Uh, oh: Federal Government to seek full cost recovery for Antarctic expedition rescue
Federal Environment Minister Greg Hunt yesterday said costs, estimated at about $2.4 million, would be sought from the insurer of the operators of the vessel.
The MV Akademik Shokalskiy, chartered by the University of NSW-associated Australasian Antarctic Expedition to retrace the steps of explorer Sir Douglas Mawson, became stuck in thick sea ice on Christmas Eve.
The 52 passengers were rescued by the Aurora Australis on January 2.
Mr Hunt said the Commonwealth would seek compensation for the recovery effort.
“We will be seeking full cost recovery through insurers for the up to $2.4 million costs incurred by the Australian government,” he said.
“We have a duty to protect life at sea and we do that willingly.
“However, what we see here is that there are some questions as to whether or not the ship was detained by the action of those on board within an area the captain had identified as potentially being subject to being frozen in.
“I think we have a duty on behalf of taxpayers to seek full cost recovery.”
Source: http://www.news.com.au/national/federal-government-to-seek-full-cost-recovery-for-antarctic-expedition-rescue/story-fncynjr2-1226809033585
h/t to Lucia at the Blackboard
Related: Battle begins over Antarctic rescue bill
==============================================
I’m betting that with this revelation…
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.
…the insurers will likely say the incident was caused by neglience on the part of Dr. Chris Turney, and toss the claim back in their laps.
UPDATE: Gosh, the hardships these Guardian guys faced is just inspiring. So is the lack of self-awareness.
And finally, @loztopham gets his peanut butter milkshake. At Dubai airport. pic.twitter.com/CJaVVTrp4e
— Alok Jha (@alokjha) January 24, 2014
I do see a downside to this nonsense on the part of Turney and his “scientific” tourism, and while people are hopping up and down and hoping the his premiums will go up so that he feels the consequence of his actions, keep this in mind:
Premiums will indeed go up on future research missions, and it will have a negative impact, primarily on legitimate research, increasing costs. CAGW and fools like Turney et al do nothing but damage Science—ALL science. Except their own junk “science”, but unfortunately, few people, and no insurance company figuring new actuarial tables, is likely to take the time to distinguish between the two.
The whole point of insurance–well, the ostensible purpose, anyway—is to share the risk across all insureds seeking protection against certain similar risks. The very fact that Turney et al HAVE insurance means they are buffered from the fallout of their foolishness, and others will, by design and by law, others will share the costs of their recklessness. Even if, in this case, the company which carries their rider says they acted in violation of the terms of the insurance, it’s a fair bet that premiums will indeed go up for everyone.
So all will be harmed by the recklessness of the few. Again.
And at least for the moment, Statist, rent-seeking corporate types, grant seeking academics without scruples, and politicians looking to extend their power base all support they myth of CAGW as a method of dipping into the public till. Like as not they’ll find a bunch of sympathetic zombies, who, mindless robots they are, will all cry on cue, boo hoo! for the good Dr. Turney et al, and take up collections with which to pay for his poor judgement. I’m surprised President Obama hasn’t tweeted his support for the poor fools who thought to find melting ice at the South Pole. Duh. They think they brought back samples of great value to science. They weren’t competent to bring themselves back. I cannot imagine that they will contribute ANYTHING to posterity aside from an example of how NOT to run a scientific expedition.
I’m starting to think that the best thing the folks in Canberra could’ve done would’ve been to pretend they weren’t hearing the SOS’s and left them there to starve (or eat each other. After all, wasn’t it Lyall Watson who said, “[Cannibalism is a] radical but realistic solution to the problem of overpopulation.”? —h/t to Ian Wishart, ‘Air Con’. Isn’t overpopulation one of those things Greens like Ehrlich & Suzuki were always bleating about?). Yeah, yeah, I know: hadda save Turney’s kids, and the poor crew of the ship didn’t deserve that, they were just doing their jobs… Still, if the Green idiot-manques all practiced what they preached and ate EACH OTHER, CAGW theory would be a self-correcting problem…
As for leaving reckless idiots to their fate when they do stupid things like Turney and company…well, to borrow a phrase from Pournelle and Niven: “Think of it as Evolution in action.”
Ian L. McQueen says:
January 24, 2014 at 7:07 pm
Where I live there seems to be no shortage of them. But at the link you provided I read through the comments until my stomach could take no more. Apparently we’re a bunch of “Lieberal” “right wing lunies” and “Anti Science” freaks who “move goal posts,” and put up “straw man arguments” and… well, you know the standard projections. One poster feels sorry for Michael Mann, and another thinks that man has “survived several ice ages” without serious difficulty but is now in grave danger of facing “temperatures of 50°C+.” Where do they get these people?
John says: January 24, 2014 at 9:40 pm
Does disobedience of a direct order from the Captain of a ship, in matters relating to the safety of the ship and her passengers constitute criminal negligence?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
That’s a really interesting question. If you jeopardized safety of ship and passengers on a cruise ship in the Caribbean you will be locked in the ship’s brig and disembarked at the next port of call. It’s a Russian flagged ship and their admiralty court could look at this.
I wouldn’t be surprised if the owner and/or Russian government stick it to Australia, saying the Pan Pan call was a request for assistance – icebreaking – and the ship was in no immediate danger; hence, no May Day, the ship was not abandoned by skipper or crew and in fact beat everyone home to Hobart. The rescue was effected solely at the behest of Australian S/R, who acted hastily and in fact ignored a plausible weather window forecast that suggested the ship would be freed on its own. In fact, all the “rescue” accomplished was moving passengers from one stuck ship to another stuck ship.
Richard D says:
January 24, 2014 at 11:10 pm
Suppose that events had taken a different turn, after Prof. Turney disobeyed the Captain of the MV Akademik Shokalskiy.
Suppose that the pack-ice had caused the ship to list, so that she took on water and sank and that some of her passengers or crew were killed, either by drowning or through freezing, while awaiting rescue.
In these circumstances, would anyone be charged with negligent manslaughter?
If people had died on the expedition and the issue was not merely allocating financial liability for the rescue effort, but possible criminal responsibility for the deaths of people, would Prof Turney’s wilful disobedience of the Captain of the ship reduce the responsibility of the Captain and ship-owners, in any way and would Prof. Turney and possibly his sponsors be considered responsible, in law, for any fatalities which resulted from his irresponsible behaviour?
I believe that on this occasion, luck played an important part in the happy ending, which occurred, but the same irresponsible actions could have easily resulted in a far more tragic end to the expedition.
John says: January 24, 2014 at 11:19 pm
Suppose that events had taken a different turn, after Prof. Turney disobeyed the Captain of the MV Akademik Shokalskiy.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
With that vessel, forecast and typical conditions he had no business being there, period.
@ur momisugly davidmhoffer
Was it a Horst-Wessel, or internal combustion? 🙂
[ducking and running]
Shades of the curious incident of the dog in the night time.
(I.e., the recipients knew what the call was about (come home) and turned a deaf ear to it.)
Gail Combs says:
January 24, 2014 at 1:02 pm
It can get to be a real mess. Boy do I want to be a fly on the wall when all this goes down.
Do you think we can get NSA to bug the offices?
—————————————————————————–
Too late.
I’m sure NSA’s way ahead of you.
cn
Richard D says: January 24, 2014 at 11:52 am
@ur momisugly Neil.
I’m familiar yet here we’re dealing with maritime law. The captain is responsible for the lives and safety of passengers and crew on his ship.
__________________________________
Not if the captain has been ordered to stay on station by his employer. Then, the responsibility greys considerably, as the Hearald of Free Enterprise sinking demonstrated (the management were charged with corporate negligence).
The problem is that Russian ships run on a shoestring. So if professor X says ‘go here, or we are not paying you’, then the ship tends to go there whether it is safe or not. In which case, the responsibility (and the cost of rescue) is right back in the court of the company or the leader of the expedition.
The insurers will know this, and will be seeking evidence of who was giving the orders, and what protestations the captain made.
Ralph
Nick Stokes says: January 24, 2014 at 3:34 pm
. They have issued liability insurance. That is, they took a premium to insure against the possibility that the insured will incur liability. They can’t then say – well, it’s your liability, not ours.
________________________________
Don’t be silly, of course they can. The insurance company are not going to pay out, if you deliberately imperil your ship (or deliberately set fire to your company premises).
The insurance company will be all over this claim with a fine-tooth comb. Which will be interesting, as all these details may well come out in court.
ralph
In Norway, they would have been rescued within a couple of hours. Norway is not an empty land like Antarctica, far from civilization.
Amatør1 said @ur momisugly January 25, 2014 at 2:41 am
I have known a number of expeditioners and count some among my most excellent of friends. Far from being savages, they are quite civilised. Hobart’s inhabitants, suppliers to many Antarctic-bound vessels can also exhibit many signs of having been civilised — on a good day. Only IMHO of course 🙂
The Pompous Git says:
January 25, 2014 at 2:55 am
Hobart’s inhabitants, suppliers to many Antarctic-bound vessels can also exhibit many signs of having been civilised — on a good day.
*****************************************************************
Many came from convict stock, including me 🙂
The Pompous Git says: …..
Good for her! Tell her we wish her the best.
Steve says: @ur momisugly January 25, 2014 at 3:23 am
Many came from convict stock, including me 🙂
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Aaah, the independent survivor types.
===================================================================
They make gag cubes with plastic fly in them. Maybe cubes with little frozen turkeys?
========================================================================
😎
Greenpeace should get a bill too.
“Chief Enabler”, conspirtor before these foolish acts.
Al Gore, “The Act”.
Gail Combs,
Got a 3 week R & R out of Vietnam as a pay off for taking another year in the conflict in 1969.
Got loose in down under, found a place out in the middle of no where, called something like “Etta Maw Pub” . Lots of good beer real cold to boot. Some nice young ladies in shorts and halter tops. We made a play. Some locals youth said, ” now we love you Texas guys from the U.S. but these ladies are spoken for”, they invited us out to the parking lot, did a bit of a work over on all 4 of us, picked us up, took us to our rented auto and saw us off.
Some sort of cultural thing uh?
What makes the AGW nut jobs freak out is just posting the web cams of ski resorts.
http://www.arapahoebasin.com click on web cams
good way to get your post deleted and the ban stick
J Martin says:
Why did the Mawson trip take place at a time when there was still a great deal of sea ice ?
Surely it should have been timed to coincide with minimum sea ice. Perhaps the timing of the expedition was dictated by Australian holidays rather than ice state. Thus influencing the success or failure of the expedition.
Because during this period all suitable ships are booked years in advance by normal tour operators. As far as I can make out Shokalskiy is now back in Antarctica on a Heritage Expeditions tour. However it is to the Ross Sea, which is normally quite ice-free by this date. Actually it may be a bit sticky to get down to McMurdo this year. However, once again, normal tour operators always have contingency plans, and always include an all inclusive escape clause in the contract provisions:
“Note: During our voyage, circumstances may make it necessary or desirable to deviate from the proposed itinerary. This can include poor weather and opportunities for making unplanned excursions. Your Expedition Leader will keep you fully informed.”
I would really like to see the various insurance policies held by the various parties: the one(s) held by the ship owner, the one(s) held by the trip organizers/charterers; the one(s) held by the University of NSW for its employees; the one(s) held by the media for its reporters on the ship; etc.
It would be interesting reading, and would cut short intriguing but unproductive speculation about claims/courts/suits/etc.
NOTE TO SCOTT MANDIA => Has Chris Turney contacted you yet in your capacity as a manager of a climate scientist legal defense fund which I presume is through your participation in the UCS (Union of Concerned Scientists)? If not then you may want to contact him because, Scott, don’t you consider it a reasonable possibility he is going to face litigation due to his unprofessional behavior and irresponsible claims while being an activist leader of the Antarctic climate science expedition?
John
CRS, DrPH says:
January 24, 2014 at 10:53 pm
…it sounds as if Prof. Turney is in the market for a new ship….this one would fit the bill, and the price is right!
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-ghost-ship-starving-rats-20140123,0,2318033.story
http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/01/25/five-reasons-the-lyubov-orlova-and-its-cannibal-rats-are-at-the-bottom-of-the-atlantic/
Is that the total bill for the rescue, or only Australia’s part of it? Can we expect further growth?
He should have listened to the advice from this penguin …
http://youtu.be/cfTyDx0el0M