ALIENS!

Aliens. 1986 science fiction action film directed by James Cameron and starring Sigourney Weaver, Carrie Henn, Michael Biehn, Lance Henriksen, William Hope, and Bill Paxton. I remember watching this movie in 1990 as a boy. I found the action scenes exciting. The alien scenes were out rightly scary. Here is the trailer from the movie.

Aliens fascinate us. Endlessly so. It may be a normal reaction to something we perceive to be different or fear or plain curiosity. Whatever is the reason we are fascinated by Aliens. 

Aliens. 

Alien (law), a non-citizen inhabitant of a country.

Extraterrestrial life, defined as life that does not originate from Earth

List of alleged alien beings (ufology).

Any introduced species, a species living outside its native distributional range.

In the many senses in which the word is used, we are all aliens outside our natural habitats.

The law always striving to regulate human conduct comes to terms with the word 'Alien' mainly in the regulation of non citizens (though not necessarily as Extraterrestrials.) In the US Civil Procedure there exists Alienage Jurisdiction under 28 USC 1332(a)(2)-(3). There is also a copious reference to Aliens in the immigration laws of many sovereign states. In the US for example there is a 1798 Alien Enemies Act (An act regarding alien enemies) (Not sure if this law is still extant though.) 

Regulations involving Alien in the introduced species sense also features in Natural Resources Law. For example the Wildlife Act’s Controlled Alien Species Regulation of British Columbia Canada controls the possession, breeding, shipping and releasing of alien animals (i.e. that are not native to B.C.) that pose a risk to the health or safety of people. 

But the sense in which it stokes our eternal fancy is-Aliens as 'Extraterrestrials.'

A little less than a year ago NASA confirmed that Aliens are amongst us as the video below shows.

Yet people still doubt. I know because I am one of the doubting Thomas(es).

Even in 2011, mass sightings have been alleged. 

What is it that stokes our enduring fascination with Aliens? Proof of extraterrestrial life? Surely it must be this. Humanity even within the corridors of science believes in an afterlife. But that form of life is a condition subsequent to death. The fascination with Aliens stems from a need or at least a curiosity to confirm if there is contemporaneous existence at this point in time of a concurrently occurring life form operating within the realm of intelligence attributable to man or even higher.

Do they exist? You be the judge. I have my doubts.

But if they do exist then it really is a BIG DEAL.

They could (possibly, in fact most definitely) change the way human civilization unfurls.

Think about it.

For one lawyers of my ilk has to start doing some futuristic thinking of how to regulate Alien (extraterrestrials) conduct. Their existence will raise many pertinent posers. For instance how should immigration laws react to them? Should they be allowed to buy a ticket and board a plane and sit in economy class? Should they be allowed to go on cruises? To trade? To love? To date? To reproduce their kind and (unkind in the case of cross dating)? Will denying them the protection of the law result in a breach of their 'Alien' rights? (some refer to human-like aliens as humanoids. Humanoid rights. Alien rights. The nomenclature matters little.) Should we wage war against them or embrace them? What role would religion play in all this? 

The list is endless. You can spin the scenarios as you flow with the thought.

So why am I all gung ho on Aliens? Thought this blog was an aviation and shipping or sea related blog?

Anyway don't fret too much. I may be sounding like someone with a high fever. But here is what started my thoughts off in a tangent. Yeah you guessed right it has to do with the sea.

It's this video below about Aliens of the sea. 

Some of the creatures look scary. But unlike the extraterrestrials that I still doubt exists, these ones actually do exist.

If you doubt it, you can (subject to my disclaimer stated herewith that I did not send you on that errand) take a dive to the depth of the sea. They live there.

Or you could just take my word for it and enjoy the vid!

BRAIN EMISSIONS & EMISSIONS IN SHIPS, AIRPLANES...

Brain Emissions.

My Brain is emitting serious academic signals.

Recently I have been toying with the idea of a PhD. Not for teaching purposes though. The teacher's reward as the cliche goes is in heaven. Do I want to necessarily wait that long for my reward? My mum is a teacher and she's done all the teaching we need in the family. I don't think I necessarily want to teach. Don't get me wrong. I think teaching is an excellent career if you have the knack for it. In my profession teaching may mean liberty to stay in the center of your expertise minus the devilish long hours that you have to put in in say working in a law firm. Though it sometimes is a thankless job and your student's may poke fun at you. But then no aspect of work life is entirely immune from the tendency to lend one's self to caricature. 

But what really is in a PHD? A Doctoral place usually means membership of the high echelons of that significant yet intangible corpus of knowledge base that has driven humanity’s progress through the ages. In my view the beauty of the University system lies in the opportunity it presents for ordinary persons to do an extraordinary thing-that of advancing the frontiers of knowledge.

Since the common denominator of such learning is to advance the frontiers of knowledge, it stands to reason that a PhD is amenable to other areas of endeavor as well including the not so altruistic area of business.

In the light of the dreary academic work that may ensue, why would anyone want to do a PhD?

Images Source

I remember being asked a sub question as regards the trade law implications of a measure like the EU ETS   being extended to airlines effective January 2012, in my World Trade Law Exams at the National University of Singapore. The exam was an exam to remember in itself as it was a 4 day long take home Exam that saw me glued to my sit most of the time! It was the longest Exam I have written to date. The fact that I had two other twenty four hour Exams and one four hour Exam all within the space of one week made it the most stressful academic week I have experienced thus far. All towards a double LLM Degree in Global Business Law (New York University) and Maritime Law (National University of Singapore), the first of which would be obtained in February, 2012.


That I should thus be toying with this idea so soon after this harrowing experience may be a pointer to  a deeper seated academic masochism that I never knew I was afflicted with prior to this time!

Anyway like I said I am just toying with the idea. The lure of instant immediate 'lucre' may yet prove to be a greater motivation! Spending another two to three years in a pursuit of what some people has mischievously described as a 'Permanent Head Damage', may not really be worth the squeeze.

Yet the thought of a PhD remains alluring.

So if I were to do a PhD what would be my research interest? What area of the law is bound to hold my attention for a minimum of two years without me getting bored? 

Without a doubt it will be Maritime and Aviation and all the entangled webs that come with it!

This brings me to the issue I promised to discuss in the last blog post. Emissions Control in the context of Shipping and Aviation. 

We will start with International Shipping.

To wet our appetite, let's watch the trio of Mark Major, Policy Officer, International Carbon Market, European Commission; Alfonis Guinier , Secretary General European Community Shipowner's Association; and Per Kageson Professor in Environmental Systems Analysis, Center for Transport Studies talk about how to reduce emissions from International Shipping.

Now that we have put things in context, allow me to don borrowed 'professorial robes' and adumbrate my basic musings on this issue (Hope I am sounding professorial enough?)

Emissions’ control is an emergent issue that is set to shape the future of the Shipping industry. Of particular interest to me is the nexus between Emissions Control and Economic Interests in the context of    International Trade. Some of the key considerations would be the effect of existing and emergent International Ship Emissions Regulations on Shipping Finance, International Trade and the desirability or otherwise of Global Regulatory Uniformity in Emissions control.

A pertinent question in the drafting of environmental legislation has always been that of sustainability. Sustainability issues permeate every facet of our existence including regulation. In the light of the recent global economic woes however it is no longer enough for Regulations to be environmentally sustainable. Regulations must endeavour to strike the right balance between sustainability and legitimate economic interests.

In the policy realm there have been a recent slew of measures for reduction of shipping emissions. Such measures take the form of cap-and-trade programs; emissions taxation; emissions standards; low-emissions strategy including R & D efforts into more efficient technologies etc.

But how far has shipping emission regulations sought congruence with Shipping Finance, Global Logistics and Trade? How about the trade implications of such measures? The Shipping industry is an integral part of global trade via its crucial role in International Trade and the global supply chain logistics. It is thus conceivable that any policy that is not in sync with the fundamental parameters that drive the industry is bound to have multiplier effects on the global economy.

There is a current impasse on the underlying international policy to be adopted to craft a global regulation for shipping emission reduction in view of the two conflicting viewpoints- The “Common But Differentiated Responsibility” (CBDR) principle under the UNFCCC which has the support of mainly developing countries and the IMO’s position as canvassed by the International Maritime Organization Secretary General, Mr Efthimios E. Mitropoulos of equality of treatment devoid of blame apportionment.

Although there has been recent progress post Cancun that a fair global deal harmonizing this opposing views could emerge, there is still a considerable risk of having a multiple regulatory regime in the form of regional interventions like the extension of the EU Emissions Trading System to Shipping.

Recital 3 of Directive 2009/29/EC (which implements Phase III of the EU’s Emissions Trading Scheme) provides that:

“In the event that no international agreement which includes international maritime emissions in its reduction targets through the International Maritime Organisation has been approved by the Member States or no such agreement through the UNFCCC has been approved by the Community by 31 December 2011, the Commission should make a proposal to include international maritime emissions according to harmonised modalities in the Community reduction commitment, with the aim of the proposed act entering into force by 2013.”

Giving the myriad of issues including climate change mitigation; the absence of an Emissions assignment mechanism regarding transnational voyage to an individual country due to flexibility in flag state rules; the funding of the Global Climate Fund and needs based apportionment of funds to affected developing countries, trade issues may have not been given adequate consideration.

In an age of economic uncertainty characterized by a global decline in shipping volumes, regulations ought to take into cognisance trade interests even as it seeks to attain a noble environmental aim.

Global Emissions Regulations and Regional measures like the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) of the EU implicate some Trade Agreements under the WTO system like the GATT Articles I and III: 4 essentially dealing with the prohibition of horizontal discrimination and the outlawing of measures that may afford protection to like domestic products and the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade under the WTO as a possible breach of MFN principle.

ETS being a technical measure may entail mandatory compliance when it is eventually extended to shipping. As a measure to mitigate and adapt to climate change it impacts on trade as it is likely to modify conditions of competition.

ETS derives from commitments to Multilateral Environmental Agreement’s (MEA’s) like the Kyoto Protocol (KP). The rules of the WTO and the MEA’s converge at some point. Article 3.5 UNFCCC and Article 2.3 KP stipulates that measures taken to combat climate change should not constitute a means of arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination or a disguised restriction on international trade; should be implemented so as to minimize adverse effects on international trade amongst others.

Measures made pursuant to regional schemes like the ETS or even a global agreement has implications for international trade and the shipping industry in terms of a depreciated bottom line due to market access and shipping compliance costs respectively. 

Does this hold true for Aviation as well?

This considerations apply mutatis mutandi to Aviation Emissions as well. The hermeneutic considerations have the same jurisprudential' underpinnings. The only differences being that the EU's ETS scheme would apply to airlines flying into the EU from January 1st, 2012 and the ICAO is the body that has the UNFCCC mandate to come up with suitable multilateral regulations for Aviation Emissions Control.

Thus an interdisciplinary research that therefore tries to provide a rational platform for regulations and legislation by expounding the nature of the relationship between emissions control and Shipping or Aviation Finance and International Trade would no doubt provide crucial clarification for future legislations if not out rightly strike the legal balancing chord between sustainability and international trade interests.

The methodology I would adopt if I were to do a PhD in this area would be to examine all the possible trade law implications existing and emergent measures may entail, as well as its impact on shipping finance and international trade through empirical studies and extensive review of the various actions on shipping Emissions with a view to determining not only the linkages but the areas of conflict and to finally distill a possible workable compromise where regulations would not create or result in avoidable distortions to trade.

So that is it! But would I really go ahead down this route or not? Would I seriously consider doing a PhD  Doesn't time always tell?

I'll leave you with a poignant discussion of some of the broader issues regarding sustainability, green technologies etc. 

Ke mesia (Ibo for see you later!)

RECORDS...!

Today I am thinking...

Records. 

Not Vinyl gramophone records like...

By the way where is this Ancestor of the modern DVD, VCD and CD plates? Does anyone still use them? Been sometime I set my eyes on one.

Once upon a time when the gramophone defined an epoch. How time changes yesterday!

By Records I mean- yeah this type:

I did this way back a couple of times when I was much younger and carefree. 

Not on a swivel chair though. My method then was to stand and simply turn my whole body around until I feel nauseous and giddy at the same time! I am not so sure if kids do this again. 

The current record stands at 36 spins in 30 seconds. Oguzhan Ozdemir from Turkey achieved it on 20 June 2010. 

Unfortunately no one at London's Carnaby last during the last Guiness Word Record day on November 17th, 2011 was able to break the record. But they all get a thumbs up for trying! Especially the guy that managed 29 giddy spins. If you wanna reconnect into a childhood that seems lost forever you could go and attempt here. Need I add at your own risk? 

Still talking about records, the biggest ever commercial order for the supply of Airplanes in Boeing's history was 'roared' by Indonesia's Lion Air last week.

$21.7 Billion! 

That amount up there is the value of the deal brokered by US President Barack Obama.

In case you missed the sign at the beginning of that kingly sum-it's United States Dollars! (I know the US dollars doesn't pull so much punch these days, but damn that's a whole lot of Benji's!)

This is what one billion dollars of cash looks like stacked on 12 palettes.

Image Source

Now if the deal were to be paid for with cash we would need almost 22 of those, totaling a staggering 264 Palettes if my Maths is correct! 

The deal is for the supply of 201 Boeing's updated 737 MAX planes and 29 Next-Generation 737-900 (A total of 230 Airplanes)

Below is the 737 MAX being discussed:

Here is what a simulation of the 737-900 looks like. 

The Lion Air order is expected to support more than 110,000 jobs at Boeing and U.S. suppliers. This is another example of the linkages and multiplier effect a viable transport and logistics sector can have on world trade and the global economy.

Our tale won't be complete if we don't pay homage to the seas. There is almost always a parallel in the seas you know and records are broken here as well.

The bragging rights (or at least potential bragging rights) for the record for the highest order of the largest container ships can be claimed by AP Moller-Maersk AS. It's signing of a $1.9 billion contract with South Korea's Daewoo Shipbuilding & Marine Engineering Co Ltd for the building of 10 of the largest-ever cargo-box ships, and the inclusion of rights and options for another 20 ships, which totals about $5.7 billion, makes it poised to wear the crown. 

If the rights and options are eventually exercised that would make it the largest order of it's kind on the seas in history! 

People in the know say the vessels design would enable it carry a whopping 18,000 containers each!

The carrying capacity of each ship is said to be enough to fill Times Square in New York!

The new 'monsters' to be known as the triple E's would be 400 meters long, 59 meters wide and 73 meters high. At that size it will be the largest ship of any type on the oceans. This is a 16% improvement in size over another of AP Moller-Maersk's ship, the Emma Maersk, the current largest container vessel in operation. 

Check out a narrative and a simulation video about the triple E below.

Delivery is scheduled between 2013 and 2015. 

The thing I like about the triple E is it's attempt at improvements in Emissions standards. With the EU ETS Emissions trading scheme set to debut in 2012 for Airlines and the hope of a global emmissions control regime for ship emissions (we will talk about this in our next post!) eminent, the move is definitely worth commending. 

But for now I'll leave you with a video of the current record holder of the largest mammal, in fact the biggest animal in the whole wide world! The Blue Whale. (If you know of any other, please let me know.) Where else would it reside but the sea? 

Pay attention to it's gargantuan statistics in the video and please don't go near it even in your dreams! 

Ha ha! Nice having you around. Keep a date with this blog...Bye!

WALKING IN THE RECESSES OF THE DEEP!

I did promise to tell you about men going Galacticos in my last post the day before yesterday. I said I was gonna do so yesterday but how time flies! Sorry I kept you hanging. So why does the heading of this post read 'the Deep?'. Hang on a sec you will find out soon enough. But first the Heights!

In the past going to space meant being an Astronaut or Cosmonaut in a space programme and the like.

With the conquest of space it was only a matter of time before entrepreneurs ventured forth. And before you jeer that the clientele is limited, Dennis Tito the first man to blast into space paid Russian space chiefs a quite robust $20 million AND Mark Shuttleworth a South African paid a whopping 14 million Pounds Sterling to shuttle to space (living true to his name-'shuttle' 'worth'. Hahaha there I go again with names!)

The commercial entrepreneurs who has ventured into the field includes Space Adventurers and Virgin Galactic amongst others.

Well things have moved pretty fast since then and now just about anybody can go to space. 

Did I say anybody can go to space?

Yes anybody so inclined and who's got up to a meagre $200,000 can now book a space to Space (excuse the pun) on Virgin Galactic. 430 spaces of a possible 450 have already been grabbed!

I am sure you are itching to see the extraterrestrial vehicle that will convey them to space. 

Well here is what it looks like:

Too technical for you? Ok I'll indulge you with a video.

You are smiling now. Amazing stuff innit?

So pretty soon we should have our first cats or dogs or pigeons or pythons or crocs just about any pet in the long list of pet animals people love to keep in space.

It's space tourism baby! and it's for big boys and girls. The kind I like to roll with.

Well this stuff got me thinking as usual. But before I tell you my thoughts.

Let's pause and ponder...

With so much hunger and disease and spiraling debts owed by nations and individuals alike, and occupy wall street protests, and so much ill plaguing our world, why would anyone want to spend thousands of dollars going into space? That is a possible question on your lips. The questions raises issues of fundamental fairness. But do not throw a pity party. No one said life was fair!

Anyway the reasons are the same with why anyone would want to buy a Rolls Royce Phantom or own a Palace or own an obscenely priced artwork or own an expensive piece of jewelry or clothing. It's about passion. Ego. Bragging Rights. Accomplishment. Fulfillment. Adventure. Insensitivity. The motive is endless and in my opinion may even be irrelevant in this context.

While it may validly be argued that Commercial space tourism serves no purpose whatsoever since it is not a research oriented venture, I prefer to see things a little differently.

I am a Lawyer after all. How much more longer before we need laws and lawyers for cases up there? You know that wherever you have humans, the potential for conflicts exist. What law would govern an out of space assault or brawl? You think millionaires don't brawl? they are not exactly from out of space you know? In the event of a legally cognizable altercation in space, is it beyond the reach of terrestrial jurisdiction? Envisage real estate acquisition and completion and post completion matters. (This is possible at least in theory maybe in Mars some day.) 

Aha now you get my making. We would explore that and many other potential matters arising in another post some other day.

In the meantime you can read all about the amazing entrepreneurial stuff going on in Virgin Galactic here.

But this blog is about the seas. So why has my last two posts started with tales regarding the skies. Apart from the fact that I love the skies as well, it is mainly because they are in many ways connected.

Which brings me to what I was thinking about the seas! 

Is there a future for commercial ocean depth tourism? Has man developed the technological capabilities to conquer the depths of the oceans and organize aquatic expeditions into it's depths? 

The Oceans can be quite deep with as many as 22 trenches scattered all over the Oceans (8 are in the Pacific Ocean, three in the Atlantic Ocean, and one in the Indian Ocean.). Trenches are amongst the deepest parts of the Oceans. 

The Mariana Trench the deepest part of the Ocean is so deep that "If Mount Everest, the highest mountain on Earth at 8,850 metres (29,040 ft), was set in the deepest part of the Mariana Trench, there would be 2,060 metres (6,760 ft) of water left above it"

We are talking a depth of over 35,800 feet here.

Think about it for a moment.

A live living expedition that would take you into the ocean depths within a well oxygenated cabin; built in such a way that you can see all around you (a kind of moving aquarium with the aquarium  as the ocean space and the spectators in the ocean submarine capsule, gazing safely and benignly on the creatures of the deep.) Imagine the thrill of seeing all kinds of creatures in their natural habitat- the great whales and what have you, the sea witches and wizards (just kidding!) and creatures yet unknown to mankind (maybe even sea aliens! Haha does would be mermaids and mermen I presume.)

It would be scintillating stuff wouldn't it?

From what we know of the ocean, going that deep down is almost akin to a mission impossible due to the crushing pressure of the ocean's depths which exceeds 10 million pounds of pressure!

I do know of a pair though trying to accomplish the seeming impossible.

Richard Branson as sponsor and Chris Welsh as adventurer. Branson revealed in April, 2011 that Welsh had found a potential technological solution to the crushing pressure- a quartz dome that can withstand 13 million pounds of pressure! (are you still wondering why this Branson guy is the Billionaire that he is?) You can read all about this amazing venture here. 

It's still early days though.

But my tendency for futuristic thinking got me taking the basic idea of a plunge in the deep a step further to the time in the very near future when it will be possible for commercial as opposed to scientific sojourns to the deep. 

Perhaps various ocean depth ranges could be plotted in addition to the moving aquarium concept earlier advocated.

It sounds like fun. Let's leave the legal brouhaha of a suitable legal regime for another day (you will be amazed at how many laws and conventions already exist that can be adapted or extended to cover some of these not so novel issues). I will get all scholarly soon on those issues and I'll be sure to direct you to a place where you could indulge yourself adequately in my legal adumbration.

Suffice it to say that the ocean depth has long held a primordial fascination for man. 

A look at Jobs 38: 16 reveals this poser-

"Have you entered into the springs of the sea Or walked in the recesses of the deep?"

Walking in the recesses of the deep. Now that is deep!

I would leave you with an aquatic experience a mere 7,000 feet deep that can stoke your ocean aquatic marine fantasies and get you singing 'How great is our God' even if you are an Atheist! (But seriously are there actually people who don't believe in a God? So all of these things are accidental? A mere quirk of nature? But if it were, who is responsible for that quirk or accident or big bang or whatever? I'll never be convinced otherwise that there is no God.)

Now here the curtain falls. Enjoy!

DREAMS, DREAMLINERS & COSTA FAVOLOSA's!

The Aviation industry just recently witnessed the latest king of the sky the 787 super-efficient Dreamliner prowling the skies and I am itching to sit my royal black behind in one of it's ultra tech seats, preferably in Business Class. 

Image Source                                                     Image Source

Image Source

Waoh! Aint that just a beauty? This baby just makes me wanna rent the sky (apologies M.I!)

Imagine becoming a member of the mile high club in one of them reclined biz class seats. A man can dream can't he? After all men have gone 'galacticos' now with the space tourism explosion in the offing! (I will tell you all about that tomorrow so stay locked).

Anyway my dream shouldn't be far off, year-end 2012 should better see my royal? (ok cos I am way too modest, I'll settle for loyal) butt comfy in one of them plush seats.) 

Well in between my Dreamliner fantasies, I went searching for the sea variant of the Dreamliner. Don't sneer just yet.The industry has moved past the days of steamships and sailboats you know?

The oceans are dotted with all kinds of ships these days. From the container ships driving global trade to the passenger cruise ships which is also a global player in the tourism sector. We aint gonna do the global trade thing today. What I am on about here is different. I am talking cruise ships here. Not Container ships. There are various categories of cruise ships and even sub categories. You could get a crash course on them starting here.

We will just look at one recent one. But before we do lets do a quick tutorial on cruise ships. 

Well I am sure you all know that ships have a name. Cruise ships aint any different. They are called quite some pleasant names. (there we go again with names! Remember the unfortunate sailor from our last post named Coffin?) Secondly they do have owners. Obvious right? Not so obvious though is their ownership share structure, but that is a gist for another day. They have operators as well. However even before they are named, they get ordered and they are built. So they do have a builder. 

They do get laid down. (Now I know what you are thinking but that is not what it means!) A ship gets 'laid down' when the first parts of the keel are placed on the slipway (or drydock) where the ship is to be built. This is usually the first step in the construction of a ship. The ship gets launched. (this is done by allowing it to slide ad float on the water for the first time). 

It gets Christened (what you would call a naming ceremony). Then it takes its maiden voyage and lives a life of happiness, achievement, victory or defeat, sorrow etc. While alive it is in service and has a status as well as identification numbers given by many groups. The identification numbers serve varying purposes but the chief purpose is that it is like a branded mark on the ship and it survives varying incidents like a change of name, ownership or flag (nationality). So ships are very much like human beings in that way! They can even be sued in their name! Of course Maritime and Admiralty Lawyers know of the action in rem, which within the parameters of academic discourse, is an action against the ship itself.

End of Tutorials.

Now meet the Costa Favolosa.

It cost a whopping 510 million British Pounds Sterling to build. (I never told you they come cheap did I? Besides there are cruise ships that even cost more to build as we will see in future posts.). It's maiden voyage was on the 4th of July, 2011 even though it was launched on the 6th of August 2010. It was built by what I would call the equivalent of Boeing in the cruise ship industry, the Italian company Fincantieri.

Now let's go see this elegant beauty of the sea. 

Aint it a sight for sore eyes?

Perhaps you have had a long day and you feel like chilling right? 

This is what a suite inside looks like. (look below)

Image Source

Awesome innit?

If you wanna quench your thirst, you can take a deserved splurge at the bar

Image Source

Don't you just wanna get drunk right now?

Here it is in all it's glory!

Hmnn If I work hard enough or get lucky enough or dream hard enough or all of the afore, I should be able to put a call through to Fincantieri in 5-6 years time to build me a revised standard version of this? Or am I hallucinating? 

Ok let me rephrase the statement 'If I work hard enough or get lucky enough or dream hard enogh or all of the afore, I should be able to place an order for a fleet of those!'

Now even me I am almost tempted to agree that I am hallucinating!

But I happen to know a lot of hallucinating people who are parting with huge sums to go to space. I think I prefer such company.

Ciao!

THEY ATE THEM

Recently I wrote about the regulation of whaling. You can read all about it here. (I had to go all scholarly on that one. I have to make a living you know?) 

Well whaling is simply the act of hunting and killing whales. 

Image Source

Like I was saying, I wrote about whales as a direct consequence of a research paper I had to come up with. I learnt quite a lot about this great mammals in the course of that write up. But I aint gonna bore you with the policy issues. Those interested in how politics sometimes mixes with regulation with attendant unsavory effects can simply go read my write up. The tale I am interested in today is the tale of the ship called Essex. 

Well not exactly the ship because it's sunken and it's somewhere deep in the oceans 2,000 nautical miles (3,700 km) west of South America. If you are interested in finding the ship you could go look for it there.

What I wanna discuss rather, is the tale of what happened aboard that ship. The ship sank. You know that already. But it was sunk by a whale!

Yeah! It was.


Image Source

It was a classic case of the hunter becoming the hunted. But that is not the story. I will tell you the story. A true story. Not fiction.


The story is one of survival. Of extremities. Of priorities. Of... in fact of many many things. It is a vivid example of the havoc adversity can wreck on our senses.

Captain Pollard was the Master of the Essex. Owen Chase was his first mate. In those days subsistence and commercial whaling was more common place. That was before the tide turned against whaling.

The Essex went whaling. Got unfortunate and got sunk by a whale in the middle of nowhere. The crew of 21 sailors spent two days salvaged what they could from the ship and set out in 3 small boats with scant supplies of food and water. (They were surrounded by water you would say so how could they lack water? Well I am sure you know seawater is not drinkable)

The nearest Islands were almost 2000 km away. They should have gone west to these Islands. But feared that they were inhabited by Cannibals. This was in 1820. As a matter of fact the Essex sank on November 20th, so we are just 6 days shy of it's 191st unfortunate anniversary. The decision not to sail west (very much like some of the decisions we make in life on the roads not taken, proved to be costly.)

They headed south and in those circumstances would have had to sail a totally mind numbing 6,400 km before reaching sustainable land.

With unbelievably low supplies for such an arduous voyage, surrounded everywhere by water they ironically began to die of...? Guess?

Yeah right. Thirst!

Succor came pretty soon as they stumbled on Henderson Island. There they found a mini paradise of freshwater, fish, vegetation and birds.

But hang on! this is just the beginning of the story. 

They soon exhausted the supplies in the small island.

Three members of the crew, William Wright, Seth Weeks and Thomas Chapple, opted to stay behind on Henderson. The remaining Essex crewmen set out on New Year's Eve for the unknown armed with some fish and birds from the island and a tiny reserve of salvaged bread from the Essex.

They kept rowing in their small boats. Three tortuous days on the high seas! Then things took a turn for the worse. Their precarious supplies became almost dissipated.

Then they began to die.

A squall happened on January 11, 1821 and the boat carrying Owen Chase, Richard Peterson, Isaac Cole, Benjamin Lawrence and Thomas Nickerson separated from the rest. 

Prior to this separation, Matthew Joy had died on 10th January and in customary sailor fashion he was sewn in his clothes and buried at sea. Richard Peterson suffered a similar fate on the 18th and was accorded the same honor.

But custom was to give way to pure survival instincts. Isaac Cole succumbed on the 8th of February. But what did the men do?

Food had run out. Should custom, decency, civility, decorum take precedence? The men debated amongst themselves. It was a brief debate. They kept his body. He that was just a short while ago a part of them. They kept him.


Survival attained a pride of place.

THEY ATE HIM.

Image Source

These were not savages or brutes. They were sailors.

Precisely a week later, their unconventional meal was gone. In the throes of more woes, they were rescued by the Indian a British whale ship. It had been 90 long days since Essex sunk.

How did the rest of the guys fare?

Lawson Thomas died on January 20 and the same debate played out. The outcome was the same.

THEY ATE HIM.

Charles Shorter died on January 23.

Isiah Shepard died on January 27.

Samuel Reed died on January 28. 

There was a harvest of food.

THEY ATE THEM.

On January 28th still Obed Hendricks, Joseph West and William Bond in one boat became separated from Captain Pollard's boat.

To this day. No one has seen them.

February 1st in Captain Pollard's boat saw the harvest of bodies become a famine of bones. 

No one had died. The remaining men were all in a hopeless condition. Death was imminent. They had grown accustomed to their new delicacy (wait let me puke...waoraooahahh...hm.. I feel much better.)

Yes I was saying they had grown accustomed to ehmm their meal. The decision was even quicker this time.

A sacrificial lamb was needed. They couldn't place an advert and even if they could who would consider such a career? The career prospects of a sacrificial lamb is not exactly stellar. They drew lots.

Guess who would draw the black (?) spot? (I would rather call it white spot. I wonder why black is used mostly in the negative sense. blackmail. black market. black sheep. Anyway I would rather say white spot, because it was an all white crew. They were no blacks. So white spot is apt.) 

So guess who drew the white spot? No it wasn't Captain Pollard. It was his young 17 year old cousin named-

What do you think an apt name would be in this situation? Aha you were close this time. His name was Coffin.

Owen Coffin. Now I know some people think there is nothing in a name! Some people think it's pure baloney to even suggest so. I do believe there is something in a name. Most people won't admit it. But names have a weird correlation to outcomes. I would explore this a little later in future sea tales. But let's just say the reason people don't name their children Lucifer or Satan is primarily attributable to this reason. 

So they had their sacrificial lamb. But they needed who would sign his employment letter. So they drew lots again and Charles Ramsdell got the dishonour of executing his friend for the dinner table. 

Captain Pollard, Brazillai Ray, and Charles Ramsdell were left. 

Owen Coffin did get a Coffin's burial. But not in a wooden box.

THEY ATE HIM.

Then came the morning of February 11. Brazillai Ray couldn't take it anymore. This time lots were not needed.

THEY ATE HIM.

Two men- a Captain without a ship, a crewman without his men, in the middle of the oceans somewhere far off the coasts of South America.

With bones for company.

Exhausted and bankrupt. Mentally. Physically. Emotionally. Morally. Spiritually.

They kept at it. Survival fueled by the sinews and tendons of decomposed bones of fellow sailors. (..PUKE...waooorrohhh.)

Sorry about that. The image is ever so gory.


But their's is quite a tale innit?

It is strange how in the face of adversity, the fickleness of life gets exposed. All thoughts of commercial profits receded in the harsh conditions these men found themselves. They forgot about whaling. (We have forgotten too. But this tale began with the issue of whaling right? Seems so long ago.) 

Fate had dealt them a cruel blow. Stripped of all the unnecessary baggage. What mattered was the privilege to exist.

By the time they were rescued on February 23rd by the whale-ship Dauphin, they had completely gone bunkers and were actually terrified to see their rescuers.

There was a total of 8 survivors. Captain Pollard, Owen Chase, Charles Ramsdell, Benjamin Lawrence, and Thomas Nickerson.  The three shipmates-William Wright, Seth Weeks and Thomas Chapple who were left in Henderson were also rescued when they were almost dead on April 5, 1821. I am sure they would have weeded the whole Island with their mouths.

In the end  7 sailors WERE EATEN.

For the gory details of this true story you can check here.

For a first hand account of one of the survivors, you will need to part with about $13.40 if you were to buy Narrative of the Most Extraordinary and Distressing Shipwreck of the Whale-Ship Essex at Barnes & Nobles. But in any event you could skim the chapters of the book. It's fascinating and equally horrid aftermath was captured by Nathaniel Philbrick winner of the National Book Award for his Maritime History account of the Essex tragedy and you could pay his Barnes and Noble page a visit. 

I'll end this tale with a legal question. (It's essentially a 'law of, about or surrounding  the sea' blog anyway, so don't go all coy with me. We had an agreement remember? If you have forgotten look at the blog mantra up this page below our logo and my first post. You see what it says? Aha now you get my making!) 

Anyway don't bale yet. I'm just kidding. No legal questions today. Those would come some other day.

But I do have a moral one that may have a direct bearing on how some issues tend to shape the trajectory of the law. 

If you found yourself in such a situation, would you EAT them?