Drake’s Folly
Pennsylvania
69 feet deep well
20 barrels/day
Aug. 1859
First Jackup drilling
rig was
developed
and put in
operation
Jan. 1901
1920
1927
First version of the
Texas Oilfield Antiindemnity Statute
passed by Texas
Legislature.
Louisiana
Legislature creates
their version
shortly thereafter.
1962
1972
1973
First platform well
beyond the site of land,
12 miles off La. coastline
1934
Congress
amends the
Outer
Continental
Shelf Lands
Act-OCSLA
Congress
amends
USL&H
Act
OCSLA
was passed
by U.S.
Congress
1950------1960
First
submerge
drilling
barge.
Louisiana
Jones Act and
Death on the High
Seas Act passed by
U.S. Congress
First semisubmersible
drilling rig
put into
operation
1953
First well over open
water put down from
pier built out into the
water.
United States
Longshore &
Harbor Worker
Compensation Act
passed by U.S.
Congress
Spindletop
Near
Beaumont,
TX. 1020’
84,000 brls/
day
1937
“Piper Alpha”
platform fire,
North Sea.
167 fatalities
“Ocean
Ranger”
Semisubmersible
capsizes; 84
fatalities
1978
1982
1947
Seth Becker,
double, below
knee amputation
during gravel
pack job on jackup off La. coast on
OCS. $43mil
verdict
“Sonat” fire
during
snubbing
operations,
North
Louisiana.
7 fatalities
1985
1998
1999
Seth Becker Vs
Tidewater Marine, R&B Falcon, Baker Hughes, etal
5th Cir., June 2003
Seth Becker was working a summer, college-intern job for Baker. The
intent of both Becker and Baker was that Becker was to learn everything he
possibly could, concerning all aspects of what Baker does in the oil and gas
industry. On the day of his accident Becker was a temporary substitute
worker, replacing another Baker employee who needed some time off. The
worker that Becker replaced had been permanently assigned to an offshore
work vessel, the Republic Tide. Becker, Baker, and the Republic Tide were
engaged in a “gravel packing” job which entails pumping gravel from the
Republic Tide, through specialized hoses and down into a wellbore. During
the job, the vessel lost its ability to remain positioned next to the jack-up
drilling rig and began drifting away. Two mooring lines snapped and
Becker was pinched by the specialized hose as it was stretched taunt
between the rig and the drifting work boat. Becker suffered traumatic
amputations of both legs, below the knee. Becker sued Baker under the
Jones Act, alleging he was a member of the crew of a vessel, i.e., a seaman.
The actual injury occurred while Becker was on the Cliff’s jack-up.
Accident occurred on the OCS with contributing factors involving the
operation of the vessel, specifically, the vessel’s anchor system and thruster
positioning system failed. Based on facts presented during trial, a Louisiana
jury determined Becker was a seaman who was assigned to the vessel,
Republic Tide. As a seaman, Becker was entitled to sue his employer, Baker
Hughes, under the Jones Act. The jury awarded Seth Becker $43 million
in damages. Baker Hughes appealed.
Becker Vs Baker Hughes
Energy Resources
Technology
---Operator-----
R&B
Falcon
pka, Cliffs
Hydra
Reel
employer/
employee
Baker
Hughes
-jack-up
drilling rig-
Jones Act
Lawsuit
Seth
Becker
905b &
unseawty
Co-flex
Offshore service
contractor
M/V,
“Republic
Tide”
Pltf
Product
Makers
Blanket Time
Charter
Agreement
w/K4K.
X Gross neg.
Vessel tenders
lawsuit to BH
based on Time
Charter
Agreement
On appeal, the 5th Circuit said Becker could not maintain a Jones Act claim
against Baker Hughes because he was not a Jones Act seaman for the
following reasons:
 Becker’s status as a land based employee had not been fundamentally
altered by his temporary assignment to a vessel.
 Becker could not establish that he spent at least 30% of his time aboard a
vessel or a fleet of vessels.
Important sound bites from the opinion:
 The [Unites States] Supreme Court has established a two-prong test to
determine Jones Act status. First, “an employee’s duties must contribute
to the function of the vessel or to the accomplishment of its mission.”
Second, “a seaman must have a connection to a vessel in navigation (or
to an identifiable group of such vessels) that is substantial in terms of
both duration and nature.”
 …for pltf to qualify for the Jones Act’s protection, he must have
undergone a substantial change in status, not simply serve on a boat
sporadically.
 “As a general rule, a worker must show [substantial duration] by
demonstrating that 30% or more of his time is spent in service of that
vessel.”
 “In short, plaintiff was a land-based worker who happened to be assigned
to a mission on a vessel; he was not a sea-based worker…whose only
connection to land-based employment was the mere possibility of being
transferred to such a position at an indeterminate future date.”
(contrasting the Becker case with the Manuel case)
 Merely serving on a voyage does not warrant Jones Act protection.
 …”the ultimate inquiry is whether the worker in question is a member of
the vessel’s crew or simply a land-based employee who happens to be
working on the vessel at a given time.”