Groundbreaking Northwest Passage voyage

That's really cool to see a ship owner do the unthinkable and unchartered. As well as saving fuel and carrying more cargo. It's a big risk but turned out to be a win win. I wonder if this route will be used again. However it sounds like it's a short window of opportunity.

I also think hat this was a great job, but would we think the same if something happened and only the fuel tank of this vessel spilled over sime cute little polar bear babies?

Don't get me wrong, but has everything that could be done, also be done? Is it worth the risk, and who decides so?

If I assume that you interpret this as a "yes", then I fully respect this. I just wanted to raise the issue, that there is an inherent risk in such operations, that even if some (=extensive) evaluation has been performed, which cannot be ruled out. IF something would have happened (Exxon Valdez and others proved that something can always happen) some piece of nature would have been destroyed, which would not be able to recover. Think of the most beautiful place of nature to which you personally have a relation, which economic benefit would make you risk the loss of it?

Are we as a society and specially as yachting/boating/shipping interested, really up to this responsibility? Can we rule out risk? Do we want to take this risk? (and yes, this captain/insurer wanted to take the risk)

(I do not pretent to have an answer for myself, but in the case of doubt I think I would choose nature over economic benefit, as so little untouched nature is left...)

I don't think in any way more than any other voyage they chose economics over nature. Is there risk? Yes. There is risk every time any boat or vessel goes to sea. There is risk when a train carries goods or trucks do. In this case, they not only decided they felt they could manage the risk. Two other groups did the same. First, their insurer did so. They were the ones accepting the risk in a financial way. They were the ones assuming huge liability if there was a spill in addition to the carrier's liability. They sent their experts and decided the additional risk was manageable and at a level they could accept. Then there was the coast guard. This was not some secret, covert sailing. It was public, even publicized.

Now if this route was being used by many, some taking fewer precautions, it might be of substantially greater risk. But this was a very controlled, very managed effort.

The question becomes as in anything are the risks reasonable and manageable. One thing that has been interesting to me is fueling my boats. I've seen so much more care taken to avoid any spillage with a larger boat and on the coast than I did on the lake. Certainly not the risk in quantity but I feel more risk in filling my tenders than my "yachts."

I do applaud that you are concerned about the risks. We all should be. Were I just to hear that some vessel did this, I'd think they were out of their minds. But reading how they did it, and the checks and study made in advance, I am not concerned.

It's not often I talk favorable of insurance companies in general, primarily because it can be so hard to collect legitimate claims sometimes. However, over the years they have contributed greatly to safety and reduction of risks. When I was involved in manufacturing and distribution, we had extremely small insurance rates compared to those I might have expected. Why? Because we followed all the recommendations of the insurers to reduce risks. Our motivations to be as near risk free as possible were two-fold. First, was as good citizens and concerned employers. Second, was economic. Some people are motivated by one of those factors. Some by the other. Some by both. When we make lack of safety, lack of reasonable protection against pollution, and other such factors, economically devastating to companies, then we control them. I'm not by any means suggesting we put so many rules and restrictions that no one can operate.

What I am saying was that in this one vessel's sailing, the economics would not have been there without the management of risks being there as well. Had the insurer said, "We will not cover you" or had the rate been made triple or quadruple or worse, it wouldn't have taken place. Over the years the reduction of pollution where it has taken place has generally been accomplished by making it economically destructive to companies not to manage pollution more effectively.

What? I doubt he was even alive in 1955 and I feel almost certain he wasn't in 1866. I don't think in that period anyone gave adequate consideration to our environment. Nor did we to our health. Now many other things. Most of us today would be absolutely horrified by some of the things that took place in the past. Recycling? Doubt you heard that word much.

I can tell you how much thought I gave during the time period you mentioned. Zero. Unless it was in another life that I have no recollection of.

By some? Wasn´t it you..?