OIL SPILL - The Deepwater Horizon oil spill
(also referred to as the BP oil spill, the BP oil disaster the Gulf of
Mexico oil spill, and the Macondo blowout) is an oil spill in the Gulf of
Mexico which flowed unabated for three months in 2010, and continues to
seep. It is the largest accidental marine oil spill in the history of the
petroleum industry. The spill stemmed from a sea-floor oil gusher that
resulted from the 20 April 2010, explosion of Deepwater Horizon, which
drilled on the BP-operated Macondo Prospect. The explosion killed 11 men
working on the platform and injured 17 others. On 15 July 2010, the
gushing wellhead was capped, after it had released about 4.9 million
barrels (780,000 m3) of crude oil. An estimated 53,000 barrels per day
(8,400 m3/d) escaped from the well just before it was capped. It is
believed that the daily flow rate diminished over time, starting at about
62,000 barrels per day (9,900 m3/d) and decreasing as the reservoir of
hydrocarbons feeding the gusher was gradually depleted. On 19 September
2010, the relief well process was successfully completed, and the federal
government declared the well "effectively dead".
On February 16, 2016, Judge Carl J. Barbier of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana granted summary judgment in favor of the various commercial oil spill response companies involved in the federal government’s response to the
Deepwater Horizon (DWH) oil spill in the Gulf of
Mexico in 2010. The responders had been sued by numerous individuals claiming that they incurred damages, including personal injury and/or medical monitoring claims for exposure or other injury resulting from the post-explosion and spill clean-up efforts. Plaintiffs fell into five categories: (1) crew involved in the Vessels of Opportunity (VoO) program; (2) workers involved in decontaminating vessels; (3) other marine personnel not involved in the VoO program; (4) clean-up workers and beach personnel involved in onshore clean-up efforts; and (5) residents who lived and worked in close proximity to coastal waters who alleged exposure to oil and/or dispersants. The plaintiffs asserted negligence, gross negligence, negligence per se, nuisance, and battery on the part of the responders. In addition to compensatory damages, they sought punitive damages and declaratory relief; Florida plaintiffs also sought medical monitoring awards, as allowed by state law.
Following extensive discovery, the clean-up responder defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. Plaintiffs were given one more chance to provide some specificity to their broad claims of misconduct by the clean-up responders but were unable or unwilling to do so. At that point, the court could have simply dismissed the case on the ground that there was no genuine dispute as to any material fact. The court noted, though, that the clean-up responders had gathered substantial evidence that their clean-up activities were at the direction of the federal government involving an oil spill of national significance. Plaintiffs’ counsel objected to admission of that evidence, but the court overruled the objections.
OF CLEANUP RESOURCES - It as a fact that most oil companies do not
have at their disposal, sufficient backup, in case their wells or tankers
leak. But leaks are an inevitable part of operations. It follows then,
that most oil companies operate irresponsibly. Fines should then be in
proportion to the prevention and cure steps that are in place, with
mitigation rewards for those companies that act proactively to be better
able to clean up in the event of an incident.
The court found that, in accordance with the Clean Water Act, the President had delegated full authority to control the oil spill response to the Federal On-Scene Coordinator (FOSC), including the actions undertaken by private parties. In accordance with the Clean Water Act, the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA 90), and the National Contingency Plan, the effective and immediate removal of a discharge and the efficient, coordinated, and effective action to minimize the damage from the discharge are best achieved if the President, acting through the FOSC, directs all levels of response – federal, state, and private – so as to eliminate the confusion that impeded past responses by establishing a clear chain of command and responsibility. This spill response regime imposes a duty on private entities such as defendant clean-up responders to obey the FOSC’s direction during the response effort. The evidence clearly showed that the FOSC, after consulting with numerous parties and considering the advantages and disadvantages of the various actions, specifically ordered the various actions, including use of chemical dispersants, involved in plaintiffs’ complaints.
PELICAN - These birds were badly affected by oil pollution.
Ironically, they were taken off the endangered species list in 1009.
TURTLES - Stranding at 5x Normal Rates - Data from the Sea Turtle Stranding and Salvage Network indicates that between 1986 and 2009, an average of nearly 100 sea turtles were found stranded annually in the oil spill area. Since the spill, each year roughly 500 sea turtles have been found stranded, most of which were the very endangered Kemp’s ridley sea turtles.
WHALES - A technique that monitors whales through the sounds they emit has answered a key issue raised by the explosion of the Deepwater Horizon oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico two years ago this month.
The sound-monitoring technique revealed that sperm whales retreated from the immediate area around the spill caused by the explosion.
"There's obvious evidence of relocation," said team member Azmy Ackleh, professor and head of mathematics at the University of Louisiana at Lafayette.
The discovery is important because it provides information about a species almost hunted to extinction for its valuable oil in the 19th century.
Sperm whales are listed as endangered under the terms of the United States Endangered Species Act, and estimates of their population vary between 200,000 and 1.5 million worldwide.
However, said Vassili Papastavrou, lead whale biologist for the International Fund for Animal Welfare who did not work on the study, "sperm whales are difficult animals to count, because they spend so much of their lives beneath the surface. The overall population estimates are so uncertain that it is not possible to determine trends."
After the Deepwater Horizon explosion and spill, team members realized that the hydrophones they used for those recordings had been placed nine, 25, and 50 miles from the ill-fated oil rig.
So they set up fresh hydrophones in the same locations, collected acoustic signals characteristic of sperm whales, and applied statistical methods to compare the species' population before and after the spill.
"A comparison of the 2007 and the 2010 recordings shows a decrease in acoustic activity and abundance of sperm whales at the nine-mile site by a factor of two, whereas acoustic activity and abundance at the 25-mile site has clearly increased," the team wrote in the Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.
Just why the sperm whales moved away from the site is unclear. One possibility is that they followed their food sources out of the spill area. Sperm whales feed on giant squid, for which they dive about half a mile below the sea surface. They are also known to follow
fishing boats and snag fish off their lines.
WAHLBERG - Stars in a movie based on the true events that occurred
when the Deepwater Horizon exploded.
DOLPHINS - Dozens of dolphins washed up dead on the beaches in the
Gulf of Mexico. As part of the official investigation into impacts of the Deepwater Horizon disaster, a team of scientists did comprehensive physicals on dolphins in Barataria Bay in 2011, a heavily-oiled area of the Louisiana coast. Nearly half the dolphins studied were very ill; 17 percent of the dolphins were not expected to survive.
Clean Water Act Derivative Immunity
The court then turned to the application of law to the facts of this spill response. Parties acting under the direction and control of the federal government in the exercise of legitimate federal authority are entitled to the benefit of derivative immunity. In other words, if in the exercise of federal authority a federal agency is immune from liability, then a private party acting for and at the direction of the federal agency is also immune from liability. The Clean Water Act provides: The United States Government is not liable for any damages arising from its actions or omissions relating to any response plan required by this section. The National Contingency Plan is such a response plan. It follows that, if the federal government was immune from liability for plaintiffs’ alleged damages, then the clean-up responders who were acting on behalf of the federal government and at the specific direction and oversight of the FOSC are also entitled to immunity.
Federal Tort Claims Act Discretionary Function Immunity
To the extent that some of the claims could have been addressed under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) if brought against the federal government, the court considered such possibility. It noted that the FOSC’s decisions during the response and clean-up effort involved an element of judgment or choice and were based on considerations of public policy. For example, the FOSC engaged in a comprehensive analysis before deciding that the use of dispersants to mitigate the impact of the oil spill was appropriate, requiring a robust assessment of net environmental benefits and monitoring activities at the wellhead, in the benthos, water column, water surface, and along the shoreline. The court found that these are precisely the types of governmental decisions that are afforded discretionary function immunity and shielded from second-guessing via an action in tort. As the government would be entitled to discretionary function immunity under the FTCA, it follows that this immunity extends to the clean-up responder defendants.
STATES - Environmental Services workers prepare oil containment booms for
Finally, the court noted that some of the claims brought by the plaintiffs sounded in state law. Under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, federal law may preempt state law when compliance with both federal and state regulations is a physical impossibility or when the state law stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of federal law. Permitting these state law claims to proceed against defendant clean-up responders could cause clean-up responders in the future to refuse or hesitate to provide their services to mitigate the impact of future spills. It is precisely this second-guessing of the government’s decisions that would stand as an obstacle to federal law. Thus, the doctrine of implied conflict preemption prevents these types of claims against clean-up responders acting at the direction and with the oversight of the federal government from going forward.
The Clean Water Act (CWA) includes a provision exempting from liability for damages actions taken or omitted to be taken by a person in the course of rendering care, assistance, or advice consistent with the National Contingency Plan or otherwise as directed by the President relating to a discharge or the substantial threat of a discharge of oil or a hazardous substance. This provision, though, has two important caveats as respects clean-up responders. It does not apply with respect to personal injury or wrongful death and it does not apply if the person was grossly negligent or engaged in willful misconduct. In the instant case, plaintiffs’ complaints included allegations that they suffered personal injury and that the defendants were grossly negligent.
The court here, though, sidestepped these issues, finding that implied conflict preemption is consistent with the purpose of CWA liability exemption and going directly to the heart of the matter. It ruled that since the defendants were acting as agents of and at the direction of the federal government, those defendants could only be held liable for the alleged injuries if the federal government could have been held liable if it had engaged in this conduct directly. Since the federal government is clearly immune from such liability, it follows that the clean-up responders are also immune.
This well-reasoned decision, a case of first impression, has addressed and overcome the final theoretical obstacle to responder immunity that has haunted clean-up responders since enactment of the Clean Water Act. While district court decisions have no precedential effect, this one, rendered by a respected jurist, will carry great weight and is expected to resolve the responder immunity question for the foreseeable future.
As alluded to by the court, it is of little moment that we have the most robust spill response regime in the world if no one will show up to do the work for fear of litigation. That fear has now been largely dissipated.
BULK CARRIER LAYOUT
- The above diagram shows you a plan view of a bulk carrier (drawn to
scale) with 10 SeaVax ships docked with the 50,000 DWT bulk carrier. In
the event of an oil spill, a fleet of SeaVax could operate with a
PlastiMax to act as a tanker, while the SeaVax drones get to work
collecting the hazardous waste and transferring it as quickly as possible
to help local ecology to bounce back in a shorter timeframe.
- ATLANTIC - BALTIC
- BAY BENGAL - BERING
- CARIBBEAN - CORAL - EAST
GOC - GUANABARA
GUINEA - GULF
IRC - MEDITERRANEAN -
NORTH SEA - PACIFIC
- PERSIAN GULF - SEA
CHINA - PLASTIC
- PLANKTON - PLASTIC
OCEANS - SEA
LEVEL RISE - UNCLOS
- BURIGANGA - CITARUM - CONGO - CUYAHOGA
GANGES - IRTYSH
- JORDAN - LENA -
- MEKONG - MISSISSIPPI - NIGER - NILE - PARANA - PASIG - SARNO - THAMES
- YANGTZE - YAMUNA - YELLOW
The SeaVax may be adapted to suck up oil in the event of a spill. Coupled
with a PlastiMax,
a converted bulk carrier, SeaVax
could provide comprehensive logistical
means to combat significant oil spills. Oil companies are invited to express
interest in such development for the purposes of future Joint Ventures.