Time to call BULLSHIT on J Ray McDermott

Offshore
1

transport with a non Jones Act qualified vessel? They coming from a foreign port without being landed in the US? THIS IS BULLSHIT!

[B]McDermott lands Jack St Malo gig[/B]
Written by OE Staff Tuesday, 31 March 2015 03:49

McDermott International has been awarded a contract to transport and install subsea umbilicals, manifolds, jumpers and flying leads for Chevron to support the brownfield expansion of the Jack and St. Malo fields in the US Gulf of Mexico.
Image from Chevron.

McDermott’s subsea construction vessel, North Ocean 102, is expected to transport and install 30mi of umbilicals and associated flying leads. The final jumper assembly is scheduled to be completed at McDermott’s Gulfport Spoolbase in Mississippi prior to installation by McDermott’s Derrick Barge 50 utilizing its deepwater lowering system.

The installation campaign is expected to commence in 2Q 2016.

The Jack and St. Malo fields are located within 25mi of each other in the Walker Ridge area of the US Gulf of Mexico, approximately 280mi south of New Orleans, Louisiana. First oil and natural gas production was achieved in December 2014.

“This will be the second subsea project in the Jack and St. Malo fields that McDermott has carried out for Chevron, which demonstrates confidence in our ability to install subsea facilities in such challenging deepwater environments,” said Scott Munro, VP Americas, Europe & Africa. “McDermott successfully installed some of the industry’s largest and most complex umbilical end terminations in 7200ft of water, as part of the fields’ original development last year.

I would hope the folks at OMSA are going to call BULLSHIT on this!

2

oh but they will go out of business otherwise, they cry cry cry! (Sarcasm)

Absolute bullshit my man, glad you notice this shit that would otherwise slip through the cracks.

3

Time to call bullshit that you actually own and operate a real company. Really, how many business owners have time to work and post on the internet as much as you do?

Joe Boss in your world must be as bad as the ones you loathe in the OSV world.

4

[quote=saltine;158358]time to call bullshit that you actually own and operate a real company. Really, how many business owners have time to work and post on the internet as much as you do?

Joe boss in your world must be as bad as the ones you loathe in the osv world.[/quote]

and let me just say…EFF YOU TOO SIR!

what a supreme douche you are…

.

5

That does bring up a good question. How goes things in the small R/V world? Have you been keeping the mighty [I]Orca[/I] busy?
The low cost of fuel right now should at least be good for your bottom line,

6

Give him his due, C Captains post is looking after your job surely?

7

[QUOTE=powerabout;158388]Give him his due, C Captains post is looking after your job surely?[/QUOTE]

indeed…I very much doubt McDermott has any American mariners working on the NORTH OCEAN 102 so we are losing and the owners of Jones Act qualified vessels are losing as well. This is one time I am squarely behind OMSA and their efforts to squash these dirty and illegal practices.

8

There might be something I’m missing here, something I’m not understanding, but reading your pasted article, I’m not sure I see what’s illegal about this, exactly? It sounds to me like this company is picking up gear that’s being built in the US, and then taking it well offshore for installation. So I’m not sure the Jones Act applies in this case. If this outfit was moving this gear from one US port to another US port, then yes, but I don’t see anything in the article to indicate that’s the case. Or even if they were moving this gear from a US port to an installation within twelve miles of shore.

I’d surely love it if they opted for the US flag when moving this stuff of course, but I don’t see where they’re obligated to by law.

Enlighten me, please.

9

The Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act extents the Jones Act to points on the Outer Continental Shelf. Thus, this is complete bullshit if allowed to take place. Having a US Flag vessel transport the cargo offshore would be a minimum to comply with OCSLA/Jones Act.

10

[QUOTE=dredgeboater;158442]The Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act extents the Jones Act to points on the Outer Continental Shelf. Thus, this is complete bullshit if allowed to take place. Having a US Flag vessel transport the cargo offshore would be a minimum to comply with OCSLA/Jones Act.[/QUOTE]

Ah, didn’t realize there was such a thing. In that case…

BULLSHIT BULLSHIT BULLSHIT BULLSHIT!

11

[QUOTE=dredgeboater;158442]The Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act extents the Jones Act to points on the Outer Continental Shelf. Thus, this is complete bullshit if allowed to take place. Having a US Flag vessel transport the cargo offshore would be a minimum to comply with OCSLA/Jones Act.[/QUOTE]

thank you for making this clear…

12

Learn something every day.

13

Here’s what the OCS Lands Act says on the subject - any lawyers want to chime in on this?

[B]1356. Documentary, registry and manning requirements[/B]

(a) Regulations: Within six months after September 18, 1978, the Secretary of the Department in which the Coast Guard is operating shall issue regulations which require that any vessel, rig, platform, or other
vehicle or structure—

(1) which is used at any time after the one-year period beginning on the effective date of such regulations for activities pursuant to this subchapter and which is built or rebuilt at any time after
such one-year period, when required to be documented by the laws of the United States, be documented under the laws of the United States;

(2) which is used for activities pursuant to this subchapter, comply, except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, with such minimum standards of design, construction, alteration, and repair as the
Secretary or the Secretary of the Department in which the Coast Guard is operating establishes; and

(3) which is used at any time after the one-year period beginning on the effective date of such regulations for activities pursuant to this subchapter, be manned or crewed, except as provided in
subsection © of this section, by citizens of the United States or aliens lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence.

(b) Exceptions from design, construction, alteration, and repair requirements:

The regulations issued under subsection (a)(2) of this section shall not apply to any vessel, rig, platform, or other vehicle or structure built prior to September 18, 1978, until such time after such date as such vehicle or structure is rebuilt.

B Exceptions from manning requirements: [/B]

The regulations issued under subsection (a)(3) of this section shall not apply—

(1) to any vessel, rig, platform, or other vehicle or structure if—

(A) specific contractual provisions or national registry manning requirements in effect on September 18, 1978, provide to the contrary;

(B) there are not a sufficient number of citizens of the United States, or aliens lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence, qualified and available for such work;
or

© the President makes a specific finding, with respect to the particular vessel, rig, platform, or other vehicle or structure, that application would not be consistent with the national
interest; and

(2) to any vessel, rig, platform, or other vehicle or structure, over 50 percent of which is owned by citizens of a foreign nation or with respect to which the citizens of a foreign nation have the right
effectively to control, except to the extent and to the degree that the President determines that the government of such foreign nation or any of its political subdivisions has implemented, by statute,
regulation, policy, or practice, a national manning requirement for equipment engaged in the exploration, development, or production of oil and gas in its offshore areas.

14

Are there any US flagged vessels with foreign crew in the GoM and have been doing that for a while?

15

There is NO Jones Act vessel that can install those umbilicals or manifolds.

The jumpers and flying leads from what I understand can be had with a waiver. The DB50 will be doing the manifold and I guess the associated jumpers. A PSV/OSV may be hired to transport the manifold & jumpers from shore to the site so the DB50 can lift them off and install.

The NO102 will be doing the umbilicals. And no, a Jones Act PSV/OSV can not transport the umbilical.

McDermott does bid out a lot of the support stuff that is not released to the public, ie OSV/PSV support. Same for EMAS and others.

16

McDermott has acquired a “brand new” and large CSV built in Germany: http://www.osjonline.com/news/view,iceona-amazoni-acquisition-gives-mcdermott-ticket-to-tier-1_46297.htm

Actually it has been around a while, but apparently have never worked: http://www.ship-technology.com/projects/-ceona-amazon-pipelay-construction-vessel-uk/

No idea if it will be used in the GoM, or if it will be manned by Americans.
Any insider info here??

17

[QUOTE=awulfclark;158440]There might be something I’m missing here, something I’m not understanding, but reading your pasted article, I’m not sure I see what’s illegal about this, exactly? It sounds to me like this company is picking up gear that’s being built in the US, and then taking it well offshore for installation. So I’m not sure the Jones Act applies in this case. If this outfit was moving this gear from one US port to another US port, then yes, but I don’t see anything in the article to indicate that’s the case. Or even if they were moving this gear from a US port to an installation within twelve miles of shore.

I’d surely love it if they opted for the US flag when moving this stuff of course, but I don’t see where they’re obligated to by law.

Enlighten me, please.[/QUOTE]

Without a port clearance in another country i reckon they break the rules on the second trip?

18

They are not transporting equipment between US ports. The fields are 280 nm south of NO and at a depth of 7200’, which places them beyond the limits of the Outer Continental Shelf and therefore in International Waters.
I’m all for the Jones Act but how does it apply here?

19

[QUOTE=Lee Shore;194911]They are not transporting equipment between US ports. The fields are 280 nm south of NO and at a depth of 7200’, which places them beyond the limits of the Outer Continental Shelf and therefore in International Waters.
I’m all for the Jones Act but how does it apply here?[/QUOTE]

Maybe a lawyer, a GIS specialist, and a geologist need put their heads together. https://www.boem.gov/outer-continental-shelf/

I see there is a CBP office in New Orleans dedicated specifically to the purpose of determining the applicability of OCS regs to Jone Act voyages.

https://www.bakerlaw.com/alerts/cbp-increases-jones-act-enforcement

Maybe someone should drop a note to the new administration.

20

Now I learnt something new again; there are three different nautical measurements used in the US law:

State jurisdiction is defined as follows:

Texas and the Gulf coast of Florida are extended 3 marine leagues (9 nautical miles) seaward from the baseline from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured.
Louisiana is extended 3 U.S. nautical miles (U.S. nautical mile = 6080.2 feet) seaward of the baseline from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured.
All other States’ seaward limits are extended 3 International Nautical Miles (International Nautical Miles = 6076.10333 feet) seaward of the baseline from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured.

Which rises some questions:
Which Nautical mile is used in the Marine league?
Are US charts using the US Nautical mile? If so, is that stated on the charts? Are there a correction given?
I presume, if you are “platform jumping” in the GoM a difference of some 4.1 ft/n.mile doesn’t matter much for navigation, but if you cross oceans it all adds up.

On another subject;
How far from the baseline does the US claim EEZ in the GoM?
If exceeding 200 n.miles from the baseline, has this been claimed per UNCLOS? (US being a signatory, but not ratified)
Has a median line been agreed and recognized by the neighbouring countries? (I.e. Cuba, Mexico)
Since the distance from the Mississippi delta to the Yucatan Peninsula is not more than abt. 450 (Int’l)N.miles and another 25 n.miles to Cuba, there isn’t much to spare.