March 14, 2013 AM

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


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


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


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


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


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

[email protected]

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.


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 --


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 --

Documents

March 14, 2013 AM