What Causes Explosions? Who Is At Fault For An Explosion?
Explosions in the oil & gas industry can be caused by many things. Some examples are when equipment is malfunctioning, when the wrong equipment is used for a job, when company policy prohibits using certain types of equipment, when employees work around dangerous chemicals without proper training or protective gear, and when the danger warning devices are installed on pieces of equipment fail to function or are not properly maintained.
In the industry, every accident is investigated to determine what exactly happened and who is to blame. In cases where an explosion occurs at a plant or offshore oil rig, there are very complex rules governing what equipment should be used, how it must be maintained, and what types of precautions must be taken when employees work with dangerous chemicals or other hazardous materials. When these rules are not followed, tragedies happen.
The explosion injury lawyers at Morrow & Sheppard LLP have handled numerous industrial plant and offshore explosion cases. In the cases we have handled, dangerous choices by oil and gas companies have caused serious injuries and horrific burns requiring surgeries, and even death. While the kinds and causes of fires and explosions vary, every single incident our experienced attorneys have encountered has the same overriding similarity: the fire or explosion could have been prevented if safety rules were followed.
What Our Clients Are Saying
Common Types of Explosions
Before discussing what causes fires and explosions, it is helpful to discuss the contexts in which they occur. Here are some examples.
Oilfield Explosions
Every year, there are several explosions in oilfields around the country. These include explosions in the Texas Eagle Ford Shale, the Haynesville Shale in Louisiana, the STACK play and SCOOP Play (Woodford Shale) in Oklahoma, and the Permian Basin in Texas and New Mexico.
As OSHA has recognized, “[w]orkers in the oil and gas industries face the risk of fire and explosion due to ignition of flammable vapors or gases.” Flammable gases, such as well gases, vapors, and hydrogen sulfide, can be released from wells, trucks, production equipment, or surface equipment such as tanks and shale shakers. Ignition sources can include static, electrical energy sources, open flames, lightning, cutting and welding tools, hot surfaces, and frictional heat.”
To learn more about the common causes of oilfield accidents, please review our article.
Industrial Explosions
Our industrial accident lawyers have handled plant, refinery, and industrial fires and explosions in a variety of contexts. For example, we have handled cases in which a refinery operator failed to ensure lines were cleared during a welding operation, resulting in a flash fire that caused injuries.
Offshore And Maritime Explosions
Some of our offshore injury lawyers at Morrow & Sheppard LLP performed work in connection with the Deepwater Horizon explosion, which is perhaps the most well-known offshore explosion in recent history. For reference, you can review our four-part series of articles about that explosion here: Part I, Part II, Part III, and Part IV.
What were the causes of the largest offshore explosions? The common causes of offshore explosions include:
1964
C.P. Baker Drilling Barge, Louisiana
This catamaran-type drilling barge exploded in the Gulf of Mexico waters near New Orleans, Louisiana. 22 seamen died and 22 suffered burns or were otherwise injured. The United States Coast Guard investigation found that the explosion was caused by the “drill penetrating a high-pressure gas pocket before any protection against blowout had been provided.” This resulted in gas entering the vessel through the air conditioning system and igniting. Water rushed in and sunk the drilling vessel. The Coast Guard found that the casualty could have been avoided or diminished if the vessel had been able to move under emergent conditions, equipped with emergency power or lighting, able to control ignition sources in the face of a blowout, and had a proper designation of the line of command of personnel assigned to a drilling rig.
1969
Santa Barbara Oil Spill, California
This explosion and blow-out occurred aboard the Union Oil (Unocal) Platform A in the Dos Cuadras Offshore Oil Field in the Pacific Ocean near California. The entire crew was ultimately evacuated. Unocal was allowed to build a protective casing around a drilling hole that was 61 feet short of federal minimum requirements. The resulting explosion cracked the seafloor in five places and dumped as much as 100,000 barrels of oil into the ocean. Residents in nearby Santa Barbara County had to evacuate due to the risk of explosion from abundant hydrocarbon vapors. Unocal and ExxonMobil, which also had an interest in the well, paid millions in fines to the U.S. Government.
1979
Pemex Campeche Sedco 165, Mexico
This explosion in the Gulf of Mexico off the coast of Ciudad del Carmen, Mexico. When drilling mud circulated downhole escaped into underground cracks in the drilling formation, the rig crew decided to pull up the drill bit and seal off the fractures. When the pipe was pulled, drilling mud flowed up to the surface. This “kick” could not be stopped by the blowout preventer, because the thick drill collars(as opposed to the thinner pipe) had been brought in line with the BOP shear rams, and the rams were not strong enough to cut through the drill collars. A catastrophic blowout ensued.
1984
Enchova Petrobras, Brazil
16 were injured and 40 ultimately drowned. Six suffered serious burns in the rig fire.
1988
Piper Alpha, Scotland
This Occidental Petroleum platform in the North Sea exploded and sunk, killing 165 crewmembers and 2 rescue workers. 30 bodies were never recovered. Investigation revealed that the explosion was caused by a condensate leak, which resulted from simultaneous work on a pump and safety valve. The Scottish investigation headed by Judge William Cullen found Occidental Petroleum guilty of inadequate maintenance and safety procedures.
1995
Mobil Oil Rig, Nigeria
13 people were killed and many were injured in an explosion on an oil rig off the coast of Nigeria.
2001
Petrobras P-36, Brazil
A floating offshore production unit operating in the Roncador Field off the coast of Brazil capsized and sank following an explosion. The explosion was the result of poor alignment of the emergency drain tank (“EDT”) and tank heater, allowing for the accumulation and ignition of hydrocarbons in the starboard EDT. This resulted in an overpressure event that caused the tanks to crack and explode. The airtight dampers onboard allowed water to invade the starboard pontoon rooms including the pump rooms, which meant the pumps could not remove water from the hole created in the explosion. The vessel ultimately capsized. 11 people died and 137 were injured.
2005
Mumbai High North Platform, India
This offshore explosion and fire occurred during a medical evacuation of an injured crewmember from a multi-purpose support vessel (“MSV”) to a platform in the Arabian Sea off the coast of Mumbai, India. When the MSV’s dynamic positioning system malfunctioned, the captain took over manual controls. The vessel experienced a strong heave, and the MSV’s heliport struck a gas riser on the platform above, causing a high-pressure release that resulted in a fire and explosion. 22 people were killed. United Kingdom statistics showed that, at the time, the majority of ship collisions involved supply vessels.
2010
Deepwater Horizon, Louisiana
This Transocean rig operated by British Petroleum exploded and sunk in the Gulf of Mexico, 11 miles off the coast of Louisiana. 11 Jones Act seamen died and 17 were injured. The causes of the explosion included the Transocean drilling crew’s (1) misinterpretation of negative test results; (2) failure to perform flow checks and shut in the well; (3) failure to divert flow overboard; (4) failure to maintain the blowout preventer (“BOP”), and the Captain/Master’s failure to activate the emergency disconnect system (“EDS”). British Petroleum was found grossly negligent in causing the explosion by willfully disregarding abnormalities in the negative pressure test results, and deeming the tests a success. A Louisiana federal judge determined BP, Transocean, and Halliburton all “engaged in conduct that was negligent or worse and a legal cause of the blowout, explosion, and oil spill.”
2010
Mariner Energy Vermillion 380 A Platform, Louisiana
This offshore platform fire was caused by the collapse of a fire tube located inside the platform’s heater-treater. The emergency generator failed to start and the 13-person crew was forced to abandon the platform and jump into the Gulf of Mexico waters 102 miles off the Louisiana coast. The heater treater, designed to separate oil water emulsions into oil and water, contained a fire tube which had progressively weakened over many years due to corrosion and heat. BOEMRE determined that this incident reinforced the need of oil companies and drilling companies to maintain equipment in conformance with existing standards, to protect the safety of personnel onboard (as well as the environment) from injury including burns, injury, and death.
2012
Chevron Nigeria Limited, Nigeria
Two people died in this jack-up rig explosion in the Atlantic Ocean off the coast of Nigeria. News outlets reported that “Chevron Corp. left workers pleading to be evacuated from a gas exploration platform off Nigeria which kept drilling while smoke poured from a borehole until an explosion killed two people as the rig became engulfed in flame.” The cause of the explosion was suspected to be the buildup of gas pressure or the failure of the blowout preventer (“BOP”).
2014
Fieldwood West Delta Blow 105 Platform E, Louisiana
This explosion occurred while Turnkey Cleaning Services personnel were cleaning an electrostatic heater treater. The supervisor was killed and several others were injured. BSSE determined that “when the WD 105 E electrostatic heater treater was partially drained of fluids that were inside the vessel during production operations, there was a significant amount of space remaining where flammable vapors could accumulate. Upon opening of the manway hatch to the coalescing section of the heater treater, these vapors were not promptly or effectively removed from the vessel through ventilation methods, and the interior of the vessel was introduced to oxygen from the outside environment, leaving it vulnerable to a potential fire or explosion should a significant ignition source occur. Additionally, all potential ignition sources were not effectively removed or mitigated during the preparation for, and activities of, cleaning the heater treater. The presence of each of these elements, therefore, created a hazardous environment that was conducive to such an explosion . . . the probable cause of the ignition was the unrestricted supply of electrical energy to the electrostatic components inside.”
2015
Petrobras-BW Offshore Mateus, Brazil
An explosion and fire occurred because of an oil and gas leak aboard the Cidade de São Mateus, a floating oil production, storage, and offloading ship (“FPSO”) owned by BW Offshore Ltd and operated by Petrobras. At least 3 seamen were killed, 10 were injured and transferred to a hospital by helicopter, and 6 were deemed missing.
2015
Pemex Abkatun, Mexico
An offshore explosion started with a fire in the dewatering and pumping area of the Abkatun A-Permanent platform in the Gulf of Mexico off the coast of Mexico. The cause was a leak in a gas fuel line, apparently because of accelerated corrosion caused by microorganisms and sulfuric acid within the gas. Four rig workers were killed, 16 were injured, and three were never found.
2015
Gunashli Platform No. 5, Azerbaijan
A high-pressure subsea gas pipeline damaged in a heavy storm caused a deadly fire to break out on an oil and gas platform in the Caspian Sea off the coast of Azerbaijan.
Vacuum Truck & Saltwater Disposal Explosions
Numerous work injury explosions have occurred involving oilfield vacuum trucks and saltwater disposal facilities. For example:
2018
Devon Energy Saltwater Disposal Facility
Our Firm handled a personal injury explosion lawsuit arising from a significant 2018 explosion and fire at a Devon Energy saltwater disposal facility near Kingfisher, Oklahoma, which resulted in third-degree burns and other injuries to three people: a saltwater 18 wheeler driver, chemical field service technician, and flowhand. The explosion occurred during a tank cleaning or “rolling bottoms” operation conducted to eradicate basic sediment and water (“BS&W”) from oil and water separation tanks called “gun barrels.” Our Firm hired top-notch experts including a NASA chemist and multiple engineers from different oil and gas disciplines to figure out what happened. The suspected ignition sources were either pyrophoric, spontaneously combusting iron sulfide deposits which built up in the tank and became exposed to air when the vacuum truck was operated or static electricity discharge from the vacuum truck itself. Our client was not involved in the tank cleaning operation and happened to be standing nearby when the explosion occurred.
???
Vacuum Truck Engine Explosion
A vacuum truck entered a dike area within a tank block during a tank cleaning operation. While vacuuming flammable liquids from the tank sump, a fire started that destroyed the vacuum truck. The ignition source was the vacuum truck engine and the fuel was vapor from the truck’s vacuum exhaust vent.
???
Vapor Cloud Explosion
An employee was unloading refinery waste from a vacuum truck. A vapor cloud formed from the light hydrocarbon being unloaded. The vapor was carried downwind by air currents to the tractor of the vacuum truck, where it ignited. The employee incurred fatal burns.
???
Rosharon Incident Near Houston, Texas
In an industry-changing incident near Rosharon, Texas, three men died and four other workers incurred serious burns when two vacuum trucks were transporting and offloading basic sediment and water (BS&W) in 50-barrel vacuum trucks from gas leases to an authorized commercial disposal facility. The drivers discharged BS&W by opening the valves at the rear of the vacuum trucks, allowing the BS&W to gravity drain onto a sloped concrete pad leading to an open concrete pit, unaware that the BS&W contained flammable gas well condensate. The condensate hydrocarbon vapors formed a flammable mixture in the air, causing an explosion. OSHA and the United States Chemical Safety Board both conducted investigations and identified a number of corporate-level failures that contributed to the explosion.
???
Non-Conductive Hose / Spark Explosion
A fire occurred when a non-conductive hose was used to vacuum a product from a small container. The incident report concluded that sparks at the point where the hose and the edge of the container came into contact created a source of ignition.
???
Impact Spark Explosion
An off-loading fire was caused either by an impact spark when an off-loading hose was dropped into a storage tank or by static discharged when disconnecting a coupling. Another cause of the fire was sparks created by the whipping action of a discharge hose during off-loading.
2004
Iron Sulfide Sump Pump Explosion Involving Man From New Mexico
In 2004, an explosion and flash fire occurred at a natural gas plant operated by Tom Brown, Inc. and Encana Oil & Gas. A man, who was from New Mexico, was working for a vacuum truck subcontractor asked to vacuum out water in a sump tank. He alleged the explosion and his severe burns were the result of Encana allowing natural gas to enter through an open valve in a sump pump. He claimed Encana failed to properly lockout and tag out the tank. His experts testified that spontaneously combusting, pyrophoric iron sulfide deposits in the tank ignited the gas. Encana, meanwhile, claimed the subcontractor improperly hooked up the vacuum truck and failed to properly bond and ground it, leading to the buildup of static electricity which ignited the gas. Encana lost the liability phase of the explosion jury trial in Utah federal court. Thereafter, the case settled for a confidential sum before the jury awarded damages. The man sustained third-degree burns to his hands which had to be skin grafted, and he developed complex regional pain syndrome (“CPRS.”).
???
Internal Vacuum Truck Tank Explosion
Reports of internal explosions or fires within vacuum truck cargo tanks are rare. However, incidents that have been reported point out the need for exercising care in the mixing of incompatible materials and the vacuum removal of dusts. In one instance, a static ignition occurred while dry, powdered sulfur was being suctioned from a pit, resulting in an explosion within the vacuum truck. Other internal ignitions have occurred when flint-type rocks or other sparking objects were picked up in the vacuum operation and sparked when discharged inside the vacuum truck tank.
???
Suction Hose Static Discharge
A pneumatic conveyor truck was used to transfer Perlite insulation out of a tank containing cryogenic process equipment. A static charge occurred between the metal “strongback” taped to the plastic suction hose, causing ignition of flammable vapors in the tank. The vapors were the result of small leaks in the process equipment. The employee standing at the tank manway was seriously injured.
???
H2S Release Explosion
Light ends and hydrogen sulfide gas were released when a vacuum truck was loading spent caustic. The problem was corrected by pumping the product into a truck instead of loading it under a vacuum.
???
Vacuum Pump Tightening Incident
A vacuum truck operator’s sleeve caught on the vacuum pump as the operator attempted to tighten the pump packing resulting in injuries to the operator.
???
Pipeline Overpressure Explosion
A vacuum truck was being used to remove a product from a pipeline when the line was activated and over-pressured the vacuum tank.
???
Welding Explosion Near Vacuum Truck
A vacuum truck intended to remove light crude oil from a pipeline. The control valve was incorrectly set to discharge instead of vacuum. This resulted in a hydrocarbon release from pressured piping into an area where welding provided a source of ignition. A welder incurred fatal burns.
???
Malfunctioning Suction/Discharge Connection
A vacuum truck was being prepared to pick up a load in freezing winter weather. The main suction/discharge connection on the vacuum tank’s rear bulkhead was malfunctioning. It is presumed the valve was frozen in the partially open position. The workers chose to use a propane torch to free the valve. Flame propagation through the partially open valve ignited an explosive mixture in the vacuum tank. The ignition blew off the vacuum tank’s rear door. The door struck two workers resulting in fatal injuries to both. A third worker also incurred fatal injuries in the incident.
???
H2S Iron Sulfide Explosion
Personnel were purging, cleaning, and dismantling equipment after well testing activities were completed. The crew was preparing to enter the pressure tank to collect samples and clean the tank. The tank had been purged with propane to remove sour vapors from the vessel. After the H2S was reduced to an acceptable level, a vacuum truck was used to draw air into the pressure tank to purge the propane. The crew tried to open the manway door but could not due to a residual vacuum in the vessel. When the manway door was finally pried open, a high-velocity rush of air entered the vessel followed by an explosion and fire. Four workers suffered first and second-degree burns to their neck and head areas. Investigators determined that pressure tank grounding was removed before the job was completed and testing of samples taken from inside the vessel indicated the presence of iron sulfides.
???
Rig-Out Explosion
During a rig-out operation, grounded vacuum trucks were pumping out a vented storage tank. The crew was on a break when the tank exploded, damaging nearby equipment. Pyrophoric iron sulfide was the suspected ignition source.
???
Valve Removal Operation Causes Explosion
A crew of workers on a sour-lease site isolated sweet gas to a condensate task so that they could remove valves for maintenance. The tank later exploded. Iron sulfide was the suspected ignition source.
In many cases, vacuum truck explosions and saltwater disposal explosions occur due to violations of explosion safety rules set out in API 2219, Safe Operation of Vacuum Trucks Handling Flammable and Combustible Liquids in Petroleum Service. The above list contains numerous incidents specifically discussed in API 2219.
Boiling Liquid Expanding Vapor (“BLEVE”) Explosions
Tanks and vessels around the world have exploded in boiling liquid expanding vapor (“BLEVE”) explosions. BLEVE explosions occur when pressurized liquid in a tank or other vessel reaches a temperature above its boiling point. The boiling point of liquids typically increases under pressure, which means the material in the tank may not boil as long as the vessel is intact. When something causes the tank to rupture, however, the above-boiling liquid rapidly converts to gas and expands, which can cause a fire or explosion.
BLEVE examples include:
1978
Nitrogen Tank Explosion, West Virginia
A BLEVE explosion occurred at a liquid nitrogen tank at an Air Products & Chemicals and Mobay Chemical Corporation facility in New Martinsville, West Virginia.
1978
Tank Car Explosion, Tennessee
A tank car carrying liquified petroleum gas exploded during a cleanup of a train derailment.
1988
Tanker Truck Disaster, Tennessee
A tanker truck carrying propane ruptured, causing ignition of the leaking gas, causing the tank itself to be launched and crashed into a nearby building.
1988
Propane Tank Explosion, Iowa
An 18,000-gallon propane tank near Albert City, Iowa exploded in a BLEVE which killed two volunteer firefighters and injured seven other emergency response workers.
2017
Semi-Closed Steam Condensate Receiver ("SCR"), Missouri
A condensate receiver near St. Louis had a BLEVE event. The bottom of a hot water storage tank failed catastrophically at the Loy-Lange Box company, causing the pressure in the tank to drop. The water in the exploded into steam, launching the storage tank “like a rocket,” according to the Chemical Safety Board (“CSB”) investigation. One box factory worker was fatally injured in the blast, and a second was left in critical condition. Three workers at a nearby healthcare linens business were fatally injured by the flying tank. The CSB determined that “The immediate cause of this incident is the mechanical integrity failure of the material of the original bottom head that remained in service following the 2012 repair. The SCR was uniquely vulnerable to catastrophic failure because the severe corrosion of the 6″ ring left it much thinner than the tank circle. The entire ring failed suddenly. The tank circle blew away in one piece from the SCR, creating the conditions for the steam explosion.”
Home Explosions
Unfortunately, there have been a number of preventable home explosions and apartment complex explosions resulting in severe personal injury burns, death, and other injuries.
For example, our firm handled and tried a $7 million home explosion lawsuit in Webb County, Texas (near the Rio Grande Valley) arising from a utility room lean from a gas valve. Our expert fire and explosion investigators, and the jury, found the plumber, home builder, and CenterPoint Energy neglected to plug and seal the valve, in violation of various building codes and municipal ordinances.
Our firm also recently handled another Colorado home explosion case which arose from leaking pipes underground.
Tank Battery Explosions
Numerous fires and explosions have occurred at tank battery facilities. For example, on January 24, 2022, there was an explosion and fire at a central Oklahoma oil tank battery operated by Devon Energy near Okarche, Oklahoma. Tank battery explosions have caused Louisiana to implement new safety rules.
No Fee Unless We Win
At Morrow & Sheppard LLP, we understand the hardships of trying to heal and make sense of an accident. That is why we work on a contingency fee basis, which means no fee unless we win the case. Our fee is a percentage of the verdict or settlement we obtain for you.
The Fire Triangle
For most explosions to occur, the three elements of the “fire triangle” must come together in one place. The three elements of the fire triangle are (1) a fuel source; (2) oxygen; and (3) an ignition source.
Many times, investigations and news articles will focus on the ignition source of a fire or explosion. However, our fire and explosion lawyers have learned that sometimes this emphasis is misplaced. This is because, critically, if any one of the three legs of the fire triangle is eliminated, there will be no fire. There will be no explosion.
Frequently, companies are negligent (or even grossly negligent) in failing to recognize that, as opposed to attempting to eliminate all ignition sources, safe work practice and a safe work environment can be more reasonably achieved by eliminating oxygen or a fuel source from the work scenario. In the oilfield, there is a saying about this, which goes “if you have oxygen and you have a fuel source, the ignition source will find you.”
What’s The Difference Between A Fire And An Explosion?
A fire occurs when oxygen is rapidly consumed, producing heat and light. This is a chemical process involving a fuel and an oxidizer which produce energy, an “exothermic” event.
An explosion occurs when energy expands rapidly from the source and there is a dangerous shock wave. This is, technically, a purely physical process. Explosions can occur without any combustion or fire. For example, we handled a maritime injury case involving a pneumatic loading arm under pressure, which exploded and caused severe injuries and amputation. But the incident did not involve fire or combustion.
Many catastrophic industrial, offshore, oilfield and work injury events include both a fire and an explosion. For that reason, it is easy to confuse the two processes. But fires and explosions are, scientifically, two different things.
Explosion Fuel Sources
The causes of explosions vary. However, there are certain explosions that our fire and explosion lawyers see frequently in the work injury and wrongful death context.
- Chemical Explosions
- Liquid Explosions
- Vapor Explosions
- Solids Explosions
- Flash Fires
Explosion Ignition Sources
Common ignition sources of fires and explosions include:
- Static electricity and other electrical discharge
- Sparks
- Pyrophoric materials such as iron sulfide
- Electrical conductors and equipment
- Overcurrent and overload
- Short circuit
- Synthetic clothing fibers
- Lightning
- Gas burners and pilot lights
- Machinery
- Appliances
- Dust collection devices
- Flashlights, radios, cameras
What’s This About Oxygen?
Technically, an explosion can occur without oxygen. For example, in outer space, exploding stars (“supernovas”) are caused by nuclear and gravitational forces.
Our explosion injury lawyers have also handled gas pressure explosions, which occur in things like boiler explosions and pressurized loading arm explosions. Those do not necessarily require outside oxygen either.
Most work injury explosion cases, however, involve a chemical reaction and burning. Those generally require outside oxygen or an oxidizer, and sometimes both.
An oxidizer accepts or “strips” electrons from another substance. This can release energy and cause ignition in and of itself. More frequently, oxidizers accelerate combustion—making the combustion event worse, more expansive, faster, or all of the above.
As is discussed above, generally, if any of the three legs of the “fire triangle” are broken, a fire or explosion typically cannot occur. A properly planned work operation typically involves eliminating as many of the three legs as is possible. Many people are surprised to learn that, oftentimes, oxygen is the easiest of the three legs to eliminate. For example, in a petroleum service operation, sometimes there will necessarily be a fuel source (the oil or gas product) present. A well-planned and safe operation may require oxygen to be eliminated from the process, as well as the ignition source. For example, a vacuum truck offloading operation or a refinery tank cleaning operation may be conducted safely through the use of a nitrogen blanket, which removes oxygen from the process.
Who Is At Fault For An Explosion?
Oil & gas companies are required to follow certain safety procedures, but many employers fail to do so. The explosion injury attorneys at Morrow & Sheppard LLP have seen numerous cases where oil & gas companies were negligent in their duties to properly maintain machinery and equipment. However, even if an oil & gas company does everything correctly according to safety standards, it can still be found liable for an explosion if it hires the wrong person for a job or negligently fails to train employees or keep proper records about who is working near machinery and on what.
In cases such as these, the root cause of an explosion is not due to any single thing; instead, it stems from multiple negligent decisions made over time. For example, even if an oil & gas company follows all of the safety procedures, an explosion can still happen if one employee is working with the equipment without proper training.
Similarly, it may be difficult to pinpoint who or what was at fault for an accident which took place on a platform. All the evidence points to the offshore oil rig being properly maintained and its employees being adequately trained, but the machinery used to drill a hole for oil or gas exploded. In cases such as these, it can be extremely challenging to determine who exactly is liable for what happened.
In some situations involving offshore oil rigs and other industrial plants, parts of larger oil & gas companies are held responsible because they could have prevented an explosion. For example, an explosion may occur which injures a welder who is working on a job. The welder can sue the company he or she was employed by and the oil & gas company that contracted him.
It’s important for oil & gas companies to follow all of the safety precautions required of them and to ensure that their employees are not negligent about any aspect of their jobs. When they fail to do so and another person is injured, the law expects companies to pay for their mistakes.
Explosion Injury Lawyers Get To The Bottom Of What Happened
Our fire and explosion investigation attorneys are contacted by families all the time. Yes–they want, need, and are entitled to compensation for their injuries or loss of a loved one. But they also want to know what happened. They want to make sure the same thing doesn’t happen to someone else.
Our experienced explosion lawyers at Morrow & Sheppard LLP take this role seriously. We have spent millions of dollars hiring expert engineers and fire investigators, visiting explosion sites, and doing what it takes to investigate the causes of work-related fires and explosions. We have always been told and are hopeful that our clients are proud of the work we have done investigating fires and explosions, and can provide references in that regard.
If you are reading this, and you or a loved one has been a victim of a fire or explosion, we would appreciate the opportunity to do the same for you and your family.
Practice Areas We Handle
Our experienced Houston personal injury attorneys want to understand your unique situation so we can provide legal guidance that will help you obtain a favorable result. We have experience handling a wide variety of personal injury cases. We offer a free, no-obligation consultation, contact us today! You don’t pay us unless we win your case.
