[QUOTE=c.captain;152060]I want desperately to reply to these last four posts but all I have at the moment is my puny smartphone and sausage fingers…gonna be back soon[/QUOTE]
LOL. We’ll enjoy the silence & peace till you come back with all canons firing 
[QUOTE=smoker;152050]I am afraid that you’re wrong on this, in the sense that I completely agree with you that US oil should NEVER be exported. Maybe, it’s because, my parents having witnessed shortages, impressed upon me the meaning and importance of savings.
My argument was for those who are for US made and manned ships and I’m simply giving a trader’s view why that is untenable. As a commodities dealer, as much as I’ve SERIOUSLY tried to export US made metal, I have failed, for these 2 simple reasons:
For the record, I am pro-Jones Act, even though I’ve been at the receiving end of it. I understand the importance of having a cabotage law. But, being a trader, also allows me to see the other side of the coin and that is, how the US Steel industry, one of the most protected industries in USA, coupled with the monopoly of power supplying cos as well as the expensive inland transportation, is making the economics of ship building in USA, very expensive.
Also, if US oil has to be exported, then the billion $ subsidy that each oil co gets per year, should be refunded back to the tax payer. An oil co should not be allowed to keep that subsidy as well as selling subsidized oil at international prices on the international market and still charging the US tax payer international prices.[/QUOTE]
Your input has been a real eye-opener, at least for me. Agree with your last comment regarding subsidies for exporters. That would be double-dipping, in a sense.
[QUOTE=rob;152048]It’s not the producers that profit in this case, it’s the traders. The only reason we would import crude is because it’s cheaper than getting it elsewhere.[/QUOTE]
but Conoco Phillips were the ones screaming for the export ban to be lifted and they are producers
also how can it be cheaper to import crude when it is sold at a world price but on top of that somebody must pay for the transportation to get it to the US? That to me is what blows my mind how anyone can be talking about exporting oil from the US when we still are importing it?
Obviously tonnage cannot be built overnight, but it can be built…if the market demands it. Why must it also be built to Lloyds?
I disagree, you’re a trader, great, but if exports from the US are in such high demand the market can react with US tonnage, and as c.captain indicated, it doesn’t necessarily have to be built in the US. ConocoPhillips profitably exports oil to Asia on a U.S. Ship on rare occasions, how is that any different?
Even with time savings, what kind of volume can you move on a Panamax tanker vs aframax/suezmax?
We are Mariners, these are our jobs, we’re not going to like anything that doesn’t involve more jobs for US Mariners and US shipyards.
no national interest whatsoever…only profits for corporations but I cannot even see that if oil is world at a world price
Crude, once consumed, cannot be replaced. Ever. Last I checked, US absolute and per capita oil consumption was still the highest on Earth, so it isn’t exactly going out of style.
Why would we sell something in finite supply, that we use more of than anyone else, and when we burn thru what we’ve got, we will simply have to import from places that only cause trouble.
of course, logic there would say that we should not consume any of our US crude but instead bank it in the ground and burn up everybody elses then when their stocks dry up we just turn to ours when the rest of the world is screaming. The downside of that is that US dollars continue to forever go to despot regimes who only love the US because of the dollars happily borrow back and that we prop up their corrupt rule with our mega military. The Saudi Royal family only pretends to love the infidel Americans…on the inside they loathe us and probably wished to hell they never made their deal with the devil back in the 70’s like they did. Of course, holding so many dollars does put them in the position to say “EFF YOU” whenever they want but that wouldn’t come at a price to their own wealth and security.
Naw. I don’t get it and any high and mighty speechiftying think tank research and policy group palaver is only a smokescreen to cover up who is robbing us.
who are you referring to…is it Rob?
Enough already. There won’t be any jobs for you and me and anyone we could ever point to come out of all of this. Oh, there’s them that will say jobs will fall like manna from heaven as a result of lifting the export ban. Is anyone here old enough to remember WHY we have an export ban ??
the WHY was called energy security because in 1973 OPEC embargoed exports to the US because of our support for Israel during the Yom Kippur War. That was the first gas crisis to hit the US since WWII and was a total shock to the system. Our vulnerability to the whims of foreign princes and potentates became utterly naked and exposed.
Be an American for the love of God. Tell 'em to go piss up a rope.
I would use more strong language myself but agree with your sentiment 100%
ok we know we agree at least on something
My argument was for those who are for US made and manned ships and I’m simply giving a trader’s view why that is untenable.
you’ll have to pardon me for not giving a FLYING FUCK about a trader’s point of view. These speculating slugs are the reason we have instability in the price of oil in the first place. If there were no speculators, oil would only be sold by producers and bought by end distributors. All profiteering middlemen need to be eliminated from the system
As a commodities dealer, as much as I’ve SERIOUSLY tried to export US made metal, I have failed, for these 2 simple reasons:
- The cost of US made steel, and even after over coming that hurdle
- I’ve never, NEVER been able to over come the outrageous shipping + transportation costs.
we are talking about using foreign built ships for this as it is not Jones Act protected trade so your steel argument is hollow and empty. Your comments about “outrageous” shipping+transportation costs is just hyperbole. Give us real numbers how a ship cannot be operated profitably under the US flag? Maybe not as profitable as a foreign manned ship but still profitable all the same.
For the record, I am pro-Jones Act, even though I’ve been at the receiving end of it. I understand the importance of having a cabotage law. But, being a trader, also allows me to see the other side of the coin and that is, how the US Steel industry, one of the most protected industries in USA, coupled with the monopoly of power supplying cos as well as the expensive inland transportation, is making the economics of ship building in USA, very expensive.
US shipping companies in domestic trades are profitable…NEED ANYTHING BE ADDED TO THIS?
Also, if US oil has to be exported, then the billion $ subsidy that each oil co gets per year, should be refunded back to the tax payer. An oil co should not be allowed to keep that subsidy as well as selling subsidized oil at international prices on the international market and still charging the US tax payer international prices.
total and complete agreement
[QUOTE=“c.captain” US shipping companies in domestic trades are profitable…NEED ANYTHING BE ADDED TO THIS? total and complete agreement[/QUOTE]
They wouldn’t be paying me six figures, full benefits, and operating new tonnage if not! Nevermind Joe bosse’s millions upon millions of greenbacks stacked ceiling high.
Does anyone have a good pulse on what’s going on with refineries in the US? At the end of the day, U.S. crude exports will hinge on refineries being at top capacity. The obvious fact is most of them are tooled to handle sour crude, vice the light sweet stuff that is being produced in abundance, but beyond that, any talk of re-tooling to handle light sweet? Or building new facilities?
[QUOTE=z-drive;152077]Obviously tonnage cannot be built overnight, but it can be built…if the market demands it. Why must it also be built to Lloyds?
I disagree, you’re a trader, great, but if exports from the US are in such high demand the market can react with US tonnage, and as c.captain indicated, it doesn’t necessarily have to be built in the US. ConocoPhillips profitably exports oil to Asia on a U.S. Ship on rare occasions, how is that any different?
Even with time savings, what kind of volume can you move on a Panamax tanker vs aframax/suezmax?
We are Mariners, these are our jobs, we’re not going to like anything that doesn’t involve more jobs for US Mariners and US shipyards.[/QUOTE]
You are seriously not so inward thinking, are you?
There is more factors involved in selling crude oil, then only shipping. Crude oil from different regions are all different in terms of chemical characteristics, viscosity, etc. no crude oil from one geographical region is the same as another.
A refinery has to be retooled to accept shale oil. A refinery is geared to accept and process crude oil from one region. It’s not a simple matter as turning off the switch and sending in hundreds of cheap Asian labor all armed with brooms and mops to clean their pipelines and storage tanks. There is a reason why all tank ships are cleaned after every load and why tank ship crews are the highest paid in the maritime world. Retooling is expensive business and why would a refinery do that, when you look at the map of the global oil trade and the easy availability of cheap oil being carried on cheap bottoms?
Shipping is just another factor in the global oil trade. There was a time when we’d look out of our port holes/bridges/fan tails/whatever, see fleets of tankers carrying the colors of Shell/BP/Chevron/whoever, crisscrossing the world trade routes and crewed by Americans and Europeans and be envious, wishing we were on that ship. Today, in this age of globalization, those fleets have been out sourced to someone named Diana and crewed by cheaper Asians. BP must be the only legacy fleet owner left and the Saudis, Kuwaitis, Iranians and Omanis have their own, subsidized fleets creed with cheaper Asians. How is USA going to fight & survive that cost?
The final product has to meet that importing country’s standards and grades. Given that US shale has never been exported and additives, etc will have to be added at the processing level to meet those standards, the cost of the final product goes up. Allow me to also remind you that the world is on an even more stricter standards than USA.
Crude oil is always sold at a discount. Whether its a plus or a minus, all depends on the supply & demand circumstances. Today, it’s at a minus. Given the above costing & pricing realities, you do realize that any US oil producing co would have to offer a hefty discount to sell that tax payer subsidized oil and shipping is the only barrier left to overcome that stops from that tax payer subsidized crude oil being sold away at throw away prices? The US oil co can offer hefty discounts because WE subsidize it. But, they no longer controlling shipping. Hence, this attack on Jones Act.
If you accept all of the above, then it goes by corollary that, with no refinery processing US crude oil, the US Gulf geographical location working against it, the US refinery capacity hamstrung by decades of not investing into it, then where is the demand and why are people like John McCain after Jones Act?
Let’s go back in history. The Britishers, Spaniards, Dutch, etc, all small countries with even more smaller populations and ALL controlling a major part of the world with bigger populations. How? All started with trading cos like The Dutch India Co., The British East India co, etc and supported by the network of Franciscans & Xaverites. All raped the colonized country of its raw material, shipped it back home, added value by processing that raw material and sold it back to the natives with an even bigger margin. In the current context, go to any scrap yard in USA and they’ll tell you that they’re contracted to either a mill or a trading house. All that waste material that we produce & throw away for free like paper, cartons, glass, plastic, metal, computers, etc is contracted and sold to a US based co like SIMS or some int’l co, who then sell it to recyclers abroad, re-processed and sold back to us. We end up paying through our nose several times over for the same product/packaging. Another e.g., John McCain gave over the copper rights on the ancestral Apache lands in Arizona to Resolution Copper, a subsidiary of Rio Tinto and BHP Billiton. All 2,400 acres of it. That copper will be sold to China, value added and sold to us at a higher price. What did we Americans get in return? See history being repeated? The corporates are already making the laws in USA, either ways.
Given the above reality plus the history of corporates, when it comes to their profits and undermining the security of a country, and the fact that there is no absolutely effin demand for US crude oil or a refiner to process it, what guarantees exist that the subsidized crude oil that is being exported, won’t be processed, shipped back and sold to us for a premium? The US oil cos are already bypassing the Jones Act by shipping crude oil to Bermuda, adding additives, claiming value addition, shipping it back to USA cheaper on FoC ships and selling it back to the US tax payer at a profit. Go to marinetraffic.com, start making a note of the same FoC tankers going up and down the East Coast and wonder why!
For US crude oil to be exported, the Jones Act in its present form will have to be amended to allow foreign made ships with a foreign crew and you can say good bye to your job. And, you can’t even cry, 'coz you enabled that outsourcing of the last remaining US based industry. That is the fucking reality and the oil co does not give a hoot about you waving the flag.
[QUOTE=rob;152084]Does anyone have a good pulse on what’s going on with refineries in the US? At the end of the day, U.S. crude exports will hinge on refineries being at top capacity. The obvious fact is most of them are tooled to handle sour crude, vice the light sweet stuff that is being produced in abundance, but beyond that, any talk of re-tooling to handle light sweet? Or building new facilities?[/QUOTE]
As far as I know, no re-tooling or anything currently. BP, I think was the last, which modernized in 2012. But then again, I’ve stopped paying attention as, professionally, my energies are concentrated elsewhere.
[QUOTE=c.captain;152079]ok we know we agree at least on something
you’ll have to pardon me for not giving a FLYING FUCK about a trader’s point of view. These speculating slugs are the reason we have instability in the price of oil in the first place. If there were no speculators, oil would only be sold by producers and bought by end distributors. All profiteering middlemen need to be eliminated from the system
we are talking about using foreign built ships for this as it is not Jones Act protected trade so your steel argument is hollow and empty. Your comments about “outrageous” shipping+transportation costs is just hyperbole. Give us real numbers how a ship cannot be operated profitably under the US flag? Maybe not as profitable as a foreign manned ship but still profitable all the same.
US shipping companies in domestic trades are profitable…NEED ANYTHING BE ADDED TO THIS?
total and complete agreement[/QUOTE]
We’ve always agreed in our view points points, just that we state it differently.
Traders have always existed since the world of commerce began and will always exist. What you ignore is that ALL commodity producing/manufacturing businesses have their OWN proprietary trading units, shielded from the eyes of the world, trading in their own products. For any commodity to be traded and sold by the producer/manufacturer, the world/instituitions of LME, Platts, COMEX, etc would have to cease to exist. In the current context and given the sophistication of tools involved, you can only trade IF you own the product. How many traders have brought down/bankrupted venerable institutions because they did not own the product? E.g., the Dutch bunkering fuel supply co being the latest.
Another reality - Guess what? A trader does and closes business, which directly and indirectly affects the country. A sailor, is nothing but a truck driver, moving goods from Pt A to Pt B, ad infinitum. He has no say in the business deal being made, while a trader influences that deal, for good or bad. Deal with that hard fact. When I was trading ONLY US made steel, guess what, that patriotism and flag waving, earned me $0, while I spent my hard earned money trying to close that deal. Remember “pharaoh” saying that he lost his own $300K trying to do business? What makes you or anyone think that oil cos are going to protect US jobs, especially the USMM? The trader viewpoint is being used as an example, coming from the school of hard knocks, something which Harvard won’t teach you.
I’ve given a link on Pg 2 of this thread which shows costing. Do a search on this forum and you’ll see plenty debaters arguing with facts and proving that an US flagged ship cannot operate profitably INTERNATIONALLY. You cannot compare the costings of a ship trading internationally v/s a ship trading coastal & protected by cabotage laws. Apples to Oranges.
Don"t argue if there are enough US flagged crude carriers to do the job of exporting crude. It seems like we have enough mariners dim enough to keep voting in members of Congress that will ultimately get all of us off commercial vessels(being blue or brown water), and replaced with nationals from Mexico and the Philippines. Meanwhile us dumb union MEBA guys whose dues goes in part for lobbyists in Washington to keep the Jones Act intact are just plain stupid for being a part of organized labor. So make sure you keep voting for people like Mccain and others, but don’t wonder what happened when we are all replaced with Hector and Manuel for pennies on the dollar.
smoker…my good friend! why are you venerating “traders” and disparaging us “truck drivers”? I am a truck driver and come wartime, it is me and my brothers which move our forces to the battlefield and keep them supplied. US citizen merchant mariners have always been and always will be a fifth branch of the armed forces so if we have an additional number of crude oil tankers sailing under the US flag an additional pool of us truckdrivers will be available to serve on the ships supplying the troops (now the next time we need it to be a real war with real reasons to be engaged instead of the last one which was started over lies, cost a trillion dollars which was all borrowed and more than a hundred thousand lives)
Anything, but anything that builds a bigger and stronger US merchant marine benefits the USA. I do not care one wit whatsoever that traders would have to pay an additional $.50 a barrel to have to ship the crude on a US tanker as opposed to a foreign one. I also do not say new tankers need be built but existing crude carriers reflagged to US such as perhaps a very few of those owned by Conoco-Phillips who happens to have many trading already. ALL THESE HUGE MULTINATIONAL OIL COMPANIES CAN REFLAG SOME TO THEIR TANKERS TO AMERICAN IF THEY WANT TO SELL THEIR OIL FOREIGN.
I do not want to be harsh on you because you are not a citizen but please understand that I am and I am passionate that the ships which sail under the US flag be accorded their rightful due as well as the men who man and sail them over the seas of the world. If you do not believe in any protectionist measures then come out and declare it here.
.
[QUOTE=c.captain;152097]smoker…my good friend! why are you venerating “traders” and disparaging us “truck drivers”? /QUOTE]
You’re still misunderstanding me. I am NOT venerating traders, but trying to show you the other side of the coin & pricing as a trader, so that you know what drives this article and the ilk of McCain & the likes in trying to remove the Jones Act. I am hoping to arm people like you with that pricing knowledge so that you guys can effectively fight the detractors of Jones Act.
To export US crude oil, amendments will have to be made to the Jones Act and those amendments will not be in the favor of the USMM. That’s what I am trying to point out. Inspite of sailors with proven caliber and expertise existing in the GoM, waivers have been given to foreign flagged & crewed ships. Now, you want that for the deep sea crew too, who are already at the receiving end of the unions?
Fine. It’s your funeral. I’ll just sadly raise a toast when I see the demise of the last, great US industry happening.
c.captain, I think you missed a few of smoker’s points such as:
The only way I would see forcing a ship to convert to U.S. flag would be if there was a long term charter/supply agreement to go along with that. Like an overseas refinery signed a long term supply contract for US-sourced crude, where a US flagged ship was part of that contract.
Considering the oil we’re talking about is “excess” oil that the US can’t use, a long term supply contract would probably not work in my view, it would have to be a spot charter type deal - whereby U.S. flagged ships would not compete well on.
Furthermore, if a long term supply contract for U.S. crude was signed, the first question I have would be, why don’t we build our own refinery here in the US and utlized that guaranteed feedstock? - and cheap nat gas to power it
The point is that as a condition of selling the oil foreign, there be some requirement to employ U.S. ships, or at the least US crews. Maybe in the process to level the playing field we bring in foreign oilfield workers for the Inland fields, as well as foreign railroad, refinery workers etc also foreign traders, congressmen, and CEO’s. This is us Mariners talking about how we feel, not necessarily what shipping experts/traders know/think about the situation. If it’s too expensive an option (unlikely), then we will sell less, no loss to the average American as its just oil company profits at stake, no? If they’re profitable at <$50 oil how could this make a difference If the product is not currently being exported? Investment in a few tankers is a drop in the bucket compared to production and exploration expenses (yes comparing upstream vs down/mid, I know)
If that’s too tough a pill to swallow, then RETOOL refineries and keep the product domestic.
I understand not all crude is suitable for all products/refineries. Case in point is Venezuela importing certain crudes despite their crude oil exports. Also the (in general terms) northeast/Houston/Europe triangle where in some cases diesels being exported but gasoline imported.
[QUOTE=z-drive;152102]The point is that as a condition of selling the oil foreign, there be some requirement to employ U.S. ships, or at the least US crews. Maybe in the process to level the playing field we bring in foreign oilfield workers for the Inland fields, as well as foreign railroad, refinery workers etc also foreign traders, congressmen, and CEO’s. This is us Mariners talking about how we feel, not necessarily what shipping experts/traders know/think about the situation. If it’s too expensive an option (unlikely), then we will sell less, no loss to the average American as its just oil company profits at stake, no? If they’re profitable at <$50 oil how could this make a difference If the product is not currently being exported? Investment in a few tankers is a drop in the bucket compared to production and exploration expenses (yes comparing upstream vs down/mid, I know)
If that’s too tough a pill to swallow, then RETOOL refineries and keep the product domestic.
I understand not all crude is suitable for all products/refineries. Case in point is Venezuela importing certain crudes despite their crude oil exports. Also the (in general terms) northeast/Houston/Europe triangle where in some cases diesels being exported but gasoline imported.[/QUOTE]
In the society that we live in, it cannot be the case of ALL for ONE, but it’s the case of ONE for ALL. That’s what’s happening abroad. In order to save the USMM, you’re advocating that the entire US population of 300 million be thrown under the bus, so that your sorry backside is still employed. Foreign workers imported to replace the hard working citizens of this country? REALLY?
Are you the only one with a family and the oil field, railroad workers, etc don’t have a family? YOU MADE ME PUKE WITH THAT ASININE STATEMENT. I respected you till that statement was made.
Notice that the trades for chartering a VLCC to store oil is for 6 months? What does that tell you? That in 6 months, oil will go back up. No country or any US state or trader or banker or oil producing co, dependent on oil prices, can live with these low prices. It takes 3odd months to bring out a ship, in US conditions. When oil goes up, your imaginary profits will go POOF. Discounts will be made/given based on the subsidies of the tax payers and you cannot financially fight the already paid for owned ship bottoms. It’ll take years to recover the purchase cost of an US made ship, being chartered on the prevailing Baltic rates.
Venezuela imported that Algerian (I think or was it Libyan?) oil for domestic reasons. Look it up. Don’t give rhetoric masked as a fact.
This thread is turning to be political and hence, I quit.
[QUOTE=rob;152101]c.captain, I think you missed a few of smoker’s points[/QUOTE]
Rob, you missing my point that I believe Congress should they lift the ban on the export of crude from the US should write it into the law that the oil be transported on US flagged ships and that is what I feel would make a small gesture to give something to the US people in exchange for opening up the spigot as it were. It would both provide income tax revenues from ship operating companies and mariners plus augment the pool of US unlimited tonnage mariners for national defense. WHO THE FUCK EXACTLY OTHER THAN OIL MAJORS AND TRADERS LOSES IN THIS EQUATION?
I am a realist however but have no expectation that they will but you asked for our opinions and I have offered mine. You know I will never ever be shy in cramming them down anyone’s throat here!
So we shall sacrifice all of the workers in the merchant marine and supporting industries (shipyards, insurance, class, naval architects, suppliers) to benefit the profits of oil companies and workers in other industries? Sounds like that’s what you’re saying, we are the sacrificial goats because we are too expensive but it’s ok to pay an American truck driver, airline pilot, roughneck more than a foreigner because they’re not overpaid in comparison? Why not replace all of those workers with Cheap Asian labor too? It’s an honest question, why are US merchant Mariners so much more expensive in comparison than other workers? Why aren’t the oilfield companies (anti labor) pushing this to the max? Why are drilling companies still employing overpaid Americans for FOC drill ships, that aren’t even operating in the gulf? You think at the least they would cut expenses there to start.
[QUOTE=smoker;152100]You’re still misunderstanding me. I am NOT venerating traders, but trying to show you the other side of the coin & pricing as a trader, so that you know what drives this article and the ilk of McCain & the likes in trying to remove the Jones Act. I am hoping to arm people like you with that pricing knowledge so that you guys can effectively fight the detractors of Jones Act.
To export US crude oil, amendments will have to be made to the Jones Act and those amendments will not be in the favor of the USMM. That’s what I am trying to point out. Inspite of sailors with proven caliber and expertise existing in the GoM, waivers have been given to foreign flagged & crewed ships. Now, you want that for the deep sea crew too, who are already at the receiving end of the unions?
Fine. It’s your funeral. I’ll just sadly raise a toast when I see the demise of the last, great US industry happening.[/QUOTE]
stop saying this is about the Jones Act because it isn’t in any way! This is about something entirely separated from it and do not keep bringing up coastwise trade laws as being germane to this discussion.