My company John w. stone and oil had plans to build a new vessel to replace the Stone Buccaneer. The keel was going to be laid down sometime in 2011 but then the deepwater horizon happenend. Our work slowed down bigtime with the stone explorer being laid up. Things are begining to pick up again. The new vessel is supposed to be state of the art etc…with another to follow.
This of course may or may not happen. The said vessels would cost anywhere from 40-80 million. I recently looked online at ship brokerages and some double hulled/bottom vessels built in korea or china would be about 13 million. We would want to go the dp route and the current vessel plans have us looking like a dive support vessel or a Chouset supply boat with the house forward.
What does the all knowing board think? Would it be easier to buy a ship from a foreign outfit and have it go in the shipyard for rennovations. Would we have a problem with abs? with the jones act for that matter? I think having an unlimited vessel is out of the queston for now b/c of manning requirements and solas etc…
[QUOTE=linky2121;45918]My company John w. stone and oil had plans to build a new vessel to replace the Stone Buccaneer. The keel was going to be laid down sometime in 2011 but then the deepwater horizon happenend. Our work slowed down bigtime with the stone explorer being laid up. Things are begining to pick up again. The new vessel is supposed to be state of the art etc…with another to follow.
This of course may or may not happen. The said vessels would cost anywhere from 40-80 million. I recently looked online at ship brokerages and some double hulled/bottom vessels built in korea or china would be about 13 million. We would want to go the dp route and the current vessel plans have us looking like a dive support vessel or a Chouset supply boat with the house forward.
What does the all knowing board think? Would it be easier to buy a ship from a foreign outfit and have it go in the shipyard for rennovations. Would we have a problem with abs? with the jones act for that matter? I think having an unlimited vessel is out of the queston for now b/c of manning requirements and solas etc…
Discuss![/QUOTE]
ABS would not be a problem. In fact, you are not obligated to use ABS as your Class society. I would imagine that there are Jones Act/US Flag, builder and crewing concerns, but those are largely outside of my direct knowledge.
It has to be a US built vessel due to the fact that it will strictly be used in the coastwise trade of moving fuel oil from refineries to the of Furchon, Venice, and where ever else Stone has a fuel dock.
The question was how can a foreign built ship be flagged US. That is the answer, that is how you flag it “red white and blue.”
Just because it is US flagged does not mean it is eligible for Jones Act trade but that is another issue entirely that was not part of the question. Even then if it is a drug seizure or substantially rebuilt the exclusion doesn’t apply. A prudent mariner only answers the question that was asked.
[QUOTE=Steamer;45974]“That is a big negative ghost rider…”
The question was how can a foreign built ship be flagged US. That is the answer, that is how you flag it “red white and blue.”
Just because it is US flagged does not mean it is eligible for Jones Act trade but that is another issue entirely that was not part of the question. Even then if it is a drug seizure or substantially rebuilt the exclusion doesn’t apply. A prudent mariner only answers the question that was asked.[/QUOTE]
My statement was to your answer, not the question. A prudent mariner would also address the context as not to be misleading. Yes, you could get a US flag on a foreign vessel fairly easy, but getting the coast wise endorsement for the vessel to work as the replacement of the Stone Bucaneer - that just isn’t going to happen with a fee and an application.
[QUOTE=linky2121;45918]Would it be easier to buy a ship from a foreign outfit and have it go in the shipyard for rennovations. Would we have a problem with abs? with the jones act for that matter? I think having an unlimited vessel is out of the queston for now b/c of manning requirements and solas etc…
[/QUOTE]
Nothing like trying to break the backs of the American labor force with slave labor and foreign subsidise. You probably buy your American flags from China too… evidently for decorative purposes only.
Steamer…as always, you are 100% correct. Virtually the entire US flagged foreign going merchant fleet is now foreign built as are most of the RRF ships for that matter. The coastwise fleet is what remains US built but except for workboats, that fleet is ancient! How many steamships is Horizon still running as is Sea Star, ATC, et all.? Except the tankers built to replace those OPA 90’d out, the 2 ro/ro’s for Tote and the last tow containerships for Matson, I don’t think there has been a US built merchant ship since Regan killed the CDS.
As you mentioned, the exemptions come when a ship has been seized for smuggling or a war prize or has been wrecked in US waters and rebuilt in a US yard only then allows a foreign built hull to obtain coastwise trade privledges. An Act of Congress being another means but as corrupt as Congress is, that has not proven to be viable way for shipowners to go. Otherwise, as a shipowner you have got to suck it up and build in the good ol US of A.
This of course, brings up a very thorny issue of the preverbial double edged sword. Demand US build for coastwise trade to supposedly preserve work for US shipbuilders and their labor force (which hasn’t worked as far as deepsea tonnage goes) or allow foreign built ships to obtain coastwise trade endorsements and create business for US shipping companies and jobs for US mariners (which I personally believe would work). If I could go to the world market to find a little feeder sized tanker or container carrier and not be forced to pay three times as much for the same ship from a US yard, I think we would see many more little ships like the STONE BUCKANEER running around our ports. I really would like for the jobs for the workers in the yards to be protected as are the jobs for the mariners and I do believe that there are ways that a new Merchant Marine Act could address these matters but the existing statutes are just too antiquated for the modern world and there are too many competing interests in Washington to get any meaningful legislation passed that would fix this.
If the ship was to be unlimited, what would the draw backs be? I am not sure myself but I assume things are way more stringent concerning coast guard inspections and ABS. I have not sailed on an unlimited vessel since 2003 so I am unfamiliar. Does the crew have to be 18 or so people? right now we have 10 on the old buc. I know from our competition hos that the centerline and strongline in Tanker configuration crew 18 people. otherwise they are another supply boat so to speak.
As far as inspection regulations go, there is no real fundimental difference between the requirments for a 2000, or 3000 or 4000 gross ton vessel. Even SOLAS does not differentiate between the two, although in SOLAS I believe for cargo vessels under 500tons it does not apply. There are small differences in firefighting equipment and lifesaving appliances with physical length such as not needing lifeboats, etc… One place where there is a difference is in ABS Rules. They have a special category for vessels under 95m length.
The biggest difference is in manning and this is where the $$$ come into play. The USCG Marine Inspection Manual Vol. III is where you will find the vessel manning scales which the Coast Guard uses to determine mininimum safe manning. At the magic number of 3001grt you need one shitload more personnel for your ship (unless it happens to be a large OSV) and that all the officers need to have unlimited tonnage licenses. This is exactly why there have been so many ATB’s built in the past 10 years to replace the coastwise clean oil tanker fleet. Those are manned based only on the tonnage of the tug not the combined unit as an ITB would. The OSG VISION (650’ 46k dwt) ATB is far bigger that an old T2 tanker but is only treated as a vessel “under tonnage” as far as manning goes.
[QUOTE=c.captain;46164]As far as inspection regulations go, there is no real fundimental difference between the requirments for a 2000, or 3000 or 4000 gross ton vessel. Even SOLAS does not differentiate between the two, although in SOLAS I believe for cargo vessels under 500tons it does not apply. There are small differences in firefighting equipment and lifesaving appliances with physical length such as not needing lifeboats, etc… One place where there is a difference is in ABS Rules. They have a special category for vessels under 95m length.
[/QUOTE]
The ABS Category is for vessels 90m or less. The rule differences are largely for design and construction. Survey requirements with regard to frequency and thoroughness are the same as with the larger vessels. This also goes for any IACS Class Society.
[QUOTE=Ea$y Money;45995]Nothing like trying to break the backs of the American labor force with slave labor and foreign subsidise. You probably buy your American flags from China too… evidently for decorative purposes only.[/QUOTE]
While going back over this thread I saw this post and I have to ask…What else are we gonna do? Our new ship is expected to cost over 60 Million after all the different bids from shipyards. Every ship yard we have been to seems to be over run with people that can’t speak english and are of obvious other origin. At this point I am REALLY getting nervous about my job and I am willing to bet they may just throw in the towel and get out of the offshore industry. Add on the fact that another year of Academy grads are coming with DP certs in hand I can’t really say I really give a damn where our ship is built because a shit load of people will be out of a job when Jan 1st 2015 rolls around and every position in other companies will be filled up. Our Owner is 100% american and so am I but the finger nails are starting to get chewed off pretty quickly.