Offshore Crew Evacuated after Oil Leak off Australia Coast
All 69 offshore workers on an oil rig off Australia's northwest coast are safe after they were evacuated from the rig, post a massive oil leak.
The spill is about 8 topical miles long and 30 meters wide, and occurred at the West Atlas drilling rig, which is owned by Norway’s Seadrill. The company that operates the oil rig, PTTEP Australia, is conducting urgent repairs to stop the leak. The leak occurred in an extremely remote location, and this has made any salvage operations difficult. Aircraft are being used to spray chemicals to disperse the oil. Australian maritime safety authorities have initiated a national response plan to limit the impact of the spill in the Timor Sea.
Apparently, a plug on one of the deep wells came loose, causing a leak of oil and gas. However, it is still too early to know what exactly caused the leak, and how long it will take to plug it. Maritime authorities don’t believe that the spill will reach the Australian coast. The slick seems to be evaporating as it is leaking, causing the size of the slick to remain more or less the same size. According to Bloomberg.com, there were 69 workers on the rig who were evacuated after hydrogen sulphate gas began to leak.
Offshore Workers Work in Hazardous Conditions
It's not difficult to see why workers on an offshore rig work in some of the riskiest conditions. They are confined to a rig in the middle of a vast ocean, several miles from the shore, and are at the constant mercy of the weather and the seas. 
Although these employees work rotating shifts, and may not spend more than a few weeks on the rig, the few days that they do spend offshore can have them working through conditions that are very vastly more difficult than those on land. Shifts can be as long as 12 hours, and when there are strong currents, the rig can shift, causing a worker to lose balance if he is not holding on to the railings.
An offshore rig worker may be eligible for Jones Act seaman status, depending on whether he meets the criteria outlined in the 3-part test. He must be assigned to a vessel, the vessel must be in navigation and he must spend a significant amount of his time performing duties that contribute to the vessel.
The maritime lawyers at Arnold & Itkin LLP represent workers injured on commercial fishing vessels, cargo ships, tankers, offshore rigs, cruise ships, barges and towboats.
Continue Reading....jpg)
During the 80’s and 90’s, fishing communities in small towns and villages along the coast lived in the constant fear of losing their loved ones to accidents on board these vessels.
Out on a tanker, commercial fishing vessel or any other kind of 
Fleet Management Limited pled guilty to:
The district court, as well as the appeals court, found that the definition of a vessel did not include a dredge. The company argued that Stewart was not a seaman. It did, however, acknowledge that he was a member of the dredge's crew, that he spent 99 percent of his work time on the dredge, and that his duties contributed to the function of the dredge. 
The Cosco Busan collision in 2007, which caused a major environmental disaster, was attributed to pilot error and incompetence. The pilot in that accident was taking prescription medication and failed to notify his employer. The collision with the Bay Bridge caused nearly 58,000 gallons of oil to spill into the San Francisco Bay. Millions of dollars were spent on clean-up operations and local fishermen were deprived of their livelihoods when the fishing season was postponed as a result of the accident..jpg)
Three passengers were thrown from the boat and one stayed on the vessel, or rather the small piece of the hull left floating in the water. At the scene of the accident was Doug Liman, director of films like Mr. and Mrs. Smith. Liman and his friend Avram Ludwig were on a sailboat and saw the cargo ship slice through the smaller sailboat. The two quickly rushed to the scene and helped three of the passengers out of the river.
Seamen can claim unseaworthiness even if the condition is temporary. In 1960, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of a seaman who slipped and fell down a ladder because of a rail that was covered with fish slime. The slime remained on the rail from a previous unloading operation. The court ruled that the vessel owner's duty to provide a seaworthy vessel also applied to temporary conditions. 
This is why the employer, upon contracting the seaman’s services, will try to assess the seaman's medical condition and history and determine if he suffers from any illness or injury. However, a seaman who willfully conceals an illness or serious injury may not be eligible for benefits if the condition worsens. However, if a seaman was not asked about illnesses or injuries at the time of hiring, he may not be at fault for concealment. Courts are sometimes lenient in regards to a seaman’s failure to disclose illnesses or injuries, because the seaman may believe, in all honesty, that he is completely medically fit for the job, in spite of previous injuries or illnesses.
Proper lookouts, use of technology designed to detect vessels, and the competence of crew members can prevent vessel collisions. If safety precautions like these are not taken and injuries occur, it is possible the employer may be held responsible.
According to the report, five merchant crewmen fatalities occurred last year, compared to twelve in 2007. Eight fishermen died in 2008, which was the same number as 2007. The report warns of complacency as a risk factor in maritime accidents. When crew members get familiar with their jobs, it leads to a sense of complacency, increasing the possibility of errors.
According to a New Zealand maritime lawyer, Perano appeared to be texting just before the accident. He seems to have failed to see the other vessel that was moored in the bay, until it was too late to avoid a collision. 