HBW Resources: Greenfield Offshore Energy Report

HBW Resources: Greenfield Offshore Energy Report

Offshore Energy Development Is Critical to US Economic Growth and Energy Security
Below is a summary of publicly available activities currently underway at the federal, state and international levels that could impact the development of offshore oil and gas resources.  With numerous legislative bodies now in session, HBW Resources is monitoring these activities to ensure that responsible policies based on sound science are advanced. 
U.S. Senators Introduce Offshore Drilling Legislation
U.S. Senators Mark Warner (D-VA) and Tim Kaine (D-VA) on Wednesday introduced the “Virginia Outer Continental Shelf Energy Production Act of 2013” (S. 1024), a bill that would require the U.S. Secretary of the Interior to include a lease sale covering federal waters offshore Virginia in the Interior Department’s current 2012-2017 Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Program. 
Of the rental, royalty, bonus bid, and other revenues generated from the lease sale, 37.5% of the funds would be distributed to the State of Virginia, 12.5% would be distributed at the discretion of the President to enhance Virginia land and water conservation efforts, improve Virginia public transportation projects, and establish Virginia alternative and renewable energy systems.  The remaining 50% of revenues would be distributed to the U.S. Treasury. 
The lease area would be comprised of the offshore waters included in Lease Sale 220, as well as any areas off the Virginia coast that are included in the Mid-Atlantic planning area as a result of a revision to a January 2010 map that would be required under the proposed legislation.  It would not include any tracts determined by the President (in consultation with the House and Senate Armed Services Committees) to be in conflict with national security-related military operations if leased.
Commenting on the proposed legislation, Sen. Warner noted that he has “long advocated for additional exploration and responsible production of domestic energy resources off of Virginia’s coast,” adding that he believes that “changes in the membership of the Senate after the 2012 elections have helped to produce a potentially more supportive atmosphere for our legislation.”
Sen. Kaine added that “Virginia is well positioned to be a national leader in offshore energy exploration” with a “diverse energy portfolio [that] is a model for the nation.”  He further stated that the legislation “will bolster our energy security, create jobs and direct revenues to Virginia that will support important priorities across the state.”
Responding to the legislation’s introduction, Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell (R) said in part that the legislation “includes appropriate environmental protections and an equitable formula for sharing revenues,” stating that “ending unnecessary restrictions on the responsible exploration of Virginia’s offshore natural resources…will allow Virginia to assume its potential role as a national leader in offshore energy exploration.”
Gov. McDonnell added that he “applaud[s] our delegation’s leadership in advocating for the responsible, safe and economically viable development of these domestic energy resources” and “urge[s] Congress to pass this important bill.”
U.S. Rep. Scott Rigell (R-VA) introduced similar legislation in the House of Representatives in late April.
Obama Issues Memorandum Addressing Federal Infrastructure Review and Permitting
President Obama last Friday issued a Presidential Memorandum on “Modernizing Federal Infrastructure Review and Permitting Regulations, Policies, and Procedures.”  Sectors covered by the Memorandum include but are not limited to conventional energy production in “high-demand areas,” pipelines, ports and related infrastructure, water resources projects, and renewable energy generation.
According to the Memorandum, the quality of U.S. infrastructure “is critical to maintaining our Nation’s competitive edge in a global economy and to securing our path to energy independence,” and that “[i]n taking steps to improve out infrastructure, we must remember that the protection and continued enjoyment of our Nation’s environmental, historical, and cultural resources remain an equally important driver of economic opportunity, resiliency, and quality of life.”
In order to “advance the goal of cutting aggregate timelines for major infrastructure projects in half, while also improving outcomes for communities and the environment,” the Memorandum directs the Steering Committee on Federal Infrastructure Permitting and Review Process Improvement to work with the Chief Performance Officer, in coordination with the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs and Council on Environmental Quality, to do the following:

  • Within 60 days, identify and prioritize opportunities to modernize key regulations, policies, and procedures to reduce the aggregate project review and permitting time;
  • Within 120 days, prepare a comprehensive federal infrastructure review and permitting modernization plan outlining specific steps for re-engineering intra- and interagency review and approval processes, identifying proposed actions and timelines to:
  • Institutionalize or expand best practices or process improvements already underway;
  • Revised key review and permitting regulations, policies, and procedures;
  • Identify high-performance attributes of infrastructure projects that demonstrate how projects seek to advance existing statutory and policy objectives and lead to improved outcomes for the community and environment;
  • Create process efficiencies;
  • Identify opportunities to use existing non-appropriated funding sources to support early coordination and project review;
  • Effectively engage the public and interested stakeholders;
  • Expand coordination with states, localities, and tribes;
  • Strategically expand the use of IT tools and identify priority areas for IT investment;
  • Identify improvements to mitigation policies to provide project developers with added predictability, facilitate landscape-scale mitigation based on conservation plans and regional environmental assessments, facilitate interagency mitigation plans where appropriate, ensure accountability and the long-term effectiveness of mitigation activities, and utilize innovative mechanisms where appropriate

Federal entities required to participate in the effort include the Interior Department, EPA, Council on Environmental Quality, Departments of Defense (including Army), Commerce, Energy, Transportation, Homeland Security, and Agriculture, and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation.
Coast Guard Says It Won’t Recommend Deepwater Harbor In Arctic, Unveils Arctic Strategy 
EnergyWire on Wednesday reported on comments made by U.S. Coast Guard Commandant Adm. Robert Papp Jr. earlier in the week at a Center for Strategic and International Studies forum that plans are moving forward to expand the U.S. fleet of icebreakers for operations in the Arctic.
According to Papp, while the process for developing and analyzing the design and construction of next-generation icebreakers has begun, the Coast Guard will not recommend construction of a U.S. Arctic deepwater harbor.
Citing cost concerns and uncertainties regarding requirements for constructing and maintaining onshore permanent infrastructure in northern Alaska, Papp said that the Coast Guard will instead rely on mobile offshore infrastructure to serve as a command center for activities in the region.  He added that he could foresee a full-time command center in Barrow, AK when the Arctic becomes ice-free throughout the year.
With regard to offshore oil and gas activity in the region, Papp said he has more concerns about oil tankers and LNG traffic in the Bering Strait than he does about drilling activity and that U.S.-Russia-International Maritime Organization talks have commenced regarding the establishment of shipping lanes in the Arctic.
Papp’s appearance at the CSIS forum marked the roll-out of the Coast Guard’s new Arctic Strategy to guide their efforts in the Arctic over the next 10 years.  The Strategy includes three objectives to improve awareness, modernize governance, and broadening partnerships.
With regard to oil and gas and related activities, the Strategy makes observations including the following:

  • “Activity in the most remote reaches of Alaska continues to evolve and grow, including planned drilling operations in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas…”
  • “The circum-Arctic region and Outer Continental Shelf area ranks as second behind the Gulf of Mexico for volume of resources,” with 90 billion barrels of oil reserves, 1,700 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, and 44 billion barrels of natural gas liquids (with 84% of these reserves believed to be offshore), $3.7 billion in commercial investments in offshore leases in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas that “illustrates the economic significance of the region,” 30% of the world’s undiscovered natural gas and natural gas liquids, and over 35% of Alaska’s jobs tied to the energy sector
  • “Decreasing sea ice and diminishing onshore oil production are creating incentives for further exploration offshore.  These activities bring risk, which can be mitigated through appropriate maritime governance.”
  • “…receding sea ice enables seasonal offshore oil exploration.  In 2012, one multi-national oil company commenced offshore exploration activities in the U.S. Arctic.  Such commercial exploratory efforts are expected to expand during the next decade.”
  • “Arctic drilling is conducted primarily from fixed, man-made platforms.  Floating offshore platforms are becoming more attractive as exploration increases.”
  • “If an oil tanker were to spill its cargo in Arctic waters the potential impact to the marine environment would be profound, and removing the oil would be challenging.”
  • “Increased energy exploration and production will require additional regulatory oversight, facility inspections, domestic commercial vessel examinations, merchant marine credentialing, and investigations.”
  • “Spill response in the Arctic presents major operational challenges due to the distances involved in mounting a response, limited infrastructure, and inherent difficulty of recovering oil from ice-covered waters.”
  • “Through efforts to discover and exploit offshore oil and gas reserves, the energy industry will deploy oil rigs, offshore supply vessels, barges, and tankers in Arctic waters.”
  • Coast Guard will “[s]upport deployment of portable surveillance sensor packages positioned at critical geographic choke points, on board offshore drilling infrastructure, and on Coast Guard assets to contribute to vessel awareness and enhance communications capabilities”
  • “Increasing human activity in Arctic waters will pose additional risk of pollution at sea,” and the Coast Guard will establish best practices that “protect and promote environmental resilience,” including engaging government partners and the private sector to “address, and apply, statutory and regulatory responsibilities for environmental preparedness and response,” partnering with Arctic nations to develop and implement marine pollution prevention and response strategies, and continuing to serve as Vice Chair of the National Response Team, co-chair of the Alaska Regional Response Team, and Federal On-Scene Coordinator in the coastal zone
  • Expected increases in Arctic energy production “will require new or enhanced infrastructure such as pipelines, oil facilities, expanded port and intermodal transportation systems, and other shore-side infrastructure.  Broadening partnerships within the Transportation Systems-sector and across other critical infrastructure sectors will be necessary to stay risk informed.  This sharing of information will be required for the effective implementation of critical infrastructure protection programs.  These public-private partnerships will provide the foundation for effective critical infrastructure protection.”
  • “Long-term success means that the oil, gas, and shipping industries, as well as other entities involved in economic development, minimize risks and be prepared to respond quickly and decisively to incidents that may occur.”

Other statements of interest in the Strategy include the following:

  • “Federal agencies must work together efficiently and effectively to refine permitting, improve operational performance, and reduce risk.  To ensure long-term success in the Arctic, the Federal government must continually improve inter-governmental coordination and decision-making processes…As an example, the interagency working group established by Executive Order 13580 to coordinate domestic energy development and permitting in Alaska will continue improving coordination nationally.”
  • “Increased human activity is expected to stress the Arctic environment, with potentially serious consequences for indigenous communities and ecosystems…many characteristics of the Arctic environment are still largely unsettled academically…High levels of uncertainty remain concerning the effects of climate change and increasing human activity in the Arctic…Coast Guard efforts to understand and protect the Arctic environment must be risk-based, coordinated with partners and stakeholders, and rely upon the most comprehensive information available.”
  • “The National Ocean Policy objectives are an integral part of a national commitment to improve and integrate a more comprehensive ocean management policy in the United States.”
  •  “Changing Conditions in the arctic” is one of the nine priority objectives included in the president’s national ocean policy…The U.S. arctic is also one of nine regions in the United States where the national ocean policy contemplates regional-based marine planning.  among other things, these policy approaches advocate for improved situational awareness in the arctic maritime domain, greater scientific certainty with environmental conditions and resources, and the need for intergovernmental and international cooperation to promote shared interests.”
  • “The Coast Guard will support whole-of-government efforts for Arctic planning and operations,” consulting and engaging with tribes, seeking solutions that “create efficiencies, eliminate redundancies, and contribute to improving stewardship of resources,” and leading and participating in “national-level planning and exercises” that include federal, state, tribal, local, and non-governmental partners to “test preparedness and adaptability” and identify overlap in organizational roles, responsibilities, authorities, and resources

DOD Announces Intention To Prepare EIS For Arctic Deep Draft Ports Study
The U.S. Defense Department’s Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) on Monday announced its intention to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to study the potential positive and negative environmental impacts of constructing, operating, and maintaining existing and possibly new navigation infrastructure in part of the Seward Peninsula on Alaska’s western coast (in the vicinity of Norton Sound and the Bering Strait), focusing on existing infrastructure at Nome, possible infrastructure at Cape Riley near Teller, and improved infrastructure at Point Spencer and Port Clarence, AK

According to the announcement, the EIS will assist decision-making on the Arctic Deep Draft Ports Navigation Improvements Feasibility Study that USACE is working on in partnership with the State of Alaska and U.S. Department of Transportation
USACE states that Nome “cannot meet the existing demand for maritime infrastructure, while demand on that infrastructure continues to increase,” adding that “[c]ommerce, safety, national security and oil spill response capability have been identified as issues needing to be addressed in the United States as an Arctic nation.”
In addition to any alternatives that the public requests be considered, USACE seeks comments on structural (e.g. possible harbor construction or improvement alternatives), nonstructural (e.g. traffic management and Port Authority establishment solutions), and no-action alternatives.
USACE seeks comments on issues including but not limited to the following: 
·         Potential impacts on health from the existing usage of the area by transiting and local vessels;
·         Potential impacts on health, both positive and negative, as a result of project implementation;
·         Potential impacts to workers during the construction of the facilities;
·         Potential impacts to surface water, tidelands and fauna including turbidity from construction activities;
·         Potential impacts on air quality from emissions and from noise during construction and operations;
·         Potential cumulative impacts of the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions including impacts resulting from activities foreign and domestic, multinational, Federal, state, and local;
·         Potential impacts to historically significant properties, if present, and on access to traditional use areas;
·         Potential impacts on local, regional, or national resources from materials and utilities required for construction and operation;
·         Potential impacts on ecological resources, including threatened and endangered species and water quality; and
·         Potential impacts on local employment, income, population, housing, and public services from harbor construction and operations
USACE will hold public scoping meetings in Nome and Teller, AK the week of June 10.  According to USACE, the draft EIS will be published no sooner than December 2013, with a final EIS issued no sooner than November 2014.
NMFS Finds Dusky Shark Population ESA Listing May Be Warranted
NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service last Friday announced its 90-day finding that substantial scientific or commercial information indicate that it may be warranted to institute a petitioned action to list the Northwest Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico (hereafter referred to as “Northwest Atlantic”) population segments of the dusky shark as threatened or endangered and designate critical habitat.
The finding responds to a November 2012 petition filed by WildEarth Guardians to list the dusky shark as threatened or endangered range-wide or, in the alternative, the Northwest Atlantic population of the dusky shark as a threatened or endangered DPS and designate critical habitat, as well as a February 2013 petition filed by Natural Resources Defense Council to list the Northwest Atlantic population of dusky shark as threatened, or as an alternative, to the list the dusky shark as threatened throughout its range and designate critical habitat.
NMFS states that information in the petitions and in their files suggests that the Northwest Atlantic population of the dusky shark may qualify as a DPS under DPS Policy’s discreteness and significance criteria.  It concludes that the petitioned action to list the Northwest Atlantic dusky shark population may be warranted due to overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes, inadequate existing regulatory mechanisms, and other natural or manmade factors.
As to WildEarth Guardians’ claims that the Deepwater Horizon oil spill degraded the marine environment used by dusky sharks in the Northwest Atlantic, NMFS notes that the group “does not provide any information on how the effects of spill contribute to the extinction risk of the species” and adds that there is no information indicating that “degraded” sea grass habitat south of Chandeleur Island is a nursery area for dusky sharks. 
NMFS further states that the agency “acknowledge[s] that although there is no specific information at this time on the effects of the spill on the NW Atlantic population, the petition did reference a study…that is currently looking at the sub-lethal impacts of oil exposure, with dusky sharks listed as a target species.”  NMFS adds that it “may re-examine this factor as new information becomes available.”
NMFS concludes that the petitions “fail to present substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted” for the dusky shark species throughout its range.
NMFS specifically seeks information and supporting documentation on the following with regard to a potential listing:
·         The discreteness, as defined in the DPS Policy, of the NW Atlantic population;  
·         The significance, as defined in the DPS Policy, of the NW Atlantic population;
·         Historical and current distribution and abundance of this population throughout its range;
·         Historical and current population trends;
·         Life history in NW Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico waters;
·         At-vessel and post-release mortality rates of dusky sharks on different types of fishing gears;
·         Historical and current data on dusky shark bycatch and retention in commercial and recreational fisheries in the NW Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico waters;
·         Historical and current data on dusky shark discards in commercial and recreational fisheries in the NW Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico waters;
·         Data on the trade of NW Atlantic dusky shark products, including fins, jaws, and teeth;
·         Any current or planned activities that may adversely impact the species;
·         Ongoing or planned efforts to protect and restore the population and its habitat;
·         Population structure information, such as genetics data; and
·         Management, regulatory, and enforcement information
Scientific and commercial information must be received by Tuesday, July 16, 2013.  After being named a candidate species in 1997, the Northwest Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico dusky shark populations were transferred to the Species of Concern List in 2004.
NMFS: Iliamna Lake, AK Harbor Seal ESA Listing May Be Warranted
NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service last Friday announced its 90-day finding that substantial scientific or commercial information indicate that it may be warranted to institute a petitioned action to (1) find that harbor seals in Iliamna Lake, AK are a distinct population segment (DPS) of Pacific harbor seals and list them as a threatened or endangered species; and (2) designate critical habitat. 
The finding responds to a November 2012 petition filed by the Center for Biological Diversity, which asserts that harbor seals in Iliamna Lake, AK constitute a DPS that faces threats including the following:
·         Habitat modification and disturbance associated with the Pebble Project and climate change;
·         Disease and natural predation;
·         Other natural and anthropogenic factors including risks of rarity, entanglement in fishing gear, illegal hunting, oil and gas exploration and development, contaminants, and commercial fisheries; and
·         Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms for addressing greenhouse gas emissions, climate change, ocean acidification, and the Pebble Project
With regard to oil and gas exploration and development, the petition also states that “marine stages of salmon populations that utilize the Kvichak watershed for spawning will impact Iliamna Lake seals.”  The petition then notes that oil and gas development “has been proposed in Bristol Bay in the past, and if it was allowed to go forward could have devastating impacts on salmon in the event of an oil spill or other catastrophic failure.”  The petition further states that “increased shipping due to decreased sea ice and offshore drilling in the Beaufort and Chukchi seas is likely to increase shipping in the North Pacific and Bristol Bay, which would result in an increased risk of oil spills from these vessels.”
NMFS states that the petition includes “numerous factual errors, misquoted and incomplete references, and unsupported conclusions.”  However, the agency also found that “there is some evidence that at least a small number of seals remain in the lake year-round” and that if there is no migration between Iliamna Lake and Bristol Bay and if the seals are distinct from those in Bristol Bay, the seals “may face potentially serious threats including low abundance, the Pebble Project and climate change.”
NMFS specifically seeks information and supporting documentation on the following with regard to a potential listing:
·         Information on taxonomy, abundance, reproductive success, age structure, distribution and population connectivity, habitat selection, food habits, population density and trends, and habitat trends;
·         Information on the effects of potential threats, including the Pebble Project and climate change, on the distribution and abundance of seals in Iliamna Lake and their principal prey over the short- and long-term;
·         Information on the effects of other potential threats, including disease and predation, contaminants, fishing, hunting, industrial activities, or other known or potential threats;
·         Information on management or conservation programs for harbor seals in Iliamna Lake, including mitigation measures associated with private, tribal or governmental conservation programs which benefit harbor seals in Iliamna Lake;
·         Information on the effects of research on the harbor seals in Iliamna Lake; and
·         Information relevant to whether harbor seals in Iliamna Lake may qualify as a DPS.
Scientific and commercial information must be received by Tuesday, July 16, 2013.

BSEE Seeks Comments On Decommissioning-Related Information Collection Renewal
The U.S. Interior Department’s Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement on Tuesday announced that it is seeking comments on an information collection to be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget that requests renewal of paperwork requirements related to platform, well, and pipeline decommissioning and site clearance and platform removal-related activities (and related Notices to Lessees and Operators).
The information collected by BSEE from federal oil, gas, and sulphur lessees/operators is used (1) to determine the necessity for allowing a well to be temporarily abandoned (verifying that the lessee is diligently pursuing the final disposition of the well and has performed the temporary plugging of the wellbore); (2) involve the agency on the ground floor planning of platform removals anticipated to occur in the Alaska and Pacific OCS regions, ensure all objects installed on the OCS are properly removed and sites are cleared to avoid conflicts or harm to other uses; (4) ensure that pipelines are properly decommissioned in place; and (5) verify that decommissioning activities are compliant with approved applications and procedures and adequately completed.
BSEE seeks comments on whether the collection is necessary or useful, the accuracy of the burden of the proposed information collection, enhancing the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the information to be collected, and minimizing the burden on respondents.  BSEE also seeks comments on any non-hour cost burdens, including information related to any capital and startup up cost components or annual operation, maintenance, and purchase of service requirements that are necessary to comply with this information collection.
Comments on the proposed information collection are due by Monday, July 22, 2013.
Northeast Regional Planning Body Seeks Comments On Draft Goals
Following its April 2013 meeting in Narragansett, RI, the Northeast Regional Planning Body (RPB) last week released draft “regional ocean planning” goals (including associated outcomes and actions) for public review and comment.  The RPB–which was established under the July 2010 National Ocean Policy Executive Order to develop a Coastal and Marine Spatial Plan for Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont–says it will consider public input and revise the draft goals, actions, and outcomes at its next meeting in Fall 2013. 
The RPB seeks comments on the following three draft goals and associated potential outcomes and actions:

  • Effective Decision Making (Goal 1)
  • Healthy Ocean and Coastal Ecosystems (Goal 2)
  • Compatibility Among Past, Current, and Future Ocean Uses (Goal 3)

Potential actions and outcomes of note include the following:
·         “Incorporate regional data and maps into regulatory processes” (Goal 1 potential action)
·         “Decisions made with improved respect for the customs and traditions of the indigenous peoples concerned” (Goal 1 potential outcome)
·         “Regional data and science priorities addressed and incorporated into management decisions on an ongoing, adaptive basis” (Goal 1 potential outcome)
·         “Maps of species, habitats, and areas of regional importance (e.g. areas of high productivity, diversity, spawning, and/or critical habitats) are incorporated in existing decision making processes” (Goal 2 potential outcome)
·         “Identify opportunities within existing regulations and authorities for restoration and protection” (Goal 2 potential action)
·         “Working within existing regulations and authorities, use publically-accessible maps and trends to define and characterize important, significant, or valuable areas” (Goal 2 potential action)
·         “Identify geographic areas and species that are important for sustenance” (Goal 2 potential action)
·         “Maps of existing human uses, and identification of potential future changes to those maps, used to help minimize conflicts and informing siting of new uses” (Goal 3 potential outcome)
·         “Greater recognition and understanding of the connection between inland resource use and associated impacts on ocean resources” (Goal 3 potential outcome)
·         “Working within existing authorities and regulations, information for preserving important cultural and historic sites and traditions” (Goal 3 potential outcome)
·         “Identify and where possible map existing uses…and related infrastructure…” (Goal 3 potential action)
·         “Identify and map cultural and historic sites” (Goal 3 potential action)
·         “Enhance viability of and compatibility among new and existing ocean uses” by considering trends in maritime commerce, commercial fishing, renewable energy development, and seafloor material use, offshore aquaculture potential, and certain shore-side infrastructure assessments (Goal 3 potential action)
The RPB seeks comments on which aspects of each goal (and associated actions and outcomes) are viewed favorably, which need changing, and what the priority outcomes and actions should be for each goal over the next two years and why.  The RPB also asks the public to consider nine “framing principles” in the development of public feedback on the draft goals:
The draft goals will be the subject of ten public meetings that will take place in the Northeast May 23-June 25, and comments on the draft goals, potential outcomes, and actions are due by Friday, June 28, 2013.  The RPB will provide additional information on submitting public comments on Thursday, May 23.
ONRR Announces Completion Of CFR Chapter Reorganization 
The U.S. Interior Department’s Office of Natural Resources Revenue on Wednesday announced the issuance of a direct final rule completing the Code of Federal Register chapter reorganization (following the 2010 reorganization of the former Minerals Management Service) by amending the remaining Office of Management and Budget form numbers for information collection requirements and corresponding technical corrections to part and position titles, agency names, and acronyms.
The amendments relate to royalties, alternatives for marginal properties, product valuation, sales agreements or contracts governing the disposal of lease products, forms and reports, collection of royalties, rentals, bonuses, and other monies due the federal government, accounting procedures for determining net profit share payment for Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas leases, suspensions pending appeal and bonding-Office of Natural Resources Revenue, and appeal procedures.
State Department Announces Open Meeting Of Shipping Coordinating Committee 
The U.S. State Department last Friday announced that the Shipping Coordinating Committee will hold an open meeting onThursday, June 6 in Washington, DC to prepare for the 91st Session of the International Maritime Organization’s Marine Safety Committee that will take place in London, England June 12-21, 2013.
According to the announcement, matters to be considered include but are not limited to the consideration and adoption of amendments to mandatory instruments, measures to enhance maritime security, goal-based new ship construction standards, making the Polar Code mandatory, radiocommunications and search and rescue, formal safety assessment.
Additional Information
For additional information, contact Brent Greenfield with HBW Resources. His contact information is below.
Brent Greenfield
HBW Resources
2211 Norfolk Street, #410
Houston, TX 77098
Tel: 713-337-8810
E-mail: bgreenfield@hbwresources.com
Web: http://www.hbwresources.com
If you have any general questions, please give me a call anytime. Previous reports, updates and Member profiles can be reviewed at: http://www.mzehrhbw.wordpress.com.   Hope you have a great week!
Michael Zehr
HBW Resources
1666 K Street, NW, Suite 500
Washington, DC 20006
Direct: 202-429-6081
Cell: 202-277-3927
E-mail: mzehr@hbwresources.com
Twitter: @mzehrhbw


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s