Pirates at the Wreck

G

Gavin Murphy

Guest
S,

This is old news........see my note of Fri. under thread "RMST May Give Up Salvage Rights"......

You know what they say, nothing as old as yesterday's news......

G
 
Apr 11, 2001
4,565
4
168
This Pilot article only appeared yesterday, Sunday, March 23rd in the Virginia paper, and seems to furnish some additional background. Such an important topic deserves its own thread in my estimation. The outcome of how this all shakes down is going to be of massive importance on many fronts.
 
P

Patrick Christophe Morrissey-D'amore

Guest
Good for them! I just hope they intend to display the artifacts recovered instead of selling them.

RMSTI have held exclusive salvage rights for way too long. While everything is slowly rotting away on the ocean floor the corporations key figures are tied up in litigation. When it comes to salvaging the Titanic, time is precious. I hope others will follow this team's audacious lead!

-Patrick-
 
P

Patrick Christophe Morrissey-D'amore

Guest
> Awesome Kyrila! Just be sure to take plenty of pictures for me! Ask > around...I hear the code word for private viewing is "The squawking parrot > flies at midnight"!
 

Lee Gilliland

Member
Feb 14, 2003
511
0
146
Forgive my ignorance on this one, but isn't that a tad unlikely? How many submersibles are there around that can get down to the Titanic site? Wouldn't renting one be something people would hear about, not to mention the support apparatus and personnel necessary?
 
Dec 2, 2000
58,587
376
283
Easley South Carolina
Not many Lee, but if you want access to one, about all you need, if the thing is available, is money in your hands. Should be interesting to see how this all plays out. With RMSTI giving up salvage rights, once the court with jurisdiction signs off on it, the ship legally becomes fair game for anyone with the resources to have a go at it.

Even if the four nations mentioned in the article sign that treaty outlawing salvage, it wouldn't have any force with a nation not a signatory to the treaty. Basically, if Russia was to go for it, they could tell the Four signers to go get stuffed and there wouldn't be much they could do about it.

It's not as if anyone is going to send a warship to protect a wreck.
 

Steve Smith

Member
Mar 20, 2011
151
0
46
Almost more disturbing than the story is the assertion that Titanic now lies at a depth of 20 miles.
But at least that should stop any more salvage...
 
T

Tom Pappas

Guest
It will get very interesting when the shareholders begin litigation to recover their investments - since RMSTI has no other assets, the artifacts will be sold, notwithstanding American law.

Lawyers, sharpen your pencils.
 
S

Susan Leighton

Guest
That "20 miles deep" assertion threw me off too. How deep (in miles) is the Titanic wreck?
Susan Y. Leighton
 
P

Patrick Christophe Morrissey-D'amore

Guest
> Hello!

I'm sure they meant 2 instead of twenty. The editor should've caught that one! Almost as good as CNN's accurate reporting that the space shuttle Columbia was reentering Earth's atmosphere at 20x the speed of light! Phew. No wonder it broke up.
 

Dave Gittins

Member
Apr 11, 2001
4,954
205
193
I smell something fishy and it ain't caviar.

L D TravOcean is a major business, specialising in cable laying and associated work. It's site is at http://www.ldtravocean.com/index.htm

It has only one device capable of reaching Titanic. This is the ROV Abyssub 5000, which is unmanned but which has remotely controlled arms that can pick up objects.

What I can't see is why L D TravOcean should interupt its normal work, transfer Abyssub 5000 and all its gear to a British ship and go off to Titanic. Transferring the gear alone would be a major performance. I wonder if they were near Titanic in the course of normal work and stopped for a peep. Then the tale grew in the telling. Is this tale only in the Virginia Pilot? I'll have a look.
 
G

Gavin Murphy

Guest
I recently received my ET Voyage No. 42 and there is what appears to be an excellent article by Dave Shuttle, with Bill Willard and Barb Shuttle, on the legal fight for the T. I have not read it yet, but hope to soon. While I don't think it addresses this latest matter, it probably will shed important light on the overal legal battle.

Query: Interesting point to remember. Neither the American Senate nor UK BofT fought WSL negligent for the disaster. While these findings are not binding on courts below (but persuasive), it essentially made it v. difficult for successful claims for damages from family victims.

Nevertheless, a few years later (and in the midst of WWI), a UK lower court DID find negligence, which could have opened the floodgates for claims on both sides of the Atlantic. No doubt this encouraged the $663,000 settlement mentioned in the ET article that we all know about.

This article is a v. helpful addition to the debate. Dave may not be a lawyer, but he could fool me!

G
 

Lee Gilliland

Member
Feb 14, 2003
511
0
146
Another thing that makes me skeptical of such reports - if you are buying something from Titanic, wouldn't you want to know its provenance? Considering we are speaking of a relatively small universe of interested buyers, won't they insist on documentation?
 

Dave Gittins

Member
Apr 11, 2001
4,954
205
193
I had a look round some major new outlets and couldn't find the story. Have they over-looked it, or don't they believe it?
 
Dec 2, 2000
58,587
376
283
Easley South Carolina
Two more options Dave;

Option three: They couldn't find a shred of evidence to support it.
Option four: They don't care. Cold perhaps, but there's quite a war going on that seems to have grabbed everybody's attention.