The MONEY is simply unrepentant in their desire to sell us out!

Offshore
1

and Lisa Murkowski is their FUCKING bitch bending us over to take it up our ass but not hers…

Jones Act tied to crude oil exports

MARCH 25, 2015—In maritime attorneys Winston & Strawn LLP’s MaritimeFedWatch blog, Charlie Papavizas writes that the U.S. Congress is considering whether to reverse the 1975 ban on crude oil exports prompted by the U.S. shale oil renaissance. That consideration, writes Papavizas, also continues to overlap with the U.S. Jones Act, as evidenced in two separate U.S. Senate Committee hearings held on March 19, 2015.

The Senate Energy Committee, chaired by Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, held a hearing to discuss whether the ban should be reversed or modified. Several witnesses called for a repeal of the ban for energy security, economic, fiscal, and national security reasons. Others, including Committee members, worried that exports would raise U.S. gasoline prices and export U.S. refinery jobs.

American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM), a national refining trade association, drew a connection between any change in the ban and the Jones Act, which restricts U.S. movements of all merchandise to U.S.-built, U.S.-flag vessels owned and operated by qualified U.S. citizens. AFPM urged the Committee also to consider changing the Jones Act so as not to disadvantage U.S. refineries purchasing U.S. produced crude oil vis-a-vis foreign refineries.

Sen. Mazie Hirono of Hawaii countered that the Jones Act was necessary for national security as well as economic and commercial reasons and, in particular, pointed to testimony favoring the Jones Act provided almost simultaneously in the Senate Armed Services Committee.

At the other hearing, General Paul J. Selva, Commander of the U.S. Transportation Command, testified that, “The Jones Act contributes to a robust domestic maritime industry that helps to maintain the U.S. industrial shipyard base and infrastructure” and “provides additional capacity and trained U.S. merchant mariners” to crew national defense vessels.

Sen. Murkowski concluded by saying that she and her Committee will remain focused on the topic of crude oil exports and that the current focus remains one of education – legislating will come next.

Papavizas, a partner at Winston & Strawn, also chairs the law firm’s Maritime & Admiralty Practice. Papavizas will be one of the presenters at Marine Log’s Tugs & Barges 2015 Conference & Expo, May 12-13, 2015 in Seattle, WA.

Fuck this crap about “education”…this is all about stabbing us in the back to make more money. They’re trying to bury us deep into the ground without so much as a tombstone to mark our grave!

My God how I loathe these MISERABLE MOTHER FUCKERS! There I’ve said IT!

2

Yet so many Alaskans cheer Murkowski on in her effort to sell them out. Penny-wise, pound-foolish seems apt, at best.

3

Most people in Alaska favor crude exports because they expect that to mean move oil revenue to the State and bigger Permenant Fund Dividend checks to every man, woman, and child in Alaska.

To most people in Alaska, the guys who live south of I-10 who are getting most of the Arctic drilling boat jobs are more foreign than the Japanese. Since Alaskan Mariners get so few of the high paying boat jobs, and all Alaskans pay more for goods carried on Jones Act ships, why is anyone surprised that they want to repeal the Jones Act?

How many Mariners that actually live in Alaska did Harvey and ECO hire for the Shell 2015 drilling season? None?

How many of the guys that Harvey and ECO are sending to Alaska have any significant experience working in Alaska? Half a dozen?

4

the level of my disgust at the corruption of everything in the US grows exponentially every day…how did our nation become this way?

5

[QUOTE=c.captain;157703]the level of my disgust at the corruption of everything in the US grows exponentially every day…how did our nation become this way?[/QUOTE]

Not to provoke, but it does not help to have an electoral system where it’s all about using more money then your opponent. And the lobby industry does not help the problem.

6

Just think about this for just a minute and read the whole thing I say before you respond and nail me for it.

  1. Yes ECO and Harvey have know about this job in Alaska for a while.

  2. Yes they should have hired Alaskan experienced guys months ago to go up there when this thing became officially a “go” for this year.

  3. But what if they really didn’t know for sure that this year they would be sending this many boats up to Alaska to work THIS year until a month or two ago?

  4. With the amount of guys they laid off and “fired” due to the horrible GoM oil price problem in the last 4-5 months and then uncertainty with Alaska for this year it seems like they really didn’t know what to expect.

  5. Why hire outside (to the company) guys just because they have “Alaskan” experience at a time when they are laying off, firing and cut back to even time schedules for their current employees?

  6. I understand that it would make sense that the bayou boat companies should have tried to start recruiting PNW guys along time ago to try to diversify their employee pool for jobs like these that the I’ll come up.

  7. They can’t “make” people with PNW experience come apply down here, maybe they just didn’t have a lot of guys come try to work down here.

  8. The boats are already up there, they are already crewed, if they hired a bunch of guys to replace the current mariners on those boats up there that have PNW experience and send the ones who down back down here to the GoM where are they gonna go? They already are having a problem with finding work for everyone that already know works for them and hiring more people would mean less possible less work for everyone else that is already hurting and ALREADY in house and dedicated to their company?

I’m not giving them an excuse, I’m just trying to think why they wouldn’t already have hired guys from up there with this in mind months ago and have them work down in the GoM until this job officially kicked off and then just had them go up with the boats.

Sorry for the rambling but I am just trying to make sense of what might happen.

I’m all for having PNW guys working for bayou companies, the few I know are great guys and shipmates, but if they never would’ve applied to work down here I obviously never wouldve met them.

7

A marginally bigger PFD check in return for more corporate control over their state, less energy independence, and less motivation than ever to build a new refinery in-state. That’s what I meant about penny-wise, pound-foolish. A populace focused on slightly increased PFD at the expense of all else does not imply a successful long-term economic plan is in place.

You’re right about Alaskans resenting the Jones Act. The only Alaskans I know who don’t feel that way are the ones I work with, whose well-paying jobs that enable them to live where they do would vanish were the act repealed.

8

[QUOTE=bcoogan23;157705]Just think about this for just a minute and read the whole thing I say before you respond and nail me for it.

  1. Yes ECO and Harvey have know about this job in Alaska for a while.

  2. Yes they should have hired Alaskan experienced guys months ago to go up there when this thing became officially a “go” for this year.

  3. But what if they really didn’t know for sure that this year they would be sending this many boats up to Alaska to work THIS year until a month or two ago?

  4. With the amount of guys they laid off and “fired” due to the horrible GoM oil price problem in the last 4-5 months and then uncertainty with Alaska for this year it seems like they really didn’t know what to expect.

  5. Why hire outside (to the company) guys just because they have “Alaskan” experience at a time when they are laying off, firing and cut back to even time schedules for their current employees?

  6. I understand that it would make sense that the bayou boat companies should have tried to start recruiting PNW guys along time ago to try to diversify their employee pool for jobs like these that the I’ll come up.

  7. They can’t “make” people with PNW experience come apply down here, maybe they just didn’t have a lot of guys come try to work down here.

  8. The boats are already up there, they are already crewed, if they hired a bunch of guys to replace the current mariners on those boats up there that have PNW experience and send the ones who down back down here to the GoM where are they gonna go? They already are having a problem with finding work for everyone that already know works for them and hiring more people would mean less possible less work for everyone else that is already hurting and ALREADY in house and dedicated to their company?

I’m not giving them an excuse, I’m just trying to think why they wouldn’t already have hired guys from up there with this in mind months ago and have them work down in the GoM until this job officially kicked off and then just had them go up with the boats.

Sorry for the rambling but I am just trying to make sense of what might happen.

I’m all for having PNW guys working for bayou companies, the few I know are great guys and shipmates, but if they never would’ve applied to work down here I obviously never wouldve met them.[/QUOTE]

That is a lame excuse. When development of the biggest new offshore oil area is at stake the inconvenience of having to hire local knowledge is no excuse. When protection of the Arctic environment and the ability to drill in the future is at stake the inconvenience to a few existing employees that are unqualified because they have no local knowledge is no excuse.

These companies have not tried to recruit experienced Alaska mariners. I know a guy who was told that "we already have enough Alaska experience from last time we were up there (for a few months in 2012). The bayou boat companies still don’t think they need any Alaskans and they just don’t want them.

9

[QUOTE=Gimli;157706]A marginally bigger PFD check in return for more corporate control over their state, less energy independence, and less motivation than ever to build a new refinery in-state. That’s what I meant about penny-wise, pound-foolish. A populace focused on slightly increased PFD at the expense of all else does not imply a successful long-term economic plan is in place.]/QUOTE]

Because of the way the PFD works in Alaska, any increase would likely not be seen for a couple years at least. But, as with anything else, the politicians and interest groups in favor of crude oil exporting will try to spin their numbers their way: “Hey, you could see this much extra money in your PFD if we pass this!” A good portion of Alaskans rely on that PFD, especially given the fact it comes out in October. On the flip side, many Alaskans resent “Outside” control over their state and its resources, which of course the lobby against crude exports will play up. It tends to be a recurring theme in Alaskan elections–“Hey, this guy isn’t even really Alaskan, he doesn’t know what you want, how can he effectively represent you?” “Hey, this ballot initiative was written by a bunch of Californians (Californian being probably about the dirtiest word in Alaska), we don’t want those types telling US how WE should run OUR state!” So it’ll be interesting to see how those two sides battle this out.

You’re right about Alaskans resenting the Jones Act. The only Alaskans I know who don’t feel that way are the ones I work with, whose well-paying jobs that enable them to live where they do would vanish were the act repealed.

I wonder how many Alaskans actually know about the Jones Act? Maybe, proportionally, the number is higher than elsewhere, being that Alaska relies on the sea so much for trade and sustenance, but I’d still bet that if one were to go through downtown Anchorage and poll 100 people, maybe fifteen would even know the Jones Act even exists, and fewer yet could say exactly what it is. Besides which, I’m not sure the Jones Act is a major reason goods tend to cost more in Alaska; it’s more down to market share and infrastructure. Would it make goods significantly cheaper in Alaska if, say, Evergreen or K-Line made a weekly stop in Anchorage? Nothing prevents that now, just that those goods couldn’t be carried directly from another US port. By the way, groceries in Anchorage are slightly more expensive than, say, in Seattle, but not significantly so. Get outside of Anchorage and those costs start going up, which has nothing to do with what flag ship brought them into Anchorage and everything to do with inland transportation costs in Alaska.

10

[QUOTE=tugsailor;157709]That is a lame excuse. When development of the biggest new offshore oil area is at stake the inconvenience of having to hire local knowledge is no excuse. When protection of the Arctic environment and the ability to drill in the future is at stake the inconvenience to a few existing employees that are unqualified because they have no local knowledge is no excuse.

These companies have not tried to recruit experienced Alaska mariners. I know a guy who was told that "we already have enough Alaska experience from last time we were up there (for a few months in 2012). The bayou boat companies still don’t think they need any Alaskans and they just don’t want them.[/QUOTE]

I’m not making an excuse, I’m just trying to get inside their minds and think what might have happened. One thing is obvious: poor planning is a big factor in this

11

[QUOTE=Kraken;157704]Not to provoke, but it does not help to have an electoral system where it’s all about using more money then your opponent. And the lobby industry does not help the problem.[/QUOTE]

what provoke…I cannot agree with you any more that campaign financing is the single largest form of corrupt influence in the USA. All elections should be publicly funded entirely. all access to any media should be given for free as part of the FCC license to operate. having only two viable political parties is also bad for the US as is the form of government we have. I believe in parliamentary representation where a majority of all parties are needed to form a goverment.

12

[QUOTE=bcoogan23;157715]I’m not making an excuse, I’m just trying to get inside their minds and think what might have happened. One thing is obvious: poor planning is a big factor in this[/QUOTE]

I’ll tell you what goes through the minds of the Joe Bosses in South Louisiana is that they don’t want NW mariners in THEIR vessels because that means they give up an element of control when you hire from outside the backwards Bayoo culture they have enforced in the GoM. Operate in Alaska with the way we do it out here and 90% of the way the OMSA mafia vessels are run will have to be shitcanned. You know that Joe Chouest would not stand for that one second and sadly Shell (who alone could force the change) goes right along with his demands even though it was the GoM way of towing the KULLUK that lost them that rig. Shell is as complicit here as any single party as is the USCG and State of Alaska. Everybody involved has been bought and paid for by Gary Corleone to make damned sure HE keeps control in Alaska as he does in the Gulf.

ULTIMATE CONTROL BY JOE BOSS EQUALS THE ULTIMATE CORRUPTION OF SAFE AND PROFESSIONAL SEAFARING PRACTICES…

shame on everybody involved!

.