Posted:
January 13, 2011
A report requested by President Obama and prepared by the non-partisan National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling confirms the Jones Act - America's preeminent cabotage law - in no way prevented or hindered cleanup efforts following the disaster.
"While decision makers did decline to purchase some foreign equipment for operational reasons - for example, Dutch vessels that would have taken weeks to outfit and sail to the region, and a Taiwanese super-skimmer that was expensive and highly inefficient in the Gulf - they did not reject foreign ships because of Jones Act restrictions," the report stated. "When the [Jones] Act did apply, the national incident commander appears to have granted waivers and exemptions when requested."
The report reiterates statements made by those managing the cleanup efforts during the disaster. National Incident Commander Adm. Thad Allen said: "at no time" had the Jones Act inhibited operations. A U.S. Department of Transportation statement also made "absolutely clear ... the Jones Act has not hindered the cleanup effort."
The Jones Act reserves waterborne cargo transportation in U.S. domestic trades for American vessels, mariners and companies. The Jones Act does not apply to skimming operations further than three miles from shore. Most of the skimming taking place during the cleanup efforts happened much further out, as the drilling site was 50 miles from shore. The commission concluded that, for skimming near the shore, an expedited Jones Act waiver process enabled foreign vessels to participate when necessary.
Non-partisan commission confirms: Jones Act did not hinder Gulf cleanup
A report requested by President Obama and prepared by the non-partisan National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling confirms the Jones Act - America's preeminent cabotage law - in no way prevented or hindered cleanup efforts following the disaster.
"While decision makers did decline to purchase some foreign equipment for operational reasons - for example, Dutch vessels that would have taken weeks to outfit and sail to the region, and a Taiwanese super-skimmer that was expensive and highly inefficient in the Gulf - they did not reject foreign ships because of Jones Act restrictions," the report stated. "When the [Jones] Act did apply, the national incident commander appears to have granted waivers and exemptions when requested."
The report reiterates statements made by those managing the cleanup efforts during the disaster. National Incident Commander Adm. Thad Allen said: "at no time" had the Jones Act inhibited operations. A U.S. Department of Transportation statement also made "absolutely clear ... the Jones Act has not hindered the cleanup effort."
The Jones Act reserves waterborne cargo transportation in U.S. domestic trades for American vessels, mariners and companies. The Jones Act does not apply to skimming operations further than three miles from shore. Most of the skimming taking place during the cleanup efforts happened much further out, as the drilling site was 50 miles from shore. The commission concluded that, for skimming near the shore, an expedited Jones Act waiver process enabled foreign vessels to participate when necessary.