[QUOTE=Capt. Phoenix;111483]How can someone get a towing license from working on an AHTS if the USCG doesn’t consider them towing vessels?[/QUOTE]
Because they tow, and they towed long before there was such an endorsement, and nobody knew what the requirements would be. Most all, and those at the Master/CM level on AHTS vessels were grandfathered, including myself based on prior years of experience. But, I am sure I will lose that endorsement at next renewal because I’m have not towed anything in the last few years, and do not plan on it.
[QUOTE=tengineer;111481]Greenpeace is loving this crap. I swear these arrogant oil companies and their minions are their own worst enemy. Some of this stuff couldn’t be made up in an environmentalist’s most wishful dream.[/QUOTE]
And yet they continue to be the gift that keeps on giving! There is something inherent in US energy industry mindset that because they are so big and successful and powerful that their way is not only the right way but the ONLY WAY…PERIOD! I expected sweeping change after DWH but no such thing happened even with the magnitude of the disaster and loss of life. The same accident happening in the North Sea and any slightest contributing cause would have been rooted out and eliminated. In the GoM it was cover the problems with paper in the hope not that they would go away but that the paper would become a shield to cover the asses of the bigshots who make the decisions.
Regarding Alaska and Shell, well I’ve said it all so many times before that frankly I am sick of even hearing myself saying it all over again. You can’t take the GoM way of working into that environment…I MUST BE A WHOLE NEW WAY OR WE WILL SEE THE SAME SHITTY CLOWN CIRCUS PERFORMED UP THERE AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN WITH EXACTLY THE SAME RESULTS EVERYTIME!
[QUOTE=c.captain;111487]And yet they continue to be the gift that keeps on giving! There is something inherent in US energy industry mindset that because they are so big and successful and powerful that their way is not only the right way but the BEST WAY…PERIOD! I expected sweeping change after DWH but no such thing happened even with the magnitude of the disaster and loss of life. The same accident happening in the North Sea and any slightest contributing cause would have been rooted out and eliminated. In the GoM it was cover the problems with paper in the hope not that they would go away but that the paper would become a shield to cover the asses of the bigshots who make the decisions.
Regarding Alaska and Shell, well I’ve said it all so many times before that frankly I am sick of even hearing myself saying it all over again. You can’t take the GoM way of working into that environment…I MUST BE A WHOLE NEW WAY OR WE WILL SEE THE SAME SHITTY CLOWN CIRCUS PERFORMED UP THERE AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN WITH EXACTLY THE SAME RESULTS EVERYTIME![/QUOTE]
I disagree. I believe after this, the towing gear will be so big that if anything happens, the boat will go down before anything breaks. I certainly would not want anything to do with that after this thing plays out.
I disagree. I believe after this, the towing gear will be so big that if anything happens, the boat will go down before anything breaks. I certainly would not want anything to do with that after this thing plays out.[/QUOTE]
This is what happens when WE (operators) don’t stand up when they (the BOSS) tells us to do something we know is a crap shoot, BIG BROTHER who has no experience comes in and tells us how to do our job. Will we ever learn?
Sometimes u have to take one for the team and say not only NO, but EFF NO.
[QUOTE=anchorman;111488]I disagree. I believe after this, the towing gear will be so big that if anything happens, the boat will go down before anything breaks. I certainly would not want anything to do with that after this thing plays out.[/QUOTE]
Not the weight of the gear but the telling the towing vessel master the route he will take and the leaving to avoid taxation into a huge string of lows and single tow vessel and all the other nonsense of having everybody and their brother who is “supposed” to be a “towing expert” come along and “certify” the rig is safe and ready to tow when the people right there running the shit can see that it isn’t but “they are told that it is and they will get your ass out of here NOW”
That’s what I’m talking about!
HIRE GODDAMNED MEN WHO ARE EXPERIENCED, SMART AND CAPABLE AND LET THEM DO THE JOB THE WAY THEY WANT AND KNOW HOW TO DO IT BECAUSE THEY ARE PROFESSIONALS! NONE OF THIS, WE NEED AN OUTSIDER TOWMASTER OR SURVEYOR TO TELL US EVERYTHING WE ARE DOING IS OK KIND OF SHIT! FUCK THESE THIRD PARTIES, THEY HAVE NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO LOSE!
[QUOTE=BMCSRetired;111490]This is what happens when WE (operators) don’t stand up when they (the BOSS) tells us to do something we know is a crap shoot, BIG BROTHER who has no experience comes in and tells us how to do our job. Will we ever learn?
Sometimes u have to take one for the team and say not only NO, but EFF NO.[/QUOTE]
When searching for people for this job I would have wanted to know their qualifications of course and got the best I could get for whatever amount of money it took to get them. BUT, before I made my final decision on whether to hire an individual I would have wanted to know the answer to one question;“Do you have enough money in the bank to make it for a year or so if you were to lose your job tomorrow?” If not, that person would not get hired. How many people in the marine and oil exploration industry have been hurt or killed because the person in charge could not afford to say “NO, I will not do that, either change the plan or get someone else!” ?
[QUOTE=c.captain;111491]Not the weight of the gear but the telling the towing vessel master the route he will take and the leaving to avoid taxation into a huge string of lows and single tow vessel and all the other nonsense of having everybody and their brother who is “supposed” to be a “towing expert” come along and “certify” the rig is safe and ready to tow when the people right there running the shit can see that it isn’t but “they are told that it is and they will get your ass out of here NOW”
That’s what I’m talking about!
HIRE GODDAMNED MEN WHO ARE EXPERIENCED, SMART AND CAPABLE AND LET THEM DO THE JOB THE WAY THEY WANT AND KNOW HOW TO DO IT BECAUSE THEY ARE PROFESSIONALS! NONE OF THIS, WE NEED AN OUTSIDER TOWMASTER OR SURVEYOR TO TELL US EVERYTHING WE ARE DOING IS OK KIND OF SHIT! FUCK THESE THIRD PARTIES, THEY HAVE NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO LOSE![/QUOTE]
I can already tell you what will happen. An Alaskan pilot will be required on every tow. The association has been lobbying for years, but never got traction in Federal Waters. I believe this will change, this will be a requirement by the USCG in their final report. I will put my pay check on that one. That will be about the only change I see from the past weeks proceedings.
[QUOTE=tugsailor;111500]I think it’s unlikely that we will see any further Arctic drilling effort in the next few years.[/QUOTE]
Probably not but the same cast of characters will just go drill somewhere else, there’s is so much money in it that without a strong regulatory structure another accident in inevitable though. When the Macondo disaster happened everyone moaned about drilling being shut down but it is now back to levels higher than before the Macondo. What changed? Not much, except now the regulators actually read the permits and catch small items like BP’s environmental contingency plan for the Macondo which included protecting the seals and walruses in the Gulf of Mexico. The next disaster may shut down the industry for years and that is not something any of us wish for.
[QUOTE=tugsailor;111500]I think it’s unlikely that we will see any further Arctic drilling effort in the next few years.[/QUOTE]
Indeed this is likely true, but I will retain some slender hope that when the time does come to try again, it will be done by a different breed of man with the right attitude towards the challenges that the Arctic brings. Drilling and producing energy safely in such an unforgiving environment is certainly possible and the prize remains tremendous but Shell will not be able to claim it until they adopt new ways to going after the riches.
Unfortunately, you need a certain breed of men. We already discussed there is not one man with the required skill-set and the license for that vessel’s scope of work; not until it has worked up there can that be proven. Of course, it will be a while.
Because they tow, and they towed long before there was such an endorsement, and nobody knew what the requirements would be. Most all, and those at the Master/CM level on AHTS vessels were grandfathered, including myself based on prior years of experience. But, I am sure I will lose that endorsement at next renewal because I’m have not towed anything in the last few years, and do not plan on it.[/QUOTE]
My question was more about people new to anchor handlers (within the last 10 years or so) that weren’t grandfathered.
[QUOTE=Capt. Phoenix;111625]But I thought the time had to be on a documented towing vessel (a vessel that requires a towing endorsement) in order for the time to count.[/QUOTE]
Vessels towing oil equipment in a designated oilfield region (GOM) do not require TOAR. Towing from an oilfield designated area to another oilfield designated area does not require a TOAR. Insurance companies might require TOARs.
If u can prove that the vessels towed a certain amount of time and days, they (USCG) will “consider”. The USCG has a Towing center of excellence in the Kentucky/Ohio area. Guess what type of towing they concentrate on and Ocean Towing ain’t one of them.
I know the guy in charge of the USCG Towing program. He is a great guy but not a day towing. He was a Damage Controlman, an officer and a Marine Inspector. Good administrator though.
Now u see why the USCG does not know the questions to ask nor where to look when they do an investigation such as the KULLUK.
[QUOTE=anchorman;111573]Unfortunately, you need a certain breed of men. We already discussed there is not one man with the required skill-set and the license for that vessel’s scope of work; not until it has worked up there can that be proven. Of course, it will be a while.[/QUOTE]
There is, he is just not American. He is Canadian, being paid WAY more than SHELL/CHOUEST wanted to pay and working off Newfoundland.
[QUOTE=anchorman;111486]Because they tow, and they towed long before there was such an endorsement, and nobody knew what the requirements would be. Most all, and those at the Master/CM level on AHTS vessels were grandfathered, including myself based on prior years of experience. But, I am sure I will lose that endorsement at next renewal because I’m have not towed anything in the last few years, and do not plan on it.[/QUOTE]
You do not need time on a towing vessel to renew. 46 CFR 10.227(d)(8)(vi)(B) only specifies “:ongoing training and participation in drills.” It doesn’t say they have to be on a towing vessel.
[QUOTE=BMCSRetired;111628]Vessels towing oil equipment in a designated oilfield region (GOM) do not require TOAR. Towing from an oilfield designated area to another oilfield designated area does not require a TOAR. .[/QUOTE]
They do now. Congress closed that exemption in the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2010.