ANTARCTIC expeditioners rescued by an Australian icebreaker have apologised for an operation that could cost taxpayers up to $2.4 million.
Fifty-two passengers rescued from a Russian ship trapped in sea ice have arrived in Hobart aboard the Australian Antarctic vessel Aurora Australis, nearly three weeks after the emergency began.
…
“We’re incredibly grateful to everyone who’s come out to help us,” leader of the privately funded expedition, Professor Chris Turney, told a media conference in Hobart.
“We are terribly sorry for any impact that it might have had on fellow colleagues whose work has been delayed.
“Any experienced Antarctic scientist knows that’s an inherent risk.”
Australian Antarctic Division (AAD) director Dr Tony Fleming said costs were still being determined but could range from $1.8 million to $2.4 million.
…
Costs associated with delays to scientific programs, including a major study of ocean acidification scheduled for next year, were harder to pin down, Dr Fleming said.
“The government will be pursuing all avenues to recover costs and minimise the burden to the Australian taxpayer,” he said.
More at The Australian here
============================================================
Meanwhile Steve McIntyre points out that it is getting harder and harder for them to wiggle out of culpability:
The Sydney Morning Herald reports that the University of New South Wales is a signatory to the sub-charter of the Akademik Shokalskiy.
…
I don’t know how liability for rescue costs is allocated. However, the fact that the University of New South Wales is a party to the sub-charter places its potential liability in a new light. However, in most legal proceedings, plaintiffs look for the party with the deepest pockets, which, in this case, would be the University of New South Wales.
In another story, New Details on the Ship of Fools Steve writes:
The precise chronology of the Ship of Fools on December 23 has been a topic of interest on skeptic blogs, including my recent post demonstrating the falsity of Turney’s excuses. However, up to today, this chronology had received zero media coverage, despite several reporters from major media on the Ship of Fools.
Today, there are two stories (BBC and Sydney Morning Herald , both of which contain damning information (especially the latter.) Note embedded link in latter article h/t Bob Koss, with important details not reported in the main article.
…
Turney’s defenders have attempted to transfer blame from the expedition to the Russian captain. However, Mortimer (though not Turney) squarely acknowledged that the delays were the “responsibility of the expedition team, not Captain Kiselev.”
It looks as if the press is starting to ask questions:
Antarctic cruise routes face scrutiny
Antarctic authorities want more say over where private expeditions venture after revealing a rescue mission this summer could cost Australian taxpayers $2.4 million.
Permits for a group whose chartered Russian ship became trapped in sea ice last month were issued without considering its proposed course.
More: http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/20931702/rescued-antarctic-passengers-arrive-home/
===========================================
SkyNews has video here: http://www.skynews.com.au/topstories/article.aspx?id=944004&vId=4312511&cId=Top%20Stories
===========================================
UPDATE: This SMH story pretty well nails it. Excerpt:
“Everyone on board was keen to make the journey across the fast ice to the Hodgeman Islands,” said one passenger.
A weather forecast predicted 25-35 knot winds reaching 40 knots late in the day.
“Despite the wind and extreme cold, the scenery on the journey was spectacular – it seemed unreal, as though we were on a movie set,” said the same passenger.
About 2.30pm the weather deteriorated. At the same time Captain Kiselev saw slabs of sea ice moving into the open water channel from which the ship had entered the area. He called for everyone to return.
A passenger standing near Professor Turney overheard the voyage leader, Greg Mortimer, telling him over the radio to bring passengers back to the ship so it can leave.
But minutes later, Professor Turney drove six more passengers into the field.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Notice how so few times the words “University of New South Wales” have been mentioned in the reports. It has taken days/weeks for Fairfax and the ABC to even acknowledge the involvement of UNSW, let alone that Professor Chris Turney is a Professor of Climate Change at the Climate Change Research Centre of that university.
Stacey says:
January 22, 2014 at 5:23 am
“Hello, I’m a novice when it comes to this stuff. I’m trying to figure out how some studies claim there is a pause in global warming while others, like the one below, say it’s a record year of warmth. Can someone please explain?”
Does this help? http://www.thegwpf.org/nasa-noaa-confirm-global-temperature-standstill-continues/
If you want to claim something that ain’t so it helps to ignore error bands and cherry pick data.
Gail, I had considered as much and the fact that the ship was able to initially move is a good starting point, but I suspect experts will be called in to interpret satellite data.
Stacey says:
“Hello, I’m a novice when it comes to this stuff. I’m trying to figure out how some studies claim there is a pause in global warming while others, like the one below, say it’s a record year of warmth. Can someone please explain? ”
Aaaaaaaaaaaannnd, sometimes they just make it up.
http://iceagenow.info/2014/01/scientists-accused-unjustifiably-adding-whopping-degree-warming-temperature-record/
Whilst Turney’s actions are undoubtedly going to come under heavy scrutiny, I think the actions of the Russian captain may also be closely examined, not least the questionable decision to issue a mayday call as later on the captain declared that he considered that the ship was not in danger or need of help, as did the Chinese ship.
Though, on the other hand perhaps with tourists onboard and the distance from a safe harbour he may have felt he had to take the safest option.
@J Martin – sorry this is so late, but if that is the only evidence against the Captain, I think he will be exhonerated. You call for help when you see the situation becoming untenable. To wait until the ship is sinking would be malfeasance.
It would be useful to show the taxpayers exactly what “science” was obtained for this price.
And now the Independent is airing a critical view of the affair: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/australasia/communication-breakdown-on-board-the-akademik-shokalskiy-blamed-for-the-ship-being-stranded-in-antarctic-ice-over-christmas-9078090.html .
Could be just a dig at the Guardian for its role in the “expedition”, but a bad lack of solidarity nevertheless.
Don’t worry about the cost of rescuing the passengers and crew. If the numbers are like other such published numbers in the past they are misleading. They most likely include costs that would have been incurred in any case, like salaries of crews involved, an allocation of the costs of operating the ship, including depreciation, fuel, land-based support, etc. The fact is, the crews were going to paid anyway, the costs of the ship were not going to be avoided, and even the costs of fuel might have been incurred. After all, without a real rescue they might have gone on some sort of training mission.
New laws to limit expeditions like Turney’s to be passed.
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/plan-to-curb-antarctic-expeditions-after-costly-rescue-of-trapped-ship-20140122-3191c.html
…And then, like the bogus award, there is the pre-loaded media that the operation’s spin doctors had ready on the hero’s triumphant return…
From michael hart:
January 23, 2014 at 8:24 am
If there is anybody who is a customer/employee of the Commercial
Bank of Australia then they might want to have a word with them to spare
their blushes:
http://blog.commbank.com.au/your-bank/sub-antarctic-experience/
CommBank sponsored the Doodle-4Google prize expedition which was won
by Lisa Baddock. Proud Dad, Wayne Baddock accompanied his daughter to
Antarctica. According to the blog they interviewed Wayne just after he
returned. The problem is, they dated the article 17th January 2014,
several days before the ship returned.
An honest typographical error? Or the interview was done much earlier by internet or telephone?
Well, when asked the question:
‘The unknown’ is often the core of adventures. What surprised you most about your trip?
Wayne is reported as replying:
“The isolation from the rest of the world. It really
gave us the opportunity to connect with the environment around us. We
didn’t encounter another vessel throughout the expedition.”
🙂 And they say you couldn’t make these things up….
I’ve saved it and blogged it. I firmly believe the memory hole will swallow this entire event without firm steps taken to prevent it.
And for the record- that PR post by the bank is blatant lying. No mistake.
Jimbo says:
January 22, 2014 at 9:33 am
Jimbo: I really appreciate the thought and knowledge you put into your many contributions to WUWT, but I’m going to disagree with you here. Not everything needs to turn into a government inquiry, even if it involves hoist-on-their-own-petard climate scientists.
Nobody died; nobody was seriously injured; as far as I know nobody was even mildly injured. Nobody’s national security was threatened, etc., etc.
A chartered trip ran afoul of conditions and required assistance, rendered at some cost by three other vessels. This is routine maritime law stuff and the lawyers for the various parties will hash it out. It appears from reports we have that a certain amount of questionable judgement was involved, which means the lawyers will have more to argue about and therefore more billable hours. Happens all the time.
What is the point of a government inquiry?
Eventually the liability claims will be settled. If some liability falls on the University of New South Wales, that is no different in nature from all the other liabilities they already have, for example when their staff operate UNSW motor vehicles on the public roads. Do you demand a government inquiry whenever a UNSW truck sideswipes a parked car? If they end up getting stuck with a significant judgement in this instance it will no doubt get their attention.
If you still want a government inquiry, I suggest we direct it towards the question of why we (the seafaring nations on this planet) permit public charter vessels to go into risky conditions when we appear to have an inadequate fleet of polar-capable vessels to render effective aid should they get in trouble. Neither the French, Chinese, nor Australian ships could reach the Akademik Shokalskiy and free it, although all three are rated as light-duty “icebreakers”. The US Coast Guard icebreaker Polar Star most likely could have effected a rescue if required, but was more than 4 days out at maximum speed. And right now the Polar Star is the only icebreaker the US has with those capabilities. The Russians have a lot more, but their big nuclear ones are restricted to the Northern polar oceans. Considering the number of research stations in Antarctica, it seems to me the fleet of vessels operable in extreme polar conditions is inadequate. When you add the potential demands of adventure tourists, we simply don’t have enough.
I believe in a free society people have a right to “adventure tourism”. I don’t hear anyone demanding Richard Branson stop offering seats on Virgin Galactic spaceflights — even more expensive than Antarctic cruses, and much more exclusive bragging rights. What do you think a rescue effort will cost if something goes wrong in low earth orbit?
If you don’t like Chris Turney’s science, then criticize the science. Don’t turn everything into a government inquiry, and please don’t suggest that some authority needs to act as a gatekeeper to insure than only “real” scientists go to the Antarctic.
I’m all in favor of adventure tourism, although my personal taste is places with warm oceans and interesting coral reefs to explore with scuba gear. I just can’t see paying a lot of money go someplace where everything in the environment is conspiring to kill me, but to each his own.
Once again Jimbo, I say this with the greatest respect and appreciation for your views. Make all the fun of Turney you want, but I don’t see that a government inquiry is either warranted or beneficial.
@Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7 – Excellent comment. I agree.
No doubt they can take the money out of UNSW’s climate change research budget. It’s not as if they’re publishing anything useful.
Hear hear Susie. Anyone who ventures into the Antarctic on a cruise, knows of the problems they might expect and it seems the Russian ship did get out anyway. It would be good to see who was the principal architect who financed this climate change fiasco. And they should pay.
And any experienced Antarctic explorer knows Turney was simply unprofessional in his actions. To the critical reader his entire stream of communications was too mixed-up to create an appearance of basic integrity.
John
“flyingtigercomics says:
January 22, 2014 at 6:08 pm
http://blog.commbank.com.au/your-bank/sub-antarctic-experience/”
Oh dear! This whole fiasco would be highly embarrassing for them (Commonwealth Bank of Australia – CommBank – CBA. I was a contractor to the CBA) and no wonder I have not seen any coverage of it here either through the Aussie MSM or CommBank adverts.
“We are terribly sorry for any impact that it might have had on fellow colleagues whose work has been delayed.
“Any experienced Antarctic scientist knows that’s an inherent risk.”
“Naturally, my sponsors and I will financially compensate all adversely affected parties, to the value of whatever additional expenses they have incurred, due to my irresponsible behaviour.”
It took several hours for the people visiting the Hogdeman Islands, including the two expedition leaders, to return to the ship, passengers said. Four hours passed before the ship retreated for open water. “The captain and his staff up on the [ship’s] bridge did not look happy,” said one passenger, who asked to remain anonymous.
…the good Capt. Kiselev should have left them on the ice. Raw, frozen penguin isn’t half-bad when you are starving….
I saw a report within the past day that said that he was worried about two large icebergs that appeared on the horizon — he feared the wind might blow them into him, thru the pack ice, holing his ship below the waterline.
For those wishing to draw the tour boat Captain into the mess, he didn’t issue a mayday he issued a pan-pan. And it was not a shipwreck emergency evacuation, it was a “normal” evacuation. Serious but much less serious. A “state of urgency”.
And the evacuation was necessitated by the sub-charter, the ship of fools expedition, not the ship owner or the charterer. It is 100% down to the warmists and their media co-conspirators.
Pity they’ll never get that documentary scarefest aired now.
Galane says:
January 22, 2014 at 9:26 pm
I believe that leftists/progressives/socialists/communists/re-name-du-jour fall into two categories: cynical sociopaths, who seek solely to destabilise, then destroy the existing society, rejecting all of its values and who lie in order to exploit the gullibility, ignorance and greed of their followers and gullible, ignorant and greedy followers, who disguise their self-aggrandizing agenda, by spurious claims of helping the needy and pursuing undefined social justice.
CRS Ph.D., LOL. Penquins are protected. What about seal meat? They are so cute too.
I’ve just found the ideal site for them to look for their next cruise.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/cruises/9679966/Themed-cruises-the-most-unusual-options.html
I rather think number 10 might do as it is a mystery tour, although you could say they have already done that one!
James Bull
Gives one an idea for a sequel to Ice Station Zebra about believers sabotaged in their desperate race to get Antarctica to look like it is melting. One might call it Ice Station Jackass.
Coach Springer says…
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Darn it, now I have to clean my monitor and key board again.
Maybe we can get Mel Brooks to produce it.
This may seem a little harsh, but why didn’t the captain just leave them there? They disobeyed a direct order and put not only the crew and other passengers on their own ship in danger, but also the crews of the rescue ships and helicopters.