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
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.
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.
11] The Coast Guard is not responsible for adjusting OPA limits for offshore facilities (other than deepwater ports). 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] 138.230). [10]
Moreno On November 8, 2010, the U.S. The original Subpart W rule for petroleum and natural gas facilities was proposed in March 2010. Offshore petroleum and natural gas production facilities must include emissions from equipment leaks, venting, and flaring.
In 2010, Black Elk Energy Offshore Operations, LLC (“Black Elk”) owned and operated a production facility on the West Delta 32 Lease Block located in the Gulf of Mexico. Wood Group issued the hot work permit for this task on November 16, 2010. Moss, et al , No. 16-30561 (5th Cir. Grand Isle Shipyards, Inc.
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. Richard Hastings (R-Wash.), In particular, Rep. According to Rep.
Hercules Offshore, Inc., 20, 2010 , 452 F. Hercules Offshore, Inc., Hercules Offshore, Inc., In the Fifth Circuit, plaintiffs may recover for a maritime claim of emotional injury under the physical-injury test, but the Fifth Circuit has never decided whether plaintiffs may also recover under the zone-of-danger test.
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__,
Hercules Offshore, Inc., 20, 2010 , 452 F. Hercules Offshore, Inc., Hercules Offshore, Inc., In the Fifth Circuit, plaintiffs may recover for a maritime claim of emotional injury under the physical-injury test, but the Fifth Circuit has never decided whether plaintiffs may also recover under the zone-of-danger test.
In 2010, Congress empowered OSHA to administer claims arising under the SPA. Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”) recently took action against a maritime employer for allegedly retaliating against a seaman who cooperated with the Coast Guard in connection with its investigation of a maritime casualty.
On February 5, 2021, the Fish Wildlife Service (“FWS”), under the Biden administration, announced that it was delaying the effective date of a rule promulgated by the Trump administration regarding “incidental takes” and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (“MBTA”). 8716, published February 9, 2021. 16 U.S.C. § Newton Cnty Wildlife Ass’n v. FMC Corp. ,
On February 5, 2021, the Fish Wildlife Service (“FWS”), under the Biden administration, announced that it was delaying the effective date of a rule promulgated by the Trump administration regarding “incidental takes” and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (“MBTA”). 8716, published February 9, 2021. 16 U.S.C. § Circuit Split. United States v. FMC Corp. ,
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