This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
In recent years, offshore companies have witnessed a marked uptick in the number of enforcement actions undertaken by the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE). [1] 1] Operators face more BSEE inspections, Incidents of Non-Compliance (INCs), and civil penalties than ever before. See Island Operating Co.,
This is the first in a series of articles in which Liskow’s offshore team will discuss the regulatory framework for wind energy projects in federal waters and highlight legal issues pertinent to this dynamic area. To date, the development of offshore wind in federal waters has largely been limited to the east coast. federal waters.
The Violation In March 2012, BSEE conducted an inspection of ATP’s floating production platform facility, known as the ATP Innovator, while it was moored to the sea floor about 45 nautical miles offshore of southeastern Louisiana (about 125 miles south of New Orleans) and engaged in the production of oil and natural gas.
Moreno On November 8, 2010, the U.S. The original Subpart W rule for petroleum and natural gas facilities was proposed in March 2010. By defining the term “facility” this way, individual production wells that are under the reporting threshold may be pulled in if the owner or operator has additional wells in the same basin.
The contractors moved to dismiss the OCSLA charges on the basis that their conduct – as contractors – was not covered by OCSLA because they were not the lease holder or operator. As is customary for a typical oil and gas operation, Black Elk hired several contractors to perform various tasks on its platforms. United States v.
Background In 2010, in the wake of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, the Department of Interior renamed the Minerals Management Service (MMS) the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement (BOEMRE). 3304, issued June 29, 2010. The IRU investigation of an INC may not be apparent to an operator.
Holden Following the Deepwater Horizon incident in May 2010, the DOI imposed a six-month moratorium on the issuance of new drilling permits in deep water and directed then-operating lessees to stop operations at the soonest time practicable. Hornbeck Offshore Servs., By Sarah Y. Dicharry and Robert E. Salazar , __F.3d__,
3] When the source of the discharge is a vessel, the “responsible party” is the owner, operator, or demise charterer of that vessel. [4] 11] The Coast Guard is not responsible for adjusting OPA limits for offshore facilities (other than deepwater ports). Offshore facilities have unlimited liability for removal costs. [13]
If incidental takes are actionable under the MBTA, this raises possible MBTA liability in a variety of industries (such as wind projects, petroleum refineries, and other energy and infrastructure projects) whose normal day-to-day operations can have unintentional effects on migratory birds. United States v. FMC Corp. , 2d 902, 908 (2d Cir.
If incidental takes are actionable under the MBTA, this raises possible MBTA liability in a variety of industries (such as wind projects, petroleum refineries, and other energy and infrastructure projects) whose normal day-to-day operations can have unintentional effects on migratory birds. United States v. FMC Corp. , 2d 902, 908 (2d Cir.
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 5,000+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content