march 14, 2013 am
TRANSCRIPT
-
7/29/2019 March 14, 2013 AM
1/171
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
910
11
12
13
14
1516
17
18
19
20
2122
23
24
25
OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT
3837
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
***************************************************************
IN RE: OIL SPILL BY THE OILRIG DEEPWATER HORIZON IN THEGULF OF MEXICO ON APRIL 20,2010
CIVIL ACTION NO. 10-MD-2179 "J"NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA
THURSDAY, MARCH 14, 2013, 8:00 A.M.
THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO:
CASE NO. 2:10-CV-02771,IN RE: THE COMPLAINT ANDPETITION OF TRITON ASSETLEASING GmbH, ET AL
CASE NO. 2:10-CV-4536,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA V.BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION,INC., ET AL
***************************************************************
DAY 12 MORNING SESSION
TRANSCRIPT OF NONJURY TRIAL PROCEEDINGSHEARD BEFORE THE HONORABLE CARL J. BARBIER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
-
7/29/2019 March 14, 2013 AM
2/171
1
2
34
5
6
7
8
910
11
12
13
14
1516
17
18
19
20
2122
23
24
25
OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT
3838
APPEARANCES:
FOR THE PLAINTIFFS: DOMENGEAUX WRIGHT ROY & EDWARDSBY: JAMES P. ROY, ESQ.556 JEFFERSON STREET, SUITE 500POST OFFICE BOX 3668LAFAYETTE, LA 70502
HERMAN HERMAN & KATZBY: STEPHEN J. HERMAN, ESQ.820 O'KEEFE AVENUENEW ORLEANS, LA 70113
CUNNINGHAM BOUNDSBY: ROBERT T. CUNNINGHAM, ESQ.1601 DAUPHIN STREETMOBILE, AL 36604
LEWIS, KULLMAN, STERBCOW & ABRAMSONBY: PAUL M. STERBCOW, ESQ.
PAN AMERICAN LIFE BUILDING601 POYDRAS STREET, SUITE 2615NEW ORLEANS, LA 70130
BREIT DRESCHER IMPREVENTO & WALKERBY: JEFFREY A. BREIT, ESQ.600 22ND STREET, SUITE 402VIRGINIA BEACH, VA 23451
LEGER & SHAWBY: WALTER J. LEGER, JR., ESQ.600 CARONDELET STREET, 9TH FLOORNEW ORLEANS, LA 70130
-
7/29/2019 March 14, 2013 AM
3/171
1
2
34
5
6
7
8
910
11
12
13
14
1516
17
18
19
20
2122
23
24
25
OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT
3839
APPEARANCES CONTINUED:
WATTS, GUERRA, CRAFTBY: MIKAL C. WATTS, ESQ.4 DOMINION DRIVEBUILDING 3, SUITE 100SAN ANTONIO, TX 78257
WILLIAMS LAW GROUPBY: CONRAD S. P. WILLIAMS, ESQ.435 CORPORATE DRIVE, SUITE 101HOUMA, LA 70360
THORNHILL LAW FIRMBY: THOMAS THORNHILL, ESQ.1308 NINTH STREETSLIDELL, LA 70458
DEGRAVELLES PALMINTIER HOLTHAUS & FRUGEBY: JOHN W. DEGRAVELLES, ESQ.
618 MAIN STREETBATON ROUGE, LA 70801
WILLIAMSON & RUSNAKBY: JIMMY WILLIAMSON, ESQ.4310 YOAKUM BOULEVARDHOUSTON, TX 77006
IRPINO LAW FIRMBY: ANTHONY IRPINO, ESQ.2216 MAGAZINE STREETNEW ORLEANS, LA 70130
-
7/29/2019 March 14, 2013 AM
4/171
1
2
34
5
6
7
8
910
11
12
13
14
1516
17
18
19
20
2122
23
24
25
OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT
3840
APPEARANCES CONTINUED:
FOR THE UNITED STATESOF AMERICA: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
TORTS BRANCH, CIVIL DIVISIONBY: R. MICHAEL UNDERHILL, ESQ.450 GOLDEN GATE AVENUE7TH FLOOR, ROOM 5395SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
ENVIRONMENT & NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISIONENVIRONMENTAL ENFORCEMENT SECTIONBY: STEVEN O'ROURKE, ESQ.
SCOTT CERNICH, ESQ.DEANNA CHANG, ESQ.RACHEL HANKEY, ESQ.A. NATHANIEL CHAKERES, ESQ.
P.O. BOX 7611WASHINGTON, DC 20044
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICETORTS BRANCH, CIVIL DIVISIONBY: JESSICA McCLELLAN, ESQ.
MICHELLE DELEMARRE, ESQ.JESSICA SULLIVAN, ESQ.SHARON SHUTLER, ESQ.MALINDA LAWRENCE, ESQ.
POST OFFICE BOX 14271WASHINGTON, DC 20044
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICEFRAUD SECTIONCOMMERCIAL LITIGATION BRANCHBY: DANIEL SPIRO, ESQ.
KELLEY HAUSER, ESQ.ELIZABETH YOUNG, ESQ.
BEN FRANKLIN STATIONWASHINGTON, DC 20044
-
7/29/2019 March 14, 2013 AM
5/171
1
2
34
5
6
7
8
910
11
12
13
14
1516
17
18
19
20
2122
23
24
25
OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT
3841
APPEARANCES CONTINUED:
FOR THE STATE OFALABAMA: ALABAMA ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICEBY: LUTHER STRANGE, ATTORNEY GENERAL
COREY L. MAZE, ESQ.WINFIELD J. SINCLAIR, ESQ.
500 DEXTER AVENUEMONTGOMERY, AL 36130
FOR THE STATE OFLOUISIANA OFFICE
OF THE ATTORNEYGENERAL:STATE OF LOUISIANABY: JAMES D. CALDWELL,ATTORNEY GENERAL1885 NORTH THIRD STREETPOST OFFICE BOX 94005BATON ROUGE, LA 70804
KANNER & WHITELEY
BY: ALLAN KANNER, ESQ.DOUGLAS R. KRAUS, ESQ.701 CAMP STREETNEW ORLEANS, LA 70130
FOR BP EXPLORATION &PRODUCTION INC.,BP AMERICA PRODUCTIONCOMPANY, BP PLC: LISKOW & LEWIS
BY: DON K. HAYCRAFT, ESQ.ONE SHELL SQUARE701 POYDRAS STREETSUITE 5000NEW ORLEANS, LA 70139
-
7/29/2019 March 14, 2013 AM
6/171
1
2
34
5
6
7
8
910
11
12
13
14
1516
17
18
19
20
2122
23
24
25
OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT
3842
APPEARANCES CONTINUED:
COVINGTON & BURLINGBY: ROBERT C. MIKE BROCK, ESQ.1201 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, NWWASHINGTON, DC 20004
KIRKLAND & ELLISBY: J. ANDREW LANGAN, ESQ.
HARIKLIA "CARRIE" KARIS, ESQ.MATTHEW T. REGAN, ESQ.
300 N. LASALLE
CHICAGO, IL 60654
FOR TRANSOCEAN HOLDINGSLLC, TRANSOCEANOFFSHORE DEEPWATERDRILLING INC., ANDTRANSOCEAN DEEPWATERINC.: FRILOT
BY: KERRY J. MILLER, ESQ.ENERGY CENTRE
1100 POYDRAS STREET, SUITE 3700NEW ORLEANS, LA 70163
SUTHERLAND ASBILL & BRENNANBY: STEVEN L. ROBERTS, ESQ.
RACHEL G. CLINGMAN, ESQ.1001 FANNIN STREET, SUITE 3700HOUSTON, TX 77002
MUNGER TOLLES & OLSONBY: MICHAEL R. DOYEN, ESQ.
BRAD D. BRIAN, ESQ.LUIS LI, ESQ.
355 SOUTH GRAND AVENUE, 35TH FLOORLOS ANGELES, CA 90071
-
7/29/2019 March 14, 2013 AM
7/171
1
2
34
5
6
7
8
910
11
12
13
14
1516
17
18
19
20
2122
23
24
25
OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT
3843
APPEARANCES CONTINUED:
MAHTOOK & LAFLEURBY: RICHARD J. HYMEL, ESQ.1000 CHASE TOWER600 JEFFERSON STREETLAFAYETTE, LA 70502
HUGHES ARRELL KINCHENBY: JOHN KINCHEN, ESQ.2211 NORFOLK, SUITE 1110HOUSTON, TX 77098
FOR CAMERON INTERNATIONALCORPORATION: STONE PIGMAN WALTHER WITTMANN
BY: PHILLIP A. WITTMANN, ESQ.546 CARONDELET STREETNEW ORLEANS, LA 70130
BECK REDDEN & SECRESTBY: DAVID J. BECK, ESQ.DAVID W. JONES, ESQ.GEOFFREY GANNAWAY, ESQ.ALEX B. ROBERTS, ESQ.
ONE HOUSTON CENTER1221 MCKINNEY STREET, SUITE 4500HOUSTON, TX 77010
FOR HALLIBURTON
ENERGY SERVICES,INC.: GODWIN LEWISBY: DONALD E. GODWIN, ESQ.
FLOYD R. HARTLEY, JR., ESQ.GAVIN HILL, ESQ.
RENAISSANCE TOWER1201 ELM STREET, SUITE 1700DALLAS, TX 75270.
-
7/29/2019 March 14, 2013 AM
8/171
1
2
34
5
6
7
8
910
11
12
13
14
1516
17
18
19
20
2122
23
24
25
OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT
3844
APPEARANCES CONTINUED:
GODWIN LEWISBY: JERRY C. VON STERNBERG, ESQ.1331 LAMAR, SUITE 1665HOUSTON, TX 77010
FOR M-I L.L.C.: MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUSBY: HUGH E. TANNER, ESQ.DENISE SCOFIELD, ESQ.JOHN C. FUNDERBURK, ESQ.1000 LOUISIANA STREET, SUITE 4000
HOUSTON, TX 77002
OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER: CATHY PEPPER, CRR, RMR, CCRCERTIFIED REALTIME REPORTERREGISTERED MERIT REPORTER500 POYDRAS STREET, ROOM HB406NEW ORLEANS, LA 70130(504) 589-7779
PROCEEDINGS RECORDED BY MECHANICAL STENOGRAPHY. TRANSCRIPTPRODUCED BY COMPUTER.
-
7/29/2019 March 14, 2013 AM
9/171
1
2
34
5
6
7
8
910
11
12
13
14
1516
17
18
19
20
2122
23
24
25
OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT
3845
I N D E X
EXAMINATIONS PAGE
GEOFF WEBSTER........................................ 3867
DIRECT EXAMINATION (CONTINUED) BY MR. WILLIAMS....... 3867
LUNCHEON RECESS...................................... 3978
-
7/29/2019 March 14, 2013 AM
10/171
1
2
34
5
6
7
8
910
11
12
13
14
1516
17
18
19
20
2122
23
24
25
08:05:10
08:05:29
08:05:29
08:05:30
08:05:33
08:05:36
08:05:38
08:05:41
08:05:41
08:05:44
08:05:46
08:05:48
08:05:51
08:05:51
08:05:51
08:05:54
08:05:54
08:05:57
08:05:59
OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT
3846
P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S
THURSDAY, MARCH 14, 2013
M O R N I N G S E S S I O N(COURT CALLED TO ORDER)
THE DEPUTY CLERK: All rise.
THE COURT: Good morning, everyone.
VOICES: Good morning, Your Honor.THE COURT: Please be seated.
All right. Any preliminary matters before we
resume testimony?
MR. KRAUS: Good morning, Your Honor. Doug Kraus on
behalf of the State of Louisiana.
We would like to offer our exhibits used duringthe questioning of Joe Keith yesterday. They have been
circulated, and there are no objections.
THE COURT: All right. Any objections to Louisiana's
exhibits?
Without objection, those are admitted.
(WHEREUPON, the above-mentioned exhibits wereadmitted.)
MR. HERMAN: Good morning, Your Honor. Steve Herman
for the plaintiffs.
There were a number of depositions in which the
-
7/29/2019 March 14, 2013 AM
11/171
1
2
34
5
6
7
8
910
11
12
13
14
1516
17
18
19
20
2122
23
24
25
08:06:03
08:06:05
08:06:09
08:06:10
08:06:12
08:06:15
08:06:16
08:06:18
08:06:19
08:06:21
08:06:27
08:06:30
08:06:33
08:06:37
08:06:39
08:06:40
08:06:43
08:06:46
08:06:49
08:06:53
08:06:57
08:07:00
08:07:03
08:07:06
08:07:09
OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT
3847
witness took the Fifth Amendment, and I think all of those have
been provided to the Court, with some briefing on adverse
inferences.But we wanted to formally offer, file and
introduce the deposition transcripts into the record before we
rest. We could do that at the marshalling conference.
THE COURT: Do you have a list of those?
MR. HERMAN: I have a list, yes.
THE COURT: All right. Well, I think that was theplan. Those would be admitted subject to any objections and
subject, obviously, to the Fifth Amendment issues.
I know there has been a lot of briefing as to
what inferences, if any, the Court should draw from those
depositions.
MR. LANGAN: Your Honor, Andy Langan for BP.We actually have a slightly different view of the
proper process here. We don't think it's necessary to actually
offer the depositions. There is no purpose to be served.
I mean, in an order many months ago,
Judge Shushan established a process for Fifth Amendment
inference briefing, and that process should run its course, andthe determination should be -- in other words, adding the
depositions, which don't really have any substantive evidence,
adds nothing to this, so there is no reason for that.
THE COURT: Well, the only problem is evidence has to
-
7/29/2019 March 14, 2013 AM
12/171
1
2
34
5
6
7
8
910
11
12
13
14
1516
17
18
19
20
2122
23
24
25
08:07:11
08:07:15
08:07:15
08:07:17
08:07:21
08:07:25
08:07:30
08:07:34
08:07:35
08:07:39
08:07:42
08:07:46
08:07:49
08:07:51
08:07:52
08:07:57
08:07:58
08:08:02
08:08:05
08:08:06
08:08:09
08:08:15
08:08:16
08:08:19
08:08:22
OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT
3848
be admitted during a trial. I frankly, personally, have not
looked at this yet.
MR. LANGAN: Right.THE COURT: I figured it wasn't on my front burner.
But if I would come to the conclusion that I
should and would draw any adverse inferences from any of those
depositions against any party, the evidence has to be in the
record.
MR. LANGAN: Fair enough, but could we reopen it atthat time? I mean, why do them all en masse now. I'm not sure
it serves any purpose until Your Honor has actually determined
what inferences were properly drawn. That's really our point.
MR. HERMAN: I think we just want to make sure they are
in the trial record.
THE COURT: How many depositions are we speaking about?MR. HERMAN: 13.
THE COURT: 13. So we're not talking -- it's kind of a
standard script, I suppose, protocol that you all asked of
these witnesses?
MR. HERMAN: I think they were witness specific for the
specific inferences to be drawn from that witness.THE COURT: Well, I'm inclined to let them in; but,
I'll give it some thought. I'll talk to Judge Shushan about
that again, and we can deal with it at the marshalling
conference.
-
7/29/2019 March 14, 2013 AM
13/171
1
2
34
5
6
7
8
910
11
12
13
14
1516
17
18
19
20
2122
23
24
25
08:08:22
08:08:27
08:08:31
08:08:34
08:08:36
08:08:37
08:08:40
08:08:42
08:08:44
08:08:47
08:08:48
08:08:51
08:08:53
08:08:57
08:08:59
08:09:01
08:09:06
08:09:09
08:09:11
08:09:15
08:09:15
08:09:15
08:09:18
08:09:19
08:09:21
OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT
3849
MR. LANGAN: Similarly, I know the PSC has talked about
offering deposition bundles of witnesses who were on people's
will call list; just in case they don't show up, they want thebundles in.
Our position on that is the same. We need to
wait and see if they come or not; and, if they don't, they can
add them.
THE COURT: I assume they want them as part of their
case, in the event those witnesses don't show up or are notcalled for some reason.
We could admit those conditionally, not
physically put them in the record, but say those will be
admitted if the witness does not appear to testify.
MR. HERMAN: That's my understanding, Your Honor.
Judge Shushan had indicated that for thosepurposes, we should simply -- we don't have to waste the
Court's time now -- through the marshalling conference, put
them on the record, so they're formally offered, filed and
introduced, but not actually bring them to court and put them
into the record.
THE COURT: That's what I'm thinking.MR. LANGAN: That's reasonable.
MR. BRIAN: Your Honor, Brad Brian for Transocean.
On this issue, I'm not sure whether they
technically should be admitted. I certainly agree with
-
7/29/2019 March 14, 2013 AM
14/171
1
2
34
5
6
7
8
910
11
12
13
14
1516
17
18
19
20
2122
23
24
25
08:09:25
08:09:29
08:09:29
08:09:32
08:09:34
08:09:37
08:09:37
08:09:40
08:09:41
08:09:45
08:09:47
08:09:50
08:09:53
08:09:56
08:10:00
08:10:04
08:10:09
08:10:10
08:10:13
08:10:15
08:10:18
08:10:20
08:10:21
08:10:25
08:10:27
OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT
3850
Mr. Herman that they should be part of the record. We have no
objection to that.
THE COURT: Which depositions are we talking about?MR. BRIAN: Any of the depositions where they're
seeking an adverse inference.
I think we would like the opportunity at some
point to address that, but we have no objection to them being
part of the record.
If Your Honor decides not to draw an adverseinference, it may be the case, as a matter of law, that they
should not be admitted. Maybe it's just a technicality.
THE COURT: Well, is it any different than if a witness
was called here and was sitting in the witness box and sworn
in, and then he or she is questioned and starts taking the
Fifth Amendment? It would all be on the record.Whatever they are asked and whatever their answer
is would be on the record. I don't know if there is any
difference by admitting the depositions.
MR. BRIAN: That may be right, Your Honor. So just
subject to our reserving our objections and setting aside some
time to be heard on that issue.Thank you, Your Honor.
MR. GODWIN: Your Honor, Don Godwin for Halliburton.
On this subject, Judge, Halliburton would join in
the objection made by BP. We understand Your Honor's position.
-
7/29/2019 March 14, 2013 AM
15/171
1
2
34
5
6
7
8
910
11
12
13
14
1516
17
18
19
20
2122
23
24
25
08:10:30
08:10:30
08:10:31
08:10:33
08:10:36
08:10:42
08:10:43
08:10:45
08:10:46
08:10:48
08:10:55
08:10:56
08:10:57
08:10:59
08:11:06
08:11:10
08:11:14
08:11:16
08:11:24
08:11:28
08:11:30
08:11:34
08:11:37
08:11:38
08:11:39
OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT
3851
Thank you, Judge.
THE COURT: Thank you.
MR. HERMAN: We would also like to formally offer, fileand introduce the agreed stipulations, which are
Record Document 5927, into the trial record. It's already part
of the record.
THE COURT: Yes, I just want to make sure we've got the
same ones.
Is there only a single list, or are theremultiple lists? I'm looking at Record Document 5927 you just
referenced, correct?
MR. HERMAN: Right.
THE COURT: That was filed shortly before trial was
scheduled last year, 2/29/12, re stipulations.
Some numbers are skipped. I was going to saythere were 183, but there is not because there are a number of
numbers that are missing. So I don't know the exact number.
My understanding is that all parties to this
trial have agreed to those stipulations as set forth in
Record Document 5927; is that correct?
MR. HERMAN: Correct. I think the missing numbers arenumbers that were on the list that we couldn't get everybody to
stipulate.
THE COURT: I understand.
Then there is another document, so maybe we
-
7/29/2019 March 14, 2013 AM
16/171
1
2
34
5
6
7
8
910
11
12
13
14
1516
17
18
19
20
2122
23
24
25
08:11:43
08:11:51
08:11:58
08:12:04
08:12:14
08:12:15
08:12:19
08:12:20
08:12:22
08:12:31
08:12:35
08:12:37
08:12:39
08:12:44
08:12:45
08:12:48
08:12:51
08:12:54
08:12:56
08:13:01
08:13:05
08:13:07
08:13:10
08:13:13
08:13:16
OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT
3852
should talk about this briefly. It's Record Document 5563.
It's an earlier document. I'm not sure if this is encompassed
within the later set of stipulations. It's called Defendants'Agreed Stipulations Corrected. What is that about?
MR. LANGAN: Your Honor, Andy Langan.
We'll double check. I think it's superseded by
5927.
THE COURT: It seemed to be more comprehensive than the
earlier one. I'm going to blame Mr. Haycraft for it, since itlooks like he's the one that signed it, at least, filed it.
In any event, I just want to have a clear
understanding whether I should consider both documents or just
one or the other, or one is agreed to by some parties but not
all --
MR. LANGAN: I believe it's 5927. I think that's whatMr. Herman is offering. We'll double check.
If I could suggest that would be our working
assumption, I think that would be good.
THE COURT: All right. Let's see.
MR. HERMAN: A couple more things. We can do this at
the marshalling conference, but we just wanted to put on therecord, there are a number of deposition bundles of witnesses
who were 30(b)(6) designees.
While the bundles were not submitted to the
Court, we think it's proper under the rules to submit those
-
7/29/2019 March 14, 2013 AM
17/171
1
2
34
5
6
7
8
910
11
12
13
14
1516
17
18
19
20
2122
23
24
25
08:13:20
08:13:25
08:13:29
08:13:31
08:13:34
08:13:36
08:13:38
08:13:40
08:13:42
08:13:44
08:13:47
08:13:48
08:13:54
08:13:57
08:14:03
08:14:05
08:14:06
08:14:09
08:14:11
08:14:15
08:14:15
08:14:17
08:14:21
08:14:23
08:14:25
OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT
3853
depositions unconditionally, even if the witness appeared and
testified live, because as a 30(b)(6) witness it's not subject
to the availability rules.THE COURT: That's true under Rule 30.
Okay. Anybody?
MR. LANGAN: Your Honor, subject to the objections we
made and counter-designations, I don't disagree.
THE COURT: Okay. Very well.
So, again, you'll have a list of those andpresent them at the marshalling conference, correct?
MR. HERMAN: Correct, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Now, I noticed also on, I believe, the last
witness list that I had gotten from the plaintiffs, there were
notations that there was a Mr. Lindner and a Mr. Chaisson who
were originally going to be called live, and now there is anote that the plaintiffs will not call live.
These are people that, apparently, fall in the
category we were talking about earlier that you all believe BP
or some other defendant will call live now.
MR. HERMAN: Correct.
THE COURT: So you want to reserve the right to submittheir deposition bundles if they are not called live, correct?
MR. HERMAN: Or submit them conditionally.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. HERMAN: Let me just advise the Court and all
-
7/29/2019 March 14, 2013 AM
18/171
1
2
34
5
6
7
8
910
11
12
13
14
1516
17
18
19
20
2122
23
24
25
08:14:27
08:14:29
08:14:36
08:14:41
08:14:43
08:14:44
08:14:47
08:14:49
08:14:51
08:14:54
08:14:58
08:15:00
08:15:03
08:15:07
08:15:08
08:15:11
08:15:15
08:15:19
08:15:21
08:15:23
08:15:27
08:15:28
08:15:30
08:15:32
08:15:33
OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT
3854
parties, there are three additional bundles that the plaintiffs
have identified that weren't on our original list of 1/26, and
we can formally submit those during the marshalling conference.THE COURT: If there are any issues that arise that I
need to rule on, we can take care of that.
MR. HERMAN: Then, I think the last issue from the
plaintiffs' point of view that I know about is -- and we
discussed this with Judge Shushan, I think the Court is
aware -- there were a number of records custodian subpoenasthat were served on the defendants, just in case we had to
authenticate some documents.
Our understanding and instructions from the Court
were let's leave that until the end of the case, and hopefully
they won't be necessary.
THE COURT: Let's hopefully not to have to deal withthat. I haven't yet heard an objection to authenticity, I
don't believe, in this trial. I hope we don't have to go down
that road.
Obviously, there could be a legitimate reason,
but not just to make somebody come here to say that the
document is what it appears to be.MR. HERMAN: Yes, sir. We just wanted to preserve that
on record before we rest.
THE COURT: Anybody else have a comment on that?
MR. BROCK: Your Honor, just from --
-
7/29/2019 March 14, 2013 AM
19/171
1
2
34
5
6
7
8
910
11
12
13
14
1516
17
18
19
20
2122
23
24
25
08:15:43
08:15:44
08:15:46
08:15:49
08:15:53
08:15:56
08:15:59
08:16:03
08:16:06
08:16:07
08:16:09
08:16:10
08:16:11
08:16:13
08:16:15
08:16:19
08:16:22
08:16:27
08:16:27
08:16:29
08:16:33
08:16:35
08:16:39
08:16:39
08:16:39
OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT
3855
Mike Brock for BP.
-- just from our perspective, I don't know what
volume of documents that they are talking about, you know,closing a loop here or there. But our view would be that
dumping in a massive number of e-mails or other documents like
that, where we don't have witnesses here to explain them, to
talk about them, those types of things, we would be opposed to
that. If we're talking about sort of filling in the gaps on
records, that's another issue.THE COURT: I don't think that's what he's talking
about. That wasn't my sense, at least.
MR. HERMAN: No, Your Honor.
THE COURT: I think he was just talking about documents
that either have been or will be used during the trial; and, if
somebody questions their authenticity, just the authenticity,not the relevance or anything else.
MR. REGAN: Good morning, Your Honor. Matt Regan on
behalf of BP.
I'm offering our exhibits yesterday from the
examination of Joe Keith. I don't believe there are any
objections to authenticity or otherwise.THE COURT: Any objection to BP's exhibits regarding
Mr. Keith?
Okay. Hearing none, those are admitted.
(WHEREUPON, the above-mentioned exhibits were
-
7/29/2019 March 14, 2013 AM
20/171
1
2
34
5
6
7
8
910
11
12
13
14
1516
17
18
19
20
2122
23
24
25
08:16:41
08:16:41
08:16:42
08:16:44
08:16:45
08:16:48
08:16:51
08:16:53
08:16:55
08:17:00
08:17:03
08:17:06
08:17:08
08:17:11
08:17:12
08:17:13
08:17:13
08:17:15
08:17:15
08:17:20
08:17:20
08:17:21
08:17:24
08:17:26
08:17:28
OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT
3856
admitted.)
MR. REGAN: Thank you, Your Honor.
MR. GODWIN: Good morning, again, Your Honor.Don Godwin for Halliburton.
Judge, I'm offering here this morning the
exhibits we used in Joe Keith's deposition. We've circulated
them. There are no objections.
I do have, with regard to the first exhibit
that's on the list, Your Honor, D-08166, a flash drive. It'san animation. I'll give this to Ben, with the Court's
permission, along with the copies.
THE COURT: All right. Anybody object to Halliburton's
exhibits? These pertain to Mr. Keith, you said?
MR. GODWIN: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Any objections?Hearing none, those are admitted.
(WHEREUPON, the above-mentioned exhibits were
admitted.)
MR. GODWIN: Thank you, Judge.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Jimmy Williamson, Your Honor, for the
PSC.We're offering the PSC's exhibits to the
examination of Greg Perkin.
There are two things, Judge. I've got the list,
but I need to correct it. We are going to defer, because we're
-
7/29/2019 March 14, 2013 AM
21/171
1
2
34
5
6
7
8
910
11
12
13
14
1516
17
18
19
20
2122
23
24
25
08:17:32
08:17:36
08:17:37
08:17:40
08:17:40
08:17:43
08:17:46
08:17:49
08:17:52
08:17:54
08:17:57
08:18:00
08:18:01
08:18:03
08:18:03
08:18:04
08:18:08
08:18:13
08:18:19
08:18:27
08:18:30
08:18:33
08:18:34
08:18:40
08:18:46
OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT
3857
still in discussions in deciding what BP is objecting to, and
we're going to try to work that out.
THE COURT: You all are trying to agree to redact thereport, as we talked about?
MR. WILLIAMSON: I think the Court is actually correct.
The second thing is we had proposed redactions,
BP wants some time to look at it, figure out if they want to
argue over scope. We're going to try to work that out before
we bring it to you, but we have proposed that.Of course, it's been admitted subject to the
appropriate rulings on redactions and objections.
THE COURT: Very well.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Thank you, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Anything else? Any other preliminary
matters?While we're talking about preliminary matters
here, I'll mention this. I received a letter yesterday from --
where is Mr. Langan -- from Mr. Langan about the e-mails, the
Greenwich Mean Time issue, which apparently everyone else was
aware of this issue regarding e-mails. I was not aware of it,
frankly, before the trial started, but that's neither here northere.
But my sense is that -- I think I understand what
you're saying in this letter, Mr. Langan -- is that, obviously,
because BP and other companies, perhaps, are engaged in
-
7/29/2019 March 14, 2013 AM
22/171
1
2
34
5
6
7
8
910
11
12
13
14
1516
17
18
19
20
2122
23
24
25
08:18:52
08:19:01
08:19:05
08:19:06
08:19:07
08:19:09
08:19:14
08:19:14
08:19:17
08:19:19
08:19:22
08:19:24
08:19:27
08:19:29
08:19:32
08:19:35
08:19:39
08:19:43
08:19:43
08:19:47
08:19:49
08:19:51
08:19:54
08:19:56
08:20:05
OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT
3858
worldwide operations, their e-mail systems somehow convert the
timestamp on the top header of the e-mail to Greenwich Mean
Time.MR. LANGAN: Right.
THE COURT: So you can't really tell by looking at
that, just glancing at it, exactly what time the e-mail might
have been sent.
MR. LANGAN: Also, the sequence of when they were sent.
As I think we said in the letter, hopefully itwill just be a handful where it even matters, but we didn't
want anyone to be misled.
THE COURT: Right. I'm glad that was pointed out by
Mr. Regan.
I'm going to depend on the parties to point out
to me if it matters, if anybody believes it's relevant orimportant with respect to any particular e-mail that's used.
Otherwise, I'm going to assume it's not important or relevant.
MR. LANGAN: Your Honor, we thought this might be an
issue for proposed findings and conclusions to sort of clarify
at the appropriate time, as well.
THE COURT: Well, if it does matter, it's helpful ifyou clarify it during the trial, especially if you all are
using it to examine the witness.
MR. LANGAN: Thank you, Your Honor.
THE COURT: I don't know if we need to talk about this
-
7/29/2019 March 14, 2013 AM
23/171
1
2
34
5
6
7
8
910
11
12
13
14
1516
17
18
19
20
2122
23
24
25
08:20:07
08:20:10
08:20:13
08:20:17
08:20:21
08:20:27
08:20:39
08:20:42
08:20:47
08:20:49
08:20:51
08:20:55
08:21:00
08:21:03
08:21:03
08:21:06
08:21:09
08:21:12
08:21:15
08:21:21
08:21:25
08:21:32
08:21:36
08:21:39
08:21:42
OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT
3859
today or not. Mr. Godwin, I got a communication from you this
morning. Do you want to talk about that?
MR. GODWIN: Yes, Your Honor. Don Godwin forHalliburton. Excuse me, Judge, I've got a little cold.
Judge Shushan, at last Friday's conference,
Judge, had asked that we provide a four-page detailed
description of what happened to the cement samples that were
there at the Lafayette lab that came back from the
Macondo well.She said she wanted to have it, obviously, our
understanding was, before tomorrow's status conference. We
asked her for length, and she said -- we went back and forth
between three and five pages, different ones -- she agreed on
four pages.
We have that in rough draft almost ready to go,but it will definitely be filed today, probably this morning,
Your Honor. I wanted to let you know that. It will be
circulated among all lawyers, all counsel.
Also, just to say that this was further brought
up in the testimony of Mr. Tim Probert this week when he talked
about, in response to questions from the PSC, two TREXexhibits, which are referenced in the e-mail that I sent to Ben
and all counsel and Judge Shushan last night explaining
Halliburton's position that all of the materials -- we're led
to believe that all of the materials that were there at the
-
7/29/2019 March 14, 2013 AM
24/171
1
2
34
5
6
7
8
910
11
12
13
14
1516
17
18
19
20
2122
23
24
25
08:21:44
08:21:49
08:21:55
08:21:59
08:21:59
08:22:03
08:22:06
08:22:07
08:22:12
08:22:16
08:22:20
08:22:22
08:22:25
08:22:30
08:22:34
08:22:39
08:22:42
08:22:46
08:22:49
08:22:52
08:22:56
08:22:58
08:23:01
08:23:04
08:23:06
OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT
3860
Lafayette lab that pertained to the Macondo well, Your Honor,
or the cement dry blend and the additives, that those were
properly turned over in the course of handling it responding tothe subpoena.
Under Your Honor's, actually, Order that we got
later in the year in 2010, those were all turned over.
There were some other materials, Your Honor, that
were there from the Kodiak well. You've heard a lot about
Kodiak. There was some dry blend from the Kodiak well. Thosematerials were not, in our position -- or our client's
position, Macondo materials, and they were segregated.
It was very clear, Your Honor, from the two TREX
exhibits that you have here, that the TREX-3110 were materials
that related to the Horizon rig and the Macondo well. They
were kept under lock and key from the very day that we receiveda subpoena and, also, in, I believe it was, late April, early
May of 2010, a directive from the Department of Justice stating
everything should be preserved, nothing should be altered.
Those were kept under lock and key. They are in
Lafayette in the lab. No one touched them. Nobody used them
for sampling. None whatsoever.During the course of the year, Your Honor, there
were some folks with various parties that were asking for some
investigation for the parts of the material. We've
consistently always told them that we had a preservation order
-
7/29/2019 March 14, 2013 AM
25/171
1
2
34
5
6
7
8
910
11
12
13
14
1516
17
18
19
20
2122
23
24
25
08:23:11
08:23:15
08:23:15
08:23:18
08:23:23
08:23:26
08:23:28
08:23:30
08:23:35
08:23:39
08:23:40
08:23:42
08:23:45
08:23:50
08:23:57
08:23:58
08:23:59
08:24:02
08:24:06
08:24:11
08:24:19
08:24:20
08:24:24
08:24:28
08:24:32
OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT
3861
from Your Honor, as well as other courts in Texas, that we had
to keep them. We did.
So we kept them, and then throughout the year --THE COURT: I'm sorry to interrupt you, but it sounds
like you can put all this in your four-page --
MR. GODWIN: We've got all of that done, Judge.
THE COURT: What I'm more interested in this morning is
this communication I got this morning that pertains to the
Kodiak materials and --MR. GODWIN: That's what I was addressing. That will
be part of this submission.
THE COURT: Because we know from the prior testimony
that there was, quote, leftover cement from the Kodiak well
that was ultimately used to create the slurry for the
Macondo well, correct?MR. GODWIN: The Kodiak well, yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: So, apparently, you say in your e-mail that
your client has just realized -- or you all have just realized,
somebody just realized, that you do have this Kodiak material
still in your lab. So I'm just trying to understand what's the
significance of that in relation to the trial?MR. GODWIN: In my judgment, none, Your Honor. In my
judgment, none, but I will submit to you, respectfully, that in
full disclosure, when we heard the other day it came out from
Mr. Probert that there was an issue about some Kodiak materials
-
7/29/2019 March 14, 2013 AM
26/171
1
2
34
5
6
7
8
910
11
12
13
14
1516
17
18
19
20
2122
23
24
25
08:24:36
08:24:40
08:24:41
08:24:44
08:24:47
08:24:49
08:24:52
08:24:55
08:24:58
08:25:01
08:25:02
08:25:04
08:25:09
08:25:13
08:25:16
08:25:19
08:25:20
08:25:23
08:25:26
08:25:27
08:25:30
08:25:33
08:25:37
08:25:39
08:25:45
OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT
3862
and some Macondo materials, the Macondo materials were
segregated under lock and key, turned over to the Department of
Justice, through Mike Underhill's office and those guys. Weworked with them.
The Kodiak materials, I was simply advising the
Court that some of those materials from the Kodiak were also
kept in Lafayette. We were told as late as yesterday, Judge,
that those materials were kept in the lab up on shelves
segregated from everything else. They have not been touched.They have been sitting there.
Our judgment is they have nothing to do with this
trial, but I simply was giving the Court full disclosure, in
view of what Mr. Probert said the other day. I didn't want the
issue to come out that something was reused over there that
should have been turned over pursuant to the subpoena, whichsimply didn't happen, Judge.
THE COURT: With this communication to the Court,
you've now advised all the other parties of this.
MR. GODWIN: Yes, Your Honor.
Today, Judge, we will be filing the four-page
submission, circulating it, and it will have a timeline that wethink will lay out for Your Honor and everyone else exactly
what happened and why this is not an issue that needs any
further attention.
Thank you, Judge. Appreciate you giving me the
-
7/29/2019 March 14, 2013 AM
27/171
1
2
34
5
6
7
8
910
11
12
13
14
1516
17
18
19
20
2122
23
24
25
08:25:43
08:25:43
08:25:43
08:25:46
08:25:46
08:25:52
08:25:52
08:25:55
08:25:58
08:26:01
08:26:05
08:26:07
08:26:13
08:26:13
08:26:22
08:26:26
08:26:29
08:26:33
08:26:37
08:26:40
08:26:46
08:26:49
08:26:55
08:27:00
08:27:03
OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT
3863
opportunity.
THE COURT: Thank you.
Anybody else want to comment on that at thistime?
MR. BREIT: Yes, Your Honor. Jeffrey Breit for the
PSC.
It was my questioning of Mr. Probert that raised
this issue with regard to the Kodiak cement.
The letter last evening from Mr. Godwin suggeststwo things that I wanted to correct for the Court, and then I
wanted to point out the significance of this missing cement.
The 4/30/2010 locker, which was TREX-48002 that I
used with Mr. Probert, comes from a custodial file of Mr. Tony
Angelle.
Halliburton makes productions throughout theyear. I have the metadata. I didn't think I needed the
metadata to show where it came from, but it's from Halliburton
files. We have the metadata. It's dated April 30th.
That particular document has the Kodiak cement,
which I used in my exhibit, which is on page 2 of the exhibit.
The Kodiak cement that was being held was used byJesse Gagliano on March 7th for the Macondo well, which is
TREX-5595.
The exact ingredients of the dry blend --
remembering, Judge, that the Kodiak cement was brought over
-
7/29/2019 March 14, 2013 AM
28/171
1
2
34
5
6
7
8
910
11
12
13
14
1516
17
18
19
20
2122
23
24
25
08:27:07
08:27:09
08:27:14
08:27:18
08:27:22
08:27:23
08:27:27
08:27:29
08:27:33
08:27:36
08:27:41
08:27:43
08:27:46
08:27:51
08:27:56
08:28:00
08:28:03
08:28:06
08:28:10
08:28:11
08:28:12
08:28:17
08:28:20
08:28:20
08:28:22
OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT
3864
with the Deepwater Horizon in January, after the Marianas was
replaced, had Kodiak cement on it. The Kodiak dry cement that
was created, which had this defoamer in it, was the exactproduct that was used by Jesse Gagliano for testing on the
Macondo well.
It was the exact testing that's used on
March 7th, because they have three markings to make sure they
know what they are using: The date that the product is sent to
the lab, the lot number, which is the lot number for theDeepwater Horizon, and the specific ID number for the specific
dry cement.
That particular dry cement was used by
Jesse Gagliano on the Deepwater Horizon on March 7th. They
kept that Kodiak cement, and they put it in a locker on
April 30th, which is dated on the custodial file, remembering,of course, that after April 20th, they threw the blanket of
legal protection over all things that were being done, and we
know that there was testing done by Ricky Morgan of some
product.
THE COURT: Look, I want to resume the testimony of
this trial shortly. Get to the bottom line. What are yousuggesting we should do at this point? Or do you have a
suggestion?
MR. BREIT: Well, I do have a couple of suggestions,
but if I could just finish the last point on the Kodiak cement.
-
7/29/2019 March 14, 2013 AM
29/171
1
2
34
5
6
7
8
910
11
12
13
14
1516
17
18
19
20
2122
23
24
25
08:28:27
08:28:28
08:28:31
08:28:33
08:28:39
08:28:42
08:28:44
08:28:46
08:28:49
08:28:52
08:28:55
08:28:58
08:29:01
08:29:04
08:29:08
08:29:11
08:29:15
08:29:18
08:29:22
08:29:25
08:29:29
08:29:32
08:29:33
08:29:35
08:29:42
OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT
3865
The Kodiak cement, there are only two batches of
the cement that were used on the Macondo well with the exact
same ingredients that failed on April 17th.The April 17th cement has a very specific
chemical makeup. The Kodiak cement was one of those, and a
Macondo batch was one of those.
There was a preservation order put in right away,
and then there was a subpoena from the Justice Department.
They wanted all of the products that were related to theMacondo well. This Kodiak cement was one of them.
They found it yesterday. They have been
complaining that all of the testing that was done after the
fact couldn't be reliable.
So what we're saying is they've had the Kodiak
cement that we wanted. So we're going to be asking the Courtfor a negative inference and a presumption with regard to the
third-party testing of the cement, but we want to find out
where these particular products were.
We have been hamstrung because there was a
spoliation motion last summer that we couldn't investigate what
happened, that was held by Judge Shushan. We now havecustodial files.
I apologize, Your Honor.
We need to know, one, where has this cement been?
Two, we have testing that was done in May off the record, so we
-
7/29/2019 March 14, 2013 AM
30/171
1
2
34
5
6
7
8
910
11
12
13
14
1516
17
18
19
20
2122
23
24
25
08:29:45
08:29:48
08:29:51
08:29:54
08:29:56
08:30:00
08:30:03
08:30:03
08:30:06
08:30:08
08:30:12
08:30:16
08:30:18
08:30:20
08:30:20
08:30:24
08:30:30
08:30:36
08:30:41
08:30:43
08:30:46
08:30:48
08:30:51
08:30:53
08:30:57
OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT
3866
know that. We know that they have produced records where they
are missing Bates stamped numbers.
So, all of a sudden, yesterday, the Kodiak cementthat everyone has been looking for, for two and a half years,
is found because Mr. Probert doesn't realize that someone in
the lab has put it aside, and then it moves from one lab to
another.
THE COURT: Here is what we're going to do. I've
already had a brief conversation with Judge Shushan about thisthis morning because she is the one who forwarded -- I guess,
the e-mail came from Ms. Martinez, on behalf of Mr. Godwin --
MR. GODWIN: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: -- last night, but I didn't see it until
early this morning.
So I'm going to have another conversation withher, and I'll probably ask her to take this up further with the
parties, if she has time, sometime later today; if not, then in
the morning at the weekly conference that you all have, okay?
MR. BREIT: Yes, Your Honor. But its relevance is
obviously very clear to us as to why we needed it.
THE COURT: I understand, but, you know, I'm not goingto make any decisions about this today.
Obviously, Mr. Godwin is going to be submitting
some briefing on this or submissions. Then you all can do the
same. We'll just have to see how this all unfolds, okay.
-
7/29/2019 March 14, 2013 AM
31/171
1
2
34
5
6
7
8
910
11
12
13
14
1516
17
18
19
20
2122
23
24
25
08:31:01
08:31:12
08:31:16
08:31:28
08:31:28
08:31:31
08:31:35
08:31:38
08:31:41
08:31:47
08:31:56
08:31:56
08:32:02
08:32:04
08:32:08
08:32:15
08:32:17
08:32:17
08:32:22
OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT
3867
MR. GODWIN: Thank you, Judge. We appreciate it.
THE COURT: Let's proceed with testimony. Sorry to
delay you.GEOFF WEBSTER
was called as a witness and, after being previously duly sworn
by the Clerk, was examined and testified on his oath as
follows:
DIRECT EXAMINATION (CONTINUED)
BY MR. WILLIAMS:Q. Good morning, Mr. Webster. Welcome back.
A. Good morning, sir.
Q. I'm Conrad Williams. I've got you on direct. I represent
the Plaintiffs' Steering Committee.
Yesterday at some point during that long day, I asked
you some questions about the BOP. I just want to make surethat we're clear on the BOP. You are not -- you haven't been
asked to offer an opinion and you weren't offering an opinion
on any of the design characteristics of the BOP, are you, sir?
A. That is correct. No, I'm not.
Q. Other than knowing how the BOP is supposed to work, beyond
that, you're not being asked to give any type of opinion withrespect to BOP design, correct?
A. That is correct.
Q. Okay. We're almost done with our long voyage through the
history, the maintenance history at least, of the
-
7/29/2019 March 14, 2013 AM
32/171
1
2
34
5
6
7
8
910
11
12
13
14
1516
17
18
19
20
2122
23
24
25
08:32:25
08:32:26
08:32:33
08:32:37
08:32:42
08:32:47
08:32:47
08:32:51
08:32:59
08:33:02
08:33:04
08:33:05
08:33:10
08:33:21
08:33:27
08:33:27
08:33:33
08:33:36
08:33:42
08:33:45
08:33:50
08:33:55
08:34:03
08:34:09
08:34:14
OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT
3868
Deepwater Horizon.
I would like to direct your attention to TREX-3405.
And could you identify that for the Court, please.A. Yes, sir. That's the Deepwater Horizon follow-up rig
audit, marine assurance audit, out-of-service period,
September 2009.
Q. And based on your review of all of the documents in this
matter, is this the last BP rig -- formal BP rig audit, not
including follow-ups, that was performed on theDeepwater Horizon before she was lost?
A. Yes, I believe so.
Q. Okay. Let's take a quick look at it. We'll go to the
executive summary page, please. And it says that the audit was
performed on 13 to 17 September in 2009, correct?
A. Correct.Q. And the next paragraph says, "The rig commenced an
out-of-service period on 31 August 2009, to undertake
underwater, in lieu of drydock, UWILD inspection."
Would you explain for the Court, please, what your
understanding of UWILD inspection is?
A. Yes, sir. Any vessel that is built under class, such asABS, built under what we call the Maltese Cross, and then
classified by a classification society such as ABS, is required
within a five-year period to have two drydockings. There's an
intermediate and then there is the five-year.
-
7/29/2019 March 14, 2013 AM
33/171
1
2
34
5
6
7
8
910
11
12
13
14
1516
17
18
19
20
2122
23
24
25
08:34:18
08:34:22
08:34:26
08:34:32
08:34:33
08:34:33
08:34:37
08:34:41
08:34:43
08:34:47
08:34:51
08:34:54
08:35:02
08:35:06
08:35:07
08:35:13
08:35:19
08:35:22
08:35:24
08:35:27
08:35:27
08:35:30
08:35:30
08:35:33
08:35:38
OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT
3869
After five years, it becomes known as a special
survey. So the first special survey of a vessel is after five,
and then ten and 15. And as each special survey goes, so itgets extended.
Now --
Q. Let me stop you right there and just make sure that
something is clear for the record. When you say drydock, how
do you define drydock?
A. Drydock means that the vessel is taken to a shipyard andis actually lifted clear of the water so that the underwater
hull can be inspected, the thrusters, for example, can be
overhauled, the hull cleaned of growth, and many times -- most
times repainted with anti-fouling paint and the hull put back
in good shape.
Q. Based on your review of the maintenance history of theDeepwater Horizon, had it ever entered drydock from the
point -- first point it went into operation until she was lost
on April 20, 2010?
A. No, sir. She operated for nine years without ever going
into drydock.
Q. Okay.A. And the UWILD -- if I can finish, I'm sorry.
Q. Please.
A. The UWILD, under the regulations of both class and
Marshall Islands as well as the IMO MODU code, does allow UWILD
-
7/29/2019 March 14, 2013 AM
34/171
1
2
34
5
6
7
8
910
11
12
13
14
1516
17
18
19
20
2122
23
24
25
08:35:45
08:35:50
08:35:54
08:35:57
08:36:07
08:36:12
08:36:18
08:36:21
08:36:25
08:36:29
08:36:34
08:36:38
08:36:38
08:36:45
08:36:46
08:36:54
08:37:00
08:37:04
08:37:10
08:37:14
08:37:15
08:37:21
08:37:22
08:37:25
08:37:34
OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT
3870
to be undertaken by the classification society.
UWILD, as it says, is underwater in lieu of
drydocking inspection. This requires that a classificationsurveyor go onboard the rig with divers. There are CCT video
cameras that the divers carry with them, and the ABS inspector
watches the screen and directs the divers to go to various
parts of the vessel.
Under the terms of the UWILD, the hull is to be
cleaned, gaugings are to be taken, an investigation into thecondition of the propellers and the propeller-drive system,
sea chest, sea valves and pretty much the structural integrity
of the hull.
Q. Now, a UWILD inspection was conducted; is that correct?
A. Yes. Several were.
Q. Now, and I'm talking about this -- the most recent UWILD.Do you have an opinion, as an expert in marine safety and as a
marine surveyor and a marine engineer, do you have an opinion
as to whether or not the UWILD exemption with respect to the
31 August 2009 service period was valid?
A. In my opinion, sir, no.
Q. And would you explain to the Court why that is youropinion, the basis for that opinion.
A. Well, it's very clear in the -- both the classification
documents and the MODU code that UWILD is only to be conducted
provided there is no major deficiency on the vessel.
-
7/29/2019 March 14, 2013 AM
35/171
1
2
34
5
6
7
8
910
11
12
13
14
1516
17
18
19
20
2122
23
24
25
08:37:38
08:37:42
08:37:48
08:37:50
08:37:54
08:37:59
08:38:02
08:38:07
08:38:09
08:38:12
08:38:18
08:38:24
08:38:30
08:38:30
08:38:33
08:38:37
08:38:43
08:38:44
08:38:49
08:38:52
08:38:56
08:39:03
08:39:08
08:39:12
08:39:14
OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT
3871
Quite clearly, from what we have been through
yesterday and in the reports and audits, there were major
problems with this vessel during this period. The eightthrusters were taking water. There were watertight door
issues. The cranes were in a very bad condition. There were
the -- the life rafts were not certified. There was a whole
bunch of major problems, in my opinion, which affected the
seaworthiness of the vessel.
Q. If, in your opinion, those major issues that you'vedescribed in topical fashion in your answer, if those major
issues exist, that disqualifies the vessel from -- or should
disqualify the vessel from getting a UWILD or drydock
exemption?
A. That is correct. Under the terms of the certificate
issued by ABS, the owner has the responsibility of reporting tothem major unseaworthy issues, which clearly, in my opinion,
was not done.
Q. Let's go on to the next highlighted paragraph in the
executive summary, please.
And here we see that the audit made a number of
findings. "Based on the nature of these findings; i.e., rigfloor nonoperational, potential adverse effect on rig emergency
preparedness and watertight integrity regarding the
marine-related issues, a recommendation was made to the
Wells Team to suspend operations until many have been
-
7/29/2019 March 14, 2013 AM
36/171
1
2
34
5
6
7
8
910
11
12
13
14
1516
17
18
19
20
2122
23
24
25
08:39:19
08:39:20
08:39:24
08:39:27
08:39:30
08:39:36
08:39:38
08:39:43
08:39:47
08:39:52
08:39:57
08:40:04
08:40:05
08:40:13
08:40:13
08:40:18
08:40:21
08:40:25
08:40:26
08:40:29
08:40:38
08:40:43
08:40:44
08:40:48
08:40:52
OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT
3872
satisfactorily addressed."
And then it goes on to list some findings of
particular note. We're going to talk about some of those.First one is, "Closing out of the last audit
recommendations had no apparent verification by BP.
Consequently, a number of the recommendations that Transocean
had indicated as closed out had either deteriorated again or
not been suitably addressed in the first instance."
Mr. Webster, in your expert opinion, based on yourreview of all of these documents and audits, the maintenance
history of this vessel, is this issue a recurring issue?
A. Yes, sir, it sure is.
Q. And, in your opinion, is it an ISM code violation?
A. Yes, it is.
Q. Let's go down to the third bullet point."Numerous personnel changes had occurred in the
18 months since our last audit. These were seen at all levels
and disciplines."
As a marine safety expert, Mr. Webster, do you have
an opinion as to the impact on safety that numerous personnel
changes can cause with respect to operational vesselmanagement?
A. Well, yes. What happens, of course, is that when you have
new people onboard, they have to be retrained, they have to
understand the vessel, and they have to understand the safety
-
7/29/2019 March 14, 2013 AM
37/171
1
2
34
5
6
7
8
910
11
12
13
14
1516
17
18
19
20
2122
23
24
25
08:40:56
08:41:00
08:41:03
08:41:09
08:41:10
08:41:14
08:41:19
08:41:25
08:41:29
08:41:29
08:41:32
08:41:39
08:41:46
08:41:48
08:41:53
08:41:56
08:42:00
08:42:12
08:42:12
08:42:22
08:42:28
08:42:29
08:42:34
08:42:35
08:42:39
OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT
3873
equipment that's onboard. So it's always a problem when new
people go on a vessel, especially one as complex as this.
Q. Thank you.The next bullet point.
"Overdue planned maintenance considered excessive,
390 jobs amounting to 3545 man-hours. With recent shift from
Empac to RMS, two maintenance systems, and revised maintenance
scheduling, the backlog does not look as though it will
improve."Mr. Webster, based on your review of all of the
materials you've looked at with respect to the maintenance
history of the Deepwater Horizon, is this a problem that is
recurring?
A. This is a shocking report. It clearly shows that there
were not enough people onboard, there was not enough equipmentfor spares, and that the rig was going downhill.
Q. Let's to go the next page, please, the second bullet
point.
It says, "Test, middle and upper BOP ram bonnets are
original and out with OEM and API five-year recommended
certification period."Could you just briefly explain what that means to the
Court.
A. Well, that means that the manufacture, Cameron, had
required that they be recertified within a five-year period.
-
7/29/2019 March 14, 2013 AM
38/171
1
2
34
5
6
7
8
910
11
12
13
14
1516
17
18
19
20
2122
23
24
25
08:42:42
08:42:43
08:42:52
08:42:52
08:42:59
08:43:00
08:43:03
08:43:03
08:43:16
08:43:20
08:43:21
08:43:27
08:43:30
08:43:34
08:43:41
08:43:47
08:43:53
08:43:55
08:43:55
08:44:02
08:44:08
08:44:15
08:44:17
08:44:21
08:44:26
OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT
3874
And, clearly, this is not being done.
Q. Now, in your opinion, is that an ISM code violation?
A. Yes, it is.Q. In your opinion, does that affect the safety integrity of
the vessel?
A. Well, yes. The BOP is the most important safety piece of
equipment on the vessel.
Q. And, therefore, is it your opinion that this finding
impacted the safety and well-being of the crew onboard?A. Yes, sir, it did.
Q. Now, do you know whether or not this is the same BOP that
had been with the vessel during its nine or ten year history?
A. Yes, sir. My understanding is, it was.
Q. Did you find any records that the ram bonnets and/or other
original components, not specific components, but the rambonnets and the BOP in general had ever been subject to OEM
recertification or certification?
A. No, sir, I did not.
Q. Now, is that five-year certification you talked about, is
that just a requirement or a suggested requirement by Cameron,
or are there other guidances out there that suggest that thesame schedule should be abided by?
A. No. This is required by Mineral Management Service. I
believe it's 33 CFR 250, requires that also.
Q. Is it also an API recommendation?
-
7/29/2019 March 14, 2013 AM
39/171
1
2
34
5
6
7
8
910
11
12
13
14
1516
17
18
19
20
2122
23
24
25
08:44:29
08:44:30
08:44:34
08:44:34
08:44:43
08:44:46
08:44:53
08:44:57
08:45:00
08:45:09
08:45:10
08:45:15
08:45:19
08:45:19
08:45:22
08:45:23
08:45:27
08:45:34
08:45:40
08:45:45
08:45:48
08:45:51
08:45:55
08:45:58
08:46:01
OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT
3875
A. Yes, sir, it is.
Q. The next bullet point is:
"The port aft quadrant watertight dampers failed toclose when tested."
In your review of the maintenance history of this
rig, is that something that has cropped up repeatedly?
A. Yes, it has. And is a major unseaworthy item.
Q. It's a violation of the ISM code?
A. Yes, sir, it is, and the class.Q. The next bullet point, skip down to the fifth.
"Three out of four electric bilge pumps were tested.
All three failed to achieve suction due to defective priming
systems."
Can you explain that in laymen's language to me and
to the Court, please.A. Yes. There were four thruster rooms on the vessel, which
are located way down in the -- in the pontoons. And these
bilge pumps are, obviously, used to pump water out from the
bilges. There's a lot of water cooling in those spaces so they
can flood. In fact, I believe, reading the records, they had
flooding in one of these spaces at one time.The fact that the bilge pumps couldn't work, this is,
again, a major unseaworthy item.
Q. The bilge -- isn't it true that bilge pumps are designed,
obviously, to get water out of a vessel, correct?
-
7/29/2019 March 14, 2013 AM
40/171
1
2
34
5
6
7
8
910
11
12
13
14
1516
17
18
19
20
2122
23
24
25
08:46:04
08:46:10
08:46:14
08:46:18
08:46:21
08:46:29
08:46:34
08:46:36
08:46:37
08:46:39
08:46:50
08:46:54
08:46:56
08:47:00
08:47:06
08:47:11
08:47:12
08:47:18
08:47:19
08:47:25
08:47:29
08:47:32
08:47:32
08:47:32
08:47:38
OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT
3876
A. Yes. The bilge pumps, because of the nature of the
bilges, they have to have a priming system on the -- basically,
the priming system is used to take the air out of suction linesso that the pump can get primed and they start to pump.
Q. Is -- having three of four electric bilge pumps fail to
achieve suction, does that constitute, in your expert opinion,
a safety issue?
A. Very much so.
Q. And why is that, sir?A. Well, it's posing a problem and is a seaworthy item. You
can't maintain stability if you start flooding in one of these
thruster rooms.
Q. And then not the next bullet point, the one after that
says, "Several hydraulic watertight door issues concerning both
operability and functionally. Insufficient onboard spares tomake repairs."
In your opinion, is that an impairment of the safety
integrity of this vessel?
A. Yes. Again, it's an unseaworthy item. It goes directly
to the intact stability of the vessel and is of prime
importance that all watertight doors be kept closed at alltimes.
Q. Why is that?
A. Again, for the watertight integrity, should one of the
compartments flood, it stops the progressive flooding of the
-
7/29/2019 March 14, 2013 AM
41/171
1
2
34
5
6
7
8
910
11
12
13
14
1516
17
18
19
20
2122
23
24
25
08:47:42
08:47:44
08:47:49
08:47:51
08:47:55
08:47:59
08:47:59
08:48:05
08:48:12
08:48:15
08:48:20
08:48:24
08:48:29
08:48:37
08:48:41
08:48:42
08:48:45
08:48:48
08:48:50
08:48:54
08:48:54
08:48:58
08:49:03
08:49:06
08:49:06
OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT
3877
rig, which can, obviously, cause it to sink.
Q. Now, we're going to skip ahead.
MR. WILLIAMS: Judge, I understand yesterday an orderwas issued to mark these in a little bit different way. It
will make it easier for you. I didn't have a chance to do that
yet.
THE COURT: That was Judge Shushan's order. But
that's, I'm assuming -- frankly, I had not had a discussion
with her directly, but I'm assuming that she was aware of somethe confusion that I've noted throughout this trial where
different people are using different means of identifying what
would be the same exhibit, but calling it -- just calling by a
slide number or either referring to some call-out but not
identifying the page or vice versa. I think the idea is to get
some consistency here.MR. WILLIAMS: Whatever routine you decide to impose.
THE COURT: Well, apparently, she's already decided.
I'm fine with that.
MR. WILLIAMS: I haven't had a chance to gear up, but
when we submit these --
THE COURT: If that was appeal from her order, I justdenied your appeal.
MR. WILLIAMS: I know better than to do that. I
learned that the hard way.
BY MR. WILLIAMS:
-
7/29/2019 March 14, 2013 AM
42/171
1
2
34
5
6
7
8
910
11
12
13
14
1516
17
18
19
20
2122
23
24
25
08:49:10
08:49:13
08:49:38
08:49:42
08:49:44
08:49:48
08:49:51
08:49:59
08:50:02
08:50:06
08:50:11
08:50:18
08:50:22
08:50:27
08:50:31
08:50:35
08:50:42
08:50:44
08:50:50
08:50:52
08:50:55
08:50:57
08:51:01
08:51:06
08:51:14
OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT
3878
Q. In this same document, if you can skip ahead to
Bates page 8601. It's page 13, Carl.
And, Mr. Webster, the last question on the executivesummary portion of this report, here we have an entry that
says, "Control of alarms and defeats and bypasses was not well
managed. In fact, no single person could account for which
alarms, etcetera, were overridden or, indeed, for what reason."
I need to -- we're almost done with this maintenance
history, but we need to explore this in a little more detail.In your opinion, would you please tell the Court
everything about that sentence that you take issue with as an
expert in marine safety and explain why.
A. Well, as the Court already heard, I think there are
hundreds of alarms on this vessel. There are smoke detectors.
There are heat, fire alarms. There are gas alarms. There arehigh bilge alarms. There are alarms for the watertight doors,
if they are opened or closed, and it goes on and on and on.
There are alarms for the engines, high temperature alarms, low
lube oil pressure. I mean, it's incredible.
And that's all controlled by the IACS that we talked
about.The fact that alarms were overridden or bypassed,
just put the rig at tremendous disadvantage and put the crew in
tremendous danger.
Q. When -- let me ask you a couple questions about that.
-
7/29/2019 March 14, 2013 AM
43/171
1
2
34
5
6
7
8
910
11
12
13
14
1516
17
18
19
20
2122
23
24
25
08:51:24
08:51:28
08:51:39
08:51:45
08:51:51
08:51:52
08:51:56
08:52:00
08:52:07
08:52:10
08:52:16
08:52:19
08:52:23
08:52:28
08:52:33
08:52:39
08:52:41
08:52:43
08:52:45
08:52:46
08:52:49
08:52:55
08:52:57
08:53:01
08:53:08
OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT
3879
When it says that "the defeats and bypasses were not well
managed," sir, if defeats, bypasses inhibits are entered into
an automatic system, in your opinion as a marine safety expert,is it critical that those inhibits and bypasses be carefully
managed?
A. Yes. This should be -- there were several -- there was an
electrician foreman, I believe, or a lead electrician, there
were ETs, electrotechnicians onboard, and certainly somebody
should have been managing the complete system to -- I mean, tostart correcting them, to repair them, to test them, to
calibrate them. There should have been something done very
urgently to correct this issue.
Q. Should there have been some person, some member of the
vessel crew or more than one member of the vessel crew who at
least kept track of which ones were inhibited or overridden?A. Yes. That should be the chief engineer, I would think, or
the senior electronic technician.
Q. Is that something the master of the vessel should make
sure he's aware of?
A. Yes. He should be on top of that, too.
Q. And is that -- the duty to do that by the master, is thatan ISM code obligation?
A. Yes. That's his overriding responsibility, is to ensure
every safety equipment, every safety alarm, every safety -- the
lifeboats, the life rafts, etcetera, are in good condition and
-
7/29/2019 March 14, 2013 AM
44/171
1
2
34
5
6
7
8
910
11
12
13
14
1516
17
18
19
20
2122
23
24
25
08:53:12
08:53:13
08:53:21
08:53:29
08:53:33
08:53:36
08:53:56
08:54:00
08:54:08
08:54:15
08:54:21
08:54:24
08:54:26
08:54:29
08:54:32
08:54:33
08:54:34
08:54:36
08:54:43
08:54:54
08:54:58
08:55:02
08:55:06
08:55:12
08:55:17
OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT
3880
certified properly.
Q. Okay. Carl, let's move on to the -- this same audit
report action sheet later on in the exhibit. And could you goforward. We're going to skip some of these, try and get
through this a little more quickly, but could you go to
Reference 1.2.1, please.
Okay. Mr. Webster, this was just summarily covered
in the executive portion of this audit, but this section
covers, "The test, middle and upper pipe ram BOP bonnets areoriginal. They have not been subject to OEM inspection."
If I asked you this question -- I jumped ahead and I
apologize. Did you find any evidence in the documents you
reviewed which indicated that this BOP stack had been subject
to any OEM inspection and certification --
A. No, sir, I did not.Q. -- during its life?
A. I did not.
Q. Thank you.
Let's go to 2.1.11, please.
And here we see that, "An ESD fault was registered on
the fire and gas panel located on the bridge. Furtherinvestigation revealed that the helifoam system had been
inhibited, thereby preventing operation during helicopter
operations. This inhibit had been missed from systems tests
the previous day."
-
7/29/2019 March 14, 2013 AM
45/171
1
2
34
5
6
7
8
910
11
12
13
14
1516
17
18
19
20
2122
23
24
25
08:55:19
08:55:25
08:55:25
08:55:30
08:55:36
08:55:38
08:55:43
08:55:46
08:55:48
08:56:11
08:56:15
08:56:17
08:56:21
08:56:27
08:56:29
08:56:35
08:56:39
08:56:43
08:56:52
08:56:54
08:56:54
08:56:56
08:56:59
08:57:03
08:57:07
OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT
3881
Now, just explain real briefly what the helifoam
system is, please.
A. Yes. The helifoam system is the fire suppressant systemon the helideck. If a helicopter came down and crashed and
caught on fire, they would use the foam to put the fire out.
Q. Is that something that was designed to be automatically
activated by the emergency shutdown system?
A. I believe it is, yes.
Q. 2.2.10, Reference 2.2.10, Carl.I'll start reading it for you, Mr. Webster. Carl
will get it up here in just a second.
"One of the BOP high-pressure boost hoses has been in
service since December 1999. The hose is in poor fabric
condition and has not been maintained in accordance with
Transocean yearly or five-yearly maintenance requirements. Itwas communicated that the delivery date for a replacement hose
was March 2010, approximately four months later."
Is this, in your opinion as a marine safety expert, a
violation of the ISM code?
A. Yes.
Q. Why is that?A. Anytime a hose shows deterioration, it should be replaced
immediately because it could bust and leak and cause, not only
a pollution incident, but it could cause a failure of the
specific piece of equipment.
-
7/29/2019 March 14, 2013 AM
46/171
1
2
34
5
6
7
8
910
11
12
13
14
1516
17
18
19
20
2122
23
24
25
08:57:08
08:57:11
08:57:12
08:57:12
08:57:24
08:57:28
08:57:33
08:57:43
08:57:46
08:57:48
08:57:51
08:57:55
08:57:57
08:57:58
08:58:04
08:58:08
08:58:11
08:58:15
08:58:19
08:58:28
08:58:31
08:58:35
08:58:39
08:58:39
08:58:41
OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT
3882
Q. And this specific piece of equipment is the blowout
preventer, is it not?
A. That's correct.Q. Go forward to Reference 2.3.1.
"A formal system to manage alarm inhibits and control
of defeats and bypasses was not in place for vessel management
system, drilling control system and related PLCs, etcetera."
Have you, in your review of all these documents, seen
this or similar complaints in prior years?A. Yes. An ongoing problem.
Q. In your opinion as a marine safety expert, are these
serious safety issues?
A. Very serious, yes.
Q. The next one, 2.3.2.
"Although not widespread, it was evident thatmaintenance routines were still being closed out, although the
maintenance tasks were not being performed; e.g., 30-day
top drive dolly."
And again, based on your review of the history, the
maintenance history of this rig, is that something that we've
seen repeatedly, that type of issue?A. An ongoing problem with the failure to maintain the
vessel, yes.
Q. Now, in all of these issues that we're talking about,
we're almost done with these, but in all these issues we're
-
7/29/2019 March 14, 2013 AM
47/171
1
2
34
5
6
7
8
910
11
12
13
14
1516
17
18
19
20
2122
23
24
25
08:58:45
08:58:50
08:58:53
08:58:54
08:59:00
08:59:02
08:59:05
08:59:09
08:59:13
08:59:18
08:59:22
08:59:22
08:59:26
08:59:30
08:59:34
08:59:34
08:59:34
08:59:35
08:59:41
08:59:45
08:59:51
08:59:54
08:59:57
08:59:58
09:00:03
OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT
3883
talking about, is -- are these things that the designated
person ashore would or should know about?
A. Yes, indeed.Q. And his obligation, knowing all of these things, what
would his obligation be?
A. Well, his obligation is go to the most senior management
and tell them that their maintenance system is not working. I
mean, we have to do something about it, put more money into it,
get more people involved, I mean, clearly, improving themaintenance of this rig, which was going downhill in a rapid
fashion.
Q. Now, we've got an entire -- almost a ten-year history of
maintenance issues with this rig. Many of which we've talked
about in the last day and two or three hours.
A. That is correct.Q. Is that right?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Are those issues, the issues we have seen and talked about
thus far, are all of those -- would it be your expectation as
an ISM auditor, that all of those issues would be known at the
highest level of management or should be known at the highestlevel of management at Transocean?
A. Well, yes, it should have been known. Absolutely. That's
the purpose of the ISM, the purpose of the designated person,
the purpose of the captain, to relay this to the DP.
-
7/29/2019 March 14, 2013 AM
48/171
1
2
34
5
6
7
8
910
11
12
13
14
1516
17
18
19
20
2122
23
24
25
09:00:07
09:00:12
09:00:13
09:00:15
09:00:20
09:00:26
09:00:30
09:00:33
09:00:36
09:00:39
09:00:42
09:00:47
09:00:51
09:00:56
09:00:57
09:00:57
09:01:06
09:01:07
09:01:10
09:01:13
09:01:18
09:01:22
09:01:26
09:01:30
09:01:34
OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT
3884
Q. It's not just the purpose of the ISM code; it's a
requirement of the ISM code?
A. Very much so. A requirement of the code andMarshall Islands flag-state law, I believe.
Q. Thank you.
Let go down to 2.2.3.
"Although previously reported quality and maintenance
history reporting remains below par across all disciplines, in
many cases history was deficient in content describing the workcarried out, and it was frequently not possible to determine if
the required maintenance tasks had been performed."
Based on your review of all of these documents, the
history of this vessel, is that a frequently recurring problem
in your opinion?
A. Yes, it is.Q. And is that -- how do you characterize that as a marine
safety expert?
A. Well, it's a major hazard onboard the vessel. I mean,
it's clearly affecting the operation of the rig. It's
affecting the safety of the rig. It's affecting the safety
shutdowns on the rig. It's also affecting the workload on thecrew to try to keep up with a rapidly deteriorating vessel.
Q. Mr. Webster, we're not quite done yet with the maintenance
history of this vessel, but let me ask you this question now.
In many of these categories, there are serious safety issues.
-
7/29/2019 March 14, 2013 AM
49/171
1
2
34
5
6
7
8
910
11
12
13
14
1516
17
18
19
20
2122
23
24
25
09:01:38
09:01:43
09:01:47
09:01:57
09:01:57
09:02:02
09:02:11
09:02:15
09:02:18
09:02:26
09:02:29
09:02:37
09:02:42
09:02:44
09:02:47
09:02:51
09:02:51
09:02:55
09:02:58
09:03:02
09:03:06
09:03:08
09:03:12
09:03:14
09:03:18
OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT
3885
We have a long history over years of the same issue or very
similar issues occurring, reoccurring and reoccurring on
surveys, audits, self-audits, correct?A. Correct.
Q. As a marine safety expert, how would you characterize the
history, the maintenance history and tracking of this vessel?
A. I would have to say this is reckless neglect, reckless
neglect of the vessel.
Q. 2.3.5, please."Overdue maintenance in excess of 30 days was
considered excessive, totaling 390 jobs, 3545 man-hours."
We've seen that before in the executive summary, but
there is a little more information here.
The recommendation is to communicate forward plan for
reducing current high levels of overdue critical maintenance;is that correct?
A. That is correct.
Q. What does that -- how do you interpret that?
A. Well, I interpret that that they are asking the crew
onboard, the Captain, the OIM, to get hold of the office and
make a major issue on it.Q. Okay. They are requesting that -- are they requesting
that a plan be put together?
A. Yes. They're requesting a plan within one week.
Q. The audit team advised completion apparently within one
-
7/29/2019 March 14, 2013 AM
50/171
1
2
34
5
6
7
8
910
11
12
13
14
1516
17
18
19
20
2122
23
24
25
09:03:22
09:03:22
09:03:26
09:03:32
09:03:32
09:03:37
09:03:40
09:03:46
09:03:54
09:03:58
09:04:04
09:04:04
09:04:11
09:04:12
09:04:12
09:04:15
09:04:15
09:04:40
09:04:43
09:04:46
09:04:52
09:04:56
09:04:56
09:05:01
09:05:04
OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT
3886
week, correct?
A. Yes. I think, by this time, the audit teams were getting
fed up with this rig, the constant same comment on each oftheir audits.
Q. Well, is it your understanding that -- Transocean accepted
the recommendation of the audit team.
Is it your understanding that these 390 jobs and
3,545 man-hours of maintenance in excess of 30 days was
completed and rectified within one week?A. No, sir. Absolutely not, not even up to the time the rig
sank.
Q. Isn't it true that this is just to formulate the plan
within a week, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. At least, that's -- is that your opinion?A. Yes, sir.
Q. Okay. We're going to go to Ref. 3.3.5, please.
And this one says, "The driller's cabin fire and gas
panel had numerous alarm conditions displayed. These included
the fire alarm active, fault ESD active, fault fire and gas
active, and fire and gas override active. The driller andassistant driller on tour were unaware of the fault
conditions."
Does this sound familiar to you?
A. Yes, this has been reported before. Yes, sir.
-
7/29/2019 March 14, 2013 AM
51/171
1
2
34
5
6
7
8
910
11
12
13
14
1516
17
18
19
20
2122
23
24
25
09:05:06
09:05:11
09:05:16
09:05:21
09:05:22
09:05:27
09:05:29
09:05:32
09:05:45
09:05:49
09:05:56
09:06:01
09:06:02
09:06:02
09:06:03
09:06:04
09:06:07
09:06:08
09:06:08
09:06:30
09:06:35
09:06:40
09:06:46
09:06:46
09:06:47
OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT
3887
Q. The recommendation is: "Investigate and rectify various
fault conditions displayed." The audit team advises completion
within a week. The asset, or Transocean, accepts thatrecommendation, correct?
A. Yes, they do. I believe they did before, but obviously
nothing was done about it.
Q. Well, let's look at what they did or didn't do before.
Let's go back to TREX-4680, please.
This is the Deepwater Horizon Technical Rig Audit inJanuary of 2008, which is approximately 21 months, if I'm
calculating that correctly, before the rig audit we're talking
about.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Does that sound right?
A. Yes, sir. Correct.Q. September of '09 is what we're talking about in this
audit, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Go to 3.3.1, reference, please, Carl.
Now, I'm not going to read from this TREX in
September --