ,0 0 0 ,0 0 0 . 68. A s a result of the Deepwater Horizon Spill, the United States has expended

a n d /o r sustained and/or will expend or sustain, inter alia, "removal costs" and "damages," w ith in the meaning of OPA, 33 U.S.C. § 2702(b). 69. O n information and belief, the Deepwater Horizon Spill was proximately

c a u s e d by one or more of the following: acts, joint acts, omissions, fault, negligence, g ro s s negligence, willful misconduct, and/or breach of federal safety and/or operating a n d /o r construction regulations by Defendants BP, Anadarko Exploration, Anadarko P e tro le u m , MOEX, one or more of the Transocean Defendants, and/or their respective a g e n ts , servants, employees, crew, contractors and/or subcontractors with whom said D e f e n d a n ts had contractual relationships. 19

Case 2:10-cv-04536-CJB-SS Document 1

Filed 12/15/10 Page 20 of 27

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF (C iv il Penalties Under Section 311(b) of the Clean Water Act) 70. P la in tif f , the United States of America, refers to and incorporates by

re f e re n c e as though fully set forth herein each and every foregoing paragraph of this C o m p la in t. 71. A t all times material herein, Defendant BP was an owner, an operator,

a n d /o r a person in charge of, inter alia, the well, the well casing, the well head, and the D e e p w a te r Horizon, including the BOP stack, the marine riser and associated piping, and o th e r equipment, with respect to the matters sued upon herein. BP was an owner, o p e ra to r, and/or person in charge of an offshore facility and, additionally, an operator a n d /o r person in charge of a vessel within the meaning of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1 3 2 1 (b )(7 ). 72. A t all times material herein, the Anadarko Defendants were each an owner,

o p e ra to r, and/or a person in charge of, inter alia, the well, the well casing, and the well h e a d , with respect to the matters sued upon herein. The Anadarko Defendants were each a n owner, operator, and/or person in charge of an offshore facility within the meaning of th e CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1321(b)(7). 73. A t all times material herein, defendant MOEX was an owner, operator,

a n d /o r a person in charge of, inter alia, the well, the well casing, and the well head, with re s p e c t to the matters sued upon herein. Defendant MOEX was an owner, operator and/or

20

Case 2:10-cv-04536-CJB-SS Document 1

Filed 12/15/10 Page 21 of 27

person in charge of an offshore facility within the meaning of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1 3 2 1 (b )(7 ). 74. A t all times material herein, the Transocean Defendants were each an

o w n e r, operator, and/or person in charge of the Deepwater Horizon, including the BOP s ta c k , the marine riser and associated piping, and other equipment, with respect to the m a tte rs sued upon herein. The Transocean Defendants were each an owner, operator, a n d /o r person in charge of a vessel and/or an offshore facility within the meaning of the C W A , 33 U.S.C. § 1321(b)(7). 75. P u rs u a n t to 33 U.S.C § 1321(b)(7) and 40 C.F.R. § 19.4, Defendants BP,

A n a d a rk o Exploration, Anadarko Petroleum, MOEX, Triton, Transocean Holdings, T ra n s o c e a n Offshore, and Transocean Deepwater are each subject to a judicially assessed c iv il penalty of up to $1,100 per barrel of oil that has been discharged or up to $4,300 per b a rre l of oil that has been discharged, to the extent that the discharge of oil was the result o f gross negligence or willful misconduct by such Defendant. 76. P u rs u a n t to 33 U.S.C. § 1321(b)(7), Defendants BP, Anadarko Exploration,

Anadarko Petroleum, MOEX, Triton, Transocean Holdings, Transocean Offshore, and T ra n s o c e a n Deepwater are each liable to the United States for a judicially assessed civil p e n a lty in an amount to be determined at trial.

21

Case 2:10-cv-04536-CJB-SS Document 1

Filed 12/15/10 Page 22 of 27

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF (D e c la r a to r y Judgment That All Defendants Are Liable U n d e r the Oil Pollution Act) 77. P la in tif f , the United States of America, refers to and incorporates by

re f e re n c e as though fully set forth herein each and every foregoing paragraph of this C o m p la in t. 78. A t all times material herein, Defendant BP was and is a lessee or permittee

w ith respect to the leased area known as "All of Block 252, Mississippi Canyon, OCS O f f ic ia l Protraction Diagram, NH 16-10." In addition, BP was an operator of the D e e p w a te r Horizon with respect to the matters sued upon herein. 79. A t all times material herein, Defendant Anadarko Petroleum was and is a

le s se e or permittee with respect to the leased area known as "All of Block 252, M is s is s ip p i Canyon, OCS Official Protraction Diagram, NH 16-10." 80. A t all times material herein, at least until April 28, 2010, Defendant

A n a d a rk o Exploration was a lessee or permittee with respect to the leased area known as " A ll of Block 252, Mississippi Canyon, OCS Official Protraction Diagram, NH 16-10." 81. A t all times material herein, Defendant MOEX was and is a lessee or

p e rm itte e with respect to the leased area known as "All of Block 252, Mississippi C a n yo n , OCS Official Protraction Diagram, NH 16-10." 82. A s a result of the various agreements alleged herein and the foregoing

" A s s ig n m e n t(s ) of Record Title Interest in Federal OCS Oil and Gas Lease" pertaining to 22

Case 2:10-cv-04536-CJB-SS Document 1

Filed 12/15/10 Page 23 of 27

Lease No. OCS-G 32306, BP became and remains a "responsible party" for an "offshore f a c ility" within the meaning of OPA, 33 U.S.C. §§ 2701 et seq., and BP has admitted that it is a "responsible party" within the meaning of OPA. 83. A s a result of the various agreements alleged herein and the foregoing

" A s s ig n m e n t(s ) of Record Title Interest in Federal OCS Oil and Gas Lease" pertaining to L e a s e No. OCS-G 32306, the Anadarko Defendants became and remain "responsible p a rtie s " for an "offshore facility" within the meaning of OPA, 33 U.S.C. §§ 2701 et seq. 84. A s a result of the various agreements alleged herein and the foregoing

" A s s ig n m e n t(s ) of Record Title Interest in Federal OCS Oil and Gas Lease" pertaining to L e a s e No. OCS-G 32306, MOEX became and remains a "responsible party" for an " o f f sh o re facility" within the meaning of OPA, 33 U.S.C. §§ 2701 et seq. 85. A t all times material herein, the Transocean Defendants were the owners

a n d /o r operators and/or owners pro hac vice and/or demise charterers of the Deepwater H o r iz o n , and have been and remain "responsible parties" for a "vessel" and/or "offshore f a c ility" within the meaning of OPA, 33 U.S.C. §§ 2701 et seq. 86. T h e United States has sustained "damages," as that term is defined in 33

U .S .C . § 2702(b)(2), for, inter alia, injuries to, destruction of, loss of, or loss of use of n a tu ra l resources and net loss of taxes, royalties, rents, fees, and net profit shares due to th e injury to, destruction of, and loss of real property, personal property, and natural re s o u rc e s, said damages far exceeding $75,000,000. 23

Case 2:10-cv-04536-CJB-SS Document 1

Filed 12/15/10 Page 24 of 27

87.

A n actual controversy exists between the United States and Defendants BP,

A n a d a rk o Exploration, Anadarko Petroleum, MOEX, Triton, Transocean Holdings, T ra n s o c e a n Offshore, and Transocean Deepwater. 88. L lo yd 's has provided evidence of financial responsibility and certain

g u a ra n te e s pertaining to one or more of the Transocean Defendants and Deepwater H o r iz o n . 89. P u rs u a n t to Section 1016(f) of OPA, 33 U.S.C. § 2716(f), the United States

m a y bring this action directly against Lloyd's, in its capacity as a guarantor providing e v id e n c e of financial responsibility for one or more of the Transocean Defendants, for re m o v a l costs and damages available under OPA, 33 U.S.C. § 2702. 90. W h ile denying that it acted improperly, through its filings with the Court

a n d other public statements by its high-ranking officers, BP has, through binding waivers, e s to p p e ls , admissions, and judicial admissions, waived any potential limit of its strict lia b ility that it otherwise may have attempted to assert pursuant to, inter alia, Section 1 0 0 4 of OPA, including 33 U.S.C. § 2704. 91. P u rs u a n t to the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201, and OPA, 33

U .S .C . § 2717(f)(2), the United States is entitled to, and hereby seeks, a declaratory ju d g m e n t that is binding in this action and any subsequent action or actions against D e f e n d a n ts BP, Anadarko Exploration, Anadarko Petroleum, MOEX, Triton, Transocean H o ld in g s , Transocean Offshore, and Transocean Deepwater, jointly and severally and 24

Case 2:10-cv-04536-CJB-SS Document 1

Filed 12/15/10 Page 25 of 27

without any limitation, and Lloyd's, the latter up to the amount of its COFR guarantee, th a t said Defendants are liable for removal costs and damages in this action and in any s u c h subsequent action or actions. R E S E R V A T I O N OF RIGHTS AND NOTICE 92. T h e United States reserves the right to amend this complaint and/or file

a d d itio n a l complaints under statutory law, common law, and/or general maritime law, to a s s e rt claims for penalties, damages, and any other legal and equitable remedies a u th o riz e d by law and regulation, including, but not limited to, claims under the CWA, O P A , the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, 43 U.S.C. §§ 1301 et seq., the Declaratory J u d g m e n t Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 et seq., the Endangered Species Act of 1973, 16 U.S.C. § § 1531 et seq., the Marine Mammal Protection Act, 16 U.S.C. §§ 1361 et seq., the N a tio n a l Marine Sanctuaries Act,16 U.S.C. §§ 1431 et seq., and the Park System R e so u rc e Protection Act, 16 U.S.C. §§ 19jj et seq., against the present Defendants and/or a g a in s t any additional parties. The United States further expressly reserves the right to c o n d u c t administrative proceedings as warranted against the present Defendants and/or a d d itio n a l parties under federal statutes, including but not limited to the Outer Continental S h e lf Lands Act, 43 U.S.C. §§ 1301 et seq., and the Federal Oil and Gas Royalty M a n a g e m e n t Act, 30 U.S.C. §§ 1701 et seq.

25

Case 2:10-cv-04536-CJB-SS Document 1

Filed 12/15/10 Page 26 of 27

PRAYER FOR RELIEF W H E R E F O R E , the United States of America prays that the Court: 1. A ss e s s a civil penalty, under Section 311(b)(7) of the Clean Water Act, 33

U .S .C . § 1321(b)(7), against each Defendant (except Lloyd's) in an amount to be d e te rm in e d by the Court; 2. E n te r a declaratory judgment that all Defendants are jointly and severally

lia b le without limitation under Section 1002(a) of OPA, 33 U.S.C. § 2702(a), for all re m o v a l costs and damages resulting from the Deepwater Horizon Spill (except that L lo yd 's be declared liable only to the limit of its COFR), which will be binding on this a c tio n and on any subsequent action or actions to recover removal costs or damages; 3. 4. A w a rd injunctive relief against the Defendants as appropriate; and G ra n t such other relief as the Court deems just and proper. Respectfully submitted,

IGNACIA S. MORENO A s sis ta n t Attorney General E n v iro n m e n t & Natural Resources Division J A M E S NICOLL Senior Counsel N A N C Y FLICKINGER Senior Attorney S A R A H HIMMELHOCH Senior Attorney D E A N N A CHANG Trial Attorney 26

T O N Y WEST A s s is ta n t Attorney General C iv il Division

P E T E R F. FROST D ire c to r, Torts Branch, Civil Division A d m ira lty and Aviation S T E P H E N G. FLYNN Assistant Director M IC H E L L E DELEMARRE T ria l Attorney

Case 2:10-cv-04536-CJB-SS Document 1

Filed 12/15/10 Page 27 of 27

S C O T T CERNICH Trial Attorney A . NATHANIEL CHAKERES Trial Attorney J U D Y HARVEY Trial Attorney M A T T LEOPOLD Trial Attorney

SHARON SHUTLER T ria l Attorney J E S S IC A SULLIVAN T ria l Attorney J E S S IC A MCCLELLAN T ria l Attorney D A V ID PFEFFER T ria l Attorney T o rts Branch, Civil Division P .O . Box 14271 W a s h in g to n , D.C. 20044-4271 T e le p h o n e : 202-616-4000 F a c sim ile : 202-616-4002

/s / Steven O'Rourke S T E V E N O'ROURKE S e n io r Attorney E n v iro n m e n ta l Enforcement Section U .S . Department of Justice P .O . Box 7611 W a s h in g to n , D.C. 20044 T e le p h o n e : 202-514-2779 F a c s im ile : 202-514-2583 E -m a il: steve.o'[e-mail]

/s/ R. Michael Underhill R . MICHAEL UNDERHILL, T.A. A tto rn e y in Charge, West Coast Office T o rts Branch, Civil Division U .S . Department of Justice 7 -5 3 9 5 Federal Bldg., Box 36028 4 5 0 Golden Gate Avenue S a n Francisco, CA 94102-3463 T e le p h o n e : 415-436-6648 Facsimile: 415-436-6632 E -m a il: [e-mail]

J IM LETTEN U n ite d States Attorney S H A R O N D. SMITH A s sis ta n t United States Attorney Eastern District of Louisiana H a le Boggs Federal Building 5 0 0 Poydras Street, Ste. B-210 N e w Orleans, LA 70130 A tto rn e ys for the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 27