Foreign Flag Vessels in GOM


#21

because it’s much easier to have an American crew answer to American customers and American regulators.


#22

I think TO has since filled those spots with Americans. I can’t speak for other rigs but the foreigners that were on mine were replaced with Americans years ago.


#23

[QUOTE=c.captain;167718]the major drilling companies for the most part are all American controlled operations even if their headquarters might be in Switzerland. They are traded on the NYSE for starters. Companies like Olympic are Norwegian and might not even have a US office although it should not be the vessel owner but the charterers that are determined to control the vessel when in the GoM. Oceaneering is an NYSE traded company.

as a man once said…follow the money[/QUOTE]

Follow the money, well that’s the problem. With the Jones Act it’s more or less open and shut. It’s easy to check if a vessel is Jones Act or not and the law is simple and clear. However in this case the law has been written, likely deliberately, in such a way that make it difficult for the Joe Schmoes like us to determine what is actually going on.

Imagine what Jones Act enforcement would be like if the requirement was 50% owership at all tiers etc etc…


#24

[QUOTE=Kennebec Captain;167725]Follow the money, well that’s the problem. With the Jones Act it’s more or less open and shut. It’s easy to check if a vessel is Jones Act or not and the law is simple and clear. However in this case the law has been written, likely deliberately, in such a way that make it difficult for the Joe Schmoes like us to determine what is actually going on.

Imagine what Jones Act enforcement would be like if the requirement was 50% owership at all tiers etc etc…[/QUOTE]

of course, the best way to end this nonsense is for Congress to just close the loopholes which allow this murkiness to exist. But the problem is that Congress does not care about the American worker and will only do the bidding of its masters with the bottomless checkbooks. For a worker to be heard and listened to, he needs to play right along with the interests of the corporations which unions can do to some extent but since unions are not part of the GoM picture, then it would have to be from an unaffiliated association of mariners,


#25

This is Mr Hearns and the gangs chance to disprove that they are all hat and no cattle. This is the perfect opportunity to prove what the AMPA or APMA or whatever the fuck it’s called is really about.


#26

[QUOTE=Fraqrat;167729]This is Mr Hearns and the gangs chance to disprove that they are all hat and no cattle. This is the perfect opportunity to prove what the AMPA or APMA or whatever the fuck it’s called is really about.[/QUOTE]

But the esteemed captain is too obtuse to even know about this. situation and frankly would not expect him to cate one bit for us oilfield unwashed. He is not the man for the job.


#27

[QUOTE=c.captain;167716]I have volumes I can write about this but I am just getting back home after running my boat on charter for the past 12 hours so too tired to go into detail now but can say briefly that the entire matter of “right to effectively control” is not defined in either 43USC or 33CFR. It leaves the determination in the hands of the USCG to decide and as with almost all similar issues the USCG does not take the side of the American mariner but rubber stamps virtually every waiver request they get. I do not know how many times I have been given lip service by them that they do look at the entire operating structure…they are all nothing but professional BULLSHIT artists!

If there is to be fundamental change with this issue, I believe that someone MUST file a suit in Federal District Court naming the USCG as defendant and only with a Court decision finding the USCG to be in violation will that august body change their dirty ways. If we had a funded professional mariners association as I have been advocating then such a suit could be brought. If it was found that right to control rests with American charterers and not the owners, then the manning for a full 20 vessels would have to become American.

Additionally, Congress can ammend the OCSLA to add these missing definitions and even better to just close all the loopholes written into the Act which is now over 40 years old! For that however will require lobbying which itself is a costly endeavor. This cannot be changed without some mass behind forcing change to occur. That mass needs to be both in numbers of mariners and the money they contribute. This is why I say over and over and over that we need an association to represent our interests. For there to be such an association we need a leader who can get the maximum number of mariners to join him. This is not Jack Hearns nor myself but someone with excellent credentials, reputation, knowledge, ability to write and speak and the ability to reach the mariner community. I know of no one better than John Konrad. He has all that is needed except the willingness to make the effort and this saddens me. Perhaps if more of us implored upon John to come to our rescue he might reconsider? All I know is that we just need somebody to do this or we have got to accept that the winds of change are not going to ever come around to behind us.

.[/QUOTE]

For my part I’ve no interest in being a part of any mariners association. For disscussions I come here, for politics I email my man at the union. For the GOM, unions are not an option. Possibly Joe Boss would see any association as a back door attempt to organize mariners. That’s one reason any organizaion should have a laser focus on U.S. mariners being displaced by foreign workers.

As I’ve said, I don’t have a dog in this fight but I think trying to match the big guys lobbyist for lobbyist or dollar for dollar is the wrong approach. Mariners in this situation are the David in a David and Goliath fight. Displaced mariners need to find the equivalent of the slingshot.


#28

At the next OMSA meeting I think I will suggest we start a legal fund. Mariners can donate money and pay for a legal team that does nothing but fight these waivers.


#29

[QUOTE=Kennebec Captain;167738]As I’ve said, I don’t have a dog in this fight but I think trying to match the big guys lobbyist for lobbyist or dollar for dollar is the wrong approach. Mariners in this situation are the David in a David and Goliath fight. Displaced mariners need to find the equivalent of the slingshot.[/QUOTE]

but remember David had the right hand of God with which to fling that slingshot

US mariners “on the other hand” use their’s for other purposes

      • Updated - - -

[QUOTE=Jeaux Bawss;167824]At the next OMSA meeting I think I will suggest we start a legal fund. Mariners can donate money and pay for a legal team that does nothing but fight these waivers.[/QUOTE]

yeah, you do that


#30

I think moral authority in this case is on the side of qualified, displaced GOM O&G mariners. The heart of the matter is that companies are misusing these waivers.

It occurred to me that Linkedin is a good on-line site to meet with like minded mariners in order to work on the issues disscussed on this thread.

Not only can people post their resumes, the CG could be notified of a central location to seach for qualified mariners but mariners can also disscuss and bring attention to this issue using Linkedin groups. LInks to a web page, this fourm or a facebook page could be provided. Also likely it would draw in non-gcaptain forum mariners.


#31

Just to blow some life back into this thread. The second foreign owned and operated FPSO has been installed in the GOM: http://www.sbmoffshore.com/?news=first-oil-turritella

How many American Marine jobs are created by this? I don’t know, but maybe somebody “on the ground” have some input?
There will obviously be some spin-off jobs here, not only directly on the FPSO, but on the supply boats, hose handling boats and maintenance. There will also be a need for tug(s) to assist in mooring and for static tow of Export tankers.

Whether the oil will be exported directly from the FPSO, or there will be Shuttle tankers to bring the oil to refineries in the US is not known to me.

On the non-marine side there will be helicopter service and shore based Management, procurement and other services.


#32

[QUOTE=ombugge;190168]Just to blow some life back into this thread. The second foreign owned and operated FPSO has been installed in the GOM: http://www.sbmoffshore.com/?news=first-oil-turritella

How many American Marine jobs are created by this? I don’t know, but maybe somebody “on the ground” have some input?
There will obviously be some spin-off jobs here, not only directly on the FPSO, but on the supply boats, hose handling boats and maintenance. There will also be a need for tug(s) to assist in mooring and for static tow of Export tankers.

Whether the oil will be exported directly from the FPSO, or there will be Shuttle tankers to bring the oil to refineries in the US is not known to me.

On the non-marine side there will be helicopter service and shore based Management, procurement and other services.[/QUOTE]

The Turritella is manned by Americans in most positions. From someone I know who used to work on board, there are Foreign chief engineers, but will be replaced with Americans as time goes on. Save for the Chief’s, the mates and engineers are all from the USA.


#33

Some comments from various organizations on the new CBP initiative to strengthen the Jones Act for GoM operations: http://www.offshoreenergytoday.com/imca-slams-hasty-jones-act-move/


#34

[QUOTE=ombugge;195055]Some comments from various organizations on the new CBP initiative to strengthen the Jones Act for GoM operations[/QUOTE]

GODDAMN foreign FUCKS taking work from US companies and jobs from US mariners!

FUCK EVERY SINGLE ONE OF EM!


#35

This is my favorite quote from the article…

“According to the IMCA, these proposals have been introduced with no prior consultation, in the final two days of the Obama Administration, allowing only 30 days for public comment.”

I didn’t realize we needed to consult any foreign companies about what laws we pass to govern our territorial waters.


#36

Yeah that little nugget caught my attention as well.
They can go pound sand.

'Murica!!


#37

[QUOTE=Fraqrat;195065]This is my favorite quote from the article…

“According to the IMCA, these proposals have been introduced with no prior consultation, in the final two days of the Obama Administration, allowing only 30 days for public comment.”

I didn’t realize we needed to consult any foreign companies about what laws we pass to govern our territorial waters.[/QUOTE]

I was of the impression that these boats were charted, or owned, by American construction companies?
Why do they pay top $$$ to do so??
Could it be because there is no American eqv. able to do the required work??


#38

American companies will do anything that they can get away with to save a few dollars. Now they aren’t going to get away with this particular misinterpretation of the Jones Act any longer. The Jones Act should be interpreted to reserve all marine transportation, dredging, construction, drilling, shuttle tankers, etc. in the US EEZ to American flag vessels crewed by Americans. Short of a bonafide emergency, like the Deepwater Horizon, foreign built, flagged, and manned vessels should not be allowed to operate in the US EEZ. If there are no large state of the art American flag vessels available to do necessary offshore work, then they had better get busy building some. They’ll be available in a couple of years, long before the next oil boom.


#39

[QUOTE=tugsailor;195075]American companies will do anything that they can get away with to save a few dollars. Now they aren’t going to get away with this particular misinterpretation of the Jones Act any longer. The Jones Act should be interpreted to reserve all marine transportation, dredging, construction, drilling, shuttle tankers, etc. in the US EEZ to American flag vessels crewed by Americans. Short of a bonafide emergency, like the Deepwater Horizon, foreign built, flagged, and manned vessels should not be allowed to operate in the US EEZ. If there are no large state of the art American flag vessels available to do necessary offshore work, then they had better get busy building some. They’ll be available in a couple of years, long before the next oil boom.[/QUOTE]

Deepwater Horizon was, herself, registered in Majuro. I’m a big fan of cabotage restrictions, myself. No one benefits from local mariners with local knowledge and local concerns getting replaced by (potentially) mal-treated or less-than-invested mariners in the local waterways. If halibeerhoustonpeewallstreecorp coral atolls incorporated had screwed up one of my coastlines I would be so angry. I am angry. You’re angry, too. We should all be angry about this. Its justified.

But mariners, what ever port they call home, are not the enemy here.

The problem is at the owner level. What law-abiding corporate culture are you operating under? What laws are they obligated to follow? No matter the nationality, if you give them a loop-hole they will take it. I like my system because its the one that I have influence over. That is the power of cabotage. That is why US and Canada (and probably some other places) should have strong cabotage rules. Because our values can become our laws; and that can improve conditions for us, and also for the international crews that we interact with. Isolationism decreases our moral power. Engagement and backbone make things better for everyone.


#40

http://hornbeckoffshore.com/fleet/featured/hosmpsv-fleet

http://www.harveygulf.com/vessels.html#mpsv

There are currently bigger and more capable vessels under construction. The only foreign operated things we will need will be the large pipelayers. At some point we will build a couple of those as well.