Patterico's Pontifications

6/21/2010

The Jones Act Waiver

Filed under: Government,Obama — DRJ @ 8:22 pm



[Guest post by DRJ]

Day 62 of the BP Oil Spill and President Obama still hasn’t waived the Jones Act nor has he issued orders that would involve more American ships. Robert Bluey at Fox News asks “Why not?” The Christian Science Monitor has the answer: The Obama Administration has already decided to accept assistance from foreign ships, waiver or no waiver.

To waive or not to waive? The Obama Administration seems more focused on getting around laws than complying with them, but it might be good to get those skimmers.

— DRJ

UPDATE: Florida Senator George LeMieux says President Obama said he couldn’t deploy skimmers because they might be needed elsewhere.

H/T JD.

33 Responses to “The Jones Act Waiver”

  1. Why is the Jones Act enforced but our Immigration Laws ignored?

    HeavenSent (a9126d)

  2. Amen, DRJ. Getting around instead of complying. Forcing instead of getting legislation. Screwing secured creditors. Deeming things passed. It is like they just want to make up the laws to fit what they want to do.

    Did you see this Bloomberg article?

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-06-17/bp-struggled-with-cracks-in-gulf-well-as-early-as-february-documents-show.html

    JD (41e5f8)

  3. My ability to link is Teh Suck. Sorry.

    JD (41e5f8)

  4. how about we repeal it?

    happyfeet (19c1da)

  5. Clint Eastwood – Heartbreak Ridge – It’s a clusterf**k.

    daleyrocks (1d0d98)

  6. Easier to ignore it when expedient, happyfeet.

    JD (41e5f8)

  7. The press person today said that Haywood should install skimming equipment on his yacht and bring it over. This would be a violation of the Jones Act, so maybe they’re thinking about it. Or not thinking. BoB would be a poor base for a skimmer.

    htom (412a17)

  8. Thanks, JD. I just posted on the Bloomberg article and updated this post with the LeMieux story.

    DRJ (d43dcd)

  9. Laws? Laws? We don’t need no stinkin’ Laws!
    I Won!

    First the comment to Kyle, and now this to LeMieux.
    We ARE Argentina.

    AD - RtR/OS! (a2aeeb)

  10. Red state/Blue POTUS = Red State loses?

    Maybe he is holding out for “comprehensive immigration reform” on this item as well?

    This POTUS is utterly despicable.

    {^_^}

    JD (9ac83d)

  11. Haywood should install skimming equipment on his yacht and bring it over

    It might not be a Jones Act violation. “Bob” was designed by Farr Yacht Design of Annapolis MD, but the question is what yard constructed her?
    If Farr had her built in the U.S., all it would take is to have her retitled to a U.S. entity, and crewed by Americans, and she would be in compliance with the Jones Act.

    AD - RtR/OS! (a2aeeb)

  12. General question: can someone explain or point to an explanation of why the Jones Act would even apply here? As far as I can tell, cabotage–transporting cargo or passengers from one domestic port to another–isn’t actually involved. (Which might be way the administration thinks a waiver is not needed.)

    kishnevi (1c7e15)

  13. They would be picking up oil in Territorial Waters, bringing it to a Gulf terminal for discharge, and then returning to Territorial Waters for more oil, rinse and repeat.
    That is the cabotage – the oil – and the fact that they would be in and out of a U.S. port without an intervening foreign port.

    AD - RtR/OS! (a2aeeb)

  14. And, it is really not the skimming vessels that are the problem, it is whatever they pump the recovered oil into for transport to a terminal.
    Like combines working a field of wheat, you would want to keep them working and have a shuttle relay of transport vessels for the oil to be transfered to.

    AD - RtR/OS! (a2aeeb)

  15. Most Farr 52 are constructed at DK Yacht in Malaisia. Bob, as I understand it, used to be Prince Andrew’s Bear of Britain, but where either (if not the same hull) was made is unclear (as is whether or not Bob is a Farr 52 or the predecessor of that design series, and where she (or they) was made.)

    It’s still not clear, too, whether or not Hayward sailed on her in the race.

    htom (412a17)

  16. Neither “Bob”, nor “Bear of Britain”, are listed in the design lists at Farr’s website.

    AD - RtR/OS! (a2aeeb)

  17. > Florida Senator George LeMieux says President Obama said he couldn’t deploy skimmers because they might be needed elsewhere.

    But of course. See the idea is the skimmers are there for emergencies. And clearly this doesn’t count.

    (yes, sarcasm intended.)

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  18. I may be stupid, but I don’t understand the concept of refraining from using skimmers from a known problem to save them for a problem that might come up in the future. Is that some kind of new management philosophy they’re teaching in the Ivy League these days?

    rochf (ae9c58)

  19. rochf, what if there was a spill near a blue state? Pretty scary possibility. We better save some reserve skimmers to ensure we’re ready. The red states will be ok in a few hundred years anyway.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  20. Further digging finds clues to unravel the story. Prince Andrew’s Bear of Britain was launched in London, sold and renamed Bob (Prince Andrew wanting to keep her name, it appears to have been reused?). She is a Farr 52 OD (One Design), design number 444 on the Farr list. The DK Yacht series Farr 520 is the same hull and appendages, but with a minimal cruising interior, design number 444m2 (and who is 444m1, I wonder?); I don’t know if they’d be able to race boat-to-boat with unmodified Farr 52s (and if they did, they’d lose, would be my guess, too much weight to haul about.)

    Launched in London, Jones Act applies.

    htom (412a17)

  21. htom…launched perhaps, but constructed where?
    The hull and superstructure could have been built elsewhere, and she could have just been “fitted out” and commissioned at a London yard.

    That’s a good dig BTW. But, what is the design number of “Bob”? 444 seems to be the curren “Bear”, not the older one which is now “Bob”.

    AD - RtR/OS! (2480c8)

  22. A further (closer) look at Farr’s design list seems to indicate that the original Bear (design #444 – now Bob) was constructed in 1999, where the current Bear (design #444M2) was constructed in 2002.

    AD - RtR/OS! (2480c8)

  23. My understanding is that the design work was done in 1999, and that BoB (née Bear of Britain), who is one of (not necessarily the first of) a series of boats built to design 444, and she was launched in 2001. The “new Bear” is a different boat, but is also a Farr 52 OD (design 444), and not a Farr 520 (design 444m2.) There’s no sure relation between the names of boats and the name (if any) of the series.

    htom (412a17)

  24. Comment by htom — 6/22/2010 @ 1:41 pm

    I sent an email to Farr asking for a clarification.
    We’ll see if they respond.

    AD - RtR/OS! (2480c8)

  25. They would actually know! Genius!

    htom (412a17)

  26. Dustin–at the rate Obama is going, most of the East Coast is going to be red by this time next year. The only problem is whether we can all survive until then.

    rochf (ae9c58)

  27. htom…
    Farr Yacht Design confirms that BoB nee Bear of Britain, was built by Ovington Boats in Great Britain.

    AD - RtR/OS! (6f143b)

  28. This is turning into a very sad joke. Common sense states that every barrel of oil skimmed or burned on the ocean is a barrel of oil that doesn’t reach the shore. The Jones Act should have been waivered immediately.

    1uscitizen (fb0da5)

  29. The Jones Act doesn’t apply turn off Faux News and look up the Jones Act. Here is a link
    http://factcheck.org/2010/06/oil-spill-foreign-help-and-the-jones-act/

    Ralph Jones (6bf310)

  30. “Faux News” – first clue to a troller.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  31. factcheck.org?

    Might as well just link to Moveon.org.

    Of course it applies. It’s actually worse if it didn’t, because the President should show enough leadership to avoid all these problems and make clear what is and is not acceptable, what regs do and do not apply, with clarity. Instead, we have every cleanup effort actively screwed with by a mess of bureaucrats.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  32. “A mess of bureaucrats . . .” Isn’t that the official side-dish served at an Anarchist’s Ball?

    Stan (216150)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.3557 secs.