Page 17: of Maritime Reporter Magazine (January 2013)

WWW.MARINELINK.COM 17This puts owners and operators in an untenable situation. If they request a ruling in advance (which is not re-quired), they risk obtaining an adverse ruling, irrespective of prior precedent, as a result of the political pressure now surrounding interpretation of the Jones Act as it applies offshore. If they de- cide to move forward without a ruling, then the company subjects itself to a severe penalty action which they will have to defend through the CBP miti- gation process. This is no way for the U.S. gov-ernment to establish policy and it is contrary to CBP?s own policy of ?In- formed Compliance,? which is sup-posed to make sure industry knows what to expect. In short, fundamental fairness de-mands and it is incumbent upon CBP under its Informed Compliance policy to achieve consistency in interpre-tation of the Jones Act as it applies offshore?and not through ad hoc en- forcement actions, especially when there is precedent supporting the ac-tivity in question. In addition, it is particularly troubling that CBP would initiate such a policy when the United States is only now starting to see a re-covery in the oil and gas development regime in the Gulf of Mexico in the af-termath of the Deepwater Horizon and when the United States is still trying to get its sputtering economy back on track.In conclusion, given these develop-ments, it is incumbent for all those involved in the offshore oil and gas industry to work together to find a way forward to ensure that we do not un-necessarily put a substantial damper on offshore development when the United States is only now beginning to achieve energy independence. And now, the work is coming back to the Gulf?by all reports, the outlook is bright as we start 2013. However, one thing that appears to be lurking offshore is the tightening of the screws on Jones Act enforcement. MR #1 (10-17).indd 17MR #1 (10-17).indd 171/2/2013 10:16:17 AM1/2/2013 10:16:17 AM