I agree that U.S. flagged ships should be utilized if we open the flood gates of U.S. crude oil, but how that scenario would actually be implemented is still very unclear to me.
So it’s okay to replace USMM’s to be more competitive but replacing all those other workers is not okay? We could just let a few million Mexicans migrate in and give them all those jobs at half pay. Then just think how much more globally competitive we could be.
[QUOTE=rob;152108]I agree that U.S. flagged ships should be utilized if we open the flood gates of U.S. crude oil, but how that scenario would actually be implemented is still very unclear to me.[/QUOTE]
ok, let’s discuss how to make it work but everyone needs to get off these “economics of it all” issues and realize that protectionism is essential for the survival of the US Merchant Marine. You can rest assured that I will go to my grave with those words on my lips!
Yes, but let’s really let competitiveness free and find labor for all industries in the U.S. willing to work for a fraction the pay of an American. I think my lawyer, banker and doctor should also compete for their jobs in the global scale against all workers from third world countries who will work 10 or more months straight without a day off. Imagine the profits for the bosses and savings to the consumer.
[QUOTE=z-drive;152106]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]
z-drive, the point is that, the USMM is not responsible for the outrageous costs of building a Jones Act ship. Just as it was proved that the longshoremen on the West Coast are not responsible for the current existing chaos. But, in both cases, the workers are being used, blamed and penalized. Go through my responses, read and use some brains to understand. The problems start way back, starting with the power supplying cos and before that, with the coal supplying cos.
But, in the present scenario, for the oil cos to export and make even more money, the Jones Act and the use of the USMM aboard ships are being used as the whipping boy. Ever sailed on the Kiel Canal? What? Those coastal European (socialized) sailors are not profitable? A Fincantieri can build a state-of-the-art cruise ship for $410 million, but we need $200 million to build a simple double hulled tankship with bow thrusters?
Weakening the Jones Act, just so that oil cos can export, will lead to the demise of the USMM. Rob has a very valid point. Why not refine and add value in USA?
If you still cannot understand … I am done.
[QUOTE=smoker;152104]This thread is turning to be political and hence, I quit.[/QUOTE]
you know me and my tactics so if you are leaving the field at this point in the discussion then I consider it as a capitulation. If you believe you are right then argue the merits of your case and win the verdict of the jury.
A few more eyeballs will now be looking at this discussion: http://gcaptain.com/conocophillips-wishes-come-true-come-demise-u-s-merchant-marine/
[QUOTE=c.captain;152107]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.[/QUOTE]
You cannot export competitively without removing the restraints of the Jones Act. Period.
You were the one who brought in coastal trade, pointing out that it’s profitable, remember? That’s Jones Act, right there.
-
-
- Updated - - -
-
[QUOTE=rob;152117]A few more eyeballs will now be looking at this discussion: http://gcaptain.com/conocophillips-wishes-come-true-come-demise-u-s-merchant-marine/[/QUOTE]
Shit! Can you please point a hole wherein I can crawl into? No! Please delete my posts. PLEASE.
Don’t worry, nobody knows who you are and we’re not going to tell anyone who you are (even if we knew). You could be anyone. That’s the whole point of the anonymous profile.
[QUOTE=Number360;152109]So it’s okay to replace USMM’s to be more competitive but replacing all those other workers is not okay? We could just let a few million Mexicans migrate in and give them all those jobs at half pay. Then just think how much more globally competitive we could be.[/QUOTE]
Where did I ever say that USMM should be replaced? Go through my posts and you’ll see that I am all for the USMM.
If you guys want to read meaning into something which does not exist, be my guest.
Shipbuilding is out of hand, for reasons you suggest. No argument there. Don’t make it out to be that labor is the issue, it is not, and if it is, then don’t whack labor in just one sector (merchant marine) when everyone else associated with energy can take a hit too.
You won’t find opposition to refine and sell product abroad from many of us; obviously at that point as you suggest value has been added and benefitted the economy from production, domestic crude transportation, and refining.
It’s the idea of just exporting crude with no benefit to the american economy other than the Major who produced the oil that pisses us off, if it’s just going to be exported the economy needs to benefit additionally, I feel shipping could make up for that. You suggest it’s not feasible so adding the value and exporting product should make up for that.
[QUOTE=smoker;152118]You cannot export competitively without removing the restraints of the Jones Act. Period.[/QUOTE]
We are talking about exporting US produced crude oil to FOREIGN NATIONS in this discussion which is NOT considered in any way shape or form as being coastwise trade! It is foreign trade and involves a completely different set of statutes.
NOW I BEG OF YOU TO STOP BRINGING THE JONES ACT (MERCHANT MARINE ACT OF 1920) INTO THIS DISCUSSION!
The Jones Act would most definitely be affected c.captain. Think about it… you could export crude internationally, refine it, then send it back to the US, all on foreign bottoms. Or, you could build or retool a refinery and do it all on a US-flagged Jones Act ship.
What’s the best answer if you’re a oil producer/trader?
[QUOTE=rob;152123]The Jones Act would most definitely be affected c.captain. Think about it… you could export crude internationally, refine it, then send it back to the US, all on foreign bottoms. Or, you could build or retool a refinery and do it all on a US-flagged Jones Act ship.
What’s the best answer if you’re a oil producer/trader?[/QUOTE]
that’s precisely why US flagged ships need to be used to export the crude. The law already allows foreign ships for the importation so everything is equal in the end if the oil just returns to us.
[QUOTE=c.captain;152124]that’s precisely why US flagged ships need to be used to export the crude. The law already allows foreign ships for the importation so everything is equal in the end if the oil just returns to us.[/QUOTE]
And, I’ve given you reasons why US flagged ships will not work. The entire history of this thread goes back to TWO points:
- Why should the exports of tax dollars subsidized crude oil be allowed?
- HOW TO PROTECT THE USMM AND THE US CITIZENS? WHAT’S IMPORTANT? US OR PROFITS?
A waiver for exemption from Jones Act is going to be slipped in with a waiver for exports.
Reuters article and this Platt’s blog article Read the comments.
Now, compare this article
You still want to debate, how directly or indirectly, it all goes back to Jones Act?
It’s short term profit taking by maximizing wells in production (while reducing exploration). It reduces supply in the United States to drive up prices at home and forces foreign suppliers into reducing their exploration and production.
[QUOTE=rob;152123]The Jones Act would most definitely be affected c.captain. Think about it… you could export crude internationally, refine it, then send it back to the US, all on foreign bottoms. Or, you could build or retool a refinery and do it all on a US-flagged Jones Act ship.
What’s the best answer if you’re a oil producer/trader?[/QUOTE]
If you drive across the coastal plains of Texas you’ll see all of the pipeline activity for new lines and upgrades for the Eagle Ford shale. After all of the hurdles the refiners have jumped, there are finally some new refining units being built. The last notable expansion was at Pascagoula in the mid 2000’s for the high sulphur crude.
It’s not retooling, it’s expanding. What units we have now are running at 99%.
[QUOTE=smoker;152088]You are seriously not so inward thinking, are you?
… That is the fucking reality and the oil co does not give a hoot about you waving the flag.[/QUOTE]
Well, you got that part right. But you got it wrong about having to own a commodity to trade it. As a trader you know what the futures exchange is all about. Also, don’t simplify your good points to death by confusing INLAND transport with OVERSEAS transport. And there is a reason WHY American steel industry is protected by tariffs. Long story, but some are old enough to remember the ominously glowing slabs as we made our way around Sparrows Point…
We hauled it to China as well as Japan. I made several of those trips on Jones Act qualified ships, American built, flagged, and manned. Those trips were not gifts, everyone made money. maybe the oil execs and politicians didn’t make as much as they could have if that oil was carried on a FoC ship.
Now that there can’t be a single person in the US who doesn’t understand the impact of oil price and availability to this country maybe it is time to declare oil and gas products a national security asset and restrict all trade and carriage to American ships and crews. The same should apply to timber products as we have already destroyed the US timber industry by exporting raw logs on FoC ships so the wood can be processed overseas and carried back here on FoC ships as high value products for sale to a growing number of unemployed Americans.
The best export we could produce at the moment is a corrupt politician who should have stayed in Hanoi. I too will chip in to purchase a steerage ticket on a FoC bulker to send him back.
Some things to note:
The U.S. is exporting a ton of refined products, hence the newbuild boom over the past two years of medium range tankers. And our refiners still have a tremendous amount of capacity to refine oil.
The issue is feeding these refineries with the proper grade of crude oil, hence the import, on occasion of heavy sour crude.
Opening the U.S. to crude oil exports means new refineries[B] will not be built[/B] in the U.S., but rather overseas. This means less jobs will be generated in the U.S.
Oh by the way…
Just like smoker was saying, what would prevent these other countries from refining American crude oil and reselling it back to the U.S. at a premium.
Nothing.
So, how is this good for U.S. consumers?