So, some companies are filling out the waivers to allow foreigners to man drilling rigs in the GOM. Maersk, Vantage, TOI, anyone know any others? And what is everyones thought on this? Who says good and who says bad?
Are you effing kidding?
Seriously? I can’t wait to see who will attempt to defend hiring foreign mariners for what amounts to coast wise trade.
[QUOTE=PDCMATE;87356]So, some companies are filling out the waivers to allow foreigners to man drilling rigs in the GOM. Maersk, Vantage, TOI, anyone know any others? And what is everyones thought on this? Who says good and who says bad?[/QUOTE]
I don’t know of any other companies requesting waivers but I do know of a few instances where waivers have been applied for recently for individual foreign mariners on rigs operating in the GOM. In the few cases I know of it is because they have a good person in the position already and no where else to put them at this time. They would like to avoid telling these people that they no longer have a job. As other rigs are completed which will be operating outside US waters these people will be moved to them and replaced by US nationals. In the cases I know of this seems very fair and commendable.
[QUOTE=tengineer;87378]I don’t know of any other companies requesting waivers but I do know of a few instances where waivers have been applied for recently for individual foreign mariners on rigs operating in the GOM. In the few cases I know of it is because they have a good person in the position already and no where else to put them at this time. They would like to avoid telling these people that they no longer have a job. As other rigs are completed which will be operating outside US waters these people will be moved to them and replaced by US nationals. In the cases I know of this seems very fair and commendable.[/QUOTE]
What about Maersk? They have from what I know many foreigners on their rig in the GOM. I also know Vantage has them as well.
[QUOTE=PDCMATE;87386]What about Maersk? They have from what I know many foreigners on their rig in the GOM. I also know Vantage has them as well.[/QUOTE]
Yes I know I was on the MAERSK DEVELOPER and I can tell you the Americans on the rig were TOKENS! That is a BULLSHIT operation!
Just when one thinks things are getting better, this BULLSHIT comes along! These need to be fought and we American mariners need a GODDAMNED Professional Association to do this for us. We need a GODDAMNED voice to speak for us in Washington!
FUCK THIS SHIT! I’M PISSED!
.
[QUOTE=c.captain;87387]Yes I know I was on the MAERSK DEVELOPER and I can tell you the Americans on the rig were TOKENS! That is a BULLSHIT operation and I do not know how they get their GODDAMNED waivers!
Just when one thinks things are getting better, this BULLSHIT comes along! These need to be fought and we American mariners need a GODDAMNED Professional Association to do this for us. We need a GODDAMNED voice to speak for us in Washington!
FUCK THIS SHIT! I’M PISSED![/QUOTE]
I was told by someone at transocean that they have filled out waivers as well.
[QUOTE=PDCMATE;87386]What about Maersk? They have from what I know many foreigners on their rig in the GOM. I also know Vantage has them as well.[/QUOTE]
I checked with a friend of mine who said that by his count Vantage has 2 or 3 out of 100 or so total crew. TOI has some waivers applied for, some of this is client driven. Don’t know about Maersk and who cares about Ensco?
So 1, 2, 3, so on. Once the flood gates open, we know what happens.
[QUOTE=PDCMATE;87404]So 1, 2, 3, so on. Once the flood gates open, we know what happens.[/QUOTE]
i know how Maersk is getting it is by claiming they are a Danish company and there is an exemption that allows foreign vessels owned by foreign owners to keep foreign crews. The problem is that Maersk Drilling has Houston offices and that is supposed to negate that exemption but does the USCG care? HELL NO! Maersk is golden in the eyes of the government except that they have US crews on their ships that require Americans but they can’t on their rig. BULLSHIT!
[QUOTE=c.captain;87405]i know how Maersk is getting it is by claiming they are a Danish company and there is an exemption that allows foreign vessels owned by foreign owners to keep foreign crews. The problem is that Maersk Drilling has Houston offices and that is supposed to negate that exemption but does the USCG care? HELL NO! Maersk is golden in the eyes of the government except that they have US crews on their ships that require Americans but they can’t on their rig. BULLSHIT![/QUOTE]
Money talks! Thats BS!
[QUOTE=c.captain;87405]i know how Maersk is getting it is by claiming they are a Danish company and there is an exemption that allows foreign vessels owned by foreign owners to keep foreign crews. The problem is that Maersk Drilling has Houston offices and that is supposed to negate that exemption but does the USCG care? HELL NO! Maersk is golden in the eyes of the government except that they have US crews on their ships that require Americans but they can’t on their rig. BULLSHIT![/QUOTE]
If that is all that is required to negate that exemption then there are a whole bunch of companies violationg this rule. McDermont, DOF, Helix, Veolia, Subsea 7, Technip, all have offices in Houston.
Now where do I sign up to violantly protest???
[QUOTE=PDCMATE;87404]So 1, 2, 3, so on. Once the flood gates open, we know what happens.[/QUOTE]
Hmmm, there is another side to that coin. Let’s say you are an American working as master for a US based company, the rig is foreign flagged [of course] they had employed you for many years on board that rig. They just got a contract in Mexican waters. The Mexicans have a maritime academy and mariners fully capable of handling a vessel in the Campeche Bay. Would it be right and proper for the company to fire you along with your years of rig specific knowledge just so they could put a national in your place? Perhaps, but I would want to hang onto an employee like that if I owned the company.
Of course I don’t excuse any company operating in US waters for saying they can’t find qualified mates, AE’s etc. but there are a few key people one would want to hang on to if possible.
[QUOTE=tengineer;87378]I don’t know of any other companies requesting waivers but I do know of a few instances where waivers have been applied for recently for individual foreign mariners on rigs operating in the GOM. In the few cases I know of it is because they have a good person in the position already and no where else to put them at this time. They would like to avoid telling these people that they no longer have a job. As other rigs are completed which will be operating outside US waters these people will be moved to them and replaced by US nationals. In the cases I know of this seems very fair and commendable.[/QUOTE]
I could see T/O using that excuse on some of the ships they just brought back from over seas, Ensco has the DS-3 here now working for BP, but Vantage can’t use that excuse, that is a new build ship, that has never worked any where else, and for the most part Vantage is a new company.
Last time I was passing through the New Orleans airport I bumped into several Filipino nationals flying home to Manila that were getting off a Maersk deepwater rig in the US GOM. Seeing foreign hands was a bit surprising to me.
Have you considered that there are a “few” more places worldwide where drilling for oil is taking place other than GoM?
Have you considered that there are Americans working on those rigs? What should we do to them? Maybe kick them out and send them back to the US?
I have been working in South East Asia, North Sea, West Africa and Mediterranean and on every rig I was I found Americans… should we tell them there is no place for them other than their home country?
It’s 3 out of about 180 if you count both crews… We are working on getting Americans but there are some stringent client requirements and there are quite a few US mariners that are qualified but don’t want to give up the overseas tax credits…
American can’t bitch if they dont want to work in the GoM…
We need some lobbyists … I’m nominating C.Captain
[QUOTE=tengineer;87412]Hmmm, there is another side to that coin. Let’s say you are an American working as master for a US based company, the rig is foreign flagged [of course] they had employed you for many years on board that rig. They just got a contract in Mexican waters. The Mexicans have a maritime academy and mariners fully capable of handling a vessel in the Campeche Bay. Would it be right and proper for the company to fire you along with your years of rig specific knowledge just so they could put a national in your place? Perhaps, but I would want to hang onto an employee like that if I owned the company.
Of course I don’t excuse any company operating in US waters for saying they can’t find qualified mates, AE’s etc. but there are a few key people one would want to hang on to if possible.[/QUOTE]
I agree 100% with nationalization to a certain extent. I work in Nigeria, so I know how it is. But if the country you work in can provide adequate personnel then they should have their people in there. But, most of us know that these countries don’t have the trained people to do some of the jobs. And last time I looked the US wasn’t one of the countries lacking qualified people.
[QUOTE=Skoidat69;87435]We need some lobbyists … I’m nominating C.Captain[/QUOTE]
I would love nothing more than to be that voice in Washington for all of us but the question is I need a base of financial support that comes from no other source but the mariners themselves. The sad reality is that I do not believe that I can get enough mariners willing to put forth the $$$ because nothing in Washington would ever be able to change without being able to lobby the Administration and the Congress. The various unions are supposed to do this for “all” mariners behalf but its pretty clear now that they put their own interests first and really care nothing for mariners who are not members since nonunion mariners contribute nothing to their fat bank accounts.
As soon as one dollar is accepted from any group other than the mariners, the system will become corrupted since then those interests will want their agendas to come first. If there in any hope for an association, then the mariner will have to be the ONLY interest of the association to represent. Would 5000 mariners in the US be willing to contribute $100 a year? If there were, then there is a chance that our voice could be heard in Washington.
comments?