An anchor chain on the 300-foot mega-yacht, the MV Tatoosh, owned by billionaire Paul Allen, has destroyed almost 14,000 sq.ft of reef in the West Bay replenishment zone, the Department of Environment confirmed following a survey of the area. DoE officials said more than 80% of the coral in the area has been damaged by the luxury boat's chain. Local divers conducted an in-water survey of the coral reef damage last week and the DoE expects to publish the detail findings next week.
Early findings already indicate extensive damage and investigations into the circumstances of the incident are ongoing, with the assistance of staff aboard the Microsoft billionaire's superyacht, which was anchored close to the Doc Poulson wreck and The Knife dive site, officials said.
"In addition to assessing the damage and determining the cause of this incident, we are also paying close attention to lessons learned so that we can more effectively prevent these accidents while still hosting visiting yachts," a spokesperson for the DoE said.
Related Stories
Paul Allen has died at age 65:
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/oct/15/paul-allen-co-founder-microsoft-dies
Paul Allen, who co-founded Microsoft with his childhood friend Bill Gates, has died. He was 65.
Allen's company Vulcan said in a statement that he died Monday. Earlier this month Allen said the cancer he was treated for in 2009, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, had returned.
Allen, who was an avid sports fan, owned the Portland Trail Blazers and the Seattle Seahawks.
Of course the article has more information. There was more to Paul Allen that just mentioned above. Bound to hit multiple sources with different takes so be on the lookout for something from a source you like.
takyon: Allen Institute bio and Vulcan Inc. statement.
Related: Billionaire Boater Destroys almost 14,000 square feet of Reef in Cayman Islands
Scientists Force Genetically Engineered Mouse to Watch Classic Film Noir
Stratolaunch: The World's Largest Plane Rolls Out
Paul Allen Finds Lost World War II Cruiser USS Indianapolis
Allen Brain Atlas Releases Data on Live Human Brain Cells
World's Largest Plane is Designed to Lift Rockets Into the Stratosphere
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 28 2016, @01:02PM
well.... atleast he can afford to pay for new coral seeds...
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Justin Case on Thursday January 28 2016, @01:12PM
I don't tolerate the carelessness that causes irreparable damage like this, but it shouldn't come as a surprise. After all, carelessness is the hallmark of his company's entire product line.
While you're busy hating this guy for even being able to have a yacht in the first place, just remember, if you use Windows, you helped to pay for this.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by DannyB on Thursday January 28 2016, @03:59PM
Let's be fair to Paul Allen. He is a Patent Troll. (one easily google-able source: http://www.businessinsider.com/the-woz-slams-paul-allen-as-a-patent-troll-2011-5) [businessinsider.com]
His carelessness could be excused if he was busy thinking about who to sue next over worthless patents, and neglected what his yacht anchor was doing.
Or maybe he was busy lighting cigars with $50 bills.
But he probably had important things on his mind that little people like us wouldn't understand.
/s
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 28 2016, @01:58PM
But why because he's a rich dude. Too-rich-to-be-punished.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 28 2016, @03:33PM
He'll offer to get his band together and play some Hendrix on guitar. Then give them a tour of his space hangar.
(Score: 2) by isostatic on Thursday January 28 2016, @02:04PM
14,000 sq ft is 1300 square metres. Costs in Florida seem to be in the $1000/sqm range [nature.com] - 2012 prices, so that would be about $1.5m, peanuts for him, he should already have paid up just for the PR gain.
If it was negligence, then sink the boat, which will make a new reef. As it happens though it wasn't negligence, they moored exactly where the authorities told them to.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday January 28 2016, @02:43PM
Yes, he should pay for the PR value, and apologize.
Unfortunately, money doesn't make living things grow... it can pay for people to help make them grow, but replacing coral takes time - Paul Allen will be long dead before the damage from this has regrown.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 5, Insightful) by isostatic on Thursday January 28 2016, @03:22PM
If he or his company was to blame I'd agree, but he was told where to park, and that caused the problem.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday January 28 2016, @04:27PM
I agree that "punishment" is not appropriate, but apology for the damage, not using "due care" within the guidelines, etc. is definitely an upstanding thing to do.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 1) by Francis on Thursday January 28 2016, @05:19PM
The summary indicates that what happened is in need of study. So, it does seem to imply that there was something beyond normal care that needed to be done in order to prevent the damage. Or that there was a variable that wasn't well known.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday January 28 2016, @05:56PM
Even without rules, guidelines, etc. the captain of the vessel should be aware of the presence of the corals, the effect of his anchor chain on them, and the desirability to avoid contact.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Friday January 29 2016, @01:32AM
Corals tend to grow well below the surface. (Not deep, but still not visible from above.) He was told where to park his yacht.
I tend to be unhappy that his got weathy through such evil means (MSWind, patent troll, etc.), but I have a hard time faulting him in this case.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Friday January 29 2016, @03:41PM
This is no axe to grind against the owner, this is an axe to grind against idiots who follow somebody's directions and then blame them for the bad outcome: faulting the captain, not the owner - but it is the owner who gets to pay for the captain's misjudgement in big cases.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 0, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 28 2016, @02:45PM
One reef at a time!
And before you say "Paul Allen doesn't work for Microsoft!" remember, once a Microsoftie always a Microsoftie god damn it!
Somebody needs to take a tactical nuke to Redmond before they destroy the whole world!
Oh yeah? I got your off-topic right here, mofo!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 28 2016, @02:53PM
- Who was operating the ship at the time (Allen tends to 'lend' his ships to friends, partners and people who pay him)?
- Why does a man need 3 super-yachts?
(Score: 5, Informative) by FakeBeldin on Thursday January 28 2016, @03:24PM
- who picked the mooring location? The ship's captain or the port authorities?
Allen's communication team suggests the latter: [washingtonpost.com]
If indeed the ship was moored where local authorities told it to, and if indeed they took immediate action when local divers told them about problems, it all sounds like a decent by the ship's crew. I'm not sure to what extent the crew should be expected to know the conditions if their immediate surroundings better than the local authorities (who should know the area well but are not on the ship).
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 28 2016, @03:33PM
TFA makes it sound like they tried to nefariously dredge the reefs with an anchor. It's more likely a series of events that led to disaster.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by bzipitidoo on Thursday January 28 2016, @04:31PM
Go deeper. Petty authorities usually don't say "no" to billionaires. Especially over something that at first glance seems a trivial matter. Locals are keenly aware that their economy benefits from yachting. It's a fact that billionaires get to do what they want, up to committing misdemeanors and even some felonies with impunity. Billionaires who want to be responsible have to think of these things themselves, as few others will dare tell them.
That the billionaire responsible is a tech billionaire makes us all look bad. Oh well, most of them are no better than anyone else, unable to avoid the warping of values that tends to accompany such wealth. Affluenza, yes?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 28 2016, @10:25PM
That the billionaire responsible is a tech billionaire makes us all look bad.
When you say "us" in this sentence, who are you referring to? Is it the group of all billionaires? That is the only interpretation that makes sense to me, but it does imply you are a billionaire.
You could be referring to the fact that as he is a tech billionaire, that is makes techies look bad, but then why should it make us techies look bad? The problem was caused by obscene wealth, not technology, and it would take a special kind of idiot not to see that.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by bzipitidoo on Friday January 29 2016, @12:20AM
I am referring to tech, yes. He's a technology person. I like to think technology people are a cut above, smarter than the average bear. But I know that's not true. One could argue that there are always a few extremes, a few outliers such as Reiser, and the majority of IT people are superior. But that's not so either. Housing prices skyrocketed in Silly Valley because IT people ran the prices up, same as any other group of idiots would do when suddenly blessed with wealth.
Another example of a group that seems superior is medical professionals. Yet so many doctors are awful at managing their own finances, and somehow manage to remain broke despite making 6 figure incomes.
Seems Paul Allen doesn't know what to do with his wealth any more than most any other overly wealthy recipient of good fortune. I mean, really, running around in a luxury yacht? What's so fun about that? Why not spend all your time on hedonistic pursuits? Only purpose I can see for a yacht is to show off how filthy rich he is. Bill Gates is at least trying with this foundation he has started to find cures for diseases, late though he was to that party.
If I was a billionaire, you'd see something very different. I think our houses and cities are very badly designed, and about the first thing I'd do is try to set up a new town with a charter designed to address these shortcomings. In particular, the worship of the automobile has so warped our cities that all other modes of transport are strongly discouraged. I also believe copyright as we know it should be abolished. It stands in the way of the public library going all digital. I'd also take a whack at the medical industry in the US. One thing I have in mind is to work on issues that would help with Climate Change, thus the town I mentioned.
(Score: 2) by kurenai.tsubasa on Friday January 29 2016, @12:29AM
That the billionaire responsible is a tech billionaire makes us all look bad.
Going with the tech part being the “us” as you'd clarified for AC (and the rest of us!), I'd like to point out that tech billionaires have been doing a bang up job in the media making “us” look bad. Apparently we all hate women, and Everyone Can Code! despite our best efforts at keeping the dark secrets of programming away from women and blacks. We've also been lying this whole time about how difficult programming is. We may also hate indentured H1B servants^H^H^H^H^Himmigrants.
(Super irony: anybody who believes the media and thanks, Obama! that thinks that programming is easy had better brush up and re-read Lovelace's Notes.)
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Thursday January 28 2016, @04:23PM
The captain, master, and/or owner of the ship is ALWAYS responsible for anything and everything that happens. The only exception to that rule, is when a certified pilot has taken command of the vessel. Basic maritime law. The ship's master should have read up, studied the charts. and made himself familiar with local conditions, including the competency of local authorities. Or, lack thereof. Port authorities or not, unless there was a pilot aboard when the incident happened, the owner is liable.
(Score: 2) by isostatic on Thursday January 28 2016, @06:18PM
Were the reefs marked on the map?
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday January 28 2016, @07:07PM
Can't say for sure, but I believe that reefs are marked on decent charts. Lemme see . . . Found this pretty quickly - "If the low water line differs considerably from the high
water line, then a dotted line represents the low water line. If the bottom in this area is composed of mud, sand, gravel or stones, the type of material will be indicated. If the bot-tom is composed of coral or rock, then the appropriate symbol will be used."
http://msi.nga.mil/MSISiteContent/StaticFiles/NAV_PUBS/APN/Chapt-03.pdf [nga.mil]
Sample electronic chart published by NOAA, showing reefs, etc - http://www.charts.noaa.gov/BookletChart/19402_BookletChart.pdf [noaa.gov]
Another sample chart, featuring anchorages, fish havens, dump sites, channels, old navy disposal sites (weapons?) and much more. http://www.charts.noaa.gov/PDFs/11383.pdf [noaa.gov]
I found a buttload of charts for the Caymans, each of which requires you to download an app, or requiring fees of ~$35 and up. I'm not interested enough to either install an app, or to buy a chart - YMMV - your google-fu may be better than mine.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 28 2016, @09:09PM
No. They don't mark reefs on nautical maps.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Arik on Thursday January 28 2016, @07:37PM
That said, IF as appears to be the case here, the local authorities actually told him to anchor there, and he moved the ship immediately as soon as he was informed there was a problem, I don't see how anyone has any case to blame him for this. It's not unreasonable to rely on the harbor-masters instructions and obey them, that is exactly what he is supposed to do unless and until he becomes aware of a very good reason to do otherwise.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by FakeBeldin on Saturday January 30 2016, @11:00AM
They're also required to follow directions by local authorities unless it endangers the vessel, people or surroundings. The moment they were aware that following those directions endangered the surroundings, they took action.
They clearly caused the damage. Question is: did they cause it because they lacked caution, or did they cause it because they happened to be the first in that situation?
The headline (here and elsewhere) sounds a lot like the first.
The statement "we asked permission to anchor and then anchored where directed" sounds a lot more like the second.
(Score: 1) by Empyrean on Thursday January 28 2016, @05:02PM
Why does a man need 3 super-yachts?
Probably to make up for some deficiency between his legs. Seriously though, it's all about status. Imagine the bragging rights that go with owning a $250 million dolar 400-ft floating village. Now image if you have two or three of them. That would make your penis seem huge!
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 28 2016, @05:26PM
Doesn't he have a fairly-sized submarine as well? He either does, or he was contemplating one.
(Score: 3, Funny) by GungnirSniper on Thursday January 28 2016, @06:05PM
That's why I under-compensate with my Chevy S-10 mini pickup truck.
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by CirclesInSand on Friday January 29 2016, @06:29AM
Why does a man need 3 super-yachts?
That is an idiotic thing to say, even pretending that it is a question. If you go to see a movie on the weekend, does everyone around you say "who needs to see a movie"?
There are 2 exclusive ways that people view personal liberty. One is that a person has no liberty except what is allowed to them, manifest in people who say things like "why do you actually need drones?". It is the guilty before proven innocent approach to liberty. The other way is that people have every liberty unless you can justify a good reason to restrain it. It is manifest in people who say "leave well enough alone". It is the innocent until proven guilty approach to liberty.
Your fake question presupposes so many stupid premises. It presupposes that having something must be a result of needing it. It presupposes that you are entitled to judge whether or not someone needs something. It is engineered to suggest that people should only be allowed liberty that has been approved.
Please go take your authoritarian views to France or the Middle East or some other miserable part of the world. They will welcome you there.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by eravnrekaree on Thursday January 28 2016, @03:51PM
Shouldnt have the reefs been marked on a navigation map as a no anchor zone?
Notice the hypocrisy of these self righteous billionaires who lecture everyone else about climate change blah blah blah but then they act like they are exempt from their own rules.Thats because climate change legislation is designed to hurt you, and it is you that would pay the price for it, in soaring energy costs for example, the billionaires will barely notice and can absorb the added cost. The billionaires drive around in their Co2 belching yachts screwing up coral reefs because they are special, the elite few who would enjoy the opulent life, its you they want to submerge in a third world hellhole. They are so apt to push for devastating policies because they are exempt from the harmful effects on the middle class from them.
(Score: 1) by DannyB on Thursday January 28 2016, @04:02PM
> Shouldnt have the reefs been marked on a navigation map as a no anchor zone?
They might have been. But the real markings need to be:
"no anchor zone, for Everyone, including the rich."
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by isostatic on Thursday January 28 2016, @06:12PM
But were those markings there? Because it doesn't look like they were.
If they were there, then scuttle the yacht with the owner aboard. If they weren't there, and they were told to moor there, and there was no markings on the charts, then it's hard to blame someone just because they are rich.
(Score: 0, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 28 2016, @04:10PM
s/t
(Score: 1) by nitehawk214 on Thursday January 28 2016, @06:12PM
Why?
It must be nice to have so much money that governments bend over backwards to suck your dick even when you have done something careless and illegal.
"Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
(Score: 4, Insightful) by gnuman on Thursday January 28 2016, @06:29PM
So, "OMG world is failing because some rich guy", but then ignore 99.999999% of the reef damage caused elsewhere because of dragnet fishing. Still happening!
https://hurryup.wordpress.com/2007/02/18/ban-dragnet-fishing/ [wordpress.com]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seine_fishing [wikipedia.org]
These basically strip everything from the bottom, coral included.
And now we worry about some rich guy with an anchor?? That's local police matter, not a news story worthy of everyone's attention.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 28 2016, @10:45PM
That's exactly the point I made about the Bundy/Oregon story posted here. Careful what you say, though, because you'll be told that you are too stupid to know what should and shouldn't be posted here.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 28 2016, @09:45PM
Don't forget the cost to taxpayers for the DoE divers to go out there and investigate, dive, write detailed reports etc.
He should pay for reseeding as well as a fine to cover these costs.
Billionaires here in Australia like Clive Palmer and Gina Rinehart are mining magnates, they have done 1000x more damage to the environment than Paul Allens chain.