Having just been there, the answer is yes.
Yes, Newport News is an offloading port for scallops… Not sure why that rig was heading in to Oregon Inlet of all places.
Going to Wanchese for some reason or another?
Might have been headed there for expensive repairs and when she went aground, the owner decided to cut his losses.
The CG station at the inlet is well aware of it obviously but as an agency there’s little they can do. The wreck is now a slowly sinking beach decoration.
How recent is “just”??
With the recent development in the US there is a ban on US travelers to Europe. UK is a part of Europe, whether they like it or not.
Three weeks ago Bugge.
Tourism is indeed shut down. Seamen are not tourists and we’re being allowed to go ashore.
Even in the UK…
Good. Hope that is reciprocated in the US. (??)
Give it a rest; our country, our rules. I am sure you would be thrilled with a boat load of flannel and denim wearing, dip spitting US mariners working your internal waters, right?
2 Likes
The "flannel and denim wearing, dip spitting US mariners and Drillers were plentiful on the Norwegian continental shelf in the 1970s and into the 80s, as they were in other parts of the world where the offshore oil & gas industry was active at the time.I worked with plenty of them In S.E.Asia, India, Middle East and West Africa at the time.
PS> Not many in Norwegian “internal waters” (I.e. inside territorial waters), but some lived there. (Some still do)
The rigs and boats were largely US owned, US flagged, US built, partly US manned, run by US drilling contractors and worked for US oil companies.
You don’t see much of that any more though.Is that because there are some restrictions on US vessels, rigs, companies, or personnel?
No it is not. You are welcome to send your boats and rigs to work almost anywhere in the world, but complying with international standards, rules and regulations.
In fact there are many US owned boats, rigs and not least oil companies operating internationally, but few “dip spitting US mariners” or other US personnel involved.
You may fact check that before making sweeping statements.about anti-American, America hater and troll etc.
2 Likes
I remember many decades ago everyone talking about wages Theriot was paying back then. Didn’t bite, glad I didn’t. They offered my son a job a while back, advised him not to take it. They claimed in 2015 “No layoffs”. How is that working out?
The Jones Act only applies to vessels carrying passengers or cargo between US ports. It would NOT apply to this vessel because it does not carry passengers or cargo.
For a vessel that does need to carry cargo for wind farm construction it’s simple enough to load it in Halifax or Nassau.
However, the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act does apply. The USCG passes out OCS waivers like candy to any foreign company and vessel that asks. The State Department passes out OCS visas like candy for foreign seamen and industrial personnel, because “qualified Americans” are supposedly not available. Thousands of good jobs for Americans and tax dollars are pissed away every year.
3 Likes
Exactly. The situation gets complex with the whole reason the Highland Eagle was here…build a tunnel to move pipelines under the lakebed to greatly reduce the spill risk.
One governor approves it, Governor “Gretch” and her A.G. say no; the court battle continues. Regardless, to say there were no US flag vessels available was b.s. The bright spot was an oil company paid 24/7 for pilot service for almost 4months. Penny wise, pound foolish.
2 Likes
Yes it is very sad news for US mariners and offshore wind. Yet again an industry lead by EU members has effectively used lobbying to capture the regulations to circumvent US vessels and mariners. The Customs and Border Protection issues letters of determination for foreign flag vessels working on the OCS. Jones act requires any vessel carrying passengers or cargo between any points in the US (note it does not say ports) must be made in the US, Owned by US cite end and crewed by US crews. The CBP is owned by API, AWEA, IMCA et al and routinely rule in favor of foreign flag vessels on the OCS. The CBP recently retracted a ruling agreeing that Jones act applied to wind projects in the OCS., and that could even affect GOM activities. … of the 22 ± vessels currently working for vineyard wind, and the project off Virginia 17 are foreign flagged… just spend some time looking at AIS…
With the single exception of the large jack up installation vessel (of which there are no US flagged equivalents… yet) their is not a single other job that could not be performed by US vessels. Geophysical coring from DP 2 vessels is nothing unique to offshore wind. Multi beam surveys, dragging trenching barges on a 8 point spread. Crew transfers… none of it is new to US mariners or companies.
So when these politicians tell you US offshore wind is going to bring good US jobs… just laugh… it is just more of the smoke and mirrors.
1 Like
I can’t speak for the other ports involved in offshore wind. Dominion Power is heavily involved in Virginia. A main port for delivering the equipment has rail service. cranes, and deepwater dock space. Tugs and pilots. Until we can develop our own tower service vessels, that ratio will continue. In the meantime, there will be revenue coming in to the state.
Agreed. I should be more specific. And say Jobs for US vessels or Mariners will not be coming. There is a very serious and very well funded anti Jones act lobby for the US Wind projects. The CVOW project (joint venture with Dominion and Ørsted a Norwegian company) you mention has completed the installation of the first two pylons using a foreign flagged vessel staging everything out of Halifax. And the current coring and survey work is being done by foreign flagged vessels…
1 Like
Because we don’t have the job specific vessels or expertise may be a part of that decision? Bug has raised this point quite a few times. I don’t like it, but tend to agree.
1 Like
With the exception of the installation vessel they used (M/V Vole au vent) all other jobs could be done by US vessels. The current coring and seabed testing could be done by vessels from two different large US flag companies from the GOM. I have managed one working with Furgo… Ørsted (the Offshore expertise partner with Dominion) works very hard with trade associations (AWEA, IMCA etc… ) and paid Washington lobbyist to define work as only being able to be done by non-US companies. With the lead time they have had, you cannot tell me that ECO or HOS with their amazing track records for in-house engineered solutions could not have provided US tonnage…
They may also try to make the case of EU contractors being safer… but this simply cannot be supported. The EU managed Wind sector does not have the best safety record. Even the MCA has issued warnings about this.
This is a simply case of US energy companies being “advised” by the experienced EU contractors to end running the Jones Act and keeping US mariners and US vessels side lined as EU companies running foreign vessels and crews in US waters profit…
Even on the non-vessel related work is disproportionately contracted with EU companies. Just look at the contractor lists.
Try to get the facts right. Ørsted is a Danish company that used to be an Oil & Gas company, but has now sold all it’s field in the North Sea.
Are there actually suitable US flag vessels that can do the jobs efficiently and safely at competitive terms? There must be a reason why foreign vessels mobilizing/demobilizing from Europe can compete with US based vessels?
PS> They are not manned by “3rd World personnel on slave contracts”, and/or built on yards with no environmental and labour safety laws. Nor are they of inferior standard and quality to US built ships. or owned by scrupulous predator capitalists that don’t give a sh*t about anything but profit.
My apologies on mis-quoting Ørsted home country. My point being it is not a US company.
And regarding US tonnage availability. Yes it is certainly available (with the one exception of the large jack up installation vessel) Can it compete price wise with foreign tonnage? Not against EU ship building subsidies, use of flags if convenience and foreign crews. For example the installation vessel (M/V Vole au Vent IMO-9655315) was originally built in a heavily subsidized polish ship yard(CRIST SA) in 2013 and was acquired by Jan De Nul in 2015 (formerly the M/V VIDAR) it was renamed by the Queen of Belgium and re-flagged to Luxembourg to allow foreign crewing. It recieved its Huisman monopile gripper needed for the job in June 2019.
My points being:
-
The US CBP is supporting and empowering the circumvention of the intent of the Jones Act and allowing foreign companies, vessels and crews to displace US companies, vessels and crews that can most certainty do the work.
-
it’s impossible for US vessel owners to compete with subsidized ship yards, flags of convince and foreign crews. But on the US OCS they should not have to.
It is a big lie for these companies to advertise US Wind is US jobs… it clearly is not true for the maritime components of these projects.
And trying to assert that the US maritime industry cannot provide the specialized tonnage, trained mariners and offshore support personnel is just ridiculous and it’s pathetic the CBP is drinking that crazy kool-aid.
1 Like
So you want to ban foreign investment in US OCS (EEZ) project of any kind?
And ban all foreign vessels from participating in any activity in the same area?
Do you also want US companies and investors from participate in project outside USA?
And US offshore vessels limited to operate in US EEZ only?