Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Education Science

Sunken Treasure Worth $500 Million Found Off England 157

Posted by Zonk
from the treasure-in-the-depths dept.
An anonymous reader writes "In a modern day (and underwater) version of Indiana Jones, the AP is reporting that Odyssey Marine Exploration has recovered an estimated $500 Million in colonial coins from a 400 year old shipwreck in the Atlantic. The exact location of the wreck is still undisclosed. Odyssey is a for-profit, publicly traded company. 'In seeking exclusive rights to that site, an Odyssey attorney told a federal judge last fall that the company likely had found the remains of a 17th-century merchant vessel that sank with valuable cargo aboard, about 40 miles off the southwestern tip of England. A judge granted those rights Wednesday. In keeping with the secretive nature of the project dubbed ''Black Swan,'' Odyssey also is not discussing details of the coins, such as their type, denomination or country of origin. Bruyer said he observed a wide variety of coins that probably were never circulated. He said the currency was in much better condition than artifacts yielded by most shipwrecks of a similar age. The coins -- mostly silver pieces -- could fetch several hundred to several thousand dollars each, with some possibly commanding much more, he said.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Sunken Treasure Worth $500 Million Found Off England

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 19, 2007 @04:07AM (#19189049)
    what stops courts in other countries from giving other companies the right to also go salvaging for whatever is to be found there?
    • I believe its being handled by not giving away the gps coordinates in a very large ocean until all the treasure has been acquired.

      You'd be looking for a needle in several large haystacks to find the actual divers that are harvesting it.
      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by blackicye (760472)
        What's to stop someone from just waiting until they leave port then following the ship/boat?

        Wonder how they stop that one suspicious cabin cruiser that keeps tailing them from port to salvage site.
        Maybe some kind of court order or injunction..what if another takes its place..

        I'd imagine the easiest way would be to lure these stalkers into international waters then sink them with the cannons.

        Yaaarrrr!
    • Goodness knows. If BBC Radio is to be believed, the nearest country seems to be the UK. And the ship that sank was English (dating back to before the existance of the UK). But the salvage company are American. And the treasure was nicked by the English from the Spanish. Who presumaby nicked the original Ag/Au from the native South Americans before making it into coins. So why it is a federal Judge who gets to decide who can salvage the stuff, I don't know. Because it is a US company, I suppose.
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by 91degrees (207121)
        This is all guesswork on my part from bits and pieces I've picked up, but at 40 miles from the UK, the UK government has no jurisdiction. The ship sank hundreds of years ago, so has no actual owners (and if I understand it, a ship abandoned or sunk in international waters has no owners anyway). I think international treaties essentially have a "finders keepers" rule for wrecks, but national law may still require companies to go through some legal processes to prove that they were the first people there an
        • by mce (509) on Saturday May 19, 2007 @07:57AM (#19189937) Homepage Journal

          a ship abandoned or sunk in international waters has no owners anyway

          Unless it is a war grave. In that case, the ship is forever owned by the government of the country that it sailed for, or its internationally recognised sucessor, no matter whose waters the wreck is located in. HMS Hood is property of the UK government, despite her position in international waters. KM Bismarck is property of the German government (I don't know which Germany would have been considered owner between 1945 and 1990, but it doesn't matter: either one would have been "done the trick").

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Instine (963303)
      Exactly. What has a 'federal judge' got to do with something off the coast of England?
      • by Nutria (679911)
        Exactly. What has a 'federal judge' got to do with something off the coast of England?

        There are treaties that enumerate all this. Depending on what the treaties say, Odyssey Marine Exploration might have to turn over a chunk of the profits to England.

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          "Depending on what the treaties say, Odyssey Marine Exploration might have to turn over a chunk of the profits to England."

          I didn't read the article linked to on /. but one from the toronto star,

          "But under the terms of an agreement, Odyssey will have to share any finds with the British government. The company will get 80 per cent of the first $45 million and about 50 per cent of proceeds thereafter."
    • Well we all saw in Iraq what happened to people who ignored America's version of 'International' Law.
      • "Well we all saw in Iraq what happened to people who ignored America's version of 'International' Law."

        Yeah, that's why the 'Axis of Evil' was wiped off the map.

        Godwin, much?
    • by jcr (53032) <jcr@@@mac...com> on Saturday May 19, 2007 @05:41AM (#19189459) Journal
      Admiralty law, established by treaties that just about every country with a coastline are parties to.

      -jcr

    • by hey! (33014) on Saturday May 19, 2007 @08:53AM (#19190175) Homepage Journal
      Recovery of such artifacts are covered by either national or international law depending on what kind of waters they are in.

      Longstanding tradition has included a law of salvage and a law of finds. The law of salvage covers vessels in peril or goods lost that are still claimed by its owner. There is also a long tradition of ignoring the law of savage when nobody was around to enforce it. The law of finds covers vessels like this that have been abandoned by its owners. Such vessels become the property of the first person to start recovery attempts, although there are provisos when such discoveries are made in areas owned by others and would interfere with those others' rights (e.g. you can own treasure found on somebody else's property, but not necessarily if you have to dig it up).

      The US and several other nations assert an exception for military wrecks; they claim that such wrecks remain the property of the flag country, even if sunken in territorial waters of other nations. Recovering artifacts from such ships is equivalen to boarding them.

      Outside of those considerations, nations may regulate recovery activities in various zones of authority.

      There are five legal navigational zones: inland waterways and lakes; territorial seas (12 mile limit); contiguous seas (24 mile limit); and the exclsuive economic zone (200 miles), and the high seas. Within the 12 mile limit, nations are sovereign. Within the twenty four mile limit, they may impose certain regulations, including retrieval of underwater artifacts of archaelogical or historical significance.

      Outside the 24 mile limit, they may not regulate recovery of underwater artifacts AFAIK. The 200 mile EEZ only applies to natural resources.

      So, given the apparent location of the wreck in question, the UK does not have authority to grant or deny ownership to anywone per se; but they can recognize title gained by private individuals under traditional international maritime law.

      International conventions have been proposed to protect underwater culutral heritage -- human made artifacts and vessels that have been underwater for more than 100 years -- on the high seas. The conventions state that any archaeological wreck is to be managed with the benefit of humanity in mind; preferably preserved in situ, but otherwise disposed of in a way consistent with it being the common heritage of all humanity. These conventions have not been ratified by enough nations to be considered in force. The US is one of the nations which objects, primariliy because we claim sovereignty over military wrecks. I dont' doubt that the spirit of the new conventions are loathsome to the current administration's principles.

      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward
        Actually, the Odyssey had a permission from the Spanish government to _investigate_, but not _recover_, in waters close to Gibraltar to try and locate the HMS Sussex (sunk in 1694), and the fact that they have made this announcement without saying where the heck that stuff came from has made the Spanish government suspicious. There's a good chance they have, indeed, recovered this stuff from somewhere they weren't authorized to.

        http://www.elmundo.es/elmundo/2007/05/19/cultura/1 179591698.html [elmundo.es] (In Spanish, c
        • by segedunum (883035)

          Actually, the Odyssey had a permission from the Spanish government to _investigate_, but not _recover_, in waters close to Gibraltar to try and locate the HMS Sussex (sunk in 1694), and the fact that they have made this announcement without saying where the heck that stuff came from has made the Spanish government suspicious. There's a good chance they have, indeed, recovered this stuff from somewhere they weren't authorized to.

          Indeed. Many salvage companies have played fast and loose with the grey areas

  • Can't let pirate treasure get away!

    argh!
    • *Federal* judge? (Score:2, Insightful)

      by CountBrass (590228)
      I'm curious to know how a US judge would have any jurisdiction over a wreck 40 miles off the English coast?
      • by arivanov (12034)
        None.

        And while it is an interesting wreck it is not the "mother of all wrecks" anyway.

        I am waiting for the day when someone will find the damn place somewhere off Kadis, where the Spaniards dumped all those thousands of tons of Platinum from the Aztec and Inca empires so that it "does not devalue the value of silver in the old world".

        Now that one will turn the world upside down (though it is likely to be 1km+ depth so getting our grubby hands on it will be rather difficult).
  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 19, 2007 @04:11AM (#19189067)
    Phase 1. Treasure
    Phase 2. ???
    Phase 3. Stop Global Warming

    Only now does it become obvious that what we needed were more pirates.
    • by Miseph (979059)
      Parent is not a troll, it's a joke. It's an FSM reference (and a better one than most, I might add), for all those who might not get it.
    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by Evil Cretin (1090953)
      Well yes. Except Phase 2 isn't "???", since only ninjas are that secretive.

      Phase 2 in this case is clearly something along the lines of "Do what you want 'cause a pirate is free, you are a pirate!"
  • by Anonymous Coward
    Inexpensive maps available for just $99
  • In my attempts to consider the relation between pirate's treasure and technology news, I could only come up with a few ideas, none of which were addressed in the summary or TFA: 1. The coins had an unusually high electrical conductivity / specific weight ratio 2. They were produced by (at-the-time) high tech currency manufacturing technology or, 3. It's just because Pirates are popular lately.....
    • by bstempi (844043)

      In my attempts to consider the relation between pirate's treasure and technology news, I could only come up with a few ideas, none of which were addressed in the summary

      It was never stated because it's obvious...this is teh l00t that will be used to buy Sealand [slashdot.org]. Just in time [slashdot.org], too!

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      Yeah I wondered why so many coins would be worth so much because it'd drive down collectibility by flooding the market. I'm with #1, the metal must have some value. I'm sure some coins will be purchased by collectors. The rest will end up melted down for their materials value? Of course #3 could easily be part of it. Never underestimate the marketing ability of a blockbuster film and greedy corporations.

      Why are the ninjas taking so long? Is there a run on hamburgers this morning?
      • Re:why coins? (Score:5, Informative)

        by flyingsquid (813711) on Saturday May 19, 2007 @10:24AM (#19190527)
        The rest will end up melted down for their materials value?

        An ounce of precious metal is going to be worth whatever the going rate for an ounce of precious metal is, plus any value it may have as an artifact. Given that being in the form of an antiquity is only going to increase the value of the metal, it generally doesn't make sense to melt down coins. In the case of silver, these days the going rate is only $13 an ounce, so the value is mostly coming from the the fact that they are old and rare, not that they are made of silver. Odyssey says they have 17 tons of coins, which sounds like a lot, but that's only 17 tons * 2200 lbs/ton *16 oz/lb * $13/oz = $7,779,200 worth of silver, which is 1.5% of what they say the haul is worth.

        Supply and demand do dictate that bringing up 17 tons of colonial-era coins will decrease their rarity, which will tend to decrease their value. There are a few ways the company can offset this. First, they can control the flow of the coins onto the market so it doesn't end up flooded. If they sell just 5% of the coins per year for the next 20 years, or $25 million per year, the market will be able to absorb it much better than if they dump a half-billion on the market all at once. The other issue is, of course, that marketing. If the company can increase the demand for the coins by getting more people to look at rare coins either as a hobby or an investment, the value may not decrease that much, or could even increase.

        Long term, Odyssey's biggest problem may be other wrecks. They plan on making this a business model, so they are looking at another wreck with half a billion worth of gold aboard, and looking into exploring several more wrecks, so they are going to keep bringing rare coins onto the market. And if that keeps making money, it will encourage copycat operations. Actually, Odyssey's business model isn't original either, the only difference between what they did, and the group who salvaged the Central America did, is that Odyssey had an IPO, whereas the Central America salvage company is not publicly traded. Ship of Gold and the Deep Blue Sea has a really excellent account of what went into the Central America salvage operation.

  • by Romwell (873455) on Saturday May 19, 2007 @04:19AM (#19189089)
    ...that pirates are better than ninjas. You never get to read about ninja treasure found underwater !
  • Federal Judge (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 19, 2007 @04:28AM (#19189119)
    If the wreck was 40 miles off the English coast, it should in English, or possibly French, territorial waters. So why ask a US judge?
    • Re:Federal Judge (Score:5, Informative)

      by wakaranai (87059) on Saturday May 19, 2007 @05:03AM (#19189281)
      In general, it seems that UK and French territorial waters extend to twelve nautical miles (13.8 miles or 22.2 km) off their coasts.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_Waters [wikipedia.org]
      • by jez9999 (618189)
        And the rest of the ocean counts as US territorial waters, right? ;-)
        • by packeteer (566398)
          Pretty much the rest of the oceans and all the land...
        • by gkhan1 (886823)
          I think the general principle is that the country where the vessel is registered is responsible for that vessel if you are in international waters. So, for instance, if you commit a murder in the middle of the Atlantic on a ship registered to France, the French police investigates it and locks up the offenders. I imagine the same thing is true for this kind of situation. It was an American boat that found it, which means that the American government can decide whether it's "historically significant" and sho
      • I'm, pretty sure a nation has control of salvage within their Exclusive Economic Zone [wikipedia.org] which extend 200 nautical miles out to sea.
      • by dparnass (1004755)
        But doesn't an economic zone extend to almost 200 miles. Or does that only apply to fishing and exploration for oil and natural gas.
    • Re:Federal Judge (Score:5, Informative)

      by belmolis (702863) <billposerNO@SPAMalum.mit.edu> on Saturday May 19, 2007 @05:08AM (#19189317) Homepage

      The wreck appears to be in international waters. Therefore, the company may obtain an order for admiralty arrest from a competent court of any nation. In the general case, admiralty arrest is the approximate equivalent in admiralty law of a lien on property. In a case such as this, what it amounts to is a declaration by the court that the ship has been abandoned by its original owner and that the applicant therefore has exclusive salvage rights.

      • by nicklott (533496)
        Yes, although as an exception to that IIRC the Royal Navy (and other national Navies) lay claim to any wreck of one of it's own ships, however old it maybe and whoever's waters it may be in (not that this is a RN ship). The original owner also gets first dibs on anything from a wreck *landed* in the UK (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Receiver_of_Wreck) and, assuming the the coins are British, presumably the Crown is the original owner. Which probably explains why they chose to sail it hundreds of miles across
        • by belmolis (702863)

          I was only talking about jurisdiction. What law governs the claim is another matter. In general, the law has been "finder's keeper's", even for fairly recent wrecks. For example, the Andrea Doria, which sank in 1956, was salvaged by an outfit that obtained complete rights to it. Historically there have been some exceptions for government vessels, but even these did not apply if the vessel was engaged in a primarily non-governmental activity (e.g. serving as a treasure ship.) The whole business is complicat

      • by QuantumG (50515) <qg@biodome.org> on Saturday May 19, 2007 @06:00AM (#19189531) Homepage Journal
        That's so cool. I can't wait until someone does something similar with an abandoned spacecraft.
    • by Tim Browse (9263)
      "Mr. Blair. It seems there is nothing you can possess which I cannot take away."
  • by niceone (992278) * on Saturday May 19, 2007 @04:33AM (#19189141) Journal

    In a modern day (and underwater) version of Indiana Jones

    I'm not quite getting it. Leaving aside the difficulties of shooting, who would stand in for the evil Nazis? I suppose they could have the Taliban in scuba gear.

    • by saforrest (184929) on Saturday May 19, 2007 @05:20AM (#19189365) Homepage Journal
      I'm not quite getting it. Leaving aside the difficulties of shooting, who would stand in for the evil Nazis? I suppose they could have the Taliban in scuba gear.

      Well, why not the Nazis? They had U-boats after all. Maybe it could be a secret undersea Nazi base in the North Sea which survived the downfall of the Third Reich by remaining undetected, but which is located close enough to the shipwreck that its existence is jeopardized. Indiana Jones V: Indiana Jones und Das Boot!
      • by niceone (992278) * on Saturday May 19, 2007 @05:43AM (#19189465) Journal
        You, Sir, are a genius. Have you considered a Hollywood career? Combining 2 sequels into one movie - a masterstroke.
        • by ccp (127147)

          You, Sir, are a genius. Have you considered a Hollywood career? Combining 2 sequels into one movie - a masterstroke.

          I'm afraid the talent most sought-after in Hollywood is spreading one sequel into three movies.

          Cheers,
          CC
      • Oh! That base...... Well, I'm not supposed to be posting this, but its where my boss, Red Skull, is hiding so Captain America can't find him ..... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Skull [wikipedia.org]

        Don't you feel smart now. Your conspriacy theory and Hollywood blockbuster story will not work. You'll need to shoot a documentary or a biography episode for A&E.
    • Indiana Jones seemed to be more out there to uncover history for the world, and to keep artifacts out of the hands of private owners.
  • by Anonymous Coward
    This is a travesty. This centuries-old sunken treasure is of immeasurable cultural and archaeological value. That the contents of this ship are to be handed over to private corporation to be auctioned off to the highest bidder like so many pork bellies is an insult to human acheivement.

    This is just another spadeful to the existing mountain of evidence of the crucial need for copyright reform in today's digital age.
    • by Archon-X (264195) on Saturday May 19, 2007 @04:56AM (#19189251)
      I see your point. Devil's advocate:
      1- Is it better that it was never found at all?
      2- Can you argue that it would have never been recovered by a museum etc
      3- Money is always a good motivation for people to find things.
      4- Are you sure they're going to 'destroy the evidence' to feed their greed?
      So far it seems they've been pretty methodical and patient to go by the book. Perhaps we'll all be pleasantly surprised.
  • by wakaranai (87059) on Saturday May 19, 2007 @04:42AM (#19189185)
    Apparently, the ZEUS ROV is used by Odyssey Marine Exploration in the search for artifacts. It weighs 7.3 tonnes (in air) and is 3.2 metres long, and it can operate down to depths of 2500 metres.

    It was originally designed for the maintenance of deep-ocean fibre optic cables, and has manipulators and high-resolution video feeds that allow items to be handled with great precision

    http://shipwreck.net/zeus/ [shipwreck.net]
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Soulshift (1044432)

      ...It weighs 7.3 tonnes (in air)...
      I'm sure you mean that its mass is 7.3 tonnes...
      • Not exactly (Score:2, Interesting)

        by sid0 (1062444)
        "Weighs" IIRC is an acceptable substitute for measuring the mass.

        What will you say, "it masses 7.3 tonnes?"
        • by gardyloo (512791)

          What will you say, "it masses 7.3 tonnes?"

          It may be because I'm a physicist, and spend far too much time around people who DO say things like this, but yes. To my mind, using "masses" in this way doesn't sound funny at all. This terminology is, of course (as anyone who's taken an introductory physics class has been told over and over again), technically more correct than saying it "weighs 7.3 tonnes".

          However, I AM annoyed when physicists automatically correct anyone using "weight" or "weighs" like this, and try to only mak

      • by timeOday (582209)

        I'm sure you mean that its mass is 7.3 tonnes...
        Don't worry, so far it has only been used on or near the surface of planet earth.
    • Yeah but where do I buy one ..... and Where are do i find ye pirate treasure hidden 'yonder? There must be some maps ..... ;)
  • by \\ (118555) on Saturday May 19, 2007 @04:44AM (#19189197) Homepage
    Indiana Jones would've put that shit in a Museum, not paid dividends to his shareholders.
    • by WannaBeGeekGirl (461758) on Saturday May 19, 2007 @05:25AM (#19189385) Journal
      Too bad Indi was neither a pirate, ninja or politician...

      I agree though, I was raised by two pacific Archaeologists and they're not exactly fans of pirates either. Pot hunters, big corporations that fake the land and archaeological impact data requirements are pretty much pirates of a sort. They pillage and destroy with greed their soul goal, no diplomacy and guilt of the scientific data destroyed and peoples and cultures they've offended.

      Too bad my parents are pacifists, it would have been cool to see them bust out a whip at Mesa Verde, CO when they busted a tourist swiping artifacts.
      ~WBGG
    • by Nutria (679911)
      Indiana Jones would've put that shit in a Museum, not paid dividends to his shareholders.

      You need to go watch the movies again.

      He was a contract adventurer, hired by the University to steal specific artifacts. Remember the opening scene of RotLA?

      • by maxume (22995)
        They just happened to be willing to pay him for the artifacts, "no questions asked" and all that.
    • by argStyopa (232550)
      No, as you recall Indiana Jones would have (given the setting) uncovered some great mystical Cthulhoid plot which, when all was said and done, would have resulted in the spectacular destruction of at least one world-significant historical site and then had all evidence locked away in a government storage facility under "TOP SECRET" classification.

      I think dividends to shareholders actually sounds a lot safer to us innocent bystanders.
  • They later found they were just caught up in a Pirates of the Caribbean 3 [volvocars.net] promotion.
  • by SpzToid (869795) on Saturday May 19, 2007 @04:57AM (#19189257)
    Here's a partial write-up from Motley Fool . com: http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2003/08/19/s triking-investment-gold.aspx?vstest=search_042607_ linkdefault [fool.com]

    from 2003:

    "Odyssey does not have enough assets to list on the Nasdaq National Market, so it trades on the highly speculative Bulletin Board exchange, a place investors should all but categorically avoid. We all dream of finding a hidden gem cheap and riding it to riches, but you're much more likely to find your fortune on the Nasdaq or NYSE, trading in double digits.

    We're looking at Odyssey today as an exception, because it's August, half of you are on vacation, and this company has a heck of a fun story -- but all the fun is in the treasure hunting, not the stock.

    Like flotsam (or a dead fish), the stock has drifted without purpose from moon to moon, just waiting for a current to carry it. In July, Odyssey announced the discovery of an unnamed steamer, and over the next month speculators lifted the shares from $1.50 to $2.95. After news of the SS Republic broke last weekend, Odyssey's stock opened Monday above $5, valuing the company at $140 million -- a price rivaling the maximum value of the discovery."

    Now the stock is over $8.
    • by segedunum (883035)

      We're looking at Odyssey today as an exception, because it's August, half of you are on vacation, and this company has a heck of a fun story -- but all the fun is in the treasure hunting, not the stock.
      Funny, thanks for the interesting info. So basically, they're most probably full of it in order to raise their stock price?
  • by redblue (943665) on Saturday May 19, 2007 @05:05AM (#19189297)
    Presumably $500m is due to the historical value of the coins, not their mass. How do they go about making sure counterfeits are not slipped in? I would think that modern metallurgy is (IMNAM) advanced enough to fabricate any desired ratio isotopes in an alloy. Smells like Pump and Dump to me...
  • Yeah (Score:2, Insightful)

    by joshsnow (551754)
    The coins -- mostly silver pieces -- could fetch several hundred to several thousand dollars each, with some possibly commanding much more, he said.

    Not if there are thousands of them. Scarcity adds value. Hmmm 40 miles of the coast of England and they seek jurisdiction in a US courtroom? Sounds like a job for the SBS...
  • Supply and demand? (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    The coins -- mostly silver pieces -- could fetch several hundred to several thousand dollars each

    Somehow I doubt that unleashing half a million of these '$1000' coins onto the market isn't going to drastically lower their going rate.

    Supply and demand, anyone?
  • The Fools (Score:2, Funny)

    by gijoel (628142)
    It's only a matter of time before they realise the treasure is cursed and they have to go out and fight Johnny Depp. Then stab Orlando Bloom.

    So I guess it isn't all bad news.
  • As a Brit, I've grown up knowing that any treasure found on british land is the property of the queen... that is why treasure hunters here are doing it for prestige and not money. I'm sure this would extend to UK waters. I don't understand how a judge would, nay, COULD grant exclusive rights, that also makes no sense. I just come to the conclusion that either the company is lying or the company is going to get a law suit soon.
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Threni (635302)
      > I'm sure this would extend to UK waters.

      The coins weren't found in UK waters.
      • by segedunum (883035)

        The coins weren't found in UK waters.
        They were found in the EEZ, which has become something of a grey area in the last few years. Even the US claim jurisdiction there. There is also the question of ownership, which being s salvager does not give you. It is merely an understanding of recompense. Lifting stuff straight from a wreck site on the basis of being in international waters is a bit of a bad idea. I wouldn't want to be an investor in them.
    • I'm SURE this is perfectly legal. It is in international waters, that would mean it does not belong to the queen. International waters are defined as waters that are more than 12 nautical miles (more than a statute mile) from the coastline or the established baseline. These waters belong to no nation. This is why Iran does not just go out and seize ships transiting the Strait of Hormuz, especially when they are on the Oman side of the Strait. There are different laws governing the high seas, which even
    • by joss (1346)
      > I've grown up knowing that any
      You are badly misinformed. http://hmcoroner.powys.gov.uk/index.php?id=8 [powys.gov.uk]

      "If you find any ancient artefact take it to your local museum or police station. All Treasure finds must be reported to the Coroner within 14 days. Failure to do so is a criminal offence. The Coroner will contact the relevant body to investigate your find.

      If the find is declared to be Treasure then it may be claimed by the Crown and if so the Treasure Valuation Committee will value the find and you w
  • The article states:

    In January, Odyssey won permission from the Spanish government to resume a suspended search for the wreck of the HMS Sussex, which was leading a British fleet into the Mediterranean Sea for a war against France in 1694 when it sank in a storm off Gibraltar.

    But the union of the parliaments between Scotland and England didn't happen until 1707. Therefore there was no British fleet in 1694; it was an English fleet.

  • An exclusive economic zone extends for 200 nautical miles (370 km) beyond the baselines of the territorial sea, thus it includes the territorial sea and its contiguous zone.[3] A coastal nation has control of all economic resources within its exclusive economic zone, including fishing, mining, oil exploration, and any pollution of those resources. However, it cannot regulate or prohibit passage or loitering above, on, or under the surface of the sea, whether innocent or belligerent, within that portion of i

Never appeal to a man's "better nature." He may not have one. Invoking his self-interest gives you more leverage. -- Lazarus Long

Working...