.... exploitation south china sea dispute thailand territorial sea jurisdiction continental shelf maritime boundary convention exploration artificial intelligence delimitation coastal state para us government tribunal island upstream oil & gas reservoir characterization agreement application...

... U.S. andforeign flagged facilities and vessels engaged in oil and gas exploration andproduction activities. Though the Macondo incident was not initiated by failures within areas of CoastGuard jurisdiction and the Coast Guard-regulated safety systems generallyperformed well under the extreme...

... (httpwww.uwf.edu/fpan/mardigras Traditionally, the United States jurisdiction extended 3 mis seaward of the coastline, excepting Texas and west Florida s jurisdictions extending to 9 nautical mi. In 1983, President Ronald Reagan extended the Federal territorial sea to 12 nautical mi and declared the U.S...

... knowledge management application offshore technology conference offshore atlantic canada upstream oil & gas canada government aer requirement atlantic canada otc 17563 regulation nova scotia coordination regulator jurisdiction implementation workshop information assessment...

... surety default petrobras case contract performance bond change order dispute jurisdiction conversion terminate otc 16662 payment termination petrobras construction contract offshore technology conference completion litigation platform upstream oil & gas contractor...

... classification society liquified natural gas gas monetization jurisdiction implication upstream oil & gas uscg secdot natural gas port construction dwpa us government regulatory scheme applicable regulation requirement terminal application midstream oil & gas ferc port...

... Guard1. This MOU defines the respective agencies responsibilities and jurisdiction under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act. The previous version, signed in 1990 was identified as deficient in light of advancements in offshore technology. The USCG and MMS have shared responsibility for activities...

... subsea system workgroup jurisdiction fpso standard uscg Copyright 2001, Offshore Technology Conference This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2001 Offshore Technology Conference held in Houston, Texas, 30 April 3 May 2001. This paper was selected for presentation by the OTC Program...

... mou storage regulatory scheme applicable jurisdiction us government certificate mms floating production system operation inspection coast guard fpso offshore technology conference otc 10702 upstream oil & gas daughdrill requirement regulation oc facility opa 90 subsea...

... excludes items curler the jurisdiction of the Minerals Management Service (MMS). INTRODUCTION An overview of the Jolliet Project management, design, fabrication and instal1ation1 is presented in the paper "Jolliet--The Project." A key element of the project is the TrnP located in Green canyon Block 184...

... pms polymetallic sulfide deposit upstream oil & gas discovery cost deposit market price significance in-place value economic significance economics knowledge asset and portfolio management copper substitution operation us government metals & mining jurisdiction...

... ABSTRACT After nearly a century of virtually complete freedom, marine scientists have encountered growing controls. In the 1950s a few states claimed jurisdiction to 200 miles. The 1958 U.N. Convention on the Continental Shelf extended some control over marine research. Throughout the 1960s...

... <:Ugh water depths of not more than 600 feet (1,500 feet maximum may be accepted over short distances when traversing a trough). FACILITY ON A NATURAL ISLAND For a natural island facility, an area of 60 acres or more (with appropriate topography, soil and subsoil conditions) is desirable for stor- age tanks, regasification plant, power plant, and all other subsystem requirements. The unloading area must be located in a minimum water depth Figure 7 graphically displays the method- ology for the process of elimination. Parameters for siting each of the facility types are detailed in the following paragraphs. To evaluate any facility design concept, a specific site must first be identified and then a detailed evaluation made of the site in terms of two environmental considerations: (1) the site must be judged suitable for the facility concept as it relates to facility function and safety (in practice, the concept selected is optimized for the site available) and (2) the siting and operation of the facility must be environmentally acceptable. A Detailed Environmental Analysis (DEA) is made a part of the application for facility approval and must demonstrate that facility construction and operation will not unduly affect the envil·onment. CONCEPT SITUATION OPTIMIZATION SITE SELECTION An optimized concept situation requires the adoption of a system approach (including all relevant site-specific data) for facility design and construction. The system approach requires that an analysis be made of the various concept combinations, and may even indicate that a totally new detailed design approach is required to arrive at the optimum site-specific facility concept. The economic and environmental constraints imposed on natural and artificial islands generally preclude the practicability of those facility con- cepts. The three remaining types (floating, fixed and mobile, and subsea) are usually the most viable candidate concepts when sited in the follow- ing offshore situations: 1691 SUBSEA FACILITIES A desirable area for a subsea facility would include a water depth of 250 to 550 feet, and soil and subsoil conditions suitable for supporting a bottom- sitting facility; protection from waves and swell for the safe approach and berthing of LNG carriers and supply ships to the faciIity is required. A favorable route is required for the pipeline from the subsea facility to the mainland with water depths of not more than 600 feet (1, 500 may be accepted over short distances when tra- versing troughs). JURISDICTIONAL AUTHORITY AND REGULA- TORY APPROVAL REQUIREMENTS C!onstructiong an LNG receiving terminal and laying the site-to- shore pipeline in any site involve obtaining siting, construction and operational per- mits in only two ocean zones: the U, S Territorial Sea and the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). The United States asserts sovereignty to a three- nautical-mile limit. These wate-rs are treated as U. S. Territory, and the U. S. fully enforces its laws upon persons and entities within the three - nautical-mile - zone. There are five international or Federal instruments that determine the extent of the OCS. However, control over the seabed is not perfectly correlated to the control of the surface waters. For purp-oses of this report, the OCS has been deemed to extend from the limit of the U. S. Territorial Sea (three miles) seaward to the extent of the continental margin. The authority provided in the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act is only for the exploration and exploi- tation of the natural resources of that area. It should be remembered that this authority applies to the OCS only and not to the waters superj scent to the OCS. At the present time there only exists statutory authority to site such a facility within the U. S. Territorial Seas. PresentIy there are no statutory provisions for locating a facility on the Outer Continental Shelf. This situation is much analogous to the requirements for Deep- water Port legislation that was finally enacted in 1974. FEDERAL AUTHORITY A Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity from either the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) or the Economic Regulatory Administration (ERA) would be required depending upon the source of gas being domestic or foreign. It is imminently clear now that one of these branches of the Department of Energy will be the lead agency responsible for prepar- ing the Federal Environmental Impact State - ment. Jurisdiction for granting rights -of -way and for granting leases for the laying of pipeline across the OCS has been considered to belong to the Depart- ment of Interior (DOI), Bureau of Land Management. However, the DOI has given its opinion that it has no existing statutory authority for gas other than that produced from wells in the vicinity of the pipe- line. Consequently, new legislation will be required for leases and right-of-ways from the boundary of state jurisdiction across the OCS to state jurisdic- tional waters off the mainland coast. This statu- tory limitation is conceivably solved if the exist- ing language of S, 9 prevails in the conference com- mittee with H. R. 1614. Additionally, permits or reviews would principally be required from the following agencies: Office of Pipeline and Safety Operations (DOT), U. S. Coast Guard (DOT), U. S. Geological Survey (DOI), Army Corps of Engineers (DOD), and the Environmental Protection Agency. STATE AUTHORITY Many coastal states do not have an individual LNG siting authority, and thus they rely heavily upon the DOE. Most of the states where LNG facilities are planned have undertaken specific action to deal with this energy facility siting issue. Only California has addressed the offshore issue by authorizing a $1.2 million study for the California Coastal Commission to determine the appropriate offshore sites and terminals for California. The uniqueness of an offshore LNG receiving terminal presents a situation that exceeds the capability of some agencies to evaluate and approve applications. The most notable example of a lack of implementing regulations is at the State level. Therefore, it would seem prudent for the states to promulgate the required regulations at the earliest possible time. The present formulation of the Carter Admini- stration policy on LNG siting may provide incentive: for siting LNG facilities offshore. If a non-urban or offshore policy is instituted, the corresponding legislation and regulation may be developed. Probably the most significant conclusion that has been reached is the apparent inability to obtain all atmrovals necessarv to site. construct and o~er- . ate any typ e of offshore LNG receiving terminal beyond the U.S. Territorial Seas. This is due to a lack of Federal statutory authority and State regulations. Sufficient regulatory authority does not cur - rently exist to enable granting all of the necessary approvals and permits for siting, construction and operation of any of the offshore LNG receiving 1692 terminal concepts considered in this study. There are three principal reasons for this conclusion 1. No Federal legislation has been found that enables the granting of approvals for the siting and associated lease for a LNG receiving terminal on the OCS . 2. NO Federal legislation has been found to enable the granting of a gas transmission pipeline right-of-way and lease across the OCS for transport of gas other than that produced locally from submerged lands in the vicinity of the pipeline. 3. No State regulations have been promulgated stating the standards for siting and licensing an LNG receiving terminal in State juris - dictional waters on the submerged tidelands. PROJECT IMPLE ME NTATION AND THE APPROVAL PROCESS Because a U. S. offshore LNG receiving terminal has never been built, three conditions arise which differ from conventional procedures. First, the siting of an LNG receiving terminal off the mainland coast introduces questions of jurisdictional authority that are contingent upon the site s location. Second, many offshore con- structions and facilities presently exist, but the size and cryogenic nature of a LNG receiving terminal presents unique technical and environ- mental challenges which are without precedent. Third, the application process for siting, con- structing and operating an offshore LhTG receiv- ing terminal encounters statutory and regulatory insufficiencies. In order to a.mess the time required to prepare an application and to obtain approvals, it is assumed that the noted insuf- ficiencies will have been corrected. To measure the time and cost related to each of the various phases of the offshore LNG receiving terminal project, each phase must be defined and the quantifying criteria described. Figure 10 portrays a simplified project imple- mentation sequence with a series of project phases which are considered to be independent steps. The tasks involved in each phase are portrayed in terms of both sequence and time. The typical offshore LNG receiving terminal project is con- sidered to consist of the following. The feasibility and preliminary design phase is that period of time required to arrive at a spe- cific site and concept selection and an assessment of economic feasibility. This phase includes a. complete engineering and environmental assess - ment that contains enough detail to enable a project go-ahead decision to be made. It has already been shown that offshore LNG receivtig terminal con- cepts are generally considered to be technically feasible. This effort, however, is only a part of the work necessary to demonstrate project feas- ibility. The feasibility phase of such a project usually begins during advanced planning and thus, timing is a variable depending upon the urgency of the project. For a project of this scope, however, the feasibility and preliminary design phase has been estimated to require from 18 to 24 months for both the facility definition and for proving site and project feasibility to a suitable degree. The project starting point, commitment to ~roceed, is that point in time at which the overall project feasibility can be demonstrated to a con- fidence level warranting full commitment of re- sources by the owner. The primary effort and the pacing item in the application preparation phase consists of writing the Detailed Environmental Analysis (DEA) based upon previous analyses and environmental assess- ment. The writing of other applications also occurs at this time. All of the preliminary work neces - sary for the development of the DEA was accom- plished during the feasibility and preliminary design phase. The regulatory app roval phase covers the time and effort necessary to obtain the required Federal, State and Local regulatory approvals for siting, con- structing and operating an offshore LNG receiving terminal. The procedures of each agency are an- ticipated to be nearly constant for an offshore LNG receiving terminal, regardless of concept selected; however, the concept selected will affect the total time and sequencing of approvals obtained. The finance and insurance phase overlaps both the approval phase and the construction phases and emphasizes the fact that project financing is vir- tually unobtainable until approvals are issued. The construction and startup time include the pre- paration of shop drawings, site mobilization, pro- curement and fabrication. Construction of onshore graving docks and pipeline staging areas are included where applicable. Construction and startup is concluded by placing the facility on stream . The project end point is also the point in time when the facility is on stream . TOTAL TIME TO IMPLEMENT PROJECT The total estimated time required to implement an offshore LNTG receiving terminal is the sum of that required in the various phases. The probable total implementation time required would be any where from 6-3 /4 to 8 years depending upon the generic concept involved and/ or the jurisdictional situation as summarized in Table 4. Note that the possible legislative and regulatory contingencies are set forth separately. 1693 . . . PROJECT COST AND ECONOMIC CONSIDER- ATIONS A detailed estimate of the cost of implement- ing an offshore LNG receiving terminal is not pos - sible unless a specific design and site is considered Nevertheless, estimates can be made for each phase of such a project. These estimates relate the offshore receiving terminal project to similar projects and provide some insight into the magni- tude of financing and insurance involved. Figure 12 depicted the project implementation sequence in terms of key events in conjunction with a phase- by-phase implementation schedule, The costs associated with each of these phases is also de- scribed. The cost of acquiring financing is usually estimated at approximately O. 5 percent of the amount of the loan. Debt servicing (not included in the construction estimates) will reflect the applied interest rates, current at that time, The interest rates applied will be a function of the risk uncertainties of the project and availability of money. Construction insurance can be estimated at approximately two percent of the amount of the loan. Project implementation costs are summarized in Table 5 for all concepts. The project is highly capital-intensive in the c obstruction phase, and is 100-percent equity- financial until all approvals are obtained. The amount of investment at that point is 15 percent of the total project cost extended over 60 percent of the project life. Beyond that point, the remain- ing 85 percent of the project cost is expended at a high rate throughout the last 40 percent of project implementation. The cash flows in Figure 13 illustrate three economic characteristics of the offshore LNG pro- ject which deserve attention. 1. The project is capital intensive. 2. The capital investment period is long. 3. Significant cash flows do not start until beyond the midpoint of the investment period. FINANCE In order to obtain financing and overall regulatory approval, a detailed financial plan is required. The plan must include certain basic information - notably, the demonstration of technical feasibility and the demonstration of economic viability based on the availability of gas supplies, adequate demand and the gener- ation of adequate revenues. The project must hold satisfactory Federal, State and Local permits. Security arrangements and credits to protect len- ders from undue risks must be provided including protection in case of completion failure; adequate revenue or other income to support debt service; protection against interruption of service; and the assurance of an adequate equity to debt ratio or satisfactory loan guarantees. In addition, several attributes are desirable: first, a concept with a low capital cost is generally indicative of a project with the best overall economics; second, a short construction time means the least delay in gaining revenue with the lowest escalation impact; and, third, a demonstrably high level of operational reliability (deliverability) implies relatively low operating risks. Current investment potential for projects of this nature are reportedly favorable. Life insur- ance investment capital is the major source, Dur- ing the past 18 months, life insurance companies have placed 40-45 percent in real estate. This trend could change, however, and estimates of available financing beyond one to two years is con- sidered unreliable. It is conceivable that one or more parts of an offshore LNG receiving terminal could be construed to qualify for financing under Title XI of the Mer- chant Marine Act, which would have decided advan- tages in the process of project financing. However, floating devices that are stationary and permanently moored are not considered eligible vessels for Title XI purposes. A key program of the Merchant Marine Act is the Construction Differential Subsidy (CDS) which provides for the payment of construction subsidies to American shipbuilders by the Government. The CDS does not, however, apply to any concept or part of the offshore LNG receiving terminal facility at this time, since it would not engage in the foreign commerce of the United States. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Five different offshore LNG receiving terminal concepts are available for siting off the coast. Each concept is evaluated in terms of technical feasibility, environmental acceptability, regula- tory complexity, project implementation time and project cost. The evaluation of offshore LNG receiving terminal concepts has produced a number of impor- tant conclusions. Some of these conclusions relate directly to the technical feasibility of siting and constructing of an LNG receiving terminal offshore, while others relate to the regulatory and economic constraints presently involved in the implementation of an offshore project. Our findings are stated in the following paragraphs and where appropriate, recommendations are offered. 1694 ALL FIVE OF THE OFFSHORE LN G RECEIVING TERMINAL CONCEPTS CONSIDERED IN THIS PROJECT ARE- TEC-H-NICALL-Y FEASIBLE All offshore LNG receiving terminal concept$ i. e. natural island, artificial island, floating, fixe{ and mobile and subsea were deemed to be techni- cally feasible. This conclusion was based upon demonstrated technology and operating experience or, in some cases, upon analytical evidence which proved the concept to be current state-of-the-art. No single offshore LNG receiving terminal design was submitted in sufficient detail, however, to permit assessment of the concepts beyond the generic level. Although all are considered to be conceptually feasible, optimization of a terminal design requires correlation of z specific design to a specific site. It is recommended that further investigation be undertaken to implement facility design trade- offs between each of the various acceptable sites. Detailed project cost and schedule estimates should be concurrently developed. It is likewise recommended that the initial preliminary design work be undertaken simul- taneously with regard to those subsystems or criticaI components requiring further develop- ment. The most important of these would include the development of large, high-pressure gas pipe- line rotary joints and cryogenic liquid transfer systems, as well as a design analysis of special mooring and/ or foundations. SUFFICIENT REGULATORY AUTHORITY DOES NOT PRESENTLY E-=ST- TO E-NA13LE GRADJTING ALL OF. .THE APPROVALS NECESSARY FOR SITING, CONSTRUCTING AND OPERATING AN y OFFSHORE RECEIVING- TERhlTNAL The Fairchild evaluation has disclosed the l following regulatory insufficiencies: 1. No Federal legislation has been found enabling the granting of approvals for siting and associated leasing of a LNG terminal on the Outer Continental Shelf (Ocs). 2. No Federal legislation has been found enabling the granting of a gas trans - mission pipeline right-of-way and lease across the OCS for transport of gas other than that produced from sub - merged lands. in.the. immediate vicinity of the pipeline. S. 9, if passed, will correct this situation however. This report develops these conclusions and states that if an offshore LNG receiving terminal is to be considered in the future, there is an obvious necessity for a concerted effort by the Federal and State agencies, separately and together, to provide appropriate legislation and/or regulations enabling the construction of an offshore LNG receiving terminal. It is also imperative that the development of adequate legislation includes the proper delegation of regulatory authority and the development of efficient and reasonable regulations in the approval process. Similarly, it is recommended that work be initiated to formulate specifications and standards for design, environmental impact and safety which are specifi- cally applicable to offshore LNG projects. Early attention to these aspects could significantly ex- pedite the regulatory process. ASSUMING THAT STATUTORY AND REGULATORY INSUFFICIENCIES ARE RESOLVED, ANYWHERE FROM 6-3 /4 to 8 YEARS WOULD BE REQUIRED TO IMPLEMENT AN OFFSHORE LNG RECEIVING TERMINAL PROJECT. Assuming that statutory and regulatory insuf- ficiencies are resolved, project implementation time was concluded to be anywhere from 81 to 96 months (6-3/4 to 8 years) dependixg upon the site- concept combination (see Table 4). The total imple- mentation time in months is shown below for each concept when sited in either State or Federal juris- diction and assumes that no civil litigation will arise in the regulatory approval process. Site Jurisdiction Facility Concept Stat e Federal Natural Island 91 N/A Artificial Island 96 N/A Floating 95 81 Fixed and Mobile 91 87 Subsea 85 81 The pacing items in project implementation are the 21 and 35 months required for State regu- latory approval and the 32 and 42 months estimated for construction. Although the Federal approval cycle takes only 18 months, final approval must await completion of the State cycle.. The approval process is complex and time consuming. For import terminal projects, the approval process is characterized by the large amount of environmental reporting and study re- quired under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the California Envim nmental Quality Act (CEQA). Since the preparation of applications and the regulatory process consume about one -third of the total project implementation time, efforts to streamline this activity at Federal, State and Local levels are strongly recommended. ESTIMATES OF THE COST OF AN OFFSHORE LNG RECEIVING TERMINAL ARE APPROXIMATELY ,1695 $400 MILLION. PROJECT FINANCING AND INSURANCE ARE EXPECTED TO BE AVAILABLE FOR PROJECTS OF THIS SIZE. Order -of -magnitude cost estimates place all offshore LNG receiving terminal projects between $350 and $450 million. The construction costs represent the major portion of the project costs . More than 50 percent of the construction costs, in turn, are consumed in the basic struc- ture and containment systems on floating, fixed and mobile and subsea concepts. The ability to obtain financing and insurance is primarily dependent upon the level of finance exposure. As projects approach the magnitude of $500 million difficulties in project finance may occur. It is important that technical feasibility and economic viability be clearly demonstrated, that all required regulatory approvals and permits be obtained and that security arrangements and credits exist to protect lenders from undue risks, It is again stressed that the single most important factor in obtaining financing rests with the ability to obtain all regulatory approvals, free of potential intervention and protest in civil suits. Lacking approvals, financing is virtually unobtain- able. TebIe 1 Equipment List , ECUJIPMENT Marine Loading Arms Vapor Return Blowers BoilOff Compressors LNG Pumps Vaporizers Seawater Pumps Power Generation Liquid Nitrogen Tank SUPPLIERS FMC/Chiksan Continental Emsco David Brown-Vesper Ameron Process Systems Airco Cryoge ws Elltott. Ebara Swearmgen Brothers, Rotofiow Corp. Cooper Bessemer Dresser Clark Div. H,tach,, Ltd. IHI, Ltd. AIRCO Cryogenics Cryodynamrss, Inc. J.C. Carter, Div. of ITT Kobe Steel, Ltd Marston Excelsmr. Ltd. Ryan Industries timitomo Precision Products Co., Ltd. Trane Alha.chalmers B!ngham Byron Jackson Worthington Avco Lycoming OIV. Curtis. Wrtght Corp. General Electric Gas Turbtne Oiv, Solar Oivision of International Hawester United Technology of Turbopower, Marjne OIV, Westinghcae Atr Products and Chemtcals Airco CCyogemcs Lox Equipment Co. MVE Ryan Industries Total No. Of Units 5 (each berth) 4 4 20 tank pumpt 16 boost pumps 1 7 supply pumps 7 drain pumps 3 1 Total Weight (Tons] 265 20 100 250 (wet) 1,000(wet) 300 (wet) 450 (dry] 60 (dry) 160 (wet) TYPICAL DATA m 20x 50 (each 1- berthl lox 50 20X 125 5X1WJ 158X 1S3 7X70 6oxt?u (not includ ing alr ft Iters) 1,200 3,200 22.000 14,0+30 42,000 15X 100 Total cost (Million $) Delivery (Month) 5 0.5 3,5 3 10 3 7 0.2 10 10 lB 18 24 21 16 B ,. T.51. 2 construction Cost and Sehedu[eSummary Artificial Floating Fix& end MobiIe subsea Item COst[l } in SSOO-400131 5300-40+3(31 $37s $325 Millions -1976 $342 Dollars Schedule(4) 32 42 36 42 36 in Months WA may wry fzo% (z)All ~ipel;ne~o~%are considered@$1 millionfmile [10 milesof pip?fineare includedin all Ca$e$] f3)Sim ~quisitjon of a natural islandor m artificial islandisnot included, 141Co structio. time O.IY - preliminary engineeringnot included . . Ttile3, Approval Requirementsandthe CognizantAgenc,esHavr"gJ"ritiicttonal Authority RequiredApprovala d Permirs . Ga* Transmmioo GasTra smMm Reqtmed Certificate Facility Pipdi e Pip4me Approval Storageand Plpelme Engineering Construct,o of Public Fac,l,ty Site Land R,ght.of.Way Land Use and Permits Enginewinga d Des,gn Convenience ?Me Lease use Perm,t Approvals Alr Lkcharge Water and Waste Health and and Lease Pe,m,t (State) Safety Approval Approvals and Penn,t Permit DischargePecmits Safety App,ovals Zone I PROPERTY state A FPC SLC LOCAL LOCAL OWNER/ ccc SLC ARB RWOCB Jurisdiction ccc OPSO CAL. SLC USCG OSHA cOE EPA EPA Zone I SLC L12C~L , ~rfi, state A ARs RWOCS FPC S1f! ccc , Zone I ccc state A FPC SLC 1 Jurisdiction 000 .-vw I USCGEPA EPA Zone IV Federal Y&Jl:l :: omo e:{coE 1 ~ { LOCAL:- XJT Zone IV Federal B Jurititct ion I L , Zone I ccc SLC :fl,L?212AL CG State A FPC SI Q OPSO z SLC ARB RWOCB Facility kwwpt Natural Ida d Project Situatior, 4rtif6cial Island SLC I .- 1 Ur>cl I 1 / GAo COE EPA EPA OSHA .LOCAI 2 ! I ~RR I awn.. IJurisdiction I -ll I Floating OPSO USCG ccc USCG USCG EPA EPACOE USCG Jurisdiction ! I R CAL. OSHAJurisdiction ! 1A 000 ~ . Fixed .x,. ccc I cOE EPA EPA OSHAUSCG 1 IA& ; ,.P* USCG USCGUSCG COE EPA EPA USCG ccc OPSO USCG U3CG EPA EPACOE USCG...

... understanding of the proposed fisheries management regime under extended jurisdiction. INTRODUCTION In the last 30 years the world fish catch has tripled, while United States commercial landings have remained nearly constant. Foreign catches off the U.S. coast have increased to nearly twice those of the U.S...

..., States; or they could be placed beyond the terri- in which case it comes under the jurisdiction of torial sea upon the continental shelf of the Unitedthe federal government except as statute may States at distances anywhere from three miles to provide for the jurisdiction of the states. hundreds of miles...

... for a super port; and the drafting of legislation to be presented to the 1972 session of the Louisiana Legislature which would create a Super port Authority. expressway number 2096 8 jurisdiction legislation construction minimum throughput contract us government louisiana upstream oil &amp; gas...

... the area of State jurisdiction. In the Santa Barbara Channel alone, in the State area, there have been some 16 oil and gas fields discovered since the legislation of 1921; however, some have been abandoned. Briefly, these fields and the year of their discovery are as follows: Rincon in 1927, Elwood in 1928...

... management tank sewage pollution installation discharge disposal jurisdiction legislation new environment bacteria OFFSHORE TECHNOLOGY CONFERENCE 6200 North Central Expressway Dallas, Texas 75206 THIS IS A PREPRllIT SUBJECT TO CORRECTION ~OTC 1679 The New Environment Marine Sewage Treatment...

... by the proximity of the coast. Jurisdictional problems arise from the multiple levels of government authority (federal, state, county and local) over events in the region, from the geographically bounded lower levels of government and from the often uncertain limits of authority of agencies of government...

... concession continental margin upstream oil &amp; gas coastal state mineral resource coastal nation convention jurisdiction recommendation exploitation united states reservoir characterization exploration us government ocean floor rights natural resource continental shelf...