An import duty would need to be adjusted up or down from zero to perhaps 30% to keep OPEC market manipulation from causing booms and busts in the US. Maybe 10% duty would be a starting point.
An export duty would need to be adjusted up and down to prevent the local market from being in shortage with high product prices, because oil prices are a bit higher in the world market. Maybe a 10% duty would be a starting point.
A side effect might be that it would drive business to Jones Act carriers. It would no longer be cheaper to export US crude on lower cost foreign flag ships, and then import foreign crude or products on foreign flag ships. That would be a good thing.
Duties are a tax which helps to fund the government. Taxes must come from somewhere. The government must and will be funded.
The goal is not to “take over” oil companies or the oil market, but to reduce the size and frequency of large price swings that crest boom, busts, inflation, and so on.
You can use French airplanes or Brazilian airplanes all day long to fly from New York to Baltimore, but they have to be USA registered and owned if you want to have any paying passengers or cargo on them. The aviation version of the Jones act is all about ownership, not about where the planes came from.
The build in the U.S. provision of the JA, and the U.S. made steel requirement, bring in shipyards, steel makers and coal producers. The fear is, without those lobbies support for the Jones Act would dwindle to just maritime labor.
I hope everyone here, at least everyone who supports the Jones Act, has written their Congress persons to support the Garamendi/Johnson Ocean Shipping Reform Act
Yep, a long time ago. Got a form letter from some junior staffer saying the senator appreciated my concern and the senator was always interested in strengthening US shipping interests. I knew it was an effort in futility because they only listen to lobbyists carrying millions. But I put my one cent worth in and got my money’s worth.
Think we are down to 2 shipyards that can build large vessels - and one of those is basically owned by a Norwegian company. If the major objective of the JA is to support and protect this industry, it has done a poor job of it.
MARAD claims there are 9 shipyards capable of building ships 400 feet or greater, but who the hell knows what that means, the Aircraft Carrier USS Gerald R Ford was built in Virginia, Matson had box boats built at NASSCO in San Diego and Philly, Bath Iron Works in Maine has contract to build destroyers for the navy, as does Ingalls Shipbuilding in Pascagoula.
Swan Island in Portland Oregon repairs large ships, but I don’t think they could build one there.
I count 4 that build large commercial vessels: NASSCO, Philly, VT Halter, and Keppel AmFELS. Keppel delivered the $225+ million GEORGE III a few months ago and still has its sister ship under construction while NASSCO last delivered a JA ship in 2020 (MATSONIA), Philly in 2019 (KAIMANA HILA), and Halter in 2018 (TAINO). Guess you can make it 5 if you include Financieri which delivered the MARK W. BARKER laker earlier this year.
when you say “local” shipowning asociation its doesnt mean Aus flagged vessels it mean an organisation in Australia that supports any ships working in australia.
With Australian labour costs they have just chiseled away at local shipping and got the $1 a day slaves on any vessels they can.
BHP sold their fleet, de carbonised in one fell swoop
All but ONE of the 5 yards mentioned are foreign owned and managed. (1 by Keppet, 1 by ST Marine, Singapore, 1 by Aker, Norway, 1 by Fincantieri, Italy)
PS> Some of the yards that only build vessels for US Navy, Coast Guard and other US Gov. institutions are also foreign owned)
So it’s time to build more JA compliant ships than?
The above mentioned JA compliant yards are ready to fill your orders with foreign designed vessels, fitted with foreign engines and equipment.
But no foreign bent plates or profiles used in their construction, so fully JA compliant.
The higher costs of newbuilding are correct when not only considering inflation, but also the environmental and CII implications. Not only is modern machinery required but the ship’s design itself must be altered to accommodate future technology. Examples: The Veteran Class tankers have MC engines but those are no longer an option so more advanced ME engines are required. Exhaust Gas Recirculation, waste heat recovery, BWTS to be installed, and other general advances/requirements which all affect the bottom line. Bunker tanks and the general machinery space layout needs to factor future conversion to alternative fuels - ammonia, methanol, etc. Then there is the delivery time of this equipment. If you commit to an order for a new main engine from MAN today, mid-2024 is the earliest it would be in Philly or San Diego. 1+ year delivery time for even more basic equipment is not unheard of now. The Veteran Class are built as close to basic as possible and the design could not be repeated exact. The ECO Class tankers are also quite simple, but again would not suffice in today’s time.
