A judge for the US District Court for the District of Alaska [official website] on Tuesday dismissed the petition of federal prosecutors, finding that British Petroleum (BP) [corporate website; JURIST news archive] was not negligent in a 2009 oil spill. Because the spill, which released 13,500 gallons of oil onto the North Slope of Alaska, was not a result of BP’s negligence, BP did not violate the terms of its probation. BP’s probation began as a result of a 2007 conviction [AP report] when the company was found negligent for spilling 200,000 gallons of oil on the North Slope in 2006. Prosecutors linked the two spills as evidence of BP’s negligence by arguing that in both instances the pipes had frozen and BP ignored the signs of rupturing and leaking in order to cut costs. The pipe had been partially or fully frozen for at least six months before the expanding ice caused it to rupture [Alaska Dispatch report]. Judge Ralph Beistline dismissed this argument stating that the 2009 spill was a result of a unique alignment of circumstances and that BP adhered to accepted industry practices [WP report] and reasonably addressed the situation. Beistline also dismissed prosecutors’ claim that the migration of the oil into US waters was a violation of the Clean Water Act [33 USC § 1251 et seq. text]. The decision is a victory for the oil company