Puerto Rico - Statehood and attack on the Jones Act


#101

[QUOTE=ombugge;172525]
Is this a myth and this article written in some left leaning “Commie rag”? No, it actually work and The Economist is a highly regarded news magazine read world wide.

[/QUOTE]

You might get a better reception here if you stopped writing to this group as if we are a bunch of illiterates. We are not refugees from some remote Asian village who left the mountainside to find work at sea.


#102

[QUOTE=Steamer;172526]You might get a better reception here if you stopped writing to this group as if we are a bunch of illiterates. We are not refugees from some remote Asian village who left the mountainside to find work at sea.[/QUOTE]

Oh?? Until now it has been me that has been regarded as an ignorant so and so living in Asia and knowing nothing about anything, except maybe “four floors of hores”.

By the way, most of the refugees flooding into Europe these days are not from remote Asian villages but educated people from the cradle of western civilization. Don’t think of them as illiterates.


#103

[QUOTE=ombugge;172528]By the way, most of the refugees flooding into Europe these days are not from remote Asian villages but educated people from the cradle of western civilization. Don’t think of them as illiterates.[/QUOTE]

?? WTF has that little gem got to do with anything? Have you run out of material already?

If you have something to say about the Jones Act with regard to Puerto Rico then have at it, otherwise stop wasting bandwidth and annoying the membership with off topic and insulting little tidbits that don’t seem to focus on much of anything relevant to the overwhelming majority of members.


#104

[QUOTE=lm1883;172425]Sounds like the same Wall Street folk who would offshore their operations to Singapore. Just sayin…[/QUOTE]
Is there is US based driller these days?


#105

[QUOTE=Steamer;172564]?? WTF has that little gem got to do with anything? Have you run out of material already?

If you have something to say about the Jones Act with regard to Puerto Rico then have at it, otherwise stop wasting bandwidth and annoying the membership with off topic and insulting little tidbits that don’t seem to focus on much of anything relevant to the overwhelming majority of members.[/QUOTE]

Yes I have a lot to say and I’m afraid that it is going to upset a lot of the members. I claim the 1st Amendment, or is that reserved for American Citizens to make silly statements about anything and anybody foreign??

      • Updated - - -

[QUOTE=powerabout;172571]Is there is US based driller these days?[/QUOTE]

Yes, Hercules I believe, or have they moved out too??


#106

more or less however we extend that right to everyone here Citizen or not.


#107

[QUOTE=ombugge;172577]Yes I have a lot to say and I’m afraid that it is going to upset a lot of the members. I claim the 1st Amendment, or is that reserved for American Citizens to make silly statements about anything and anybody foreign??[/QUOTE]

actually, the First Amendment to the US Constitution is to allow US citizens the right to speak against their government and nothing more. It is not a blanket right to simply speak.

Now regarding to speaking here…all we ask is that a new person have a modicum of humility and deference to the other members here who have longer standing. We ask to not be challenged directly but if we are challenged for our words, that challenge should be made with respect. You are a maritime man so you already have earned a degree of standing from that fact alone, but those who have not been professional seafarers do not have that automatic standing (Carruthers, et all) so need to be very heedful of that fact. If they aren’t, then they can expect heavy push back from people like me who have been here for years contributing.

thank you

      • Updated - - -

[QUOTE=ombugge;172528]Oh?? Until now it has been me that has been regarded as an ignorant so and so living in Asia and knowing nothing about anything, except maybe “four floors of hores”.

By the way, most of the refugees flooding into Europe these days are not from remote Asian villages but educated people from the cradle of western civilization. Don’t think of them as illiterates.[/QUOTE]

end this nonsense of squabbling over trivialities…stick to the thread’s topic please


#108

[QUOTE=c.captain;172579]

End this nonsense of squabbling over trivialities…stick to the thread’s topic please

That is what I have been advocating all the time and I will be pleased to do so when I am not taken for an idiot by some members.


#109

[QUOTE=ombugge;172577]Yes I have a lot to say and I’m afraid that it is going to upset a lot of the members.[/QUOTE]

That is fine, but more than a few of your previous posts have had an antagonist sound to them which will get you massive push back from us. If you want to point out how other countries do things differently or in your opinion better, fine. Just keep them professional and don’t be a wise ass or come off as being superior.


#110

Well the cradle of civilization is Mesopotamia, the cradle of “Western Civilization” would be Greece …but anyway back to Puerto Rico…


#111

[QUOTE=LI_Domer;172585]Well the cradle of civilization is Mesopotamia, the cradle of “Western Civilization” would be Greece …but anyway back to Puerto Rico…[/QUOTE]

You forgot China, they had an early start.


#112

[QUOTE=Capt. Phoenix;172582]That is fine, but more than a few of your previous posts have had an antagonist sound to them which will get you massive push back from us. If you want to point out how other countries do things differently or in your opinion better, fine. Just keep them professional and don’t be a wise ass or come off as being superior.[/QUOTE]

That is fine and a good advise, which I’ll hid when I’m not met with silly remarks and doubts about my mental ability, credential or ability to read and understand simple English. I have retaliated in kind so far, mostly with sarcasm.

I have also spent time to explain myself and my background to people who behave like they are on some forum for imbeciles, where the point is to insult each other, not on a forum for professional mariners. Maybe these are the “trolls” I just learnt about.
I participate on other Maritime forum, but I have never been met with this type of reaction.

Let’s have a spirited exchange of ideas and opinions, with hard push-back by professionals who voice well considered arguments.
If everybody just voice the same opinion from the same standpoint it’s not much of a discussion, or contribute much to the understanding of the subjects.
A little banter doesn’t harm, but on a civilized level.


#113

[QUOTE=ombugge;172601]That is fine and a good advise, which I’ll hid when I’m not met with silly remarks and doubts about my mental ability, credential or ability to read and understand simple English. I have retaliated in kind so far, mostly with sarcasm.

I have also spent time to explain myself and my background to people who behave like they are on some forum for imbeciles, where the point is to insult each other, not on a forum for professional mariners. Maybe these are the “trolls” I just learnt about.
I participate on other Maritime forum, but I have never been met with this type of reaction.

Let’s have a spirited exchange of ideas and opinions, with hard push-back by professionals who voice well considered arguments.
If everybody just voice the same opinion from the same standpoint it’s not much of a discussion, or contribute much to the understanding of the subjects.
A little banter doesn’t harm, but on a civilized level.[/QUOTE]

Welcome to Amur’ca mate.


#114

Where did you get the idea professional mariners don’t like insulting each other?


#115

OK, since I have now been “forced” to admit that I don’t know everything there is to know about US Shipping and Shipbuilding (or anything else for that matter), I may as well admit that I don’t know everything about the Jones Act either.

What puzzles me is how the Jones Act works when it comes to the Offshore Oil & Gas industry on the outer US shelf.
I’m aware that the US was one of the instigators to the UN Convention on the Law of the Seas (UNCLOS)of 1982 and an early signatory to it.
I’m also aware that the Congress has not ratified it yet, thus it is not part of US Law, although so far every Administration has adhered to it.
The US has made claim under UNCLOS to a 200 n.mile Exclusive Economic Zone around the mainland states, Alaska and Hawaii. (Whether that also apply to PR, Guam and other US dependency I don’t know?)

In any case, EEZ applies in the GOM, where a lot of exploration and exploitation of Oil & Gas is ongoing, incl. in deep waters near the outer extent of it. Nobody has disputed the right to do so and only Cuban and Mexican EEZ buts up against it in the GOM.

What puzzles me is how the Jones Act is applied here. Obviously the UNCLOS didn’t exist when the Jones Act were first made and implemented, but has there been any amendment made to make it applicable also within the EEZ?

The Jones Act is basically a Cabotage Law that govern transport of cargo between US port and has nothing to do with Offshore operations in the EEZ, hence most (if not all) the rigs working in Deepwater GOM are not US flagged and does not come under the Jones Act.
Technically they are not even owned by US entities either, since most of the major Drilling Contractors have moved their HQ to Switzerland etc.

I believe that the OSVs that carry supplies from US ports to the rigs and platform in the EEZ is required to be Jones Act compliant? (Please correct me if I’m wrong) They do not carry cargo between US ports, or within US territorial waters, but to installations in International waters. (EEZ only applies to fisheries and resources on or below the seabed, not to free navigation)

There are also a lot of foreign flag CSVs and other type of specialized vessels working in the GOM from time to time. Do they get exemption from the Jones Act on a regular basis, or do they have to stay outside US territorial waters at all times?

How does it work if say a CSV gets a job to set a template, lay in-field pipes, run umbilical(s) and hook the whole thing up?
Can that CSV get dispensation to go into US port(s) to load the template, reel on board the pipeline(s) and umbilical(s) and proceed to do the installation work in one smooth operation, or will the equipment have to be transported to her by a US flag OSV and transferred at sea, which could be a risk, expensive and time consuming operation?

I would appreciate if somebody with relevant knowledge could enlighten me and other non-US readers on the facts here. I would also appreciate it if the uninformed “Trolls” and others would refrain from making silly remarks and accusations.

Thank you.


#116

[QUOTE=Fraqrat;172614]Where did you get the idea professional mariners don’t like insulting each other?[/QUOTE]

OK, I stand corrected. Maybe it is OK as long as they are not “foreigners”??


#117

Oh no buddy we offer equal opportunity insults here. We cover all the bases at some point in a thread.


#118

[QUOTE=ombugge;172615]OK, since I have now been “forced” to admit that I don’t know everything there is to know about US Shipping and Shipbuilding (or anything else for that matter), I may as well admit that I don’t know everything about the Jones Act either.

What puzzles me is how the Jones Act works when it comes to the Offshore Oil & Gas industry on the outer US shelf.
I’m aware that the US was one of the instigators to the UN Convention on the Law of the Seas (UNCLOS)of 1982 and an early signatory to it.
I’m also aware that the Congress has not ratified it yet, thus it is not part of US Law, although so far every Administration has adhered to it.
The US has made claim under UNCLOS to a 200 n.mile Exclusive Economic Zone around the mainland states, Alaska and Hawaii. (Whether that also apply to PR, Guam and other US dependency I don’t know?)

In any case, EEZ applies in the GOM, where a lot of exploration and exploitation of Oil & Gas is ongoing, incl. in deep waters near the outer extent of it. Nobody has disputed the right to do so and only Cuban and Mexican EEZ buts up against it in the GOM.

What puzzles me is how the Jones Act is applied here. Obviously the UNCLOS didn’t exist when the Jones Act were first made and implemented, but has there been any amendment made to make it applicable also within the EEZ?

The Jones Act is basically a Cabotage Law that govern transport of cargo between US port and has nothing to do with Offshore operations in the EEZ, hence most (if not all) the rigs working in Deepwater GOM are not US flagged and does not come under the Jones Act.
Technically they are not even owned by US entities either, since most of the major Drilling Contractors have moved their HQ to Switzerland etc.

I believe that the OSVs that carry supplies from US ports to the rigs and platform in the EEZ is required to be Jones Act compliant? (Please correct me if I’m wrong) They do not carry cargo between US ports, or within US territorial waters, but to installations in International waters. (EEZ only applies to fisheries and resources on or below the seabed, not to free navigation)

There are also a lot of foreign flag CSVs and other type of specialized vessels working in the GOM from time to time. Do they get exemption from the Jones Act on a regular basis, or do they have to stay outside US territorial waters at all times?

How does it work if say a CSV gets a job to set a template, lay in-field pipes, run umbilical(s) and hook the whole thing up?
Can that CSV get dispensation to go into US port(s) to load the template, reel on board the pipeline(s) and umbilical(s) and proceed to do the installation work in one smooth operation, or will the equipment have to be transported to her by a US flag OSV and transferred at sea, which could be a risk, expensive and time consuming operation?

I would appreciate if somebody with relevant knowledge could enlighten me and other non-US readers on the facts here. I would also appreciate it if the uninformed “Trolls” and others would refrain from making silly remarks and accusations.

Thank you.[/QUOTE]

The outer continental shelf act made it mandatory for all vessels working there oil field to be crewed by Americans (so all the rigs I’ve dealt with are crewed by Americans) though it is possible to get a waiver and Congress gives them out like hot cakes to the construction vessels and such.

Also, when the rig is in contact with the bottom it is considered in the US by customs.


#119

[QUOTE=Capt. Phoenix;172624]The outer continental shelf act made it mandatory for all vessels working there oil field to be crewed by Americans (so all the rigs I’ve dealt with are crewed by Americans) though it is possible to get a waiver and Congress gives them out like hot cakes to the construction vessels and such.

Also, when the rig is in contact with the bottom it is considered in the US by customs.[/QUOTE]

Thanks for those clear and concise explanation.

I read somewhere that to get a dispensation, except in an emergency, the applying party had to prove that there were no suitable US flag vessel available and the application had to be received 21 months prior to commencing the operation. Is that a fact, or a myth? In 21 months you could build just about any CSV from standard design and with standard equipment.

I presume that when something like Thialf or Saipem 7000 are visiting for short lifting jobs they don’t have to change to US crew?

I have “seen off” many semis and drillships bound for the GOM, either as cargo on HLVs, or under own power. On those units the crew have been generally Americans, but also in some cases multi-national, incl. Master. Obviously the US crew rule only apply while operating inside the EEZ.

What happen if a rig under a flag demanding national Master and officers should be engaged to work in US waters?
This has been a issue in Australia, where there are similar rules.

I remember it was an issue when a Norwegian flagged rig called the Fjelldrill and a Saipem rig went to work there in the 1970s.
At that time there were still a lot of US flagged rigs and even more Americans working in the oil fields in Norway and on Norwegian flag rigs.
The same applied in Italy.
(Rowan even flew entire US crews, incl. Roustabouts etc. to work on their rigs in the UK and Saudi at the time)
A compromise was found then, what about now??

      • Updated - - -

[QUOTE=Capt. Phoenix;172624]The outer continental shelf act made it mandatory for all vessels working there oil field to be crewed by Americans (so all the rigs I’ve dealt with are crewed by Americans) though it is possible to get a waiver and Congress gives them out like hot cakes to the construction vessels and such.

Also, when the rig is in contact with the bottom it is considered in the US by customs.[/QUOTE]

Thanks for those clear and concise explanation.

I read somewhere that to get a dispensation, except in an emergency, the applying party had to prove that there were no suitable US flag vessel available and the application had to be received 21 months prior to commencing the operation. Is that a fact, or a myth? In 21 months you could build just about any CSV from standard design and with standard equipment.

I presume that when something like Thialf or Saipem 7000 are visiting for short lifting jobs they don’t have to change to US crew?

I have “seen off” many semis and drillships bound for the GOM, either as cargo on HLVs, or under own power. On those units the crew have been generally Americans, but also in some cases multi-national, incl. Master. Obviously the US crew rule only apply while operating inside the EEZ.

What happen if a rig under a flag demanding national Master and officers should be engaged to work in US waters?
This has been a issue in Australia, where there are similar rules.

I remember it was an issue when a Norwegian flagged rig called the Fjelldrill and a Saipem rig went to work there in the 1970s.
At that time there were still a lot of US flagged rigs and even more Americans working in the oil fields in Norway and on Norwegian flag rigs.
The same applied in Italy. A compromise was found then, what about now??
(Rowan even flew entire US crews, incl. Roustabouts etc. to work on their rigs in the UK and Saudi at the time)


#120

[QUOTE=ombugge;172629]I read somewhere that to get a dispensation, except in an emergency, the applying party had to prove that there were no suitable US flag vessel available and the application had to be received 21 months prior to commencing the operation. Is that a fact, or a myth? In 21 months you could build just about any CSV from standard design and with standard equipment.

I presume that when something like Thialf or Saipem 7000 are visiting for short lifting jobs they don’t have to change to US crew?

I have “seen off” many semis and drillships bound for the GOM, either as cargo on HLVs, or under own power. On those units the crew have been generally Americans, but also in some cases multi-national, incl. Master. Obviously the US crew rule only apply while operating inside the EEZ.

What happen if a rig under a flag demanding national Master and officers should be engaged to work in US waters?[/QUOTE]

It’s very likely about the time period demand and yard availability. Most yards are full up and especially for a short job no one will bother build. Notice that ECO has built some large construction vessels recently.

The construction vessels tend to get waivers for crew claiming a mixture of specialty work and no available Americans. It’s usually bullshit but Congress approves it. I know a few rigs (like Maersk) have multinational crew, I’m not sure how they are allowed to do that.