[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?
[QUOTE=oakalley2;84839][ATTACH]2539[/ATTACH]
This was in the N.Y.Post on Sat. oct 6. 20012[/QUOTE]
Feh. Smells more like political opportunism than any significant expose. It’s a stretch to imply the Mary Whalen (pictured in the article) is laid up because of Jones Act violations. It’s more likely that she’s 60 years old, is too small, and has a single hull. Also missing is that the current president’s opponent in 2008 is the strongest, most outspoken opponent of the Jones Act. I also suspect the impact of Jones Act abuses hit far harder in the Gulf than they do on Richmond Terrace.
By the way, the Mary Whalen involved in a major case in Admiralty law. United States v. Reliable Transfer established the rule of proportionate fault in Admiralty, e.g. the amount a party can recover is adjusted by the relative percentage of culpability they had for the accident.
here’s something else to frame the author’s credibility: http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/teenager-arrested-vandalizing-congressman-michael-grimm-office-article-1.1168006
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.