Finally somebody who gets it.
1 Like
Yes. I meant lightering vessels.
Vessels of any type or characteristics that would be useful to the US economy and national interest can be obtained on the open market, or publicly traded companies with such vessels can be bought on the stock exchanges or through a tender offer.
Hit the nail on the head. I think you just blew 90% of the peopleâs minds on here! Thank you.
2 Likes
Yes it should be well understood that the Cabotage part of the Jones Act only apply to transport between US ports.
It does not affect import or export of goods to/from US ports, nor does it in and by itself apply to transport to/from installations situated within the US EEZ (Other laws govern that aspect)
In the case of the SCF Ussuri the case is that she loaded in a US port (NYC) with destination Montreal in Canada, so no JA restrictions apply.
The problem is that entry to Canadian ports has been denied so she now have a cargo onboard that cannot be delivered to the consignee, or be returned to a US port for redelivery to the cargo owner, since that would be in breach of the JA.
She COULD proceed to Russia, but cannot discharge the cargo there, since that would be in breach of US sanction on export to Russia (and probably theft)
A solution would be if the cargo owner sold the oil and paid for transport to another delivery port.
But who wants to buy the cargo and which port will allow a Russian owned tanker to enter to discharge her cargo?
PS> The SCF Ussuri is registered in Liberia, built in Korea and was originally owned and managed by a Singapore company, but register in Cyprus:
PPS> Both SCF Neva and SCF Ussuri are now heading for Freeport, Bahamas.
That is being changed as we speak.
From Vesselfinder.com:
SCF Neva appears to have called at Freeport and been in port (alongside) for 1d 17hrs
ATD 07.03.22 19:10 hrs. Destination; For Order, ETA 15.03.22
The SCF Ussuri doesnât appear to have been on AIS for a while (13d)
Destination given as BQ ORA (Port of Bonaire) w/ETA 12.03.22.
Do you have any different info?
Just an FYI, you can store US products on foreign flagged ships, but it must be loaded and discharged back to the exact same place. The shipper could take these bbls back -
Now in this case all it would take is one entity in the custody chain to have sanctioned SCF and then even this option would be off the table.
Shipper has an obligation to find another port for the vessels, and since everything has a price, I am sure they will find one.
1 Like
OK, I know that has been done, but would that still apply in this case??
How do you explain that while you were âstoringâ this cargo of petroleum products you just happened to have steamed off to St. Lawrence Bay and back?
PS> There may also be questions about a B/L and Manifest that said nothing about âstorageâ.
In any case, that is not an option any more. Who knows if the cargo is still onboard the SCF Ussuri, or have been discharge/transhipped somewhere (??)
If she is heading for Bonaire it is most likely to load a new cargo for somewhere.
One thing is for sure, the cargo owner is not going to just âforgetâ about 50K tonnes of petroleum products.
My AIS shows the Ussuri , still laden, looks like on the way to Borco. And the Neva in ballast heading to the Cont.
Believe Lukoil has storage there - guessing Buckeye who owns the terminal is still doing business with them.
Which AIS source are you using?
The cargo onboard the SCF Ussuri most likely belong either to the shipper in the US or the Canadian consignee. Lukeoil is not likely to have purchased the cargo and SCF is just transporting it.
Buckeye, being in the business of oil storage is also not likely to have purchased the cargo, or could they have seen an opportunity to make a quick buck(eye) here??
With the price of oil and petroleum products going up and up, there are bound to be somebody finding a way to âwhitewashâ this cargo.
Same way cruise ships âstoreâ passengers and then hit 5 different ports on the way back to where they came from.
Sorry, not comparable.
SCF Ussuri doesnât have a Casino and their cargo doesnât gamble. (It may be gambled with though)
There is no reason at all ( unless some private sanctions) that would prevent Lukoil from buying the cargo, on the water from the consignee. Done all the time. Never said, thought, Buckeye did or would by the cargo. My point was Buckeye may still be doing business with Lukoil as their customer buying tankage in Borco.
There is also the possibility that I have all of these guesses completely wrong an it is something else altogether !!
And no good reason at all why they should. It is a cargo of US petroleum products which would be difficult for a Russian company to sell anywhere, or to bring to Russia. (Russia is not short of oil, or refined products, anyway)
This one doesnât show on your list of ships affected:
Last known position was off Northern Norway two days ago:
Commodity brokers give a ratâs ass where the oil comes from. They will take Russian crude on board in Russia and transfer it over to a Cypriot tanker swearing the oil is from Saudi Arabia or some other country, no one checks the DNA of crude. Oil is a world wide commodity and as long as it is coming out of the ground the traders will find buyers, that is how they make money. The more sanctions the more the price goes up becauseâŚmarkets. 
4 Likes
You understand that the Jones Act applies to cruise ships as well right? Like if you get off early and donât return to the port you left from, thereâs a fine for violating the Jones Act?
This is about petroleum products originating in the US, loaded onto a Liberian flag tanker owned by a Russian company and destined for Canada, now floating around somewhere in the Atlantic (or Caribbean?) if it isnât stored in the Bahamas.
The problem is the owners of the tanker being Russian, not about the origin of the cargo she carries (or did carry??)
But yes, as I said earlier;
Get it off this ship and it is not a problem. Some other ship can carry the cargo to Canada, or wherever else in the world.
1 Like
The Jones Act does not apply to cruise ships. The Passenger Vessel Services Act does (and it predates the JA by decades). There are lots of provisions in the PVSA when it comes to where passengers can embark/disembark, what ports the ship can and canât call at to consider it a âforeignâ voyage and the fines imposed if a passenger does get off at a non-compliant port.
Itâs similar in some ways to the JA, but also very different. Your comparison above to âstoringâ passengers is a poor analogy. The PVSA is actually quite clear on what constitutes a legal voyage.
1 Like