Lee54 Posted October 22, 2008 Share Posted October 22, 2008 First of all the boat was salvaged, paid for by the IOM Gov, in theory the boat should belong to the IOMG. Claims have been made against the ship owner and his ship. The owners insurance would pick up the tab for his legal bills and then they may make a claim that the boat is factual evidence and take ownership with the agreement of the salvage operator (IOMG) who may have agreed. At present the IOMG are paying for the protection of the boat, IOMG may want to have this money repaid via the insurance. The insurance company then have a case to take ownership if cost are claimed from them. Its a very complicated case. I took the matter up with an MHK regarding re sinking the boat, he replied that the decision was now in the hands of the insurance and from what he could find out, the boat was to be scrapped off in Scotland. Things may have changed since I was told 12 months ago, but I have heard nothing from anyone to say so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skeddan Posted October 22, 2008 Share Posted October 22, 2008 First of all the boat was salvaged, paid for by the IOM Gov, in theory the boat should belong to the IOMG. Claims have been made against the ship owner and his ship. The owners insurance would pick up the tab for his legal bills and then they may make a claim that the boat is factual evidence and take ownership with the agreement of the salvage operator (IOMG) who may have agreed. At present the IOMG are paying for the protection of the boat, IOMG may want to have this money repaid via the insurance. The insurance company then have a case to take ownership if cost are claimed from them.Its a very complicated case. I took the matter up with an MHK regarding re sinking the boat, he replied that the decision was now in the hands of the insurance and from what he could find out, the boat was to be scrapped off in Scotland. Things may have changed since I was told 12 months ago, but I have heard nothing from anyone to say so. Thanks Lee54. I can sort of understand wanting to take boat as factual evidence. Is that really the case - do you send factual evidence to a scrapyard? Wouldn't any claim be in IoM anyway? Even if not, would the boat have to be taken away? If IoMG is keeping the boat, and insurance co benefits from having this factual evidence, wouldn't they be able to get money out of them anyway. I'm not really clear how "the insurance company then have a case to take ownership if costs are claimed from them." i.e. exactly how and why might the insurance company claim ownership of the boat? I'm sure it's very complicated, but I don't see how ownership is a decision in the hands of the insurance company - unless the complicated issue of ownership has been resolved by a court and the insurance company have an option or the like. I'm not suggesting brown envelopes have been changing hands - and if as Sebrof says, it's been said it belongs to them" then "no doubt everything is just as it should be". I'm just wondering how a wreck which I think would belong to IOMG seems to now be owned by an insurance company who is getting scrap value of it, without it apparently having been sold to them and with no clear explanation of how they became its owner. (and I assume without going through any judicial process - and with the insurance company seeming to be the ones to decide whether they own it or not). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moghrey Mie Posted October 22, 2008 Share Posted October 22, 2008 A date is set for the inquest verdicts into the death of a trawler's crew who died off the Manx coast. Source : http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/-/1/hi/world/...man/7679914.stm Why did it take 8 years to hold an inquest? I can understand 8 weeks or 8 months but 8 years seems a dreadful delay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lee54 Posted October 22, 2008 Share Posted October 22, 2008 The reason the boat will not be sunk is>>>>>>>>>> For a ship to be sunk, it first has to be cleaned of all hazardous materials. no oil, bilge water,gas, fuel, wires or any other object that could be a danger to divers or the environment. The IOMG will not pay for this work to be done and will not pay for the cost to dispose of the ship. This is the possible answer as to why an insurance company now owns the wreck. This boat was at the bottom of the sea for quite a while, most of the liquid hazards would have been washed out, to strip out any wires or dangerous objects would no be an expencive job in my opinion, so the Gov excuse is poor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sebrof Posted October 22, 2008 Share Posted October 22, 2008 It has been stated that the boat belongs to the insurance company. If that is so, then no doubt everything is as it should be. Depends who stated this. Who said this? - source/link please. Try Lee54 earlier in the thread. S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skeddan Posted October 23, 2008 Share Posted October 23, 2008 The reason the boat will not be sunk is>>>>>>>>>>For a ship to be sunk, it first has to be cleaned of all hazardous materials. no oil, bilge water,gas, fuel, wires or any other object that could be a danger to divers or the environment. The IOMG will not pay for this work to be done and will not pay for the cost to dispose of the ship. This is the possible answer as to why an insurance company now owns the wreck. This boat was at the bottom of the sea for quite a while, most of the liquid hazards would have been washed out, to strip out any wires or dangerous objects would no be an expencive job in my opinion, so the Gov excuse is poor. Ah this makes sense. Insurance company now has responsibility for the claims liabilities etc. - so is responsible for disposing of nasty hazardous waste and taking this away and disposing of the ship. IoMG won't pay for this. Thanks - a sensible explanation. Still that would mean IoMG could keep it if they wanted to - it just might be cheaper and easier to lump it onto the insurance company to deal with. Yes if choose to sink the ship, then ensuring no environmental hazard of course has to be done as you say. I didn't think it was that expensive either - and has 'artificial reef' benefits of kind you noted elsewhere. They did that with HMNZS Tui & Waikato, and Rainbow Warrior among others - all had to be cleaned as you describe. I think mainly this was done by volunteers - any reason why couldn't be - especially if this is to meet wishes of families of men killed - or perhaps this might be a good bit of community service. I'd think it would be worth most of the cost just for the fisheries benefit. I can really understand what it might mean to the families though - it's a bit like a burial at sea, and more than just the ship herself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
molly Posted October 23, 2008 Share Posted October 23, 2008 Are we not getting carried away with the whole death ship thing? its a ship scrap it let it go, nothing can change the things that happened to those poor men. I know things are different but if i could make a comparison to the house where the double murder took place years ago and the mother wanted the house demolished as it was the place her daughter died, quite rightly the building still stands. Scrap the ship,its just scrap no more nothing less, the men shall be remembered by those who knew them and memorials stand for others to remember them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lee54 Posted October 23, 2008 Share Posted October 23, 2008 Are we not getting carried away with the whole death ship thing? its a ship scrap it let it go, nothing can change the things that happened to those poor men. I know things are different but if i could make a comparison to the house where the double murder took place years ago and the mother wanted the house demolished as it was the place her daughter died, quite rightly the building still stands. Scrap the ship,its just scrap no more nothing less, the men shall be remembered by those who knew them and memorials stand for others to remember them. Ok the Manx taxpayer pays to bring the ship up but is not willing to clean the boat out and sink her, is it a better idea to let someone profit out of it who has so far paid FA. At least by sinking her it will give something back to the sea and help promote new fish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
molly Posted October 23, 2008 Share Posted October 23, 2008 Are we not getting carried away with the whole death ship thing? its a ship scrap it let it go, nothing can change the things that happened to those poor men. I know things are different but if i could make a comparison to the house where the double murder took place years ago and the mother wanted the house demolished as it was the place her daughter died, quite rightly the building still stands. Scrap the ship,its just scrap no more nothing less, the men shall be remembered by those who knew them and memorials stand for others to remember them. Ok the Manx taxpayer pays to bring the ship up but is not willing to clean the boat out and sink her, is it a better idea to let someone profit out of it who has so far paid FA. At least by sinking her it will give something back to the sea and help promote new fish. scrap the boat put the cash back in the manx fund. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skeddan Posted October 23, 2008 Share Posted October 23, 2008 scrap the boat put the cash back in the manx fund. molly - so you think don't hand it over to the insurance company to dispose of, but have IoMG arrange for it to be scrapped so can keep whatever value it will fetch? I don't think this will get much scrap value at all. If anything I think it could be a liability with the cost of ship breaking higher than the value of the scrap. (which is why it's usually done in third world - best known is Bangladesh). I'd think value is particularly low since the vessel was sunk and under water for so long. I doubt there'd be any takers if you tried to give it away - unless you were prepared to deliver it to Bangladesh or the like. That's probably why rather than IoMG trying to get scrap value, it would be a better option to leave disposal as the insurance company's problem and offload the problem onto them. IMO Lee54's suggestion seems the better one. Use as an artificial reef. As I understand it there are good economic arguments to using as an artificial reef over scrapping. There'd be some cost in clean and prep to ensure no environmental hazard, but also a long term benefit in encouraging fish populations. I'd think some arrangement with the insurance company might be worth looking at (it could well work out as least expensive for the insurance company, and with greatest benefit for IoM). It might require a bit of coordination and effort by DoT and DAFF among others, and more work for them than just leaving it to the insurance company to dispose of elsewhere - but given benefits for fisheries etc. isn't that what they're paid to do? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lee54 Posted October 24, 2008 Share Posted October 24, 2008 The sea took the lives of another 5 fishermen yesterday when a trawler went down in Alaska, several crew members are still missing. Video http://www.kirotv.com/video/17795057/index.html another boat joins the rescue http://www.kirotv.com/video/17795057/index.html Capt Phill Harris interview http://www.kirotv.com/video/17795057/index.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.