You where on a somewhat of a fact post so I will tag on too.
Let us look at some facts and Assumption based on these facts.
The FBAR
Mission is to preserve historical resources in which they issue and monitor permits to both Academia and Corporate.
For both the applicant must provide a Listing of key personnel, assets to be used, scope of work, and financial statement.
Insurance rules were repelled.
Assumption – These requirements must be provided by the personal completing the actions.
The USACE
Mission is to protect beach erosion, shore lines, and all assets that fall within their scope of responsibility.
The FDEP
Mission is to protect the environment, wild life, water quality, and air quality.
Both the USACE and FDEP have no special permitting for the permits the FBAR issue. The permitting for this type of work falls into the construction requirements. The same permit a person wanting to build a pier would have to submit the same request as a treasure hunter. The FDEP also includes if I wanted a pool, build a gas station, put in a road to my house, build a house, etc…….
They need to provide a listing of personnel or companies conducting the work, assets that will be used, and proof of liability insurance.
Even in the permit requires that the USACE or DFEP must be notify when CONSTRUCTION starts, when CONSTRUCTION is suspended, and when CONSTRUCTION is completed. The Treasure Hunters must translate that to when diving starts for season, when diving stops for season, or when the diver just give up.
Assumption (somewhat) – If I want a pier the Lead company would request a permit, NOT the electricians, and carpenters, and masons, etc.……. All must be on the permit as to conducting work and all must have liability insurance. If I wanted to have the headache, if I wanted to have a pier built I could go out to get the permit and list all but I would rather find a lead company and pay him to do it.
Maybe if someone asked for all permits associated with a specific permit instead of a specific company they may have gotten a different response, IMO. But I really don’t care because if it were true that a CEO lied on an Official Company PR for personal gain, that person that knew he lied would either submit a formal complaint or sue the CEO in court instead of typing away on a message board.
I believe the PR and nothing from those closed minds can persuade me to change my opinion / mind. Case Closed………… For me but let the others go ahead and ramble on and on and on…………….
