Fighting back against foreign mariners in GoM

Professional Mariner Forum
161

<o:smarttagtype namespaceuri=“urn:schemas-microsoft-com<img src=” images="" smilies="" redface.gif="" border=“0” alt="" title=“Embarrassment” smilieid=“2” class=“inlineimg”></o:smarttagtype>…and some more…

[quote=c.captain;8960]

  1. With current equipment backlogs, what type of time delay do you envision in construction for the companies willing to construct the specialty vessels you call into question?<o></o>

  2. There are no restrictions to foreign built and flagged vessels providing these specialty services on the OCS…what is restricted is the nationality of the persons working on it
    <o></o>
    C – The current backlog among the more popular manufacturers such as CAT/MaK, Rolls-Royce, Brunvoll, I.P. Huse, et al, is about three to three and half years. Coincidentally, it would be about that long before any of the larger operators in the GOM would have a yard slot to add anything to the books.
    <!–[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]–>
    <!–[endif]–>

  3. What <st1:country-region w:st=“on”><st1>U.S</st1></st1:country-region> operators have you identified that are willing to construct these specialty vessels?<o></o>

  4. Even though they are not required to build in the <st1:country-region w:st=“on”><st1>US</st1></st1:country-region>, previous mention has been made to Otto Candies which has already built the CHLOE and GRANT CANDIES and has the ROSS CANDIES under construction. DMT built the DMT EMERALD. ECO is putting rov’s on many of its vessels now and since they do not publish lists of their vessels under construction I do not know if they are building purpose designed subsea vessels but their purchase of very large subsea cranes indicates that they have something happening. Lastly, Hornbeck took delivery of the HOS ACHIEVER last year and has shipped a US crew on her, they also have the HOS IRON HORSE coming from Holland next year and I understand will flag her in the US although she will not have Jones Act privileges. When finished (someday) one of the two converted sulphur tankers is going to be outfitted as a subsea vessel as well.

In a perfect world, all vessels working on the OCS would be US built including drillships and MODUs but even I know that is not realistic. However all those vessels which the <st1><st1:country-region w:st=“on”>US</st1:country-region></st1> is capable of building for an economically competitive price should be US built. That is a separate matter which I have only mentioned in this tread as an aside not as an argument. This is for the OMSA and vessel owners and shipbuilders to take to <st1><st1:city w:st=“on”>Washington</st1:city> <st1:state w:st=“on”>DC</st1:state></st1>.
<o></o>
C – I would tend to agree; Chouest, Hornbeck, and Candies are the ones I see participating in any newbuilds of specialty vessels.<o></o>
<o></o>
I don’t see the outflag of drillships, or rigs stopping anytime soon, and historically even with the U.S. Drilling companies it’s always been preferential to outflag. How we can reconcile the current situation with the drop in <st1><st1:country-region w:st=“on”>U.S.</st1:country-region></st1>flag assets is the material for a completely separate thread, as you said.<o></o>
<o></o>
We haven’t covered what should be done about the foreign pipeline laying fleet. McDermott totally missed the boat to keep up with the industry in the 90’s, and after Katrina and Rita, has been almost totally relegated to work on the Shelf, or overseas. So who is going to pickup the pieces there? Where is the skilled workforce going to come from? And with the limited amount that these vessels will be used here, where will we send them, and what type of greeting can we expect when we get there? Heerema, AllSeas, and others have made a considerable investment in this market. Would it be wise to overbuild in this segment so we can have a few jobs, or do we just man these vessels when they’re here in the GOM? Interesting things to ponder while we hash out things here…
<!–[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]–>[/quote]
<!–[endif]–>

162

…and, at last…

[quote=c.captain;8960]
8) If you could pen the changes to the current version of the Jones Act, what changes would you like to make, and what Chapter(s) would they pertain to?<o></o>

  1. As already stated, this is not a Jones Act issue. It is an effort on the part of these foreign vessels owners (which includes American companies as well as foreign) to use loopholes in the law to circumvent the intent of it. The USCG has been a willing handmaiden to these owners in granting them waivers to permit this practice. I advocate the Congress to order the GAO to investigate these practices and to hold hearings to bring this situation to the light of day.

[FONT=Verdana]C - You are correct. What we’re discussing here is not the Jones Act, but the Jones Act should be discussed. There are more violations of the Jones Act occurring in ports like Mobile and Fourchon due to the simple ignorance on behalf of the various dispatchers and logistics people, than we should care to mention.

As to the loopholes, waivers, presidential and directorial proclamations, and current legislation that allows it, quite humbly, it is what it is. There are clear allowances that permit these vessels to be here as long as they adhere to the rules. For the most part, those rules are based on reciprocity, not all to dissimilar to our ability to travel to each others countries without visas.

In this example, since Norway allows our properly licensed, and certificated, and equipped vessels to operate in their EEZ, we can’t, nor should we, prohibit their vessels from operation in our EEZ, along with the use of our ports (subject to proper clearances, and immigration checks of course). Obviously, they shouldn’t be running cargo between ports, nor should they be carrying cargo out to the platforms and rigs within our EEZ, unless of course they’re enjoying one of the exemptions to coastwise trade as noted within the Merchant Marine Act of 2006 (and there are several, such as the lay barge exemption). I would encourage everyone to take a few minutes to read the current version, which can be found here -

Merchant Marine Act of 2006 - Codified

We should be very careful about what we ask for. Do I think that parts of our legislation could use some improvement? Yes, they do. But, I think that we as maritime community need to make a whole lot of improvements as well. Part of the idea of this entire site, and forum, was meant to do exactly that, as well as things that we should aspire to changing on our own.

Norwayornoway made mention of a disparity existing in licensure between countries as it relates to STCW, and he’s correct. How do we want to compete on a global scale when most of our guys couldn’t even sail overseas with the current license structure on the vessels they man now, let alone the vessels you propose we man, build, or crew? we have a lot of work to do, and it is this work that may be tough to accomplish in the 5 year timetable you proposed.

Which brings me to my final point - Where, and when do we start to make those changes?
[/FONT][/quote][FONT=Verdana]
[/FONT]

163

elCapitan

I want to thank you for taking your time to compose a response which shows considerable effort and thought.

To digest it all down to the most basic of your arguments is the issue of reciprocity which is fundimental to a resolution in this debate. It remains to be conclusively determined to what extent US vessels and mariners are afforded opportunities to work in Norway or the Norwegian sector of the North Sea. As I have mentioned previously, I am conducting investigation based on statements made here that there are no codified regulations prohibiting it and published policy letters stating that American mariners have the right to work in Norwegian waters. I however believe that it is not as simple as the fact that there might be some specific law which allows US vessels and seamen access…it is my belief that any such regulations and policies which exist are not in reality practiced by the Norwegians and the issue of what is actually practiced is enough to show discrimination and exclusion. The fact that there are painfully few (if any) US vessels or US seamen working in Norway provides ample evidence is that there is a policy of not hiring us. I have applied for positions solicited on the Norwegian vessel owners websites and received not one word in reply. This is all something that the GAO would be asked to look at closely in their investigation.

There is a genuine and bona fide reason that ECO does not have US vessels there and is instead entering the market throught a Norwegian owned company. I believe that it is too difficult for ECO to operate there as a stand alone US company and easier to do so as he chose. [I][U]Gary Chouest is one of the best maritime businessmen in history[/U][/I] and he makes decisions based out of maximizing his position anywhere. He obviously knew that his maximum benefit was to invest in a Norwegian company rather than to go in on his own.

Mention has been made of some US vessels previously working in the Norwegian sector of the North Sea. I know that we were there in the 1970’s when the North Sea was just getting going but I have not heard of any Americans there since the mid 80’s with service vessels (but not MODUs which are still there). What years was that specifically and what vessels? If the vessels are no longer there why not? Does anyone know of a single US mariner serving aboard any Norwegian owned vessels in the North Sea or anywhere else in the world?

Showing actual practice is as important as presenting some regulation in a book imo.

164

C.CAPTAIN

Maybe you are still looking for the Norwegian Island? for your information it is not an island which you posted on page 14. uninhibited on technology yes.

Have you heard about Trico Marine ? http://tricomarine.com

ugh! you are so hopeless. I think i will start a discussion how to get american offshore companys ouf of Norway

165

[quote=norwayornoway;9034]C.CAPTAIN

Maybe you are still looking for the Norwegian Island? for your information it is not an island which you posted on page 14. uninhibited on technology yes.

Have you heard about Trico Marine ? http://tricomarine.com

ugh! you are so hopeless. I think i will start a discussion how to get american offshore companys ouf of Norway[/quote]

Thank you so very much sir…

You just went and further proved my point! An American company [B][I]in Norway[/I][/B] with Norwegian built and flagged vessels there…[B][I]NOT U.S.![/I][/B]

as example:

psv NORTHERN CLIPPER

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=7 width=312 border=1><TBODY><TR><TD vAlign=top width=“25%” height=11>Call sign</TD><TD vAlign=top width=“75%” colSpan=2 height=11>LHHT

</TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=top width=“25%” height=11>Classification

</TD><TD vAlign=top width=“75%” colSpan=2 height=11>DnV +1A1, SF, EO, LFL, Fi-Fi 2, Oil Rec</TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=top width=“25%” height=11>Design

</TD><TD vAlign=top width=“75%” colSpan=2 height=11>UT 745

</TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=top width=“25%” height=11>Built

</TD><TD vAlign=top width=“75%” colSpan=2 height=11>Søviknes Verft AS, Norway

</TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=top width=“50%” colSpan=2 height=11>Delivered

</TD><TD vAlign=top width=“50%” height=11>1994

</TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=top width=“25%” height=11>Flag

</TD><TD vAlign=top width=“75%” colSpan=2 height=11>Norwegian

</TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=top width=“25%” height=11>Port of Registry

</TD><TD vAlign=top width=“75%” colSpan=2 height=11>Aalesund, Norway

</TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=top width=“25%” height=11>Owner

</TD><TD vAlign=top width=“75%” colSpan=2 height=11>[B]Trico Supply ASA[/B]

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

psv NORTHERN GAMBLER

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=7 width=316 border=1><TBODY><TR><TD vAlign=top width=“25%” height=11>Call sign

</TD><TD vAlign=top width=“75%” colSpan=2 height=11>LICE

</TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=top width=“25%” height=11>Classification

</TD><TD vAlign=top width=“75%” colSpan=2 height=11>DnV, +1A1, W1-, OC, EO, LFL, SF (Vessel prepared for Oil Rec)

</TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=top width=“25%” height=11>Design

</TD><TD vAlign=top width=“75%” colSpan=2 height=11>UT 745

</TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=top width=“25%” height=11>Built</TD><TD vAlign=top width=“75%” colSpan=2 height=11>Ulstein Verft AS, Ulsteinvik, Norway

</TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=top width=“50%” colSpan=2 height=11>Delivered

</TD><TD vAlign=top width=“50%” height=11>1996

</TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=top width=“25%” height=11>Flag

</TD><TD vAlign=top width=“75%” colSpan=2 height=11>Norwegian

</TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=top width=“25%” height=11>Port of Registry

</TD><TD vAlign=top width=“75%” colSpan=2 height=11>Aalesund, Norway</TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=top width=“25%” height=11>Owner

</TD><TD vAlign=top width=“75%” colSpan=2 height=11>[B]Trico Supply ASA[/B]

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

psv NORTHERN GENESIS

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=7 width=316 border=1><TBODY><TR><TD vAlign=top width=“25%” height=11>Call sign

</TD><TD vAlign=top width=“75%” colSpan=2 height=11>LLQD

</TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=top width=“25%” height=11>Classification</TD><TD vAlign=top width=“75%” colSpan=2 height=11>DnV, +1A1, MV, Supply Vessel, EO, SF

</TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=top width=“25%” height=11>Design

</TD><TD vAlign=top width=“75%” colSpan=2 height=11>ME 202

</TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=top width=“25%” height=11>Built

</TD><TD vAlign=top width=“75%” colSpan=2 height=11>Marstrandverken AB, Søviknes, Norway

</TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=top width=“50%” colSpan=2 height=11>Delivered

</TD><TD vAlign=top width=“50%” height=11>1983

</TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=top width=“25%” height=11>Flag

</TD><TD vAlign=top width=“75%” colSpan=2 height=11>Norwegian

</TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=top width=“25%” height=11>Port of Registry

</TD><TD vAlign=top width=“75%” colSpan=2 height=11>Aalesund, Norway

</TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=top width=“25%” height=11>Owner

</TD><TD vAlign=top width=“75%” colSpan=2 height=11>[B]Trico Supply ASA[/B]

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

There were a couple of British vessels listed as working in the North Sea but I never did find a single US flagged and manned vessel in the bunch!

SO you can go and complain about me on whatever board there might be in Norway for its mariners to carp on but until you do, please either leave this board or at least mind your bloody yap! You stepped in it with both shoes from your very first post with your disrespectful profanity against my country and tracked it with you through each and every post of yours since. You’ve tracked so much of though this thread that, frankly, you’re making the place smell rather foul now and I don’t how in the hell I’m going to get those stains out of the carpet?

166

And the main office is located ?

167

When Olympic Offshore (whom I believe you work for) builds a vessel in the US, flags it in the US and mans it with a US crew to operate in the US Gulf of Mexico…then you can complain because that is precisely what Trico has done in the North Sea. If a US company can do that to access the North Sea market, a Norwegian company can do the same to access ours.

Until then, I am through with you and your idiotic, inaccurate and asinine statements! Until you can show even a modicum of respect for the nation that is allowing you to work off its shores, you can please take your pointless bitching back to Norway and I hope yourself as well!

GOOD DAY AND GOOD BYE SIR!

168

[quote=c.captain;9038]

Until then, I am through with you and your idiotic, inaccurate and asinine statements! Until you can show even a modicum of respect for the nation that is allowing you to work off its shores, you can please take your pointless bitching back to Norway and I hope yourself as well!

[B][I][U]GOOD DAY AND GOOD BYE SIR![/U][/I][/B][/quote]

Just when I thought we were making progress…

169

I find it pretty hard to imagine that any savvy businessman in this day and age would make a large, long-term investment into anything, unless there were some specific guarantees made, and that the move made economic sense.

Building, and flagging a vessel in the U.S., unless you absolutely have to, makes no sense from a financial point of view. We are one of the most expensive flags to fly, and we have a heavier tax burden than 90% of the rest of the maritime world.

What incentive would any ship owner have to building here, unless he had no alternative to do so contractually, or for legal reasons?

We build OSV’s and AHTS’s in the U.S., because we have to. Cargo has to get from the dock, to the rig/platform, the anchors need to be set, and the rigs need to be moved. Most Offshore companies learned early on that the most cost effective way of doing this, was to have your own shipyards, and to manage your costs as well as you can.

A few companies had the facilities to make the right moves, yet chose not to (McDermott, Tidewater to name two), and now we don’t have the equipment here at home to do what needs to be done. Until the mess from the hurricanes gets cleaned up, they are here to stay, that I can assure you - with the caveat that you get the laws changed, or you convince one of the majors to build the boats and rigs to take over from the foreign fleet. Neither seems very likely anytime in the near future. The Boy Scouts don’t run the oil companies, and most of those oil companies have stockholders to answer to. I guarantee that they’ll do whatever it is that they have to do to get the job done, and that means utilizing every tool, loophole, and waiver that they can.

Equally, we utilize loopholes as a maritime nation to our advantage every day. When we need to “in-flag” a vessel for our convenience, we have no compunction about doing so. Better than 60% of the vessels getting MSP (Maritime Security Program) operating subsidies today were foreign bottoms, brought in and re-flagged U.S. No one kicked and screamed on that one, did they? No, they didn’t. Why? Because it suited everybody’s purpose.

All of the vessels that I mentioned in my previous post that I sailed with, or on, in the North Sea were U.S. Flag. We cleared into Norway, put on board a Fisheries Representative for our operation, and did our work. Some of that work was for then Norsk Hydro, and StatOil, along with several U.S. majors with operations there at the time, one of which was ExxonMobil. We were there, it wasn’t a figment of anyone’s imagination, it wasn’t a maybe or anything else except what I described. That is wasn’t yesterday isn’t something that can be helped. We were certainly well treated, and even hosted to great luncheon by the Commander of the Norwegian Southern Command in Stavanger. Actually, thinking about it, we were treated better than we’ve treated our compatriots during their stay here.

One of the biggest problems we had though was the equipment. An old Norwegian saying goes like this: “There is no such thing as bad weather, just bad clothes”. That premise holds true for equipment as well. Our vessels, although they were brand new at the time, had a hard time in the North Sea environment. They weren’t built with the North sea in mind, nor were they as equipped as they could have been for working in Northern Europe during the autumn and winter. We did get the job done, and I only tell you this story to show you that there [B]IS[/B] a reason why there aren’t more U.S. built OSV’s/PSV’s/AHTS’s in the North Sea, and in particular Norway and Scotland.

Those companies that do go there, go there with a plan. Only four companies in the GOM, IMHO, have the vessels that could go to the North Sea right now- Candies, Chouest, Tidewater, and Hornbeck. And Hornbeck chose to bring the Achiever back to the U.S. to work in the GOM. What does that tell you?

I admire your tenacity for sticking up for American Seafaring jobs. I do believe however, that we need to spend a lot less time worrying about what the competition is doing here on a limited basis, and for a limited time, and spend more time worrying about how we’re going to bring our industry up to the same standards as the rest of the world. We can address the legislative flaws that you feel need addressing, but we should fix our own backyard before we tell anyone else how bad theirs looks.

Imagine what we could’ve accomplished with the energy exerted in this thread??

170

[quote=c.captain;9038]When Olympic Offshore (whom I believe you work for) builds a vessel in the US, flags it in the US and mans it with a US crew to operate in the US Gulf of Mexico…then you can complain because that is precisely what Trico has done in the North Sea. If a US company can do that to access the North Sea market, a Norwegian company can do the same to access ours.

Until then, I am through with you and your idiotic, inaccurate and asinine statements! Until you can show even a modicum of respect for the nation that is allowing you to work off its shores, you can please take your pointless bitching back to Norway and I hope yourself as well!

[B][I][U]GOOD DAY AND GOOD BYE SIR![/U][/I][/B][/quote]

Norway’s statements, from the beginning, has been a direct response to your disparaging remarks and lack of tolerance for people other than those Americans that you approve of, which consequently does not include all American mariners. Of course his statements can be called, idiotic, inaccurate, and asinine. But, within the context that you have woven, I would have to add them as being appropriate as well.

171

The Norwegians have a beautiful house and yard. Fresh paint all the time, the grass is like a putting green where a dandelion dare not raise its head. It’s hard to be neighbors with Ned when your Homer but who really likes Ned anyway? I would much rather live next to Homer and have a Duff beer with him down at Moe’s.

Regardless of my brusk replies to norwayornoway who btw, has been poking me with a stick to see if I’ll bite (which I obviously will), the context of this whole thread was that foreign and American shipowners have been using loopholes in the laws to perpetuate an artificial myth that there are not qualified American mariners to man and operate these subsea vessels in the Gulf of Mexico and to have turned what was an exceptional situation to the norm. I aim to make the Congress aware that this is happening and working everyday to that end.

These vessel owners have clearly been shown to be more than eager to access the market in the US GoM but not willing to make any investments for that access. The Federal Government to date has allowed this to occur and one cannot blame these vessel owners from running with that. The game is however in the first quarter and far from over. I want the officiating to stop favoring the opposition and start applying the rules of the game as they are written. The longer the rules are bent in favor of one team the harder it will be to even up the score.

What has been amply proven time and again in this thread is that US vessel owners (ECO, Trico and others) are willing to make longterm investments to access the offshore markets of other countries and to play by their rules. It is time that Olympic, Havila, REM, Siem, et all start doing the same here. The US GoM is the third biggest deepwater province in the world for new discoveries and a highly desirable market for[B] [I]ANY[/I][/B] vessel owner to have a piece of. Should they not have to do [I][B]ANYTHING[/B][/I] to benefit the host nation for that access?

Please elCapitan or anchorman…tell me how this is not right?

btw, I know that my points are made already and I for one am ready to let this thread wind down if NoWay will just go away and leave this old man in peace. Anyone seen my Polygrip? I still need to put my teeth in this morning…can’t do much biting without them, but I suppose I could drool on my old nemesis!

172

As long as the US consumes over 25% of the world’s oil and only produces around 10% with the capacity to produce more in the deep-water GOM, the scales will always be tilted in the direction of every available US oil field work boat to be in the US, not overseas. Every US yard is trying to fill that void at capacity. That is simply a fact.
I’m sure that fact is the biggest one looked at in Washington when foreign vessels help us exploit those oil fields in the GOM. Your voice will just simply have to trump that. But, if you can get the attention of congress by proving that foreign vessels are taking our jobs other than the fact “if” they’re here, they must be. You have a chance. Unfortunately, I think that would have to be out of work and otherwise qualified mariners to get that attention with most attention to factory and autoworkers.

173

Anchorman, you know as well as I that ECO provides manning to vessel owners other than themselves so if there were a company in the best possible position to provide US mariners for these foreign vessels they are it. They have everything in place to do it, the recruiting, the school, the reputation, the management. All that they need are some more people and the foreign owners to know that they need to start getting some Americans on their vessels in the GoM.

174

[QUOTE=c.captain;9038]When Olympic Offshore (whom I believe you work for) builds a vessel in the US, flags it in the US and mans it with a US crew to operate in the US Gulf of Mexico…then you can complain because that is precisely what Trico has done in the North Sea. If a US company can do that to access the North Sea market, a Norwegian company can do the same to access ours.

[B][I][U]GOOD DAY AND GOOD BYE SIR![/U][/I][/B][/QUOTE]

well, you are missing one thing here. Trico never built these vessels, they just bought the whole company former known as Saevik Supply. This company was built Per Saevik, that later estabilished Havila. After Trico Marine took over, there was no investment in new bulidings ment for the norwegian fleet, exept of one that was sold before it was delivered. The only intension to Trico Marine seems to be running the company with out no new investment and to pay out the profit to the stook holders.

175

176

I preferthe looney Black Knight from Monty Python & the Holy Grail

Damn! Tried six ways to Sunday but still can’t get the YouTube windows to imbed. Used to be able to but now???

Oh well, click the link and you’ll see what I mean!

cheers

177

This one will be appreciated by my Norwegian friends :wink:

178

179

HolyGrail054.jpg800×441

180