BP Accuses Halliburton of Destroying Critical Evidence
In December 2011, BP filed a motion in federal court accusing Halliburton of intentionally destroying evidence related to cement work performed on the Macondo well in the Gulf of Mexico. The well’s blowout on April 20, 2010, triggered the largest offshore oil spill in U.S. history, killed 11 workers aboard the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig, and led to tens of billions of dollars in lawsuits.
According to BP’s court filing, Halliburton “intentionally” destroyed the results of slurry testing conducted for the well. BP alleged the destruction was carried out in part to “eliminate any risk that this evidence would be used against it at trial.” The oil company also claimed that Halliburton appeared to have lost computer evidence showing how the cement performed, with Halliburton maintaining that the data was simply “gone.”
BP Seeks Court Sanctions Against Halliburton
BP asked U.S. District Judge Carl Barbier in New Orleans, who oversaw the consolidated spill litigation, to sanction Halliburton by issuing a finding of fact that Halliburton’s slurry design was “unstable.” Such a ruling could have been used as established evidence at trial, significantly strengthening BP’s case.
BP also requested that the court direct forensic experts to search for the missing computer data. The company argued these remedies were warranted by law and principles of fair play, and were essential to ensure the trial would not be tainted by Halliburton’s alleged misconduct.
Halliburton, the world’s second-largest oilfield services provider, said it was reviewing BP’s filing and believed the conclusions BP sought were without merit. The company had previously filed its own claims against BP, alleging fraud and defamation.
A Complex Web of Corporate Liability
The legal battle over the Deepwater Horizon disaster involved multiple companies beyond BP and Halliburton. BP had also sued Transocean, which owned the drilling rig, and Cameron International, which manufactured the failed blowout preventer.
By the time of BP’s evidence destruction allegations, some parties had already reached settlements. Anadarko Petroleum, which held a 25 percent stake in the well, agreed to pay BP $4 billion toward cleanup costs and victim compensation. Mitsui’s MOEX Offshore venture, a drilling partner, and Weatherford International, which provided well equipment, had also settled.
The evidence destruction claims raised the stakes significantly ahead of a trial expected in late February 2012, where the court would assign blame and determine damages for one of the worst environmental disasters in American history.
