"shipments of U.S. crude oil by Jones Act tankers and barges from the Gulf Coast to the East Coast fell by 57% in 2016, according to EIA data. At the same time, imports of foreign crude oil to the East Coast rose by 35%"
This can't be explained without the Jones Act. When faced with expensive domestic shipping, it makes more sense for East Coast refiners to buy foreign than domestic.
Also note: "approximately 80% of the Jones Act fleet was built between 2007 and 2016, and since such vessels have a lifespan of approximately 30 years, it is unlikely that there will be a need to build new tankers in this decade given the decrease in demand."
Tankers are ~60% of the Jones Act fleet (57 of 97 ships). If those aren't being built, and there's no talk of new orders for containerships, there will surely be multiple years this decade in which *zero* new Jones Act ships are delivered.
Also, a lifespan of approximately 30 years? Doubtful. Given fearsome replacement costs, closer to 40 seems more realistic. One current Jones Act tanker, the Chemical Pioneer, was built in 1968.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
To the extent the Jones Act provides a national security benefit, it's the mariners from the 98 ship fleet that could be used to crew sealift ships in time of war.
Barring WWIII, the ships (77 of which are "militarily useful") themselves would mostly remain in domestic trade.
If the Jones Act imposes a billion dollars in costs annually, that's ~$295,000 per mariner. $5 billion in costs annually means nearly $1.5 million per mariner.
On a related note, recall that @JosephEStiglitz says a White House analysis placed the cost per job for the Jones Act at around $250,000: npr.org/transcripts/55…
@CRS4Congress It's pretty easy to understand why. If I were part of the JA lobby I wouldn't want people to know about the high cost of U.S. commercial shipbuilding either (note the extensive footnoting):
@CRS4Congress I wouldn't want people to know that U.S. shipyards themselves have argued that the high cost of shipbuilding is detrimental to the U.S. fleet, one of the things the Jones Act is supposed to promote: