Tweet
Here's The Real Reason America Refused International Help On The Oil Spill
U.S. Refused Help on Oil Spill
According to Foreign Policy, thirteen entities that had offered the U.S. oil spill assistance within about two weeks of the Horizon rig explosion. They were the governments of Canada, Croatia, France, Germany, Ireland, Mexico, the Netherlands, Norway, Romania, Republic of Korea, Spain, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the United Nations.
The U.S. response - Thank you, but no thank you, we've got it (Bahahahaha).
Huh?
Separately, a Dutch news site De Standaard also reported Belgian and Dutch dredgers have technology in-house to fight the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, but the Act Jones forbids them to work in the U.S.
A Belgian group--DEME-- contends it can clean up the oil in three to four months with specialty vessel and equipment, rather than an estimated nine months if done only by the U.S. The article noted there are no more than 5 or 6 of those ships in the world and the top specialist players are the two Belgian companies- DEME and De Nul - and their Dutch competitors.
The U.S. does not have the similar technology and vessel to accomplish the cleanup task because those ships would cost twice as much to build in the U.S. than in the Far East. The article further criticizes this "great technological delay" is a direct consequence of the Jones Act.
WHAT IS THE JONES ACT?
The Merchant Marine Act of 1920 is a United States Federal statute that regulates maritime commerce in U.S. waters and between U.S. ports. Section 27, also known as the Jones Act, deals with coastal shipping; and requires that all goods transported by water between U.S. ports be carried in U.S.-flag ships, constructed in the United States, owned by U.S. citizens, and crewed by U.S. citizens and U.S. permanent residents.
The purpose of the law is to support the U.S. merchant marine industry.
Critics said that the legislation results in increased costs moving cargoes between U.S. ports, and in essence, is protectionism. Supporters of the Act maintain that the legislation is of strategic economic and wartime interest to the United States.
Read more:
http://www.businessinsider.com/heres...#ixzz0qYLJ4oV4
U.S. Refused Help on Oil Spill
According to Foreign Policy, thirteen entities that had offered the U.S. oil spill assistance within about two weeks of the Horizon rig explosion. They were the governments of Canada, Croatia, France, Germany, Ireland, Mexico, the Netherlands, Norway, Romania, Republic of Korea, Spain, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the United Nations.
The U.S. response - Thank you, but no thank you, we've got it (Bahahahaha).
Huh?
Separately, a Dutch news site De Standaard also reported Belgian and Dutch dredgers have technology in-house to fight the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, but the Act Jones forbids them to work in the U.S.
A Belgian group--DEME-- contends it can clean up the oil in three to four months with specialty vessel and equipment, rather than an estimated nine months if done only by the U.S. The article noted there are no more than 5 or 6 of those ships in the world and the top specialist players are the two Belgian companies- DEME and De Nul - and their Dutch competitors.
The U.S. does not have the similar technology and vessel to accomplish the cleanup task because those ships would cost twice as much to build in the U.S. than in the Far East. The article further criticizes this "great technological delay" is a direct consequence of the Jones Act.
WHAT IS THE JONES ACT?
The Merchant Marine Act of 1920 is a United States Federal statute that regulates maritime commerce in U.S. waters and between U.S. ports. Section 27, also known as the Jones Act, deals with coastal shipping; and requires that all goods transported by water between U.S. ports be carried in U.S.-flag ships, constructed in the United States, owned by U.S. citizens, and crewed by U.S. citizens and U.S. permanent residents.
The purpose of the law is to support the U.S. merchant marine industry.
Critics said that the legislation results in increased costs moving cargoes between U.S. ports, and in essence, is protectionism. Supporters of the Act maintain that the legislation is of strategic economic and wartime interest to the United States.
Read more:
http://www.businessinsider.com/heres...#ixzz0qYLJ4oV4
Comment