-I 

Claim Number 

Claimant 

Type of Claimant 

Type of Claim 

Amount Requested 

FACTS: 

CLAIM SUMMARY I DETERMINATION FORM 

912076-0001 

Helis Oil & Gas Company, LLC 

Corporate (US) 

Removal Costs 

$110,810.76 

On 1April2011, the MV Lia Jane, a vessel hired by Helis Oil and Gas Company, LLC (Helis or 

Claimant), was conducting trawling-type surveying operations for final site clearance after Helis' 

abandonment or the HI A-64 #1 well and flowline. 1 The vessel's trawl line became hung and, 

while the vessel's crew was trying to recover the nets from the obstruction, an oil sheen surfaced. 

The vessel cut loose the nets and moved away from the area. When the vessel returned later that 

day, it found that the sheen was gone and there were no signs of continued. release. 2 

The U.S. Department oflnterior Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation & 

Enforcement (BOEMRE) directed Helis' ~ctivities after the discharge. Claimant was ordered to 

conduct overflights to monitor for additional sheen until the source was identified. BOEMRE 

also ordered Helis to conduct an archaeological investigation of the object upon which the nets 

became hung. The object was found to be a sunken vessel (likely a shrimp boat) that was not 

historically significant. 

CLAIMANT and CLAIM: 

Claimant is an oil and natural gas well and pipeline owner and operator. Claimant operates wells 

and pipelines in the Gulf of Mexico. Claimant seeks reimbursement of costs incurred for the 

overflights and the costs related to the archaeological investigation. Claimant alleges that the RP 

is unknown. 

APPLICABLE LAW: 

"Oil" is defined in relevant part, at 33 USC§ 2701(23), to mean "oil of any kind or in any form, 

including petroleum, fuel oil, sludge, oil refuse, and oil mixed with wastes other than dredged 

spoil". 

The Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund (OSLTF), which is administered by the NPFC, is available, 

pursuant to 33 USC§§ 2712(a)(4) and2713 and the OSLTF claims adjudication regulations at 

33 CFR Part 136, to pay claims for uncompensated removal costs that are determined to be 

consistent with the National Contingency Plan and uncompe;nsated damages. 

Removal costs are defined as "the costs of removal that are incurred after a discharge of oil has 

occurred or, in any case in which there is a substantial threat of a discharge of oil, the costs to 

prevent, minimize, or mitigate oil pollution from an incident". 

1

0ptional OSLTF Claim Form 

2 O'Brien's Response Management Facility Incident Report dated 4/1/2011 

1 
Under 33 CFR 136.105(a) and 136.105(e)(6), the claimant bears the burden of providing to the 

NPFC, all evidence, information, and documentation deemed necessary by the Director, NPFC, 

to support the claim. 

Under 33 CFR 136.105(b) each claim must be in writing, for a sum certain for each category of 

uncompensated damages or removal costs resulting from an incident. In addition, under 33 CFR 

13 6, the claimant bears the burden to prove the removal actions were reasonable in response to 

the scope of the oil spill incident, and the NPFC has the authority and responsibility to perform a 

reasonableness determination. Specifically, under 33 CFR 136.203, "a claimant must establish -

(a) That the actions taken were necessary to prevent, minimize, or mitigate the effects of 

the incident; 

(b) That the removal costs were incurred as a result of these actions; 

( c) That the actions taken were determined by the FOSC to be consistent with the National 

Contingency Plan or were directed by the FOSC." 

Under .33 CFR 136.205 "the amount of compensation allowable is the total of uncompensated 

reasonable removal costs of actions taken that were determined by the FOSC to be consistent 

with the National Contingency Plan or were directed by the FOSC. Except in exceptional 

circumstances, removal activities for which costs are being claimed must have been coordinated 

with the FOSC." [Emphasis added]. 

DETERMINATION: 

A. Overview: 

1. The CG FOSC was notified of incident, but did not direct Helis' activity. Email 

correspondence provided by Claimant shows limited CG involvement, which appears to 

demonstrate the CG consensus with BOEMRE that the flyovers were for pollution 

response; 

2. The incident involved the report of a discharge or substantial threat of a discharge of 

"oil" as defined in OPA 90, 33 U.S.C. § 2701(23), to navigable waters; 

· 3. In accordance with 33 CFR § 136.105(e)(12), the Claimant has certified no suit has been 

filed in court for the claimed uncompensated removal costs; 

4. The claim was submitted within the six-year period oflimitations forclaims. 33 U.S.C. § 

2712(h)(2); 

5. The NPFC Claims Manager has thoroughly reviewed all documentation submitted with 

the claim and determined that the incident is an OP A incident. 

B. Analysis: 

The Claims Manager reviewed the documentation provided by the Claimant in support of the 

uncompensated costs as claimed. The Claims Manager focused on: (1) whether an OPAincident gave rise to the claim (i.e. whether there was a discharge or substantial threat of the 

discharge of oil into a navigable water of the U.S.) (2) whether the actions taken were 

compensable "removal actions" under OPA and its regulations at 33 CFR 136 (e.g., actions to 

prevent, minimize, mitigate the effects of the incident); (3) whether the costs were incurred as a 

result of these actions; ( 4) whether the actions taken were determined by the FOSC, to be 

consistent with the NCP or directed by the FOSC, and (5) whether the costs were adequately 

documented and reasonable. 

2 
Claimant argues that it is entitled to reimbursement of costs it expended in response to the sheen 

including overflights and the subsequent archaeological investigation. The overflights were to 

monitor for additional sheening. The archaeological investigation was for identifying the object 

upon which the trawling nets snagged and determining whether it had any historical significance. 

NPFC finds that the costs expended to pay for overflights to monitor for subsequent sheening are 

OP A-removal costs. They were ordered by BOEMRE, but the evidence shows that the CG 

concurred with BOEMRE's orders for the overflights3 since they were for pollution response. 

Claimant provided a $12,304.25 invoice from Evans Operating LLP for flyovers from April 5 

through May 2, 2011. NPFC also obtained proof that the invoice was paid. Via email 

September 25, 2012, Evans Operating confirmed that the invoice was paid. 

Regarding the archaeological investigation costs, Claimant submitted documentation stating 

that, "In accordance with BOEMRE directives, an archaeologically-directed diver investigation 

was conducted to determine the identity of this object(s) and conduct an assessment of its 

potential historical significance. "

4 The investigation had nothing to do with preventing, 

minimizing or mitigating the effects of an oil release. The investigation has nothing to do with 

the prevention, minimization or mitigation of an oil release, and oil-spill response is not 

contemplated as part of this assessment of historical significance.· And the CG did not order the 

investigation as part of an oil spill removal action. NPFC finds that the archaeological 

investigation is not a removal cost under OP A and thus is not OP A compensable. Therefore, all 

costs claimed that were related to the archaeological investigation are denied. This total denied 

amount is the remaining claimed balance of $98,506.51. 

Conclusion 

NPFC finds that Claimant is eligible for reimbursement of the removal costs in this claim which 

has been determined to be $12,304.25. The remaining claimed balance is denied on the basis 

that the Claimant has failed to demonstrate that the archeological investigation is an OP A 

compensable removal cost nor was the activity ordered and/or directed by the United States 

Coast Guard in its capacity as the Federal On Scene Coordinator (FOSC). 

Claim Superviso 

Date of Supervisor's review: 9127112 

Supervisor Action: Approved 

Supervisor's Comments: 

3 See May 2011 email exchanges provided by Claimant. 

4 Tesla Offshore, Archaeological Assessment report p. 1 

3