Why did Total charter the Erika? Was it a “rustbucket”?
The decision to charter the Erika was made in good faith, based on documents that turned out to be misleading.
When Total decided to charter the vessel, it had recently undergone a five-yearly survey and repair work in drydock, during which its structures were inspected and renewed under RINA’s supervision.
In 1999 alone, it had passed no fewer than 11 inspections finding it acceptable and its target factor, which is calculated by port authorities, was that of a vessel that did not show any deficiency. Far from being a “rustbucket”, the Erika was a tanker in apparently good condition, with all of the necessary certificates and authorizations.  The ship also possessed a certificate of seaworthiness from RINA, a leading classification society.
The corrosion of the vessel’s internal structures was only revealed after it sank, during the investigation by experts appointed by the Court of Dunkirk. The experts also reported that the true condition of the vessel’s structures was not consistent with the certification issued by RINA.

What type of cargo was the Erika carrying? Were there several products onboard?
There is absolutely no doubt that the Erika’s sole cargo was No. 2 fuel oil.
The main reason why there were questions in the weeks following the accident about the type of product onboard is that fuel oil takes on a different consistency or appearance when mixed with seawater and sand.
The many analyses conducted as part of expert evaluations ordered by various civil and administrative courts and by the investigating magistrate confirmed that the Erika’s sole cargo was No. 2 fuel oil.
These findings were further corroborated by analyses conducted by the French Petroleum Institute (IFP). It should also be noted that other checks had been performed prior to the sinking:

An analysis required by the contract between the seller and the buyer, carried out by an independent laboratory.
 The Cargo

Is fuel oil a waste product?
No. 2 fuel oil is a commercial product produced in refineries. It is the third most commonly used petroleum product after gasoline and diesel.
The Saint-Nazaire Correctional Court ruled on December 6, 2000 that fuel oil is not a waste product, and this judgment was upheld by the Rennes appellate court on February 13, 2002.
However, when oil is mixed with seawater and sand, it changes from a commercial product into a waste product and needs to be treated. This was done near the Donges refinery between 2000 and 2004, and the treatment process was monitored by the public authorities and by a local information and monitoring committee (CLIS).

What caused the wreck?
The vessel sank because of severe corrosion of its structures, which had been concealed from the charterer. The vessel had nonetheless been issued with a Certificate by RINA, a leading classification society, attesting that its structures were in good condition.
Although the gale force winds that the Erika faced on December 11 and 12 were a contributing factor to the incident, they would not be sufficient to explain why  the vessel sank.
 The Causes of the Sinking

How did Total respond when it heard about the sinking?
Total received the first indication that there was a problem with the Erika at 6:34 p.m. on December 11, when a message was left on its voicemail service. However, the message indicated that there was no cause for concern (Timeline).
As soon as Total heard that the vessel had sank, on December 12, 1999, a crisis unit was activated and in-house teams and experts were brought in to help.
In the days that followed the incident, the Atlantic Coast Task Force was created, bringing together 800 people, including around 100 employees and 700 experts from outside the Group. The Task Force was allocated a budget of around €200 million to fulfill three commitments made by Total:

What lessons have you learned from the Erika incident? What measures have you taken to prevent a similar incident occurring in the future?
Total has learned from the Erika incident, as all companies do after an accident. It is a logical step in the industrial safety process. We have tightened our vessel vetting criteria, which were already strict, in order to improve shipping safety.

What are the courts accusing you of?
Total is accused of pollution, deliberately failing to take the necessary measures to prevent a the pollution and complicity in endangering human lives.
Total firmly believes that there is no basis in fact or in law for the charges against the Company and its employee.

How much did the oil spill cost?
At the end of 2006, the IOPC Funds had paid out €120 million of the €185 million available to compensate the victims whose claims satisfied the fund’s criteria for admissibility. It then made an initial payment of €40 million to the French government, which estimates that it spent more than €190 million (end-2006).
In addition, Total committed €200 million to the oil spill cleanup.

Have the victims of the oil spill been compensated?
According to the  IOPC Funds, 100% of admissible claims have been compensated, according to its criteria. As at September 15, 2006, €117.8 million had been paid out for 5,656 claims, out of a total of 6,996 claims.

How do you respond to the accusation that you didn’t communicate appropriately about the incident?
The scale of the disaster was clearly underestimated by everyone, including the government, experts and the national weather office), and, as a result, our communications strategy was not compatible with the actual situation.
The Erika incident has heightened our awareness of the need to communicate immediately and systematically whenever an accident occurs.