Companies circumventing the Jones Act "new and different" rule


Hello everyone, I am a law student writing a paper on the Jones Act. Would it be possible for some help with the new and different product rule? From what I understand it comes from a case called Blumenthal, and many oil companies circumvent the Jones Act by refining their goods offshore. Do companies in other industries find loopholes as well? Thanks for your help and expertise!


Thanks for the question, I actually learned a few things skimming the Blumenthal decision.


McDermott is good company for skirting regs… replacing US crews with foreign crews… high paid lawyers to get low cost foreign crews… American Eagle Tanker works loopholes pretty good, lightening in US waters and discharging cargo in US ports but Indian crews


Doesn’t McDermott operate only foreign owned and operated vessels around the world these days?:
Many of their ships are owned by other companies and chartered in to McDermott on long term charters.

I don’t know if they have anything left in the GoM, or use their international fleet whenever they have a job there from time to time?

AET is a wholly owned subsidiary of MISC Bhd, KL, Malaysia, but have their HQ and operation centre in Singapore. With an office in Houston and a lightering base in Galveston:


AET should have US flagged vessels or at a minimum US crews…it’s not legal for a foreign ship to load and discharged in two us ports but this is where the high $$ lawyers come in…


Aren’t the export tankers anchored outside US territorial waters when they do the STS operation??
(In which case they are not in “an US Port”)

No more belly aching about McD?? They are after all an American domiciled company again.


No,’they are with EEZ. McDermott still sucks


EEZ is not Territorial waters by UNCLOS definition:

Unless they are extracting the crude oil from below the seabed they are in International waters and not liable to US law.