Foreign Flag Vessels in GOM


#182

I doubt that you read the article before posting.
The point was that they DID NOT get what they deserve.

The Union is not complaining about the Thialf being engaged in decommissioning and demolition work in Norwegian waters, nor about it being manned by foreigners.

The argument is NOT about the pay and condition for those workers as long as they perform the work onboard the Thialf. (They are paid per ITF tariffs and MLC standard)

According to Norwegian Law foreign workers on Norwegian fixed platforms are entitled to the same pay and benefits as Norwegian workers.

What they advocating is that when these workers are performing work on fixed platforms in Norway they should receive Norwegian wages and working conditions, even if they are working from the Thialf .


#183

I doubt you read between the lines. The union forces the company to pay union wages there’s no more cost savings. Then there’s no reason hiring cheap foreigners you may as well hire locals. This wasn’t the union lookin out for their downtrodden comrades. This was the union trying to push the scabs out.


#184

Sorry, that is your typical American way of thinking. The relevant Norwegian Unions are part of ITF and DO look out for their downtrodden comrades. (Hard to believe, I know)
PS> They actually stepped in to hold up an American flag offshore vessel from leaving Norway because they didn’t have a propped wage agreement, or comply with MLC’06.

Norway do not have anything like the Thialf, Saipem 7000, or the new Pioneering Spirit to do the type of operations require to install or remove platforms, or lay large pipes.
There is no way the Unions can or will demand that the full crew of such vessels shall be changed to Norwegians for the few weeks or months of the year that they are working in Norwegian waters.
Likewise, to demand that Norwegians, or Norwegian Contractors be engaged to do the preparations for lifting/removal is not in the cards either.

The work to Plug and Abandon the wells are carried out by contractors offering the best and most cost effective methods, regardless of whether the Contractor, or rig used, is Norwegian or not.

At the moment there are rigs owned and operated by American, Italian, Danish and Chinese companies working in Norway.(Or stacked and ready to work anywhere in the world)

The Law requires that work on fixed platforms has to be carried out according to Norwegian rules and regulation. The personnel has to be paid Norwegian wages and work under Norwegian conditions, which does NOT imply that all workers HAS to be Norwegian nationals. (They have to have Norwegian work permit though)

Oh yes, I almost forgot; they do work 2 weeks on/4 weeks off schedule, regardless of nationality of the person, or Contractor. Maybe you find something wrong with that work schedule too???


#185

The other side of the coin as seen by the Norwegian Employer’s Organization, Oil & Gas: http://norwaytoday.info/news/norwegian-oil-gas-wants-maritime-rules-platform-scrappers/


#186

You surveyed Skandi Singapore? I was working there in 2013, when she was in New Zealand. Never eaten so well in all my life. Was she always Norwegian flagged? Because I remember things differently.


#187

Yes as far as I can see from my Suitability Survey Report from June, 2014 and Equasis, she has been NIS registered since delivery from ST Marine, Singapore in 2011.
During my survey the Master was Polish. (Capt. Norbert Piasek)


#188

The US owned Nasdaq financed fleets are a direct result of the Jones Act

https://www.eagleships.com/about-us/


#189

what the FUCK are you saying here? that the Jones Act has created Eagle Shipping which is NOT a Jones Act operator?


#190

Add Genco to the list

With warchest, Genco in position to strike

New York-listed bulker owner’s $180m in cash allow it to seek growth opportunities, executive and analyst say.

August 8th, 2017 15:45 GMT

by Eric Martin

Published in Finance

Genco Shipping & Trading is positioned with ample liquidity that puts it in a position to take advantage of buying opportunities, an analyst and company executive said after the company’s earnings report.

Clarksons Platou Securities’ John Gandolfo said the bulker owner some $180m in cash on its balance sheet against $526m in debt.

Genco sees narrower loss in second quarter
Read more  .
“Assuming the application of a modest 50% leverage to potential acquisitions and based on Clarksons current assessments of $32m for a five-year-old capesize, we project the capacity for the company to comfortably take on a potential seven to eight five-year-old capes in the current market environment,” he said.

Chief executive John Wobensmith said in an earnings briefing that the company is “well positioned to capitalise on compelling growth opportunities”.

His note to came after Genco reported a net loss of $14.5m in the second quarter, which is slightly smaller than analysts were expecting.

The John Wobensmith-led company has also put three panamaxes and two handysize bulkers, all built in 1999, on the selling block, with potential lowering the average age of to eight years from nine years, Gandolfo said.

“As the company continues shed its older tonnage, we see it operating a cash-laden platform, primed for opportunistic growth along the course of a dry bulk market recovery,” said the analyst, who rates the company’s New York-listed shares as a “buy”.


#191

When will this little beauty make her first appearance in the GoM??: http://www.osjonline.com/news/view,massive-vessel-quickly-makes-its-mark-in-heavy-lift-and-pipelay-markets_49072.htm


#192

BP is building up their fleet of LNG Carriers to serve their new Freeport LNG facility: http://splash247.com/bp-six-new-lng-carriers/


#193

Moved to appropriate thread, future of ships.


#194

could be worse, if you were/are an Australian officer, the union only looked after the dumbass’s on the deck so low and behold with the government help there is no industry.
I fully expect to see both GOV maritime colleges close as there are hundreds of officers no longer working and no boats to get job on.
The only time you get tax relief is if you leave Australia and domicile somewhere else.
Singaporean/Malaysian/Philippine(you choose the status)/Indonesian all dont need to pay tax


#195

This impressive CSV has got an extension on her contract in the GoM:


Don’t know if that is on the US or Mexican side though. (Or a bit of both??)


#196

Looks like Harvey Gulf is taking up competition with the foreign boats in the GoM:


At least in the MPSV /Light Construction segment.

From the specs it appears to be pretty much same design (VARD Marine) and similarly equipped to vessels of this type built in Europe lately, incl. MLC’06 -Accom and SPS Class notation (Not Comfort Class though)

Here is the spec sheet:
www.harveygulf.com/vessels.html?vtype=mpsv&vclass

PS> I notice that the time from launching to delivery was abt. 18 months:

Was the delivery delayed by mutual agreement, which is frequently the case these days, or does it normally take that long to do outfitting at US yards??


#197

Regarding your second paragraph, the law says that it has to be above 50% foreign control “at every tier”.


#198

At least the foreign vessels operating in the GoM are doing their part to ensure that USCG Marine Inspectors gets some practical training:
http://www.hellenicshippingnews.com/wallem-works-with-us-coast-guard-to-enhance-safety-at-sea/

Maybe they are just getting tired of being inspected by young inexperienced USCG Inspectors with an inflated ego??


#199

Perhaps. But I would prefer they were having that experience on Jones Act shuttle tankers. They have been doing this foreign shuttle shit, with foreign mooring masters, for forty years. Yes, I know it is legal, but one would think the US shippers would like a piece of that action after staring at it for so long.


#200

I wasn’t aware of how big business STS and shuttling to (and now from??) US Ports are.
One company alone, AET Tankers Pte. Ltd. Singapore, has 40 Aframax tankers doing so in the GoM and Caribbean:
https://www.aet-tankers.com/our-business/lightering/

Why doesn’t this attract US tanker Owners is a very good question. The cost of building in US and operating tankers under US flag appears to be the most logical reason, though.

Maybe some US Ownersare active in that market under foreign flag??


#201

DOF Subsea is securing more work in the GoM, thus creating work for more Americans:
http://www.offshoreenergytoday.com/dof-subsea-finds-work-for-several-vessels/