I should have been clearer, I was referring to LNG tankers. Here’s a decent article:
However, because you bring it up, the LNG bunkering activity in the US actually demonstrates that the JA does not hamper our Merchant Marine in terms of shipbuilding or mariners, and especially with new technology. We now have 3 barges for bunkering LNG.
The LNG bunkering business in the States can largely be attributed to the cruise industry, which was an early adopter of the fuel. On every cruise, each of these cruise ships must dock at a foreign port (by US law ironically) where they could have fueled. And LNG isn’t too hard to come by where cruise ships go. For example, in the Caribbean, the article above says the majority of Puerto Rico’s LNG comes from Trinidad.
Yet despite the opportunity to build an LNG network at the destination ports in the Caribbean, the cruise lines chose to go with a solution in Florida, resulting in investment in our “expensive” US Merchant Marine - a significant investment too: in ports, shipyards, vessels, and mariners.
Not granting a waiver for foreign flag LNG tankers into Jones Act trades was a very misinformed decision by Trump. So instead of the US supplying LNG to PR and the NE, foreign countries do. How does that make sense? It does not, but it is indicative of the aggressive lobbying by US shipyards, which will never again build large LNGC’s
So, uh, what’s your guy’s victory garden like? Yall producing enough food for yourself so we can send our home grown food to the front line? I mean it was vital to national security at one point, or would that be cost prohibitive in 2023, and something we can address if the need arises… Likewise, I have only a very surface level knowledge of raising chickens, however if the Federal Government gave me a million dollars, up front, and paid me $100 per chicken delivered, you bet your ass I’d be the best damn chicken farmer I could be.
That’s how I view everyone arguing about saving out handful of little ship yards. Take for example, the Kaiser yard in Richmond CA still has the graving docks, it’s still got active rail access, and plenty of room to stage modular ship parts. It makes no sense to be building a ship a day, but it’s not rocket surgery, we can figure it out quicker than it would take Brownsville to build one ship, given proper funding.
It would take some flexing of imminent domain, or whatever they call seizing your property for the war effort, but there’s just as much rail connected industrial space (and mostly parking lot) in Richmond as the yard in Onsan, ROK. The free market hasn’t turned it into condos yet, which would throw a wrench in this plan, but the US could still build ships here push come to shove. We can’t say Taco Tuesday is in peril because there are no tacos today, when we have all the ingredients in the fridge.
Cabotage laws are common. The Jones Act is about average in that respect. Coast wise trade is respected with a few loop holes. If anyone thinks the Jones Act was enacted to build ships for international trade and employ USA mariners on them they are delusional.
As far as the US maintaining a maritime industry capable of supporting the US military? Isn’t that the job of MSC? Good lord, the US already spends more money on “defense” than most other countries combined. 50% of all discretionary spending and 12% of total spending goes to defense. If there was a problem the money is there in spades. If you think the US Merchant Marine fleet must be increased to protect the sovereignty of the US maybe it would be wise to ask your congress critter to explain what the total one trillion dollars a year they are allocating to “defense” is doing. After all if a merchant marine fleet is needed to protect the sovereignty of the USA don’t you think they should be doing something? Don’t ask questions on a mariner forum, ask the people who have been in charge for the last 50 years.
Right. There are inefficiencies. But your proposal:
Will not result in any more JA ships. The evidence is that there are 6 LNG carriers in the international fleet that could be flagged into the US today. This is because they are from way back when we were building LNG ships. Yet none of these 6 have been flagged back. The capital cost of these vessels is similar to any other vessel on the market of that age. So why haven’t they joined the JA trade? Well it must be because they are making more money doing whatever they are doing now than they would in the US.
So it’s not just shipbuilding that is a barrier here. It’s crew costs and/or a lack of demand for cargo on JA routes - even at a lower pricepoint.
Thus, eliminating US shipyards would cut thousands of jobs and business in the US, and leave our merchant marine the same size. This is what makes us wary of your claim:
Your arguments are quite similar to the Cato Institute.
I agree with the Cato Institute, the late Sen John McCain and others, except some of them want to abolish the entire JA. I only want to remove the US build requirement and keep the rest. If shipbuilding is so vital to national defense, why do we allow foreign built airplanes, trucks, railroad equipment, computers, electronics, medicines and so on to be made overseas?
The JA is 103 years old. In 1921o the US shipyards could compete worldwide. Indeed our shipbuilders helped us win WWII. And until about the 1960’s our yards were competitive.
But times have changed. It now costs 4-5x as much to build a ship in the US vs the same ship overseas. There are very few other countries that require ships to be built domestically, Canada being one. The JA is extreme, not average.
I have been engaged in the maritime industry for 46 years, and during that time the USMM has dwindled to under 200 ships. So obviously our current policies are not working.
I think there is a rule against re-flagging anything out of the U.S. flag and then back. You get one shot to bring a vessel under the flag and keep it that way.
Yes…hmmmm. The shipyards have a very strong lobby in Congress. They also somehow convince the Navy that they need them. Marad is a less-than-useless follower in all this. Everytime there is even talk of a waiver they go bananas, and probably threaten to cut off campaign donations. You would think the maritime unions like MEBA would fight for mariners, but they do not.
Unfortunately, there is no mouthpiece for mariners.
As I read this, even the Chinese, who have a large shipbuilding industry, do not require coastwise ships to be built in China, just Chinese flagged/manned/owned. That is exactly what we should have. The Chinese are very pragmatic.
That is the arrangement you already have for US-flag ships in international trade, isn’t it?
How many US-flag ships in international trade are US built?
No US flag internationally trading ship is US built. They are all subsidized by Marad to cover the higher opex. Most, if not all of Marad’s Ready Reserve fleet are foreign built. So even Marad recognizes, in practice, that US built ships are too expensive, while in theory they say US yards are vital. Rather two-faced.
