CLAIM SUMMARY / DETERMINATION FORM 

Date : 10/28/2009 

Claim Number : N04080-002

Claimant : Main Pass Oil Gathering Company & BP Pipelines (North America) Inc. 

Type of Claimant : Corporate (US) 

Type of Claim : Affirmative Defense 

Claim Manager : 

Amount Requested : $2,453,439.41 

I. FACTS

Summary

As Hurricane Ivan was tracked through the Gulf of Mexico in September 2004, it fluctuated 

between a Category 4 and Category 5 status. Hurricane Ivan passed just east of Louisiana’s 

Mississippi River Delta and made landfall on September 16, 2004, just below a Category 4 status 

with winds around 130 mph. The high winds, waves, surges, mudslides, and currents associated 

with Hurricane Ivan caused substantial damage to pipelines in the Gulf of Mexico, including the 

Main Pass Oil Gathering (MPOG) and Shell’s Nakika pipelines, especially at their crossing, both 

of which were buried in about 22 feet of water within MP Block 69.1 2

Shortly after the passage of Hurricane Ivan, aerial reconnaissance flights were conducted to 

detect any oil discharges from the pipelines in the Gulf. On September 23, 2004, BP reported an 

oil slick 2.5 miles by 0.5 miles in the area of Main Pass Block 69 (Block MP-69).3

 The 

preliminary investigation into the oil spill indicated that the source of the discharge was Shell’s 

Nakika pipeline, but subsequent inspections revealed that oil was discharging from both the 

Nakika and the MPOG pipelines at this juncture. The MPOG pipeline’s other leaks were within 

three feet of the crossing. Another site of oil discharges from the MPOG pipeline was between 

Customhouse Bay and North Pass, barely offshore of the Mississippi Delta, Louisiana.4

At the crossing, Shell’s Nakika and Claimants’ MPOG pipelines were subjected to such forces 

during Ivan that the cement mats previously positioned above and between these buried 

pipelines, were displaced. Without separation, the pipelines wore through their outer concrete 

coating to direct contact at this juncture and cracks in both pipelines at this crossing discharged 

oil into the waters of the Gulf of Mexico.5

Claim and Claimants6

On May 21, 2008, Main Pass Oil Gathering Company (Main Pass) submitted its claim asserting 

that it is entitled to reimbursement for removal costs totaling $2,453,439.41 from the Oil Spill 

 

1

See, Claimants’ Binder 6, Section 8, ICS 214 form and attachments, dated 9/29/04, by Mr. , p. 1.

2

See, Enclosures 1 and 2 for summaries of preexisting conditions of the most intense hurricanes in the Gulf of 

Mexico. 

3

See, Claimants’ Binder 5, Section 4, BP Spill Reports, dated 9/23/04 and 10/01/04, pp. 1.

4

See, Claimants’ Binders 5&6, Sections. 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 & 10, Hurricane Ivan Assessment Meeting Minutes and 

attachments, Incident Actions Plans and attachments, Responder Log Books, ICS-214 Responder Logbooks, 

Inspector’s Daily Diary and Work Reports, and Diver’s Dailey Job Logs.

5

Id. 

6

 For purposes of this decision, we accept the incident information alleged in MPOG/BP’s formal claim letter, dated 

May 21, 2008 and the MPOG/BP’s amended claim letter, dated July 2, 2008.
Liability Trust Fund (OSLTF or Fund). First, the Claimant, Main Pass claimed that it had 

incurred uncompensated response costs under Section 2702(b) of the Oil Pollution Act (OPA), 

33 USC § 2702(b) for the clean up of oil discharges from the Nakika pipeline of the Shell 

Pipeline Company LP (Shell). Second, Main Pass, alleged that as a responsible party (RP) for 

oil discharges from its Main Pass Oil Gathering (MPOG) pipeline, it is entitled to an “act of 

God” affirmative defense (33 USC § 2703(a)(1)) pursuant to 33 USC § 2708(a)(1) for the oil 

discharge from its MPOG pipeline. Both pipelines were damaged and discharged oil at the 

crossing of Shell’s Nakika and the MPOG pipelines and elsewhere by the exceptional forces 

associated with Hurricane Ivan as it passed through the Gulf of Mexico on September 16, 2004.7

The National Pollution Funds Center (NPFC) received an amended claim, dated July 2, 2008. 

The amendment revealed that Main Pass and BP Pipelines (North America) Inc. (BP) were, 

respectively, the owner and operator of the MPOG pipeline. And as operator, BP undertook the 

response efforts and thus incurred the costs, of which, certain costs were charged back to Main 

Pass and documented in the submissions. As amended, the NPFC will focus on the Claimants’ 

“act of God” affirmative defense to OPA liability, and their entitlement to recover the removal 

action costs expended for the oil discharges from the MPOG pipeline. As the second claim, the 

NPFC will review Main Pass/BP’s claim for uncompensated removal costs in responding to 

Shell’s Nakika pipeline oil spill under 33 USC § 2702(b). Both are claims for costs incurred in 

the aftermath of Hurricane Ivan. 

Review of Claimants’ Record

“Act of God” Claim

The Claimants stated that in cooperation with other oil companies with assets in the Gulf of 

Mexico, it undertook preventive measures prior to Hurricane Ivan and immediately responded to 

the damages left behind by the hurricane. While the record of this claim devotes much space 

describing the actions taken by Main Pass/BP to respond to their pipeline oil spills in the wake of 

Ivan, little information is provided identifying what measures were undertaken to prevent the oil 

spill incident, or to avoid its impact by the exercise of due care or foresight. The NPFC was not 

able to find information to determine whether the MPOG pipeline was “shut in,” before the onset 

of Hurricane Ivan, or after Ivan, whether the pipeline was de-pressurized and whether product 

transport ceased while the MPOG and the Nakika pipelines were under investigation for damage 

and oil discharges. (See, Binders 5&6) 

As part of their record, Main Pass/BP produced no documents eliciting what measures had taken 

place in the planning, design, and construction of the MPOG pipeline, although one of BP’s 

responders recorded in their daily field log that the MPOG pipeline was located in a known 

mudslide area.8 The Claimants referenced the damage which occurred to their MPOG pipeline at 

the crossing with the Shell’s Nakika pipeline at Block MP-69, but little was said about what 

forces caused the MPOG pipeline to fail at the crossing juncture. Main Pass/BP submitted no 

account of how the hurricane forces, the wind, the tidal surges, the currents, seafloor failure, 

and/or the mudslides the pipeline crossing were factors in causing the damage to the pipelines at 

the crossing, except that the cement mats above and between the pipelines were dislodged by the 

forces of the hurricane and, despite concerted efforts, could not be found by their divers. 9.10

 

7

See, MPOG/BP’s formal claim letter, dated, May 21, 2008 (recv’d May 27, 2008).

8

See, Claimants’ Binder 6, Section 8, ICS 214 form and attachments dated 9/23/04 by Mr. , p. 2. 

9

See, Claimants’ Binders 5&6, Sections. 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 & 10, H. Ivan Assessment Meeting Minutes and attachments, 

Incident Actions Plans and attachments, Responder Log Books, ICS-214 Responder Logs, Inspector Daily Diary and 

Work Reports, and Diver’s Dailey Logs.
Claim for Uncompensated Removal Costs for Shell’s Pipeline 

In a similar fashion, little, if any, information was provided in their claim for uncompensated 

removal costs for clean up of oil discharged from Shell’s Nakika pipeline. For billing purposes, 

BP sent Shell a demand for payment of $1.998 million for uncompensated removal costs to clean 

up oil discharges from “Site 2” from Shell’s Nakika pipeline at the crossing with the MPOG 

pipeline. Yet, BP provided no estimates of oil quantities discharged or cleaned up, nor did BP 

represent how this demand figure was derived, and Shell declined payment.11

Once the oil spill was discovered on September 23, 2004, in the vicinity of the Nakika/MPOG 

pipeline crossing, an initial release amount of 900 gallons was estimated for the oil spill.12 But the 

Claimants did not provide any refinement or verification of this amount elsewhere in the record. 

According to the Assessment Meeting notes, Shell confirmed that 90% of the oil discharged was 

from the Nakika pipeline.13 However, this note preceded the discovery and confirmation of leaks 

from the MPOG pipeline as noted at the 10/02/04 Assessment meeting.14 And nowhere in the 

record was this 90% proportion developed for our consideration. (See, Binders 5&6)

The record revealed that BP responded to notice of the leaks with necessary repairs to prevent 

further discharges from the MPOG pipeline. But the Claimants did not provide estimates or 

verification of the amount or proportion of the MPOG pipeline discharges to the entirety of oil 

spills at this crossing and in the area subject to BP’s removal action efforts. The record also 

referenced sampling of the Shell and the MPOG pipelines and the sheen of the oil spill incident, 

but we find no oil sampling results, no oil sampling reports, or expert reports to identify the 

source of the oil. (See, Binders 5&6)

II. APPLICABLE LAW

Title I of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, 104 Stat 484, 33 USC §2701 et seq., provides a strict 

liability and compensation regime for certain oil pollution. In general, “each responsible party 

for a vessel or a facility from which oil is discharged, or which poses the substantial threat of a 

discharge of oil, into or upon the navigable waters or adjoining shorelines or the exclusive 

economic zone is liable for the removal costs and damages...that result from such incident. 33 

USC §2702(a).

The removal costs referred to in subsection (a)...are...any removal costs incurred by any person 

for the acts taken by the person which are consistent with the National Contingency Plan. 33 

USC §2702(b)(1)(B).

The RP for a pipeline includes any person owning or operating the pipeline. 33 USC § 

2701(32)(E).

 

10 See, Enclosure 3 for “Summary of Preexisting Conditions in the Gulf of Mexico Pertaining to 

Mudflows/Mudslides.”

11 See, Claimants’ Binder 5, Sections 1&2, BP’s Demand letter and Shell’s response.

12 See, Claimants’ Binder 5, Section 5, Hurricane Ivan Assessment Meeting Minutes and attachments, dated 

09/25/04 (14:00 Hours).

13 See, Claimants’ Binder 5, Section 5, Hurricane Ivan Assessment Meeting Minutes and attachments, dated 

10/01/04 (14:00 Hours).

14

 See, Claimants’ Binder 5, Section 5, Hurricane Ivan Assessment Meeting Minutes and attachments, dated 

10/02/04 (0800 Hours).
Any person or government may present a claim to the RP for removal costs or damages. 33 USC 

§ 2701(3), (4). If a claim is presented and the RP denies liability or does not settle the claim 

within 90 days the claim may be presented to the Fund. 33 USC §2713(c). The Fund is 

expressly available to the President for the “payment of claims in accordance with section 

2713...for uncompensated removal costs...or uncompensated damages. 33 USC §2712(a)(4).

The OPA expressly provides that in some circumstances claims may be presented direct to the 

Fund without first presenting the claim to the RP, including claims “by a responsible party who 

may assert a claim under section 2708”. 33 USC § 2713(b)(1)(B).

Specific to this Shell claim a “responsible party may assert a claim for removal costs and 

damages under section 2713...only if the responsible party demonstrates that –

(1) the responsible party is entitled to a defense to liability under section 2703 of this 

title”... 

33 USC § 2708(a)(1).

The OPA provides that in some circumstances the RP may establish a complete defense to 

liability. “A responsible party is not liable for removal costs or damages...if the responsible 

party establishes, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the discharge or substantial threat of a 

discharge of oil and the resulting damages or removal costs were caused solely by –

(1) an act of God”...

33 USC § 2703(a)(1).

The OPA expressly provides that “‘act of God’ means an unanticipated grave natural disaster or 

other natural phenomenon of an exceptional, inevitable, and irresistible character the effects of 

which could not have been prevented or avoided by the exercise of due care or foresight.” 33 

USC §2701(1).

In enacting OPA Congress recognized that existing laws provided inadequate remedies and too 

many barriers to recovery favoring those responsible for spills. Costs should be enough to 

encourage industry efforts to prevent spills and better contain them when they occur.15 As in the 

Clean Water Act (CWA or FWPCA, 33 USC §1251 et seq.) and the Comprehensive 

Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act ( CERCLA 42 USC 9601 et seq.), the 

liability associated with the same or similar “act of God” affirmative defenses is strict.16 The 

absence of fault or the exercise of due care is not in itself a defense to liability.17

III. “ACT OF GOD” CLAIM AS RP FOR THEIR REMOVAL COSTS

Case Precedent

In Apex Oil Company, Inc. v. United States, 208 F.Supp.2d 642 (E.D. La. 2002) (court upheld 

Coast Guard denial of RP claim because the flood and current conditions at the time of the 

casualty and spill did not constitute an “act of God” and the RP’s underpowered tug was a factor 

 

15 S.Rep No.94, 101st Cong., 1st Sess., (1989); 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N 722, 724.

16 S.Rep 101-94, 11; 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 722, 733-734.

17 See, Apex Oil Company, Inc. v. U.S., 208 F.Supp.2d 642, 652 (E.D. La., 2002) and In re Complaint of Metlife 

Capital Corp, 132 F.3d 818, 820-821 (1st Cir. 1997) (OPA is a strict liability statute).
in the casualty), the court addressed at length the “act of God” defense under the OPA and its 

companion environmental regimes, the CERCLA and CWA. The court determined that the OPA 

“act of God” defense should be read to be at least as restrictive in its scope as it is under both the 

CWA and CERCLA. Indeed while the CWA definition is “textually similar”18 to the OPA 

definition, the CERCLA definition is identical.19 The court recognized that in respect to 

“exceptional natural phenomena” the burden of proof is much more onerous than under 

traditional or common law “act of God” concepts, citing to CERCLA legislative history 

addressing such a distinction between the traditional defense and aspects of the CERCLA 

definition which is particularly relevant in the context of the instant claim. This was reflected in 

the legislative histories in support of the enactment of CERCLA and also to sustain amendments 

to CERCLA under the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA): 

“The defense for the exceptional natural phenomenon is similar to, but more 

limited in scope than, the [traditional]20 ‘act of God’ defense. It has three 

elements: the natural phenomenon must be exceptional, inevitable, and 

irresistible. Proof of all three elements is required for successful assertion of the 

defense. The [traditional]21 ‘act of God’ defense is more nebulous, and many 

occurrences asserted as ‘acts of God’ would not qualify as ‘exceptional natural 

phenomenon.’ For example, a major hurricane may be an ‘act of God,’ but in an 

area (and at a time) where a hurricane should not be unexpected, it would not 

qualify as a ‘phenomenon of exceptional character.’”

H.R. Rep. 96-172(1), 1980 U.S.C.C.A.N. 6160 6189, and H.R. Rep. 99-253(IV), 1986 

U.S.C.C.A.N. 3068, 3101.

While courts considering the “act of God” defense under the various regimes have consistently 

handed down decisions denying the defense, they have done so on various bases including the 

absence of sole causation and the unexceptional or anticipated nature of the phenomenon. U.S. 

v. Alcan Aluminum, 892 F.Supp. 648 (M.D. Pa. 1995) (Hurricane Gloria was not the sole cause 

of the release where the release was caused in part by unlawful disposal and heavy rains from 

Gloria were not the kind of natural phenomenon to which the exception applied). U.S. v. 

Stringfellow, 661 F.Supp. 1053 (C.D. Cal 1987) (Heavy rainfall was not an exceptional natural 

phenomenon under CERCLA where rains foreseeable based on normal climactic conditions and 

harm caused could have been avoided by properly designed drains.) Sabine Towing and 

Transportation Co., Inc v. U.S., 666 F.2d 561(Ct.Cl. 1981)(CWA case where freshet conditions 

occasioned by spring run-off were not a grave natural disaster or unanticipated). 

In United States v. Barrier Industries, Inc., 991 F.Supp. 678 (S.D.N.Y.1998), the court found that 

spills of hazardous substances caused by bursting pipes after unprecedented cold spell was not an 

"act of God" within the meaning of CERCLA because the cold spell was not the sole cause of the 

spill. Numerous other factors antedating the cold weather causally contributed to the problems at 

the site. Id. at 679. In United States v. M/V SANTA CLARA I, 887 F. Supp. 825 (D.S.C. 1995), 

the court considered whether an “act of God” had been established under CERCLA. In that case, 

the defendant claimed that it should not be liable for the clean-up expenses because the release of 

hazardous materials was caused by a storm. In rejecting that argument, the court reasoned that 

even if the storm had been poorly forecasted, the vessel expected bad weather and had been 

 

18 An “act of God” means an act occasioned by an unanticipated grave natural disaster. 33 USC §1321(a)(12).

19 42 USC § 9601(1).

20 The word “traditional” was added to the legislative history text of SARA, H.R. Rep. 99-253(IV), 1986 

U.S.C.C.A.N. 3068, 3100.

21 The inclusion of “traditional” is for clarification purposes.
instructed to take extra precautions against rough seas. Accordingly, the “act of God” defense 

was held inapplicable. Id. at 843.

In Liberian Poplar Transports, Inc. v. United States, 26 Cl.Ct. 223 (1992) an oil spill occurred 

while oil was transferred during a severe thunderstorm. The court found that plaintiff failed to 

establish this storm as an “act of God” under the FWPCA because the storm could have been 

anticipated. Id. at 225-226. In Kyoei Kaiun Kaisha, Ltd. v. M/V BERRING TRADER, 795 F. 

Supp. 1054 (W.D. Wa. 1991), the owners and operators failed to show that “an act of God” was 

the sole cause of the grounding of the vessel during a severe storm and high winds because the 

storm was not the sole cause; acts of the crew contributed to grounding. Id. at 1056-1057. 

In St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. United States, 4 Cl.Ct. 762 (Ct. Cl. 1984), where severe 

subsurface settlement caused a rupture of an storage tank and the resulting oil discharge into a 

river, the court found the soil settlement causing the rupture was entirely foreseeable and was not 

an “act of God” under the FWPCA. Id. at 768.

Discussion

Hurricane Ivan, Not “Exceptional” or “Unanticipated”

Ivan was a major hurricane, rated just below a category 4 as it made landfall along the Gulf 

coast. Ivan was ranked 29th of the top 65 most intense hurricanes to strike the U.S. mainland 

from 1851-2006. While the severity ranking does not rule out an “act of God” defense, Ivan, 

however, occurred in an area where, and at a time when, it should not have been unexpected. 

The record is replete with information that industry operators, as well as any person that watches 

the weather channel would know. There is a hurricane season and the risks include major and 

minor hurricanes, tropical storms and the damages that can result. Hurricane risks to the oil 

production industry in the Gulf have long been recognized by industry and regulators alike. Ivan 

was tracked and forecast in a great deal of detail as clearly shown in the record and we recall it 

was tracked on television and in the press like most any hurricane today that approaches the 

coast of the United States. While arguably Ivan may have been grave, irresistible or inevitable, 

in our view Ivan was not “exceptional” or “unanticipated” as those terms are used in the OPA 

definition of “act of God.”

Denial of the claim is also consistent with the policy purposes underlying the OPA strict liability 

regime as discussed by the court in Apex, supra. Under the circumstances presented by this 

claim, where industry knowingly operates in the face of such risks, shifting the entire OPA oil 

removal cost and damage risk from industry to the public’s Fund would be inequitable and 

would undermine important incentives that liability brings to prevent and contain oil pollution.

Main Pass/BP’s Actions to Prevent or Avoid Pipeline Oil Spills

In addition to the determination of whether Ivan was “exceptional” or “unanticipated,” Main 

Pass/BP must also show that the damage to the pipeline resulting in oil spills could not have been 

prevented or avoided with the exercise of due care or foresight, or that an “act of God” was the 

sole cause of the incident.

The Claimants’ record was singularly lacking in evidence of the actions, if any, to prevent or 

avoid the hurricane effects. For instance, the NPFC cannot discern from the record what the 

status of the MPOG pipeline before and in the aftermath of Ivan. Was it “shut in,” before and 

after Ivan? After Ivan was the pipeline operational and pressurized to transport product? What 

was the status of the MPOG pipeline during its assessment and investigation for damage and oil 

discharges? (See, Binders 5&6)
Main Pass/BP have not produced evidence that their pipeline damage and resultant oil spills 

especially at the crossing with Shell’s Nakika pipeline in MP Block -69 were not preventable or 

avoidable. The Claimants have failed to demonstrate that the effects of this hurricane could not 

have been prevented or avoided with the exercise of due care or foresight, or that the “act of 

God’ was the sole cause of the pipeline damages and the oil spill incident.

Main Pass/BP’s Planning and Preventive/Avoidance Measures

in Design, Construction, or Location

The Claimants Main Pass/BP produced no documents concerning the planning (location), design, 

and construction of the MPOG pipeline, except one account suggesting that the MPOG pipeline 

was located in a known mudslide area.22 But there was no information about how the pipeline 

was designed and constructed to prevent or avoid damage in anticipation of hurricane forces, 

tidal surges, the currents, seafloor failure, and the mudslides. Similarly, no risk assessment or 

engineering analysis/recommendations on construction, location, and threats was ever provided. 

The MMS reports reviewed by the NPFC disclosed that forces on the seafloor during Ivan 

caused larger mudflow movements, resulting in greater platform and pipeline losses.23 In the 

shallow water of the Gulf, buried pipelines have experienced consistent damage from pipeline 

movement during the hurricane studies of Andrew, Lili and Ivan. Where pipelines are buried in 

weak silty soils, they are susceptible to failure under the hurricane forces on the seafloor, causing 

a weakening of the surrounding soil, and failing under the reverse currents generated by the 

hurricane ocean patterns.24 At pipeline crossings, the movement of pipelines created lost 

separation, mats, or cover as a result of pipelines being displaced. In shallow depths, 200 

feet or less, pipelines appear to be more susceptible to hurricane forces and should include 

provisions to maintain separation after installation. Mats and rock appear to be inadequate in 

areas of seafloor movement, and mudflows.25

Main Pass/BP provided the details of how the hurricane forces dislodged the cement mats at the 

pipeline crossing and scattered them to undetectable locations. The Claimants also detailed how 

the Nakika and MPOG pipelines wore through their outer cement coating at the crossing and 

fractures occurred as a result of hurricane forces during Ivan.26

 But the Claimants failed to 

identify or even speculate which of the hurricane forces caused the damages and whether the 

pipeline was designed, construction, and appropriately located in anticipation of such forces to 

prevent or avoid such damages from occurring. (See, Binders 5&6) 

Because of these omissions, the Claimants have failed to demonstrate that the pipeline damage 

and the resulting oil spills could not have been prevented or avoided by the exercise of due care 

or foresight, or that the “act of God” was the sole cause of the pipeline damages and the oil spill 

incident. 

IV. CLAIM FOR UNCOMPENSATED REMOVAL ACTION COSTS

for SHELL PIPELINE OIL DISCHARGE

 

22 See, Claimants’ Binder 6, Section 8, ICS 214 form and attachments dated 9/23/04 by Mr. , p. 2.

23 See, “Pipeline Damage Assessment from Hurricane Ivan in the Gulf of Mexico,” Report No. 440 38570 (Rev. No. 

2) Technical Report, Mineral Management Service (DET NORSKE VERITAS), pp. 31-34, May 15, 2006. 

24 Id. p. 33. 

25

 Id. p. 33. 

26 See, Claimants’ Binders 5&6, Sections. 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 & 10, H. Ivan Assessment Meeting Minutes and attachments, 

Incident Actions Plans and attachments, Responder Log Books, ICS-214 Responder Logs, Inspector Daily Diary and 

Work Reports, and Diver’s Dailey Logs.
A. Claim Record and Discussion 

On April 30, 2007, BP initiated the claim for uncompensated removal costs. In its letter to Shell, 

the BP letter demanded payment of $1.998 million for response costs related to the oil discharges 

from “Site 2” its Nakika pipeline at the crossing with the MPOG pipeline. On June 6, 2007, 

Shell declined to remit payment because of Main Pass/BP’s shared responsibility for the 

response costs. 

As the NPFC reviewed this record for support of Main Pass/BP’s claim, we find the Claimants 

have failed to disclose how they derived the $1.998 million figure for the Shell demand letter, 

nor did they provide an alternative figure with support. The Claimants also have failed to 

provide us with data or bases for determining how much oil was spilled and what proportion of 

oil was spilled from the Nakika and from the MPOG pipelines during this incident. Nor did the 

Claimants disclose the volume of oil in the MPOG pipeline posing a threat of discharge in the 

aftermath of Ivan and prior to discovery of the MPOG pipeline leaks at the crossing. (See, 

Binders 5&6) 

Claimants have also failed to identify and quantify the amount of oil discharged from either 

Shell’s Nakika and the MPOG pipelines during this incident, or to quantify the sum certain or the 

proportion of the $2,453,439.41 in removal costs which was expended to clean up the oil spilled 

by Shell’s Nakika pipeline, and the difference, attributable to the removal costs for oil discharged 

from their MPOG pipeline. Because we find no basis to pay this claim, the NPFC will deny 

Claimants’ request for uncompensated removal costs. 

V. CONCLUSION

Having reviewed these claims, the NPFC denies the “act of God,” claim because the Claimants, 

Main Pass/BP, have not established that the costs resulting from an unanticipated grave natural 

disaster or other natural phenomenon of an exceptional character. And the Claimants failed to 

demonstrate that the effects of the hurricane were not preventable or avoidable by the exercise of 

due care or foresight, or that the “act of God” was the sole cause of the damages and oil 

discharges of this incident. The NPFC denies the second claim because the Claimants, Main 

Pass/BP, provided no basis for the NPFC to pay this claim. The Claimants failed to quantify the 

amount of oil discharged from the Shell Nakika pipeline, or to ascertain the amount or proportion 

of oil discharged from the MPOG pipeline. Nor did they quantify the sum certain, the proportion 

of the $2,453,439.41 in removal costs that was expended to clean up the oil spilled by Shell’s 

Nakika pipeline, excluding the difference, the removal costs attributable to oil discharged from 

their MPOG pipeline. Accordingly, Main Pass/BP’s claims against the OSLTF are denied.

Claim Supervisor

Date of Supervisor’s review: 

Supervisor Action: 

Supervisor’s Comments: