INLAND DRILLING BARGE, JACKUP RIG OR SEMI SUBMERSIBLE INJURIES & DEATHS

Inland drilling barges, jack up rigs and other drilling ships and vessels are used in the search for oil and gas in swallow marshes, inland lakes, rivers and swamps along the Gulf Coast of the United States and elsewhere around the world. These drilling rigs are usually held to be vessels under the Jones Act and Maritime Law. As such, any crew member or seaman injured on the drilling vessel is protected under the Jones Act and General Maritime Law. Like a offshore drilling rig, drill ship, semi submersible or jackup rig, the owners must operate the drilling barge in a safe manner and in a seaworthy condition. On such inland drilling barges, an injured seaman may bring unseaworthiness and negligence claims under the Jones Act including potential third party lawsuits and claims against non Jones Act employers and other negligent parties. Some of the major operators and users of inland drilling rigs or barges in Texas and Louisiana include Nabors Offshore Drilling, Transocean, Inc.( Transocean Sedco Forex), R & B Falcon, Baker Hughes and others.

If you have been injured on a ship, rig or vessel that you believe was unseaworthy or that your injuries were caused in part by the negligent conduct of your Jones Act employer or fellow seaman or due the negligence of a third party company or it's employee or due to a defective or dangerous product, then call a Maritime Personal Injury Lawyer for a FREE CONFIDENTIAL CONSULTATION at 1-800-883-9858 or 1-800-468-4878.   

One of the major maritime cases on inland drilling barges is the case Choa v. Mallard Bay Drilling, Inc. which involved an explosion onboard the inland drilling barge.On June 16,1997 a well being worked over by RIG 52, an inland drilling barge operated by Mallard Bay Drilling, Inc., in Little Bayou Pigeon, La., blew out. Mallard Bay evacuated the off-duty crew, but the rest stayed onboard to try to bring the well under control. Before it could be brought under control, gas found its way into compartments on the barge, and exploded, killing four individuals and injuring two others. The Coast Guard investigated the marine casualty, and following guidance in the Marine Safety Manual, forwarded the report of the investigation to OSHA for further action because the Coast Guard determined that it did not have any jurisdiction over the drill barge or its drilling activities, as it was an uninspected vessel.

OSHA took enforcement action under the Occupational Safety and Health Act against Mallard Bay Drilling, Inc., for failure to comply with OSHA marine safety standards by failing to evacuate the personnel onboard, failing to develop and implement emergency response plans, and failing to train the employees in emergency response. Mallard Bay challenged OSHA's jurisdiction in the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which has jurisdiction in the states of Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi. The 5th Circuit agreed with Mallard Bay's contention that the Coast Guard has exclusive jurisdiction over safety of seamen on vessels on navigable waters, and that, as a result, OSHA was pre-empted from asserting jurisdiction over the drilling barge, notwithstanding that the vessel was not subject to Coast Guard inspection and certification. At the request of the government, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case because the 5th Circuit's holding was contrary to the law applicable in the rest of the country, as announced by the courts of appeals which had considered similar issues, some involving uninspected towing vessels.

The case turned on whether the Coast Guard had statutory authority to regulate, and had in fact regulated the safety aspects of the working conditions of the seamen on the Mallard Bay drilling barge that were pertinent to the blowout, the resulting explosion, fire and deaths onboard. If the Coast Guard had regulated those working conditions, or had articulated a position that such conditions need not be regulated for safety reasons, then OSHA was pre-empted; if the Coast Guard had not regulated (or articulated a position that no such regulation was necessary or desirable), then OSHA was not pre-empted. The government, on behalf of the secretary of labor, joined on the brief by the Coast Guard and the U.S. Department of Transportation, argued that not only had the Coast Guard not regulated the particular working conditions involved in the explosion, fire and deaths, but the Coast Guard had no statutory authority to regulate those conditions onboard that particular type of uninspected drill barge. In fact, the government argued that the only Coast Guard regulations that applied to the Mallard Bay rig, while it was engaged in the workover operation in the inland waters of Louisiana, were the Coast Guard marine sanitation device regulations.

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals noted that although 14 U.S.C. 2 seemed to grant the Coast Guard broad authority to regulate to achieve safety of seamen on vessels, Congress had enacted an elaborate regime for Coast Guard "inspected" vessels, but had given the agency much less authority over uninspected vessels, including the Mallard Bay inland drill barge involved in the case. The Court noted that the Coast Guard and OSHA had agreed in a 1983 Memorandum of Understanding that the Coast Guard had exclusive jurisdiction over inspected vessels, but this case involved an uninspected vessel. In order to determine whether OSHA was pre-empted onboard an uninspected vessel, the particular working condition involved in the case must be examined. If the Coast Guard had regulated that working condition (risk of explosive gas accumulating in a confined space onboard the vessel), or articulated a formal position that no regulation was necessary or appropriate, OSHA was pre-empted. The Court found no such Coast Guard regulation dealing with that particular risk, and no statement that no regulation was appropriate, and therefore, ruled that OSHA was not pre-empted.