Good One

/

Did I mention we should hang these people?

/

To protect the public, scientists must unite against administration’s encroachment

The Trump administration is brash in fighting science and evidence that does not fit its COVID-19 ‘messaging.’

Why yes, I believe I did, just two days ago. So bring them down, and hang them again.

Now She Tells Us...

David Strom:

Saying what Deborah Birx just did to Piers Morgan got people banned across social media, called "conspiracy theorists," "vaccine deniers," and accused of killing grandmas. 

We are in the "now it can be told" phase of history, in which all the liars who made their fortunes and reputations by lying to you are now increasing their fortunes and reputations by admitting that they lied to you. 

Nobody's gonna steal MY house!

/

Or, apparently, buy it. 29 Lockwood Drive, Old Greenwich, spent 208 days on the market before its listing expired December 31st. It’s back again today, at that same failed price of $4.495 $4.995 million. I’ve written on this house before, back when it took its first and so far, only price “adjustment”, and I’ll probably have occasion to revisit it again — perhaps in June? :

September 30, 2024Chris Fountain

After 116 days on the market, a 2% price cut

29 Lockwood Drive, slashed from $5.095 million to $4.995. 4,566 sq. ft. plus an additional 1,587 sq. ft. for, it is claimed, “garaging” that will accommodate 8 cars. The house itself is outside of the flood zone — barely — so we’ll assume that your underground Ferrari collection will stay dry, maybe; not so sure about that backyard pool, but isn’t it in the nature of pools to be wet?

All Hail the King of the World

/

And trains! DON’T FORGET TRAINS!

Trump Is So Powerful That He's Now In Charge of Every Plane in the Sky

Fat, stupid, and predictable is no way to go through life, Democrats. 

SHOT

CHASER:

Even before the Canadian air crash, Chinese spy Eric Swalwell was already at it:

The Jones Act of 1920 — still with us, still crippling shipping in general, and LNG shipments in particular. Planes, trains, and automobiles, but no boats.

/

Here are brief portions of a couple of articles outlining the issue (no mentioned, but discussed here before, many times, is the Greens’ successful operations to block the construction of any new LNG terminals on the East Coast, from Florida to Maine. Anything that involves adding to the existing fossil fuel infrastructure: pipelines, refineries, transmission lines, and LNG terminals are to stopped, and so far, they have been.)

Antiquated Law Holding Back U.S. Supply Chain

Executive Summary:

A 1920 law, Merchant Marine Act (the Jones Act), makes water-based methods for shipping goods within the United States not price-competitive with trains and trucks, causing most freight to be transported via land.

  • In the absence of this law, water-based transit of goods would likely be much cheaper and more widely utilized.

  • A transition to water-based transit would likely increase industrial demand in well-positioned markets such as New Orleans, Tampa, Houston, and eastern port markets.

Introduction

Due to the Jones Act, a law passed in 1920, any vessel transporting freight from one U.S. port to another is subject to a strict set of legal criteria. Any ship engaging in such activity is required to 1.) be made in the United States, 2.) be owned by an American citizen, and 3.) be crewed by American citizens or legal residents. The motivation of this was to promote a domestic merchant-marine force and ship-building industry for national security and strategic reasons. However, these requirements substantially increase the cost of domestic trade by water.1 In part for this reason, the majority of U.S. domestic freight is carried by rail and truck, despite the U.S. having an extensive coastline and navigable waterways. According to data from the Census Bureau, 68.5% of U.S. domestic freight is carried by truck (41.6%) and rail (26.9%). Including freight carried by both train and rail (18.4%), this figure comes out to 86.9%. Only 5.6% of freight is carried by water, mainly via inland water in the Mississippi River.

So, how do these requirements increase shipping costs for the U.S. economy? How could supply chains improve in the absence of these restrictions, and how would this affect the industrial real estate sector?

Shipping Costs

This law imposes higher costs for domestic trade via water in two primary ways: reducing supply and competition and increasing capital and operating costs.

Supply Reduction

The simplest way this law reduces the supply of vessels to transport goods within the U.S. is by banning foreign-flagged vessels from moving goods. Effectively, the entire stock of ships (except for U.S. flagged ones) across the globe is banned from operating between U.S. ports. For example, if an international container ship going from Houston to Shenzhen were to stop at Tampa, it would be unable to unload any goods there. International carriers are competitive with the cost of trucking. One analysis found a potential cost savings of 36% for transporting from Long Beach, CA to Memphis, TN via ship (assuming international costs) relative to train.

And then there’s this, from 2023:

New CBP Jones Act Ruling Prevents Release of Vapor from LNG Loaded at 1st U.S. Port during Loading at 2nd U.S. Port

The Jones Act is a challenge for the LNG industry in the United States. The Jones Act requires that all vessels used to transport merchandise between points in the United States satisfy certain requirements: to be Jones Act compliant, vessels must be U.S.-built, U.S.-owned, U.S.-flagged, U.S.-operated and U.S.-crewed, subject to certain limited exceptions. 

No Jones Act Compliant LNG Tanker

There is currently no Jones Act compliant LNG tanker, and therefore, no LNG tanker can move LNG between U.S. terminals—for example from the Gulf region, where many LNG plants are located, to regions where there is a need for LNG, such as Puerto Rico or New England. As a result, the vessels that pick LNG up from U.S. terminals are all directed to non-U.S. terminals, and the vessels that deliver LNG to U.S. terminals all come from non-U.S. terminals. There are some Jones Act compliant barges that can handle minor operations, such as moving a small quantity of LNG from the shore to a tanker that is waiting at a U.S. anchorage point in order to cool its tanks down. These barges cannot move large quantities of LNG between the regions of the United States that export LNG, and those that need it.

This situation is unlikely to change in the near future. From a commercial perspective, there is probably no business case to invest in building the first Jones Act compliant LNG tanker, because such a vessel will be too expensive to be competitive in the international market, and there is currently not enough domestic need to keep such a vessel employed in the United States only. And from a legal perspective, the federal agency in charge of enforcing the Jones Act’s requirements on the coastwise transportation of merchandise, Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”), has not given any indication that it intends to relax these requirements for the LNG industry.

New CBP Ruling on Two-Part-Loads Scenario

CBP issued on November 14, 2023 a Jones Act ruling (HQ H335463) that further limits the types of operations that foreign LNG tankers can undertake in the United States. As a result of this new ruling, in addition to being precluded from loading U.S.-bound LNG, foreign tankers will be precluded from loading several part cargoes of foreign-bound LNG at several U.S. terminals. 

This is because, when an LNG tanker loads a first part cargo at a first U.S. terminal, and then loads another part cargo at another U.S. terminal, a small portion of the LNG loaded at the first terminal must be released through the vapor return lines at the second terminal, in the form of vaporized LNG or boil-off gas, in order to control pressure levels in the tanks of the LNG tanker during the second loading operation. CBP has held that this is not permissible because the vaporized LNG is transported from the first to the second terminal on a vessel that is not Jones Act compliant in violation of the Jones Act. 

CBP noted in the ruling that the release of vapor at the second terminal is necessary for safety reasons, but emphasized that the Jones Act does not contain any exception for safety considerations. CBP has also previously refused to recognize any de minimis exception to the Jones Act, such that the minimal quantity and value of the product—in this case, the boil-off gas—does not avoid the need to use a Jones Act compliant vessel for any intra-U.S. movement.

Implications for the U.S. LNG Industry

The new CBP ruling effectively prevents the loading of two part cargoes of LNG at two different U.S. terminals, and it can have broader implications as well.  For example, even the transfer of a small quantity of LNG to a tanker for gas-up or cool-down purposes at a location in the United States, prior to a loading operation at a different location in the United States, could be found to violate the Jones Act in view of CBP’s reasoning in the recent ruling: a small part of the LNG transferred for gas-up or cool-down purposes will also be returned to the shore through the vapor lines during the loading operation, and that LNG will arguably have been transported between two points in the United States on a vessel that is not Jones Act compliant.

But there’s a Trump card available:

Jones Act provisions can be waived by the Secretary of Homeland Security.

The Jones Act

The most far reaching of the coastwise trade statutes, is the Jones Act (46 U.S.C. § 55102), a section of the 1920 Merchant Marine Act that strictly speaking, only applies to merchandise being transported by water between U.S. points.  The law requires that this cargo is to be shipped solely aboard vessels that are U.S.-built, U.S.-citizen owned, and, registered in the U.S., which means crewed by Americans. This encourages a strong U.S. Merchant Marine for both economic security and national defense by fostering a U.S.-flag fleet that can contribute to our financial wellbeing, and act as a sealift resource for the transportation of supplies in time of contingency.

The Jones Act Waiver Processes 46 U.S.C. § 501

An often-asked question is “can the U.S.-owned, -built, -crewed, - registered requirements of the Jones Act be waived to allow foreign-flag vessels in some circumstances?”  The answer is yes, however, Jones Act exemptions are rare as the only basis for an exemption is “interest of national defense.”  There are two types of Jones Act waiver request processes, one for the Secretary of Defense and one for non-Defense entities. 

It is important to note that regarding both processes the final issuer of any Jones Act waiver is the Secretary of Homeland Security.  The Maritime Administration does not issue Jones Act waivers.

For waivers requested by the Secretary of Defense (SECDEF), under 46 U.S.C. § 501 (a), U.S. Customs and Border Protection (Customs) has been delegated the authority to waive the Jones Act immediately as the SECDEF is the Federal authority on “interests of national defense”, the only grounds for Jones Act waivers.

For all other (non-Department of Defense) waiver requests, the Secretary of Homeland Security is only authorized to grant a waiver if it is considered necessary in the interest of national defense under (46 § 501(b)).

Consequently, when a waiver request is submitted, the Department of Homeland Security screens civilian entity requests and makes a rapid assessment regarding whether there is sufficient “interest of national defense” to proceed. 

If the waiver application passes the test for sufficient “interest of national defense”, the Maritime Administrator is formally consulted regarding the availability of qualified United States flag capacity to meet the national defense requirements.  The Maritime Administrator is also directed to provide advice regarding how the coastwise qualified U.S.-flag fleet can be enabled to meet the national defense needs.  With these formal determinations onboard, the Secretary of Homeland Security makes the final Jones Act waiver decision. 

Yeah, what does an old dead white man have to do with a state named after George Washington Carver?

/

Washington Democrats introduce legislation to remove George Washington from state flag

'While George Washington is an important national figure, he has limited historical connection to the state itself,' lawmakers said in their proposal

Because when you live in paradise and there are no serious problems left to address, there’s time to turn one’s attention to neglected issues, such as designing a flag that depicts a true historical perspective of the state; Like when the founding pioneer received the Salmon to the Territory from the indigenous people whose land he’d just stolen.

Or something like that.

Trump deals directly with Putin, and the Europeans whine: “What about us? Why can’t we come too?”

/

Powerline tells them why they’re not invited: they have nothing to offer.

The Daily Chart: Europe’s Weakness

The European, especially the German government that is about to get tossed out on its keister next weekend, is mightily upset at Vice President Vance’s Munich speech, not to mention other statements that a Europe that is worried about Russian aggression needs to step up. This is a stark depiction of how weak Europe has become:

France's Macron to host emergency European summit on Ukraine

Summary

  • Meeting comes with Trump administration suggesting it may keep Europe out of any talks on ending Russia-Ukraine war

  • UK PM Starmer, German Chancellor Scholz, NATO chief Rutte and EU Commission president von der Leyen to be present

MUNICH, Feb 16 (Reuters) - French President Emmanuel Macron will host European leaders, including Britain's prime minister on Monday for an emergency summit on the Ukraine war after U.S. officials suggested Europe would have no role in any talks on ending the conflict.

The French presidency said on Sunday Macron had called for the "consultation talks" and that they would address the tumultuous change in the U.S. approach to Ukraine and the attendant risks to the security of the European continent.

Others at the summit meeting will be German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk, NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni and Ursula von der Leyen and Antonio Costa from the European Union.

U.S. President Donald Trump stunned European allies in NATO and Ukraine last week when he announced he had held a call with Russian President Vladimir Putin without consulting with them and would start a peace process.

Trump's Ukraine envoy Keith Kellogg jolted Europe further on Saturday when he said it would not have a seat at the table for Ukraine peace talks, even after Washington sent a questionnaire to European capitals to ask what they could contribute to security guarantees for Kyiv.

The U.S. has also asked European allies in NATO what they would need from Washington to participate in Ukraine security arrangements, according to a document seen by Reuters on Sunday.

Dozens of similar summits have shown the 27-nation EU to be dithering, disunited and struggling to come up with a cohesive plan to end the Ukraine war on its doorstep and dealing with Russia, three years into Moscow's invasion of its neighbour.

Some countries were unhappy that the meeting was only for selected leaders and not a full EU summit, EU officials said.

The French presidency sought to assuage those misgivings saying Monday's meeting could lead to other formats "with the objective of gathering all partners interested in peace and European security".

Naturally, our own pet moron has previously weighed in with his usual perspicacity and wisdom:

They aren't listening; neither is (western) Europe

/

I hope the Muslims they’re turning their country over to will enjoy the cold

US Energy Secretary attacks 'sinister' net zero goals, singling out Britain

LONDON, Feb 17 (Reuters) - U.S. Energy Secretary Chris Wright on Monday called a pledge to achieve net zero carbon emissions by 2050 a "sinister goal", and criticised the British government's attempts to hit clean energy targets.

[snip]

"Net Zero 2050 is a sinister goal. It's a terrible goal," Wright said, speaking via videolink at a conference being held in London.

"The aggressive pursuit of it - and you're sitting in a country that has aggressively pursued this goal - has not delivered any benefits, but it's delivered tremendous costs."

Wright also used a question and answer session at the Alliance for Responsible Citizenship event to say his number one priority was for the government to "get out of the way" of the production of oil, gas and coal.

President Donald Trump's administration said on Friday it had granted a liquefied natural gas export license to the Commonwealth LNG project in Louisiana, the first approval of LNG exports after Biden paused them early last year.

"We ended the pause and approved the Commonwealth LNG export terminal last Friday, and many more in the queue," he said.

"The world simply runs on hydrocarbons and for most of their uses we don't have replacements."

On net zero, he took particular aim at Britain, saying its pursuit of a decarbonised energy system - which the current UK government wants to reach by 2030 - had damaged living standards and exported emissions elsewhere in the world.

"No one's going to make an energy-intensive product in the United Kingdom any more. It's just been displaced somewhere else," he said.

"This is not energy transition. This is lunacy. This is impoverishing your own citizens in a delusion that this is somehow going to make the world a better place."

[snip]