Tour company will not salvage sunken Phoenix tourist boat

[webfact]

Tour company will not salvage sunken Phoenix tourist boat

 

 

The owner of the tourist boat that sank in the rough sea off Phuket on July 5 resulting in the death of 47 Chinese tourists has refused to salvage the sunken vessel, claiming that it lies 45 metres deep on the seabed and should not pose an obstacle to sea navigation.

 

Legal advisor of TC Blue Dream Company which owns the ill-fated Phoenix Mr Nipit Intharasombat, said that there is no way that the sunken vessel would obstruct sea navigation between Hey and Racha islands off Phuket.  He said the vessel lies 45 metres under the sea and that it would not cause pollution problem.

 

He said that the police wanted the sunken vessel to be salvaged because it was regarded as a piece of evidence in their probe into the cause of the fatal accident and, for that matter, he added that the state would have to cover the cost of salvaging the boat – not the company.

 

Full story: http://englishnews.thaipbs.or.th/tour-company-will-not-salvage-sunken-phoenix-tourist-boat/

 

-- © Copyright Thai PBS 2018-08-16

[Get Real]

The owner is right on this matter. How he is right regarding the safety he provided for his passangers are to be seen. However, if the police and the state need the boat as evidence, it´s their thing to handle.

[Darcula]

Quote

10 million baht

 

But, but, but, Uncle Somchai already printed business cards for his brand new marine salvage business, na.

[bluesofa]

42 minutes ago, Darcula said:

 

But, but, but, Uncle Somchai already printed business cards for his brand new marine salvage business, na.

He was probably hoping to float the company on the stock market too.

 

[stevenl]

1 hour ago, Get Real said:

The owner is right on this matter. How he is right regarding the safety he provided for his passangers are to be seen. However, if the police and the state need the boat as evidence, it´s their thing to handle.

As I said in the other thread, I think legally this is correct.

[quadperfect]

Good for her. I hope she has a good lawyer. It looks like he is making common sence out of this witch hunt. But is he good enough to make the blind see.

Time will tell

I hope she gets off. I think she is innocent.

The thai government is mostly at fault here.

Letting all the boats run free.

I see lots of activity at the chalong pier in the early mornings now. Lots of paper work. Captains reporting to what are mostly women just out of high school wearing hats that show they have all the authority and experience to assure the boats are properly equiped and ready for sea.

Unfortunately this whole disaster needs to be repeated 2 or 3 more times i think before anything seriously will be done.

From looks of things its buisness as usual. Lots of chinese everywhere.

 

[tompelli]

I understand the marine law point of view, however TIT. Where an environmental law can get you 100k fine for a cigarette butt on the beach, how much for a boat at the bottom of the oggin?

[seajae]

probably more like raising it will add questions as to who really is responsible, was the boat actually seaworthy, hard to tell when it is on the ocean floor but certainly makes it a safer bet for the owners not to be held responsible

[Deli]

Enjoy it as a new dive site for beginner teckies.

[madmitch]

2 hours ago, stevenl said:

As I said in the other thread, I think legally this is correct.

You are probably right, however if the police and more importantly the courts decide that the vessel is required for evidence in what is a serious case, then I believe this would override the marine law, however who would pay for the salvage I don't know.

 

Also the insurance company has the rights to any salvage value provided they have paid out under the marine hull insurance. They too might have a say in this, though I'd guess there's not much in the way of value to offset the loss.

[stevenl]

35 minutes ago, madmitch said:

You are probably right, however if the police and more importantly the courts decide that the vessel is required for evidence in what is a serious case, then I believe this would override the marine law, however who would pay for the salvage I don't know.

 

Also the insurance company has the rights to any salvage value provided they have paid out under the marine hull insurance. They too might have a say in this, though I'd guess there's not much in the way of value to offset the loss.

Boat wasn't insured.

[geriatrickid]

4 hours ago, Get Real said:

The owner is right on this matter. How he is right regarding the safety he provided for his passangers are to be seen. However, if the police and the state need the boat as evidence, it´s their thing to handle.

How is he right? He claims that the  boat will not present a pollution  hazard. Where is  his heavy oil/Diesel fuel  going then? What of the  hydraulic oils which are toxic to marine life? What of the other toxic substances, like the lead paint, and solvents that were on board? These products all destroy and damage marine ecosystems. The ocean isn't his private dumping ground. It's his vessel and he has an obligation to remove it, to leave the ocean as it was. The bugger just doesn't want to give incriminating evidence to the police. If he had been properly insured, his vessel would have been salvaged. He obviously wasn't properly insured which just reinforces the negative perception responsible people will have of him.

[stevenl]

43 minutes ago, geriatrickid said:

How is he right? He claims that the  boat will not present a pollution  hazard. Where is  his heavy oil/Diesel fuel  going then? What of the  hydraulic oils which are toxic to marine life? What of the other toxic substances, like the lead paint, and solvents that were on board? These products all destroy and damage marine ecosystems. The ocean isn't his private dumping ground. It's his vessel and he has an obligation to remove it, to leave the ocean as it was. The bugger just doesn't want to give incriminating evidence to the police. If he had been properly insured, his vessel would have been salvaged. He obviously wasn't properly insured which just reinforces the negative perception responsible people will have of him.

"he has an obligation to remove it,"

You base that on morality or law?

 

And please read up on this before commenting, the continuous mentioning of 'he/him' gets tiring when it has been reported time and time again it is a female as nominee owner.

[Tchooptip]

3 hours ago, Deli said:

Enjoy it as a new dive site for beginner teckies.

45 meters a bit too much for beginners  

[stevenl]

22 minutes ago, Tchooptip said:

45 meters a bit too much for beginners  

But not for teckies.

[Tchooptip]

1 minute ago, stevenl said:

But not for teckies.

 

I do not know what's a teckie is? But I did read beginner.

And beginner teckie or not,  at 45 meters, without decompression stops it is less than five minutes at this depth 

 

[stevenl]

1 hour ago, Tchooptip said:

 

I do not know what's a teckie is? But I did read beginner.

And beginner teckie or not,  at 45 meters, without decompression stops it is less than five minutes at this depth 

 

A teckie is a technical diver, so twin sets, rebreather or even more complicated. A teckie does decompression diving etc., so the site would be suitable for beginner teckies.

[Tchooptip]

1 hour ago, stevenl said:

A teckie is a technical diver, so twin sets, rebreather or even more complicated. A teckie does decompression diving etc., so the site would be suitable for beginner teckies.

 

1 hour ago, stevenl said:

A teckie is a technical diver, so twin sets, rebreather or even more complicated. A teckie does decompression diving etc., so the site would be suitable for beginner teckies.

OK I understand, thank you.?

[Deli]

5 hours ago, Tchooptip said:

45 meters a bit too much for beginners  

In fact, it's not. It's the right depth for tekkie beginners, as recreational diving ends at 40 mts.