They wont reply… Shell, BP, Chevron et all… will use a cheaper foreign flagged vessel if they can. Thru the API and IMCA they have had a successful 30 plus year campaign to achieve regulatory capture on offshore MPSVs, Flotels and Heavy Lift vessels. Just review the CBP JA enforcement determinations to see how the interpretations of Jones Act laws can be watered down and in some cases ignored based on enforcement interpretations… heavily lobbied for by API, IMCA etc…
1 Like
Is that because the vessels comies at cheaper charter rates, or because they have better and more suitable capabilities, thus make the total project costs cheaper?? (Just asking for a friend)
PS> I was of the impression that it is not only the Jones Act that govern vessel activities in the GoM and other OCS areas in the US. ( OCSLA??)
Offshore wind is only economic with huge subsides from taxpayers and higher electric bills to rate payers.
If offshore wind jobs are not going to be reserved for Americans, then offshore wind should not be built. Period.
The US has one of the World’s largest electrical generation and distribution grids, including a significant amount of onshore wind, servicing 335 million people.
The notion that the US cannot develop and operated offshore wind without foreigners to do it for us is laughable.
The US put men on the moon over 50 years ago, and more recently exploratory rovers on Mars. Europe has never been able to do this. So, the US can certainly learn how to build offshore wind.
Foreign expertise can be hired or bought for initial training purposes.
If the US had not been subsidizing Europe for 70 years with the Marshall Plan and by providing Europe with a free nuclear deterrent and defense, the Europeans would have all been speaking Russian long before now. Without the US subsidizing it, Europe would never have been able to afford to develop offshore wind.
Let’s not hear anymore of this crap about Americans not being able to build offshore wind.
8 Likes
Owning a government is an advantage.
Maybe in US, but in Europe the cost of renewable energy from offshore wind has fallen below that of coal and gas. Subsidies are a thing of the past.
The rest of the world is also scrambling to develop offshore wind farms to meet both their energy need and their Paris Agreement pledges.
If the US is to meet it’s goal of 30 Gw offshore wind energy by 2030 you need to act now, not wait for newbuilt JA compliant vessels to get from the drawing board to reality in large enough numbers to meet requirement.
I disagree. The sheer size a capabilities of the US economy and industrial base could meet the goal with US built and crewed vessels if our own government would green light it and back it 100%.
It is interesting that the only groups saying we cannot do it are either from the EU or heavily influenced by companies and groups from the EU…… the Fox is telling us how to make the hen house…,
You are correct it is a combination of JA and OCSLA. Both of which have been manipulated through CBP and USCG interpretations and lack luster enforcement heavily influenced by IMCA, API and big oil.
So where are the US built SSCVs capable of lifting large modules, which is necessary to economically assemble the large offshore platforms needed in deep water GoM?
The only formerly US owned SSCV able to lift >10000 m.t. was McDermott’s DB 102, built in Japan in 1985:
She is now Heerema’s Thialf: Thialf | Heerema
She has worked in the GoM several times in the past.
BTW; So have other foreign owned and operated SSCVs.
Even if a crane vessel of such capacity was built in the US, would there be work enough for it in the US? That is doubtful.
The cost of building would be enormous and to operate outside US would be unfeasible.
To change crews between US and foreign jobs is impractical, no matter if US or foreign owned SSCV.
The Thailf by its very nature and abilities is in the spot market for heavy lift all over the world, not setting offshore wind piles so I agree it would not make any sense to replicate the Thailf under a US flag. The Thialf is an amazing asset. I have seen it up close offshore. And under the proposed legislation any foreign flagged vessel could work in the US OCS. They would be required to either use crews from their flag state or use US mariners when in US OCS waters. The law does not exclude foreign flagged vessels required for the odd one off heavy lift work like the Thialf does. Since the Thialf is Panama Flagged that would mean that when in US OCS waters working it would be required to either use a Panamanian crew or a US crew.
I believe there will be more than ample work in the US OCS to justify US flagged installation vessels. One is already be made for Dominion Energy.
ABS to class first U.S.-flag offshore wind installation vessel | WorkBoat
And yes you are correct there are currently 6-8 (depending on which AIS information you trust) foreign flagged construction and/or pipe lay vessels working in the GOM/OCS with cheap foreign labor. There are many more smaller vessels working “Survey” for the wind farms on the East coast. That is the whole point of the proposed legislation to end the exploration of cheap foreign labor in US waters and provide and even playing field for US vessel operators in US waters.
The crews on most offshore vessels in the world today is of different nationalities and they are likely to be so in the future. Not all are “cheap 3rd world villagers”, as popularly believed by many on this forum.
PS> Nearly all large crane vessels, incl. SSCVs, have Iban riggers from Miri, Sarawak because they have proven fearless and very good at the job. They work worldwide.
If the US demand that crews have to be changed to do any kind of work in US waters I would assume that only a few owners/operators will comply, others will just stay away.
Some foreign owners will probably even build JA compliant vessels due to the incentives and market available in the US. (just like foreign shipping companies reflag to US to take advantage of the MSC opportunities)
Will that be enough to meet the requirement for such vessels in the US market??
I do not know of any person that has worked with international crews that would describe the under paid foreign crew as “Cheap 3rd World Villagers” . My experiences (in Nigeria, Venezuela (pre-chavez) and Brazil) have been that they are very skilled, well trained and hard workers.
And I agree with your other sumations. The American Offshore Worker Fairness Act will not end any projects or time lines, just require adjustments to comply with a new and reasonable law. There will be some vessel operators that do not want to “Play in the US backyard” because the profit margins are not there if they cannot use cheap labor sources just like Brazil, Mexico etc… and that is OK.
What were you doing there, taking away well paying job from a more deserving local?
But I presume the concept of “local jobs for local people” doesn’t apply everywhere?
It obviously doesn’t apply to Americans working overseas, or did you accept local wages in Nigeria, Venezuela or Brazil?
Besides, Offshore vessels of any kind that operate in US waters are there because they can do tasks faster, better or safer than US vessels available, otherwise they wouldn’t be permitted to operate in US waters.
Does anybody here have access to the charter rates for foreign vessels vs. equivalent US flag vessels operating in US waters? It may be an eyeopener for many.
2 Likes
Back in the mid-1970s every Norwegian Shipowner wanted to own drilling rigs, but they needed Americans to help operated them. Most made deals with established Drilling Contractors that also supplied key drilling personnel. Some even ordered rigs built in the US.
One of those were Olsen & Ugelstad and their first rig was this one:
That rig got it’s first contract with Shell in the GoM. They used local crews, but, since it was Norwegian flagged, Norwegian rules required a Norwegian as qualified Master (not a Barge Master), although this was a standard non-propelled Betlehem 250S. (I think they also sent some other Norwegians to train to become drill crews as well)
IIRC Saipem had a floater working in the GoM at the same time.
This caused uproar in certain circles in the US; “Why are foreign rigs working in US waters” etc. etc.
There were talk of banning foreign rigs and crews from US waters. (Nothing new there)
At the time US rigs with US crews were working both in Norway and Italy at the invitation of both governments, but both threatened to ban that if the US put a ban on Norwegian and Italian rigs and crews in US waters. The talk of banning stopped, at least at US official level.
PS> They don’t have that leverage any more, since there are few, if any, US-flagged rigs and few American oilfield workers overseas these days, so threatening to ban US rigs and workers wouldn’t help much.
1 Like
I was Captain of a US flagged vessel as an American citizen (required by US law) with 90% local crews (required by local laws. If a Norwegian vessel comes to the US to work under the prposed law with a Norwegian Captain and crew that would be fine.
Yes I’m fully aware of the requirement for a US citizen as Master on US-flag OSV working outside US waters. I have been working with US-flag boats both in S.E.Asia, Middle East, West Africa, S. America and the Med.
Interesting thought, but not likely to happen. Yes it would be legal by proposed US Law, but since Norwegian rig workers works are on 2 weeks on/4 weeks off rotation and probably on better pay and benefits than their US counterpart, wouldn’t there be jealousy and protests anyhow?
Another thought; If a Norwegian (NOR) flag boat should get a longer term charter in US water and take on US crews, except Master, would that be OK under the proposed law?
PS> The Master would of course be on Norwegian wages and terms, but the crews, hired through a local crewing agent, would be on US terms. That would save a lot of money for the Owners. (and possibly the Charterers)
A lot cheaper than a full Norwegian crew on Norwegian terms, working in the US, I would think.
Great points. If the Norwegian vessel had a Norwegian Captain than that would comply with the proposed reregulation. If it used a non-Norwegian Captain (that I believe is allowed by Norway for vessels in foreign trade) then it would have to be a US Captain if working in US waters.
Norway have two separate ships registries, NOR and NIS.
The ordinary resister, (NOR) does not allow foreign Master, regardless of type or trade.
The international register (NIS) does allow EU citizens as Master, although other nationalities may get dispensation, case by case. (No difference if the vessel is an OSV, or a merchant vessel)
I believe we have US members here who have served as Master on NIS registered vessel.
THIS!
If American taxpayers dollars are subsidizing American Offshore Wind, this should be mandatory.
3 Likes
The requirement for master of a NIS vessel is a short test mainly on legal matters pertaining to Norwegian law. In my experience the regulations were almost word for word copies of British regulations with some differences for crew welfare.
1 Like