CALL (24/7): 412-281-4340
TOLL FREE: 877-404-6529

Towboatlaw – Towboat & Barge Lawyer, Admiralty & Maritime Law on the Rivers

Court Holds “Thunder Horse” Floating Production Drilling Quarters Not “Vessel” Under Maritime Law, So Injured Claimant Cannot Be Jones Act Seaman

BP’s production drilling quarters “Thunder Horse,” located in 6,000 feet deep waters approximately 175 miles southeast of New Orleans in the Gulf of Mexico

In recent years, the oil and gas industry has designed, built, and installed in the Gulf of Mexico hugely expensive and technologically complex drilling and production structures capable of extracting hydrocarbons from beneath the seabed in the Gulf’s deep waters.  In shallower waters, the industry can use jack-up drilling rigs, which, since they have hulls and other vessel-like features, and are comparatively easy to relocate from well to well, courts have repeatedly held are “vessels in navigation” for purposes of admiralty and maritime law.  If a crewman of a “vessel in navigation” is injured, then he or she is generally entitled to bring personal injury claims as a “seaman” under the federal Jones Act (for negligence) and under the general maritime law (or federal common law) for unseaworthiness and maintenance and cure.  But, if the structure is not a “vessel in navigation,” then the worker injured while working on it cannot claim to be a crewman of a “vessel in navigation” and entitled to the remedies reserved to seamen.

Kerr-McGee’s spar, “Red Hawk,” in 5,300 feet of water in the Gulf of Mexico

A typical jack-up drilling rig

Recently, a federal district court in Louisiana held that a massive “floating production drilling quarters” called the Thunder Horse, operated by BP, is not a “vessel in navigation,” and, thus, that the claimant, a worker aboard the structure, could not be a seaman as to that structure, and thus that he was not entitled to pursue a seaman’s personal injury claims, noted above.  In Washington v. BP America, Inc., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 164371 (W.D. La. Nov. 16, 2012), the court focused on how the Thunder Horse was, with reference to the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2005 decision in Stewart v. Dutra Construction Co., not “practically capable of maritime transportation, regardless of its primary purpose or state of transit at a particular moment.”  In Stewart, the Supreme Court concluded, “[t]he question remains in all cases whether the watercraft’s use as a means of transportation on water is a practical possibility or merely a theoretical one.”  In Washington v. BP America, Inc., the court decided the Thunder Horse, like another deep water drilling and production structure at work in the Gulf of Mexico, a “spar” called Red Hawk, is a “work platform,” not a “vessel.”

The key aspects of the Thunder Horse which render it a “work platform,” and not a “vessel,” the court found, are:

  • While it floats like a vessel (on four partially submerged columns), it lacks any means of significant self-propulsion.
  • It was towed to its location in the Gulf of Mexico.
  • It lacks a raked bow.
  • It is “secured to the Outer Continental Shelf with 16 wire and chain mooring lines attached to 19-foot wide piles driven 90 feet into the seabed.”
  • Thunder Horse is connected to the seabed by eight hydrocarbon production lines.
  • Thunder Horse can only move within a 350-foot radius by tightening and slackening its mooring lines and, apart from being temporarily jarred outside this radius in 2005 by Hurricane Dennis, the structure “has stayed within the 350-foot radius.”
  • BP plans to keep Thunder Horse secured to the Outer Continental Shelf for the balance of the 25 year productive life of the wells it services.
  • BP estimated $400 million as the cost to detach Thunder Horse’s mooring lines, secure the wells, and move the structure elsewhere.

Having found the Thunder Horse is not a “vessel,” the Louisiana federal court also concluded the plaintiff in the case, Terrance Washington, who was working as a cook, and who claimed he was injured after he slipped and fell on a walkway on the structure, could not be a seaman under the Jones Act as to the Thunder Horse, and therefore he was not entitled to pursue a seaman’s personal injury claims against BP.


Share on:
No Comments

Post a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.