Peter, I participated in the T&I committee roundtable this week. Yes, we discussed reviving the U.S. maritime industry, but I don’t recall any of us suggesting that non-Jones Act US ships trading internationally should not be built overseas. Just not in China. U.S. shipyards must focus on government and Jones Act domestic trade ships, maintenance and repair, and bolstering their local supply chain and labor.
You should have noticed that the discussion centered on the statistic that only 0.4% of seagoing commercial ships are U.S. flag. This is an issue for import/export concern as well as for supporting military sealift and maintaining freedom of sea routes. None of the 80 international sea-going US flag commercial ships were built in the U.S. They don’t have to be. U.S. importers/exporters simply need to start using U.S. flagged ships instead of foreign flagged ships. Hundreds of U.S. owned commercial ships could be reflagged overnight with a relatively minor U.S. policy change and U.S. consumer support.
Regarding Bollinger’s icebreaker experience, as the shipbuilding arm of Chouest, they built the Aiviq for polar service. The USCG has been authorized to lease or buy Aiviq as an interim solution to help bridge the icebreaker gap.
Thank you for your comment- I do appreciate you joining the conversation. I'm always happy to respectfully engage with anyone who will do the same.
Thanks for the clarification regarding the round table. In re-watching that part of the video, the discussion does seem to shift from Jones Act ships to U.S. flagged vessels. As those on the panel were using the term "American ships" in calling for tax incentives and cargo preference laws, their testimony was confusing at best. As this portion of the discussion directly followed a discussion about enforcement of the Jones Act when it comes to offshore support vessels for wind farms and other work on the continental shelf, it still isn't clear to me exactly whether those individuals were limiting their answers to U.S. flagged vessels.
With regard to Aiviq- it may have been built to operate in polar waters, but not as an icebreaker. It was built as an anchor handling tug/supply vessel to support oil exploration off of Alaska. These are not the same functions. Several year ago, the U.S. Coast Guard assessed commercially available icebreaking vessels for possible lease or purchase. Aiviq wasn't the preferred choice; it just so happened to be the only one built in the USA.
Many of the experts I know who work in icebreaking are curious as to the extent of the modifications the Aiviq will require, suggesting that its current propulsion configuration- ducted, controllable-pitch propellers- make it unsuitable as an icebreaker. And if you've been following the Aiviq saga, you know that the USCG rejected the suggestion that it purchase Aiviq for years, until it finally realized that it had no other option. That is, no other option except for the lease or purchase of purpose built escort icebreakers designed and built in foreign shipyards. That was deemed too politically sensitive, and as such died off quietly in 2021 following President Biden's inauguration, likely for political reasons.
Ideally, we will have another roundtable on the Senate side and be more clear. For Jones Act ships, we simply want enforcement of the law. For all other U.S. flagged commercial ships, (the country is down to just 80) cargo incentives and stipends are needed or we will soon have none.
Thanks for the interesting article. Although I do not follow the Artic it is obviously a key area of interest for the US, Russia and China so is absolutely worth watching.
Peter, I participated in the T&I committee roundtable this week. Yes, we discussed reviving the U.S. maritime industry, but I don’t recall any of us suggesting that non-Jones Act US ships trading internationally should not be built overseas. Just not in China. U.S. shipyards must focus on government and Jones Act domestic trade ships, maintenance and repair, and bolstering their local supply chain and labor.
You should have noticed that the discussion centered on the statistic that only 0.4% of seagoing commercial ships are U.S. flag. This is an issue for import/export concern as well as for supporting military sealift and maintaining freedom of sea routes. None of the 80 international sea-going US flag commercial ships were built in the U.S. They don’t have to be. U.S. importers/exporters simply need to start using U.S. flagged ships instead of foreign flagged ships. Hundreds of U.S. owned commercial ships could be reflagged overnight with a relatively minor U.S. policy change and U.S. consumer support.
Regarding Bollinger’s icebreaker experience, as the shipbuilding arm of Chouest, they built the Aiviq for polar service. The USCG has been authorized to lease or buy Aiviq as an interim solution to help bridge the icebreaker gap.
Thank you for your comment- I do appreciate you joining the conversation. I'm always happy to respectfully engage with anyone who will do the same.
Thanks for the clarification regarding the round table. In re-watching that part of the video, the discussion does seem to shift from Jones Act ships to U.S. flagged vessels. As those on the panel were using the term "American ships" in calling for tax incentives and cargo preference laws, their testimony was confusing at best. As this portion of the discussion directly followed a discussion about enforcement of the Jones Act when it comes to offshore support vessels for wind farms and other work on the continental shelf, it still isn't clear to me exactly whether those individuals were limiting their answers to U.S. flagged vessels.
With regard to Aiviq- it may have been built to operate in polar waters, but not as an icebreaker. It was built as an anchor handling tug/supply vessel to support oil exploration off of Alaska. These are not the same functions. Several year ago, the U.S. Coast Guard assessed commercially available icebreaking vessels for possible lease or purchase. Aiviq wasn't the preferred choice; it just so happened to be the only one built in the USA.
Many of the experts I know who work in icebreaking are curious as to the extent of the modifications the Aiviq will require, suggesting that its current propulsion configuration- ducted, controllable-pitch propellers- make it unsuitable as an icebreaker. And if you've been following the Aiviq saga, you know that the USCG rejected the suggestion that it purchase Aiviq for years, until it finally realized that it had no other option. That is, no other option except for the lease or purchase of purpose built escort icebreakers designed and built in foreign shipyards. That was deemed too politically sensitive, and as such died off quietly in 2021 following President Biden's inauguration, likely for political reasons.
Ideally, we will have another roundtable on the Senate side and be more clear. For Jones Act ships, we simply want enforcement of the law. For all other U.S. flagged commercial ships, (the country is down to just 80) cargo incentives and stipends are needed or we will soon have none.
Buy the icebreakers from the Finns. Uncle needs to commit to buying at least 2 freighters and 2 tankers from US shipbuilders a year for the Navy.
Good article, but I just can’t help thinking that Trudeau wants something for nothing.
Thanks for the interesting article. Although I do not follow the Artic it is obviously a key area of interest for the US, Russia and China so is absolutely worth watching.