Blogs

Bruce, I've been given permission to post a copy of a rebuttal written to the CSM in response to its Jones Act editorial. One interesting point is the there is an exemption already in the law for use of non-Jones Act oil skimmers:
Ladies & Gentlemen:

The Patrik Jonsson "Jones Act" articles dated June 16 and June 19, evidence a mischaracterization of the maritime laws of the United States when they suggest that the Jones Act is the cause of our not having foreign vessels available to deal with our oil spill disaster. And, they do not advance your readers' understanding of the issues involved when the lead-ins characterize the governing U.S. legal regime as one in which:

"The Jones Act prevents foreign skimmers and tankers from helping with the Gulf oil spill cleanup." Patrik Jonsson, Staff writer / June 16, 2010; and

"Pressure is building . . . to lift a 1920 protectionist law so that high-tech foreign skimmers can help with the Gulf oil spill." Patrik Jonsson, Staff writer / June 19, 2010.

First, the Jones Act specifically allows of use of qualifying foreign "oil spill response vessels" without the need for Jones Act waivers (46 U.S.C. 55113).
Second, as of Monday, June 15th, there were in fact already 15 foreign vessels involved in the response (without any Jones Act waivers having been requested or required).
Third, while the Jones Act prohibits foreign vessels from transporting merchandise between points in the U.S., foreign vessels (in addition to "oil spill response vessels") can conduct a variety of operations associated with the oil spill response cleanup without the need for a waiver.
Fourth, there appears to be no reason to question the accuracy of Admiral Thad Allen's announcement that expedited treatment would be given to any Jones Act waiver requests that would be received -- "While we have not seen any need to waive the Jones Act . . . . Should any waivers be needed, we are prepared to process them . . . to allow vital spill response activities being undertaken by foreign-flagged vessel to be [undertaken and] continued without delay."
Finally, the Jonsson articles do not appear to present any evidence that the Jones Act has in fact been an impediment to the response to the current disaster, or that the current disaster provides any justification for the repeal of the Jones Act provisions which the articles might appear to advocate.



The writer is a member of the District of Columbia and New York bars, and has been involved with Jones Act interpretations for more than 40 years in both private and public sector capacities. He served as General Counsel of the U.S. Maritime Administration from 1970 until 1973, and is a long-time member of The Maritime Law Association of the United States. He is counsel to Seward & Kissel LLP, a New York City based law practice.

H. Clayton Cook, Jr.

Seward & Kissel LLP
100 G Street N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005
202 661 7185

Bruce:
There is a good concise article on what caused the Deepwater Horizon disaster at:
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6493
When it comes to cutting corners, I find the adage that always seems to apply is "It's not a problem until you have a problem". It distresses me how red flags were overlooked, especially in this sophisticated operation. You can be sure there are alot of woulda, coulda, shoulda's now being muttered.

Thank you for sharing, Professor Johnson.
The centrifugal oil-water separator is an effective method to clean up the oil collected on the sea surface and ought to be closely related to the well established oil purifier technology. Example: http://www.marinediesels.info/2_stroke_engine_parts/Other_info/purifiers.htm
It is also mentioned in the media regarding Kevin Costner's clean-up solution to the oil spill: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-oil-spill-hollywood-20100521,0,2351299.story
I am intrigued by how the centrifuge would be able to handle the thick and viscous oil slick, which will likely clog up the separator system. I'm very grateful to open this for discussion so that young and eager engineers, like myself, may gain some insights.
In my humble opinion, a coarse filter ought to be placed at the receiver/sea chest to block out the sticky oil slick from entering the system. Perhaps a suitable material for the coarse filter could be hemp, or something fibrous. Next, the thick oil that escape the coarse filter could be heat-treated along the piping to reduce its viscosity. Thus, after the heating stage, the oily water should be in the right condition to be separated by the centrifuge.
I look forward to seeing the authorities hastening their efforts in cleaning up the oil spill. Many fishermen's livelihoods may be in jeopardy if the clean-up efforts are prolonged.