Odyssey Marine Article...

Trinidad,

Am I missing something here? It looks to me as if those two documents are identical.

By the way, I agree with the arguments put forward by Odyssey. I don't think that the US Government has any standing in this case.

Mariner

No Mariner, you didn't missed anything. It must be a mistake because yes, they two identical documents.

Tampa Tribune Article...

http://www2.tbo.com/content/2009/sep/11/how-does-odyssey-find-all-sunken-treasure/

Odyssey Court Motion...

http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/florida/flmdce/8:2007cv00614/197978/242/0.pdf

Firm asks court to reject U.S. brief in Spain treasure fight...

http://www.tradingmarkets.com/.site/news/Stock%20News/2524546/

Coins in iron chests or even close to iron in saltwater will fuse together. What a joke, the Spanish claiming it is theres when they stole it from the natives of South America. Once again the RATS come out of the woodwork when there is found money. Heck if they want to find there lost ill gotten treasure you think they would have searched for it. To bad our government doesn't have the balls to unblock the Odysee by blowing the Spanish vessels out of the water. 

I love how Spain comes out of the woodworks laying their claim on their ill-gotten goods.  The way I look at it, Odyssey Marine has a couple viable options.  The first is to continue fighting Spain's claim.  If things do not go in their favor, the 2nd option is to do a 2-3 mile or more dumping of the coins around the general area of the wreck location simulating the debris field of a wreck.  Let Spain then spend their own dime to recover the loot from the "grave" of their sailors as they put it.  If Spain can claim warships from an entirely different government 200 years previously, I do not see how Peru or even Ecuador cannot claim their fair share of the loot being the gold originated there and was minted in Lima.  I love how greed drives the governments, including our own, to lay claim to the spoils of other peoples' hard work. 

COULDN'T OF SAID IT ANY BETTER. LIKE THE OLD SAYING GOES "LOOSE LIPS SINK SHIPS"

Another option for Odyssey is to move the coins (and their head office) to a less 'treasure hostile' host, possibly the Cayman Islands or some such. If their ships are registered outside the USA anyway, why not....

Perpetual Title to Sovereign Wrecks...

http://tinyurl.com/knu9ar

Saturna, Odyssey can't move the coins. They are locked up in Federal custody in an Orlando warehouse. What Odyssey should do is move their corporate headquarters to Equador or Peru. Those countries don't recognize Spains claims of soverignity and they salvage Spanish warships every day with no complaint from Spain.

Saturna, Odyssey can't move the coins. They are locked up in Federal custody in an Orlando warehouse. What Odyssey should do is move their corporate headquarters to Equador or Peru. Those countries don't recognize Spains claims of soverignity and they salvage Spanish warships every day with no complaint from Spain.

Good Idea Salvor6, Just as long as Peru can keep the lot ! We wouldn't want you guys dealing in stolen goods !
Ossy

Coins in iron chests or even close to iron in saltwater will fuse together. What a joke, the Spanish claiming it is theres when they stole it from the natives of South America. Once again the RATS come out of the woodwork when there is found money. Heck if they want to find there lost ill gotten treasure you think they would have searched for it. To bad our government doesn't have the balls to unblock the Odysee by blowing the Spanish vessels out of the water. 

Getting boring,same old.
I would love to see some one here post, that they have returned treasure they have found to, as you say " Right full owner"
one word Hypocrites !
Ossy

Just not to the Spanish since they are the real theives............................

Coins in iron chests or even close to iron in saltwater will fuse together. What a joke, the Spanish claiming it is theres when they stole it from the natives of South America. Once again the RATS come out of the woodwork when there is found money. Heck if they want to find there lost ill gotten treasure you think they would have searched for it. To bad our government doesn't have the balls to unblock the Odysee by blowing the Spanish vessels out of the water. 

Getting boring,same old.
I would love to see some one here post, that they have returned treasure they have found to, as you say " Right full owner"
one word Hypocrites !
Ossy

Coins in iron chests or even close to iron in saltwater will fuse together. What a joke, the Spanish claiming it is theres when they stole it from the natives of South America. Once again the RATS come out of the woodwork when there is found money. Heck if they want to find there lost ill gotten treasure you think they would have searched for it. To bad our government doesn't have the balls to unblock the Odysee by blowing the Spanish vessels out of the water. 

Getting boring,same old.

Or Spain gives up trying to sue treasure salvors and lets them keep whatever they find wherever.No news is good news.

You are still side stepping your argument, that the bad ass Spaniards stole it first, but it's OK for you to keep it
There's nothing wrong in being a Treasure hunter, good luck to you, Live the dream
But don't use Spain as an excuse !!
Ossy

Hey Ossey, Joel Ruth is living the dream. He is salvaging Spanish warships in Equador and Spain does not complain one bit!

Odyssey Reaches Agreement with UK Government on Dismissal of Admiralty Arrest and Salvage Award for Cannon from HMS Victory
Press Release
Source: Odyssey Marine Exploration, Inc.
On Friday September 18, 2009, 9:15 am EDT
   
TAMPA, Fla.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Odyssey Marine Exploration, Inc. (Nasdaq:OMEX - News), pursuant to an agreement reached with the UK Government, has filed a motion to dismiss and vacate the warrant for the arrest which was filed in the U.S. District Court on Admiral Balchin’s HMS Victory, a 100 gun ship of the line lost in 1744 in the English Channel (case number 8:08-cv-1045).

The UK Government has agreed to pay Odyssey a salvage award of 80% as compensation for the artifacts which have been recovered from the site and submitted to the UK Receiver of Wreck. A valuation of approximately $200,000 has been agreed for the two cannon recovered from the site, providing for a salvage award of approximately $160,000. The company will also be participating in the ongoing process of consultation to determine the approaches that should be adopted towards the wreck.

In 2008, in cooperation with the UK Ministry of Defence (MOD), Odyssey conducted an extensive archaeological pre-disturbance survey and recovered a 42 pdr and 12 pdr bronze cannon from the site. At the direction of the MOD, Odyssey presented the cannon to the UK Receiver of Wreck, and has been actively involved in their conservation and study.

“We look forward to cooperating with the MOD and other stakeholders in the archaeological management and preservation of Admiral Balchin’s HMS Victory,” commented Odyssey CEO, Greg Stemm from London, where he has spent the week meeting with UK officials. “I am pleased to announce that we have offered to forego part of our salvage award as a contribution of $75,000 to provide support to the National Museum of the Royal Navy to assist in realizing the historical, educational and cultural opportunities that the discovery of this important shipwreck offers to the public.”

“We’re thrilled that we’ve been able to return two cannon from Balchin’s Victory to the citizens of the United Kingdom, but these are just a small portion of the irreplaceable cultural artifacts that remain at the site,” Stemm continued. “We look forward to working with the UK Government and the archaeological community to help develop a strategy to protect this very significant cultural and naval heritage asset.”

“As the shipwreck has been positively identified as HMS Victory, a UK Royal Naval Vessel, we recognize the UK Government’s position is that the vessel has not been abandoned and therefore the shipwrecked vessel, its appurtenances and necessaries, and the personal effects of the officers and crew, are the property of Her Majesty’s Government,” commented Melinda MacConnel, Odyssey Vice President and General Counsel. “As such, in good faith, we have agreed to conduct any further activities relating to the shipwreck under the jurisdiction of applicable UK laws.”

About HMS Victory

HMS Victory was lost in 1744 under the command of Admiral Sir John Balchin. The direct predecessor and inspiration behind Nelson's flagship, Balchin's Victory was the mightiest and most technically advanced vessel of her age. She was lost during a storm with all hands and was the last Royal Navy warship to be lost at sea with a complete complement of bronze cannon. Two of the greatest admirals in English history, Sir John Norris and Sir John Balchin called her their flagship.

British Press...

http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/4637608.HMS_Victory_s_future_secured/

As you all know, I am not Odyssey's No. 1 fan, but I tip my hat to them for the way they have handled this particular project.

Mariner

Also nice when the country they're dealing with is reasonable and doesn't except everything for nothing.  

And it looks incomparable chipper to get an agreement than going to a trial. How many cannons and historical stuff could Spain save, keep and show in a museum with the money that James Goold and his team are going to get from the spanish Gov? As my grand mother says: Mo´ better a bad agreement than a good trial. It looks like she is definitively right.

AP Article...

http://www2.tbo.com/content/2009/sep/19/bz-fla-explorers-uk-reach-shipwreck-deal/news-money/

Judge Merryday Strikes DOJ Amicus Brief...

O R D E R
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 517, the United States moves (Doc. 239) for
“Authorization to File Statement of Interest and Amicus Curiae Brief in Support of
Kingdom of Spain.” The plaintiff responds (Doc. 240) in opposition and alternatively
moves unopposed for leave to respond to the “Statement of Interest.”

The United States’ unauthorized motion is untimely and fails to comply with Local
Rule 3.01, which states that a motion requesting leave to submit a further memorandum
“shall not exceed three (3) pages, shall specify the length of the proposed filing, and
shall not include, as an attachment or otherwise, the proposed motion, response, reply,
or other paper.” Accordingly, the “Statement of Interest” (Doc. 239-2) and each exhibit
to the “Statement of Interest” is STRICKEN. The Clerk is directed to electronically
delete docket item numbers 239-2 through 239-10. Nevertheless the United States’
motion (Doc. 239) to submit a statement of interest is GRANTED. On or before
October 2, 2009, the United States may submit a statement of interest of no more than
ten (10) pages. Because the United States asserts an interest only after the
opportunity to offer evidence to the magistrate judge and after the report and
recommendation, the statement of interest may not include evidentiary matter, such as
an exhibit, affidavit, declaration, or any other evidentiary matter not offered to the
magistrate judge for consideration. The plaintiff’s unopposed motion (Doc. 241) to
respond to the statement of interest of the United States is GRANTED. No later than
ten (10) days after the United States submits the statement of interest, the plaintiff may
file a response of no more than ten (10) pages.

Finally, the plaintiff’s motion (Doc. 242) for leave to reply in support of the
objections to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation is GRANTED. On or
before October 16, 2009, the plaintiff may submit a reply of no more than ten pages.
ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, on September 18, 2009.

Now let's attempt to define this scurrilous "pirate talk???

The true "black pirates" of the 21st century all have law degrees... arhh..  
But I think this order out of one side of its mouth tells the DOJ which I think use
to be the , "Department of Justice" to stick it...  While out of the other side
of its mouth the Federal Judge appears to be conditionally accepting inclusion of the
Department of state's narrow minded (bullcrap) position... brief for review..

The final vote is still not in but remember folks...  this is just another example that
 the rats are guarding the cheeze!  

I had a Federal Judge once, reverse a magistrate's report and recommendation so...
stranger things have happened but, that was back in the 20th century before we
reverted back to feudalism - and our U.S. Government protecting the "royal interests"...
in the name of the (more bull crap) people... and the war graves act    


 

http://www.tradingmarkets.com/.site/news/Stock%20News/2553338/

Jeff, do you have the names of the individuals in the US Justice Dept. that are actually initiating this motion?

A federal judge ruled that the U.S. government may present a new motion favorable to the interests of Spain in the battle over $500 million in gold and silver coins salvaged more than two years ago by a Florida treasure-hunting.

From what I hear, James Goold was behind the DOJ Amicus brief.  It's not clear who the DOJ is representing, but it could be the Navy.  As you know, Goold is representing Spain. I don't think it will have a bearing on the outcome. Judge Merryday will go by law, not politics.

Judge Merryday will go by law, not politics

One would hope so...but sadly we know that isn't always (usually?) the case.

Odyssey Motion to File Declaration...

http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/florida/flmdce/8:2007cv00614/197978/248/0.pdf

"Warships, naval auxiliaries, and other vessels owned or operated by a State and used at the time they sank only on government non-commercial service, are State vessels."

http://www.history.navy.mil/branches/org12-7j.htm

Wall Street Journal Article...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125503519791274253.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_sections_world

"Warships, naval auxiliaries, and other vessels owned or operated by a State and used at the time they sank only on government non-commercial service, are State vessels."

http://www.history.navy.mil/branches/org12-7j.htm

Dear friends, 
from 1981 I have investigated the lost of the Mercedes thoroughly. Until where I know and I have been able to verify, the flotilla of 1804 with this frigate had the official mission to transport money of the royal treasure to subsidize Bonaparte privately. She came this way in official mission of State and only in second instance in commercial mission.   
Cheers

The "litmus test" that will be decided in this legal case, very probably in the US Supreme Court Claudio, is whether the function of the Mercedes during its last voyage was a military one or a commercial one. As you have indeed researched this case in great detail you know perfectly well she was carrying "cascarilla" wood, seal oil, copper and tin ingots, unserviceable cannons, private passengers including women and children not to mention over 700,000 pesos (coins) belonging to private merchants. The King was transporting 200,000 pesos. The departure of these ships as a commercial ship was advertised in the Lima paper "for the merchants to be informed". Now what puzzles me Claudio is if the Spanish lawyers believe that just a few months later after the sinking of the Mercedes, when the Santisima Trinidad, the Spanish flag ship was leaving port on its way to Trafalgar, if she was carrying similar cargo or if the captain much preferred to load powder and munition instead of copper and tin bars and soldiers instead of children and women? The legal standard for this case is the Law of the Sea Convention, UNCLOS, that very clearly in states:
 Article 96. Immunity of ships used only on government noncommercial service

 Ships owned or operated by a State and used only on government non-commercial service shall, on the high seas, have complete immunity from the jurisdiction of any State other than the flag State.

The key words here are " non-commercial service" Claudio and this is exactly what this case is about.

The "litmus test" that will be decided in this legal case, very probably in the US Supreme Court Claudio, is whether the function of the Mercedes during its last voyage was a military one or a commercial one. As you have indeed researched this case in great detail you know perfectly well she was carrying "cascarilla" wood, seal oil, copper and tin ingots, unserviceable cannons, private passengers including women and children not to mention over 700,000 pesos (coins) belonging to private merchants. The King was transporting 200,000 pesos. The departure of these ships as a commercial ship was advertised in the Lima paper "for the merchants to be informed". Now what puzzles me Claudio is if the Spanish lawyers believe that just a few months later after the sinking of the Mercedes, when the Santisima Trinidad, the Spanish flag ship was leaving port on its way to Trafalgar, if she was carrying similar cargo or if the captain much preferred to load powder and munition instead of copper and tin bars and soldiers instead of children and women? The legal standard for this case is the Law of the Sea Convention, UNCLOS, that very clearly in states:
 Article 96. Immunity of ships used only on government noncommercial service

 Ships owned or operated by a State and used only on government non-commercial service shall, on the high seas, have complete immunity from the jurisdiction of any State other than the flag State.

The key words here are " non-commercial service" Claudio and this is exactly what this case is about.

Yes, but the main reason of the trip was a mission of State. But certainly, it will be a judicial decision to determine who is right.

German Press...

http://tinyurl.com/ylm5fmq

While I do not feel Spain should get the spoils, to make things easier, Odyssey should give 200,000 pesos to Spain, minus a generous finders fee of course.  If the rest was commercial purposes, Spain shouldn't see a dime.  If Spain is going to get a cut, if not all, I think Peru has just as much right to the claim.  The coins were minted in Lima from Peruvian gold.

But Peru was under Spanish control, was territory of Spain, at the time the silver & gold was mined, and the coins minted.

 

           A woman is either pregnant or not, she can not be a little pregnant or partly pregnant Claudio. In a similar way a state ship in order to receive the special immunity and protection awarded to Sovereign ships, she has to be in an exclusively military non commercial mission. That is the law, the Law of the Sea. If she was in a joint military/commercial mission, there’s nothing wrong with that, it’s very probable and in many similar cases was well documented, the flag state cannot claim sovereign immunity. It’s that simple if you take away the politics and leave only the law to decide. In this particular case, I suspect the politics, at this point in time, have overshadowed the legal essence of the debate. The higher courts one would assume will set things straight.

           Regarding the incidental fact that the coins were minted in Potosi, Lima and in Popayan, or perhaps China, I don’t see that this is a significant detail that determines who owns the coins. I have a one hundred dollar bill looking at me in my desk that I won in Las Vegas many years ago. Does that bill somehow belong to the US Treasury or to my descendants when I leave to search for the lost galleons in the other world? I don’t think so. 

    In this particular case, I suspect the politics, at this point in time, have overshadowed the legal essence of the debate.

The US may not want to alienate a European ally and would sacrifice Odyssey to keep it on their side. These decisions would never be known to the public though.

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1863264,00.html

More homework to Jeff K. It has been published today on the spanish press. Basically, an speaker from the Ministry of Culture denies that there were previous contacts beetween Odyssey and the Ministry before the Black Swan recovery. Here is the text:

"La subsecretaria del Ministerio de Cultura, Mercedes del Palacio, aseguró hoy en la Comisión de Cultura del Congreso que no existieron contactos previos al expolio del pecio Nuestra Señora de las Mercedes con la empresa cazatesoros Odyssey.
De este modo respondió a una pregunta del diputado del PP por Cádiz José Ignacio Landaluce, que pedía opinión al Gobierno sobre la actuación de Gibraltar al dejar pasar por su Aduana las 17 toneladas de oro y plata valoradas en 500 millones de dólares que en mayo de 2007 viajaron desde allí a Estados Unidos.
"Sólo cuando las piezas del buque recalaron en Gibraltar fue cuando el Estado español hizo un tibio intento por esclarecer quien era el propietario del tesoro. Pero la actuación de Gibraltar no fue la correcta. Ante nuestras narices el tesoro salió hacia Estados Unidos a través de Gibraltar", recriminó Landaluce, quien responsabilizó, entre otros departamentos ministeriales, al de Cultura y aludió a la "imagen de fragilidad", "sentido del ridículo" y "hazmerreír" que ha hecho España en este asunto.
Mercedes del Palacio contestó al diputado 'popular' que es al Ministerio de Asuntos Exteriores a quien corresponde "valorar la política exterior de España" y que esto "excede las competencias de Cultura".

Intereses defendidos
Asimismo, la subsecretaria del Ministerio de Cultura aseguró que "los intereses de España se han defendido, se están defendiendo y se defenderán en el futuro con absoluto rigor". También recordó a este respecto que existen dos recursos, en La Línea y en el juzgado de Tampa (Estados Unidos) y que por lo que se refiere a este último ha habido un "pronunciamiento favorable a los intereses de España".
"Esperamos que en un futuro no muy lejano éste sea ratificado por el Tribunal de Segunda Instancia. Además hemos obtenido el apoyo judicial expreso de Estados Unidos a las justas pretensiones de España en este tema", insistió recordando que no es la primera vez que se verifica un juicio de esta naturaleza. "Los pecios Juno y La Galga se defendieron con éxito y ahora también con éxito se defienden nuestros intereses en EEUU", afirmó respecto al caso Odyssey.
"Confiamos en que haya un pronunciamiento definitivo de los tribunales americanos favorables a nuestras pretensiones que consideramos justas respecto a los objetos hallados en el pecio", manifestó.
Respecto a la pregunta del diputado popular de si el Ministerio de Cultura tenía conocimiento de que se expoliaba patrimonio español, Del Palacio repitió que según los datos que tiene Cultura "no consta que hubiera conocimiento previo de esta circunstancia".

Trinidad... That's true. When Odyssey met with Culture in 2006, there was no mention of the Mercedes. Odyssey was looking for several ships in the area, and invited Culture to participate in the search. I don't believe they mentioned any ship by name. Culture declined to participate.

Translation:

"The Under-Secretary of the Ministry of culture, Mercedes del Palacio said today in the Commission of culture of Congress that no existed prior to the spoliation of wrecks Nuestra Señora de las Mercedes with the cazatesoros company contacts Odyssey."

Thus replied to a question from the Member of the PP for Cadiz José Ignacio Landaluce, requested opinion to the Government on the performance of Gibraltar to let pass the 17 tons of gold and silver says that in May 2007 traveled from there to us $ 500 million by their customs.

"Only when parts of the vessel recalaron in Gibraltar was when Spain made a warm attempt to clarify who was the owner of the treasure." But the performance of Gibraltar was not correct. "Before our noses treasure came to America from Gibraltar", recriminó Landaluce, who blamed, among other ministerial departments to the culture and referred to the "fragility image", "sense of the absurd" and "hazmerreír" made by Spain on this issue.

Mercedes del Palacio replied to the 'popular' Member that is the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to who corresponds to "assess Spain's foreign policy" and that this "exceeds the powers of culture".

Defended interests
The Under-Secretary of the Ministry of culture also assured that "the interests of Spain have defended, are defending and shall uphold the future absolute rigorously". He also reminded here that there are two resources in the timeline and in the Court of Tampa (United States) and with regard to this last there was a "favourable to the interests of Spain statement".

"We hope that in the not too distant future it is ratified by the Court of second instance". "We have also obtained express judicial United States support for the just claims of Spain in this topic," insisted Recalling that it is not the first time that verifies a trial of this nature. "The wrecks Juno and the gauge defended with success and now also successfully defend our interests in the United States," said regarding the Odyssey case.

"We hope that there is a final decision of the American courts favour our claims that we consider to be fair to the objects found in the wrecks," he said.

As regards the question of the popular member if the Ministry of culture had knowledge that expoliaba Spanish heritage, Mercedes del Palacio repeated that according to the data that has culture "not aware that prior knowledge of this circumstance had".

Odyssey's Responses To DOJ & Spain Filed...

I suggest reading doc 259 first.

http://www.shipwreck.net/blackswanlegal.php

Here's another motion filed by Guy Burnette on behalf of the claimants.

http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/florida/flmdce/8:2007cv00614/197978/261/0.pdf

I think spain has had the chance to search for there lost treasures! If they don´t do it... they have to shut up when others find it!
They are not interested untill someone else make the find...

Finder is keeper... my simple opinion.

Tom

Who's next?   

http://www.laht.com/article.asp?ArticleId=345949&CategoryId=14919

Who's next?   

http://www.laht.com/article.asp?ArticleId=345949&CategoryId=14919

Very well. Did my maternal grandmother have the last name Romano (will something have to see Rome?) and as Italian I am thinking, seriously, to prepare a platform to claim the aqueduct of Segovia, the Roman theater of Merida, etc.etc. Clearly, on behalf of the ministry of culture of Italy. 
P.S. anything better than beginning the day with humor.

Who's next?   

http://www.laht.com/article.asp?ArticleId=345949&CategoryId=14919

Very well. Did my maternal grandmother have the last name Romano (will something have to see Rome?) and as Italian I am thinking, seriously, to prepare a platform to claim the aqueduct of Segovia, the Roman theater of Merida, etc.etc. Clearly, on behalf of the ministry of culture of Italy. 
P.S. anything better than beginning the day with humor.

  Has anyone got Indian blood lines? You may be able to claim all the gold at fort Knox !
It came off your land !!!
Ossy

MABO: That's a terribly weak analogy. Spain LOST their treasure, had many years to look and find, for some reason did not, and someone else found it. The Indians, on the other hand, did not lose the gold that now sits in Knox.

MABO: That's a terribly weak analogy. Spain LOST their treasure, had many years to look and find, for some reason did not, and someone else found it. The Indians, on the other hand, did not lose the gold that now sits in Knox.

try reading it slowly ! Vox had no problem understanding it ! Indians didn't lose it ! they just wiped them out
and took what they wanted Including their land ! It not about Spain it's about have far do you what to go back !
By the way welcome to Tnet Rambo.
Ossy

Here's an interesting motion filed by David Horan.

http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/florida/flmdce/8:2007cv00614/197978/263/1.pdf

Odyssey Marine Exploration Signs Letter of Intent with Robert Fraser & Partners LLP to Syndicate Shipwreck Projects

•   Press Release
•   Source: Odyssey Marine Exploration, Inc.
•   On 8:00 am EDT, Tuesday October 27, 2009

TAMPA, Fla.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Odyssey Marine Exploration, Inc. (NasdaqCM:OMEX), pioneers in the field of deep-ocean shipwreck exploration, has entered into a letter of intent with Robert Fraser & Partners LLP. Under the terms of the proposed arrangement, Odyssey will provide services related to the exploration and recovery of shipwrecks and other deep-ocean resources to syndicates formed by Robert Fraser & Partners to engage in deep-ocean exploration.

Under the proposed structure, Odyssey will be compensated for search, survey and archaeological excavation as well as development of research files on specific shipwreck and other deep-ocean projects. Odyssey will also have a substantial interest in the back-end of the projects and will be paid for providing other services including conservation, documentation, marketing and sales of recovered cargoes and commodities.

“We have long considered partnering on specific projects in a manner that is non-dilutive to Odyssey shareholders, but it has been a challenge to find a partner that understands the nuances and challenges of syndicating individual projects. I believe we have finally found that partner, and we are currently in the process of developing the syndication of our first project with them,” stated Greg Stemm, Odyssey’s Chief Executive Officer. “This presents an exciting opportunity to move Odyssey forward and generate current revenue from marine operations, research and expertise, while maintaining a significant interest in the projects.”

“We’re delighted on behalf of our clients and investors to be working with Odyssey and we anticipate developing a number of deep-ocean projects with them,” commented Colin Emson, Chief Executive Officer of Robert Fraser. “Having previously worked with a number of clients on a broad range of marine projects, we have gained a real appreciation for the first-class work that Odyssey has demonstrated in the field. Contracting with Odyssey is seen as bringing together highly compatible skill sets for further development of this fascinating and emerging deep-sea field. We are most enthused about working with the benefit of the new exploration technologies in which Odyssey is the acknowledged world leader and look forward to securing our first contract with them as soon as possible.”

About Robert Fraser & Partners LLP
Robert Fraser & Partners LLP is part of the London-based Robert Fraser Group, which has operated since its formation in 1934 in the fields of merchant banking and corporate, marine & property finance and structuring. The group’s core areas of expertise include extensive experience in the areas of venture capital, corporate finance, merger & acquisition structure, company expansion, new venture and global business structuring. Robert Fraser Marine, Ltd. is a part of the group which specializes in assembling projects directed at shipwreck exploration and the development of deep ocean resources.

About Odyssey Marine Exploration, Inc.
Odyssey Marine Exploration, Inc. (NasdaqCM: OMEX) is engaged in the exploration of deep-ocean shipwrecks and uses innovative methods and state-of-the-art technology to conduct extensive search and archaeological recovery operations around the world. Odyssey discovered the Civil War-era shipwreck of the SS Republic® in 2003 and recovered over 50,000 coins and 14,000 artifacts from the site nearly 1,700 feet deep. In May 2007, Odyssey announced the historic deep-ocean treasure recovery of over 500,000 silver and gold coins, weighing 17 tons, from a Colonial era site code-named "Black Swan." In February 2009, Odyssey announced the discovery of Balchin's HMS Victory. Odyssey also has other shipwreck projects in various stages of development around the world.

Odyssey offers various ways to share in the excitement of deep-ocean exploration by making shipwreck treasures and artifacts available to collectors, the general public and students through its webstore, exhibits, books, television, merchandise, and educational programs.

Odyssey's operations are the subject of a Discovery Channel television series titled "Treasure Quest," which is produced by JWM Productions. The 12-episode first season aired in the US and the UK in early 2009 and is scheduled to air worldwide throughout 2009. Production on a second season is underway.

Following previous successful engagements in New Orleans, Tampa, Detroit, and Oklahoma City, Odyssey's SHIPWRECK! exhibit is currently on exhibit at Discovery Place in Charlotte, NC. Additional information is available at www.discoveryplace.org.

Jeff, you have always been a very informed person of the matters of Odyssey. Any news of La Linea court?

I haven't heard anything specific on any of the court cases in Spain, but I see that Mayor Juarez had to resign.     My own opinion is that those court cases were brought because some idiots in Spain thought that the treasure was taken from Spanish waters. As you now know, that was not the case, so I think those cases are dead in the water. How's your court case coming along? Do you still have to report to the court?

[all fervent patriots]

I haven't heard anything specific on any of the court cases in Spain, but I see that Mayor Juarez had to resign.     My own opinion is that those court cases were brought because some idiots in Spain thought that the treasure was taken from Spanish waters. As you now know, that was not the case, so I think those cases are dead in the water. How's your court case coming along? Do you still have to report to the court?

About La Linea court, seemingly doesn't seem that it is this way. About my imputation and  other people, all fervent patriots against the performances of Odyssey in Spanish waters, it will be very interesting to know the truth. But the matter is solved and we go seeing the light of this truth, on the other hand very evident. 
Cheers VV

Odyssey Exhibit Tour...

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/a3Bcy-iwsOg" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/v/a3Bcy-iwsOg</a>

About La Linea court, seemingly doesn't seem that it is this way. About my imputation and  other people, all fervent patriots against the performances of Odyssey in Spanish waters, it will be very interesting to know the truth. But the matter is solved and we go seeing the light of this truth, on the other hand very evident. 
Cheers VV

What!!! ?

BBC News...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/guernsey/8299835.stm

About La Linea court, seemingly doesn't seem that it is this way. About my imputation and  other people, all fervent patriots against the performances of Odyssey in Spanish waters, it will be very interesting to know the truth. But the matter is solved and we go seeing the light of this truth, on the other hand very evident.  
Cheers VV

What!!! ?

What of what !!! ?  

Odyssey PR...

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Odyssey-Marine-Exploration-bw-650248753.html?x=0&.v=1

How the Odyssey Mercedes affair struck the UCPUCH:

http://www.unescobkk.org/fileadmin/user_upload/culture/Underwater/2009_Training_Workshop/DG_Briefing_2001_Convention_11_08_2009_01.pdf

Hi Paulo, 
calls the attention a fact: in Portugal the matter Mercedes has had little resonance. How it's  possible being a shipwreck happened inside the Portuguese waters, that is to say, inside the 12 nautical miles (contrarily to what disclosed by Odyssey). 
Why?
(Muito obrigado pela resposta).

The widespread belief as to where the Black Swan wreck was located by Odyssey is 33 miles from the Portuguese coast, past its Territorial waters and also past its Contiguous Zone, that is more than the 24 miles where States have full jurisdiction. The fact that Portugal has not intervened in the legal battle does reinforce this perception as Spain is fully aware as to what are the exact coordinates the artifacts were recovered from and one would assume has discussed them with its good friend and neighbor Portugal.   

The widespread belief as to where the Black Swan wreck was located by Odyssey is 33 miles from the Portuguese coast, past its Territorial waters and also past its Contiguous Zone, that is more than the 24 miles where States have full jurisdiction. The fact that Portugal has not intervened in the legal battle does reinforce this perception as Spain is fully aware as to what are the exact coordinates the artifacts were recovered from and one would assume has discussed them with its good friend and neighbor Portugal.   

Actually, it was 1 mile inside our Contiguous Zone..

Interesting Alexandre, if that is the case why would you belief that the Portuguese government did not intervene in the Tampa courts?

The widespread belief as to where the Black Swan wreck was located by Odyssey is 33 miles from the Portuguese coast, past its Territorial waters and also past its Contiguous Zone, that is more than the 24 miles where States have full jurisdiction. The fact that Portugal has not intervened in the legal battle does reinforce this perception as Spain is fully aware as to what are the exact coordinates the artifacts were recovered from and one would assume has discussed them with its good friend and neighbor Portugal.   

Panfi, this it is a drawing made by Diego Alvear, second fleet boss when the combat and experienced astronomer and seaman. Comparing the mounts of the drawing and a current view of the Santa Maria cape you can evidence very clearly that the Mercedes has not collapsed 33 miles from land. The Mercedes's position was known by several people prior to 2007.

Yes Vox Veritas, I’m very familiar with those drawings, more so if you take into account that don Diego de Alvear was an accomplished cartographer who was returning to Spain after 30 years of work in the mapping of the now Brasil-Argentina-Uruguay borders. He was also an astronomer who spoke six languages and two dialects, very educated and experienced individual. What don Diego would have described or believed one would assume would be very, very accurate as that was his profession, he was above all a surveyor (un topografo) and he was an expert in using land marks, triangulation and relative positioning. The question one would normally arrive is this: if the wreck did occur close to the coast where you said you found it in the eighties, what has Odyssey found 23 miles off it’s shore (according to Alexandres information; I am more inclined to believe it is more than 30 miles from shore)? As 23 or 30 miles from shore would not produce the drawings you have posted. The alternative would be that the battle did occur close to shore and that part of the ship remains drifted offshore, there being two wreck sites, make any sense?

[but this doesn't change that the treasure was recovered inside the Portuguese territorial waters]

Yes Vox Veritas, I’m very familiar with those drawings, more so if you take into account that don Diego de Alvear was an accomplished cartographer who was returning to Spain after 30 years of work in the mapping of the now Brasil-Argentina-Uruguay borders. He was also an astronomer who spoke six languages and two dialects, very educated and experienced individual. What don Diego would have described or believed one would assume would be very, very accurate as that was his profession, he was above all a surveyor (un topografo) and he was an expert in using land marks, triangulation and relative positioning. The question one would normally arrive is this: if the wreck did occur close to the coast where you said you found it in the eighties, what has Odyssey found 23 miles off it’s shore (according to Alexandres information; I am more inclined to believe it is more than 30 miles from shore)? As 23 or 30 miles from shore would not produce the drawings you have posted. The alternative would be that the battle did occur close to shore and that part of the ship remains drifted offshore, there being two wreck sites, make any sense?

Panfi, I think that Henry Deleuze knows about this matter. On the other hand, Odyssey says that ........ but they have never demonstrated openly it with palpable evidences. They are skilled players and with powerful friendships.  
Diego Alvear was student of Vicente Tofiño and it was educated with the Jesuit, experts of many hidden truths to the common humans.
In 1656 the vassel San Francisco Javier exploded and the whole shipment and artillery went to the bottom. The remains of the ship reached the coast south of Cadiz. Something similar it can have happened with the Mercedes, but this doesn't change that the treasure was recovered inside the Portuguese territorial waters. Do I ignore why Portugal has not claimed, but can it be that is waiting the most opportune moment (do I say)??

Portugal and Spain are cooperating on this. As a matter of fact, I participated, together with Spanish and Portuguese officials (both civilian and naval officers) on a bilateral meeting last November and, although I am afraid I cannot disclose too much information, I can safely say that Portugal feels that the Spanish are doing a superb job in defending their nautical heritage.

I can safely say that Portugal feels that the Spanish are doing a superb job in defending their nautical heritage.

Except that the nautical heritage is not the coins themselves, but the information they hold. Namely their dates, quantity, and location found.

Put some of the best examples in Spanish museums and nautical heritage is maintained.  

Actually, it was 1 mile inside our Contiguous Zone..

Paulo... You originally said it was 40nm from the coast, but now it's only 23nm.  

The following is your quote from HHI.

"Hi all, long time no see... I have been secluded away for the past week together with Portuguese and Spanish authorities brainstorming on our commom heritage.... I got one piece of information to share: this Black Swan site is 40 NM south of Cape Santa Maria, at c. 1320 meters deep.

Also, I would like to know any names and places of registration of ships engaged in deep water treasure hunting so that we can blacklist them in our national waters or, to say the very least, to keep a very wary eye on them on our surroundings."

The following is from the Admiralty arrest.

"The Defendant Shipwrecked Vessel is lying at a depth of approximately 1100
meters, beyond the territorial waters or contiguous zone of any sovereign nation
approximately 100 miles west of the Straits of Gibraltar"

I got better information.

I find it very hard to believe that the arrest site is inside Portugal’s Contiguous Zone and they have done nothing about it, have not become a part of the legal process in Tampa. Improbable and unlikely at best. Alexandre, when you state: “I can safely say that Portugal feels that the Spanish are doing a superb job in defending their nautical heritage” whose heritage are you referring to, Spain’s or Portugal’s? The difference being substantial.
Vox, if Portugal is waiting for the right moment to join the legal battle, they lost their opportunity, the time for filing has passed. Bolivia recently manifested its interest to claim the coins minted in Potosi, according to the press, but it appears they are too late. No, if Portugal did not claim the coins it is most likely because they are outside its jurisdictional waters, no reasonable country would purposely miss out on such a bonanza, “spend no money and claim 500 million dollars that somebody else found for free” is too tempting. It would take a bit more to convince me that the coins were found inside Portuguese waters and they did nothing about it, knowing full well as did the Spanish government about this case. Let’s see some hard evidence and not speculate without any substance. Had Odyssey recovered those coins inside Portugal’s waters don’t you think the Spanish lawyers would have had a field day in court? Let’s be reasonable here.

Panfilo, for all effects, UCPUH or not, we can only claim what's inside our territorial waters, that is, inside the 12 nm.

That said, look at the Namibian case. Although they have a Portuguese ship there, with Portuguese cargo inside (16 millions euros just for the Portuguese 10 cruzados coins lot), Portugal's official position is: as long as there is no treasure hunting or auctions involved and as long as the wreck site and the artifacts are scientifically researched, Portugal won't be claiming anything of it (or, maybe, only the human remains).

As our Minister of Culture stated to a newspaper guy: "It's our heritage, but it's their wreck".

I find it very hard to believe that the arrest site is inside Portugal’s Contiguous Zone and they have done nothing about it, have not become a part of the legal process in Tampa. Improbable and unlikely at best. Alexandre, when you state: “I can safely say that Portugal feels that the Spanish are doing a superb job in defending their nautical heritage” whose heritage are you referring to, Spain’s or Portugal’s? The difference being substantial.
Vox, if Portugal is waiting for the right moment to join the legal battle, they lost their opportunity, the time for filing has passed. Bolivia recently manifested its interest to claim the coins minted in Potosi, according to the press, but it appears they are too late. No, if Portugal did not claim the coins it is most likely because they are outside its jurisdictional waters, no reasonable country would purposely miss out on such a bonanza, “spend no money and claim 500 million dollars that somebody else found for free” is too tempting. It would take a bit more to convince me that the coins were found inside Portuguese waters and they did nothing about it, knowing full well as did the Spanish government about this case. Let’s see some hard evidence and not speculate without any substance. Had Odyssey recovered those coins inside Portugal’s waters don’t you think the Spanish lawyers would have had a field day in court? Let’s be reasonable here.

I agree with Panfilo, has anyone apart from Odyssey gone to the site ? and confirmed the location !
Alexandre what would Portugal do if a Spanish ship wreck where in there waters, would they claim it or let Spain claim it ?
Cheers

I am going to open a project for such ship, a Spanish, privately owned vessel, still with 22 tons of bullion (the official tally, at least) inside, wrecked ashore, on a stretch of the Portuguese coast.

I will invite Spanish archaeologists and their remote sensing experts to have a go at the project - the word here is "cooperation". As for the artifacts, if we find them, I am guessing they will be incorporated into a musem (anyhow, who cares about who owns them? What's really important is who is paying for their conservation and study.. ;) )

Thanks Alexandre, you answered part of my question, how old is this shipwreck you are looking for.
Cheers

About 400 years old.. ;)

http://forum.treasurenet.com/index.php?topic=283611.msg2028830

Arch

Gday architecad Have a look at Archaeological institute of America August publication, their is a good report on the Spanish in north Carolina in 1560 long
before Raleigh attempted to settled Roanoke in 1587. The Spanish were wiped out by the Indians.
"Though the Spanish failed, their presence may have contributed to the disintegration of Native American towns that allowed other Europeans to colonize more successfully a century later " Marion P. Blackburn
Ossy

Odyssey PR...

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Odyssey-Marine-Exploration-bw-1994568524.html?x=0&.v=1

Black Smokers...

http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/issues/2007/january/treasuresdeep.asp

http://discovermagazine.com/2009/may/04-can-giant-robots-successfully-mine-the-mile-deep-seafloor/article_view?b_start:int=1&-C=

http://shipwreck.net/SMSDeposits.php

Very Interesting Jeff, A bit left field for Odyssey ? So are they giving up Treasure hunting ?
Ossy

Ossy, read the article. "We are planning a full schedule of shipwreck exploration for 2010." Greg Stemm.

[Andalucía apoya la intervención de la Armada en defensa del Patrimonio]

Andalucía apoya la intervención de la Armada en defensa del Patrimonio

El lunes se reunirá la Conferencia Sectorial de Cultura con el Plan Nacional de Arqueología subacuática como asunto pendiente

El próximo miércoles, el Congreso de los Diputados debatirá una proposición no de ley del PP en la que se «insta al Gobierno a desarrollar y culminar, con carácter urgente, los acuerdos y convenios del Ministerio de Cultura con la Armada y las diferentes Comunidades Autónomas costeras, relativos al cumplimiento de los objetivos del Plan Nacional de Protección del Patrimonio Subacuático, así como proceder a la aprobación de los recursos necesarios»

ABC, 22/11/2009, por JESÚS GARCÍA CALERO | MADRID

Han bastado 48 horas. Ya nada impide que el convenio de los Ministerios de Cultura y Defensa se ponga en marcha y se permita a los buques cazaminas de la Armada colaborar con los arqueólogos para que no se vuelva a repetir un expolio como el que Odyssey pudo cometer en aguas del Estrecho de Gibraltar.

Como ya publicó ABC, Defensa y Cultura acordaron en julio realizar intervenciones arqueológicas en colaboración con las Comunidades Autónomas. Su voluntad era comenzar por Andalucía antes de acabar el verano, pero la Junta, tal vez mal asesorada, impugnó el acuerdo y amenazó con un conflicto de competencias, mientras catalogaba pecios que no podría proteger en solitario.

Ayer, en una rápida reacción, la Junta de Andalucía, por decisión de su presidente, José Antonio Griñán, ha enterrado esta beligerancia y ya ha comunicado que se muestra de acuerdo en la colaboración de la Armada en la defensa del patrimonio sumergido, con el simple añadido de una adenda al convenio interministerial que reconozca su papel en el proyecto.

La pelota está ahora totalmente en el tejado del Ministerio de Cultura, obligado a dar una respuesta a la altura del problema. Primero porque Ángeles González-Sinde firmó el convenio con Carme Chacón. Segundo, porque en los presupuestos de 2009 ya estaba prevista una partida por parte de su antecesor, César Antonio Molina, para el arranque del convenio, partida que Sinde aún no ha ejecutado a un mes del cierre de ejercicio, mientras que los buques cazaminas y de buceo destinados a esta colaboración ya han pasado por una puesta a punto para esta misión. Y tercero porque es responsabilidad de cualquier político cumplir sus compromisos, máxime cuando involucran a otros ministerios e instituciones.

Una semana crítica

Pero es que además el Ministerio de Cultura está emplazado a actuar con rapidez, porque la última semana de noviembre trae citas en las que estará presente el fantasma de la desidia del Gobierno ante el caso Odyssey.

El mismo lunes, la ministra González-Sinde presidirá -en Sevilla, precisamente- la Conferencia Sectorial de Cultura, que reúne a los responsables autonómicos del ramo. Es de esperar que, tras los últimos acontecimientos, allí se hable del Plan Nacional de Arqueología Subacuática, al menos en el capítulo de ruegos y preguntas.

Pero en caso de que la titular de Cultura decida mantenerse pasiva, sólo tendrá que esperar hasta el miércoles para recibir otro aviso, porque el Congreso de los Diputados debatirá ese día la Proposición no de ley del diputado popular José Ignacio Landaluce, que dice así:
«El Congreso de los Diputados insta al Gobierno a desarrollar y culminar, con carácter urgente, los acuerdos y convenios del Ministerio de Cultura con la Armada y las diferentes Comunidades Autónomas costeras, relativos al cumplimiento de los objetivos del Plan Nacional de Protección del Patrimonio Subacuático, así como proceder a la aprobación de los recursos necesarios que permitan la protección, conservación y difusión de nuestro patrimonio arqueológico subacuático.» En resumen, fuerte marejada en el Ministerio. Mejora el estado del mar en Andalucía...
 
http://www.abc.es/20091121/cultura-cultura/caso-odyssey-pelota-esta-20091121.html
 

Thats a good idea for deception.Say you are looking for mineral deposits and find a wreck and bring up the treasure.No one will know.Kinda like the hughes glomar explorer/Project Jennifer in hawaii looking for maganese nodules and bringing up part of a russian sub.

Interesting article, but about what was expected.  It is obvious how the final ruling will go.  Right or wrong, we have Odyssey to thank for the first solid step against future marine salvage, and probably land salvage as well.

Don Jose de La Mancha .

Presumably all this activity centers on the Mercedes/Black Swan wreck, but remember that Andalucia was trying to stop Odyssey's agreed recovery of the (supposed) Sussex, a British ship in Spanish waters. Does this latest alliance between Andalucia and Spain suggest that Spain is heading to a position where it  will no longer recognizes the sovereign rights of other countries, including the USA, which have shipwrecks in Spanish waters? I cannot believe that Spain would take this position, but the traditional laws of the sea don't seem to count much in the Black Swan case, even in the USA.

Mariner

Does this latest alliance between Andalucia and Spain suggest that Spain is heading to a position where it  will no longer recognizes the sovereign rights of other countries, including the USA, which have shipwrecks in Spanish waters? I cannot believe that Spain would take this position, but the traditional laws of the sea don't seem to count much in the Black Swan case, even in the USA.

Andalucia is part of Spain, very much like Florida is part of the US of A.

Alexandre,

I understand what and where Andalucia is, but when Odyssey proposed to salvage the Sussex, with permission from its owner, the British Government, and with the blessing of Spain, it was the local government of Andalucia that objected. Andalucia claimed that it had jusrisdiction over wrecks in its waters. It's the age old dispute between State and Federal Government in USA, between Provincial and Federal Government in Canada and between Regional and Federal Governments in other countries. Sometimes these disputes are very dynamic.

Now Andalucia and Spain seem to be aligning themselves and forming an alliance against the recovery of shipwrecks in Andalucian/Spanish waters, propelled by the dispute over the Black Swan/Mercedes wreck. So my question is whether Spain will change its stance to allowing Odyssey to recover the Sussex, even though Odyssey has an agreement with the British Government to do so. If this is the case, then will Spain also alter its stance towards other foreign wrecks in Spanish waters, and will this alter the attitudes of foreign nations like the USA to Spanish wrecks in their waters?

Mariner

Presumably all this activity centers on the Mercedes/Black Swan wreck, but remember that Andalucia was trying to stop Odyssey's agreed recovery of the (supposed) Sussex, a British ship in Spanish waters. Does this latest alliance between Andalucia and Spain suggest that Spain is heading to a position where it  will no longer recognizes the sovereign rights of other countries, including the USA, which have shipwrecks in Spanish waters? I cannot believe that Spain would take this position, but the traditional laws of the sea don't seem to count much in the Black Swan case, even in the USA.

Mariner

Gday Mariner Spain might be getting tuft on It's territorial waters. There's a bit of heat with Gibraltar, a
British ship used a Buoy for target practice with Spanish colours, and have been asking the civil guard to leave from waters outside the three mile area.
The British have apologised for the incident, but Spain stands firm on it's territorial waters around Gibraltar !
I could be wrong but all deals are off with the Sussex, till Spain and Britain work this out.
Mariner, Spain and England should have a football match, winner takes all
Ossy

Ossy, mi amigo,
 
[/quote] Mariner, Spain and England should have a football match, winner takes all
Ossy[/quote]

Best suggestion yet !!  (but you had better wait until Torres is fit again)

Mariner

Alexandre,

I understand what and where Andalucia is, but when Odyssey proposed to salvage the Sussex, with permission from its owner, the British Government, and with the blessing of Spain, it was the local government of Andalucia that objected. Andalucia claimed that it had jusrisdiction over wrecks in its waters. It's the age old dispute between State and Federal Government in USA, between Provincial and Federal Government in Canada and between Regional and Federal Governments in other countries. Sometimes these disputes are very dynamic.

Now Andalucia and Spain seem to be aligning themselves and forming an alliance against the recovery of shipwrecks in Andalucian/Spanish waters, propelled by the dispute over the Black Swan/Mercedes wreck. So my question is whether Spain will change its stance to allowing Odyssey to recover the Sussex, even though Odyssey has an agreement with the British Government to do so. If this is the case, then will Spain also alter its stance towards other foreign wrecks in Spanish waters, and will this alter the attitudes of foreign nations like the USA to Spanish wrecks in their waters?

Mariner

Hi Mariner, 
in 2003 Sea Hunt signed an agreement with the Ministry of Culture of Spain, to recover the remains and load of the Spanish Navy frigates Juno and Galga. It's known that Spain assumed the ownership of the property of the two shipwrecks, happened in waters of Virginia. Well, one of the clauses of the agreement establishes that Sea Hunt had to get the due permits from Virginia. Spain is legally owner of the two shipwrecks. 
It's the same case with the Sussex. Andalusia is the administrator of its cultural territorial waters as Virginia.

[Plan Nacional de Arqueología Subacuática: tocado]

Plan Nacional de Arqueología Subacuática: tocado

ABC, por JESÚS GARCÍA CALERO | MADRID Lunes , 23-11-09

¿Por qué España ha castigado con desidia y abandono su propia historia naval? Hasta ahora no hemos sido capaces de excavar ni un sólo galeón ni mucho menos poner en marcha un proyecto importante. No estamos a la altura de nuestros países vecinos, como Francia, Gran Bretaña o Suecia, todos ellos potencias navales con una arqueología seria y activa.

La Corona fundó la primera navegación global y los mares de todo el mundo están sembrados de naufragios españoles, hundidos mientras transportaban verdaderos tesoros que han alimentado el inconsciente colectivo y también la ambición de los piratas... desde hace 300 años hasta hoy, por más que hoy manejen robot submarinos.

El marco Europeo. Los países de nuestro entorno llevan décadas de ventaja, con investigaciones, intervenciones y también publicaciones. El Vasa y el Kronan en Suecia, el Mary Rose en Gran Bretaña, el Roskilde en Dinamarca ya bastan como ejemplos, a los que sumar las investigaciones del DRASSM francés, o los proyectos del Nan Hai 1 de china, los pecios de Pisa o la coca de Bremen. Hay más en marcha. Todos ellos son ejemplos de intervenciones con medios, excavación y museología. En comparación, España ha registrado una ausencia de proyectos, medios y coordinación entre administraciones que se resumen en los problemas para que los buques de la Armada participen con sus impresionantes medios en la política de protección e investigación del patrimonio subacuático. Todo está ahora en manos de la ministra de Cultura.
Incuria más errores. En España, al abandono de la Arqueología se suman algunos errores de bulto. Desde la condecoración a cazatesoros como Robert Marx -por servicios no científicos- hasta los permisos de excavación de La Galga a la misma empresa que los había expoliado, Sea Hunt. No es de extrañar que en esta línea llegasen a concederse media docena de permisos a Odyssey, entre notas diplomáticas y acuerdos verbales, durante los años previos al aún oscuro expolio de La Mercedes. La pregunta es ¿por qué?, ¿por ignorancia?
Autonomías. Sólo hay tres Autonomías con personal cualificado y centros de investigación, que son Cataluña, Andalucía y la Comunidad Valenciana. De ellas sólo Cataluña tiene un barco específico (el Thetis, un pesquero tuneado) y es la única que puede comprobar expolios, anomalías y realizar campañas de investigación arqueológica. Las otras dos, sin buques propios, ¿cómo pueden realizar arqueología subacuática? De ahí que Martín Almagro los defina como centros administrativos.
Mapas arqueológicos. Las tres mencionadas Autonomías los tienen -también Ceuta- en distinta calidad y documentación. La intervención de buques de la Armada puede acabar con ese problema y realizar la carta arqueológica compatible que permita a cada Comunidad proteger los pecios a su cargo (Canarias, Baleares, todas las cantábricas... hay mucho patrimonio por descubrir).
Arqueología que no excava. Desde los 70 no se ha celebrado un congreso científico para debatir resultados. Salvo Cataluña, nadie realiza campañas regulares. En el litoral andaluz, el más rico del mundo, donde Odyssey detectó medio millar de yacimientos, ni se ha realizado campaña sistemática ni publicación alguna. Es decir, los cazatesoros conocen mejor la zona que nosotros. Además faltan publicaciones científicas sobre los pecios medievales musulmanes o la tecnología de los galeones (España aún no ha excavado ninguno), aparte de la importancia de batallas como Trafalgar, que harían muy popular cualquier proyecto ambicioso, con lo cual la arqueología cumpliría una de sus principales funciones: poner la historia a disposición de la sociedad.
La Universidad. Con decir que sólo hay un doctorado en Barcelona basta. El resto son estudios teóricos. Con solo imaginarse a arqueólogos que excavan, toda una nueva generación de profesionales estaría a punto en pocos años.
Las obras públicas. Documentar o rescatar pecios en obras públicas es una misión importante. El pecio de Mazarrón se encontró fortuitamente en la construcción de un puerto deportivo en Murcia. En Sevilla, una nave vikinga mientras se construía el metro. Pero existen centenares de obras (en la época de máxima remodelación del litoral) que no se controlan y por tanto no se hace cumplir de manera efectiva la Ley de Patrimonio de 1985. Como triste ejemplo, el pecio de Mazarrón que sólo ha merecido un pequeño artículo 16 años después de su descubrimiento.
Tecnología. En biología está el ejemplo para los arqueólogos españoles que siguen viendo con desconfianza la tecnología aplicada a sus trabajos, o incluso la posibilidad de utilizar tecnología militar de la Armada. No se han hecho estudios a cotas profundas, ni siquiera fotomosaicos que permiten estudiar las rutas comerciales.
Las competencias. En el respaldo del convenio para que la Armada participe en la defensa del patrimonio sumergido se ha visto el alud de leyes que apoya la puesta en marcha de una política estatal. Si no se realiza dejaremos lo mejor de nuestra historia en manos de expoliadores, porque el olvido ya ni siquiera es una opción visto el caso Odyssey.
Cuestiones de Estado
¿Se puede hacer arqueología sin un barco adecuado?
¿Tienen las Comunidades Autónomas medios para actuar solas?
¿Será el Plan Nacional una renovación si lo ejecutan los mismos responsables que llevan 20 años en las Comunidades y otras instituciones, los mismos que permitieron el caso Odyssey?
¿Se tendrá en cuenta a las empresas especializadas, al i+d, a la sociedad civil?
¿Se harán planes de difusión y sensibilización?
¿Se condenará a la política estatal a tantas luchas por las competencias como Autonomías?






Martín Almagro: «Es toda la sociedad la que falla»

El académico insiste en que es urgente que España excave su primer galeón

ABC, J. G. C. | MADRID Lunes , 23-11-09

Hablar con Martín Almagro de esta situación es desalentador. Su diagnóstico es más pesimista que cualquier otro. Se indigna al pensar en cómo se permitió actuar a Odyssey y lo compara con alguien que entrara a robar en un yacimiento romano... «Detecto en la Junta que muchos responsables son incompetentes o mafiosos porque si no no se explica lo ocurrido en el yacimiento submarino más importante del mundo, que se supone que está a su cargo».
El arqueólogo y académico denuncia «la falta de medios y gente capacitada. Aquí quitan unas vigas de la Mezquita y luego salen a la venta en Sotheby´s, y ¿ha dimitido alguien? O pensemos en Medina Azahara, un yacimiento único en el mundo, que ha sido urbanizado ilegalmente y con una sentencia del TSJ andaluz que lo condena no se ha puesto remedio...»
Sobre el roce por el convenio con Defensa para que participen barcos de la Armada dice que «si eso se llega a hacer con eficacia sería una enorme ventaja para Defensa porque experimentarán en campos complementarios a su labor, y para Cultura por el respaldo tecnológico al patrimonio. Además, conjuntando esfuerzos se rentabilizarán los gastos.»
La principal misión será ahora «fichar personas capaces y no amigos, porque es un tema complicado y técnico. Uno no pide pilotar un avión a un amigo, sino a un buen piloto, y aquí habrá que saber pilotar la gestión y la tecnología».
El siguiente paso, «si este se logra, y soy escéptico, es montar en equipo un ambiente de trabajo, porque tenemos el mayor patrimonio del mundo, y jerarquizar los medios y los fines: es urgente empezar por un galeón, porque la primera navegación global que hubo es patrimonio de la humanidad».
«Esta es una labor de nuestra generación y lamentaremos no llegar a verlo así. No es sólo el problema de la Junta. El Estado, por la Constitución y otras leyes, tiene la obligación de efectuar esta labor y no puede mirar a otro lado. Si no lo hacemos será la sociedad entera la que falla. La democracia debe exigir que hagan lo que tienen que hacer, eso no es pasarse de críticas. Basta de gente que cree que democracia es envolverse en la bandera de su pueblo

http://www.abc.es/20091123/cultura-cultura/polemica-historia-naval-quiere-20091123.html

[La ministra de Cultura dice que "no abandona el Plan de Arqueología Subacuática", pero no da fechas de puesta en marcha]

La ministra de Cultura dice que "no abandona el Plan de Arqueología Subacuática", pero no da fechas de puesta en marcha

Yahoo.es, Lunes, 23 de noviembre, 20.01

La ministra de Cultura, Ángeles González-Sinde, quien presidió hoy en Sevilla la XII reunión del Pleno de la Conferencia Sectorial de Cultura, no aclaró hoy cuándo se pondrá en marcha el Plan Nacional de Arqueología Subacuática, del que dijo "es un asunto muy apasionante pero presenta muchas dificultades, y no falta voluntad por parte de los responsables de cultura". "No es nuestra idea abandonar ese Plan y no llevar a cabo los convenios firmados", manifestó. Seguir leyendo el arículo

En rueda de prensa, la ministra afirmó que "la idea es impulsarlo y aprovechar los recursos de la Armada, ya que el Ministerio de Defensa pone a nuestra disposición los medios en apoyo a la investigación, y los combinaremos con la capacidad de los distintos ministerios, museos, o universidades". Además, expresó su intención de "trabajar coordinadamente con la Junta de Andalucía".

Al hilo de la anterior, la consejera de Cultura de la Junta de Andalucía, Rosa Torres, dijo que "tras dejar claro cuál era el nivel de competencia de la Junta, ésta colaborará para trabajar en este Plan Nacional", y continuó diciendo que "Andalucía ha sido pionera en arqueología subacuática con la creación de un centro de referencia como es el Centro de Arqueología Subacuática de Andalucía" que viene trabajando desde 1997 y que está situado en la playa de La Caleta en Cádiz.

Asimismo, la ministra informó de que en mayo de 2010, en el marco de la Presidencia Española de la Unión Europea, se celebrará una Conferencia Internacional de Arqueología Subacuática para conocer, dijo, "no solo las diferentes políticas en Arqueología Subacuática en Europa sino también en Iberoamérica".

Sobre la reforma de la Ley de Patrimonio Histórico Español, que pretende establecer un sistema de protección del patrimonio arqueológico subacuático e impedir la "impunidad" de aquéllos que atentan contra él, la ministra de Cultura explicó que "existe un documento base sobre el que estamos trabajando y estamos revisando, y que recoge las posibles observaciones con lo que sería conveniente poner al día".


http://es.noticias.yahoo.com/5/20091123/r_t_ep_en_arts/ten-la-ministra-de-cultura-dice-que-no-a-d798d35_1.html?printer=1

I have to laugh at anything the Minister of Culture says. When Odyssey was ready to resume work on the Sussex, Culture claimed they didn't have any qualified archaeologists to put on the Explorer. As far as I'm concerned they never had any intention of doing so, and Odyssey would still be waiting for the archaeologists had they not gone out to look for the Black Swan.

Presumably all this activity centers on the Mercedes/Black Swan wreck, but remember that Andalucia was trying to stop Odyssey's agreed recovery of the (supposed) Sussex, a British ship in Spanish waters. Does this latest alliance between Andalucia and Spain suggest that Spain is heading to a position where it  will no longer recognizes the sovereign rights of other countries, including the USA, which have shipwrecks in Spanish waters? I cannot believe that Spain would take this position, but the traditional laws of the sea don't seem to count much in the Black Swan case, even in the USA.

Mariner

Gday Mariner Spain might be getting tuft on It's territorial waters. There's a bit of heat with Gibraltar, a
British ship used a Buoy for target practice with Spanish colours, and have been asking the civil guard to leave from waters outside the three mile area.
The British have apologised for the incident, but Spain stands firm on it's territorial waters around Gibraltar !
I could be wrong but all deals are off with the Sussex, till Spain and Britain work this out.
Mariner, Spain and England should have a football match, winner takes all
Ossy

Another fabrication...

http://www.panorama.gi/localnews/headlines.php?action=view_article&article=5284&offset=0

Jeff the Gibraltar issue will never go away! and Spain will wait till the end of time !
And as for Odyssey going back around Spanish waters, just as much chance as Spain getting Gibraltar back.
Ossy

Maybe Odyssey should invest in a submarine. 

Republic Coins Paper...

http://www.shipwreck.net/pdf/OMEPaper7_000.pdf

Judge Merryday has agreed with Pizzo's R&R.  At first glance this might sound bad, but this case was going to be decided in the appellate court anyway.  By going to the appellate court now, not only will it speed up the process, but it will save Odyssey a ton of money in legal fees (no discovery).

http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/florida/flmdce/8:2007cv00614/197978/270/

" I note my EMPHATIC agreement with both the Magistrate Judge and Spain " ( Judge Merryday )
Jeff, they should save even more money and give it all back now !
Ossy

Who has sowed storm picks up storm !!