[ATTACH]2539[/ATTACH]
This was in the N.Y.Post on Sat. oct 6. 20012
This is a very sensitive issue, about which I feel quite strongly and unfortunately those feelings are also quite mixed. I agree that giving jobs to foreigners, that could just as easily be done by americans, is outrageous, border-line treasonous, and should be punished. I feel this way especially when it is my own back yard into which the president has so wrongly trespassed. However, having said that, I do feel that perhaps this Representative Michael Grimm from Staten Island and Brooklyn may be taking somewhat of a narrow view of the issue. There are a great many other factors in this “charlie-foxtrot,” which are not so easily resolved by patriotically waving the banner of the Jones Act.
The issue that I take with this article is that Mr. Grimm appears to uphold the Jones Act as a bastion and great protector of American industrial might and that the only way to save and create jobs in the American maritime industry is to defend it. Surely this is what was intended when the bill was written and passed in 1920 but I fear that this is not the case today. The Jones Act seeks to protect the individual American worker in the maritime industry. What it neglects is how it makes business difficult for companies in the United States by making it more economically viable to transport cargoes by road and rail rather than by sea because of the cost of construction of American vessels. If companies find it difficult, or just too expensive, to do business then there are less jobs for those individual workers. It is a bit of a “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” scenario. A resolution of “the Jones Act problem” seems to beg the question “Who do we screw over first? American mariners, or American ship-yard workers?”
I apologize for the fact that I have put forward only difficult facts and problems, rather than productive and positive solutions, but by that same token has anyone in this nation proposed a viable solution to the many different aspects of this great problem? I haven’t seen one yet, but I hope I do before my career in the maritime industry is over.
The last sale from the Strategic Oil Reserves was because of the Arab Spring.
The government said it was a “non-emergency disbursement”.
Is this latest move (if it’s approved) an emergency measure?, or a political one?
Ughhhh!!! Umm yea I see the “CHANGE”
And more from the WSJ: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444433504577649891243975440.html?KEYWORDS=jones+act
[QUOTE=oakalley2;84839][ATTACH]2539[/ATTACH]
This was in the N.Y.Post on Sat. oct 6. 20012[/QUOTE]
The Congressman who wrote this article opposing Obama’s Jones Act waivers should be contacted and made aware of the problems with companies like Veolia and the OCS waivers.
Its hard to argue with success. If the US wants an effective maritime policy that provides state of the art, environmentally friendly, and safe equipment, jobs, and effective transportation, all we need do is copy the Norwegian policy.
[QUOTE=Jeffrox;84898]And more from the WSJ: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444433504577649891243975440.html?KEYWORDS=jones+act[/QUOTE]
I just read this and all I could do is shake my head at the misinformation it starts out with. The author states that the movement of shale oil down the Keystone pipeline to the Gulf will depress fuel prices along the way, and nearby refineries and consumers will benefit from low prices. Nothing could be further from the truth (the Northeast is loaded with both refineries and high gas prices). Crude Oil and its refined products are commodity items priced on a global market. Proximity to a refinery does not equate cheaper gas. We know that, but the average American does not. It’s this kind of BS that will endanger the Jones Act.
If that is true what is happening in California prices at the pump over 5$ due to the pipeline problems and that refinery fire.
[QUOTE=Jbird;84916]If that is true what is happening in California prices at the pump over 5$ due to the pipeline problems and that refinery fire.[/QUOTE]
Kind of the same idea as the Gas Shortage in the 70’s. Just about anything that could hold Oil either shorside or afloat was full. I remember some of my Father’s barges just sitting around loaded plus driving past Exxon Bayway and looking at all of the Railway Tank Cars sitting there.
It’s all B.S. I am sure that having the Refineries down does not help but it does not hurt that much.
I was told that the Chevron Refinery is ready to go back online but the California Government is holding it up for some reason.
Negative. Assessments have yet to be completed. Repair is still 2 to 5 months away. Only Crude Unit 4 is down.
The immediate cause of the spike in gasoline price was a power problem in Exxon’s Torrance facility, but the anticipation in the switch to winter blend (scheduled for Nov 1, usually) meant summer blend reserves were intentionally run low.
In the 3rd week of Sep I paid $4.05 per gallon in Tacoma, WA, $4.14 in San Diego, CA and $3.69 in Las Vegas, NV. I suspect the differences are taxes.
[QUOTE=catherder;84912]I just read this and all I could do is shake my head at the misinformation it starts out with. The author states that the movement of shale oil down the Keystone pipeline to the Gulf will depress fuel prices along the way, and nearby refineries and consumers will benefit from low prices. Nothing could be further from the truth (the Northeast is loaded with both refineries and high gas prices). Crude Oil and its refined products are commodity items priced on a global market. Proximity to a refinery does not equate cheaper gas. We know that, but the average American does not. It’s this kind of BS that will endanger the Jones Act.[/QUOTE]
A point; where is the crude coming from that we are refining and where does it go once we refine it?
since he represents the once-thriving brooklyn waterfront, grimms should start in his own backyard if he wants to save or create jobs for the merchant marine.
BTW, the Mary Whalen is now part of a non-profit focused on the Brooklyn waterfront. Carolina Salguero is the head of the Portside New York Organization. Interesting that the article couldn’t find an actual working tanker to feature.
[QUOTE=Jbird;84916]If that is true what is happening in California prices at the pump over 5$ due to the pipeline problems and that refinery fire.[/QUOTE]
As well as Oklahoma where they have abundance of crude and no pipeline system to distribute… Cheap gas
In a somewhat related story to the original post:
World City America: Obama Administration Torpedoing U.S. Flag Cruise Industry
As Royal Caribbean Cruises confidently orders its third Finnish-government-financed Oasis-class ship, the Obama Administration slams the door on American competition in this $40 billion-a-year industry supported almost entirely by US passenger revenues. The American Flagship project claims Obama bulldozed its long-planned, private sector funded, job-creating initiative – perhaps to spur already prolific foreign-flag campaign contributions.
The bottom of page 3 of this AMO newsletter has a letter from several senators and congressmen/women to the President regarding their displeasure at his signing of Jones Act waivers for foreign vessels to transport crude from the S.P.R.
[QUOTE=Jeffrox;84995]In a somewhat related story to the original post:
World City America: Obama Administration Torpedoing U.S. Flag Cruise Industry
As Royal Caribbean Cruises confidently orders its third Finnish-government-financed Oasis-class ship, the Obama Administration slams the door on American competition in this $40 billion-a-year industry supported almost entirely by US passenger revenues. The American Flagship project claims Obama bulldozed its long-planned, private sector funded, job-creating initiative – perhaps to spur already prolific foreign-flag campaign contributions.[/QUOTE]
What does the government have to do with it. If the corporations wanted they could build and flag and crew cuiseships in the US themselves. I suspect that the ROI for cruise ship companies is a lot higher when they don’t. Either way, you can argue for government interference with the economy or against it. You can’t tote this as being “private sector funded” when the reason they complain that that the government is blocking is because the [U]government[/U] won’t finance it. I think the author forgot the difference between public and private investing, This company American World City, seems pretty shady. Their website (http://americanflagship.com/) comes off as poorly designed and awfully partisan. I can’t even find anything like corporate bio’s for who’s in charge of it.
Today from Tony Munoz of Maritime Executive fame
This is no time to weaken our maritime laws.
By Tony Munoz, Publisher & Editor-in-Chief of The Maritime Executive and MarEx Newsletter
In a recent Wall Street Journal article, Senator John McCain described the Jones Act as a “protectionist” law serving only U.S. shipping companies and maritime unions. He said the argument that the Jones Act is needed for national security is “laughable.” He would have us believe that foreign shipping companies are as patriotic as American companies trading on U.S. coastlines and inland waterways.
The world is a dangerous place where international laws are breaking down, and geopolitical change is unpredictable and carries all sorts of risks. The Arab Spring, which fostered hope, has turned into a bloody winter of discontent, and Americans have been killed in the sanctuary of their own embassies.
Meanwhile, the U.S.’s strategic objectives and mission abroad are also changing rapidly. China and Russia are now building massive military complexes as “defensive” measures against the overwhelming presence of U.S. military capability in Asia Pacific, the Middle East and Europe. China is expanding its national security perimeters and has threatened war with its neighbors over natural resources and maritime borders. The Russian leadership, including Vladimir Putin, is preparing for war and plans to spend nearly a trillion dollars over the next decade on
intercontinental ballistic missiles, fighter aircraft, submarines and sophisticated warships.Muscle-Flexing
On September 16 an International Mine-Sweeping Coalition consisting of more than 30 nations began an unprecedented 10-day exercise off the coast of Iran with an armada of warships, including U.S. Nimitz-class vessels transporting about 70 tactical fighters. The muscle-flexing in the Strait of Hormuz was meant to intimidate the Iranian leadership. Moscow let it be known that “wars often begin through a provocation,” and Beijing concurred that the U.S.-led exercise was “extremely explosive.”
But the stuff really hit the fan on September 17, when Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta announced the U.S. intends to build another missile defense station in Japan aimed at “rogue states.” The Russians and Chinese were incited further and increased their opposition rhetoric about being encircled by U.S. aggression. Moscow said “today” there is imminent danger of a thermonuclear confrontation with the U.S. Beijing warned “its longstanding nuclear policy of ‘no first use of nuclear weapons’” has changed.
Taiwan is another flashpoint for the U.S. as Beijing is claiming sovereignty over the nation of more than 20 million. China has strategically positioned about 1,600 Dong Feng 16 missiles aimed directly at the island nation. Meanwhile, the 1979 Taiwan Relations Act requires that the U.S. sell arms to Taiwan, and it has sold more than $25 billion worth, including $10 billion since 2003, making Taiwan the largest recipient of U.S. arms sales during that period.
Senator McCain is way off base about the unimportance of the Jones Act for national security. Must “free trade” mean total access by foreign carriers to America’s coastlines and inland arteries? McCain has continually voted against any measure that would afford more Americans jobs, but always votes for agricultural interests so that highly subsidized farmers can sell a few more bushels overseas.
A Few Rocks for the Administration
Since taking office the Obama Administration has done absolutely nothing to advance the interests of the U.S. maritime sector, develop its infrastructure or create jobs for mariners and shipbuilders. In fact, the maritime industry has endured too many Administration-sponsored waivers to the Jones Act and cargo preference laws, which are meant to sustain a strong U.S.-flag presence in the world.
The U.S. Merchant Marine suffered a body blow when cargo preference for food aid was slashed from 75% to 50% in the Transportation Reform Bill. Moreover, the 2013 DOT budget was increased by $1.4 billion to $74 billion and was lavished with an additional $492 billion (a 34% increase) over six years for air, rail and surface transit. Meanwhile, the Maritime Administration got $344 million for its 2013 budget.
In 2010 the selection of David Matsuda as Administrator of the Maritime Administration was notice to the industry that maritime was no longer an important transportation strategy. Where are all the admirals? Additionally, the appointments of an Army colonel to be Superintendent of Kings Point and a Navy captain as Deputy Administrator of MarAd underlined the lack of experience required by the Secretary to manage the maritime sector.
The Maritime Security Program (MSP), which expires in 2015, has been reauthorized until 2025, and 60 ships will be guaranteed $2.82 billion. While Congress must authorize the program each year and the system provides jobs for U.S. mariners, more than half the tonnage is owned by foreign entities, and this negatively impacts the infrastructure of the U.S. shipbuilding industry.
The Coast Guard & Maritime Transportation Act of 2011 appropriates $25.7 billion for the Coast Guard mission during the period 2012-2014, and everyone in the country will agree it is money well spent. The legislative measure also instructs the Secretary to assess the national maritime system for short sea shipping and report back to Congress in five years. But in the same section (406), Congress also terminates the short sea shipping program on September 30, 2017. The language is a paradox within an enigma, and it spins the spin.
Further in the bill, the Maritime Administrator is given discretion and authorization to waive compliance with the Jones Act based on the non-availability of qualified U.S. tonnage. Again, the vague semantics simply means that foreign operators will transport essential oil and gas and heavy-lift for national defense considerations.
Since being in office the Administration’s agenda has been to outsource the U.S. maritime and MSP military mission, which is now in the hands of Denmark, Sweden, Norway and Germany.
Senator McCain wants to tear down the walls of U.S. cabotage, but would the nation be safer?In the movie Forrest Gump, Jenny throws rocks at the home where she was raised by an abusive father. And when there are no more rocks, Forrest says in his simple but stinging logic,
“Sometimes there’s just not enough rocks.” The home was later bulldozed. – MarEx