<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><head xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
		<title>Patterson-UTI Drilling Company, LLC</title>
		<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=utf-8"/>
		<style type="text/css">
 p.hiddenParagraph { visibility:hidden } 
 p { widows:0; orphans:0; widows:0; orphans:0; margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0; font-family:Times New Roman; color:WindowText; font-size:10pt; } 
 p { font-family:Times New Roman; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:12pt; }  p.style_Normal { widows:0; orphans:0; } 
.style_Normal span { } 
 span.style_DefaultParagraphFont { } 
 table.style_TableNormal { } 
 table.style_TableGrid { } 
 p.style_BalloonText { font-size:8pt; font-family:Tahoma; } 
.style_BalloonText span { font-family:Tahoma; } 
 p.style_FootnoteText { } 
.style_FootnoteText span { } 
 span.style_FootnoteReference { position:relative;font-size:0.58em; bottom: 1ex;} 
.style_FootnoteReference span { position:relative;font-size:0.58em; bottom: 1ex;} 
 p.style_Footer { } 
 span.style_PageNumber { } 
 p.style_Header { } 
 span.style_FootnoteTextChar { } 
 span.style_Emphasis { font-style:italic; } 
.style_Emphasis span { font-style:italic; } 
 span.style_FooterChar { } 
.style_FooterChar span { } 
 span.style_LineNumber { } 
 span.style_CommentReference { font-size:8pt; } 
.style_CommentReference span { } 
 p.style_CommentText { } 
.style_CommentText span { } 
 span.style_CommentTextChar { } 
 p.style_CommentSubject { font-weight:bold; } 
.style_CommentSubject span { font-weight:bold; } 
 span.style_CommentSubjectChar { font-weight:bold; } 
.style_CommentSubjectChar span { font-weight:bold; } 
 p.style_Revision { } 
.style_Revision span { } 
 span.style_Hyperlink { color:#0000FF; text-decoration:underline ;} 
.style_Hyperlink span { color:#0000FF; text-decoration:underline ;} 
 p.style_ListParagraph { margin-left:48px; } 
 span.style_cosearchterm { } 
 span.style_IntenseEmphasis { font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#4F81BD; } 
.style_IntenseEmphasis span { font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#4F81BD; } 
 span.style_PlaceholderText { color:#808080; } 
.style_PlaceholderText span { color:#808080; } 
 p.style_EndnoteText { } 
.style_EndnoteText span { } 
 span.style_EndnoteTextChar { } 
 span.style_EndnoteReference { position:relative;font-size:0.58em; bottom: 1ex;} 
.style_EndnoteReference span { position:relative;font-size:0.58em; bottom: 1ex;} 
 span.style_UnresolvedMention { color:#605E5C; background-color:#E1DFDD; } 
.style_UnresolvedMention span { color:#605E5C; background-color:#E1DFDD; } 
 p.style_Default { font-size:12pt; color:#000000; } 
.style_Default span { color:#000000; } 
 span.X3AS7TOCHyperlink { color:#000000; text-decoration:none; } 
 p.X3AS7TABSTYLE { } 
 span.BulletSymbol { font-family:'Symbol'; } 
 body { margin-left:96px;margin-top:96px;margin-bottom:96px;margin-right:96px;} 
div.basic { width:16.51cm;height:22.86cm;} 
 p.hiddenParagraph { font-size:2pt; visibility:hidden; } 
</style>
		<script type="text/javascript">
							var useragent = navigator.userAgent;
							var navigatorname;
							if (useragent.indexOf('MSIE')!= -1)
							{
							navigatorname="MSIE";
							}
							else if (useragent.indexOf('Gecko')!= -1)
							{
							if (useragent.indexOf('Chrome')!= -1)
							navigatorname="Google Chrome";
							else
							navigatorname="Mozilla";
							}
							else if (useragent.indexOf('Mozilla')!= -1)
							{
							navigatorname="old Netscape or Mozilla";
							}
							else if (useragent.indexOf('Opera')!= -1)
							{
							navigatorname="Opera";
							}
							
							function symbol(code1,code2)
							{
							if (navigatorname == 'MSIE')
								document.write(code1);
							else
								document.write(code2);
							}
							</script>
	</head>
	<body xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><div class="basic"><div>
				<p style="text-align:center; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; ">United States of America</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="text-align:center; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; ">OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION<span>
						</span></span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="widows:2; orphans:2; "> </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="widows:2; orphans:2; "> </p>
			</div>
			<table style="border-collapse:collapse; width:auto; align:left; margin-left:-.191cm; margin-bottom:0cm">
				<tr style="margin:0;border:0;padding:0;visibility:hidden;">
					<th style="width:319.2px;"/>
				</tr>
				<tr>
					<td style="vertical-align:top;padding-top:0cm;padding-bottom:0cm;padding-left:0.19cm;padding-right:0.19cm;background-color:; border-right:dashed .018cm #000000; border-top:solid .018cm #000000; width:8.446cm;">
						<div>
							<p style="widows:2; orphans:2; "> </p>
						</div>
						<div>
							<p style="widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">SECRETARY OF LABOR</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">,<span>
									</span></span></p>
						</div>
					</td>
				</tr>
				<tr style="height:.6cm; ">
					<td style="vertical-align:top;padding-top:0cm;padding-bottom:0cm;padding-left:0.19cm;padding-right:0.19cm;background-color:; border-right:dashed .018cm #000000; width:8.446cm;">
						<div>
							<p style="widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">
								</span></p>
						</div>
						<div>
							<p style="widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">
								</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Complainan</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">t,</span></p>
						</div>
					</td>
				</tr>
				<tr>
					<td style="vertical-align:top;padding-top:0cm;padding-bottom:0cm;padding-left:0.19cm;padding-right:0.19cm;background-color:; border-right:dashed .018cm #000000; width:8.446cm;">
						<div>
							<p style="widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">
								</span></p>
						</div>
						<div>
							<p style="widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "> v. </span></p>
						</div>
						<div>
							<p style="widows:2; orphans:2; "> </p>
						</div>
					</td>
				</tr>
				<tr>
					<td style="vertical-align:top;padding-top:0cm;padding-bottom:0cm;padding-left:0.19cm;padding-right:0.19cm;background-color:; border-right:dashed .018cm #000000; width:8.446cm;">
						<div>
							<p style="widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">PATTERSON-UTI DRILLING COMPANY LLC</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">,</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
									</span>and its successors,</span></p>
						</div>
					</td>
				</tr>
				<tr>
					<td style="vertical-align:top;padding-top:0cm;padding-bottom:0cm;padding-left:0.19cm;padding-right:0.19cm;background-color:; border-right:dashed .018cm #000000; border-bottom:solid .018cm #000000; width:8.446cm;">
						<div>
							<p style="widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">
								</span></p>
						</div>
						<div>
							<p style="widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">
								</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Respondent.</span></p>
						</div>
					</td>
				</tr>
			</table>
			<div>
				<p style="widows:2; orphans:2; "> </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="widows:2; orphans:2; "><span><span></span>
					</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="widows:2; orphans:2; ">
				</p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="text-align:center; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">OSHRC Docket No</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">1</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">8-1204</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="text-align:center; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">
					</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="widows:2; orphans:2; "> </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="widows:2; orphans:2; "> </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="widows:2; orphans:2; "> </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span></span> </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="widows:2; orphans:2; "> </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="widows:2; orphans:2; "> </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="widows:2; orphans:2; "> </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="widows:2; orphans:2; "> </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; ">Appearances:</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="widows:2; orphans:2; "> </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="margin-left:48px; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; ">Lindsay A. Wofford</span><span style="font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; ">, Esq.</span><span style="font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>& Allyson D. Gault, Esq.,</span><span style="font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>Department of Labor, Office of Solicitor,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; ">Dallas, Texas</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="margin-left:78px; text-indent:-1.27cm; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span></span><span style="font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; ">For Complainant</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="widows:2; orphans:2; "> </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="margin-left:48px; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; ">Gregory C. Dillard</span><span style="font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; ">, Esq.</span><span style="font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; ">, Baker Botts, LLP, Houston Texas; Darren Crook, Esq., Baker & Hostetler, LLP, Cleveland, OH; Douglas D.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; ">D’Arche</span><span style="font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; ">, Esq., Baker & Hostetler, LLP, Houston Texas</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span></span><span style="font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span></span><span style="font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span></span><span style="font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span></span><span style="font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; ">F</span><span style="font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; ">or Respondent</span><span style="font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span></span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="widows:2; orphans:2; "> </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; ">Be</span><span style="font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; ">fore: </span><span style="font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; ">F</span><span style="font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; ">irst<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; ">Judge<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; ">Patrick B. Augustine</span><span style="font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>– U. S. Administrative Law Judge</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="widows:2; orphans:2; "> </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="widows:2; orphans:2; "> </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:center; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline ;font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline ;">DECISION AND ORDER</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">On January 22, 2018, a catastrophic blowout and explosion killed<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">five</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>people</span><span class="style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><a name="ftnref2" href="#ftn2">1</a></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>on Respondent’s oil rig<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">located at Section 17-7N-18E,</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>Quinton, Oklahoma</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>(“Worksite”)</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">. The explosion occurred shortly after Respondent completed an operation to remove a worn-out drill bit from the bottom of a horizontal natural gas well owned by Red Mountain<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Energy. Throughout the course of the previous day, as well as during the hours and minutes leading up to the explosion, the well showed signs<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">that natural gas was entering the wellbore. While natural gas entering the wellbore is not unusual during the drilling process,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">it can become hazardous if not kept under<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">control. This case concerns whether Respondent fulfilled its obligation under the general duty clause to provide employment and a place of employment that was free from the recognized hazards of fire and explosion resulting from a loss of well control.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Although Complainant established the existence of a recognized hazard that ultimately caused the death of five people, the Court finds Complainant failed to prove Respondent’s existing methods of abatement were inadequate or more effective means were available to free the workplace of the hazard.<span>
						</span></span></p>
			</div>
			<p style="margin-left:72px; text-indent:-1.27cm; line-height:2; margin-left:72px; text-indent:-1.27cm; widows:2; orphans:2; line-height:2; ">
				<span style="font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; font-weight:bold; padding-right:20px;">I.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; ">P</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; ">ROCEDURAL HISTORY</span></p>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">As a result of the fatal explosion and fire, Complainant sent Compliance Safety and Health Officer Sandra Swearingen and Area Director Steven Kirby to conduct an inspection of the<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">W</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">orksite.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Based on their observations, interviews, and review of relevant materials, Complainant issued a Citation and Notification of Penalty, which alleged nine serious violations of the<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Occupational Safety and<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Health<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Act</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, 29 U.S.C. §§ 651-678 (“Act”)</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>and proposed a total penalty of $73,909. Respondent timely contested the Citation.<span>
						</span></span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">This matter proceeded to trial on October 15, 2019</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">,</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>and lasted until October 25, 2019, in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. Before the trial began, the parties notified the Court they had reached a partial settlement with respect to all but one of the<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">I</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">tems contained in the Citation</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "> Those items were resolved as follows:</span></p>
			</div>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:48px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px; text-indent:-.635cm; widows:2; orphans:2; line-height:2; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Symbol; padding-right:20px;">·</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; ">Citation 1, Item 2</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">: In lieu of alleging a violation of section 5(a)(1) of the Act, the parties agreed to amend<span>
					</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">C</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">itation</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
					</span>1, Item 2</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
					</span>to allege a violation of 29 C.F.R. § 1910.128(b)(1)(</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">i</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">). The characterization and penalty<span>
					</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">will<span>
					</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">remain the same.<span>
					</span></span></p>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:48px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px; text-indent:-.635cm; widows:2; orphans:2; line-height:2; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Symbol; padding-right:20px;">·</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; ">Citation 1, Item 3(a)</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">: The standard cited is amended to<span>
					</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">allege a violation of<span>
					</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">29 C.F.R. § 1910.38. The alleged violation description (</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">“</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">AVD</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">”</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">) is amended to state, “The employer’s post-incident muster process<span>
					</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">do</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
					</span>[sic] not include documenting that non-Patterson workers<span>
					</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">were present and accounted for.” The original characterization and penalty</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
					</span>remain as issued</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">.</span></p>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:48px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px; text-indent:-.635cm; widows:2; orphans:2; line-height:2; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Symbol; padding-right:20px;">·</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; ">Citation 1, Item 3(b)</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">: Withdrawn</span></p>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:48px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px; text-indent:-.635cm; widows:2; orphans:2; line-height:2; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Symbol; padding-right:20px;">·</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; ">Citation 1, Item 4(a)</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">:</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
					</span>Withdrawn</span></p>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:48px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px; text-indent:-.635cm; widows:2; orphans:2; line-height:2; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Symbol; padding-right:20px;">·</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; ">Citation 1, Item 4(b)</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">:</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
					</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">The parties agree to amend the characterization of th</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">is</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
					</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">C</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">itation<span>
					</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">I</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">tem to “other-than-serious” and amend the AVD to state, “The employer failed to have documentation of completed training.” The penalty, which was provided as a grouped penalty under<span>
					</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">C</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">itation<span>
					</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">I</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">tem 4(a), remain</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">s</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
					</span>as issued.</span></p>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:48px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px; text-indent:-.635cm; widows:2; orphans:2; line-height:2; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Symbol; padding-right:20px;">·</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; ">Citation 1, Item 5</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">:</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
					</span>The AVD shall be amended to state the violation occurred on or about January 18, 2018. The characterization and<span>
					</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">penalty<span>
					</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">remains</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
					</span>as issued.<span>
					</span></span></p>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:48px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px; text-indent:-.635cm; widows:2; orphans:2; line-height:2; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Symbol; padding-right:20px;">·</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; ">Citation 1, Item 6(a)</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">:</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
					</span>Withdrawn</span></p>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:48px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px; text-indent:-.635cm; widows:2; orphans:2; line-height:2; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Symbol; padding-right:20px;">·</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; ">Citation 1, Item 6(b)</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">:</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
					</span>The parties agree to amend the cited standard to 29 C.F.R. § 1910.1030(f)(1) and the characterization to “other-than-serious”. The penalty, which was provided as a grouped penalty under<span>
					</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">I</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">tem 6(a), remain</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">s</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
					</span>as issued.<span>
					</span></span></p>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">(Tr. 14-17).<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Thus, t</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">he only remaining citation item</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>for adjudication<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">is Citation 1, Item 1, which alleges a<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">serious<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">violation of the general duty clause</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>and propose</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">s</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>a penalty of $12,934</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">As noted above, based on the Court’s analysis, Complainant failed to prove a violation of the general duty clause.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">A little less than two months prior to trial, Complainant sought to amend<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">C</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">itation</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>1, Item 1</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>to assert additional, more specific means of abatement. For multiple reasons, including dilatory behavior by Complainant in responding to discovery, the proximity of trial, lack of fair notice to Respondent, and<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">the propriety of the amendment itself, the Court denied Complainant’s motion.</span><span class="style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><a name="ftnref3" href="#ftn3">2</a></span></p>
			</div>
			<p style="margin-left:72px; text-indent:-1.27cm; line-height:2; margin-left:72px; text-indent:-1.27cm; widows:2; orphans:2; line-height:2; ">
				<span style="font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; font-weight:bold; padding-right:20px;">II.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; ">S</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; ">TIPULATIONS & JURISDICTION</span></p>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">The<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">parties stipulated<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">to the following jurisdictional facts:<span>
						</span></span></p>
			</div>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:144px; text-indent:-.318cm; margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:16px; text-align:justify; margin-left:120px; text-indent:-.318cm; margin-right:48px; widows:2; orphans:2; margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:16px; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="font-size:12pt; font-weight:normal; padding-right:20px;">1.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">The Commission has jurisdiction over this proceeding under § 10(c) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act, 29 U.S.C. § 659(c) (“Act”).</span></p>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:144px; text-indent:-.318cm; margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:16px; text-align:justify; margin-left:120px; text-indent:-.318cm; margin-right:48px; widows:2; orphans:2; margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:16px; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="font-size:12pt; font-weight:normal; padding-right:20px;">2.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Respondent is an employer engaged in a business affecting commerce within the meaning of § 3(5) of the Act, 29 U.S.C. § 652(5).</span></p>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:144px; text-indent:-.318cm; margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:16px; text-align:justify; margin-left:120px; text-indent:-.318cm; margin-right:48px; widows:2; orphans:2; margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:16px; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="font-size:12pt; font-weight:normal; padding-right:20px;">3.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Complainant issued the Citation and Notification of Penalty for Inspection No. 1290639 on July 18, 2018.</span></p>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:144px; text-indent:-.318cm; margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:16px; text-align:justify; margin-left:120px; text-indent:-.318cm; margin-right:48px; widows:2; orphans:2; margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:16px; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="font-size:12pt; font-weight:normal; padding-right:20px;">4.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Respondent timely contested the Citation and Notification of Penalty.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
					</span></span></p>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:144px; text-indent:-.318cm; margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:16px; text-align:justify; margin-left:120px; text-indent:-.318cm; margin-right:48px; widows:2; orphans:2; margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:16px; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="font-size:12pt; font-weight:normal; padding-right:20px;">5.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Complainant timely filed his Complaint.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
					</span></span></p>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:144px; text-indent:-.318cm; margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:16px; text-align:justify; margin-left:120px; text-indent:-.318cm; margin-right:48px; widows:2; orphans:2; margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:16px; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="font-size:12pt; font-weight:normal; padding-right:20px;">6.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Respondent timely filed its Answer.</span></p>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:144px; text-indent:-.318cm; margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:16px; text-align:justify; margin-left:120px; text-indent:-.318cm; margin-right:48px; widows:2; orphans:2; margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:16px; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="font-size:12pt; font-weight:normal; padding-right:20px;">7.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">The Secretary withdraws Citation 1, Item 3(b).</span></p>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Default style_Default " style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; "><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">See Joint Stipulation Statement</span>.<span><span></span>
					</span><span style="font-size:11.5pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:11.5pt; ">Based on the Joint Stipulations, the Court finds the Commission has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, 29 U.S.C. § 659(c). Further, the Court obtained jurisdiction over this matter under section 10(c) of the Act upon Respondent’s timely filing of a notice of contest.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:11.5pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:11.5pt; font-style:italic; ">Id.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:11.5pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:11.5pt; ">The Court also finds Respondent was an employer engaged in a business and industry affecting interstate commerce within the meaning of sections 3(3) and 3(5) of the Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 652(3), (5).</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Default style_Default " style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; "><span style="font-size:11.5pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:11.5pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span></span><span style="font-size:11.5pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:11.5pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span></span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Pursuant to Commission Rule 90, after hearing and carefully considering all the evidence and the arguments of counsel, the Court issues this Decision and Order as its findings of fact and conclusions of law.</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-right:48px; widows:2; orphans:2; "> </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-right:48px; widows:2; orphans:2; "> </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-right:48px; widows:2; orphans:2; "> </p>
			</div>
			<p style="margin-left:72px; text-indent:-1.27cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:72px; text-indent:-1.27cm; widows:2; orphans:2; line-height:2; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; padding-right:20px;">III.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; ">F</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; ">ACTUAL BACKGROUND</span></p>
			<p style="margin-left:96px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:96px; text-indent:-.635cm; widows:2; orphans:2; line-height:2; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; padding-right:20px;">A.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; ">Introduction</span></p>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Respondent<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">is<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">the second-largest onshore</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>oil and gas drilling contractor<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">in the United States,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">with approximately 4,800 employees and<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">246 marketable drilling rigs</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>(Tr. 1277).</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "> Respondent<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">was hired by Red Mountain<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Energy to drill a horizontal gas well in an area known as the Pryor Trust Lease, which is located outside of Quinton, Oklahoma. Under the contract, Respondent agreed to provide the drilling rig, employees to operate the rig, and equipment to maintain well control, such as a blow-out preventer (BOP).</span><span class="style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><a name="ftnref4" href="#ftn4">3</a></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>(Ex.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">R-2</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">). </span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">T</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">he<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Work</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">site was owned and operated by Red Mountain</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>Energy (“Red Mountain”)</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">who hired company men through a contractor named<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Crescent Consulting</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>(Tr. 1683).</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>The company man was ultimately responsible for all work performed at the wellsite and had final say on the way the well was drilled. (Tr.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">1321, 1807, 1995</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">). That said, Red Mountain and Respondent</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>agreed Respondent’s safety rules would govern how the various contractors and employees would conduct themselves during the drilling process. (Ex.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">R-2</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">).<span>
						</span></span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Respondent’s principal responsibility was to drill down<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">7183</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>feet, then, with the aid of the directional driller, turn horizontally and drill an additional<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">10,000 feet until it reached a total measured depth of 17,800 feet</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>(</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Ex. C-24</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">).</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "> On<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">January 21, 2018</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, Respondent came within<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">88</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>feet of the final mark when the company man determined the drill bit was no longer cutting and decided<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">it</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>needed to be replaced to complete the remaining horizontal portion of the well. (Tr.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">281</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">). </span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">The drill bit is attached to a group of tools known as the bottom hole assembly (BHA), which, in turn,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">is attached to a series of pipe sections</span><span class="style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><a name="ftnref5" href="#ftn5">4</a></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>known as the drill string. (Tr.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">156</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">). </span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">In order to</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>retrieve the drill bit, Respondent had to remove<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">the entire drill string through a process called “tripping out”. (Tr.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">98</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">). As described in further detail below, the tripping out process took nearly 12 hours to complete, which encompassed the entire nightshift.</span><span class="style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><a name="ftnref6" href="#ftn6">5</a></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "> Once the drill string and BHA were removed from the<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">wellbore, the blind rams were closed, thereby<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">shutting off</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>the well. (Tr.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">873-74</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">). A little more than two hours later, shortly after Respondent removed the new BHA they had just tested, there was a blowout that ignited</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">.<span>
						</span></span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>What follows is a description of the events leading to the<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">blowout</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, as well as an explanation of some of the more technical aspects of the drilling process.<span>
						</span></span></p>
			</div>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:96px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:96px; text-indent:-.635cm; widows:2; orphans:2; line-height:2; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; padding-right:20px;">B.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; ">Day Shift – January 21, 2018</span></p>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>The day before the blowout, Respondent was<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">nearing the end of the planned depth of the wellbore.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">During the course of</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>the day,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Josh</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>Ray, the day driller, was experiencing kicks, which are an influx of gas into the wellbore. (Tr.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">415, 449</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, 1932-33). Ray was able to identify kicks because<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Pason</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, the data tracking system, indicated<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">his mud pits<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">were gaining</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>drilling mud</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">,</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>and his gas flare had been running constantly at a height of 20-30 feet</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>and, according to some, as high as 50 feet</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>(Tr.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">90, 413-15, 643</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">).</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Mud pits are large tanks of a</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">n oil-based</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>liquid mixture</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">referred to as “mud”,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">which is<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">designed to hold the gas down inside the wellbore during the drilling process.</span><span class="style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><a name="ftnref7" href="#ftn7">6</a></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">(Tr.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">62, 74, 82</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">).<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">The mud is pumped from the tanks down through the drill string</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>and recycled<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">back up the wellbore through the area known as the annul</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">us</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, which is the space located between the drill string and the outer edge of the wellbore. (Tr.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">68, 288, 440-41</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">; Ex.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">R-1, R-66, C-9A</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">). During drilling, the mud return</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">ing</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>to the surface typically contains cuttings, which are tiny bits of rock and debris from drilling, and potentially gas. (Tr.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">83</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">). The mud is sent through a mud-gas separator, which directs the gas to the flare to be burned off, and then to the shakers, which removes the cuttings, before being returned to the mud pits. (Tr.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">72, 90</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">; Ex.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">R-66</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">).<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>During drilling, the volume of the mud pits should go down as the well gets deeper because it requires more mud to fill the space.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Thus, the signs observed by Ray indicated gas had entered the wellbore.<span>
						</span></span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>In response to early indication</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">s</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>of a kick, Ray suggested to the company man, Parker<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Waldridge</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, they “mud up”, which means to increase the weight of the mud</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>to ensure the gas remains contained at the bottom of the well</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">. (Tr.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">483</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">). </span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Waldridge</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>overruled Ray’s assessment</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>(Tr.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">484-85</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">). Later, when the mud pits had increased in volume by 40 barrels</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, Ray began the procedures to close the well, including shutting off the pumps. (Tr.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">409, 481</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">). Ray was again overruled by the<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Waldridge</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">. (Tr.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">481-82</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">). Ray attempted to appeal to his Rig Manager,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Tony<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Thompson, but Thompson, who was relatively new to the position, ultimately deferred to the company man, and the drilling continued without any changes. (Tr.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">483-85</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">). In fact, drilling did not stop until<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Waldridge</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>determined the drill bit needed to be replaced</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">. (Tr.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">1092-93</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">). Once that determination was made, the well was circulated for two hours before Respondent began the process of tripping out of the wellbore. (Tr.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">1090</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">).<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Circulation is the process of pumping mud through the drill string to remove cuttings and gas to ensure the well is static and no more gas enters the well while removing the BHA and pipe stands. (Tr.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">96</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">).<span>
						</span></span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; "> </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; "> </p>
			</div>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:96px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:96px; text-indent:-.635cm; widows:2; orphans:2; line-height:2; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; padding-right:20px;">C.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; ">Shift Change – Night Crew Takes Over</span></p>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>Between shifts, the Day Crew relayed the issues it faced, including the kicks, flare, and trip out. (Tr.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">539, 543, 640-42</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">). Based on the information provided to him, the night driller, Lionel<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Deanda</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, also suggested they mud up. (Tr.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">544</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">). Like Ray before him,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Deanda</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>was overruled by the night company man, Brody<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Blagg</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, who instead proposed using the orbit valve to control any potential flow and by doing a calculated fill by monitoring the trip tanks.</span><span class="style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><a name="ftnref8" href="#ftn8">7</a></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>(Tr.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">634, 655</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">). Essentially,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Blagg</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>recommended closing the orbit valve to prevent flowback from the well. (Tr.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">636</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">). Because this has the effect of bypassing the flow meter (which shows whether mud is being pushed out of the wellbore),<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Blagg</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>recommended using a predetermined calculation of how much mud needed to be pumped into the well<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">in order to</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>displace the volume being taken up by the BHA and<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">the pipe string</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">. (Tr.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">638</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">). </span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Blagg</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Deanda</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, and<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Josh<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Hager</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>determined<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">the amount<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">they would need to pump into the wellbore to ensure a proper fill. (Tr.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">589-90</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">). They used the<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Pason</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>data, which was illustrated on multiple screens in the driller’s cabin, to determine whether they were accomplishing a proper fill as they removed the drill string. (Tr.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">718-22</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">; Ex.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">C-5, C-52, C-122</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">).</span></p>
			</div>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:96px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:96px; text-indent:-.635cm; widows:2; orphans:2; line-height:2; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; font-weight:bold; padding-right:20px;">D.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; ">Horizontal Trip</span></p>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">After</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>circulating the well, the night crew began to trip out of the horizontal portion of the well</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, which lasted until approximately 11:00 p.m</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">. (Tr.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">777, 1590-91</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">). </span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Once the crew had removed enough pipe to reach the vertical portion of the well, also known as the top of the curve, the crew circulated the well again to remove gas from the drilling mud and to resolve discrepancies in the calculated fill. (Tr.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">545, 1496</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">). As noted in the<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Pason</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>data, the well did not take as much mud as was calculated; however, both<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Mike</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>Garvin, Respondent’s Senior Vice President of Operations, and George Medley, Complainant’s designated expert, agreed the crew was able to circulate the<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">gas out of the wellbore and displace the volume of the pipe and BHA with a slug. (Tr.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">1496,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">159</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">3</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">-95</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">). A slug is a premeasured, heavier volume of drilling mud, which is designed to keep gas down</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>and is typically pumped down prior to coming out of the wellbore</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">. (Tr. 96</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, 131</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">). </span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">A</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">ccording to Medley</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>and Garvin,</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>the well was static prior to tripping out of the vertical portion of the wellbore. (Tr.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">1497, 1596</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">). Also, at some point during this process, the crew replaced a seal on the rotating head of the BOP. (Tr.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">1479</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">).<span>
						</span></span></p>
			</div>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:96px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:96px; text-indent:-.635cm; widows:2; orphans:2; line-height:2; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; padding-right:20px;">E.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; ">Vertical Trip</span></p>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">After the well was circulated at the top of the curve,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Blagg</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>directed Respondent’s crew to</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>pump a weighted pill down the well to place additional weight at the bottom of the well to pin down the gas. (Tr.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">666</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">). A pill is<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">similar to</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>a slug—in fact, some use the terms interchangeably—in that it is additional weight used to hold down gas; however, there are instances where cuttings, also known as Loss Control Material (LCM), are mixed in with the mud to clog open spaces in the wellbore where mud seeps into the gas formation as opposed to gas pushing mud out of the formation, as was the case here. (Tr.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">555</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">). </span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Whether at the direction of<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Blagg</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>or by accident,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">derrick hand Kyle Lucas</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>included LCM in the pill,</span><span class="style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><a name="ftnref9" href="#ftn9">8</a></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>which ultimately caused the drill string to become clogged</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>at the BHA</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">. (Tr.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">668-69</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">).<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">After repeated efforts to unclog the pipe, including pumping an additional slug,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Deanda</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>and<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Blagg</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>determined they would have to trip out “wet”. (Tr.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">670</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">). In other words, they could no longer pump mud down through the pipe string but had to redirect it through the annul</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">us</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">(Tr.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">1498)</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">. Further, the pipe stands would be filled with mud, which had to be drained into receptacles that would direct the mud into<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">the trip tank</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, though some of it ended up in<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">the mud pits</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">. (Tr.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">669-71</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">). </span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>During the wet trip,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Deanda</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>noticed<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">the<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Pason</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>data was not reflecting the correct fill based on their initial set of calculations. (Tr.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">672-75</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">). </span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Deanda</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>testified he brought the discrepancy to<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Blagg’s</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>attention and that<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Blagg</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>again overruled his assessment and decided to press forward with the tri</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">p, which,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">based on his experience</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, was<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">“what was supposed to be happening</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">”</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>(Tr.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">673</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">). Although<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Blagg</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>testified<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Deanda</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>did not make him aware of the discrepancy, the Court finds<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Blagg’s</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>testimony came across as evasive and was inconsistent with<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">the</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>other individual</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">s</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">present in the driller’s cabin at that time</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">. Further, given that<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Blagg</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>was present in the driller’s cabin with<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Deanda</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, he had the same information available to him and should have been aware of the discrepancies.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Deanda</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, on the other hand, provided straightforward testimony and his version of<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">this and other<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">events was consistent with<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">his assistant driller,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">who<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">also<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">testified. (Tr.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">556-67</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">). Accordingly, the Court credits<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Deanda’s</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>testimony regarding both the discrepancy and<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Blagg’s</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>refusal to act upon it. The discrepancy between the actual fill and the calculated fill ended up being substantial. At the end of the vertical trip, the trip tank only decreased by 8 barrels of mud. According to the calculations, it should have been reduced by approximately 45. (Tr.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">1612</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">). </span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">The evidence indicates</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>Respondent</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>did not</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>stop to perform a flow check as mandated by its own policy. (Tr.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">1772-73</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">).<span>
						</span></span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>The BHA was<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">tripped to just below the surface of the</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>wellbore<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">by</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>5:00 a.m. on January 2</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">2nd. (Tr.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">564</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">). Respondent attempted to clear out the blockage in the BHA; however, they were ultimately unsuccessful and had to build a new BHA. (Tr.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">564-65</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">). While Respondent’s crew was attempting to clear out the blocked BHA, the trip tank showed an increase of approximately<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">25</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>barrels of mud, even though there was no activity downhole. (Tr.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">1615-17</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">). This illustrated more gas was pushing into the wellbore. (Tr.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">1617</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">). Around 6:15 a.m.,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">during the beginning of the day shift, the blind rams of the BOP were closed. Although closing in the well with the blind rams<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">prevents fluids from coming to the surface, it does not prevent gas flowing from the formation into the wellbore. (Tr.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">1622</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">).<span>
						</span></span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>At shift change, the night crew informed the day crew there was gas in the well, but that there was nothing to be concerned about. (Tr.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">770-72</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">). The derrick</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">hand,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Carillo</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, conducted a flow check around the time the blind rams were closed and did not observe gas flowing to the surface at that time. (Tr.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">105</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">). Meanwhile, a new BHA was being built while the old one was being removed from the drilling rig floor. (Tr.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">105-107</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">). This process took some time not only due to the complexity of the parts, but also due to their sheer size—the BHA, which includes the drill bit, the measure-while-drilling tool (MWD), and<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Monel collar</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, is roughly<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">95</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">-feet long and weighs<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">15,000</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>pounds. (Tr.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">2016</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">). </span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Approximately two hours later, the<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">new BHA was prepped and ready to be inserted into the wellbore for testing.<span>
						</span></span></p>
			</div>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:96px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:96px; text-indent:-.635cm; widows:2; orphans:2; line-height:2; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; font-weight:bold; padding-right:20px;">F.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; ">The BHA Test</span></p>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">At 7:57 a.m., once the BHA was ready for insertion, day driller Ray opened the blind rams on the BOP. (Tr.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">1628</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">). </span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Once the rams were opened, the<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Pason</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>data indicated a flow increase of 18% and an increase in the mud pits even though nothing had been inserted into the wellbore. (Tr.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">1628</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">; Ex.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">C-121B</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">). </span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">According to the testimony,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Respondent performed a</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>flow check<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">that</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>was limited to a quick look, as opposed to the 3-minute minimum mandated by Respondent’s own policy. (Tr.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">2098-99</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">).<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">At the same time, Matt Smith, a<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">floorhand</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>who died in the accident, showed Steve Wilson, a directional driller who testified at trial, that mud was “gurgling” in the hole once it was opened, providing additional indications gas was flowing in the well. (Tr.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">299</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">).<span>
						</span></span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>At approximately 7:58 a.m., Respondent began to lower the BHA into the wellbore. (Tr.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">2040</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">). Shortly after, the<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Pason</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>data showed a 10-barrel gain in the mud pits. (Tr.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">2093; Ex. C-18</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">).<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Even though Respondent’s policy mandates the<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Pason</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>alarm, which is both visual and audible,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">should go off at +/- 5 barrels (and no more than +/- 10), nobody<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">outside of the driller cabin<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">heard the audible alarm go off.</span><span class="style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><a name="ftnref10" href="#ftn10">9</a></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>(Tr.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">110, 182</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">). </span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">According to<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Medley</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Complainant’s designated expert,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">the BHA should displace around 4 barrels of mud</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">; however, given the gain occurred without any additional down-hole activity (like turning on the pumps), both Respondent’s and Complainant’s experts testified Respondent should have removed the BHA</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>and closed the well</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">. (Tr.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">1649, 1654, 2093</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">).<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">At the very least, Respondent’s policy mandated the performance of a flow check</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>of sufficient duration</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">. (Ex.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">C-32</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">). Neither of those things occurred. </span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>Notwithstanding the mud pit increase, Respondent proceeded to insert the BHA to its test depth of 250 feet. (Tr.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">1634</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">). During the 10 minutes it took to reach a depth of 250 feet, the volume in the mud pits increased by 21 barrels even though the pumps had not yet been turned on. (Tr.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">1637</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">).<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>At 8:09 a.m., the<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Pason</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>data shows the driller reset the mud pit volume to zero. (Tr.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">1638</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">). Although this altered the real-time data readout</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>on the driller’s console</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, the actual data remained the same. (Tr.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">1601, 1639</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">). According to<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Garvin</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Respondent’s Senior Vice President of Operations,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Ray presumably did this to ensure he was getting an accurate reading of the mud pit volume</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>and to establish a baseline because of the movement caused by the pumps</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">. (Tr.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">1513</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">). </span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Around the same time</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, Ray turned on Pump #1 to begin the test of the BHA. (Tr.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">1639</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">). Pump #1<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">did</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>not generat</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">e</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>enough pressure to perform an accurate test of the BHA, so Ray switched over to Pump #2. (Tr.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">301-302</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">). Pump #2 proved to be adequate to perform the test, which was completed at 8:25 a.m. (Tr.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">302, 1645</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">). While the test was performed, the mud pit gained an additional 23 barrels, bringing the total gain to 44 barrels. (Tr.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">1645</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">). </span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">At the conclusion of the test, Ray turned off Pump #2 and began to trip out the BHA.<span>
						</span></span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>While Ray was tripping out the BHA, Kevin<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Carillo</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, the derrick</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">hand,</span><span class="style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><a name="ftnref11" href="#ftn11">10</a></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>was preparing to climb the mast of the derrick. As he got onto the rig floor, he noticed mud bubbling out of the rotating head on the BOP a “a cupful at a time”. (Tr. 107-108). He reported what he had seen to Ray, who was working alongside<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Waldridge</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">. (Tr.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">108-109</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">). Ray told<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Carillo</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>to continue up the mast. (Tr.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">109</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">). As with the other employees working on the rig that day,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Carillo</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>testified he had not heard nor seen any alarms going off inside the driller’s cabin. (Tr.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">110</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">).<span>
						</span></span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>At 8:34 a.m., Respondent’s crew began to remove the BHA from the wellbore. (Tr.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">1651</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">; Ex.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">C-13</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">). According to the<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Pason</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>data, the mud pit volume had increased by nearly 89 barrels since the<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">blind rams were first opened at 7:57 a.m. (Tr.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">1652</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">; Ex.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">C-18</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">). The crew had completely removed the BHA just before 8:36 a.m. (Tr.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">1652</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">). Less than a minute later</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Carillo</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>observed the rig floor turn black. (Tr.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">1653</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">). Shortly after that, the well blew out and rose nearly 90 feet in the air, which was just below<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Carillo’s</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>location on the monkey board. (Tr.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>113-114</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">). </span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Carillo</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>managed to escape using the cable wire of the emergency descent device.</span><span class="style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><a name="ftnref12" href="#ftn12">11</a></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>(Tr.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">115</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">).<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>Unfortunately, Ray,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Waldridge</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">and three others</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>were unable to escape and died in the explosion and resulting fire. </span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>The<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Pason</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>data stopped recording at 8:36:46 a.m., roughly indicating the time of the explosion.</span><span class="style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><a name="ftnref13" href="#ftn13">12</a></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "> At that point in time, the data reflected the mud pit had gained nearly 120 barrels of mud since the blind rams were opened at 7:57 a.m. </span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; "> </p>
			</div>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:72px; text-indent:-1.27cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:72px; text-indent:-1.27cm; widows:2; orphans:2; line-height:2; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; color:#000000; font-weight:bold; padding-right:20px;">IV.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; ">BURDEN OF PROOF AND LAW APPLICABLE TO 5(a)(</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; ">1</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; ">) VIOLATION</span></p>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">To establish a<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">prima facie</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>violation of<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">the general duty clause, Complainant must show a condition or activity at the worksite presented a hazard, that the hazard was recognized by Respondent or the well-drilling industry, that the hazard was likely to cause serious harm or death, and that a feasible and effective means existed to eliminate or materially reduce the hazard.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">See Arcadian Corp.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, 20 BNA OSHC 2001 (No. 93-0628, 2004).</span><span style="font-size:11.5pt; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11.5pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:11.5pt; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11.5pt; ">The evidence must also show the employer knew or, with the exercise of reasonable diligence, could have known of the violative condition.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:11.5pt; font-style:italic; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11.5pt; font-style:italic; ">See Regina Constr. Co.</span><span style="font-size:11.5pt; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11.5pt; ">, 15 BNA OSHC 1044 (No. 87-1309, 1991).<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">
					</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.295cm; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Complainant</span><span style="font-size:12pt; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>must establish his<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">prima facie</span><span style="font-size:12pt; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>case by preponderance of the evidence.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">See Hartford Roofing Co</span><span style="font-size:12pt; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">., 17 BNA OSHC 1361 (No. 92-3855, 1995).</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">“Preponderance of the evidence” has been defined as:</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="text-align:justify; margin-left:48px; margin-right:72px; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">The greater weight of the evidence, not necessarily established by the greater number of witnesses testifying to a fact but by evidence that has the most convincing force; superior evidentiary weight that, though not sufficient to free the mind wholly from all reasonable doubt, is still sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.<span>
						</span></span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="text-align:justify; margin-left:48px; text-indent:1.27cm; margin-right:54px; widows:2; orphans:2; "> </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Black’s Law Dictionary, “Preponderance of the Evidence” (10th ed. 2014).</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:72px; text-indent:-1.27cm; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; ">V.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; ">ANALYSIS, FINDINGS OF FACT AND LEGAL APPLICATION</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; ">
					</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Complainant alleged a serious violation of the Act in Citation<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">1,</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>Item 1 as follows:<span>
						</span></span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:16px; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px; margin-right:48px; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Section 5(a)(1) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970: The employer did not furnish employment and a place of employment which were free from recognized hazards that were causing or likely to cause death or serious physical harm to employees in that employees were exposed to fire and explosion hazards.</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:16px; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px; margin-right:48px; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">On or about January 22, 2018, and times prior thereto, on Patterson-UTI Rig #219 near Quinton, Oklahoma where well control was not maintained during drilling operations at the Pryor Trust 0718 Well Number 1H-9.</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:16px; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px; margin-right:48px; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Among other methods, one feasible and acceptable abatement method to correct this hazard is to maintain well control to prevent kicks and blowouts as outlined in American Petroleum Institute (API) Recommended Practice (RP) for Occupational Safety for Oil and Gas Drilling and Servicing Operations, RP 54, Section 6.1.1.</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:16px; text-align:justify; margin-right:48px; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">See<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Citation and Notification of Penalty at 6.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span></span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Before discussing the elements of this general duty clause violation, it is important to understand the nature of what is being alleged. As discussed above, the specifics of this case are complex; however,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">all</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>these complexities<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">revolve around</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>one concept: well control.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">According to multiple witnesses, well control can be broken down into two parts: (1) primary well control, which uses mud weight, pressure, and equipment to keep gas</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>and formation fluids</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>from entering the wellbore and potentially to the surface</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">;</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>and (2) secondary well control, which involves the safe removal of the intruding gas from the wellbore.</span><span class="style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><a name="ftnref14" href="#ftn14">13</a></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>(Tr. 605, 1885). </span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Though there<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">appeared to be</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">a</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>dispute as to how to define a loss of well control, the Court finds this was more the result of semantic confusion than an actual conflict. When confronted with the Court’s understanding that a loss of well control was an uncontrolled flow of gas/formation fluid from the wellbore, Medley<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">agreed and stated this could result in a blowout. (Tr. 1883).<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">While<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Reineke</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, Respondent’s designated expert,</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>seemed to disagree with Medley, at least initially, it appears this dispute was<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">the result of</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>confusion<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">regarding whether the Court was describing</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>a blowout and a loss of well control. (Tr. 1967).<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Reineke</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>agreed a loss of well control was an uncontrolled flow of gas/formation fluid to the atmosphere but stated that such would not necessarily result in a blowout. (</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Id.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">). His rationale for this was that fluid could reach the atmosphere, but the well could still conceivably be closed in prior to a blowout occurring.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">While seeming to define a loss of well control,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Reineke</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>concluded his colloquy with the judge by stating an uncontrolled flow that cannot be shut in is “to me—is a blowout.” (Tr. 1968).<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">In this somewhat confusing back-and-forth</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, the Court finds there is an important distinction to be made between a loss of well control and a<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">blowout</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">The distinction is ultimately between<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">flow that</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>is uncontrolled and<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">flow that is</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>uncontrollable. If gas/formation fluid is flowing to the surface because it overcame your primary and secondary forms of well control, then</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, by definition,</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>it is uncontrolled</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">. When the driller is unable to shut in the well using the blind rams (secondary barrier), then it is uncontrollable, which is a blowout. While seemingly esoteric, this distinction becomes important when the Court later discusses the nature of the hazard alleged and whether Respondent knew of the conditions constituting a hazard.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Everyone who testified agreed<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">well control involves the coordination of multiple contractors using<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">a combination of</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>equipment</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>and practices</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>to ensure fluids and gas contained in the wellbore remain there until such time they can be removed in a controlled and safe manner.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">In addition to Respondent, this includes the mud engineer, who is responsible for<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">drafting</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>the<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">drilling prognosis</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, which informs the weight of the mud used to control the influx of gas into the well bore</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">;</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>the directional driller, who<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">steers the drill string to designated targets</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">; and various other</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">s</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, who</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">se</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>responsibilities<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">include</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">activities like<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">installing the cement casing inside the wellbore</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>(Tr.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">151,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">215, 937</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">).</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Notwithstanding the collaborative nature of well control,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Complainant contends Respondent, who was responsible for operating the drilling rig, failed in its specific responsibility<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">to maintain well control</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">,</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">because<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">it did not act upon clear signals of an impending loss of well control, nor did it ensure all appropriate well control equipment and materials were on-site and operational when work commenced. (Ex. C-2).<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>In support of this allegation, Complainant relies upon<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">API<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">54, which states, “Well control shall be maintained at all times. Consideration shall be made to ensure appropriate equipment and materials are on location and operational before work commences.” (Ex. C-2</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>at 6.1.1</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">).<span>
						</span></span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>In response, Respondent contends the API standard is too vague to identify conditions or practices over which it could reasonably be expected to exercise control, especially in circumstances</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">,</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>such as this</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">,</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>where multiple parties were responsible for ensuring well control is maintained.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">In particular, Respondent</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>seeks to place the onus on the company man, who ultimately directs and controls all work at the drilling site, and the mud engineer, whose job is to properly assess the mud weight to control influxes of gas into the wellbore.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Further, Respondent argues<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">there was no evidence its employees were aware of an impending blowout, and thus should not be charged with knowledge of the hazard.<span>
						</span></span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>Ultimately, the Court finds Complainant established</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">: (</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">i</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">)</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>the existence of a recognized hazard that was fatal</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">; (ii)</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>Respondent’s employees were exposed to the hazard</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">;</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">(iii)</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>Respondent had constructive knowledge of the hazard</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">; and (iv) the hazard</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>was likely to cause serious injury or death.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>However, the Court also finds Complainant failed to establish the final element on abatement in that he did not show what additional steps Respondent should have taken to avoid being cited, as well as the feasibility and likely utility of those additional steps.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">See Cerro Metal Prods. Div. Marmon Grp., Inc.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, 12 BNA OSHC 1821 (No. 78-5159, 1986) (citing<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Nat’l</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; "><span><span></span>
						</span>Realty & Constr. Co. v. OSHRC</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, 489 F.2d 1257 (D.C. Cir. 1973)). Rather, as will be shown below, Respondent had<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">adequate<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">rules governing well control</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">,</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>which Complainant repeatedly cites as evidence of knowledge, recognition, and abatement</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">. Additionally, to the extent Complainant asserts Respondent failed to have proper equipment and materials in an operational state at the time “work commenced”, the Court finds Complainant failed to show Respondent’s lack of compliance or that such equipment was not operational at the time in question. Accordingly, based on what follows, Citation 1, Item 1 shall be VACATED.</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; "> </p>
			</div>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:81.6px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:81.6px; text-indent:-.635cm; widows:2; orphans:2; line-height:2; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; padding-right:20px;">A.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; ">Complainant Established the Existence of a Hazard</span></p>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Complainant alleges Respondent exposed its employees to fire and explosion hazards when it failed to maintain well control<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">as indicated in</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>API RP 54, Section<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">6.1.1</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">At trial, Respondent<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">stipulated</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>its employees were exposed to fire and explosion hazards at the worksite. (Tr. 835-36, 1567).<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">As Respondent’s brief illustrates, however, its stipulation was more limited than it appeared at first glance.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>Respondent contends<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Complainant’s allegation is fatally vague because it</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>“fail</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">[s]</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>to provide notice of an activity or a condition within Patterson’s control that caused the hazards.”<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Resp’t</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; "><span><span></span>
						</span>Br.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">at 29. </span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">In other words, while Respondent has conceded fire and explosion are a product of a loss of well control, it argues Complainant failed to define the hazard in such a way<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">that Respondent could reasonably be expected to exercise control over conditions or practices giving rise to that hazard. Notwithstanding the general nature of the allegation in the Citation, as well as the broad scope of the term “well control”, the Court nonetheless finds Complainant established the existence of an adequately defined hazard.<span>
						</span></span></p>
			</div>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:129.6px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:129.6px; text-indent:-.635cm; widows:2; orphans:2; line-height:2; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; padding-right:20px;">1.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; ">The Hazard Was Adequately Defined</span></p>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">“</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">A hazard must be defined in a way that apprises the employer of its<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">obligations, and</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>identifies conditions or practices over which the employer can reasonably be expected to exercise control.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">”<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Arcadian Corp.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, 20 BNA OSHC 2001 (No. 93-0628, 2004) (citing<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Pelron</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; "><span><span></span>
						</span>Corp.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, 12 BNA OSHC 1833, 1835 (No. 82-388, 1986)). A hazard is not defined by the absence of a particular abatement method but “in terms of the physical agents that could injure employees<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">. . . .</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">”<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Id.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>(citing<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Chevron Oil C</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">o.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, 11 BNA OSHC 1329, 1331 n.6 (No. 10799, 1983)). Whether Respondent’s work practices were adequate to address the hazard is a separate issue from the threshold question of how the hazard is defined and is better addressed under the rubric of abatement.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Id.</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">“</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">[A] safety hazard at the worksite is a condition that creates or contributes to an increased<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">risk that an event causing death or serious bodily harm to employees will occur.”<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Baroid</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; "><span><span></span>
						</span>Div. of NL Indus., Inc. v. Occupational Safety and Health Review Comm’n,</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>660 F.2d 439 (10th Cir. 1981). The Commission has held a “hazard means a danger, peril or risk arising out the employee’s work.”<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Integra Health Management, Inc.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, 27 BNA OSHC 1938, *5 (No. 13-1124, 2019). The existence of a hazard is established if the hazardous incident can occur under other than a freakish or utterly implausible concurrence of circumstances.”<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Waldon Health Care Ctr.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, 16 BNA OSHC 1052, 1060 (No. 89-3097, 1993) (citing<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">National Reality</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, 489 F.2d 1257, 1265 n. 33 (D.C. Cir. 1973).</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>The Commission does not require there be a significant risk of the hazard coming to fruition, “only that if the hazardous event occurs, it<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">would</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>create a ‘significant risk’ to employees.”<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Waldon</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, 16 BNA OSHC at 1060. Thus, the Commission has made clear “the criteria for determining whether a hazard is ‘causing or likely to cause death or serious physical harm’ is not the likelihood of an accident or injury, but whether, if an accident occurs, the results are likely to cause death or serious harm.”<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Waldon</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, 16 BNA OSHC at 1063.</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">In</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>a recent Decision the Commission reiterated:</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:13.333px; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px; margin-right:48px; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">In a general duty clause case, “[the] hazard must be defined in a way that apprises the employer of its<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">obligations, and</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>identified conditions and practices over which the employer can reasonably be expected to exercise control. </span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Arcadian Corp</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">., 20 BNA OSHC [2001, 2007 (No. 93-0028, 2004)];<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Peron Corp</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">., 12 BNA OSHC [1833, 1835 (No. 82-388, 1986)]. The Secretary must show, among other things, that the hazard was present.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel Corp</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">., 16 BNA OSHC 1218, 1221 (No. 89-3389, 1993).</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Mid South</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; "><span><span></span>
						</span>Waffles, Inc. d/b/a Waffle House #1283</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, 27 BNA OSHC 1783, 1785 (No. 13-1022, 2019).</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">In<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Arcadian</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">,</span><span class="style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><a name="ftnref15" href="#ftn15">14</a></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>the Secretary cited the employer after a urea reactor exploded in its chemical processing facility.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Id.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>The employer was cited pursuant to the general duty clause for exposing its<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">employees to multiple hazards, including flying debris, burns, and asphyxiation, resulting from the explosion.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Id.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>In the citation,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">the Secretary</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">documented</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>three conditions that contributed to the existence of the explosion hazard: “</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">(1) not shutting down the reactor upon the detection of leaks; (2) improperly monitoring the reactor for leaks; and (3) inadequately inspecting, repairing, or maintaining the vessel’s liner</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">.”<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Id.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">
					</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">The Commission held the trial judge erred in holding these three failures constituted three separate hazards.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Id.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>Instead, the Commission stated, “[T]</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">he Secretary has alleged that the urea reactor was not operated or maintained in a manner to protect employees from the danger of explosion caused by urea leaks that could erode the lining of the pressure vessel. That was the hazard in this case.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">”<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Id.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; "><span><span></span>
						</span>See also<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Pelron</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; "><span><span></span>
						</span>Corp.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, 12 BNA OSHC 1833 (No. 82-388,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">1986</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">) (</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">defining the hazard as “</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">practices, procedures or conditions which<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">increase</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>the likelihood of an explosion</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">” resulting from improper handling).</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">The</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>three</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>documented failures, on the other hand,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">identified potential abatement measures and illustrated Arcadian’s<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">in</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">ability to reasonably address the hazard.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">In the face of conflicting characterizations of a hazard, t</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">he Commission has noted it has the authority to define the hazard of its own accord.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Davey Tree Expert Co.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, 11 BNA OSHC 1898, 1899 (No. 77-2350, 1984) (switching definition of hazard from “</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">electrocution caused by a limb touching a high-voltage line</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">” to “</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">electrocution from a tree limb contacting a power line because of the actions of employees in removing the limb</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">” to illustrate a condition over which Davey Tree had control).<span>
						</span></span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Similar to</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Arcadian</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, Complainant alleges Respondent failed to<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">operate or maintain the drilling rig in such a way as to protect its employees from the fire and explosion hazards associated with a loss of well control.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Indeed, API RP 54,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">which is<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">cited as a feasible means of abatement</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">like the three conditions referenced in the<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Arcadian<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">citation</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, helps to frame the definition of the hazard.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">(Ex. C-2).<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">API<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Section 6.1.1 requires<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Respondent to<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">(1)<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">maintain<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">well control<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">at all times</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">and (2) ensur</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">e</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>appropriate equipment and materials are on location and operational before work begins. (Ex. C-2).<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Although Complainant did not specifically itemize the conditions that contributed to the loss of well control in the citation, at trial he</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>laid out the ways in which Respondent could reasonably be expected to exercise control</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, including: (1)<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">conducting flow checks to identify well control events</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">; (2)<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">shutting in the well in response</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">;<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">and<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">(3)<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">ensuring necessary equipment is available and operative</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">. As repeatedly noted in Complainant’s brief,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">these practices</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>are mandated by Respondent’s own well control policy.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">(Ex. C-32, C-59).</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>In support of its claim that Complainant’s allegation is fatally vague, Respondent cites to<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Baroid</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; "><span><span></span>
						</span>Division of NL Industries, Inc. v. OSHRC</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, 660 F.2d<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>439 (10th Cir. 1981). The Court finds Respondent’s reliance on<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Baroid</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>is misplaced. First, the hazard identified by the Secretary in<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Baroid</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>was</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">fairly simple</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">:</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>fire and explosion caused by an accumulation of gas near the drilling rig.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Id.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>at 443. While the allegation in the</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Baroid</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>citation is specific insofar as it refers to a gas separator and vent line, these are references to possible methods of abatement and are not necessary for establishing the existence of a hazard.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Id.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>at<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">444 (distinguishing between hazard of gas accumulation and hazard of using a gas separator in presence of a kick). A hazard, as stated by the 10th Circuit, is “</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">a condition that creates or contributes to an increased risk that an event causing death or serious bodily harm to employees will occur</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">.”<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Id.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>Just like the potential for explosion caused by the accumulation of gas in<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Baroid</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">constitute</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">d</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>such a condition, the Court finds the potential for explosion caused by a loss of well control satisfies the legal standard for a hazard.<span>
						</span></span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>Second, the quote<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Respondent relies on to argue a lack of proper notice is taken out of context.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Respondent contends the alleged violation description (“AVD”) fails as a matter of law<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">to “give reasonably particular notice so that the cited employer will understand the charge being made and will have a full and fair opportunity to prepare and present a defense.”<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Id.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>at 448.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Baroid</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>claimed<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">the Secretary’s allegation was ambiguous and that the Commission improperly construed the allegation to state something not<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">provided</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>in the citation.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Id.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>at 449.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">The 10th Circuit rejected<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Baroid’s</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>claim, at least as to<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">recognized<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">hazard</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>element</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">,</span><span class="style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><a name="ftnref16" href="#ftn16">15</a></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>noting that ambiguities in the citation itself can be resolved at hearing and still satisfy due process.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">See id.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>(quoting<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Nat’l</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; "><span><span></span>
						</span>Realty and Constr. Co.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>v. OSHRC, 489 F.2d 1257, 1264 (D.C. Cir. 1973) (</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">“So long as fair notice is afforded, an issue litigated at an administrative hearing may be decided by the hearing agency even though the formal pleadings did not squarely raise the issue.”</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">))</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">;<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">see also<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Babcock & Wilcox Co. v. OSHRC</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, 622 F.2d 1160, 1164 (3d Cir. 1980)</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">(</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">“Citations, however, are prepared by inspectors who are not legally trained and who should act with dispatch. For these reasons, citations should not be as tightly construed as other pleadings</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>[like]</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>a grand jury indictment, for example.”</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">)).<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">
					</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>Similarly, in this case, Respondent was given adequate notice of Complainant’s characterization of the hazard, how Complainant expected Respondent should address that hazard, and was also given every opportunity to rebut those allegations. Indeed, in response to allegations it failed to have appropriate and operational equipment onsite when work commenced, Respondent put forth evidence regarding the equipment it had on site, how it was inspected, and subsequent testing on the equipment to determine whether it was operational at the time of the<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">blowout</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">. (Tr.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">1305-1309, 1314, 1392</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">; Ex.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">R-10, R-18, C-22</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">). Respondent was also on notice as to how Complainant alleged it should have maintained well control, as<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Complainant</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>repeatedly referred to<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Respondent’s</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>well control policy and quick reference guide.</span><span class="style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><a name="ftnref17" href="#ftn17">16</a></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">As such, the Court finds the<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">hazard, as characterized above, provided Respondent with adequate notice such that it could properly respond to the allegation and, therefore, met the requirements of due process.<span>
						</span></span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">As a corollary to the foregoing,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Respondent makes much of the fact that well control is a multi-faceted process—one involving multiple contractors that have unique responsibilities with respect to well control—to suggest Complainant’s allegation of a hazard is fatally vague. While the term “well control” is broad in its scope, Complainant’s allegations are not so vague as to warrant dismissal on this basis.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Respondent points to Complainant’s expert, who testified every contractor on the site has<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">some<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">responsibility for well control and<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">noted one contractor could do “everything they have to do in order to maintain well control and you could still have a loss of well control if somebody didn’t do their part”,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">in order to</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>highlight the insufficiency of Complainant’s allegation vis-à-vis Respondent.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Resp’t</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; "><span><span></span>
						</span>Br.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">at 29. While the Court recognizes<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">well control is a process involving multiple<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">contractors</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>working in tandem</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">this testimony highlights t</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">hat each<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">contractor</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">has a part to play and, thus,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">understands quite well its individual responsibilit</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">ies<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">with respect to well control. (Tr.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">1836</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">). </span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">And, as noted by Respondent, the failure to follow through on any one of those responsibilities, including ensuring equipment is available and operational, paying attention and responding to indications of an impending hazard, and<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">shutting down, can have disastrous results</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Further,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Respondent<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">has specific rules regarding well control, requires its drillers to attend well control school, and has a quick reference guide, which discusses important<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">indicators of a well control event and how to respond</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">. (Tr.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">604</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">; Ex.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">C-32</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">). </span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Although the concept of well control is broad in scope,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">it has a particular meaning with respect to each contractor on a drill site, including Respondent</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, who, based on the evidence it presented at<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">trial, was more than aware of the practices and/or conditions over which Complainant alleged it had control</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span></span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>Based on the foregoing, the Court finds Complainant established the existence of a fire and explosion hazard caused by the loss of well control.</span></p>
			</div>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:81.6px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:81.6px; text-indent:-.635cm; widows:2; orphans:2; line-height:2; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; padding-right:20px;">B.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; ">Re</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; ">spondent and the Well Drilling Industry Recognized the Hazard</span></p>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">It is “[t]he<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">hazard</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, not the specific incident resulting in injury, [that] is the relevant consideration in determining the existence of a recognized hazard.”<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Kansas City Power & Light Co</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">., 10 BNA OSHC 1417, 1422 (No. 76-5255, 1982</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">).</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>“[W]</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">hether</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>or not a hazard is ‘recognized’ is a matter of objective determination.”<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Ed Taylor Const. Co. v. Occupational Safety & Health Review Comm’n</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, 938 F.2d 1265, 1272 (11th Cir. 1991). A ‘recognized hazard’ is a condition that is ‘known to be<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">hazardous’</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Georgia Electric</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>Co. 595 F.2d 309, 321 (5th Cir. 1979). This element is established by proving the employer had actual knowledge that a condition is hazardous.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Id.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>A ‘recognized hazard” may also be shown by proving the condition is generally known to be hazardous in the industry.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Ed Taylor</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, 938 F.2d at 1271 (citation omitted).<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Whether a work condition poses a recognized hazard is a question of fact.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">See<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Baroid</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; "><span><span></span>
						</span>Div. of NL Indus., Inc. v. OSHRC,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">660 F.2d at 446.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>“While an employer’s safety precautions alone do not establish that the employer believed that those precautions were necessary for compliance with the Act . . .precautions taken by an employer can be used to establish hazard recognition in conjunction with other evidence</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">.” Beverly Enters., Inc</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">., 19 BNA OSHC 1161 (Nos. 91-3144 et al., 2000)</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">(citing<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Wheeling-Pittsburgh Corp</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">., 16 BNA OSHC 1218 (No. 89-3389, 1993);<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Waldon</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, 16 BNA OSHC at 1061–62.</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Industry recognition may be shown through the knowledge or understanding of safety experts familiar with the workplace conditions or the hazard in question.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">See Kelly Springfield Tire<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Co. v. Donovan</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, 729 F.2d 317, 322 (5th Cir. 1984)</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">(“The [industry] recognition standard centers on ‘the common knowledge of safety experts who are familiar with the circumstances of the industry or activity in question.’” (citation omitted));<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Beverly Enters., Inc</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">., 19 BNA OSHC at 1187 (consolidated) (same).</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">The Commission has held industry standards and guidelines, such as those published by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI), are evidence of industry recognition.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Kokosing Constr</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Co., Inc</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">., 17 BNA OSHC at 1873;<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Cargill, Inc</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">., 10 BNA OSHC 1398, 1402 (No. 78–5707, 1982). Probative evidence of industry recognition includes, amongst other things, voluntary industry standards, such as those published by ANSI, NFPA, and API.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">See, e.g., Cargill, Inc.,</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>10 BNA OSHC at 1398 (NFPA);<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Kokosing Constr. Co</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">., 17 BNA OSHC at 1873 (ANSI);<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Duriron</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; "><span><span></span>
						</span>Co</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">., 11 BNA OSHC 1405, 1407 n.2 (No. 77-2847, 1983)</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">(NIOSH).</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">During the testimony of Steven Kirby, Complainant’s Oklahoma City Office Area Director, Respondent stipulated that fire and explosions are recognized hazards in the industry.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>While this stipulation, as it were, is akin to Respondent’s qualified stipulation regarding the existence of a hazard,</span><span class="style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><a name="ftnref18" href="#ftn18">17</a></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>the Court nonetheless finds Respondent and its industry recognize the hazard of fire and explosion caused by a loss of well control.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">See Wiley Organics, Inc.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, 17 BNA OSHC at 1591 (“</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">A hazard may be recognized by either the individual employer itself or its industry.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">”). Although Respondent may disagree as to the adequacy of the allegation and whether it<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">has the ability to</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>control the conditions or practices that could lead to a loss of well control, it cannot reasonably dispute</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>fire and explosions stemming from a loss of well control are a recognized hazard. </span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Nearly every individual that testified admitted the failure to properly institute well control procedures, which are referenced in both the API standards and Respondent’s own safety policy, can lead to the type of fire and explosion experienced at the Pryor Trust well site on<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">January 22, 2018. Accordingly, the Court finds<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Complainant has met it burden and<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">established<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">the hazard was recognized</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>by both Respondent and the industry</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">.<span>
						</span></span></p>
			</div>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:81.6px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:81.6px; text-indent:-.635cm; widows:2; orphans:2; line-height:2; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; padding-right:20px;">C.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; ">Respondent’s Employees Were Exposed to a Serious and Fatal Hazard</span></p>
			<div>
				<p style="margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:6.6px; line-height:2; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">One of the elements often glossed over in the general duty clause analysis is the question of whether the<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">hazard was likely to cause serious harm or death.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">See Mosser Constr.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, 23 BNA OSHC 1044, 1047 (No. 08-0631, 2010) (“</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">If the possible injury addressed by a regulation is death or serious physical harm, a violation of the regulation is serious.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">”).</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>Oftentimes, this is due to an employee being seriously injured or killed by the hazard created by the violation</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Injuries to employees constitute at least<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">prima facie</span><span style="font-size:12pt; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>evidence the hazard was likely to cause death or serious injury.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">See e.g.,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Usery</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; "><span><span></span>
						</span>v. Marquette Cement Mfg. Co.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, 568 F.2d 902, 910 (2d Cir. 1977)</span><span style="font-size:12pt; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">(“The fact that the activity in question actually caused one death constitutes at least<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">prima facie</span><span style="font-size:12pt; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>evidence of likelihood: ‘the potential for injury is indicated on the record by [the] death and, of course, by common sense.’</span><span style="font-size:12pt; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">”<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">quoting</span><span style="font-size:12pt; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">National Realty</span><span style="font-size:12pt; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, 489 F.2d at 1265 n. 33.”</span><span style="font-size:12pt; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">)</span><span style="font-size:12pt; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">)</span><span style="font-size:12pt; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Such is the case here, where three of Respondent’s employees were killed in the blast resulting from the loss of well control. As such, it is not a stretch to say Respondent’s employees were also exposed to<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">the above-described hazard. </span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">See Fabricated Metal Prods., Inc.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">18 BNA OSHC 1072, 1074 (No. 93-1853, 1997) (holding to prove exposure, Complainant must show “that it is reasonably predictable either by operational necessity or otherwise (including inadvertence), that employees have been, are, or will be in the zone of danger.”). </span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Though the question of the serious</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">ness</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>of the hazard and Respondent’s employees’ exposure to it are simple matters, the question of whether Respondent should be held liable for that exposure is another matter. Respondent takes issue with what it characterizes as Complainant’s “alternative theory” of liability regarding Respondent’s status as an exposing<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">employer on a multi-employer worksite.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Although somewhat difficult to parse through, the gist of Respondent’s argument appears to be that it cannot be held liable for a violation of the general duty clause under a multi-employer theory</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>and that any allegation premised on that theory should be vacated.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">See<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Resp’t</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; "><span><span></span>
						</span>Br.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">at 46-49. Respondent’s</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>argument<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">is misguided for two reasons.<span>
						</span></span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">First, the situations in which multi-employer liability is a concern are</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>typically</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>limited to<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">situations where the Secretary characterizes an</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>employer<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">as<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">“controlling” or “creating”<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">and the determination of exposure includes employees of companies other than the employer being cited</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">.</span><span class="style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><a name="ftnref19" href="#ftn19">18</a></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">See<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Hensel Phelps Constr. Co.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, 909 F.3d 723, 728-29, 737 (5th Cir. 2018) (citing to and approving of application of multi-employer policy under 29 U.S.C. § 654(a)(2)). Complainant has not alleged Respondent is either a creating or controlling employer, nor has it sought to hold Respondent<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">liable for exposing employees of the other contractors at the worksite. Instead, Complainant has merely alleged Respondent exposed its own employees to fire and explosion hazards caused by a loss of well control.<span>
						</span></span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>This leads to the second point: Complainant is not alleging multi-employer liability. Respondent is correct that the language of the general duty clause, section 5(a)(1) does not permit the application of multi-employer liability.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">See i</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">d.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>at 731-32 (distinguishing an employer’s responsibilities under 5(a)(1), which flow to “each of his employees”, from its responsibilities under 5(a)(2), which merely requires compliance with “standards promulgated under this chapter”).</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>However, an employer can be<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">cited</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>under the general duty clause on a worksite that happens to have multiple employers so long as Complainant is<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">only alleging the employees exposed belong to the employer cited.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">S</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">imply because a violation occurred on a worksite with<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">multiple employers does not<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">de facto</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">preclude Complainant from issuing a citation under the general duty clause. Instead, it only precludes Complainant from alleging Respondent is responsible for all exposed employees at the worksite, regardless of who their employer is.<span>
						</span></span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>Because Complainant only seeks to hold Respondent liable for the exposure of its own employees,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">there are no multi-employer concerns involved in this case.</span><span class="style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><a name="ftnref20" href="#ftn20">19</a></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Respondent’s argument is rejected.</span><span class="style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><a name="ftnref21" href="#ftn21">20</a></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">The Court finds Complainant has<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">met his burden and established Respondent’s employees were exposed</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>to serious and fatal injuries.</span></p>
			</div>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:81.6px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:81.6px; text-indent:-.635cm; widows:2; orphans:2; line-height:2; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; padding-right:20px;">D.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; ">Respondent Knew or Could have Known of<span>
					</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; ">the<span>
					</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; ">Hazard</span></p>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Although not explicitly stated as an element of the<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">general duty<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">clause</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>analysis, Complainant is nonetheless obligated to prove Respondent knew of the violation.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">See, e.g., Tampa Shipyards Inc.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, 15 BNA OSHC 1533 (No. 86-360<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">et. al.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, 1992).<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">To prove this, Complainant must show Respondent knew or, with the exercise of reasonable diligence, could have known of the violation.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Dun-Par Engineered Form Co.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, 12 BNA OSHC 1962, 1965 (No. 82-928, 1986).<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Whether an employer has exercised reasonable diligence is a question of fact that “will vary with the facts of each case.” </span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Martin v. OSHRC</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, 947 F.2d 1483, 1484 (11th Cir. 1991);<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">see also</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Centex-Rooney Constr. Co.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, 16 BNA OSHC 2127, 2129 (No. 92–0851, 1994)</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">(finding that a preponderance of the evidence established the cited employer was reasonably diligent);<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Precision Concrete Constr.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, 19 BNA OSHC 1404, 1407 (No. 99-0707, 2001)</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">(noting that Secretary has burden of identifying what reasonable diligence required).</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">“</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">In assessing reasonable diligence</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, the Commission has considered ‘several factors, including the employer’s obligation to have adequate work rules and training programs, to adequately supervise employees, to anticipate hazards to which employees may be exposed, and to take measures to prevent the occurrence of violations.’”<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Gen. Motors Corp</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">., 22 BNA OSHC 1019, 1030, 2004-09 CCH OSHD ¶ 32,928, pp. 53,611-12 (No. 91-2834E, 2007)</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">(consolidated) (citation omitted</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">);<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Danis</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; "><span><span></span>
						</span>Shook Joint Venture XXV</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, 19 BNA OSHC 1497, 1501 (No. 98-1192, 2001),<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">aff’d</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, 319 F.3d 805 (6th Cir. 2003).</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>The key is whether Respondent was aware of the conditions constituting a violation, not whether it understood the conditions violated the Act.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Phoenix Roofing, Inc.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, 17 BNA OSHC 1076, 1079–80 (No. 90-2148, 1995). Complainant can prove knowledge of an employer through the knowledge, actual or constructive, of its supervisory employees.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Dover Elevator Co.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, 16 BNA OSHC 1281, 1286 (No. 91-862, 1993). </span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Actual knowledge is established when a supervisor directly engages in or sees a subordinate’s misconduct.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">See, e.g., Secretary of Labor v. Kansas Power & Light Co.,</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>5 BNA OSHC 1202, at *3 (No. 11015, 1977)</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">(holding because the supervisor directly saw the violative conduct without stating any objection, “his knowledge and approval of the work methods employed will be imputed to the respondent”). Constructive knowledge is established where the supervisor may not have directly seen the subordinate’s misconduct, but he was in close enough proximity that he should have.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">See, e.g., Hamilton Fixture,</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>16 BNA OSHC at 1073 *17-19,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">aff’d,</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>28 F.3</span><span style="font-size:12pt; position:relative;font-size:0.58em; bottom: 1ex;font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">rd</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>1213 (6</span><span style="font-size:12pt; position:relative;font-size:0.58em; bottom: 1ex;font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">th</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>Cir. 1994) (holding that constructive knowledge was shown where the supervisor, who had just walked into the work area, was 10 feet away from the violative conduct).</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Complainant contends Respondent was, or at least should have been, aware of multiple<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">conditions that gave rise to the fire and explosion hazards</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, including</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">: (</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">i</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">)</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>access to data indicating<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">the well was flowing when it was re-opened at 7:57 a.m.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">; (ii)</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>a disconnect between calculated fill and actual fill during trip out</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">; (iii)</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>mud gains during the BHA test</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">;</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>and<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">(iv)<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">visual indications of bubbling mud in the BOP. Respondent, on the other hand</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">argues</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>there was no objective indication a blowout</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">was about to occur</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">,</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>nor was there any evidence its employees were aware of any such indications</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Resp’t</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; "><span><span></span>
						</span>Br.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">at 40.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>As will be discussed below, Respondent misconstrues the proper analysis of the knowledge element by focusing on<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">whether the driller was<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">actually</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>aware</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>of the indicators identified by Complainant and</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>also</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>by suggesting<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">knowledge could only be established by showing its employees knew a blowout was certain to occur</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Neither of these are required for Complainant to establish Respondent knew or could have known of the existence of the alleged hazardous conditions.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Accordingly, t</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">he Court finds<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Complainant has established<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Respondent was aware of conditions constituting a hazard</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">.</span></p>
			</div>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:129.6px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:129.6px; text-indent:-.635cm; widows:2; orphans:2; line-height:2; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; padding-right:20px;">1.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; ">There Were Multiple Indications of a Hazardous Loss of Well Control<span>
					</span></span></p>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">As discussed in Section<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">III</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, above, there were multiple indication</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">s of hazardous conditions indicating a loss of well control</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Rather than addressing them collectively, the Court will discuss them in two tranches: the period when Respondent began tripping out from the bottom after the drill bit wore out and the period after reopening the blind rams. The Court has divided the events in this way because, at least temporarily, Respondent instituted a well control measure when it closed the blind rams so a new BHA could be prepped for insertion. Nonetheless, the Court finds the events prior to the closing of the blind rams are germane to the question of knowledge because they highlight<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">two</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>issues: (</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">i</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">) there<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">were<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">multiple indications of<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">a continuing influx of gas into the wellbore during the tripping out process; and (</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">ii</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">)<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Respondent’s drillers brought those conditions to the attention of the company man with the intention of shutting down the well.</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; "> </p>
			</div>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:177.6px; text-indent:-.318cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:177.6px; text-indent:-.318cm; widows:2; orphans:2; line-height:2; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; padding-right:20px;">i.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; ">Tripping Out the BHA and Closing the Blind Rams</span></p>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Prior to and during the process of tripping out the BHA to replace the drill bit, Respondent’s drillers and rig manager<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">were</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>aware gas was entering the wellbore and the primary barrier—mud—was not holding the gas down. According to<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">his assistant driller, Harold Cole Means</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, Ray had been experiencing kicks just before they reached the targeted end point of the well. (Tr.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">414-415</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">).<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>These kicks were illustrated by a consistent, 20-30-foot-high flare and increased volume in the mud pits according to the<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Pason</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>data. (Tr.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">643</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">). Ray had suggested mudding up to control the influx, which was overruled by the company man. (Tr.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">483-85</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">). Later, Ray attempted to close in the well in response to the<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">kicks but</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>was again overruled by the company man. (Tr.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">481-82</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">). Ray appealed to Thompson, the rig manager, but Thompson ultimately deferred to the company man’s assessment.<span>
						</span></span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>Ray was not the only one who recommended mudding up and shutting down.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Upon receiving Ray’s report about the kicks,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Deanda</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>also recommended mudding up before tripping the BHA out of the wellbore, but the night company man,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Blagg</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, overruled<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Deanda</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, too. (Tr.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">544, 634, 655</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">). Instead, he recommended using the orbit valve to control backflow and using the calculated fill to determine whether enough mud was being pumped into the wellbore as the drill string was removed. Although there were some minor discrepancies during the horizontal trip, the night crew was able to render the well static prior to tripping out of the vertical portion of the well</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>by circulating the mud and burning off excess gas.<span>
						</span></span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>The real troubles began with the vertical trip.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">First, the drill string became plugged, which forced Respondent to trip the pipe out wet and prevented the crew from circulating the mud to the mud-gas separator. This, in turn, should have impacted the calculated fill calculation, which was noted by<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Deanda</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, but ignored by<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Blagg</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">. (Tr.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">672-75</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">).<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">According to the initial calculation, the well should have taken<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">somewhere in the neighborhood of</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>45 barrels; it only took 8. (Tr.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">1612-1613</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">).<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">This means gas was still entering the wellbore and the primary barrier (mud) was not holding it back. According to Medley</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>and Thompson</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, this was particularly problematic because there should be no gas entering the well while tripping out.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">(Tr. 1142).</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Deanda</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>recognized this and yet failed to perform a flow check consistent with Respondent’s policy governing well control</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>Even after the BHA had been removed, but before the blind rams had been shut, the trip tank showed an additional 30-barrel increase even though there was no activity downhole.<span>
						</span></span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">The fact<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">the drillers</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">informed the company man of<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">the trip tank increases</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>and<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">discrepancy with calculated fill indicates they were aware of a<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">hazardous<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">condition</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">—the influx of gas into the wellbore</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">They both recommended increasing mud weight and Ray even<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">prepared</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>to close the well.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">The primary barrier was not doing its job and the secondary form of well control discussed by Medley—the safe release of gas—was not possible because the orbit valve was closed to control flow.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">While a kick/influx of gas does not necessarily indicate a blowout, that does not mean kicks are not hazardous. Both experts, as well as many of Respondent’s employees, testified the failure to recognize and keep kicks under control is what leads to a loss of well control and, ultimately, a<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">blowout</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">. (Tr.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">605, 799, 982, 1024, 1399, 1928</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">). </span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">All of this was known by Ray,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Deanda</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, and Thompson. Just because the</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">ir proposed abatement actions</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>were overruled by the company men does not mean they were not aware of the hazardous condition.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Though there is a legitimate question whether Respondent should be charged with knowledge based on these conditions—especially those occurring prior to the vertical trip—at the very least, the foregoing highlights the drillers’ ability to both identify and act to control the hazard.<span>
						</span></span></p>
			</div>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:177.6px; text-indent:-.318cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:177.6px; text-indent:-.318cm; widows:2; orphans:2; line-height:2; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; padding-right:20px;">ii.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; ">Re-Opening the Blind Rams and Testing the New BHA</span></p>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>Respondent argues well control was established once the blind rams were closed around 6:15 a.m. on January 22, 2018, thus negating any hazard existing prior to that point because fluids</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">were prevented</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>from coming to the surface. However, as noted by Medley, Respondent never addressed the influx of gas into the well during the trip out, which they were not able to burn off through the mud-gas separator and flare line because that path had been closed during the wet trip.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>As</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>both experts testified</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, the act of removing gas is a vital part of well control.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Almost immediately after re-opening the blind rams, this failure became apparent.</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>Prior to re-opening the rams,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Thompson checked</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>the pressure gauges</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, which read</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>“0” and</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>determined</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>they could proceed with the test. (Tr.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">1131</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">). Once the rams were re-opened,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Carillo</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>testified they performed a visual flow check, but the evidence indicates the flow check did not comply with the minimum 3 minutes mandated by Respondent’s policy because<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Respondent began to insert the BHA within a minute or two of opening the rams. Simultaneous with re-opening the rams,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">the flow meter jumped to 18%, and the mud pits registered a 10-barrel gain in just a few minutes.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">According to both experts, neither of these things should have occurred if the well was properly controlled. In fact, both experts testified the 10-barrel mud increase should have prompted Respondent to remove the BHA and close in the well.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Respondent’s own policy<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">required the alarms to be set to go off in the face of a 5-barrel increase and<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">mandated the performance of a flow check<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">if there is an indication of a pit volume or flow increase</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">. </span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">None</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>of these things happened.<span>
						</span></span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>Part of the problem, as it turns out, was the audible alarms for the mud pits<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">appeared to have</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>been turned off. According to Respondent’s well control policy, the audi</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">o and video</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>alarms in<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Pason</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>were supposed to be set to go off whenever there was an increase or decrease of more than<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">5 or 10</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>barrels</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, depending on the setting</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">. (Ex.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">C-59</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">). </span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Many</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>of the day crew members testified<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">they did not hear</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>an alarm.</span><span class="style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><a name="ftnref22" href="#ftn22">21</a></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>That said, the<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Pason</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">screens were still available<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">to Ray, and increases of the type noted above should have registered a visual alarm. In fact, the<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Pason</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>data suggests Ray<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">was aware of the increases, because the system registered a reset of the mud pit volume to zero. Since Ray was unable to testify, the Court does not know why he reset the mud volume; however,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Garvin</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>testified this is typically done to ensure the driller<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">sets a baseline and</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>get</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">s</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>an accurate reading of the mud pit volume.<span>
						</span></span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>The increases continued unabated throughout the entirety of the test. Even before the test began, which requires turning on the pumps, there was an additional 21-barrel gain in the ten minutes it took to lower the BHA to the proper test depth of 250 feet.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Ultimately, the mud pits gained roughly 120 barrels of mud from the wellbore by the time the explosion occurred.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Even if</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>there was no audio alarm to indicate these increases, one of two things was<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">likely<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">occurring within the driller’s cabin: (1) the visual alarms were going off on the<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Pason</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>screens every<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">5-10<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">barrel</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>increase, or (2) the alarm never stopped going off because it was never reset by Ray while the test was being performed. Either way, the information was available to Ray, as well as other individuals around the worksite that had access to the<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Pason</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>data screen.</span><span class="style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><a name="ftnref23" href="#ftn23">22</a></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>Complainant suggests video and audio alarms were shut off, but the Court finds this unlikely. According to the assistant driller</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">,</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>Means, the audio alarms were annoying so the sounds would sometimes get turned off but noted the alarms would still show up on the<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Pason</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>screen. (Tr. 414). This was echoed by<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Deanda</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">. (Tr. 800).<span>
						</span></span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>In addition to the data and alarms, there were other, visual indications of gas buildup in the wellbore. According to Steve Wilson,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">who worked for the directional driller</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, one of the<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">floorhands</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">who</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>died in the accident<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">reported<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">that mud was “gurgling” in the BOP once the blind rams were opened. (Tr.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">296</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">). Likewise, though somewhat later in the process, Kevin<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Carillo</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>testified he told Ray</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>and the others inside the driller’s cabin</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>he observed</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>mud bubbling out of the rotating head on<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">the BOP a “cupful at a time”. (Tr. 107-108). </span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Ray</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>still sent<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Carillo</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>up the derrick to the monkey board. Shortly after he was positioned near the top of the derrick, the well blew out.<span>
						</span></span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">The collective evidence recounted above indicates a hazardous condition developed in the wellbore during the process of removing the BHA and continued to present itself throughout that process</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, as well as during the testing of the new BHA</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Both</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>drillers for Respondent believed the<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">gas influx</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>warranted shutting down the well or, at the least, increasing the mud weight to deal with<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">it</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>The fact they continued moving forward at the direction of the company man does not negate their knowledge of a hazardous condition. Further, the fact a blowout did not occur after they raised their concerns to the company man and<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">the rig manager</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>does not mean the condition was not hazardous</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">See Arcadian</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">20 BNA OSHC 2001</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>(“</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Thus, even if the reactor had not exploded, whether employees were exposed to the hazard of an improperly operated reactor could still be before us.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">”). This is not dissimilar from<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Arcadian</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, wherein objective indicators of a developing hazard presented themselves over time but were routinely ignored.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Id.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>Even though the reactor in<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Arcadian</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>did not explode on any of the previous occasions where a leak was identified in the reactor, a hazard was nonetheless present.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Id.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>Just because the company man expressed confidence in his work practices based on<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">past experience</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, or because the explosion did not occur upon Ray or<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Deanda’s</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>initial identification of the hazard, does not suggest there was no hazardous condition to be aware of.<span>
						</span></span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>At least initially, it appears as if Ray and<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Deanda</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>acted in accordance with Respondent’s policies in identifying well control issues, even if they ultimately deferred to the company man. Not only did they observe data indicating an influx of gas into the wellbore,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">there were</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>other indications, such as bubbling mud at the BOP, that reflected this condition and were reported to them. Other than the blowout not occurring until later in the morning, there is no evidence<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Respondent or the company man implemented secondary well control measures, such as bleeding the well, to rid the wellbore of gas that accumulated during the vertical trip other than closing the well in.</span><span class="style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><a name="ftnref24" href="#ftn24">23</a></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>Even then, the well closure was not intended as a well control measure to address the influx, but was rather a perfunctory action taken when the drill string is removed from the wellbore.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">The fact the mud levels continued to rise almost immediately after the well was reopened highlights this fact.</span></p>
			</div>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:129.6px; text-indent:-.635cm; margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:16px; text-align:justify; margin-left:129.6px; text-indent:-.635cm; widows:2; orphans:2; margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:16px; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; padding-right:20px;">2.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; ">Respondent’s Employees and Managerial Staff Could Have Recognized the</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; ">se</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; "><span><span></span>
					</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; ">Indicators</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; "><span><span></span>
					</span>with the Exercise of Reasonable Diligence</span></p>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:0cm; text-indent:1.27cm; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">“[A]n employer has a general obligation to inspect its workplace for hazards.”<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Hamilton Fixture</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, 16 BNA OSHC 1073, 1993 WL 127949 at *16 (No. 88-1720, 1993) (citing<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Automatic Sprinkler Corp. of America</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, 8 BNA OSHC 1384, 1387 (No. 76-5089, 1980)). The scope of that obligation “requires a<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">careful and critical examination<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">and is not satisfied by a mere opportunity to view equipment.”<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Austin Comm. v. OSHRC</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, 610 F.2d 200, 202 (5th Cir. 1979). Some factors to assess whether an employer has exercised reasonable diligence include an employer’s “obligation to inspect the work area, to anticipate hazards to which employees may be exposed, and to take measures to prevent the occurrence.”<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Frank<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Swidzinski</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; "><span><span></span>
						</span>Co.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, 9 BNA OSHC 1230, 1233 (No. 76-4627, 1981). Additionally, an employer “cannot claim lack of knowledge resulting from its own failure to make use of the sources of information readily available to it.”<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Wiley Organics, Inc. d/b/a Organic Tech</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, 17 BNA OSHC 1586, 1597 (No. 91-3275, 1996),<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">aff’d<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">124 F.3d 201 (6th Cir. 1997);<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">see also N&N Contractors, Inc.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, 18 BNA OSHC 2121 (No. 96-0606, 2000) (“Reasonable diligence implies effort, attention, and action; not mere reliance upon another to make violations known.”);</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; "><span><span></span>
						</span>Prestressed Systems, Inc.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, 9 BNA OSHC 1864 (No. 16147, 1981)<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">(finding employer’s failure to discover latent defect, whether because it failed to inspect or performed an inadequate inspection, illustrated a lack of reasonable diligence).</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>Respondent does not dispute whether a supervisor was aware of the conditions described above, nor could it. Rig Manager Thompson, the highest-ranking official for Respondent at the worksite, was privy to most of the conversations discussed above and even consented to the judgment of the company man when it came to a dispute over whether the well should be shut down the day before the accident. Although he went back to his trailer around 2:00 a.m. on January 22, he was back on the rig around 5:30 a.m. during the removal of the BHA and was present, though not on the rig, during the blowout at 8:37. (Tr. 1128). Thompson also had the<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Pason</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>data available to him in his trailer. (Tr. 1051). Further, according to Thompson, when he was sleeping,</span><span class="style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><a name="ftnref25" href="#ftn25">24</a></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>the driller takes over as the on-site supervisor. (Tr. 1088-1089). None of this was disputed by Respondent. Accordingly, Thompson’s, Ray’s, and<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Deanda’s</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>knowledge of the conditions is imputable to Respondent.</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">In an attempt to</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>argue Complainant failed to establish Respondent had knowledge, Respondent argues the Ray’s focus was likely directed towards the BHA and the three-man team responsible for properly inserting it into the wellbore. The Court has no reason to doubt this was the case. However, just because one hazard is more immediate does not obviate the need to ensure other hazards remain abated. Indeed, the whole reason for having audible and visual alarms set to alert at a predetermined level in the first place is to notify the driller to problems occurring downhole, like increases in the mud pit volume, when their attention might be directed elsewhere. (Tr. 1029). The fact the audio alarms may have been turned off at some point during the night shift does not change this result. The day shift driller should have (a) made sure the alarms were<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">turned on, or (b) noticed the audio alarms were turned off when he reset the mud pit levels, which could only have been indicated by the visual alarm at that time. The alternative, of course, is he left them off intentionally. Regardless of which of those three events were the case, Respondent, with the exercise of reasonable diligence could have been aware of the influx of gas<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">in excess of</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>the predetermined levels set by Respondent’s own well control policy.</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>Even if neither Ray nor Thompson was directly aware of the rise in mud levels, their actual knowledge of the condition is not the sole standard for establishing knowledge. As noted above, knowledge can also be established through what Respondent could have known through the exercise of reasonable diligence, which “requires a<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">careful and critical examination</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">” of the work area, anticipation of putative hazards, and the implementation of measures to prevent those hazards.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">See Austin Comm.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, 610 F.2d at 202;<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Frank<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Swidzinski</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; "><span><span></span>
						</span>Co.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, 9 BNA OSHC at 1233. Thus, Respondent cannot “cannot claim lack of knowledge resulting from its own failure to make use of the sources of information readily available to it”, such as the alarms intended to alert it to a kick.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">See</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Wiley Organics, Inc. d/b/a Organic Tech</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, 17 BNA OSHC 1586, 1597 (No. 91-3275, 1996),<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">aff’d<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">124 F.3d 201 (6th Cir. 1997). Nor can Respondent disclaim responsibility by stating, as it does in its brief, that “events taking place beneath the well surface, meanwhile, are the Company Man’s purview.”<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Resp’t</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; "><span><span></span>
						</span>Br.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">at 43. The alarms and information on<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Pason</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>are equally available to both, and the responsibility to act upon the information on<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Pason</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>and the alarms triggered by the pre-determined levels indicated in Respondent’s well control policy are explicitly assumed by Respondent per the policy.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">See N&N Contractors, Inc.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, 18 BNA OSHC 2121 (“Reasonable diligence implies effort, attention, and action; not mere reliance upon another to make violations known.”).</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>Ultimately, there was information available to Respondent indicating the development and presence of a hazardous condition in the wellbore. Regardless of what the driller or rig manager were<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">actually focused</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>on, or whether the company man had a simultaneous responsibility to track the information for potential hazards, Respondent could have been aware of the condition with the exercise of reasonable diligence. Indeed, Respondent’s own policy mandated an alert for and acting upon the very information presented to the drillers<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">during the course of</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>the night and day shifts on January 21 and 22, 2018.<span>
						</span></span></p>
			</div>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:129.6px; text-indent:-.635cm; margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:16px; text-align:justify; margin-left:129.6px; text-indent:-.635cm; widows:2; orphans:2; margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:16px; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; padding-right:20px;">3.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; ">The Rig Manager’s and Drillers’ Knowledge is Imputable to Respondent</span></p>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Under Commission precedent<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">“where the Secretary shows that a supervisor had either actual or constructive knowledge of the violation, such knowledge is generally imputed to the employer.”<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Am. Eng’g & Dev. Corp.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, 23 BNA OSHC 2093, 2095 (No. 10-0359, 2012) quoting<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Access Equip. Sys.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, 21 BNA OSHC 1400, 1401 (No. 03-1351, 2006).</span><span style="font-size:12pt; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">It is not necessary to show the employer knew or understood the condition was hazardous. </span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Phoenix Roofing, Inc.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, 17 BNA OSHC at 1079-1080 (citations omitted);<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Peterson Bros. Steel Erection Co.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, 16 BNA OSHC 1196, 1199 (No. 90-2304, 1999),<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">aff’d</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>26 F.3d 573 (5</span><span style="font-size:12pt; position:relative;font-size:0.58em; bottom: 1ex;font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">th</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>C</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">ir. 1994).<span>
						</span></span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Notwithstanding Commission precedent regarding imputation of knowledge, the Court is mindful that</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>“[w]here it is highly probable that a Commission decision would be appealed to a particular circuit, the Commission has . . . applied the precedent of that circuit in deciding the case—even though it may differ from the Commission’s precedent.”<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Kerns Bros. Tree Serv</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">., 18 BNA OSHC 2064, 2067 (No. 96-1719, 2000) (citation omitted). </span><span style="font-size:12pt; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">In the Tenth Circuit, a supervisor</span><span style="font-size:12pt; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">’</span><span style="font-size:12pt; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">s ‘rogue conduct’ generally cannot be imputed to the employer in the situation defined under Commission precedent.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Mountain States Tel. & Tel. Co. v. OSHRC</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, 623 F.2d 155, 158 (10th Cir. 1980).</span><span style="font-size:12pt; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "> Rather, “employer knowledge must be established, not vicariously through the violator</span><span style="font-size:12pt; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">’</span><span style="font-size:12pt; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">s knowledge, but by either the employer</span><span style="font-size:12pt; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">’</span><span style="font-size:12pt; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">s actual knowledge, or by its constructive<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">knowledge based on the fact that the employer could, under the circumstances of the case, foresee the unsafe conduct of the supervisor [that is, with evidence of lax safety standards].’”<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">ComTran</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">,</span><span style="font-size:12pt; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>722 F.3d at 1316</span><span style="font-size:12pt; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">.</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">As painstakingly recounted above, Rig Manager Thompson clearly dropped the ball at various points throughout the process of extracting and reinserting the BHA into the wellbore. However, his failures were ostensibly no different than any other manager who observes his employees engaging in misconduct—or should have been aware their actions were hazardous—and does nothing to abate the hazard. Rather,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">the failures in this case were almost exclusively in the hands of the drillers, Ray and<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Deanda</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, who were at the driller’s console when the hazard developed and, ultimately, came to fruition. Again, as recounted above, Thompson either was, or should have been, aware of the developing hazard when he was on the rig prior to and after the removal of the BHA. Even when we he was not on the rig, he had access to information in his trailer. In either case, Respondent’s drillers failed to act upon the information indicating an imminent hazard and Thompson<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">knew or could have known about the hazard developing beneath the surface had he exercised reasonable diligence.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>Taken at face value, and applied mechanically,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Mountain<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">States</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>would seem to compel the conclusion that Thompson’s knowledge should not be imputed to Respondent. However, upon closer examination,</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>the Court finds the facts of this case are not the same as those that confronted the court in<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Mountain States</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>and, thus, the Court need not mechanically apply the conclusion reached in that case.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">See Mountain States</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, 623 F.2d 155,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">supra</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">. </span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">In<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Mountain States,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">a supervisor and his subordinate got in a cherry picker to install new telephone wire.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Id.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>at 157. The supervisor was not wearing protective rubber gloves and was electrocuted when the telephone line he was handling contacted a live power line.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Id.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "> Using the rationale employed by many other circuits, the<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">court found it was improper to impute the supervisor’s knowledge of his own misconduct to the employer, because it relieved the Secretary of the burden of establishing knowledge.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Id.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>at 158. The court summed it up this way:<span>
						</span></span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:16px; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px; margin-right:48px; "><span style="font-size:12pt; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">When a corporate employer entrusts to a supervisory employee its duty to assure employee compliance with safety standards, it is reasonable to charge the employer with the supervisor’s knowledge actual or constructive of noncomplying conduct of a subordinate. Upon a showing of the supervisor’s knowledge, it is not unreasonable to require the employer to defend by showing the failure to prevent violations by subordinates was unforeseeable. But<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">when the noncomplying behavior is the supervisor’s own a different situation is presented</span><span style="font-size:12pt; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">.</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Id.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">(emphasis added). The Court emphasizes the last line because it highlights an important distinction between this case and the facts of<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Mountain States</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">. In<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Mountain States</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, the noncomplying behavior was the supervisor’s and the<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">supervisor’s</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>alone. Thus, the only path to imputing knowledge was the supervisor’s knowledge of his own mistakes. In this case, however, the noncomplying behavior largely belonged to the drillers,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Deanda</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>and Ray. While Thompson could be characterized as having engaged in noncomplying behavior, his biggest failure was being aware, at least constructively, of the drillers’ noncompliance (and of the developing hazard) and failing to act as a reasonable and prudent manager would in that situation.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">See Calpine Corp. v. OSHRC</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, 774 Fed. Appx. 879, 884 (5th Cir. 2019).</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>In other words, Thompson’s actions were more akin to the characterization described in the first sentence of the foregoing passage, wherein Thompson was the entrusted supervisory employee charged with assuring Respondent’s employees’ compliance with safety standards.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Id.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>As such, it is reasonable to charge Respondent with Thompson’s actual or constructive knowledge.<span>
						</span></span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">This conclusion is buttressed by<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">decisions reached by other circuit courts that have held a supervisor’s knowledge of his own misconduct cannot be the sole basis upon which knowledge can be imputed to his employer.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">See e.g.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">ComTran</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; "><span><span></span>
						</span>Group, Inc. v. U.S.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Dep’t</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; "><span><span></span>
						</span>of Labor</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, 722 F.3d 1304 (11th Cir. 2013);<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Quinlan v. Sec’y of Labor</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, 812 F.3d 832 (11th Cir. 2016);<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">W.G. Yates</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; "><span><span></span>
						</span>&<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Sons Constr. Co. v. OSHRC</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, 722 F.3d 1304 (5th Cir. 2013). In<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">the Eleventh Circuit, the court has distinguished between circumstances where the supervisor is the only individual involved in the misconduct and those in which he is both involved in the misconduct and<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">observes his subordinates engaging in the same behavior.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">See Quinlan</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, 812 F.3d 832. In the former, the court held just as it did in in<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">ComTran</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>and as the Fifth Circuit held in<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">W.G. Yates</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">—the Secretary must establish the misconduct was foreseeable.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Id.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>at 837 (citing<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">ComTran</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, 722 F.3d at 1307-08). However, when a supervisor is not the sole participant in the misconduct, but also knows (or at least should know) his subordinates are also engaged in misconduct, the Eleventh Circuit held this is more like the “ordinary case”, wherein the supervisor’s knowledge is imputable.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Id.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>at 842. The reason for the distinction is how the burden of proof is allocated. When the supervisor alone is both the source of the misconduct and knowledge, the<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Eleventh Circuit held the Secretary cannot meet its burden simply by showing the supervisor was aware of his own misconduct,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">or<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">else the onus would be on the employer to prove it did not know of the violation, which the Court found unfair and contrary to the law.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">On the basis of</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>the facts presented in<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Quinlan</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, however, the court found the Secretary met his burden by proving the supervisor, notwithstanding his own misconduct, was aware of the misconduct of his subordinates.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Id.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "> Under that set of circumstances, the court found the “‘fairness’ concern which was at issue in the<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">ComTran</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>case is not present in the instant situation.”<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Id.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">
					</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">In support of this holding, the Eleventh Circuit point</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">ed</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>to both its prior decision in<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">ComTran</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>as well as the Fifth Circuit’s decision in<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">W.G. Yates</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, both of which discussed the subtle distinctions at issue in this case:<span>
						</span></span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:16px; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px; margin-right:48px; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Indeed,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">ComTran</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">,</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>in this same footnote 2 at page 1308, cited with approval footnote 7 of the Fifth Circuit<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Yates</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>opinion as noting an example of the “ordinary case.”<span>
						</span></span><a href="http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=2009673890&pubNum=0000506&originatingDoc=I485b8317b69f11e590d4edf60ce7d742&refType=RP&fi=co_pp_sp_506_609&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Keycite)#co_pp_sp_506_609"><span class="style_Hyperlink style_Hyperlink " style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; text-decoration:underline ;font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Yates,</span><span class="style_Hyperlink style_Hyperlink " style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; text-decoration:underline ;font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
							</span>459 F.3d at 609 n. 7</span></a><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">. In that footnote 7, the<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Yates</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>opinion stated in dicta that the violation that was not appealed to the Fifth Circuit—i.e., the simultaneous violation by the two subordinate employees in the presence of the foreman—would constitute the “ordinary context” in which the “supervisor’s<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">knowledge ... is imputable.” The only difference between the facts underlying the instant case and the violation which the<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Yates</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>dicta said would be imputed is that the violation of the two subordinates in<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Yates</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>was slightly different from the simultaneous violation of their foreman, whereas the violation of foreman Pacheco in our case was identical to the violation of Vargas. However, we can perceive no difference in principle between the two situations. Although dicta, we believe<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">ComTran’s</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>citation with approval of footnote 7 of the<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Yates</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>opinion is an indication that the<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">ComTran</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>panel did not contemplate an extension of its holding to the very different situation in this case.</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Quinlan</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, 812 F.3d at 842. In other words, it appears both the Eleventh and Fifth Circuit appear to appreciate the distinction between the two situations described above.<span>
						</span></span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Though the Tenth Circuit has not<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">addressed<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">this<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">particular question</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, the Court thinks it likely the Tenth Circuit would<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">respond in a manner similar to the Eleventh Circuit</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">While it could be argued Thompson, by failing to act in the face of a developing hazard, engaged in misconduct,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">he was simultaneously aware (or should have been) his subordinate drillers also failed to act in response to the same indicia of a hazard. Thus, the Court is not solely imputing knowledge through Thompson’s knowledge of his own failures, but also his knowledge of his employees’. Because Complainant proved Thompson was, or should have been, aware of the hazardous condition and his employees’ failure to act upon their knowledge of the same hazard, the Court finds Complainant has met his burden of proof that Thompson’s knowledge should be imputed to Respondent. As such, Complainant has not been absolved of its responsibility to prove knowledge as a part of its<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">prima facie<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">case.<span>
						</span></span></p>
			</div>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:81.6px; text-indent:-.635cm; margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:16px; text-align:justify; margin-left:81.6px; text-indent:-.635cm; widows:2; orphans:2; margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:16px; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; padding-right:20px;">E.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; ">Complainant Failed to Prove Respondent’s Policies and Practices Were Insufficient to Abate the Hazard</span></p>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Complainant alleges Respondent failed to free its worksite from the hazards associated with kicks and blowouts and proposed maintaining well control “as outlined in American Petroleum Institute (API) Recommended Practice (RP) for Occupational Safety for Oil and Gas Drilling and Servicing Operations, RP 54, Section 6.1.1.”<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">See<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Citation and Notification of Penalty<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">at 6.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>API RP 54, Section 6.1.1 is essentially broken down into two requirements: (1) maintain well control, and (2) ensure appropriate materials and equipment are on location and operational before work commences.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Complainant contends Respondent failed to ensure its equipment was operational at the time work commenced at the worksite and Respondent failed to follow its well control policy when confronted with evidence the well was flowing.<span>
						</span></span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Respondent, on the other hand, takes a slightly different tack with respect to the issue of abatement. First, Respondent argues it did not control the<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">manner in which</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>work was carried out at the worksite, because that was the responsibility of the company man. Specifically, Respondent contends the cause of the loss of well control and, ultimately, the blowout was the failure to use the proper mud weight, which was the purview of the company man. Second, Respondent argues it did not have adequate time to bring the well under control once it became clear a blowout was imminent</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">.<span>
						</span></span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Ultimately, the Court finds Complainant failed to establish this element. While the Court<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">disagrees</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>Respondent did not have adequate control over the worksite or sufficient time to address the developing hazard before it came to fruition, it does not believe Complainant showed<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Respondent’s abatement methods were inadequate or that there were more effective means by which it could have freed the workplace of the hazard.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">See, e.g.,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Conn. Light & Power Co.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, 13 BNA OSHC 2214 (No. 85-1118, 1989).</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">
					</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">See also</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">U.S. Postal Serv.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, 21 BNA OSHC 1767, 1773-1774 (No. 04-0316, 2006)</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>(</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Where an employer has undertaken measures to address a hazard, the Secretary must establish that the employer’s measures were inadequate</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">);<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Pelron</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; "><span><span></span>
						</span>Corp</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">., 12 BNA OSHC 1833, 1836 (No. 82-388, 1986)</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>(</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Secretary may establish that an employer’s existing safety procedures were inadequate by demonstrating that there were “specific additional measures” required to abate the hazard</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">)</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>This, of course, is not to say Respondent’s employees acted<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">appropriately in response to the hazardous condition. Rather, the Court’s holding is premised on well-established precedent that employers are not strictly liable for violations committed at their worksites.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">See</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">National Realty v. OSHRC</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, 489 F.2d 1257 (D.C. Cir. 1973) (“Congress intended to require elimination only of preventable hazards</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">”).</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "> Instead, it is incumbent upon Complainant to show Respondent’s safety program, inclusive of rules, policies, training, supervision, and discipline, is insufficient.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">See<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">id</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">. Complainant failed to meet th</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">is</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>burden.<span>
						</span></span></p>
			</div>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:100.8px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:100.8px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="font-size:12pt; text-decoration:underline ;padding-right:20px;">1.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; text-decoration:underline ;font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; text-decoration:underline ;">Respondent’s Arguments Regarding Lack of Control vis-à-vis Company Man</span></p>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">The Court agrees with Respondent that well control is not a monolith. There are multiple aspects to controlling a well, some of which are controlled by the driller, some by the mud engineer, some by the company man,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">and so on</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">. <span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">So, we are left asking: what is the condition or practice over which Respondent could reasonably be expected to exercise control?<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">As discussed above</span><span style="font-size:12pt; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, Respondent was aware of and in control of the data, which highlighted the mud gains, regardless of whether the driller chose to pay attention to it.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">As a consequence of</span><span style="font-size:12pt; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>that knowledge and control,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Respondent also</span><span style="font-size:12pt; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>has control over how to respond, including</span><span style="font-size:12pt; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>whether to close in the wellbore</span><span style="font-size:12pt; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>and whether to evacuate its employees in the face of an impending blowout.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">(Tr.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">C-32, C-59</span><span style="font-size:12pt; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">). Similarly, in the face of a dispute over safe drilling parameters,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Respondent had</span><span style="font-size:12pt; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>the ability to shut down the job until the company man or his superiors and Respondent’s upper management could agree on<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">how to proceed in the face of the type of hazardous conditions observed in this case</span><span style="font-size:12pt; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">(Tr.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">1076</span><span style="font-size:12pt; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">).<span>
						</span></span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; "><span style="font-size:12pt; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">No one disputes t</span><span style="font-size:12pt; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">he company man</span><span style="font-size:12pt; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, as representative of the controlling entity,</span><span style="font-size:12pt; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">has controlling authority over</span><span style="font-size:12pt; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>the work</span><span style="font-size:12pt; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>of the various contractors</span><span style="font-size:12pt; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">as a general rule</span><span style="font-size:12pt; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Respondent is nonetheless obligated to ensure the safety of its own employees and is required to take actions<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">to</span><span style="font-size:12pt; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>guard against conditions present</span><span style="font-size:12pt; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">ing</span><span style="font-size:12pt; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>a hazard to<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">those</span><span style="font-size:12pt; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>employees.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">This is not only consistent with<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">the law, but also with the terms of the contract between Respondent and<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Red Mountain,</span><span style="font-size:12pt; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>which states, “Operator agrees that [Patterson’s] safety policies and procedures shall control.” (Ex. R-2 at ¶ 7.5).<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Among those procedures is ¶ 4.1.1, which states, “The Jobsite Manager reports to the rig floor and oversees well control procedures<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">in coordination</span><span style="font-size:12pt; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>with the Operator Representative.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>The Jobsite Manager is also responsible for ensuring proper use of well control equipment and the safety of all personnel on location.” (Ex. C-59) (emphasis added)</span><span style="font-size:12pt; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">;<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">see also<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">(Tr. 1689)</span><span style="font-size:12pt; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">The contract</span><span style="font-size:12pt; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>between Respondent and<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Red Mountain, which grants primacy to Respondent’s safety rules,</span><span style="font-size:12pt; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">recognizes this<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">division</span><span style="font-size:12pt; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>of authority</span><span style="font-size:12pt; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">. (Ex. R-2). </span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Moving beyond whether Respondent had any control<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">at the worksite<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">whatsoever, Respondent<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">specifically<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">argues the principal cause of the accident was the company man’s failure to order an increase in the mud weight to prevent additional influx and hold down existing gas</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, which was outside of Respondent’s control</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">There was no serious debate about this, and the Court previously ruled on Complainant’s motion to amend that mud weight was not under consideration as an abatement method at trial.</span><span class="style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><a name="ftnref26" href="#ftn26">25</a></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">That said, Respondent’s lack of control over this specific aspect of well control does not absolve it of its other responsibilities towards well control, especially when the evidence indicates it should have been aware of a hazardous condition. The<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">particular cause</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>of an accident is not a relevant consideration in this analysis. As argued by Complainant and as indicated in Respondent’s own well control policy, there were numerous ways for Respondent to respond to the gas influx in the well that were not solely based on mud weight.<span>
						</span></span></p>
			</div>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:100.8px; text-indent:-.635cm; margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:16px; text-align:justify; margin-left:100.8px; text-indent:-.635cm; margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:16px; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="font-size:12pt; text-decoration:underline ;padding-right:20px;">2.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; text-decoration:underline ;font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; text-decoration:underline ;">Complainant Argues Respondent’s Policies Are Insufficient<span>
					</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; text-decoration:underline ;font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; text-decoration:underline ;">b</span><span style="font-size:12pt; text-decoration:underline ;font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; text-decoration:underline ;">ut</span><span style="font-size:12pt; text-decoration:underline ;font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; text-decoration:underline ;"><span><span></span>
					</span>Also</span><span style="font-size:12pt; text-decoration:underline ;font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; text-decoration:underline ;"><span><span></span>
					</span>Uses Those<span>
					</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; text-decoration:underline ;font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; text-decoration:underline ;">Same<span>
					</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; text-decoration:underline ;font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; text-decoration:underline ;">Policies to Show Abatement Was Feasible</span><span style="font-size:12pt; text-decoration:underline ;font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; text-decoration:underline ;"><span><span></span>
					</span></span></p>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Complainant<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">explicitly argues Respondent’s<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">well control</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>program and policies were<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">insufficient to abate the hazard</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, but curiously points to those very policies to counter Respondent’s argument abatement was not feasible. In fact, a review of Complainant’s arguments shows each of their proposed methods to<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">identify a hazard and<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">establish well control are found in Respondent’s well control procedures. (Ex. C-59).<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Although Complainant’s brief appears to suggest Respondent failed to train its employees, there was no discussion of Respondent’s training or disciplinary program at trial, nor did Complainant submit any evidence to support such an allegation. Simply because Respondent’s employees failed to comply with the mandates of its well control program does not mean Respondent’s program is insufficient or that it failed to render its workplace free of a recognized hazard. There must be proof of such a failure. Complainant’s failure to so prove is fatal to its claim.<span>
						</span></span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">In a line of cases starting with<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">National Realty v. OSHRC</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, 489 F.2d 1257 (D.C. Cir. 1973), the Commission<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">addressed this very question: what is the standard of proof to establish feasibility of abatement when an employer has a policy that, at least facially, addresses the alleged recognized hazard?<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">In other words, what does it mean to render a workplace free of a recognized hazard?<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">According to the D.C. Circuit, the “actual occurrence of hazardous conduct is not, by itself, sufficient evidence of a violation, even when the conduct has led to injury. The record must additionally indicate that demonstrably feasible measures would have materially reduced the likelihood that such misconduct would have occurred.”<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">National Realty</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, 489 F.2d at 1267.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">National Realty</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>was cited when one of its foremen was killed while improperly riding on the running board of a front-end loader.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Id.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>at 1262. </span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Although there was evidence of repeated misconduct, the court found “the hearing record was barren of evidence describing, and demonstrating the feasibility and likely utility of, the particular measures which National Realty should have taken to improve its safety policy.”<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Id.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>at 1267. Because the Secretary has the burden<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">of proof, the court found the Secretary failed to establish a violation.</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Subsequent cases before the Commission extended the<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">National Realty</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>decision to its logical conclusion. In each case, the operative question was “whether the Secretary established that the company’s abatement methods were inadequate or that there was a more effective means by which [the employer] could have freed the workplace of the hazard.”<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Conn. Light & Power Co.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, 13 BNA OSHC 2214. This was particularly clear in<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Cerro Metal Products Division Marmon Group, Inc.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, 12 BNA OSHC 1821 (No. 78-5159, 1986), wherein the Secretary cited an employer for violating the general duty clause when its employees perform</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">ed</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>maintenance and repairs on a press without deenergizing it.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">The evidence showed Cerro had a work rule governing the conduct at issue, but the Secretary argued Cerro failed to effectively communicate and enforce its work rule.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Id.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Citing to<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">National Realty</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, the Commission held, “The burden of proof on abatement cannot be met by simply prescribing the<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">very methods already undertaken by the employer. There must be evidence showing how the cited employer’s safety practices were inadequate and how the safety policies could have been improved to prevent an accident.”<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Id.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>While there was evidence indicating Respondent had communicated the rule to its employees, the Commission was also careful to note “the burden is on the Secretary to show that Cerro’s safety program was inadequate.”<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Id.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>(citations omitted).<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">T</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">he ALJ, whose decision was on review, suggested the opposite. It is notable because, though Complainant alleged Respondent also failed to enforce the rule, the Commission noted there was a lack of evidence to indicate supervisory employees were aware of the alleged prior violations of the rule and thus the record failed to “establish<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">that supervisory personnel could have foreseen the need for additional precautions at the time of the accident</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">.”<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Id.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">
					</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">The problem for Complainant, as stated above, is that it failed to show what additional measures Respondent could have taken to improve its<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">well control program, nor did it<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">present any evidence whatsoever Respondent failed to communicate these rules or enforce discipline when those rules were violated.<span>
						</span></span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Complainant argues Respondent, under the well control provision of API RP 54, could have taken several steps to abate or materially reduce the fire and explosion hazard, including industry-accepted methods to prevent blowouts on two occasions: during the vertical trip and at the point the blind rams were re-opened at 7:57 a.m. on January 22, 2018.</span><span class="style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><a name="ftnref27" href="#ftn27">26</a></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">The Court will address Complainant’s allegations with respect to these two occasions as laid out in its brief.<span>
						</span></span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">First, Complainant notes the mud volume discrepancies during the vertical trip indicated the well was kicking and lays out the various points in time where the trip tank volume failed to track with the calculated fill</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>and noted, unlike the drilling operations from the day before, Respondent’s crew did not take steps to manage the influx. Complainant then goes on to note Respondent failed to comply with its Well Control Quick Reference Guide,</span><span class="style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><a name="ftnref28" href="#ftn28">27</a></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>which requires the driller to stop and perform a flow check for three minutes under those circumstances. Although Respondent closed the blind rams once the BHA was finally removed, Complainant contends Respondent failed to implement measures to control the influx during the trip or after the blinds were closed, which allowed gas to build up below the surface.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">In particular, Complainant</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>cites to API 54, Section 6.4.16, which indicates the choke or relief lines should be bled of to reduce pressure prior to opening the well. (Ex. R-6). </span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">As it turns out, however, Respondent’s Well Control Procedures require each of these steps to be taken. As noted by Complainant, the policy requires flow checks in response to various indicators/events, including when there is an indication of a flow increase, a pit volume increase, anytime the hole is not filled according to calculated fill values during tripping operations, and<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">before pulling BHA into the BOP stack when tripping out of the hole. (Ex. C-59). Additionally, Respondent has two sets of procedures that apply to closing and reopening the annular and blind rams, each of which address a build-up of pressures inside the wellbore. (Ex. C-59 at ¶¶ 4.11, 4.12). </span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">While the annular and rams are closed, the flow lines are required to be shut off—albeit in a specific arrangement—and casing pressure is supposed to be monitored with “appropriate alarms set” using the EDR (electronic data recording) system. Prior to<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">opening the annular and rams,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Respondent’s</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>well control procedures require a set of seven steps to ensure<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">pressure has not built up while they were closed, including</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>“a visual verification of the choke valve alignment shall be performed ensuring that there are not closed valves after the remote choke”</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, followed by</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>opening the remote choke<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">and, if possible, verifying returns at the shakers. (</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Tr. 85;<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Ex. C-59 at ¶ 4.12). After verifying returns, if any, the procedures direct crew members to “verify that the casing pressure reads zero on the EDR and manual gauge at the choke manifold.” (</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Id.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">). In other words,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Respondent’s</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>well control procedures require exactly the type of abatement Complainant recommends through the implementation of API RP 54.<span>
						</span></span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Second,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Complainant argues that, once the rams were opened, Respondent failed to maintain well control, ignored indications it lost well control, and did not take steps to regain control<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">at multiple points<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">over the roughly 40-minute time span between when the blind rams were open and when the blowout occurred. Again, Complainant</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>notes the API indicates a well should be shut</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">-</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">in once a kick is detected and expresses a preference for a hard shut-in. (Ex. C-3). Complainant also notes<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Respondent’s Well Control Quick Reference Guide<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">indicates how to identify a well control event; how to manage a well control event under a particular set of circumstances, such as tripping or drilling; and the preferred methods for shutting in and killing the well</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">. (Ex. C-32; C-59). </span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Just as before, Complainant’s recommended abatement measures,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">i.e.,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">following the API Recommended Practices, are found within Respondent’s own well control procedures</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, including relieving pressure on the wellbore<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">through the use of</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>the choke valves and verifying pressure on the EDR and on the manual gauge on the choke manifold.</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Third, though not explicitly argued in Complainant’s brief, but discussed at trial, was the suggestion Respondent could have closed the annular rams around the drill string and evacuated the drill platform to a place of safety. This particular methodology was argued at length as a method to abate the hazard insofar as it placed employees out of harm’s way; though most agreed it was not a method of well control, which was the focus of Complainant’s allegation.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Nevertheless, the Court would like to address this<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">particular issue</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>for two reasons: (1) Respondent claimed closing the annular would present a greater hazard than attempting to remove the BHA and close the blind rams; and (2) even if that were the case, Complainant<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">failed to establish a deficiency in Respondent’s safety program</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>because Respondent’s well control procedures included a close-in and evacuate procedure.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">As to (1), the evidence regarding whether closing the annular around the drill string would have caused a greater hazard was little more than speculation. There was no evidence to suggest the pressure built up inside the wellbore exceeded the downward force of the BHA and drill string such that they would have shot out of the well. According to Medley, he would need to know<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">the differential between pipe weight, including the BHA, and wellhead pressure.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>(Tr.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">1647</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">). While Respondent’s assertion could be based, in part, on experience, neither expert explicitly concluded the hazard posed by closing the annular and evacuating the rig was greater than the explosion that ultimately occurred from attempting to remove the drill string and BHA before the well blew out, and neither will the Court. That said, as to (2), the Court finds Respondent had multiple procedures addressing a potential blowout, depending on the situation it faced, including when “the string is too far up the wellbore to kill the well or is at risk of getting<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">pushed out of the hole”</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>or a “shallow gas event”. (Ex. C-59 at ¶¶ 4.52, 4.6). In either case, Respondent had a procedure for such an eventuality.</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Ultimately, Complainant points out the myriad ways in which Respondent’s crews failed to recognize and react to the growing indications of a hazard developing in the wellbore. What Complainant failed to do is show how Respondent’s safety program was inadequate to address the hazard. For each identified failure, Complainant points out how API RP 54 is an effective and feasible means of abatement while simultaneously pointing out that Respondent’s own well control safety procedures require the exact same<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">methodology. Complainant has not shown any deficiency in Respondent’s program, nor has it shown how the API Recommended Practice serves as a more effective means of abatement. In fact, it appears as if Respondent’s procedures closely track, and to some<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">extent</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>are likely based on, the abatement methods Complainant identifies within the API Recommended Practice</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">s</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">. Complainant’s failure to establish Respondent’s existing program is deficient—or how API RP 54 is more effective—without more, is fatal to this<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">particular claim</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">.<span>
						</span></span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Perhaps<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">in an attempt to</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>remedy this shortcoming,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Complainant appears to claim</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, without putting forth additional evidence,</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>Respondent’s safety program is deficient in the<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">way</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>it is communicated and enforced.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">The Court<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">notes Complainant did not allege this as a basis for<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">abatement.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">In support of its argument, Complainant cites to<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">SeaWorld of Florida, LLC v. Perez</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, 748 F.3d 1202, 1215 (D.C. Cir. 2014), and parenthetically notes the court held SeaWorld’s existing safety program to be inadequate where evidence showed employer’s training and protocols did not prevent continued incidents of killer whales causing injuries and deaths.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">In<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">SeaWorld</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, the circuit court was addressing the quality of pre-existing abatement measures that failed to prevent three separate incidents, including two deaths, involving killer whales on SeaWorld properties. Here, Complainant has not identified multiple, prior failures to prevent blowouts with the identified well<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">control procedures, nor has it specified the<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">manner in which</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>Respondent’s program could be improved such that the incident that occurred in this case could have been prevented.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Further, there is virtually no evidence illustrating the quality of Respondent’s training</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, its methods of communicating its<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">policies</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>and disciplinary program, nor any suggestions as to the<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">manner in which</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>it could be improved such that the Court could conclude Respondent’s existing safety program was insufficient to address the hazard.<span>
						</span></span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">In a general duty clause case, it is incumbent upon Complainant to prove Respondent’s safety program is deficient.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">See Cerro</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">12 BNA OSHC 1821,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">supra<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">(“The burden of proof on abatement cannot be met by simply prescribing the very methods already undertaken by the employer. There must be evidence showing how the cited employer’s safety practices were inadequate and how the safety policies could have been improved to prevent an accident.”).<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">The evidence presented shows Respondent’s safety program accounted for the alleged hazards in the same manner identified in Complainant’s proposed abatement. Failing there, Complainant’s only recourse was to show Respondent failed to properly communicate its rules, ensure its rules were being followed, and meting out discipline on those occasions where they were not. Complainant has not asserted, nor produced evidence, of any issues with Respondent’s training or disciplinary program. Because this evidence was Complainant’s burden, Complainant’s argument as to implementing well control measures consistent with API Recommended Practices fails. This is so even though members of Respondent’s on-site management were involved in the alleged misconduct.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">See<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">id.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>(Commission overruled ALJ holding employer failed to adequately enforce existing rule, which was illustrated by evidence of employees violating rule prior to accident, even though employee violating the rule was a foreman);<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">see also<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Mountain States Tel. and Tel. Co. v. OSHRC</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">623 F.2d 155</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>(10th Cir.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">1980</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">) (holding Secretary must establish foreseeability of<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">supervisor’s misconduct to impute knowledge).</span></p>
			</div>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:100.8px; text-indent:-.635cm; margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:16px; text-align:justify; margin-left:100.8px; text-indent:-.635cm; margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:16px; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="font-size:12pt; text-decoration:underline ;padding-right:20px;">3.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; text-decoration:underline ;font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; text-decoration:underline ;">Respondent Had Operational Equipment<span>
					</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; text-decoration:underline ;font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; text-decoration:underline ;">at the Works</span><span style="font-size:12pt; text-decoration:underline ;font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; text-decoration:underline ;">ite at the Time Work Commenced</span></p>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">The second part of Complainant’s proposed abatement also comes from API RP 54, which states, “Consideration shall be made to ensure appropriate equipment and materials are on location and operational before work commences.”<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Complainant argues there were multiple pieces of well control equipment that were not operational at the time particular tasks had begun, including trip out and testing the new BHA. These pieces of equipment included the flow sensor, the<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Pason</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>alarms indicating mud volume and flow, and the Pit Volume Totalizer horn,</span><span class="style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><a name="ftnref29" href="#ftn29">28</a></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>each of which Complainant contends contributed to Respondent’s failure to properly diagnose and respond to an impending blowout. Conversely, Respondent contends it was not required to ensure the operational nature of<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">each</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>piece of well control equipment before e</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">very change in work task. Instead, Respondent argues the term “work commences” refers to the spud date, which is when drilling commences at the well site. Further, Respondent argues it implemented a comprehensive inspection scheme, which ensured all its drilling equipment was inspected on monthly, weekly, and even daily basis. (Tr. 794-95, 1193-94).<span>
						</span></span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Based on what follows, the Court finds Complainant failed to establish Respondent failed to free its worksite of a hazard based on API RP 54. First, the Court is not convinced by Complainant’s interpretation of the terms “work commences”</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>as espoused by Medley; rather, the Court is persuaded by the interpretation provided by Respondent’s expert<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Reineke</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, who determined the term refers to the spud date, or when drilling begins. Second, even if the Court<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">accepts Complainant’s definition of the term “</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">work commences</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">”,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Complainant failed to prove Respondent’s safety program did not address these issues. In addition to having a comprehensive inspection program for equipment, Respondent also had procedures requiring the identified pieces of equipment to be operational.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Thus, just as the Court rejected Complainant’s argument regarding the sufficiency of Respondent’s safety program on well control procedures, the Court also rejects Complainant’s arguments regarding the availability and operational status of its equipment.</span></p>
			</div>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:148.8px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:148.8px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="font-size:12pt; padding-right:20px;">a.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Terminology</span></p>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">As illustrated by the parties’ arguments, the term “work commences” is ambiguous. This<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">ambiguity,</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>however, does not entitle Complainant to deference, as it was not promulgated pursuant to<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">its</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>statutory authority but was instead produced by an industry trade group, the American Petroleum Institute.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Thus, the decision regarding which interpretation to credit is within the Court’s discretion. Complainant argues the term refers to the beginning of each new task or job, whereas Respondent argues the term simply refers to the spud date. The Court agrees with Respondent.</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">In support of its argument, Complainant relies on the testimony of Medley, who has an impressive background as a professional drilling engineer and participant in the International Association of Drilling Contractors and API committees</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, and other sections of API RP 54</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">. Medley agrees with Complainant’s interpretation of the term and points out other equipment necessary to drilling operations does not need to be present at the spud date. (Tr. 1776). For example, Medley points to casing and cement crews</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">: n</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">either the crews nor their equipment need to be present and operational on the spud date</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">. (Tr. 1776). </span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Similarly,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Complainant points out<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">other aspects of API RP 54 that appear to support this understanding. For instance, Section 6.3.1 lists recommended practices that are supposed to occur prior to rig-up operations and suggests<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">if the term “work<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">commences” referred to the spud date, the most logical section would be in section 6.3 under preliminary rig-up operations as opposed to General Operations under Section 6.1. Complainant also points to Section 6.4.1, which permits the installation and testing of certain well control equipment while drilling or well servicing is in progress.<span>
						</span></span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Complainant’s argument is<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">unconvincing for<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">three</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>reasons.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">First, i</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">f Complainant’s interpretation is accepted, Respondent must perform an inspection of all well control equipment each time a new job/task is started even if that equipment was in use and operational in the task immediately preceding it.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "> For example, Respondent transitioned from drilling to circulating the well to tripping, and all the well control equipment was in use<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">throughout all three activities</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>Absent some indication the equipment in question was not operational or was not otherwise in use during the p</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">re</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">vious task,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">it is unclear why a driller</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>should be obligated to conduct an<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">additional<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">inspection outside of the schedule it already has established</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">. Respondent’s expert,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Reineke</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">,</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>who has both extensive credentials as a drilling engineer, as well as a lengthy career working in the field,</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>testified regarding these concerns. He<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">believed</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>Complainant’s interpretation would impose onerous and unnecessary testing/inspection burdens</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">on a driller, requiring a shutdown every time a pipe is tripped or perform a slightly different task. (Tr. 1976). For that matter, using Complainant’s definition, it is unclear what would constitute a new activity requiring equipment to be tested/inspected</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">.<span>
						</span></span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Second, Medley’s argument regarding casing and cementing crews is not particularly convincing because the point at which “work commences” is likely different for different crews.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Given the general nature of Section 6.1.1,</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>and its application to multiple contractors under different circumstances,</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>this makes sense. Indeed,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Reineke</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>testified, “Industry standard is work commences<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">on a drilling rig</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>when it starts drilling.” (Tr. 1975) (emphasis added).</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Third, the other sections cited by Complainant in RP 54 are very specific in their application</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>and do not support Complainant’s interpretation. Section 6.3.1 refers to the set-up of drilling and servicing rigs at the worksite and identifying surrounding hazards, such as power lines, pipelines, and underground utilities prior to<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">equipment<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">set-up</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>and, thus, prior to the work of drilling or servicing commencing</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">. Section 6.3.2 makes an important distinction: well operations, or the work or drilling or servicing, shall not be commenced until the rig is rigged up safely. (Ex. C-59). Section 6.3.4 talks about preliminary checks to be performed before the work of well servicing begins. As compared to Section 6.1.1, which addresses the importance of maintaining well control and having necessary well control equipment, the sections cited by Complainant refer to the set-up of the equipment necessary for work to begin. Likewise, Section 6.4.1, which allows well control equipment to be installed and tested after drilling in progress, is consistent with Respondent’s reading. Section 6.4.1 merely refers to the equipment<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">that is already<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">required to be<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">at the worksite</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>when work commences pursuant to</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>6.1.1.<span>
						</span></span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Ultimately,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Respondent’s interpretation of the standard comports with the nature of<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">its</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>work, whereas Complainant’s interpretation appears<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">calculated to achieve the result of holding Respondent responsible for alarms that were<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">purportedly</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>turned off</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">From the moment a well is spudded, well control becomes an issue, which is why it is imperative that all related equipment be on-site and operational at that time. Thus, a</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">s noted by<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Reineke</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>and many of Respondent’s employees,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">the rig and<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">all</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>its component parts go through a comprehensive inspection prior to drilling and<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">monthly</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>thereafter.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">(Tr.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">1305-1308, 1992</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">; Ex.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">R-18</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">).<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">In addition,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">the equipment is subject to regular inspection on scheduled intervals, depending on its function. (Tr.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">1314</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">).<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">To further buttress this inspection regime,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">each crew performs a visual inspection of all vital equipment at shift change</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>to ensure it is working.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">(Tr. C-22).<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">To impose an additional<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">testing/inspection requirement on<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Respondent, when the API already has other provisions for testing equipment<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">is redundant and unnecessary</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">. (</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">See<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Ex. R-6 at 6.4.7, C-118 at 6.25</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">).<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>The Court finds that<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">“work commences” on a rig when drilling starts</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>which is also the spud date.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>This finding is also consistent with the term</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>as set forth in the contract between Red Mountain and Respondent. Finally, the Court’s finding is consistent with<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">industry standards as testified to by<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Reineke</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Before proceeding to a discussion of individ</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">u</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">al</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>equipment items as set forth by Complainant, the Court finds<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">there was no evidence introduced by<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Complainant</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>which<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">demonstrated the individual equipment was not operational at the time<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">drilling commenced. In fact, Respondent induced testimony from the expert witnesses which indicated<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">the pieces of<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">equipment Complainant<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">identified in its brief<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">was fully operational when<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">drilling operations commenced. What follows is a discussion of the individual pieces of equipment focused on by Complainant<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">in supporting his arguments. </span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">
					</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">
					</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span></p>
			</div>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:148.8px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:148.8px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="font-size:12pt; padding-right:20px;">b.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Flow Sensor</span></p>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">The flow sensor, as its name implies, detects flow of mud from the well to shakers and provides an indicator that gas is entering the well. (Tr.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">1906</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">). </span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Complainant argues Respondent admitted the flow sensor was not operational at the time it began testing the BHA and had been faulty for a while. (Tr.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">746-47</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">). </span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Although there<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">was</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>some<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">testimony</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>the flow sensor would not properly calibrate</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>after multiple attempts</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">the Court finds this does not rise to the level of admitting the flow sensor did not function. T</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">he evidence shows the sensor registered flow from the well when the blind rams were re-opened at 7:57 a.m.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Complainant’s own expert testified th</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">at while there was a problem with solids clumping around the gauge and mak</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">ing</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>it hang partially open, the important function of the flow sensor was to indicate a change in flow. (Tr. 1906). According to Medley, because the</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>flow sensor<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">was still capable of identifying flow from the well</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>“it would still<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">be available to use to help maintain control of the well.” (</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Id.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">). </span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Thus, even though the sensor may not have been properly calibrated, it was capable of alerting Respondent to the presence of a hazard as required by its own well control procedures, which require the alarm to go off at 5%.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">(Ex. C-59).<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Upon opening the blind rams, the flow<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">sensor</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>registered an increase to 18%.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>Based on this evidence, the Court finds the flow sensor was operational during the<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">time period</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>alleged by Complainant. Accordingly, Complainant’s argument is rejected as to the flow sensor.<span>
						</span></span></p>
			</div>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:148.8px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:148.8px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="font-size:12pt; padding-right:20px;">c.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Alarm</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">s</span></p>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">The crux of Complainant’s argument is the state of the alarms and the PVT horn.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">In Complainant’s view, if the Court were to accept its definition of when work commences—which it does not—then Respondent would arguably be on the hook for not implementing adequate abatement measures</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">,</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>because the alarms were not in operation in the time leading up to and including the blowout.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">The problem for Complainant is<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">two-fold. </span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">First, although many people<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">testified</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>they did not hear, nor see, any<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Pason</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">-related alarms, the Court is dubious about whether both<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">t</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">he audio and visual<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">alarms had been turned off.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">As noted earlier,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Deanda</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>testified<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">it was unlikely the visual alarms would be turned off, and he testified he turned the flow/mud alarms on</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">. Further, shortly after the blind rams were opened, and in the face of increasing mud levels, Ray reset the mud pit volume levels on the<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Pason</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>data screen</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, which suggests he<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">observed</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>the rise in mud levels and noted a change warranting a reset to<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">verify</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>the gains he observed were accurate.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">At the very least, it shows his awareness of the information in<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Pason</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">.<span>
						</span></span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Second,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">and most importantly,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Respondent has procedures<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">requir</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">ing</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>all alarms to be “set on the EDR system and not disabled or muted once the BOP stack is installed.” (Ex. C-59 at 4.10).<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">See<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Cerro</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">supra</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Given</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>these facts, Complainant cannot show how or even whether Respondent’s<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">procedures were deficient when they explicitly required Complainant’s proposed abatement measures. There is nothing to suggest the alarms were not working</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">; there is</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>only<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">evidence indicating</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>they may have been turned off. The</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">re is no dispute that the</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>act of turning off the alarms, or the failure to turn them back on at shift change<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">pursuant to Respondent’s inspection regime,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">is misconduct under either the API or Respondent’s own rules; however, Complainant has not asserted</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, or put forth evidence to establish,</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>Respondent failed to communicate these rules, ensure compliance with them, or discipline employees when violations of the rules were uncovered. As with the abatement methods proposed with respect to maintaining well control,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Complainant has not shown a deficiency in Respondent’s safety program, nor has it provided a more effective alternative.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">In addition, Complainant<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">introduced no evidence to indicate the alarms and horn were not working on the date<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">“work commenced” on the rig – the operational date under API Section 6</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">.1.1. </span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Accordingly, Complainant’s arguments regarding the presence and operational nature of well control equipment under API RP 54 are rejected. The Court finds Complainant did not establish Respondent failed to free its worksite of recognized hazards through the<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">implementation</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>of feasible and effective means of abatement.<span>
						</span></span></p>
			</div>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:232.8px; text-indent:-1.27cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:72px; text-indent:-1.27cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; padding-right:20px;">I.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; ">Conclusion</span></p>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Notwithstanding the result in this case, t</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">he Court is mindful of the fact five people died<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">as a result of</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>the explosion that occurred on the morning of January 22, 2018. There were numerous failures on behalf of the company men and by Respondent’s employees that were avoidable and,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">in all likelihood</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, could have prevented this catastrophe.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Nevertheless</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, the Court</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">’s ruling</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>is bound by the law<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">and evidence presented to it. While the evidence shows<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Respondent’s</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>employees were exposed to a recognized hazard and Respondent, through the exercise of reasonable diligence, could have known about it, the Court finds Complainant failed to meet its burden of proof with<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">respect to the means of abatement. Respondent had extensive policies governing well control in place at the time of the blowout, and Complainant failed to show how those policies were deficient vis-à-vis the API Recommended Practices, which Complainant identified as a feasible and effective means of abatement. In fact, Respondent’s policies closely tracked the requirements of the API Recommended Practices in terms of preparing for, identifying, and mitigating the hazard.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">While<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">the evidence indicates<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Respondent’s</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>employees failed to abide by those policies—whether by improperly deferring to the company man, or by simply failing to do what was required—those failures cannot be attributed to Respondent because Complainant did not prove they should be.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Complainant</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">,</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>in his Complaint and Citation</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">,</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>did not allege<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">employee misconduct</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">—</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">and therefore training and<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">enforcement of Respondent’s policies</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">—</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">as a basis of abatement. </span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">The burden of proving Respondent’s well control program was deficient</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>in some respect other than its substance</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>belonged to Complainant. Complainant failed to meet that burden</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">. T</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">he</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">re was no evidence Respondent failed to communicate, observe, and enforce the requirements of that program. Accordingly, Citation 1, Item 1 is hereby VACATED.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:center; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline ;font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline ;">O</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline ;font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline ;">RDER</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">The foregoing Decision constitutes the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in accordance with Rule 52(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. </span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclus</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">ions of Law, it is ORDERED that:</span></p>
			</div>
			<p style="margin-left:48px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px; text-indent:-.635cm; widows:2; orphans:2; line-height:2; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="font-size:12pt; padding-right:20px;">1.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Citation 1, Item<span>
					</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">1</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
					</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">is<span>
					</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">VACATED</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">.</span></p>
			<p style="margin-left:48px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px; text-indent:-.635cm; widows:2; orphans:2; line-height:2; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="font-size:12pt; padding-right:20px;">2.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Citation 1, Item 2 is AMENDED to allege a violation of 29 C.F.R. §1910.128(b)(1)(</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">i</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">). The citation item is AFFIRMED as amended as a serious violation, and a penalty of $12,934 is ASSESSED.</span></p>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:48px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px; text-indent:-.635cm; widows:2; orphans:2; line-height:2; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="font-size:12pt; padding-right:20px;">3.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Citation 1, Item 3(a) is AMENDED to allege a violation of 29 C.F.R. § 1910.38. The alleged violation description (AVD) is amended to state, “The employer’s post-incident muster process<span>
					</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">do</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
					</span>[sic] not include documenting that non-Patterson workers were present and accounted for.” The citation item is AFFIRMED as amended as a serious violation, and a penalty of $12,934 is ASSESSED.<span>
					</span></span></p>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:48px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px; text-indent:-.635cm; widows:2; orphans:2; line-height:2; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="font-size:12pt; padding-right:20px;">4.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Citation 1, Item 3(b)</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
					</span>is withdrawn by Complainant.</span></p>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:48px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px; text-indent:-.635cm; widows:2; orphans:2; line-height:2; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="font-size:12pt; padding-right:20px;">5.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Citation 1, Item 4(a)</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
					</span>is withdrawn by Complainant.</span></p>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:48px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px; text-indent:-.635cm; widows:2; orphans:2; line-height:2; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="font-size:12pt; padding-right:20px;">6.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Citation 1, Item 4(b)</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
					</span>is AMENDED</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
					</span>to<span>
					</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">an<span>
					</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">“other-than-serious”<span>
					</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">characterization<span>
					</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">and<span>
					</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">the<span>
					</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">AVD<span>
					</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">is amended<span>
					</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">to state, “The employer failed to have documentation of completed training.”<span>
					</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">The citation item is AFFIRMED as amended, and a penalty of $12,934 is ASSESSED.</span></p>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:48px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px; text-indent:-.635cm; widows:2; orphans:2; line-height:2; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="font-size:12pt; padding-right:20px;">7.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Citation 1, Item 5</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
					</span>is AMENDED</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
					</span>to state that the violation occurred on or about January 18, 2018. The<span>
					</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">citation item is AFFIRMED as amended as a serious violation, and a penalty of $12,934 is ASSESSED.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
					</span></span></p>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:48px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px; text-indent:-.635cm; widows:2; orphans:2; line-height:2; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="font-size:12pt; padding-right:20px;">8.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Citation 1, Item 6(a)</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
					</span>is w</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">ithdrawn</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">.</span></p>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:48px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px; text-indent:-.635cm; widows:2; orphans:2; line-height:2; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="font-size:12pt; padding-right:20px;">9.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Citation 1, Item 6(b)</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
					</span>is AMENDED to allege a violation of</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
					</span>29 C.F.R. § 1910.1030(f)(1) and the characterization<span>
					</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">is amended<span>
					</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">to “other-than-serious”. </span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">The Citation is AFFIRMED as amended, and a penalty of $9329 is ASSESSED</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">.<span>
					</span></span></p>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">SO</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>ORDERED</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span></span><span style="font-size:16pt; font-family:Edwardian Script ITC; font-weight:bold; font-family:Times New Roman; font-family:Edwardian Script ITC; font-size:16pt; font-weight:bold; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Brush Script MT; font-family:Times New Roman; font-family:Brush Script MT; font-size:12pt; ">/s</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Brush Script MT; font-family:Times New Roman; font-family:Brush Script MT; font-size:12pt; ">/</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Brush Script MT; font-family:Times New Roman; font-family:Brush Script MT; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:20pt; font-family:Brush Script MT; font-family:Times New Roman; font-family:Brush Script MT; font-size:20pt; ">Patrick B. Augustine</span><span style="font-size:20pt; font-family:Brush Script MT; font-family:Times New Roman; font-family:Brush Script MT; font-size:20pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Brush Script MT; font-family:Times New Roman; font-family:Brush Script MT; font-size:12pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Brush Script MT; font-family:Times New Roman; font-family:Brush Script MT; font-size:12pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Brush Script MT; font-family:Times New Roman; font-family:Brush Script MT; font-size:12pt; ">____________________________</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Patrick B. Augustine</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">First<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Judge, OSHRC</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Date:</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>February 12, 2021</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Denver, Colorado</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span></span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="widows:2; orphans:2; "> </p>
			</div>
			<hr/>"
      <div>
				<p>
					<a name="ftn-1" href="#ftnref-1"></a> </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p>
					<a name="ftn0" href="#ftnref0"></a> </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p>
					<a name="ftn1" href="#ftnref1"></a> </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_FootnoteText style_FootnoteText " style="text-align:justify; ">
					<a name="ftn2" href="#ftnref2"><span class="style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">1 </span></a>. Three of the people killed worked for Respondent.<span>
					</span><span><span></span>
					</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_FootnoteText style_FootnoteText " style="text-align:justify; ">
					<a name="ftn3" href="#ftnref3"><span class="style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">2 </span></a>. Irrespective of the Court’s ruling on the Motion to Amend, and as discussed in more detail below, the Court finds the proposed abatement measures were either already included in Respondent’s Well Control Procedures or were otherwise not within its control.<span>
					</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_FootnoteText style_FootnoteText " style="text-align:justify; ">
					<a name="ftn4" href="#ftnref4"><span class="style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">3 </span></a>. As discussed in more detail below, Respondent was not the only contractor responsible for providing well control equipment.<span><span></span>
					</span>That said, one of the principal pieces of equipment required for maintaining well control is the BOP, as well as other related pieces of equipment, which are typically provided by a driller like Respondent.<span>
					</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_FootnoteText style_FootnoteText " style="text-align:justify; ">
					<a name="ftn5" href="#ftnref5"><span class="style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">4 </span></a>. Individual pipe pieces, which measure roughly 30 feet long, are known as joints. (Tr. 148). A string of three pipe pieces<span>
					</span>connected together<span><span></span>
					</span>is known as a pipe stand. (Tr. 148). When a drill string is removed or inserted into the wellbore, it is typically done one pipe stand at a time, rather than by an individual pipe section.<span>
					</span><span><span></span>
					</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_FootnoteText style_FootnoteText " style="text-align:justify; ">
					<a name="ftn6" href="#ftnref6"><span class="style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">5 </span></a>. The work performed at a drilling rig is broken up into two shifts: Day (6 am to 6 pm) and Night (6 pm to 6am). The crews work for a two-week period, known as a hitch, and then are replaced by a different Day/Night crew. Both crews are supervised by a single rig manager, who works for the drilling company. The owner of the well also employs two company men per hitch; their shifts also cover the<span>
					</span>aforementioned day/night<span><span></span>
					</span>split.<span>
					</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_FootnoteText style_FootnoteText " style="text-align:justify; ">
					<a name="ftn7" href="#ftnref7"><span class="style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">6 </span></a>. The weight of the mud, which in this case was oil-based, is dictated by the mud engineer based on his assessment of the well conditions. (Tr. 81, 1881). Based on those conditions, the engineer directs Respondent’s employees, specifically the derrick hand, to add chemicals, typically barite, to ensure it is sufficiently heavy to prevent the gas from migrating toward the surface. (Tr. 81-82).<span>
					</span><span><span></span>
					</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_FootnoteText style_FootnoteText " style="text-align:justify; ">
					<a name="ftn8" href="#ftnref8"><span class="style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">7 </span></a>. During the trip out, Respondent used the trip tank, as opposed to the mud pits themselves,<span>
					</span>in order to<span><span></span>
					</span>fill the wellbore. (Tr. 396, 455).<span>
					</span><span><span></span>
					</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_FootnoteText style_FootnoteText " style="text-align:justify; ">
					<a name="ftn9" href="#ftnref9"><span class="style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">8 </span></a>.<span>
					</span>Deanda<span><span></span>
					</span>testified that<span>
					</span>Blagg<span><span></span>
					</span>told Lucas to include LCM in the pill, whereas<span>
					</span>Blagg<span><span></span>
					</span>testified he did not provide a “recipe” for the pill per se and only requested that a pill be built and pumped. (Tr. 666, 1702). Ultimately, it does not matter how the LCM got into the<span>
					</span>pill;<span><span></span>
					</span>though the Court notes<span>
					</span>Blagg’s<span><span></span>
					</span>testimony regarding this matter and others was evasive and less than credible.<span>
					</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_FootnoteText style_FootnoteText " style="text-align:justify; ">
					<a name="ftn10" href="#ftnref10"><span class="style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">9 </span></a>. The occupants of the driller’s cabin, including Ray and the company man, all died in the explosion, so any testimony related to whether anyone could hear the audible alarm came from people working outside on the rig. The testimony was unclear as to whether the audible alarm should have been heard outside the driller’s cabin.<span>
					</span>(Tr. 552).<span><span></span>
					</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_FootnoteText style_FootnoteText " style="text-align:justify; ">
					<a name="ftn11" href="#ftnref11"><span class="style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">10 </span></a>.<span>
					</span>The derrick hand, amongst other duties, works on a perch toward the top of the mast known as the monkey board. (Tr. 62). From there, he pulls pipe out of, and inserts them into, the hole. (Tr. 62).<span>
					</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_FootnoteText style_FootnoteText " style="text-align:justify; ">
					<a name="ftn12" href="#ftnref12"><span class="style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">11 </span></a>. The descent device did not work as intended, so<span>
					</span>Carillo<span><span></span>
					</span>had to shimmy down the cable wire and was fortunately able to escape the explosion. </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_FootnoteText style_FootnoteText " style="text-align:justify; ">
					<a name="ftn13" href="#ftnref13"><span class="style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">12 </span></a>. Complainant points out that it takes 30 seconds to close the blind rams and calls into question why (1) it took so long to remove the BHA and (2) why the driller waited so long to close the rams. The Court would note that, although the data reflects a specific point in time where it stopped recording, we do not know whether Ray may have been incapacitated by the explosion prior to the point at which data stopped recording. In other words, the explosion itself may have occurred at a point in time prior to the<span>
					</span>Pason<span><span></span>
					</span>data being cut off. We simply do not know, and the Court will not speculate as to why the objective data does not reflect what might have been possible.<span><span></span>
					</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_FootnoteText style_FootnoteText " style="text-align:justify; ">
					<a name="ftn14" href="#ftnref14"><span class="style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">13 </span></a>. Medley also testified about primary and secondary well control barriers. (Tr. 1885). He described mud weight and back pressures as primary barriers.<span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">Id.</span><span><span></span>
					</span>Though he did not complete that thought, Lionel<span>
					</span>Deanda<span><span></span>
					</span>testified the blind rams on the BOP serve as a secondary barrier.<span>
					</span><span><span></span>
					</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_FootnoteText style_FootnoteText " style="text-align:justify; ">
					<a name="ftn15" href="#ftnref15"><span class="style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">14 </span></a>. The Court has examined Commission case law<span>
					</span>subsequent to<span><span></span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">Arcadian</span><span><span></span>
					</span>which have addressed whether a condition or activity in the workplace presented a hazard to determine whether<span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">Arcadian</span><span><span></span>
					</span>is still current case law. <span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">See Integra Health Management Inc.</span>, 27 BNA OHSC 1838 (No. 13-1124, 2019) and<span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">A. H. St</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">u</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">rgill Roofing. Inc.</span>, 27 BNA OSHC 1809 (No. 13-1817, 2018). The Court finds<span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">Arcadian</span><span><span></span>
					</span>is still current case law and the most direct case on point to the facts in this case. </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_FootnoteText style_FootnoteText " style="text-align:justify; ">
					<a name="ftn16" href="#ftnref16"><span class="style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">15 </span></a>. The circuit court, however, did take issue with a modification to the proposed abatement that was not fully developed at hearing.<span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">Baroid</span>, 660 F.2d at 449-50.<span>
					</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_FootnoteText style_FootnoteText " style="text-align:justify; ">
					<a name="ftn17" href="#ftnref17"><span class="style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">16 </span></a>. Though the issue of how Respondent should have acted to prevent the hazard is more appropriately discussed under the rubric of abatement, Respondent brought up the issue in its discussion on the hazard element, which is why the Court discusses it here.<span>
					</span><span><span></span>
					</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_FootnoteText style_FootnoteText " style="text-align:justify; ">
					<a name="ftn18" href="#ftnref18"><span class="style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">17 </span></a>. Unlike the question regarding the existence of a hazard, Respondent did not devote any time in its post-trial brief to the question of whether the hazard was recognized.<span>
					</span><span><span></span>
					</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_FootnoteText style_FootnoteText " style="text-align:justify; ">
					<a name="ftn19" href="#ftnref19"><span class="style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">18 </span></a>. In the arena of multi-employer liability, a controlling employer is one “having control<span style="font-size:10.5pt; font-family:Arial; color:#212121; font-family:Times New Roman; font-family:Arial; font-size:10.5pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span>over a worksite who should have detected and prevented a violation through the reasonable exercise of its supervisory authority”, whereas a creating employer is one “who causes a hazardous condition”.<span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">Hensel Phelps</span>, 909 F.3d at 728. In either case, the key to applying multi-employer liability is the assertion that employees other than its own were exposed to the hazard.<span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">Id.</span>
					<span><span></span>
					</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_FootnoteText style_FootnoteText " style="text-align:justify; ">
					<a name="ftn20" href="#ftnref20"><span class="style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">19 </span></a>. To the extent Respondent contends its lack of control vis-à-vis the company man is an issue, the Court shall address those concerns in its discussion of abatement.<span>
					</span><span><span></span>
					</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_FootnoteText style_FootnoteText " style="text-align:justify; ">
					<a name="ftn21" href="#ftnref21"><span class="style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">20 </span></a>. On the last day of trial, Respondent lodged a written motion with the Court arguing the same point raised in its post-trial brief. After Complainant filed its Response, the Court issued an Order which is consistent with the Court’s findings and holdings set forth in this Decision and Order. The Court’s Order dated<span>
					</span>November 21, 2019,<span><span></span>
					</span>which disposed of Respondent trial motion is incorporated herein by reference. </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_FootnoteText style_FootnoteText " style="text-align:justify; ">
					<a name="ftn22" href="#ftnref22"><span class="style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">21 </span></a>. Means testified he heard and saw alarms on the day shift prior to the trip out. (Tr. 414).<span>
					</span><span><span></span>
					</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_FootnoteText style_FootnoteText " style="text-align:justify; ">
					<a name="ftn23" href="#ftnref23"><span class="style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">22 </span></a>. Pason<span><span></span>
					</span>screens were in multiple work trailers throughout the worksite. (Tr. 621).<span>
					</span><span><span></span>
					</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_FootnoteText style_FootnoteText " style="text-align:justify; ">
					<a name="ftn24" href="#ftnref24"><span class="style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">23 </span></a>. While the Court recognizes the well was circulated prior to the vertical trip, which purportedly rendered the well static, there were continuing indications during the vertical trip that whatever control had been accomplished at the top of the curve was rendered moot by the influx of gas illustrated in the calculated fill discrepancy.<span>
					</span><span><span></span>
					</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_FootnoteText style_FootnoteText " style="text-align:justify; ">
					<a name="ftn25" href="#ftnref25"><span class="style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">24 </span></a>. There is only one rig manager per 14-day hitch.<span>
					</span><span><span></span>
					</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_FootnoteText style_FootnoteText " style="text-align:justify; ">
					<a name="ftn26" href="#ftnref26"><span class="style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">25 </span></a>. That said, based on the evidence at trial, the Court would not have found Respondent exercised sufficient control over the mud weight parameters to warrant upholding it as a feasible means of abatement over which Respondent had control in this<span>
					</span>particular case.<span>
					</span><span><span></span>
					</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_FootnoteText style_FootnoteText " style="text-align:justify; ">
					<a name="ftn27" href="#ftnref27"><span class="style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">26 </span></a>. The Court will address the availability and operational nature of equipment in the next section.<span>
					</span><span><span></span>
					</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_FootnoteText style_FootnoteText " style="text-align:justify; ">
					<a name="ftn28" href="#ftnref28"><span class="style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">27 </span></a>. The Quick Reference Guide merely condenses the procedures in the Well Control Procedures. (Ex. C-32; C-59).<span><span></span>
					</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_FootnoteText style_FootnoteText " style="text-align:justify; ">
					<a name="ftn29" href="#ftnref29"><span class="style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">28 </span></a>. At trial, other equipment was discussed, like the accumulator and super choke, which did not make it into Complainant’s brief. Therefore, these items are deemed abandoned.<span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">Georgia-Pacific Corp.</span>, 15 BNA OSHC 1127, 1130 (No. 89-2713, 1991). However, even if they had, the evidence showed the accumulator and BOP worked post-explosion and the super choke was a redundant system that, ultimately, did not impact abatement.<span>
					</span><span><span></span>
					</span></p>
			</div></div></body>
</html>