Foreign Flag Vessels in GOM


#101

That’s quite possible. If they aren’t Jones Act then they don’t need to be US flag, and they can be US flag but not US built, but the HAVE to be US crewed as per the OCS Act.


#102

Does McDermott (or any other US Owners) change crew every time one of their foreign flag vessel work a few week/months in the GoM??
If the vessels are working long term they should, just like the rigs, but I’m not sure if this is presently the cases.


#103

I don’t know. I’m not going to gripe over a few weeks or maybe a few months. The problem we have is that there have been boats working the US GOM for a year or more with their foreign crew onboard. The owners or charterers get waivers by fraudulent means. Haven’t you read the threads on here about this topic?


#104

Yes I have read them and even participated in most. Haven’t you read my posts???


#105

I have read your posts and you consistently display either a lack of understanding of the laws here no matter how many times they’re explained or you’re intentionally being dense to be able to brag about how superior the Norwegian system is.


#106

Yes let’s go with this explanation…


#107

http://gcaptain.com/reinterpreting-jones-act-done-deal-not-fast/


#108

fine then professor of the most immense brain…please explain for us how the Merchant Marine Act of 1920 is differentiated from the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act of 1953? Please site relevant United States Code title in your reply. Then provide the associated Federal Regulations after you do.

I don’t try to comment on Norwegian maritime and offshore legislation and wonder why you believe yourself qualified to comment on ours?


#109


#110

Wrong assumption. I am not a Norwegian nationalist but an internationalist. Having lived and worked internationally for most of my life I have an international view of things. You should try it.


#111

Nice to see you back for some colourful comments.
That is easy to explain; The Merchant Marine Act of 1920 (better known as the Jones Act) is concerned with transportation of goods between US ports, while the OCS act of 1953 (with modifications) is in respect of activities on the federal OCS, (known as the EEZ per the UNCLOS)
This has been explained so many times here that nobody could miss it. Besides, the text and interpretations are freely available on the net for anybody who care to google it.

The problem is that the two are being mixed up to where the Jones Act is applied to fixed and floating platforms, or even ships operating on the OCS, way outside US territorial waters.

My point in post #98 was that if US owned foreign built CSVs were flagged to US and manned by US citizens they should be allowed to transport the tools and material they need to perform their tasks from a US port, not having to do dangerous ship-to-ship transfers in open sea.
That would create “instant” jobs for US Mariners, not waiting to build vessels capable of doing the task at US yards first.
But of course dumb foreigners cannot see the need to “protect” US jobs by killing the GoM Oil & Gas industry. (Refr. the article in gcaptain newsletter today: http://gcaptain.com/reinterpreting-jones-act-done-deal-not-fast/ and several others before it)

If these vessel will EVER be built they will most likely be foreign designed with foreign machinery and equipment and assembled by mostly foreign workers at US yards, taking years to complete. Meanwhile the US Oil & Gas industry has moved ashore, or abroad.

Good luck to y’ll from the dense professor of the most immense brain.


#113

Or we could just use all of the newly constructed Jones Act compliant CSV’s already in market and available for wrok. We’ve already killed the GOM market with oversupply of these vessels now tthey need to be put to work.

Where you are seen as being dense is your insistence that this is a total ban on foreign vessels. You along with IMCA and other foreign stakeholders keep making arguments like none of the brand new US flag CSV’s built in the last few years exist. Of course there are no pipelayers or other highly specialized vessels that are US built. So obviously the foreign vessels will still be granted waivers to work.

I’ve seen foreign vessels in Fourchon In the past that were same size and specs as a US flag vessel. Why do they get all the work and the US flagged vessel doesn’t? It’s not because of their superior skills and vastly superior boat. It’s because they are cheaper to operate having been built in a low cost foreign shipyard and using lower dayrate foreign seamen. Blah Blah Blah…

Millionth time this has been said I’m not going in anymore. You know damned well the sky isn’t falling and GOM drilling will not be stifled because of any of this.


#114

There was something mentioned about the foreign flagged floaters in the dw horizon investigation where a senator grilling tbe uscg was saying it was the uscg responsility to ensure there was a local captain with oim qualifications in charge or so i thought?
Uscg replied we dont have te manpower or boats to check


#115

No I don’t think that ll foreign boats will be chased out of the GoM immediately.
As I have pointed out several times, there are no Jones Act compliant CSVs to carry out the work already planned, or in operation.
What you are referring to are some MPSVs capable of doing simple work, like these in an article from 2013: https://mb50.wordpress.com/category/marine-vessels/mpsv/

What I’m talking about is vessels like this: https://mb50.wordpress.com/2012/04/23/norway-ots-takes-delivery-of-csv-north-ocean-105-begins-5-year-charter/
50% owned by McDermott AS in Norway and operating world wide for McDermott, incl. in the GoM from time to time.
Even if it was re-flagged to US operated in US waters with US crews they would not be allowed to carry the tools and equipment needed to perform the tasks it is designed for, unless they obtained a waiver, just like any foreign flagged vessel with all foreign crews. THAT IS WHAT I HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT.

PS> I notice that most of the so called Jones Act compliant vessels are already built to foreign design and with mostly foreign machinery and equipment, while some of the existing HOS MPSVs that has been mentioned are built in the Netherlands.


#116

while I am sitting here putting some slap ya momma on my beans and rice I was thinking you shouldnt have used that as an argument as none on those companies have slap ya moma in their canteens


#117

while I am sitting here putting some slap ya momma on my beans and rice I was thinking you shouldnt have used that as an argument as none on those companies have slap ya momma in their canteens


#118


#119

No, not “just like any foreign flagged vessel with all foreign crew.” A vessel requires a waiver simply to use foreign crew in US waters. If they crew the whole vessel with Americans then they don’t need a waiver.


#120

so WHAT exactly is your point here? that foreign owned vessels have a “right” to work in the GoM or that they are so superior in design, construction or operation that they defacto MUST remain because there are no equivalent US built and manned vessels? As far as I know, there are now a good many US built Jones Act compliant subsea vessels with full ability to perform installations and tiebacks (read ECO, Oceaneering, OCLLC, HGIM and HOS here). There are also more than a couple large CSV vessels with are American owned but not Jones Act compliant in the GoM (read ECO and HOS here). These vessels are American manned per the mandate of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act and if there are to be any Jones Act waivers issued to vessels to carry subsea equipment out of Port Fourchon it should be to these because they are meeting the OCSLA. To my fellow American mariners here as well as myself, IT IS THIS AMERICAN MANNING WHICH IS THE MOST IMPORTANT REQUIREMENT TO BE MET BEFORE JONES ACT WAIVERS ARE ISSUED! We are talking about US sovereign territory here and the law is supposed to protect employment in that territory for American nationals plus the US has a more then adequate certified and trained labor force to fulfill that mandate. This isn’t Africa we are discussing where local mariners are not available. I STRONGLY OBJECT TO YOUR POSITION THAT AMERICANS ARE NOT CAPABLE TO PERFORM THIS WORK! I cannot count the number of times I have had to listen to assorted Brits, Scots, Dutchmen and Norwegians complaint and bitch about having to work in the American GoM to my face! Imagine me coming to the North Sea and doing that in your face? You would want to punch mine to a bloody pulp if I did and I have felt likewise to when faced with such hubris. FUCK ALL OF YOU FOR SUCH ARROGANCE!

Now regards to McDermott, as a US company any foreign flagged vessel they have operating in the GoM should be manned 100% by American mariners under Title 33CFRpart141. If McDermott is operating them with foreign mariners under a waiver they received from the USCG under the claim by them that suitable US mariners are not available then the issuance of such waiver is done with baldfaced lies on the part of McDermott which is something I have denounced here since 2008. I have seen these waivers issued without any attempt on the part of the USCG to try to prove the claims of the applicant are not accurate. In the past, all these claims have been accepted on their face by our government to the great detriment to me and many hundreds of other US mariners. THIS PRACTICE IS A COMPLETE AND UTTER OUTRAGE!

Now I put it to you…is employment in the Norwegian sector of the North Sea not restricted to Norwegian nationals? Do you believe this mandate to be harmful to Norway? If so then you are being a hypocrite here. Let’s get this out into the open so us American mariners know where you stand…SIR!


#121

That is NOT what have been said by others here. Can somebody else confirm that it so??

As far as what have been said here earlier a foreign built US flag vessel with full US crews, thus still do not complying with the Jones Act, ARE NOT ALLOWED TO CARRY CARGO BETWEEN US PORTS AND INSTALLATIONS WITHIN THE US OCS (EEZ) UNLESS THEY OBTAIN A WAIVER.
This applies even if the “cargo” is tools or equipment to be used by that vessel to perform a task which involve Oil and Gas facilities, whether on the seabed or afloat.