Re: Archaeologists see treasure looting taking all of the shipwrecks

On Jun 12, 10:39 am, Mark Borgerson <mborger...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In article <1181645057.511042.127...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
jacklinthi...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx says...

On Jun 11, 11:10 pm, Mark Borgerson <mborger...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In article <1181574640.708753.263...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
jacklinthi...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx says...

On Jun 11, 10:46 am, Mark Borgerson <mborger...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In article <1181556525.782916.124...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
jacklinthi...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx says...

On Jun 10, 10:16 pm, Mark Borgerson <mborger...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
<<SNIP>>
Commercially, it IS a loss. Ship time without an ROV is at least
$10,000 per day for medium sized oceanographic vessels. I can't
imagine the treasure hunting ships with ROVs are any less.

I doubt that the companies feel it is the only way. They just feel
that it is the most profitable way. Until an archeological group
can pony up $10K+ per day for a few months, treasure hunting
will have priority.

If a recovery operations nets $100,000 per day (to pay for all
the $10K days in discovery), the archeologists are more likely
to have to offer closer to $100K/day to cover the opportunity
costs for the treasure hunters. Either that, or they have to
pay a good share of the cost of locating the wreck.

Mark Borgersron

Bob Ballard seems to be able to mix the two. I presume some form of
incentive like a tax break for finding and proving something, like the
notebooks, would be feasible, but there is too much emphasis on
returns for the shareholder and too little on the loss the methods
used entail.

I think the National Geographic Society and the Discovery Channel
can only afford one Bob Ballard! If there were funds for more
explorations of that type, the archeologists would be out there.

In any case, the accountants are much more comfortable measuring
returns to the shareholder than they are in evaluating cultural
losses.

I imagine if a private company were to go around to world class
museums and use solvents to remove the existing paintings in hopes of
finding a "lost" masterpiece that might elicit some response.

I imagine that the legal consequences would be different if the
museums were in no country and the paintings were not legally the
property of an individual or government.

I don't think much will change in the conflict between archeologist
and treasure hunter until the archeologists can attract the same
funding as the treasure hunters. When you've figured out how to
make that happen, be sure to let us know! Hint: Dropping a few
extra bucks in the donations box at the local maritime museum
isn't going to get you there any time soon.

Mark Borgerson

The problem is the operations with the capability will rip open a few
hundred ships, not make enough money to continue to operate and
satisfy their investors and then come piddling around the research
effort looking for work.

Is that your conjecture, or do you have any citations concerning
operations that have ripped open a few hundred ships?

Mark Borgerson

That's in the prospectus for those 12 companies, the Black Swan
articles are enclosures 1-235. It's Mel Fisher taken to the corporate
boardroom. The HMS Sussex is the next target but if there are any
others the 99 will be ripped open on the chance they are a treasure
ship. Corporations don't have the 20 years that Mel Fisher took, they
need something on the boardroom table or they are trying to find
broken pipelines rather than fishing up tons of gold and silver.

Which twelve companies would that be? Or are you still just expressing
your own opinion?

I'm no great fan of Western corporate culture---but I'm not sure that
much exploration will ever get done if we leave it all to the
scientific arm of the United Nations.

Mark Borgerson

I won't pick out who is still operating and what they are doing but
these are the "larger" group and the "12" was taken from one of the
Odyssey PR release.

http://www.mtsociety.org/sponsor_news/business.cfm

If you go to the cite you can click on each one to see what they
current ops are. A clue, when a company cites its membership
qualification for the Marine Technology Society as "business" that
usually means "none of your"



AANDERAA INSTRUMENTS, INC.
ALPINE OCEAN SEISMIC SURVEY, INC.
ASHTEAD TECHNOLOGY, INC.
BENNEX SUBSEA, HOUSTON
BIOSONICS, INC.
C.A. RICHARDS & ASSOCIATES, INC.
DEEPSEA POWER & LIGHT
DTC INTERNATIONAL, INC.
EQUIPMENT & TECHNICAL SERVICES, INC.
FALMAT, INC.
FUGRO SEAFLOOR SURVEYS, INC.
GILMAN CORPORATION
GLOBAL INDUSTRIES OFFSHORE, LLC
HORIZON MARINE, INC.
HYDROACOUSTICS, INC.
IMPULSE ENTERPRISE
INTEROCEANS SYSTEMS, INC.
IVS 3D
LIGHTHOUSE R&D ENTERPRISES, INC.
MAKAI OCEAN ENGINEERING
MARINE DESALINATION SYSTEMS, L.L.C.
MATTHEWS-DANIEL COMPANY
NORTH PACIFIC CRANE
OCEANIC IMAGING CONSULTANTS, INC.
OCEANWORKS INTERNATIONAL
ODYSSEY MARINE EXPLORATION
PHYSICS MATERIALS AND APPLIED MATHEMATICS RESEARCH
PRIZM ADVANCED COMMUNICATION ELECTRONICS, INC.
QUEST OFFSHORE RESOURCES
REMOTE OCEAN SYSTEMS, INC. (ROS)
SAIC MARITIME TECHNOLOGIES
SEABOTIX
SEACON PHOENIX INC.
SEAEYE MARINE
SONARDYNE INC.
SOUND OCEAN SYSTEMS INC.
TECHNOLOGY SYSTEMS CORP
TENSION MEMBER TECHNOLOGY
VIDEORAY
WESTNEY CONSULTING GROUP INC.


WET LABS INC.

.

Relevant Pages