Titanic legal battle

[Jared0425]

It seems that NOAA and Titanic LTC are heading for a court battle after an International agreement over who owns the wreckage and what is permitted by this treaty on the salvage of artifacts.

Personally, I think that NOAA and the UK have no authority as she lies even outside the US EEZ (exclusive economic zone), and is deep enough that only well funded expeditions are able to mount any sort of salvage. Possession of the wreck is still protected by the law of the sea that has been reaffirmed multiple times.

Wreck of Titanic to be protected in treaty signed by UK and US

 

[wetb4igetinthewater]

The other night I attended a presentation about a Spanish galleon that sunk off the coast of Oregon in 1693. But a different story as is inside US waters and my understanding is that anything of value could be claimed by Spain. They have found cargo washed up on shore (specifically beeswax candles) and are looking for the wreck, but viz sucks year round, and typically get only a few days each year where they attempt to find it with divers. There is a lot of sand movement.

I’m curious how this will play out.

 

[Rechno]

A Spanish galleon that sunk in 1963? Sure?

 

[Wookie]

NOAA had to admit in court that they bashed into Titanic with their sub, damaging the wreck, while Titanic LTC was able to tate (smugly, I assume) that they have never unintentionally damaged the wreck.

I am a fan of many things NOAA does, but their history of protecting shipwrecks leaves much to be desired.

 

[Scuba Cobra]

A Spanish galleon that sunk in 1963? Sure?

I think he meant 1693.

Search for centuries-old galleon off Oregon coast begins anew near Manzanita

 

[wetb4igetinthewater]

A Spanish galleon that sunk in 1963? Sure?

Lol fixed

 

[Jared0425]

A lot of the Spanish shipwreck debate came after the Odyssey salvage of the Merćedes (shortened) and the identifying factor of warship vs armed merchant. In the US armed merchants are considered civilian owned therefore Spain has no claim, however if the Spanish government (or any other) claims that it is a military wreck, then things get complicated.

The massive treasure fleets will be interesting once they are found.

 

[aue-mike]

NOAA had to admit in court that they bashed into Titanic with their sub, damaging the wreck, while Titanic LTC was able to tate (smugly, I assume) that they have never unintentionally damaged the wreck.

I am a fan of many things NOAA does, but their history of protecting shipwrecks leaves much to be desired.

Nope. NOAA did not bash into TITANIC with their sub as NOAA does not have a manned sub in its inventory, let alone a sub that can reach TITANIC.
The submersible in question, however, also did not "bash" into TITANIC either. Overly dramatic statements used for legal posturing.
And to say that no past submersible or ROV operation at TITANIC has unintentionally "damaged" the wreck is a fallacy as well.

 

[Wookie]

Nope. NOAA did not bash into TITANIC with their sub as NOAA does not have a manned sub in its inventory, let alone a sub that can reach TITANIC.
The submersible in question, however, also did not "bash" into TITANIC either. Overly dramatic statements used for legal posturing.
And to say that no past submersible or ROV operation at TITANIC has unintentionally "damaged" the wreck is a fallacy as well.

Well, they sure as hell bashed the Monitor.

 

[aue-mike]

Well, they sure as hell bashed the Monitor.

USN by proxy, but yeah....