Odd Lots - The 1906 Dredging Law That May Be Holding Back The U.S. Economy

Episode Date: April 20, 2022

The long grounding of the cargo ship The Ever Forward has shone a spotlight on the limited dredging equipment that exists in the U.S. The most powerful equipment here has significantly less capacity than what exists in Europe, or in the Suez Canal. What's more, the U.S. can't use foreign equipment due to a law known as the Foreign Dredging Act of 1906, which requires that any dredging done in the country, be done with U.S. labor on U.S.-owned ships. And while this has come to the fore due to the Ever Forward, the significance could be far wider. On this episode of the podcast we speak with Howard Gutman and Andrew Durant, both of whom are working to overturn the law. They argue that the restrictions on dredging equipment have significant negative ramifications for the environment, port capacity, and therefore the economy overall. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Thanks for listening to Odd Lots. Follow the show on Amazon Music for more future episodes or just ask, Alexa, play the Odd Lots podcast on Amazon Music. Today's show is brought to you by Vanguard. To all the financial advisors listening, let's talk bonds for a minute. Capturing value and fixed income is not easy. Bond markets are massive, murky, and let's be real. Lots of firms throw a couple flashy funds your way and call it a day. But not Vanguard. At Vanguard, institutional quality isn't a tagline. It's a commitment to your clients. We're talking top-grade products across the board of over 80 bond funds, actively managed by a 200-person global squad of sector specialists, analysts, and traders. These folks live and breathe fixed income. So if you're looking to give your clients consistent results year in and year out, go see the record for yourself at vanguard.com slash audio. That's vanguard.com slash audio.

All investing is subject to risk vanguard marketing corporation distributor. If Bell Fybivvib TV is now streaming, is it still TV? Is it still TV if there's no TV box? If I can stream all my favorite channels and pause and record shows, that's TV, right? A new era of FibTV. It's streaming, but it's still TV. Well, glad that's settled. Bell, Connection is Everything.

Hello and welcome to another episode of the Oddlots podcast. I'm Tracy Alloway. And I'm Joe Wisenthall. Joe, do you remember when you said you were going to base your entire identity on repealing the Foreign Dredge Act of 1906? Right. Yeah, I do. So we did an episode very recently about your cargo that's still stuck on this ship outside Baltimore

in one of the things that came up was that there is this law from 1906 that prevents foreign dredging equipment from operating in the United States. The United States doesn't have a whole lot of high power dredging equipment. And I found that really wild. And so I jokingly said, A, I was going to make that my whole identity. And only half jokingly said, now we have to do an episode on the Foreign Shredging Act of 1906. I mean, I don't think any of those should be jokes anymore. I'm into it. Let's start.

This is not a joke to you at all. No. Because you still don't have your stuff. Absolutely. So I have a personal interest in the health of the U.S. dredging industry. Let's put it that way, because all of my belongings are currently stuck on Everforward, this giant container ship that ran into the mudbank in the Chesapeake Bay.

It's still stuck there. There are dredgers at work. They're going to unload all the containers and see if they can refloat it. But again, one of the things that's emerged from this entire incident is I guess years, decades of underinvestment in the U.S. dredging industry so that we actually don't have a lot of dredging capacity. And our previous guest who was talking about this, Sal Mercogliano. Again, he has a great YouTube channel if you're interested in what's going on with the Ever Forward. But he was saying that the dredgers that are on the scene of the Ever Forward right now can move about 60 cubic yards of mud in each, you know, every time they sort of dredge the bottom. Whereas, other types of dredgers, international dredgers, the kind that they had on scene with the ever given when it was stuck in the Suez Canal, those can move 70,000 cubic yards of material in one hour. So that gives you an insight into the different levels of dredging capacity we're talking

about. The other thing, and that is just a wild divergence, and that was the aspect that blew my mind and the fact that maybe a contributing factor to the lack of dredging capacity, as a law that was over a century or old. That blew my mind. But, you know, as we've sort of looked into this, and we have been talking about dredging within the context of freeing the ship and the one in the Suez last year, the other thing that is, it may be that a lot of infrastructure issues in the United

States, when we talk about constrained capacity at the ports, when we talk about the fact that U.S. ports don't necessarily have the capacity to handle easily the world's biggest ships, part of that may have to, do with dredging. Absolutely. And, you know, we've been building these ships bigger and bigger. And at the same time, the port infrastructure hasn't grown alongside it. The dredging infrastructure hasn't grown alongside it either. So it is not just a problem of particular interest to me. It's a problem that we should all be focused on. And so here is an episode dedicated to the Foreign Dredge Act of 1906. And I can't wait. Yeah, we really do have the perfect guess for this one. So we are going to be.

be speaking with Howard Gutman. He is the managing director of the Gutman group, a consultancy, and also the former U.S. ambassador to Belgium. We're also going to be speaking with Andrew Durant. He is a managing director at Samuel's International Associates, another consultancy. But they're going to be able to give us, you know, the pro repealing the Foreign Dredge Act. We're going to have to do afterwards probably like I keep the Foreign Dredge Act, just out of fairness. But yes, I'm very excited about it. Okay. Let's do it. Howard and Andrew, welcome to the show. Pleasure to be here.

So why don't we begin with the very basic stuff? What is the Foreign Dredge Act of 1906? And what happened in 1906 or earlier to make the U.S. think that it only wants to have dredgers that are built and crude by Americans? Andy? So what happened in 1906 actually starts with what happened in 1900. And that is that there was a huge storm that hit Galveston, Texas directly. Galveston at that time was, if I'm not mistaken, the largest city in Texas.

It was a thriving port town. And the flood that ensued essentially wiped the town out, killed maybe 8 to 16,000 people, and was an absolute catastrophe. So the town fathers decided that what they needed to do was rebuild, but they weren't going to rebuild at the current elevation because they knew it would just be a matter of time before another storm would hit Galveston and do the same thing all over again. So they decided they were going to raise the town by 10 feet. And so in order to do that,

they needed a massive dredging capacity that did not exist in the United States. they put this job up for bid. There were two bidders, the winning bidder, designed and built hopper dredges, which we can talk about in a little bit about the distinction between the different kinds of dredges. But they designed and began to build hopper dredges that would be able to carry this job out. And so as that project got started in 1903, 1904, eventually there was a a concern not from the shipbuilders themselves, but from the Commissioner of Customs that, hey, maybe this is somehow going to, this is going to create a problem for us. We need to put in place

restrictions that say that these dredges can only be built in U.S. shipyards. And so by 1906, the protectionist argument that these ships have to be built in the United States had won the day and that legislation was signed into law by Theodore Roosevelt. Can you just explain that a little bit further? What specifically was the concern was that there is this investment in domestic dredging and the concern was that the foreign competition to domestic dredging would undercut the market? Like, what was the, I'm trying to wrap my head around the perceived threat that this law addresses? So the concern was that somehow in in dredging up the sand that they were going to put it on barges and they might take those barges

somewhere else and use the sand in another port or another location in the U.S. So they were stealing U.S. sand was the... Yeah, so stealing U.S. sand became kind of the concern. But as it evolved, what really carried the day was that we should be building these these bridges in the United States. What is the state of the U.S. dredging industry? now and how does it compare with the rest of the world? So we had decades of protectionism and this law in place mandating that dredgers be built in the U.S. and crewed by Americans. What has been

the result? So today, the 31 largest dredgers in the world are owned by two Belgian and two Dutch companies, the subsidiaries of which, the U.S. subsidiaries of which already are major American companies. They build all the offshore windmills. So those same companies are allowed to work in these waters, in the U.S. waters, building the offshore windmills, but they also own the 31 largest dredgers in the world, many over 40,000 cubic meters, so four times as large as any vessel that exists in the U.S. The U.S. is trying to meet the dredge demand to dredge its ports and to do coastal protection when it has, of the top 50 dredges in the world, it has three of them. It has number 32 and then two others in the top 50. The rest are by these large companies that are already American companies. They're allowed to

build the offshore windmills. They create a lot of jobs in America. They just can't alongside dig in the sand because of this 1906 law. And it costs America millions or tens of millions of of jobs and billions of dollars. If you are in Savannah, you spent over a billion dollars for a port deepening project that would have cost under 500 million. And if you are in Virginia right now, you are spending, it was supposed to be 350 million, it's now 450 million, for a project that should cost hundreds of millions less. So what do you actually walk us through the math here a little bit more specifically? Because we've talked on this show. a number of times about the ports and port bottlenecks and port capacity and the issue, and we talked

about this in the intro, the issue of these very large ships that are getting bigger and bigger and the difficulty that they have entering U.S. ports. And we see at the port of Los Angeles, but obviously otherwise. When you throw out these numbers at us, explain why constrained U.S. dredge capacity adds so much more to the cost of port expansion. and thus makes it such that our ports aren't as big and high capacity as they could be. So let's take Houston, for example. Great. Houston should be the most important port for America because producing oil and gas in Houston

is cheaper than producing it in the country of Georgia, for example. But Boston right now is getting its gas from the country of Georgia than it is from Houston because delivered. The greatest country in the world cannot get its gas delivered to Boston, cheaper than it can get it delivered from the country of Georgia, because the port in Houston is broken. What happened was they had two lanes at one time. Containerships would pass, tankers going in, containers going out.

Andy and I went to the port and said, you've got less than a year left before it's going to get so narrow and so shallow that ships will no longer be able to pass. Over two years ago, that came true. One of the ships, containers coming in, refused to pass a tanker coming out. The port of Houston was reduced to one lane. And we said this could be dredged in a year

to the capacities to allow the deepest tankers, the post-Panamax tankers and containers, to go freely into Houston. That would reduce export costs more than 15%. It would make our manufacturing goods and agricultural goods going out of Houston competitive, more competitive by 15%. And it would make our oil and gas exports, let's say to Europe when you need it for the Ukraine and Russia, way cheaper. It would make us a major energy exporter. All you have to do is dredge Houston. There's enough money right now because if you use one of the state-of-the-art dredges that dredge the rest of the world, the cost is less than half.

and the time to do it is less than a third. So this can be done right now. And the port director favored us doing that. The fight came in to protect the Dredge Act of 1906. So instead of doing that, the Texas legislature met and passed a law, restricting large container ships from entering the port of Houston to one a week. So they don't block the oil ships coming out. So now the greatest country in the world has a law preventing containerships from entering one of its greatest ports because they cannot get them in.

So if we just dredged Houston at half the cost in a third the time, that would create and support over 1.6 million new American jobs by lowering the costs of exports by over 15%. It would change our energy security picture. And by the way, since we know Houston is going to flood anyway, we've seen what happens in Houston. Houston, these dredges, the state-of-the-art dredgers, when they do a dredge project, they would do the coastal protection project that would also protect. Houston, it's called the Eichdike project, but there's no way that could ever be done with U.S. dredgers, not in the next 20 or 30 years. Is the issue this law and the restrictions around who can dredge, or is the issue underinvestment in that particular industry? So, you know, we do have an American dredging industry, but it seems like it hasn't actually grown that much, even though it is mandated to do all this work and doesn't necessarily have competition to do it. It's who can dredge. It's not under investment. These ships that we're talking about, they're not built in China. They're built in the Netherlands where the cost of labor and the cost of energy is higher. These aren't cheap ships or the like. We don't have a shipyard in the U.S.

that could build one of these dredges. We don't have the technology or the know-how, and we don't have the investment because there's only three companies that own basically three vessels that or even can do a port dredging. So those three get all the business. They're happy.

If we have to wait 25 years for a port to be done, it's still their work. So the three-company protectionism is what's limiting it. If, in fact, you open the dredge, law and allow these big ships to come in and join all the marine work they're doing for offshore wind. These companies work all union. They've signed project labor agreements, the foreign companies. It would be all union American employment with the same exact workers, but we would have coastal

protection projects and port deepening projects being done for half the cost. So we could actually have dredges available to do Houston and Corpus and Brownsville, eliminate the supply chain problem that we have, that we can't get ships into our ports, lower the costs of energy and our exports, and we would still have ships to do coastal protection. There is a plan right now, as I mentioned, according to Senator Schumer, 90,000 New Yorkers have to be relocated from south of Wall Street by 2050. That's 28 years. In the next 28 years, Wall Street will be flooded.

There are two proposals to address that, a $10 billion project wall and building 1,700 acres onto lower Manhattan. We would have Manhattan become 15% larger. Both projects are routine for the rest of the world. There have been projects adding 8,700 acres. So projects that are four times larger in the rest of the world done by these dredgers. Can you imagine the value of adding 15% to lower Manhattan? the value of that project, the money pays for itself. Senator Schumer was told when he went to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,

we will not have the dredging capacity nor the money to build the wall, let alone the additional acreage onto lower Manhattan. We don't have a coastal protection policy. So, you know, I've read about and heard about some of these ideas to add land to Manhattan. And I was like, oh, that's fanciful. That's never going to happen. and it's just like something that people like to think about. But A, it is interesting that I guess it could actually happen.

But B, it comes back to this act of 1906, the lack of dredging capacity. Now, before we move on, I want to ask one more question. You mentioned the fact that cheap oil and gas from Houston isn't making its way by ship to Boston, where they're instead importing gas from the country of Georgia. I was under the impression that that had something to do with the Jones Act. And it seems like the two laws often are associated with each other. But A, can you sort of talk about how the two laws relate? And you also say that that one is more well known.

It seems to be a little bit more controversial. You say that we could get value from repealing the Dredge Act without necessarily repealing the Jones Act. In fact, repealing the Dredge Act protects the Jones Act. Jones Act. The companies we're talking about are construction companies. They don't own a transportation ship. So the Jones Act protects transportation of goods and people in U.S. waters. That's a transportation issue and that's very important in this country and nobody is arguing to touch that in the least. We can build the ships to transport people and goods if they can get in and out of our

ports. We're not talking about touching the transportation industry, and the law currently proposed to repeal the Dredge Act would not touch the Jones Act if that law passed. What we're talking about is the construction industry. We're talking about port contractors. The issue is getting ships that are the right size into our port. Obviously, we can't get them in at being three times larger than the standard ship if they're going to get stuck in Baltimore on the bottom of the port. So what we need to is get it deeper. Once they're there, that will make up most of the cost. The Dredge Act can be amended and the proposal to do so that's currently in front of the Senate would do so without touching the Jones Act. But what happens here is the three or four companies

that are the small companies of 5,000 people who work in dredging in the U.S. almost all of whom would continue to work in dredging, just on a lot larger projects with the same project labor agreements, the owners of those companies say, oh, they're really seeking to attack the Jones Act. And they bring in all the shipping interests to protect the Dredge Act when they have nothing to do with one another. What are the other impediments to amending or repealing the Dredge Act? I mean, I imagine environmental concerns must figure in there one way or another. And for instance, the situation with the ever-forward, I know people are starting to worry about the impact on crabbing season, which is coming up in Maryland. And look, I've already declared my interest in higher dredging capacity because I love my couch.

But I also love Maryland crab cakes. And, you know, ideally I would have both. Ideally, I would sit on my couch while eating crab cakes. But, you know, what are the environmental concerns around dredging and how would repealing the act a full? affect the health of U.S. coasts. Andy, why are you telling about Miami? Sure. Well, so a few things, Tracy. The first is that, yeah, if you look at actually at the modern dredges that are being built

in European shipyards that are being used around the world, unfortunately, just not in the United States, you see a couple of differences that actually make them more environmentally friendly. The first is that the newest and most modern dredges are using LNG as opposed to marine diesel. So they're emitting a lot, a lot less emissions as they're working. The second issue, and this was a real tragedy in Miami, is because the dredges that we use are so-called cutter dredges, but they weren't powerful enough to chew basically through some of the rock that they needed to remove in order to create a deeper channel for cruise ships, they had to use blasting. And so in blasting, that creates a lot of turbidity. That's, you know,

a lot of sand, a lot of debris kind of gets moved around. That wound up on coral, and it actually wound up bleaching and killing a lot of the coral and creating a huge environmental disaster. If you have, again, the new state-of-the-art hopper dredges, you can control much more for turbidity. You can therefore do it without disturbing the vegetation and the coral that's around it. And so that's why you can see, for example, that the companies that we'd like to be able to bring into the U.S. do very sensitive environmental projects, say, along ports in Australia that are adjacent to the Great Barrier Reef, with very intensive environmental monitoring done by the Australian government, by NGOs, and by the companies that are doing the work themselves.

So the other point that I'd make as long as we're on the environment is that in a lot of cases, these same dredges are actually very important if you're going to create coastal features or if you're going to try to restore wetlands that will do a couple of things. One, it'll serve as a barrier with when you have major storms that are heading for population centers. But the second and more pervasive is that they'll create barriers from saltwater incursion, like the kind of incursion that we're seeing in Louisiana, which, you know, once you get sold water into an environment, it's going to devastate the natural environment that was there. Today's show is brought to you by Vanguard. To all the financial advisors listening, let's talk bonds for a minute. Capturing value and fixed income is not easy. Bond markets are massive, murky,

and let's be real, lots of firms throw a couple flashy funds your way and call it a day. But on Vanguard, Vanguard, institutional quality isn't a tagline. It's a commitment to your clients. We're talking top grade products across the board of over 80 bond funds, actively managed by a 200-person global squad of sector specialists, analysts, and traders. These folks live and breathe fixed income. So if you're looking to give your clients consistent results year in and year out, go see the record for yourself at vanguard.com.com. That's vanguard.com slash audio. All investing in subject to risk, Vanguard Marketing Corporation Distributor. Eating well shouldn't be complicated,

but somehow it turns into recipes, prep, cleanup, and half your Sunday gone. Factors solves all that. These are fresh ready-to-eat meals designed by dietitians, delivered to your door, and ready in just minutes. No prep, no cleanup, no excuses. And it's

not just about convenience. You're getting real food, balanced nutrition, and zero artificial stuff. Meals that help you stay on track for all of your goals, without the grind of doing it yourself. Grilled chicken, roasted veggies, steak plates, postables. They taste like something you get in a restaurant, but they come out of your microwave in two minutes flat. If time, cost, or effort have been holding you back from eating better, Factor just took those off the table. Right now, get 11

meals, free shipping, and free sides for life. Hurry, this offer won't last long. Go to FactorMeals.C.A. and use code fit. That's 11 meals, free shipping, and free sides for life, but only with the code fit at FactorMeals.C.A. Factor. Canada's number one. ready-to-eat meal delivery service. Can you talk a little bit more about the two types of dredgers and the different technologies? Because I think there's interesting, you know, our listeners definitely are interested in the law and investment and stuff. But actually hearing the two different approaches to dredging would be really helpful. And then these new dredges or the state-of-the-art dredges, what do they have?

What makes them unique? So I would say the easiest way to look, think about it is, is you've got hopper dredges. which is essentially state of the art, which is used again in the rest of the world. That's what most people will have in their main fleet. Think of them as very large vacuum cleaners. So they're going to vacuum material up that needs to be moved. They're going to store that material in the hull of the ship. And then they're going to sail off with that material.

And they're either going to go to a deposit site that's offshore. And the bottom of the hull is going to open up and that material is going to fall down. into the place that the Coast Guard has said it should be put, or they're going to use that material and they're going to use it to create, they're going to replenish a beach, or they're going to build a barrier island, or they'll do something else that's called beneficial use. So those are hopper dredges. Again, if you look around at the rest of the world and see what they're using for their jobs, most of that work is going to be done using hopper dredges. The other type and the type that the U.S. industry is very reliant upon are called cutter suction dredges.

Think of them as kind of big grinders that are just sort of chewing through the soil and chewing through the rock. They're sucking it up, but they're sucking it up and putting it onto barges. So then you've got to move just like we're talking about with the ever forward right now. That material is going up onto barges. Then those barges have to be total. away and you have to, it's just a longer, more laborious and more expensive process. But Joe, don't get confused that this is a difference in approach and what, regardless of whether it's cutters or hoppers. Yeah. If there's, if you don't have, if you only have three dredges in your country that the world would even consider to use for a project like this, and you are

using things that are meant for small rivers. The issue is what difference would it mean for America, if you let these 31 dredgers that are bigger than anything we have that are more environmentally friendly than anything we have, crewed by American labor, the same America who cruise the construction vessels for these same companies when they build offshore wind, the project labor agreements with American labor, what difference would be whether it's cutter or hopper to what we could achieve in America? We could fix the supply chain by opening up these ports. that are long awaiting, each of the projects, if I were in Virginia and I just am wasting $200 million of my taxpayer money, because the same union people could be doing the same exact

job for $200 million less in the same orders by the company that's already building my official win project anyway. So it's the same labor in the same orders. It's just a different and who owns the company. And that's costing me $200 million more. I'd be upset or the estimate is to one million more, I'd be upset. And so the question is, whether it's cutter or it's hopper, we need more capacity. We have endless projects. And we have projects that will keep all of the U.S. dredgers in existence now busy. It's just we can get to these other projects.

We can do coastal protection. In Virginia, when they are done with that project of dredging the port, they will still have to relocate the naval base in Norfolk because they, did not have the capacity nor the money to come up with the project that would deepen the port in Virginia and save the naval base from flooding. Right now, the policy is wear boots. The naval base in Norfolk floods, so they are going to still have to move it. That project could be done in a way, presumably, it would have to be designed, in a way that the naval base wouldn't have to be relocated because we would be able to do coastal protection when we did our our port direction. I still don't quite understand, you know, so I take the point that by far,

the most advanced dredges that we have available are made and owned by companies in Belgium or in the Netherlands, but I don't understand why the U.S. can't compete on this. And I guess, you know, clearly the Netherlands has a long history of building canals and dredging and a lot of expertise in this kind of thing, and so does Belgium. But, why can't the U.S. catch up with its domestic industry? What's the sort of the issue there or the roadblock? That's a great question. And I think I think the answer really kind of comes back to what do you see your market as? Right. So the U.S. dredging market right now, maybe it's a billion dollars, maybe with coastal protection becoming more urgent and, you know, even beach replenishment, becoming a much

more of kind of an every year thing if you're going to save your tourist season in North Carolina. The market's maybe more than a billion, but it's not a huge market. And in fact, the global dredging market is probably about $20 billion. So if you're only looking at the U.S. market and you're saying it's a billion dollars a year, then you make investment decisions based on a billion dollar market. If, on the other hand, you're saying we are, we, the European dredging companies look at it and say, this is a global market. We can work in any country in the world except for the United States right now. While plenty of countries have various restrictions on maritime shipping that are akin to, you know, the Jones Act, no country in the world except for China.

which has its own massive dredging fleet, has any restrictions at all on allowing foreign dredgers to come in and clean up their harbors, deepen them, modern others, them allow that economy to be more competitive. The U.S. is the only one that has that kind of restriction. So for the European companies, they look at a world market and say, okay, it's about a $20 billion a year market. It's going to be growing. we're going to invest to be able to compete and win projects all around the world.

And in fact, that's what they're doing. And that's why between these four European dredging companies that want to be allowed to work in the U.S., if you look at global open bid dredging projects, they're going to be winning 95% of all the projects year after year. They compete a lot with each other. It's a very competitive global market. That's what they're looking at. They're looking at it as a world market. And so they're right-sizing their investment and right-sizing their fleet.

Whereas here in the U.S., and you'd really have to ask, you know, you'd have to go back 30 years to basically try to figure out why did the U.S. industry stop investing in its dredging industry? And why do we have not only ships that are really very small, but also ships that are really very old as well. So why have we underinvested? I think the answer is because they're looking at a protected market. They're saying it's $1 billion. They're saying 40% of the U.S. Army Corps dredging bids are single bid contracts. Another 20% or so therefore 60% of all the jobs, it's either nobody else bids or one other company bids. So it's a very small market. There are only really three

companies that compete for projects here in the U.S. And so, you know, for them, maybe it's not, this isn't such a big deal. They can continue to kind of plug along with what they have, build a new dredge every four or five years or so. Eventually, you have to retire the old dredges so that the capacity doesn't really change. But that's why, in my opinion, they haven't kept up. And now that they're 30 or 40 years behind and they don't have any experience in bidding for international projects anywhere outside the United States. You know, it's very tough for them to suddenly say that they're going to catch up. And Joe and Tracy, to think now, well, why doesn't BlackRock or Blackstone or Apollo

just start investing in 40,000 cubic meter ships? We build a dredge every three or four years. There is not a, to qualify under the Dredge Act, it has to be built in the U.S. there is not a shipyard that could repair right now a 46,000 cubic meter ship. If and when the Dredge Act is finally amended to let these ships in, these Belgian companies who have invested a ton in U.S. and series will start investing in these shipyards so they can do the construction work needed to allow these shipyards to repair these ships, which would be part of what we would, which would happen if the legislation opened.

So the boom to the U.S. shipyards would be massive from opening the dredging market. The repair and maintenance work would produce far more work than the new dredges and the ancillary vessel work. The tugs, the barges that you need to surround you would be a boon for U.S. shipyards. That's what's happened with the U.S. windmill industry. The one ship that actually puts the foundation and the monopile on the foundation to build the windmill, that we don't have the capacity to do. It's being done by the Europeans. But now the ship orders have increased to do all the ancillary services. One of the American Dredge companies is building a new ship to drop rocks at the windmill sites where the windmills themselves are

built by these European companies. Dominion is building a $500 million ship that will put to install the turbines on monopause, the last step in it, because we now have a windmill industry. The windmill itself will be built by one of these four Belgian companies, but at the last step, the turbine installation. So just in the last two years, the U.S. shipbuilding industry has had a boom from the ancillary vessels needed to support the offshore wind industry, which is anchored by these same four companies. The same exact thing would happen if you repealed the Foreign Dredge Act and had them do the main work with the ancillary American vessels. I'm curious, from the perspective, of either repealing or amending the 1906 Act, in your experience, how much is the difficulty

domestic opposition from the existing U.S. dredging industry, which I think you mentioned is about 5,000 employees, so it's not huge. How much is opposition versus how much is indifference? Because it doesn't look like much gets done these days in D.C. regardless. And so how much of the challenge is just most people in D.C. D.C. probably do not have that much appetite, given everything else that's going on to address some 1906 law. It's opposition 100% because they make two arguments. That this is going to repeal the Jones Act. We've already addressed that. It has nothing to do with the transportation sector. It's the construction sector. And they threaten the unions that these companies will come in. They'll do

they'll do the port of Houston and Corpus, then they'll leave, and then you'll be without us, the American Dredgeon companies. But in fact, we now know that there will be offshore windmill projects at least through 2040, 2050. So these companies have become big U.S. subsidiaries with U.S. offices, U.S. labor agreements. Of the 5,000 people you said are in the industry, almost all continue to work on the same exact projects. If the Virginia, at the end of the Virginia project were open bid, and that last 70 million were bid for 30 million,

not 70 million, for example, and we saved 40 million in Virginia. The same people would do the job. It's the same labor agreement, the same unions, it would just be on a vessel that was much more efficient for it. And we could take that and use the savings to design how to save the policy.

of Norfolk. So it's purely, it appears to be purely the domestic, because if there was indifference, a project that will save 90,000 New Yorkers from having to relocate by building 15% more to Manhattan, that is of interest to the unions. It is of interest to every real estate developer. Can you imagine if Manhattan had 15% more real estate to have commerce on what that would be, just the world Trade Center rebuilding was a massive boom for the construction unions and for New York. Think about that at 15% of New Manhattan, what that would be valued. That project is eminently doable. There are eight projects in the world bigger than that project that have already been done

in less than three years. So that project is doable, but there's not a chance it could be done in the next 40 years with the dredging capacity, the dredging technology that currently exists, and therefore, changing the foreign Dredge Act. Can I just ask on the Jones Act, my understanding, and I fully admit my understanding is only just developing right now, so it's probably not worth much. But my understanding is that Hopper dredges do have to be Jones Act compliant since they end up transporting, you know, sand and mud from their dredging activities, which then falls under the Jones Act. Is that right?

So here's, well, yes and no. So the proposals to amend the Dredge Act simply say, for purposes of this act, the movement of sand in a construction project is not transportation. Sure, if you wanted to ship new bags of sand from New York to Savannah and put it on a barge and ship them, that's transportation. This is construction. It's like saying when a kid plays in a sandbox, he's engaging in transportation. Digging is not transportation, so it's this easy to fix.

You just have to, on the legislation that amends the Dredge Act, you just have to say for purpose of any other legislation, namely the Jones Act, if sand happens to move because you dig, it's in construction, that's not considered transportation. So when we're talking about sand moving because you're digging it in construction, if you just say that's not transportation, that's construction, that leaves the Jones Act. perfectly in place while amending the trajectory. Eating well shouldn't be complicated, but somehow it turns into recipes, prep, clean up,

and half your Sunday gone. Factors solves all that. These are fresh, ready-to-eat meals designed by dieticians, delivered to your door and ready in just minutes. No prep, no cleanup, no excuses. And it's not just about convenience. You're getting real food, balanced nutrition, and zero artificial stuff.

Meals that up you stay on track for all of your goals, without the grind of doing it all yourself. Grilled chicken, roasted veggies, steak plates, postables. They taste like something you get in a restaurant, but they come out of your microwave in two minutes flat. If time, cost, or effort have been holding you back from eating better, Factor just took those off the table. Right now, get 11 meals, free shipping, and free sides for life.

Hurry, this offer won't last long. Go to FactorMeals.C.A and use code fit. That's 11 meals, free shipping, and free sides for life, but only with the code fit at factormeals.ca. Factor, Canada's number one Ready to Eat meal delivery service. Bell Pure Fiber Internet? It's fast, like really fast.

And the offer, it's good, like really good. Switch to Bell Pure Fiber, Canada's fastest internet awarded by Ucla, with plans starting at $60 a month with auto pay credit. whichever two-year term plan you choose, the price is guaranteed for two years. Fast internet, long ad. But it's so worth it. Visit bell.ca for more details and to check availability. Bell, connection is everything.

You know, another thing, you talk about wind, but another big energy story in the United States is LNG, and in particular, LNG exports, in particular there, LNG exports to Europe to theoretically allow Germany and other countries to wean themselves off of Russian natural gas. To what degree is lack of dredging capacity a contributor to lack of export capacity for LNG? Joe, you know, as you know, there are a couple of things. And I think for LNG, one of the bigger concerns right now is just how many LNG character carriers exist that are not under long-term contract that could mobilize to carry that supply chain, that huge difference in supply chain. And you also get into export terminals. Right. If we go back to Houston, right? For example, again, you know, what's happened in Baltimore right now is obviously we should see not just.

just as a tragedy for Tracy's and her belongings. We should also see that as a real cautionary tale. Yeah. Okay. Because if that happens in Houston, where again, as we mentioned, you know, you had, can you imagine we're the greatest country in the world? Texas takes pride. Everything's bigger in Texas.

And what are they doing in Texas two years ago? They're essentially saying, here's how we're going to divide up a shrinking pie in the port of Houston because we can't deepen and expand the shipping channel to allow modern container ships and modern tankers, right, LNG tankers, oil tankers, to pass each other safely in the shipping channel. So the fact that we have to do that, right, that we have to pass a law that regulates how much of this resource can be used. When the rest of the world, by the way, while we're trying to get to 50 feet,

as we've discussed, container ships, tankerships, everything's getting bigger because the economics support being bigger as opposed to being smaller. Other ports are getting down to 65 feet. They're getting down to 70 feet. We're trying to get to 50 feet,

and it's a Herkulean task. And Houston's probably going to be, you know, Houston's going to be years before they can get there. Meanwhile, the rest of the world is moving forward. So I think it does have an impact in how we're going to supply Europe going forward to help it meet its energy needs. But I don't think it is, that's not the leading issue. I think that's, you know, that's-

Andy, what about the Corpus, the project in Corpus that's even deeper than the 50? Well, in Corpus, what they wanted to do is to, to build a loading facility for the largest crude carriers. The largest crude carriers in the world require 100 feet of draft. The only way you're ever going to get down to 100 feet in the US is if you allow these European dredging companies to come in and work on projects. There's absolutely no way that we can use all of the resources that we have to deal with, to get that one large crude carrier bill.

Because keep in mind, because the U.S. industry is so small, anytime there's a major storm and a port gets blocked in by silt, right, that's washed down, say, from the Mississippi, this happens in the port of New Orleans all the time, they will have to, that the Army Corps has the right to call the U.S. dredgers away from so-called capital dredging, where you're actually trying to deepen a port to get it down to 50.

They will say, we have an emergency, we have what they call shoaling, so we have shoaling that's taken place. That's reducing the clearance in New Orleans. So we're calling you off the project in Savannah. You've now got to sail over to New Orleans. You've got to deal with this urgent problem. And then if there's time before we get into turtle season,

then you can go back to Savannah and you can get back to that project. But if the timing doesn't work out, then that's another year that's lost. So that's the situation that we're dealing with, that we have such limited resources that we can't do maintenance dredging. We can't respond to natural huge disasters like Hurricane Harvey, which was a huge disaster, not only certainly for the people of Houston and of Texas, also brought a lot of debris and a lot of material into the port of Houston. We just don't have the capacity to deal with natural disasters at the same time.

We try to do capital dredging to improve and modernize our ports. When Savannah was bid, it was supposed to be a $700 million project was the lowest bid. The Europeans had said they would do it for a guaranteed $400 million because of the difference in their capacity. But it was supposed to be 700 million. The project came in at over a billion one. Some of the dredgers have been called off to go do shoaling elsewhere. And by the time they come back, costs are up. So we end up spending, I believe it was a billion one for a project that should have been 400 million and took three times as long. Savannah got done. But taking all that time and money, that prevents us using those resources elsewhere, there is plenty to keep the major American

dredging companies busy and to greatly increase the labor that's working for them and continues under the same exact project labor agreements, the same unions under the same project labor agreements, doing the rest of the dredging on ships that are built, you know, meant to do these kind of projects while our shipyards boom from the ancillary vessels. Can I just ask totally hypothetical question here? But if I were to call up a company like Van Ord and say, I want to hire your very best dredger, your hopper dredger or whatever, and I want it to dig out the ever-forward. Let's pretend that they said yes. I assume they would say no, mostly, because I wouldn't be able to pay them, but for other reasons too. What would happen? Like,

what happens if you actually end up in contravention of the 1906 Dredging Act? The Dredge police. Yeah. They seize the dredge. They seize the dredge. Yep. That's the law. You'd forfeit the dredge. Unless they get a waiver, they're not going to work here. And Tracy, we're willing to put a good word in with you, for you with the Van Nords, but I don't think your household is worth the dredge. No, no, they probably want to keep that. Well, Howard and Andrew, that was a great recap of the 1906 Dredge Act,

and we really appreciate you coming on to explain that to us. Thank you. Thanks so much. Stay safe. That was great. All right, well, Joe, are you prepared to make repealing the Dredge Act of 1906 the center of your new identity? Yeah, you know, originally, I just thought it was this sort of like amusing little law, kind of a quasi irrelevancy. But I thought they made a pretty compelling case that it's actually pretty important. And I do think it's very interesting.

Even setting aside dredges, this tension of how do you nurture a domestic industry? Right. This is like actually really important beyond dredges. And it comes up in the semiconductor conversation. How do you nurture a domestic industry without making it so that it's uncompetitive and weak? And so you could imagine a sort of effort to say, yeah, again, semiconductors is something you boost domestic players. But if there's sort of a market that's uncompetitive, they can fall behind. It's a very separate question.

But it does raise some really interesting things about this broader project of building up domestic industry. Well, totally. And also the idea that Howard and Ed. Andrew, they touched on this, but this idea that U.S. dredgers view it as this sort of one-note market, right? It's just America that they can dredge in, and that's a limited pool of money, whereas someone who's over in Belgium or the Netherlands is going to see it as this global market. The other thing that's kind of crazy to me is just the idea in general that because a customs official was worried about foreign dredgers taking away Texan sand in the early 1900s that

more than 100 years later. That's like how the world works, right? Yeah, yeah. But it's sort of, it's an interesting cause and effect. You know, even, like I went on YouTube before this, and I will watch some videos of like the two different types of dredgers. But it's interesting to think about like even something that kind of doesn't seem that high tech, like a big vacuum cleaner.

Yeah. It's like there is a level of know-how that exists at European companies, at least so they claim, but it may be true, especially if they're calling on them for technical support that doesn't exist. again, you know, semiconductors are one thing, but even just something like digging up sand, there's technical knowledge and compartmentalized knowledge that is not globally diffuse. Right. Also kind of amazing that the foreign dredgers can't actually dig anything up here, but they can be consulted for their knowledge and expertise. All right.

I'd be resentful of them. I wouldn't take the call. But we do have to do another one. We have to get the domestic perspective. I mean, look, I've fully declared my interest on this topic, but yes, we should continue. And can I just say one more thing, Tracy? I am very sorry that you don't have your couch, but I am very happy that we're getting lots of content out of this. So I'm like secretly kind of happy about it. You know, it's all fun in games until they start unloading the containers

and my one like drops into the sea. Yeah. Okay. All right. Fingers crossed, everyone. Shall we leave it there? Let's leave it there. This has been another episode of the Odd Lots Podcast.

I'm Tracy Alloway. You can follow me on Twitter at Tracy Allaway. And I'm Joe Wisenthal. You can follow me on Twitter at the stalwart. Follow our producer, Carmen Rodriguez, on Twitter at Carmen Armin. Follow the Bloomberg head of podcast, Francesca Levy, at Francesca today. And check out all of our podcasts at Bloomberg under the handle at podcasts. Thanks for listening. Hey there, Oddlots listeners. We are very excited to let you know that Oddlots is nominated for a Webby Award. You know, Tracy, I'm not normally like a big awards person or get excited about that, but now that I saw that we were nominated for the Webby for Best Business Podcast, suddenly I'm feeling very competitive and I want to win. You really want it.

Yeah. Okay. Well, on that note, listeners, if you enjoy Otlots, if you like what we do, we would really appreciate it. If you take two minutes of your time and head over to vote. com. You can find Oblots in the business podcast category.