BP's Gulf of Mexico compensation costs 'jeopardising' the company

Oil burning on sea after Gulf disaster Smoke rises from a controlled burning of oil on the sea around the rig site

BP's financial recovery from the disaster of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in 2010 is being put in jeopardy by the escalating amounts being paid to businesses in the Gulf of Mexico region to compensate them for economic harm.

The UK oil giant complains that the interpretation of rules for assessing "business economic loss" are being systematically abused such that colossal sums are being handed to enterprises that suffered no detriment from the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

According to an appeal document recently filed in the US courts by BP against the legally agreed settlement procedure, the company has "been ordered to pay hundreds of millions of dollars - soon likely to be billions - for fictitious and inflated losses".

BP is so worried by the potential magnitude of alleged undeserved payments it is making to companies that it is planning to ask the British prime minister and chancellor for help in persuading the US government to intervene. It is hopeful that David Cameron will raise the issue at the G8 meeting of the government of the world's richest countries, which the UK is hosting next month.

The court filing warns that BP will be "irreparably harmed" unless the compensation system is reformed fast. According to BP sources, the rate at which cash is leaking from the company could turn into a serious new financial crisis for the company, putting at risk its dividend and making it vulnerable to a takeover by another oil company.

Start Quote

Lawyers in the affected region are urging any business which can show a fall in cash flow since the oil spill to make a claim”

End Quote

In a little-noticed note attached to BP's first-quarter results, published last month, the company warned that the $8.2bn it has set aside to cover compensation payments will be "significantly" too little, even if its appeal against the settlement procedures is successful. And if it loses the appeal, there will be "a further significant increase to the total estimated cost".

BP also warned in its results that this settlement "is uncapped except for economic loss claims related to the Gulf Seafood industry".

The massive compensation payments stem from the comprehensive settlement agreement BP reached with damaged entities and people in April 2012, whose point was to compensate them for profits lost as a consequence of the spill. The US courts granted final approval to this settlement on 21 December last year.

Licence to claim

Under the agreement, claimants could ask for "loss of income, earnings or profits suffered" as a result of the Deepwater Horizon disaster.

What has become of deep concern to BP is the way that this loss of income or profits is calculated by businesses and approved by a court-appointed Claims Administrator.

In practice, according to BP, companies don't have to show a fall in profits as measured on normal accounting practices. All they have to show, says the court filing, is that cash flow in a specified month or months is lower than cash flow in the same month or months before the oil spill.

The fundamental flaw, according to BP, is that neither the claimants or the Claims Administrator are under an obligation to match costs in a particular period with the revenues that they generate. So that if there is a timing difference between a company incurring expenses and subsequently receiving associated income, the claimant can ask for recompense based merely on presentation of the expenses as a notional loss.

Protesters against BP outside a Texas court Critics of BP say the company ruined lives and livelihoods

This is in effect a licence, according to BP, for businesses to claim vast amounts of money to which they are not entitled. And what's worse, according to BP, this practice of detaching revenues and losses was formalised by a court ruling earlier this year.

One consequence is that lawyers in the affected region of Louisiana and adjacent states are urging any business which can show a fall in cash flow since the oil spill to make a claim. BP claims that "plaintiffs lawyers across the Gulf region are now openly advertising that the settlement is a way for claimants to collect payouts even if they have no losses at all".


BP gives many examples of businesses which have received huge compensation payments when they have suffered no harm from the oil spill. Here are some choice ones:

1) "The Claims Administrator awarded more than $3m in base compensation to a rice farmer based on a 'simple one month delay in the receipt of 91% of the claimant's revenues,' because the bulk of the claimant's 2009 revenue was recorded in November while the bulk of its 2010 revenues was recorded in December".

2) "A construction company located in Zone D - the farthest area from the spill - was awarded $4.8m by the Claims Administrator despite 'negative revenue and other obvious revenue mis-statements' and even after the claimant had admitted its monthly records 'over-stated benchmark year profits by over $1m".

3) "An advertising firm was awarded almost $3m as a result of a $2.1m bulk purchase of advertising time in August 2010. Because this advertising purchase was not matched with the revenue to which it corresponded… the firm appeared to have an artificial monthly loss in August, followed by artificially high profits when the advertising time was used".

4) "$3.3m [was awarded] to a law office in central Louisiana, even though its profit in the year of the spill exceeded its benchmark profits by 10%".

BP says that the way its settlement is being implemented by the Courts Administrator, with the support of the Louisiana district court, is "poised to become a black mark on the American justice system", when it could have become a positive landmark because of "its ambitious size, its innovative nature and the speed with which it was negotiated to compensate injured parties".

It continues: "If this travesty is allowed to continue, BP will be irreparably harmed and future defendants will be reluctant to settle because they cannot be confident that settlement agreements will be construed textually and fairly".

Robert Peston Article written by Robert Peston Robert Peston Economics editor

Froth gone from UK recovery

The UK recovery has past its peak, but growth remains better than major competitors

Read full article

More on This Story

More from Robert


This entry is now closed for comments

Jump to comments pagination
  • rate this

    Comment number 292.

    The oil spill impacted the entire region.By using corexit to make disappear the oil on the surface,BP putted in danger the environment and the population.Looking at the past cash flows do not represent the potential growth without the disaster.It's wrong to say :“The Company still growing so why should we provide compensations?”.BP is paying for their poor management of the disaster and lies.

  • rate this

    Comment number 291.

    Here is a link to the agreement BP very foolishly but willingly signed, and in particular Exhibit B which defines the Causation Requirements For Business Economic Loss Claims http://www.deepwaterhorizonsettlements.com/Economic/SettlementAgreement.aspx

    The validity of the claim is based only on ups and downs in revenue with a loose definition of timing. It is very unfair so why did BP agree it?

  • rate this

    Comment number 290.

    BP the company has "been ordered to pay hundreds of millions of dollars - soon likely to be billions - for fictitious and inflated losses".

    If fraud is the case, BP should fight them on the beaches, they should fight them on the landing grounds, & shall fight them in the fields and in the streets, they should fight them in the hills; they should never surrender.

  • rate this

    Comment number 289.

    280. sieuarlu

    That's right.We probably have far more lawyers per capita in the US than anyone else and all of them looking for someone to sue.This is why we have tough codes, strict enforcement, and huge penalties for those who don't complyThe US is not a place you want to take shortcuts to save money.Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

    Tell that to the marines,Sub Prime,caused carnage .

  • rate this

    Comment number 288.

    The US Gulf coast is more than 1/5 the length of the coastline of England, Scotland, and Wales combined.It had some of the best beaches and fishing in the US.Wetlands and Marshlands were damaged so badly it will be generations before they recover.Tar balls washed up on beaches along the entire length.Seafood was not fit for human consumption.BP initially minimized the impact,failed several tries.

  • rate this

    Comment number 287.

    I watched the US Coastguard hearings on the accident. It was clear BP was in a hurry to get the rig up and running as soon as possible.The concrete casement flunked its test and they proceeded anyway.BP was on board and calling the shots.The entire 1680 mile US Gulf Coast was affected, all of its fishing industry, its beachfront resorts and economic ripples that spread from it.Damage was huge.

  • rate this

    Comment number 286.

    "The US are heavily, heavily reliant on BP for oil, especially the oil it uses in the US war machine. They won't want any more bad publicity."

    What a nit. Do you realize were talking about American oil from America?

  • rate this

    Comment number 285.

    #284 continued:

    With respect of whether the special relationship is beneficial to the UK, of course, you are entitled to your opinion. However, I ask that you educate yourself before passing a judgement on something so complex and huge. Thank you very much.

  • rate this

    Comment number 284.

    anotherfake name The US hate, loath, despise the stupid Brits.

    I, as an American, don't hate, loath, and despise the stupid Brits!

    I think it's misguided of you to equate the feelings of the average citizen (who often times has absolutely nothing to do with the day-to-day goings on of interaction between our countries) toward your country and it's people with some in business and government.

  • rate this

    Comment number 283.

    I hope those at the top of BP that were resonsible for the "management" decisions will be taken to task for there sour cut whatever the outcome of this as the cost is imense , even if they win this part.

    Those executiveas at BP deserve to lose ALL including pensions etc

  • rate this

    Comment number 282.

    So I see that my comment #239 has received, thus far, a -1 rating.

    Curious. I should think that something which, by all objective observations, qualifies as damage as a direct result of the spill, such as poisonous chemicals sprayed upon the surface of the water, would be a thing that most people would want to include in this settlement.

    I guess I'm the only one. Sad.

  • rate this

    Comment number 281.

    If a claim's facts are misrepresented that's fraud.If they are as represented and the settlement administrator says that's within the agreed settlement BP has no case, its assertion of fraud are empty words.If there's an appeals process BP should use it.If none was built into the settlement BP is out of luck.Of all possible outcomes, President Obama has no say in it.It'd be suicide for him to try.

  • rate this

    Comment number 280.

    268"That's a consequence of doing business in America. Litigation hell."

    That's right.We probably have far more lawyers per capita in the US than anyone else and all of them looking for someone to sue.This is why we have tough codes, strict enforcement, and huge penalties for those who don't complyThe US is not a place you want to take shortcuts to save money.Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

  • rate this

    Comment number 279.

    If President Obama tried to interfere or intervene in the compensation process that would be grounds for impeachment even his own party would endorse.It will not happen.BP execs should be more concerned that there have been no criminal charges brought yet by the DOJ.Let's not forget 11 people were killed in the accident and it appears to have been due to someone's negligence.

  • rate this

    Comment number 278.

    Please refrain from chauvinism ! Take your responsibility as global citizen.... BP as any other Oil Company should be aware of its enormous risks and so should have take measures to avoid such a disaster. As said earlier : It appears BP did not learn from the Texas Refinery incidents at all.
    Should this behavior eventually be rewarded by UK's citizens ?

  • rate this

    Comment number 277.

    It is not a discussion about the amount, when it is relative small then why it is jeopardizing BP ? When you do not sick to the environmental rules it is simple... You will pay for it ! That applies to all of us.

  • rate this

    Comment number 276.

    I am against the inmorality of the false claims but no one can deny that the indirect impacts on the oil spill account for huge economic and environmental losses both in the short and long term. Also if they put aside $8.2 billion (Cyprus Bailout amounted to 10 billion euros), too much emphasis is put on by BP on claims that barely exceed $3 million which is a minuscule part of the sanctions.

  • rate this

    Comment number 275.

    Unfortunately too many remarks not to the actual point. BP as any other Oil Company should be aware of its risks and so should have sufficient methods at hand at any time to avoid such a disaster. It seems they did not learn form the Texas Refinery incidents at all. Should this behavior eventually be rewarded by UK's citizens ?

  • rate this

    Comment number 274.

    In December 2012 while on holiday in China I met two businessmen from Texas. They told me the US government had encouraged BP to drill the well as they wanted increased domestic supplies because they anticipated hostilities breaking out in Iran. They said that in normal circumstances the well would not have been sunk given the geology of the location.

  • rate this

    Comment number 273.

    @228. PursuitOfLove
    It also irritates me that anyone should think the UK and USA have a 'special relationship' as if it is something good for the UK.
    The US hate, loath, despise the stupid Brits. We (the stupid Brits) have allowed the US to take what they want when they want and still beg like a beaten housewife for more. The BP incident is more of the UK being taken advantage of by the USA.


Page 1 of 15



BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.