SCOTUS Turns Deaf Ear to BP and Anadarko

Share On Facebook
share on Linkedin

The Supreme Court of the United States makes major headlines only a few times a year, but when it does, it usually makes enough to stir up enough controversy to last well into its next session. In the past week alone the justices, in their infinite wisdom, have ruled against individual states rights with respect to the Obamacare health plan and – as a separate issue – marriage of same sex couples. Make no doubt about it, the decisions were not about what the public and the media at large believe. They were about overruling individual states’ rights that are clearly granted under the U.S. constitution. Perhaps a tax on tea wasn’t that bad after all.

© Image copyright saaby

This morning the court announced that it would not hear cases 14-1217 and 14-1167, BP Exploration and Production, Inc. v. U.S. and Anadarko Petroleum Corp v. U.S.

This effectively ends the appeal process for BP and Anadarko as it essentially established the earlier decisions of U.S. Circuit Court Judge Carl Barbier that found both companies negligent and BP grossly negligent in the 2010 Deepwater Horizon explosion and resulting oil spill. [See previous ADVFN articles: “BP Shares Plunge on Court Ruling” (09/05/14), “U.S. Judge Rules Against BP – Again” (24/09/14), and “BP Respond (sic) to U.S. Supreme Court” (12/08/14).]

BP shares (LSE:BP.) (NYSE:BP) fell 2.29% to 427.55 on the London Exchange and 2.64% to 40.26 on the New York Exchange. Anadarko shares (NYSE:APC) fell in similar fashion by 2.43% to 79.38. Prior to the tragedy on 10 April 2010, BP had been trading at 623.40 in London and at 57.07 in New York (both as recorded on 01 March 2010).

The common argument set forth by both oil companies in their separate cases was that they should not be responsible for oil spilled as a result of failed equipment on the drilling rig. The rig was own by Transocean Ltd. (NYSE:RIG). BP and Anadarko shared joint ownership in the well. Judge Barbier ruled that the well owners, not just the equipment owner/operate should be held responsible.

Transocean has already paid out over $1 billion in civil penalties to the U.S. government. As we pointed out in our story  on 24 September 2014, Judge Barbier has relentlessly pursued BP as though he were the Hound of Heaven, denying any relief, even from alleged fraudulent claims in the amount of $185 million that BP had been force to pay to 208 claimants.

It would appear that, as of the SCOTUS refusal to hear the case, BP and Anadarko have exhausted all avenues of relief. Once again, the two companies will have to face Barbier, as he is the sole judge who will determine the amount of penalties to be assessed. Anadarko is expected to have to lay out something in the area of $1 billion, but BP could be looking at as much as $13.7 billion on top of the $42 billion it has already incurred in accumulated costs related to the spill.

Barbier’s decisions and SCOTUS’ refusal to hear the BP and Anadarko cases are outrageous, if not scandalous. The Deepwater Horizon incident is, rather, an opportunity for a few people to become political heroes and a government agency (the EPA) to once again line its pockets through the full force of the U.S. Clean Water Act. Unfortunately, it is what it is. The last I knew both BP and Anadarko were hoping for the best and preparing for the worst. Let’s hope that they have prepared well.

CLICK HERE TO REGISTER FOR FREE ON ADVFN, the world's leading stocks and shares information website, provides the private investor with all the latest high-tech trading tools and includes live price data streaming, stock quotes and the option to access 'Level 2' data on all of the world's key exchanges (LSE, NYSE, NASDAQ, Euronext etc).

This area of the site is for independent financial commentary. These blogs are provided by independent authors via a common carrier platform and do not represent the opinions of ADVFN Plc. ADVFN Plc does not monitor, approve, endorse or exert editorial control over these articles and does not therefore accept responsibility for or make any warranties in connection with or recommend that you or any third party rely on such information. The information available at is for your general information and use and is not intended to address your particular requirements. In particular, the information does not constitute any form of advice or recommendation by ADVFN.COM and is not intended to be relied upon by users in making (or refraining from making) any investment decisions. Authors may or may not have positions in stocks that they are discussing but it should be considered very likely that their opinions are aligned with their trading and that they hold positions in companies, forex, commodities and other instruments they discuss.

Comments are closed

Do you want to write for our Newspaper? Get in touch:

By accessing the services available at ADVFN you are agreeing to be bound by ADVFN's Terms & Conditions

P: V: D:20210418 09:43:18