Puerto Rico - Statehood and attack on the Jones Act


#141

[QUOTE=ombugge;172865]If you are seriously interested in finding out about possibilities to work on Norwegian vessel in the GoM, or anywhere else, you need to contact the Owners, don’t expect them to advertise vacancies in the US.[/QUOTE]

The point is, we shouldn’t have to do all that. The owners are required to look for Americans to crew their vessels working in American waters. The least they could do is put ads on Rigzone and seriously consider the applicants.


#142

[QUOTE=Capt. Phoenix;172875]The point is, we shouldn’t have to do all that. The owners are required to look for Americans to crew their vessels working in American waters. The least they could do is put ads on Rigzone and seriously consider the applicants.[/QUOTE]

Are American Owners with vessels working in foreign countries doing that do you think?? It’s a two way street.
If you are looking for work you do what it takes to find it, or stay unemployed.

Work options on foreign boats doesn’t necessarily mean in the GoM only. The boat may leave GoM and go to say Brasil, West Africa, or even North Sea.
Are you willing to work overseas?


#143

[QUOTE=ombugge;172879]Are American Owners with vessels working in foreign countries doing that do you think?? It’s a two way street.
If you are looking for work you do what it takes to find it, or stay unemployed.

Work options on foreign boats doesn’t necessarily mean in the GoM only. The boat may leave GoM and go to say Brasil, West Africa, or even North Sea.
Are you willing to work overseas?[/QUOTE]

American owners that operate where local law requires local crews do hire locals. (I specifically know of Brazil and Africa being like that.)

I’m not actively looking for work I’m just commenting on the principle of the matter. The law says they have to employ Americans, yet they don’t. If it’s a 3 month contract on a highly specialized vessel I understand Congress giving them a waiver. If it’s a 2 year contract there’s no excuse for not hiring Americans. Note: see CFR citation at bottom about who is required to be American and who is not.

I would be willing to work foreign on the right rotation for the right pay and I expect many (if not most) American mariners would.

33 CFR 141.15

(b) As used in paragraph (a) of this section, “regular complement of a unit” means those personnel necessary for the routine functioning of the unit, including marine officers and crew; industrial personnel on the unit, such as toolpushers, drillers, roustabouts, floor hands, crane operators, derrickmen, mechanics, motormen, and general maintenance personnel; and support personnel on the unit, such as cooks, stewards and radio operators. The term does not include specialists, professionals, or other technically trained personnel called in to handle emergencies or other temporary operations; extra personnel on a unit for training; and other personnel temporarily on a unit for specialized operations, such as construction, alteration, well logging, or unusual repairs or emergencies.


#144

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.


#145

[QUOTE=ombugge;172879]Are American Owners with vessels working in foreign countries doing that do you think?? It’s a two way street.
If you are looking for work you do what it takes to find it, or stay unemployed.

Work options on foreign boats doesn’t necessarily mean in the GoM only. The boat may leave GoM and go to say Brasil, West Africa, or even North Sea.
Are you willing to work overseas?[/QUOTE]

you SIR do not understand anything concerning foreign vessels working in the US GoM. US law says that the vessel owners are supposed to hire US crews for them except there are loopholes in the law that allow the owners to use disingenuous and deceitful practices to keep foreign nationals on their ships. The USCG issues manning waivers to foreign ships in the GoM to keep their foreign nationals aboard so they are a handmaiden to these harmful (to US mariners) practices.


#146

[QUOTE=Capt. Phoenix;172891]American owners that operate where local law requires local crews do hire locals. (I specifically know of Brazil and Africa being like that.)

I’m not actively looking for work I’m just commenting on the principle of the matter. The law says they have to employ Americans, yet they don’t. If it’s a 3 month contract on a highly specialized vessel I understand Congress giving them a waiver. If it’s a 2 year contract there’s no excuse for not hiring Americans. Note: see CFR citation at bottom about who is required to be American and who is not.

I would be willing to work foreign on the right rotation for the right pay and I expect many (if not most) American mariners would.

33 CFR 141.15

(b) As used in paragraph (a) of this section, “regular complement of a unit” means those personnel necessary for the routine functioning of the unit, including marine officers and crew; industrial personnel on the unit, such as toolpushers, drillers, roustabouts, floor hands, crane operators, derrickmen, mechanics, motormen, and general maintenance personnel; and support personnel on the unit, such as cooks, stewards and radio operators. The term does not include specialists, professionals, or other technically trained personnel called in to handle emergencies or other temporary operations; extra personnel on a unit for training; and other personnel temporarily on a unit for specialized operations, such as construction, alteration, well logging, or unusual repairs or emergencies.[/QUOTE]

Doesn’t this refer to MODUs and production units working on the OCS/EEZ?

(2) Determinations in paragraph ©(1) of this section for all MODUs and fixed and floating OCS facilities, as those terms are defined in 33 CFR 140.10,

The vessels we are talking about here are not engaged in carrying cargo from US ports to units as mentioned above.
To my knowledge all MODUs working there on long contracts are complying, whether they are owned and operated by US companies or not.
PS> I count those companies nominally registered in the same little village in Switzerland as US companies for this purpose.

The waters within the OCS/EEZ are international and free navigation is allowed according to UNCLOS.
The gray area is obviously when a shelf state can regulate crewing on a foreign vessel working within their EEZ. 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. The compromise has been to have an Australian Master as well as one National, but how that would work in case of an accident and court case it not clear. Many companies also keep at least their own Chief Engineer as well. In Australia this is mainly a union demand, the Government is not that keen on it.

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?

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??
I believe there are many Americans working on these vessels as Charterer’s or 3rd Party personnel. That is high paying positions that wouldn’t be there if these vessels were not there. Concentrate on getting US vessels in place that is able to do the jobs in stead.

In the meantime, maybe it would be better to try to get jobs on the foreign vessels that is there based on merits, not demand that they have to take crew based on nationality?


#147

[QUOTE=c.captain;172907]you SIR do not understand anything concerning foreign vessels working in the US GoM. US law says that the vessel owners are supposed to hire US crews for them except there are loopholes in the law that allow the owners to use disingenuous and deceitful practices to keep foreign nationals on their ships. The USCG issues manning waivers to foreign ships in the GoM to keep their foreign nationals aboard so they are a handmaiden to these harmful (to US mariners) practices.[/QUOTE]

I never claimed to know everything about anything. There are thick books written about thing we do not know, you and me both.

The fact is that US cannot regulate unilaterally outside their territorial waters, nor can they specify crewing rules for foreign vessels in international water, even if it is within their EEZ. The problem is defining what is operations directly involved with the exploration or extraction of resources within the EEZ. Fishing and Drilling clearly is, but sitting on DP and carry out other tasks may not.

The OSC Act is an old Law set before UNCLOS. Although the Congress has not ratified UNCLOS, the US is a signatory and has tried to comply, so far.
I doubt that the Owners of these vessels are disingenuous or deceitful in following the rules that govern their operation. 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?
Travel expenses would be far less as long as the boat is working in the GoM. They may even save on wages and social costs, if the flag stat allow them to hire on local conditions.


#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!