Ok…gross profit…how about NET profit, as in, after they paid their bills…I see $22.4B loss.
Is that XOM’s fault? Are they engaged in tax evasion? Sounds like your beef is (or should be) with the tax code.
It is.
It’s a tax code written to order by politicians purchased by oil companies. Why did oil companies receive billions of dollars in subsidies last year? If they can’t survive without subsidies and tax breaks then let them go out of business. They will be replaced tomorrow by (hopefully) people who don’t depend on corporate welfare. Corporations should be taxed exactly as any working person and prohibited from contributing so much as a dime in cash or kind to any politician for any purpose.
Agree completely with one caveat…IF it turns out that refiners actually could not receive enough ROI on US soil to the point they would shut down operations, they need subsidy. Being able to produce refined products IN THE US is a matter of national security and must be maintained.
This is the exact argument I make for US shipyards and the US build provision of the Jones Act.
There’s plenty of Jones Act tanker availability on the West Coast. OSG has their three Suez+ (~1.3M bbls) as well as a 4th laid up in Brunei that they would probably enjoy having the opportunity to re-activate. Other companies have tankers too. Willow is estimated to be maybe 180,000 barrel/day additional capacity. I think the main benefit will be for the trans-Alaska pipeline (TAPS) which really could use increased flow to reduce waxing and icing issues in the pipeline resulting from steadily declining flows over time. As for the crude, Alaska North Slope/ANS is pretty uniform medium sour, and all PADD5 refineries use a lot of it.
That’s not as simple as you may think. They don’t actually own that one. BP still does, and from what I hear they won’t be giving it up anytime soon for some tax credit reasons that I don’t even pretend to understand.
I don’t understand how people can go around criticizing businesses without making at least a basic simple effort to understand terms or how our tax code works.
If people spent 1/1000th of the time doing basic research as they did spouting ridiculous ideas these conversations would be much more productive.
Ahh, yes. Thanks for correcting me. BP owns the vessel, OSG bareboats it and leases it back to BP. That has always seemed convoluted but your speculation around some tax thing sounds just as convoluted so very likely is the truth lol. It’s too bad, as those Suez+ tankers seem like nice ships and I hate to see it just sitting there in cold layup. Thanks again 
Maaaannnn…good luck…I definitely would NOT want to be on the team sent there to bring to life a HV diesel electric ship that’s been in layup in tropical conditions for how many years? Best of luck.
1 Like
What it came down to was Sen. Murkowski telling the president that she would vote against him in the senate on any number of bills or nominations in the Senate where hers might be the deciding vote. And as Murkowski votes so would Susan Collins. Power politics pure and simple.
Ha! Probably a reason when humans look to preserve something they don’t go for a “tropical climate, saltwater environment” lol.
1 Like
The protests and law suits have started:
PS> Why does Splash 24/7 shows a picture of the MODU “Polar Pioneer” as illustration for an article about drilling onshore in Alaska?
Ah, finally someone who can answer the question of how a business that buys its raw material at half what they previously paid (or had to sell for), doubled its price to their customers, sold only half of what they did previously yet still made the highest profits in history.
BP does not meet the US ownership requirements to be a Jones Act owner - so that is why they bareboat to OSG, and charter back. Also, i have a memory that BP laid these ships up some time ago - they were suffering from significant hull cracking issues.
1 Like
Might you be thinking about the old Keystone/ATC high-tensile ships on the TAPS run? They were sold off and scrapped years ago.
1 Like
yea those were the ones - I forget how old I am sometimes
1 Like
They were great ships. My 3rd AE stateroom was bigger and nicer than anything I’ve ever sailed on since.
It’s supposedly laid up at a place that runs the equipment on some schedule…but yea. Good luck lol.
Brunei Bay has been a popular place to layup ships and rigs for several decades. at times there have been upward of 30 ships and rigs there, some for several years.
BP Shipcare Sdn. Bhd. had a large operation in Labuan FT for many years, (taken over by International Shipcare 2011):
https://www.offshore-mag.com/business-briefs/company-news/article/16776977/international-shipcare-takes-over-bp-shipcare
Maintenance teams are moving around the anchorage to perform inspections, run de-humidifiers, turn over machinery and equipment in accordance with rutine procedures prepared for each individual unit.
In preparation for layup machinery spaces, technical rooms and accommodations were sealed and dehumidifiers installed to keep the atmosphere in a range between 20-35% humidity at all times.
Machinery and piping were drained and opened up to allow air circulation, or sealed with rust inhibitor.
Portable generator on deck were run by the maintenance team to supplied power to the dehumidifiers. otherwise no electric power supply.
No crew onboard, but two or three watchmen that maintained watch 24/7 and kept anchor lanterns burning.
They lived in Port-a-Camps and had no access to the sealed compartments. They were changed out ev. 2 weeks.
PS> Many of the ships and rigs were reactivated after several years in layup.
1 Like
More to come??
1 Like
yea - this is a political football with all kinds of interest groups taking sides.
1 Like