Puerto Rico - Statehood and attack on the Jones Act


#41

[QUOTE=Carruthers;172045]9) Maybe I am too cynical --but Obama’s first Chief of Staff was Rahm Emmanuel and one of Rahm’s favorite sayings was “Never let a disaster go to waste.” Look at what they did with the 2008 crisis – the stock of main campaign donor Goldman Sachs soared after the election from 59 to almost 181 in Obama’s first year. Meanwhile unemployment stayed high for six years–because thousands of small businesses died when they were unable to get loans from the bailed out banks. If you look at how the suicide rate of middle-aged men has soared you can see how Washington’s corruption and economic policy has killed more Americans than Al Qaeda.[/QUOTE]

Jesus Christ man…wouldjya give it a break HUH!

      • Updated - - -

[QUOTE=DeckApe;172042]You know, PR should get a four year Jones Act exception.[/QUOTE]

Would you please just SHUT THE FUCK UP!..


#42

TOTE just built two new environmentally friendly LNG powered Jones Act ships for the Puerto Rico trade at a cost of about $500 million. No doubt there are a lot of federal loan guarantees, and probably some clean energy funding as well. They are the only Clean, Green, LNG powered ships in the US fleet, and among a very few in the world. The first new ship goes into service this year, the second new ship early next year.

Crowley is also building new LNG powered Jones Act ships for the Puerto Rico trade.

It looks to me like quite an investment in new Jones Act ships for the Puerto Rico trade has already been made.

If, and this will never happen, nor should it, Puerto Rico were to be exempted from the Jones Act, what foreign flag operators would get the business? The obvious answer is TOTE’s Sea Star Lines, and Crowley. Crowley has been operating a fleet of foreign flag container ships in the Caribbean for years. TOTE bought Sea Star Lines last year for something like $160 million. Sea Star was exclusively a foreign flag operator serving the Caribbean. Tote and Crowley already have the infrastructure and business relationships in Puerto Rico. Without the Jones Act, it would still be TOTE and Crowley providing the vast majority of service to Puerto Rico.

Again, there will be no change to the Jones Act.


#43

this statement came from the Shipbuilders Council of America

[B]U.S. Shipbuilders Slam Claims Linking Jones Act to El Faro Tragedy as ‘Incorrect’ and ‘Shameful’[/B]

October 19, 2015 by gCaptain

The U.S. shipbuilding and ship repair industry issued a statement Monday slamming ‘shameful’ and ‘unfounded’ claims purporting a causal link between the Jones Act and the loss of the cargo container ship El Faro in Hurricane Joaquin earlier this month.

The strongly-worded statement comes in the wake of critics attempting to blame the tragic loss of the El Faro with its 33 crew members on the Jones Act requirement that ships operating between two U.S. ports be U.S. built, claiming that if operators could purchase less costly foreign ships they would replace their vessels more often and avoid similar tragedies.

The National Review, an ultra-conservative magazine and news website, published a particularly critical article blaming the El Faro tragedy, at least in part, on the Jones Act’s U.S. build requirement, claiming that the legislation has strangled U.S. shipbuilding and made the U.S.-flagged fleet the oldest of any developed nation in the world.

Responding to the claims, Matt Paxton, President of the Shipbuilders’ Council of America (SCA), commented:

“To imply that vessels that do not have to comply with rigorous U.S. safety standards are safer than those that do defies common sense,” said Matt Paxton, President of SCA. “To try and connect a law that works to protect our economic and national security to this tragedy, particularly during a period when our industry family is mourning such a loss is not only incorrect, but shameful.”

The truth is, the SCA says, is that the United States leads the world in shipbuilding advancements, compared to the common designed and not highly specialized vessels built abroad. The vessels that operate between U.S. ports are built for the unique domestic trades and operate safely, efficiently, and environmentally, and are subject to rigorous safety regulations whereas foreign vessels would not be required to comport, the statement said.

During his address at the Surface Navy Association’s National Symposium this past January, U.S. Coast Guard Commandant Admiral Paul Zukunft warned of the dangers of allowing foreign flag ships in coastwise trade.

“I think, at the end of the day, it will put our entire U.S. fleet in jeopardy. And then in a time of crisis, who are we going to charter to carry our logistics? Very difficult if we don’t have a U.S.-flagged ship,” said Adm. Paul Zukunft, Commandant of U.S. Coast Guard.

In regards to the recent tragedy of El Faro, SCA says it will not comment on the incident given that there is an ongoing investigation pending, and because the matter does not pertain to U.S. shipbuilders. But it is worth noting that despite some of the uninformed statements being touted by critics, the shipyard and ship repair industry remains one of the strongest and innovative industries in the world, the SCA says.


#44

One of the rebuttals to the “necessary for national security” claim is commonly that the US government can charter a foreign flag vessel and that there is nothing stopping foreign vessels (especially foreign flagged US owned or ally owned ships) from carrying our military supplies. My worry in that case is really the foreign crews onboard, which get conveniently forgotten when the topic arises.


#45

[QUOTE=Capt. Phoenix;172069]One of the rebuttals to the “necessary for national security” claim is commonly that the US government can charter a foreign flag vessel and that there is nothing stopping foreign vessels (especially foreign flagged US owned or ally owned ships) from carrying our military supplies. My worry in that case is really the foreign crews onboard, which get conveniently forgotten when the topic arises.[/QUOTE]

Canada learned that lesson pretty dramatically back in the summer of 2000. They hired a foreign-owned logistics company to move $223 million worth of military equipment, including tanks, armored vehicles, weapons, and ammunition. That company subcontracted to another company, which chartered the American-owned, St. Vincent-flagged, mixed-crew GTS Katie to carry it. Sure enough, the American owner disputed payments with one of the contractors and ordered the ship to stop in international waters. Canada had to ask St. Vincent to graciously permit them to seize the ship, then assign two warships to the task of recovering their cargo. There were no Canadians involved in the actual process of moving 10% of Canada’s entire military vehicle inventory except for three soldiers who went along to look after the cargo and had no authority to give orders to the Russian captain.


#46

Wasn’t a chartering outfit from Baltimore in the middle of all that?

I believe the ship became a prepo, the M/V Roy Wheat maybe?


#47

Carruthers, What in the hell are you even talking about. Who the fuck are you and how are you qualified to comment on this subject?


#48

[QUOTE=lm1883;172079]Wasn’t a chartering outfit from Baltimore in the middle of all that?

I believe the ship became a prepo, the M/V Roy Wheat maybe?[/QUOTE]

The owner was Third Ocean Marine Navigation out of Annapolis, MD. This ship didn’t have much of a career after the seizure, though. She was built in 1975 and broken up sometime before June 2001. IMO number is 7941655 if anybody’s as nosy as I am.


#49

[QUOTE=Glaug-Eldare;172075]Canada learned that lesson pretty dramatically back in the summer of 2000. They hired a foreign-owned logistics company to move $223 million worth of military equipment, including tanks, armored vehicles, weapons, and ammunition. That company subcontracted to another company, which chartered the American-owned, St. Vincent-flagged, mixed-crew GTS Katie to carry it. Sure enough, the American owner disputed payments with one of the contractors and ordered the ship to stop in international waters. Canada had to ask St. Vincent to graciously permit them to seize the ship, then assign two warships to the task of recovering their cargo. There were no Canadians involved in the actual process of moving 10% of Canada’s entire military vehicle inventory except for three soldiers who went along to look after the cargo and had no authority to give orders to the Russian captain.[/QUOTE]

So the moral of the story is to never trust a American? :smiley:


#50

[QUOTE=Kraken;172085]So the moral of the story is to never trust a American? :D[/QUOTE]

Not even once.™

Really, though, it’s pretty pathetic that they’re STILL all but totally dependent on foreign, fifth-party, contracted shippers with no relationship with the Canadian government to carry their official cargo. Nobody is standing by and nobody has agreed to drop what they’re doing in a sealift emergency. Their entire seaborne logistics system depends on strangers having the right ship available at the right place at the right time for the right price, and then on their seeing the mission through and dealing with contract problems later. Third Ocean stopped the cargo because they didn’t give a damn about whether they were wreaking havoc on Canada’s military readiness – they had a contract beef with an entirely separate company and they were going to settle it the way they would settle it with a peanut oil refinery in North Duckburg.


#51

There are several Canadian Shipping companies that could/would procure bottoms in the eventual need of a sealift or most likely take space available from other NATO owned companies (example Norways wilhelsen line or on a U.S. Flag vessel). I don’t think I can ever imagine an instance where the Canadian Forces would go in such a hurry all by themselves.


#52

[QUOTE=Glaug-Eldare;172087]…Third Ocean stopped the cargo because they didn’t give a damn about whether they were wreaking havoc on Canada’s military readiness – they had a contract beef with an entirely separate company and they were going to settle it the way they would settle it with a peanut oil refinery in North Ducksburg.[/QUOTE]

Were they within their contract rights to do so?
Just asking’…


#53

[QUOTE=Capt. Phoenix;172069]One of the rebuttals to the “necessary for national security” claim is commonly that the US government can charter a foreign flag vessel and that there is nothing stopping foreign vessels (especially foreign flagged US owned or ally owned ships) from carrying our military supplies. My worry in that case is really the foreign crews onboard, which get conveniently forgotten when the topic arises.[/QUOTE]

  1. My understanding is that the US Navy’s Military Sealift Command has its own huge FLEETS of large transport ships:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Military_Sealift_Command_ships

  2. Including a lot of Large, Medium-Speed Roll-on/Roll-offs:

  1. A lot of those ships are manned by civilian mariners. But if the Navy needed to it could simply seize additional foreign transport ships and put Americans crews on them. Except the Navy doesn’t call it piracy – they call it by a different word. Ah yes, “commandeering”.

  2. Of course they would need to continue their peacetime mission of ensuring that the pirates of Somalia, south China Sea and Caribbean don’t pluck the maidenheads of you delicate flowers.


#54

Might you be thinking of Tropical Shipping? http://gcaptain.com/saltchuk-acquires-caribbean-shipping-and-logistics-company-tropical-shipping-for-220-million/#.Vib7HisWwqM

Pretty sure Sea Star has been a part of TOTE for quite a bit longer than a year. It was recently (around when they started using the new TOTE logo) that they decided to bring Totem Ocean Trailer Express and Sea Star under the TOTE Maritime brand name.


#55

[QUOTE=Carruthers;172121]1)4) Of course they would need to continue their peacetime mission of ensuring that the pirates of Somalia, south China Sea and Caribbean don’t pluck the maidenheads of you delicate flowers.[/QUOTE]

people here have been kindly asking for you to cease posting…do we need to cease being kind? It’s coming you know…


#56

You don’t know a lot about shipping do you? First off, no government, except Iran or North Korea does such things because it is a straight up act of war. The US can’t take a bunch of Chinese container ships in LB, recrew them and put them on a new assignment simply because we happen to need them. Sure if we were at war with China we could but by then trade relations would’ve soured so much that there wouldn’t be any Chinese ships in US Ports. The Navy can redirect US Merchant ships, and send them on a new mission with specific orders if, in time of crisis, it is needed. This is called Naval Control of Shipping. I have to side with the others, who are you? You have a lot to learn about the maritime world, and this forum is for professionals.


#57

[QUOTE=+A465B;172109]Were they within their contract rights to do so?
Just asking’…[/QUOTE]

They were not (nobody can seize property of the Crown), but with respect to military readiness, does it really matter? 10% of their vehicle inventory was seized by a foreign business for more than two weeks. Would you tolerate that here, even if the seizor was standing on their rights in a contract to another commercial party? Coming back to cabotage, the Jones Act, and cargo preference, the thing that allowed this fiasco was that the entire sealift was handled by purely foreign interests who had no reason to treat the government of Canada as anything more than another cargo owner whose property could be seized the same as a box of snow globes from China.

[QUOTE=Carruthers;172121]4) Of course they would need to continue their peacetime mission of ensuring that the pirates of Somalia, south China Sea and Caribbean don’t pluck the maidenheads of you delicate flowers.[/QUOTE]

Now I feel like making my avatar a picture of a pretty, delicate flower…


#58

B[QUOTE=Louisd75;172123]]

Might you be thinking of Tropical Shipping? http://gcaptain.com/saltchuk-acquires-caribbean-shipping-and-logistics-company-tropical-shipping-for-220-million/#.Vib7HisWwqM

Pretty sure Sea Star has been a part of TOTE for quite a bit longer than a year. It was recently (around when they started using the new TOTE logo) that they decided to bring Totem Ocean Trailer Express and Sea Star under the TOTE Maritime brand name.[/QUOTE]

Yes. You are right. I stand corrected.


#59

The top US oil refining group, American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers, urged the repeal of the Jones Act yesterday in a letter to Republican
Senate leader Mitch McConnell:

This article from Sept 2014 notes AFPM’s argument:
“Despite the appearance of, at best, limited supported for weakening the Jones Act on Capitol Hill, petroleum marketers and refiners are planning a substantial effort to get Congress to change the law which they claim is driving up motor fuel and heating oil prices and severely inhibiting the flow of crude between US ports amid the ongoing domestic oil boom.”

Hmmm. Looks like the Puerto Ricans might have some allies. If the swing voters of Florida (and possibly the 2016 US Presidential election) can get the Jones Act lifted then some other parties can benefit. Because in spite of Hillary’s pandering, neither she nor the Democrats control Congress.
Hence, they can’t deliver anything before Nov 2016 and after that Puerto Rico’s power (and any politican’s promises to them )turns into a pumpkin. Big Oil Republicans can deliver, however. There is Obama’s veto of course but if Obama wanted Hillary to be his successor then his Intel Community and FBI wouldn’t be poring over her email servers.


#60

Plus I suspect some Republican billionaire donors like Puerto Rico’s Governor Padilla. After all, one reason
PR can’t pay her debts is that a reported $35 billion per year flows back to the USA tax free.

Which is why Senator Orrin Hatch’s statement that Puerto Rico’s government accounting needs to be made more transparent was hilarious.

Re the Jones Act, there is the saying that if you look around the poker table and don’t know who the sucker is then it is you. Whether exempting
PR from the Jones Act would actually help is almost beside the point – it is a cheap gesture that would distract/appease the Rabble in both PR and USA, help reelect Padilla in PR next year, gain the swing voters in Florida and let the real game continue behind closed doors.