Puerto Rico - Statehood and attack on the Jones Act

Shorebased Admiralty Law
148

[QUOTE=LI_Domer;172896]To shorten that CFR, the only exceptions to having US nationals is foreign specialist consultants.

And yet, there are many cases of waivers to these regulations allowing foreign workers and vessels when there are in fact available Americans and if our government incentivized American operators or shipyards instead of slowly killing them, we would have the available specialized tonnage.[/QUOTE]

Therein lays the problem. Before you can get ride of those annoying foreign boats you have to have the vessels and equipment to replace them.
Shale oil from Bakken isn’t going to be able to replace deep water GoM anytime soon.

149

[QUOTE=ombugge;172909]At the same time, why would they not hire US citizens to fill some positions on their vessels, as long as they have the required qualification, experience, knowledge and attitude to fill the job?
[/QUOTE]

Because these vessel owners/operators DO NOT WANT American mariners on their vessels because a US citizen mariner can sue the owner/operators of any flagged vessel in a US Court for damages and the way US law is written, the owner/operator of the vessel is presumed guilty and that the seaman’s claim is bona fide with the onus on the owner/operator to prove the seaman’s claim is not which is virtually impossible.

Now do you understand?

150

you cannot build those vessels and operate them if cheaper foreign competition is allowed to perform the work.

The over simplification of the problem that you are missing is this: foreign vessel shows up for a job; they “must” try and hire as many Americans as possible. Foreign company places ad with ridiculous job requirements very few if any Americans possess (experience on ONLY one brand/type of bow thruster, crane, etc) or AB seamen with 10 years experience with ONE specific operation. Or they offer dog shit pay, schedule etc. They do not hire American for this reason, and since they can’t find “qualified” (not true) Americans to fill the billet, they get waivers. There is no way an EXPERIENCED engineer or mate can’t sail in at least a junior capacity without the exact vessel of operation specific experience, on ANY vessel.

Because they keep getting waivers, there is no incentive for American company to build a vessel that they cannot operate for less than foreign vessel. Cut out foreign boats, Jeaux boss will build suitable vessels as fast as possible—it’s in their best interest as well— profits.

Viscous cycle repeats.

Your Rolodex of contacts won’t help the broader issue.

151

[QUOTE=c.captain;172911]Because these vessel owners/operators DO NOT WANT American mariners on their vessels because a US citizen mariner can sue the owner/operators of any flagged vessel in a US Court for damages and the way US law is written, the owner/operator of the vessel is presumed guilty and that the seaman’s claim is bona fide with the onus on the owner/operator to prove the seaman’s claim is not which is virtually impossible.

Now do you understand?[/QUOTE]

That reason I can see. With the “sue culture” in the US, the Jones Act protection of seamen and the known bias against foreign companies in US courts.
But doesn’t that scenario apply to US flag vessels as well? (Except the “foreign” part)
That may be a good reason to avoid you guys as pest though.

This was a problem for the early Cruise ships working out of Miami as well, but I believe they found a way around it?

I remember the Macondo debacle, when Lawyers posted billboard offering their services to anybody who lived within 100 miles from the Gulf coast if he could dream up any kind of “loss” he had suffered. If he could not, the Lawyer would help him make up one. The court was VERY accommodating, I remember.

Very popular to “sock it” to a foreign Oil company, while absolving the US Drilling Contractor and Service company, forgetting that BP USA is HQ’ed in Houston and pay their taxes there, while Transocean is HQ’ed in Switzerland and Halliburton in Dubai to avoid paying US taxes.

They also forgot that BP USA is listed at NY Stock Exchange and many US pension funds etc. had invested heavily in it, loosing a large chunk of their investment when the stock dropped like a stone.

152

[QUOTE=z-drive;172912]you cannot build those vessels and operate them if cheaper foreign competition is allowed to perform the work.

The over simplification of the problem that you are missing is this: foreign vessel shows up for a job; they “must” try and hire as many Americans as possible. Foreign company places ad with ridiculous job requirements very few if any Americans possess (experience on ONLY one brand/type of bow thruster, crane, etc) or AB seamen with 10 years experience with ONE specific operation. Or they offer dog shit pay, schedule etc. They do not hire American for this reason, and since they can’t find “qualified” (not true) Americans to fill the billet, they get waivers. There is no way an EXPERIENCED engineer or mate can’t sail in at least a junior capacity without the exact vessel of operation specific experience, on ANY vessel.

Because they keep getting waivers, there is no incentive for American company to build a vessel that they cannot operate for less than foreign vessel. Cut out foreign boats, Jeaux boss will build suitable vessels as fast as possible—it’s in their best interest as well— profits.

Viscous cycle repeats.

Your Rolodex of contacts won’t help the broader issue.[/QUOTE]

A chicken and egg situation. No new US boats because of foreign boats available (Not necessarily cheaper) Cannot get ride of the foreign boats because there are no replacement to do the jobs necessary to maintain oil production. A real dilemma.

153

[QUOTE=ombugge;172908]Doesn’t this refer to MODUs and production units working on the OCS/EEZ?[/QUOTE]

No. It applies to all units “engaged in OCS activities” which are defined as “any offshore activity associated with exploration for, or development or production of, the minerals of the Outer Continental Shelf.”

[QUOTE=ombugge;172908]The vessels we are talking about here are not engaged in carrying cargo from US ports to units as mentioned above.[/QUOTE]

That doesn’t matter at all in this discussion.

[QUOTE=ombugge;172908]The waters within the OCS/EEZ are international and free navigation is allowed according to UNCLOS.[/QUOTE]

Free navigation is allowed, they just aren’t allowed to work there. There is a big difference between navigating through the waters and staying there for months or years working.

[QUOTE=ombugge;172908]Only Australia demand that everybody, incl. the Master is Australian, which does not work for US or NOR vessels etc. where the flag state demand that the Master is their national.[/QUOTE]

America I believe gives an exemption to anyone the flag state requires be onboard (the Master) but other than that they must be American.

[QUOTE=ombugge;172908]Other nations, like Brasil, demand that crew and junior officers are their nationals, but do not demand EVERYBODY is. The same goes for many other Shelf states. There are some US flag boats working in West Africa I believe? Do they have full local crews, incl. Master?[/QUOTE]

I thought I already said, the US boats I’m familiar with that are working in both Africa and Brazil have full local crew except the Master. In some cases they might carry extra crew that are Americans so they have an extra competent bridge officer and one or two American engineers.

[QUOTE=ombugge;172908]The question is still, where should the vessels to do the work now performed by foreign vessels come from, if you guys managed to drive them out?[/QUOTE]

No one is trying to drive then out, we just want them to follow the law.

154

we just want them to follow the law.

Yes, but even “the Law” is not that simple. US have their laws and their interpretation of the UNCLOS. Other countries - with vessels working world wide - need to look at a wider picture. If you restrict your waters to only your own vessels, or your nationals to work on other vessels working there, the problem is that you may be blocked from working in other waters.

For Australia and the US this is NOT a problem now, since they hardly have any vessels working world wide.For a country like Norway, with a large fleet of vessels working all over the world it is, hence they have to be VERY careful passing restrictions for others.

If you have decided to limit your offshore activity to national waters, no problems, but what if you want to regain some of your world wide supremacy??

155

The US OCS law needs to be amended to provide that any foreign vessel coming to work in the US OCS must be reflagged US with in 30 days, except in the case of a genuine national emergency declared by the Predident.

156

[QUOTE=tugsailor;172928]The US OCS law needs to be amended to provide that any foreign vessel coming to work in the US OCS must be reflagged US with in 30 days, except in the case of a genuine national emergency declared by the Predident.[/QUOTE]

I’m afraid the the US cannot amend an international treaty unilaterally, especially as your Congress, in their great wisdom, hasn’t ratified it.
Your OCS is NOT an accepted law by other countries, but they bow to your great military might, or whatever. Why??? I do not know.
Maybe it is time to get real??

157

[QUOTE=ombugge;172932]I’m afraid the the US cannot amend an international treaty unilaterally, especially as your Congress, in their great wisdom, hasn’t ratified it.
Your OCS is NOT an accepted law by other countries, but they bow to your great military might, or whatever. Why??? I do not know.
Maybe it is time to get real??[/QUOTE]

The US is NOT a signatory to any international treaty which gives up US sovereignty over the US OCS. Nor should it ever be. The US bears the substantial environmental risks of offshore oil on the US OCS pretty much by itself, therefore the US should also reserve pretty much al the benefits to itself. Otherwise offshore drilling should not be allowed.

158

[QUOTE=tugsailor;172933]The US is NOT a signatory to any international treaty which gives up US sovereignty over the US OCS. Nor should it ever be. The US bears the substantial environmental risks of offshore oil on the US OCS pretty much by itself, therefore the US should also reserve pretty much al the benefits to itself. Otherwise offshore drilling should not be allowed.[/QUOTE]

Are you alone in the word??

159

No. We protect the entire world at our own expense and with only token help from others. Through NATO we provide the vast majority of protection from the Russians. We protect South Korea from the North. We protect Taiwan and Japan. Any time the UN does anything the US pays for most of it, and when the going gets rough anywhere in the world it’s mostly only the US that steps up.

We pay the highest costs in the world for pharmaceutical, in effect subsiding reach and development of new drugs, and routine drug costs for the rest of the world.

Americans are the most generous people on earth.

If it were not for the US, everyone in Europe would be speaking German or Russian and everyone in the far east would be speaking Chinese.

There are more Norwegians in the US than in Norge. Some of the wealthiest people in Norge made their initial fortune in the US-- for example Kjell Inge.

So the US is far from alone in the world.

160

[QUOTE=ombugge;172935]Are you alone in the word??[/QUOTE]

you SIR seem to have neglected to realize this forum is comprised mainly of American professional mariners so in effect you are stepping into a very tough biker’s bar and screaming in a high pitched sqweaky voice that we are all homosexuals! Unless you want to be collecting your teeth into a small bag off the floor I suggest you cease and desist immediately in your desire to declare the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to be in violation of the Law of the Sea!

besides SIR what the FUCK does any of this have to do with changes to the Jones Act desired by Puerto Rico which is the purported topic of this thread? SO ENOUGH…NOW!

161

[QUOTE=tugsailor;172963]No. We protect the entire world at our own expense and with only token help from others. Through NATO we provide the vast majority of protection from the Russians. We protect South Korea from the North. We protect Taiwan and Japan. Any time the UN does anything the US pays for most of it, and when the going gets rough anywhere in the world it’s mostly only the US that steps up.

We pay the highest costs in the world for pharmaceutical, in effect subsiding reach and development of new drugs, and routine drug costs for the rest of the world.

Americans are the most generous people on earth.

If it were not for the US, everyone in Europe would be speaking German or Russian and everyone in the far east would be speaking Chinese.

There are more Norwegians in the US than in Norge. Some of the wealthiest people in Norge made their initial fortune in the US-- for example Kjell Inge.

So the US is far from alone in the world.[/QUOTE]

That is the staple claims of American generosity and exceptionalism. You forgot the Marshall Plan though.

You are right that there are more people claiming Norwegian ancestry in the US then there are people in Norway. They are proud of it to.
They eat Lutefisk, Lefse and Brunost in large quantities, thus contributing to the trade balance between the US and Norway.

You are also right that Kjell Inge Roekke made his initial fortune in the US. He introduced modern fishing methods and on board processing to the US fishing industry. He is still contributing to US shipbuilding as the defacto owner of the Philly Yard, introducing modern methods there to.
His Aker Solutions are a major operator in the GoM subsea equipment and construction industry, using many US flag vessels, but also some others when no suitable US flag vessels are available, or able to handle the task.

But that has nothing to do with the UNCLOS or OCS, which is the subject here. The UNCLOS give US the right to claim exclusive rights (EEZ)even outside the OCS, up to 200 n.miles offshore.
It also open up to extend that claim if the OCS extend past that limit, which the US would love to do in the Arctic, but is stopped from doing so since it has not ratified the UNCLOS. Russia is making such claim in the Arctic, as does Denmark on behalf of Greenland.

Australia has claimed extended OCS in the Timor Sea, thus many of the large Gas fields there are within Australian EEZ, although closer to Timor Leste. (David and Goliath?)

In the GoM area the only possible conflict over the OCS would be with Cuba or Mexico. I’m not sure if there are any counter claim, or if the various EEZs are defined and agreed according to the median line principle, as is normal.

In short, ratifying the UNCLOS would be to the advantage of the US and not loosing “sovereignty” of the OCS, which you cannot claim anyhow. (Only territorial waters are “sovereign”)

162

good luck to anyone questioning any claims to the U.S. OCS.

163

[QUOTE=z-drive;172975]good luck to anyone questioning any claims to the U.S. OCS.[/QUOTE]

I have not said that. What I have said is that it enhance the claim to reach outside the OCS.

164

[QUOTE=z-drive;172975]good luck to anyone questioning any claims to the U.S. OCS.[/QUOTE]

True, the multinational oil companies would insist the USA declare war to protect the interest of Exxon, Shell, Chevron etc which pay relatively little tax. The USA taxpayer will pay for that war even though the oil companies are among the most taxpayer subsidized industries in the country what with depletion allowance, drilling expense allowance etc. Meanwhile the people of the USA get some of the lowest royalties of any country in the world. As a comparison…what does Norway derive from its oil?

165

Man, you really know how to keep the debate civilized!!!
I don’t know what you get so worked up over. Just because a foreigner ask some questions and voice an opinion contrary to yours and your “biker” friends doesn’t give you the right to threaten violence. Luckily I’m out of reach.(I hope)

Again, I have NOT said that the OCS Act is in violation of the UNCLOS. On the contrary, the UNCLOS expends US rights and make claims legal under international Law.

What is confusing is whether it is the OCS Act alone that regulate activities within US EEZ, incl. by foreign flag vessels and personnel, or is the Jones Act also being enforced. I don’t see where the Jones Act is mentioned in the OCS Act. (Or did I miss something?)

besides SIR what the FUCK does any of this have to do with changes to the Jones Act desired by Puerto Rico which is the purported topic of this thread? SO ENOUGH…NOW!

You are right, this has nothing to do with changes to the Jones Act, or about Puerto Rico and should have been in a different thread
If you want to migrate to a more appropriate thread I would be happy to follow.

166

[QUOTE=tengineer1;172982]True, the multinational oil companies would insist the USA declare war to protect the interest of Exxon, Shell, Chevron etc which pay relatively little tax. The USA taxpayer will pay for that war even though the oil companies are among the most taxpayer subsidized industries in the country what with depletion allowance, drilling expense allowance etc. Meanwhile the people of the USA get some of the lowest royalties of any country in the world. As a comparison…what does Norway derive from its oil?[/QUOTE]

I assume you already know the answer to your last question??:smiley:

167

[QUOTE=ombugge;172984]I assume you already know the answer to your last question??:D[/QUOTE]

Assume I don’t :slight_smile: