"...To the Shores of Tripoli."
11-30-2008, 10:35 AM
#46
Rennlist Member
These days, it is much more difficult to carry weapons aboard a vessel & still make it thru customs in port cities. Believe me, they are looking.
This is why we need DoS clearances to kick raghead pirate ***.
This is why we need DoS clearances to kick raghead pirate ***.
11-30-2008, 12:57 PM
#47
Addict
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
11-30-2008, 06:05 PM
#49
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
No problem for entry by boat, as long as you declare the weapons when clearing customs in the Bahamas. And an exact count of shells and bullets. The penalties for failing to declare have been/are severe, including confiscation of your boat. The violence has subsided since the cartels switched their main transits to Mexico, but most boats take precautions anyway.
Wouldn't miss the 48 Hours! I understand signup starts on Dec. 8. Bob and I will both be there. We'll be getting a Sebring warmup next weekend at the HSR races. Us local boys need all the help we can get when the northern/western contingents show up! You'll be here, right?
12-01-2008, 11:50 AM
#52
Addict
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: On Rennlist, apparently
Posts: 4,447
Likes: 0
Received 37 Likes
on
18 Posts
Hi VR
Here is some comment about the cost/benefit of security teams on board (from Mark Dwelle of RBC Capital Markets today):
While insurance rates have risen, and some shipping lines (such as Moller Maersk) have rerouted slower-moving ships away from the area, the situation is still far from resolved, as the economics of paying ransom and/or expensive insurance still outweigh the risks of losing a crew and/or the cargo. In our opinion, insurance rates would need to rise much higher to justify retaining armed security personnel onboard the most vulnerable ships (which can run as high as $60,000 per voyage for a well-equipped team, and increases the risk of damage and/or loss of life.) Forces from several international navies have been deployed to the region, but are, as mentioned earlier, in a defensive, reactionary posture. The pirates won’t quit until their risk-reward equation gets
pushed much, much further toward the “risk” side, either by more aggressive action on the water or direct attacks against their bases in Somalia. In the meantime, people who normally make $200 per year will gladly take a chance to make an “easy” $20,000 to $100,000 per month or so -- courtesy of underwriters at Lloyd’s.
Here is some comment about the cost/benefit of security teams on board (from Mark Dwelle of RBC Capital Markets today):
While insurance rates have risen, and some shipping lines (such as Moller Maersk) have rerouted slower-moving ships away from the area, the situation is still far from resolved, as the economics of paying ransom and/or expensive insurance still outweigh the risks of losing a crew and/or the cargo. In our opinion, insurance rates would need to rise much higher to justify retaining armed security personnel onboard the most vulnerable ships (which can run as high as $60,000 per voyage for a well-equipped team, and increases the risk of damage and/or loss of life.) Forces from several international navies have been deployed to the region, but are, as mentioned earlier, in a defensive, reactionary posture. The pirates won’t quit until their risk-reward equation gets
pushed much, much further toward the “risk” side, either by more aggressive action on the water or direct attacks against their bases in Somalia. In the meantime, people who normally make $200 per year will gladly take a chance to make an “easy” $20,000 to $100,000 per month or so -- courtesy of underwriters at Lloyd’s.
Last edited by RickBetterley; 12-01-2008 at 01:10 PM. Reason: To credit orginal source
12-01-2008, 12:54 PM
#53
Rennlist Member
Let's do some math: if you own (or insure) an oil tanker with cargo valued at $100,000,000, how much would you pay NOT to have it stolen and/or ransomed for $25,000,000?
I suspect that a $60,000 deployment of serious dudes with serious weapons is but a rounding error to folks who play with those numbers.
I suspect that a $60,000 deployment of serious dudes with serious weapons is but a rounding error to folks who play with those numbers.
12-01-2008, 12:54 PM
#54
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Thread Starter
The teammates of Kelly-Moss, Farnbacher-Loles, and Flying Lizard don't get this type of analysis.
Nice write-up Rick.
Was a shipping line looking to hire you, Dave?
Nice write-up Rick.
Was a shipping line looking to hire you, Dave?
12-01-2008, 03:00 PM
#56
Addict
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Eventually, people doing bad things need to have much "badder" things happen to them!
If the objective is to eliminate this "piracy", as it should be, paying the bad guys any amount, because it is less expensive than putting security forces in place, is unlikely to discourage the activity. Paying the cost of effective security, where the objective is to "terminate with extreme prejudice" as many of these pirates as possible, seems like a plan that has a better possibility of discouraging this activity. At some point you can then reduce the cost of the security forces.
If the objective is to eliminate this "piracy", as it should be, paying the bad guys any amount, because it is less expensive than putting security forces in place, is unlikely to discourage the activity. Paying the cost of effective security, where the objective is to "terminate with extreme prejudice" as many of these pirates as possible, seems like a plan that has a better possibility of discouraging this activity. At some point you can then reduce the cost of the security forces.
12-02-2008, 09:05 AM
#60
Addict
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Lifetime Rennlist
Member