Sunday, September 16, 2012

Jonesin for a Change in the Jones Act


Oil and the Ghost of 1920

"The Jones Act, known formally as the Merchant Marine Act of 1920, requires that any shipment from one U.S. port to another be carried on vessels built in the U.S., owned by U.S. citizens, and operated by a U.S. crew. The restrictions, in part, reflected Washington's post-World War I desire to have a guaranteed merchant marine..."

I will be honest.  I had never heard of the Merchant Marine Act of 1920 aka the Jones Act before I read this story in the WSJ.

The point of the article is the increased supply of oil coming from Canada and Bakken to the US Gulf Coast is straining our supply of ships to carry wet freight from USGC to the refineries of the Northeast.  Some refiners have moved to using trains to carry oil east.

"John Demopoulos of Argus Media, which tracks pricing, estimates that foreign-flagged carriers could move oil from the Gulf Coast to the Northeast for about 1.20 USD per barrel, compared with 4 USD per barrel on U.S. ships...Already the Northeast refineries are turning to more costly rail transport (sufficient West-East pipelines don't exist)"

This has led to renewed calls to relax the Jones Act.  Is the act pure protectionism which advantages the Marine industry while costing consumers?  or are there real national interests in keeping the act in place.  It seems to me that the restriction that

(1) vessels be built in the US - The argument is that we need a US shipbuilding industry for the military - however the US already produces a "negligible" percentage of the worlds ships.  The world's largest ship producers are South Korea (37.5% 2011), China (33.7%), Japan (17.3%).  This seems like pure protectionism - scrap it.

(2) vessels be owned by US citizens could be revised to force ships moving freight US to US be flagged in the US and thus operate under US laws and taxing authority.

(3) operated by a US crew could be revised to require crew to fall under US labor laws and conditions.  I guess I would not be opposed to restricting employment to persons with US work authorizations - the same conditions for any worker in the US.


No comments: