Does Gary Chouest REALLY need another shipyard?

seriously and especially with public money! Soon don Vito Chouest will be setting up a new shipyard in Wichita or Denver as long as these public servants keep shoveling money to him! This is ridiculous!

[B]Edison Chouest to build ships in Gulfport, Miss.[/B]

By Ashley Herriman

2/8/2016

The Port of Gulfport, Miss., has landed a new tenant in Edison Chouest Offshore affiliate TopShip LLC, which has signed a 40-year lease to occupy the former Huntington Ingalls composite facility, acquired by the port a year ago.

TopShip will be located at the port’s new inland port and it will create an estimated 1,000 full-time jobs, representing a $68 million corporate investment, according to a press release from the office of Mississippi Gov. Phil Bryant.

The Port of Gulfport is in the midst of a $570 million restoration project, part of a larger effort to restore and expand the Mississippi Sound following Hurricane Katrina in 2005.
[B][U]
The decision to locate TopShip in Gulfport is supported with considerable public funds.[/U][/B]

On Feb. 5, the Mississippi Legislature approved an incentive package for the project made up of $11 million from the Mississippi Major Economic Impact Authority — $10 million in discretionary grants and $1 million for workforce training. The Port of Gulfport, through its restoration budget, is also providing $25 million in Katrina-CDBG funds for infrastructure improvements. The city of Gulfport and Harrison County are providing personal property tax abatements in support of the project.

“We are indeed excited about the opportunities to grow TopShip in a business friendly state, one where we can reach out into the community to recruit various skill sets, developing a quality workforce that will allow TopShip not only to compete locally, but also globally,” Edison Chouest Offshore President and CEO Gary Chouest said in a statement.

“With the help of the state of Mississippi, we will modify our TopShip facility to become one of the safest and most efficient shipyards in the nation. The strategic location of TopShip will allow us to take advantage of the deepwater Port of Gulfport and their future expansion plans.”

Edison Chouest Offshore (ECO) was founded as Edison Chouest Boat Rental in Galliano, La., in 1960 and has grown into a diverse marine transportation company with a fleet of more than 250 vessels.

Huntington Ingalls closed its Gulfport facility in 2014, and the port acquired it in March 2015.

“The governor’s change in vision has allowed the Port of Gulfport flexibility to further expand and acquire the Huntington Ingalls facility. This has allowed MDA to put together an incentive package, bringing TopShip, LLC to the Port and creating a significant number of jobs for coastal residents,” said Jonathan Daniels, Mississippi State Port Authority executive director and CEO. “Secondarily, TopShip’s operations on Seaway Road will link seamlessly with our modernized, deepwater draft facility, creating expanded cargo opportunities and leading to additional job creation.”

so far he has Larose, Houma, Tampa, Westport, and now Gulfport

[QUOTE=c.captain;178822]seriously and especially with public money! Soon don Vito Chouest will be setting up a new shipyard in Wichita or Denver as long as these public servants keep shoveling money to him! This is ridiculous!

so far he has Larose, Houma, Tampa, Westport, and now Gulfport[/QUOTE]

Maybe somebody see opportunities for US shipbuilding where others see nothing but doom and gloom?

Is it possible to compete on the [U]world market[/U], even in a high cost country like the US?
Yes, with modern facilities, a skilled workforce, good designs and top of the line machinery and equipment, why not?

If not aiming only at the Jones Act market, is it possible to follow the European model, where hulls are built outside US but outfitting is done at a US yard.
If so, where would there be suitable hull building yards in the near area?

It is of cause possible to build complete hulls anywhere in the world and transport them to US on Dockships or HLVs, like here:

Large CSV hull transported from China to Floro, Norway on HLV Xiang Rui Kou.,

Or non-buoyant sections of hulls on flat top Deck cargo vessel like this for assembly at the US yard:

Sections are carried from China to assemble hulls for the drillships, containers ships and tankers built in Korea.

Just wondering; how much of a ship’s hull and machinery has to be actually built/manufactured in the US to qualify for Jones Act status?
The Factory Trawlers converted in Norway from US built vessels in the 1980s didn’t have much except the keel plates and a US Builder’s Certificate left, but that was fishing vessels, not Jones Act vessels.

[QUOTE=ombugge;178831]Just wondering; how much of a ship’s hull and machinery has to be actually built/manufactured in the US to qualify for Jones Act status? [/QUOTE]

it is a pretty high number like 75% of a total aggregate of the components that make up the ship but it must be assembled in its entirety in the USA to have coastwise trade priviledges

The Factory Trawlers converted in Norway from US built vessels in the 1980s didn’t have much except the keel plates and a US Builder’s Certificate left, but that was fishing vessels, not Jones Act vessels.

THAT WAS A SCAM THAT SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN ALLOWED AND EVERYBODY KNOWS IT!

[QUOTE=c.captain;178833]it is a pretty high number like 75% of a total aggregate of the components that make up the ship but it must be assembled in its entirety in the USA to have coastwise trade priviledges [/QUOTE]

75% of actual materials and machinery etc., or with man hours of work included?

[QUOTE=ombugge;178835]75% of actual materials and machinery etc., or with man hours of work included?[/QUOTE]

75% must be of US produced content (I believe) and the remainder can be imported provided 100% of the ship is constructed in the USA

[QUOTE=c.captain;178836]75% must be of US produced content (I believe) and the remainder can be imported provided 100% of the ship is constructed in the USA[/QUOTE]

75% of what?

The only part of a modern ship that is of real value is the equipment, any bum fuck nation on earth can produce ship hulls.

%75 but it’s ok to hire foreigners and pay them shit with matching conditions!

[QUOTE=ombugge;178831]Just wondering; how much of a ship’s hull and machinery has to be actually built/manufactured in the US to qualify for Jones Act status?
[/QUOTE]

I don’t know about overall content, but I remember the following case:

http://www.motorship.com/news101/industry-news/union-fights-philly-yard

The USCG had earlier given Aker clearance to import 87.9 tons of stern bulbs and bulbous bows in construction of the tankers. It said those parts would weigh 1.14% of each hull’s total weight, [U]safely under the Jones Act limits of 1.5%[/U]. In arriving at this figure, the USCG pointed out that it was not counting additional foreign-built components of Aker’s tankers such as rudder horn casting, engine-room modules, and steel braces because Aker plans to assemble or modify them in Philadelphia. [U]The Coast Guard maintains that there is no limitation on the amount of foreign materials that may be used, such as steel, as long as that material has not been worked or fabricated in any way[/U].

[QUOTE=Kraken;178837]The only part of a modern ship that is of real value is the equipment, any bum fuck nation on earth can produce ship hulls.[/QUOTE]

looks at Aiviq

looks at Polaris

Yeah, right…

Wonder how many American citizens will actually get 1 of the 1,000 jobs it will provide… Supervisors and office personnel is gonna be about it if you ask me… But what do I know continues to sweep floors

[QUOTE=Tups;178842]I don’t know about overall content, but I remember the following case:

http://www.motorship.com/news101/industry-news/union-fights-philly-yard

[i]The USCG had earlier given Aker clearance to import 87.9 tons of stern bulbs and bulbous bows in construction of the tankers. It said those parts would weigh 1.14% of each hull’s total weight, [U]safely under the Jones Act limits of 1.5%[/U]. In arriving at this figure, the USCG pointed out that it was not counting additional foreign-built components of Aker’s tankers such as rudder horn casting, engine-room modules, and steel braces because Aker plans to assemble or modify them in Philadelphia.[/QUOTE]

Aren’t those tankers foreign designed, with majority of engineering and drawing work done in Korea?
The Main Engines and God knows how much else of the machinery are foreign made as well, I believe.

I assume the Main Engines were/will be assembled, tested and commissioned in Korea, before being disassembled, transported to the US and reassembled there? (Or was it delivered in one piece?)
But that may not be the case with smaller items of imported machinery and equipment used on these tankers.

In stead of counting content by weight, wouldn’t it make more sense to set a limit based on value “as delivered”, but not assembled and installed? This will allow for the cost of that work to be credited as “local content”.

I just wounder about the “replica” of Island Venture to be built by Chouest at their yard as a “design and equipment packet” from Ulstein. How would you get the required American content into that one? On a vessel like that the hull is, if not minor, a smaller part of the over all cost. (ccaptain may want to comment on that?):mad:
Or was it not intended to be Jones Act compliant at all?

The Coast Guard maintains that there is no limitation on the amount of foreign materials that may be used, such as steel, as long as that material has not been worked or fabricated in any way.

From that wording I believe the steel to build ships in the US can be 100% foreign import.
I wouldn’t be surprised if the steel to build these tankers came from China.

I don’t have any information about those ships, but medium-speed diesel engines and smaller low-speed units are probably always shipped as one piece (e.g. here) to avoid issues with commissioning. I’m sure that at least the South Korean shipyards are also capable of receiving and installing even the largest engines in one piece - it only requires sufficient crane capacity.

Are there any American companies capable of producing large marine diesel engines in the US? It may sound tempting to require 100% Made in USA equipment for Jones Act ships, but if there simply aren’t domestic makers (or for example there’s just one but it’s not competitive with foreign companies in terms of technical specifications), the shipyard is going to have hard time.

Would you accept using foreign equipment on Jones Act ships (or even complete ships) if it was done as (at least) 100% offset agreement?

[QUOTE=Tups;178848]I don’t have any information about those ships, but medium-speed diesel engines and smaller low-speed units are probably always shipped as one piece (e.g. here) to avoid issues with commissioning. I’m sure that at least the South Korean shipyards are also capable of receiving and installing even the largest engines in one piece - it only requires sufficient crane capacity.

Are there any American companies capable of producing large marine diesel engines in the US? It may sound tempting to require 100% Made in USA equipment for Jones Act ships, but if there simply aren’t domestic makers (or for example there’s just one but it’s not competitive with foreign companies in terms of technical specifications), the shipyard is going to have hard time.

Would you accept using foreign equipment on Jones Act ships (or even complete ships) if it was done as (at least) 100% offset agreement?[/QUOTE]

You mean like; I send you the ship/machinery and you send me the money? (100% offset agreement):wink:

I’m sure if Cat or GE had the opportunity, they would.

[QUOTE=ombugge;178849]You mean like; I send you the ship/machinery and you send me the money? (100% offset agreement);)[/QUOTE]

I was more hoping of selling a polar icebreaker to the USCG and getting some Super Hornets in return…

[QUOTE=Tups;178848]I don’t have any information about those ships, but medium-speed diesel engines and smaller low-speed units are probably always shipped as one piece (e.g. here) to avoid issues with commissioning. I’m sure that at least the South Korean shipyards are also capable of receiving and installing even the largest engines in one piece - it only requires sufficient crane capacity.

Are there any American companies capable of producing large marine diesel engines in the US? It may sound tempting to require 100% Made in USA equipment for Jones Act ships, but if there simply aren’t domestic makers (or for example there’s just one but it’s not competitive with foreign companies in terms of technical specifications), the shipyard is going to have hard time.

Would you accept using foreign equipment on Jones Act ships (or even complete ships) if it was done as (at least) 100% offset agreement?[/QUOTE]

I know that the B&W slow speed engines that were put into the Belcher “tugs” were imported from Denmark. The boats were constructed in Berwick, Georgia, as I recall. . .

MTU engines. Schottel, Rolls Royce drives. All kinds of propulsion imported.

What about all the cheap crap made in China that’s on all these new builds. Last boat I was on every window, port hole, wall panel, stateroom & watertight door was made in China. Life boats and davits made in China and were absolute junk( probably better off in an el faro open boat). Start adding up everything and other than the steel in the hull and structure, not much from the USA.

Getting back to the subject at hand, Chouest already had a shipyard (Gulfship) there in Gulfport. Does this mean they will have 2 or will they merge them into 1 facility?

Just wondering…

If Chouest own every shipyard they can, they will get all of the jobs available once the oilfield turns around. All of the boats that are currently shoved in the mud will need dry dockings, hull inspections, etc to either get USCG and ABS documents re-issued or just to get them back in working order. If Chouest owns as many of the drydocks as possible, guess who’s boats go up first? It will be a race to get boats ready once this turns around, and I see the orange boats winning in spades and taking all of the initial jobs. Only after all of his boats that could possibly be put back on charter have been attended to will he open his yards to make money drydocking competitors boats.

OMG you revealed the master plan, hope you are looking over both shoulders now.

Other operators possess their own shipyards or drydocks. I would guess all of the new tonnage GOM wide will be put to work first. Since just about all were classed UWILD and built in the last couple of years it will be '18 and beyond before a mandatory haul out. Plenty of time to stagger all of the equipment through available drydocks. Everyone knew about the Bollinger deal long before it was official and everyone prepared accordingly. Gary has made it a little difficult but no one is gonna lose any contracts.