Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
There is not a company in the business that has a couple of thousands in the bank just to fund the year. As I said they all live hand to mouth.
I am replying to one of your earlier post that has a link you posted about SFRX Suspension. This letter is dated Nov 6, 2015. Last year.
In the letter from Mary it state's in the 2nd paragraph
"Your requests in areas 1 and 3 will not be addressed until reporting for area 2 meets the above terms and standards."
Now let us contemplate this statement FROM MARY.
1. Last year SFRX did have requests for permits in Area 1 and 3. So the ones submitted in March of this year must have been resubmissions.
2. The terms and standards must have been met on their reports or Mary would not have stated that there is a permit for Area 1 in review.
You have also posted a email between herself and her boss from this year that SFRX has a current permit in area 2 and from the posts that have the permit linked in it, it doesn't expire until Jun of 2017.
As for shipwreck material. POST THE 3 OR MORE REPORTS SO WE CAN SEE IF THEY ARE FINDING SHIPWRECK MATERIAL.
The State does not get involved. The issue the Queens Jewels has is in a News appearance he stated the coins came from the Capitana. This was the wrong thing to say. International law states that no Military Vessle may be salvaged by anyone but the country of origin. The Capitana can be argued as being a military vessel.
Now why did he state a ship's name in the first place. A coin from the 1715 fleet (minted 1713) is worth big dollars, but a coin from a specific ship is even bigger dollars.
By the way last I heard, the company that found the hand full is looking to sell their leases for 5M.
As for the deadline. As I said before when a RFI is sent back to the requestor then timeline are delayed. A common practice anywhere.
Like their is a company that is sitting fat, dumb, and happy with funds. Even the company that found the handful of coins last year is having legal issues with the State and Spain, with a percentage of the find going to the contractors who found it and the private investors in the private company.
I understand and I too would likd one and I bet since the reports haven't been posted that they are at least 5 inch bombshell is SFRX favor.
I agree but under the current review process the bombshell will only fall in one direction. With the process currently in place the information, in the selective display, and its conclusion are not valid. If you would just randomly pick some doc and then display, maybe then. But to review then post only a specific doc show the true intent.
The report you have I would venture to guess was and very early version. Any thing I would or could say is, close but no cigar.
The full reports are what is needed. I am not going to ask the courts for the docs, nor do I expect SFRX to provide them. If a company puts out too much info is as bad as to little. One little error and wildfire spreads.
Now if I had the reports I would read and respond, but I would imagine that (1) any one could review and understand and (2) that they do not support the quest some have in progress. IMO they will most likely do the complete opposite.
Keep in mind the reports are a collection of events with in that time frame. The first report is the main report, the following reports are additional information. This is a trail of events that will lead to the current time frame.
2600 pages and less that a dozen posted.
Very few bombshells.
So you will post bombshells and not any good reports.
So the reports are available, and if I want to read them then I need to get them myself.
A suspension in Nov? That looks more like the State went out of their way not to effect diving. There is never any diving in the area during that month. Again I ask since there is no longer a suspension that would mean the reports were accepted. Where are the reports? In 2600 pages of docs I would venture to guess they were included. I would expect the incorrect ones too. So lets see the accepted ones. Or is it the cheery issues again.
No problem, thanks anyway. I am only guessing after looking at the report you posted it is a earlier draft. Doesn't seem to follow the requirements in the 1A-46. Again would really like to review the accepted report (s).
So per Mary's email there are no restrictions in diving area 2. This would mean that the reports have been accepted.
There is no requiremnts for a Research Design set forth in paragraph 1A-31.060 Requirements for all permits nor in 1A-31.065 Additional requirements for Exploration Permits.
In paragraph 1A-31.046 Application Review (10) it states Suitability of proposed research design and methodology, in paragraph 1A-31.075 Additional requirements for Recovery Permit..
It also states in paragraph 1A-31.036 the Archaeologist is responsible for developing the Research Design.
So there is no actual requirement addressed in other than the States review of it per 1A-31.075 as you have pointed out. There is a requirement in the 1A-46 that a Research Design be submitted in the reports. The reports are on file with the State. The review should have already been completed when they were accepted.
So the (hazy) requirement to be in an modify request is kind of redundant if it is already in an accepted report on file at the State.
Once again confusion.
Thank you for the permit. As I read it then I have no clue as to the difference in reports issue.
The report you posted, it seems that it is not the full report. Also is this the final one that Mary excepted or one of the ones that went back and forth?
By the way, where are the reports? Would really like to read those. The final version that is, not the back and forth ones please.
As for the Juno Reports, I have no clue. You have only posted the Melbourne permit. I can guess that the Juno is a older permit. In the last few years the requirements have been changed. One of them is the sq mile of a permit and the permit time frame. Time frame went from 1 year to 3 year. The 3 sq mile was implemented about the same time. There are currently several companies that have over 12 miles in one permit area. They do not have to change unles they modify or choose to do so. They also still only have a permit for 1 year and have to renew each year. So without knowing the requirements of that specific permit (Juno) and do a true comparison of the requirements your statement is misleading at best.
You quote Research Design. This too was in a email from Mary. Find the Term any where in the requirements for a permit. The one and only place it is required is in the 1A-46 which are requiremnts for the Interim and Annual Reports. The 1A-46 is not referenced in the permit requirements. So if Mary is asking for a Research Design in a permit application then I see confusion already. This is paragraph (3) Reports, sub-paragraph (c) Research Design.
As for confusion about submitting permits and report every single company has problems with this. This is where business meets academia with a government process filter. With what has been posted, SFRX is reporting every 6 months. There is at least one company arguing that the requirements of a Interim and End of year means that in a 3 year permit time a report is required after 1.5 years and at the end of the 3 year permit period.
Look at the requirement for a permit. It that it requires a archaeological guideline to be provided. Do a search see if FL has a example or elements required. You can find one from CA, VA, WI, and various colleges but every one of them are different and require diffent elements. Go figure.
One last thing as to when a request is either approved or denied. The 90 days rule is true but in the goverment any time a request for additional information is requested a hold in that time is almost always put either on hold or a do over is started. It is up to the goverment as which will happen. And any company that will try to force the isssue may find a lot more questions IMO. I wouldn't when I am asking and they are giving.
If you are basing their financial on posts from here you may be getting a wrong idea. Every company that is in the business lives hand to mouth. Take for example Queens Jewels which found that handfull of gold coins. The sub contractors found them. They get paid by a percentage of what they find. Nothing else. Their daily expenses are out of their pocket. If they do not find anything they do not get paid. Even the Fishers kind of operate this way. Divers pay them to go out and if they find anything they get a small percentages. The cost to dive pretty much pays the crew and their divers for the day. Almost all of the companies pay with percentages. Very few pay a daily wage like SFRX. The only way a privately owned company get funds is to get investors to give them capital for a percentage and that percentage is usually for a specific time frame or specific site. If nothing is found in the time frame or site then they get nothing.
With what you attached disproves your statment that there was no permit request. Mary specific states "Your requests for permits in areas 1 and 3 will not be addressed until reporting for area 2 meets the above terms and standards. "
In addition, this was a period of one month (30 days). Since it was posted that Mary stated SFRX has permits in processmof approval then I would take it as the reports are corrected.
Which brings be back to my last post. Are you cherry picking what you post? Where are the corrected reports. On Nov 6 Mary states there are 2 reports and with the time another one should have been submitted. So now there are 3 Reports. Post those and lets see what they are saying to the State about what they are finding.
I agree with you as to where are the replies or better yet the corrected reports that Mary is referring to. My best guess there should be any where from 3 to 4 reports that they should have submitted. I am thinking the approved reports may not cast a shadow as they would hope so being selective is in processes. As far as being moderated, I have been on a number of occasion.
I have read this from you on a number of occasion and this is but one theory. Yes he did a lot of research but some of this is based on guessing. Guessing where the storm was in relation to the ship, which would be the direction the ship was set and the direction the few survivors were pushed. Did the storm make landfall south or north of the ship or was it hit directly or did it move up the coast? Did the survivors get push out to sea or towards land, did they fall overboard as the ship went down or an hour or hours before? As for a sand bar, where? The gulf stream is just off the coasts and this has not changed in this time. The only place I can see is the mouth of the Cape, if one was there would not it be deeper during the storm due to storm surge which would mean the ship would have to be closer to shore to be able to run into? I especially can't see this bar running out to sea for miles, this area is even closer to the gulf stream. The gulf stream in itself will prevent a sand bar from forming. In the days of old they knew there was no out running a storm so a captain would sail close to shore in storms such as these so if they had to, they could run the ship aground which was done for some of the fleet especially when the shore line was sand. So a book was written and theories were made but no ship was ever found. The only fact that is tangible at this time is SFRX has found some wood within their area. This could mean many things but one thing is for sure it is the end of the trail. Lets see if they work backward for there and if it can lead to something. Very few hunters have found treasure with in the first few years of starting and truthfully only the ones at the beginning, when pickings were a bit easier. Also the bottom condition are night and day, north and south of the inlet with the further north you go, you go into midnight as well as muckier / thicker it gets. This is why SFRX is finding wood IMO, this muck seals it up tight so it is preserved. It make vis almost nill but what ever is beneath the muck will be better preserved than any where else south of the area.
Again, JMO. I am by no means an expert but I have been making a living on the oceans of the world since the mid 70s and mother nature sucks and without all the data it is just a best guess.
The below link is a chart of the area, where do you see a sand bar being able to form?
http://www.charts.noaa.gov/OnLineViewer/11460.shtml
I agree that is their call but, one day or so between several days of higher seas does not make a good dive day.
AMZ552-092200- VOLUSIA-BREVARD COUNTY LINE TO SEBASTIAN INLET 0-20 NM- 320
AM EDT SAT APR 9 2016 SMALL CRAFT ADVISORY IN EFFECT THROUGH THIS AFTERNOON
TODAY NORTH WINDS 15 TO 20 KNOTS DIMINISHING TO 10 TO 15 KNOTS IN THE AFTERNOON. SEAS 4 TO 6 FEET WITH A DOMINANT PERIOD 6 SECONDS. CHOPPY ON THE INTRACOASTAL WATERS.
TONIGHT NORTH WINDS 10 TO 15 KNOTS INCREASING TO 15 TO 20 KNOTS AFTER MIDNIGHT. SEAS 3 TO 5 FEET WITH A DOMINANT PERIOD 7 SECONDS. CHOPPY ON THE INTRACOASTAL WATERS.
SUNDAY EAST WINDS 15 TO 20 KNOTS. SEAS 3 TO 5 FEET WITH A DOMINANT PERIOD 8 SECONDS. CHOPPY ON THE INTRACOASTAL WATERS.
SUNDAY NIGHT EAST WINDS 15 KNOTS. SEAS 4 TO 6 FEET. A LIGHT CHOP ON THE INTRACOASTAL WATERS. SLIGHT CHANCE OF SHOWERS.
MONDAY EAST WINDS 10 TO 15 KNOTS. SEAS 3 TO 5 FEET. A MODERATE CHOP ON THE INTRACOASTAL WATERS.
MONDAY NIGHT SOUTHEAST WINDS 10 KNOTS. SEAS 3 TO 4 FEET.
TUESDAY SOUTH WINDS 5 TO 10 KNOTS. SEAS 2 TO 3 FEET.
TUESDAY NIGHT SOUTH WINDS 5 TO 10 KNOTS BECOMING SOUTHWEST AFTER MIDNIGHT. SEAS 2 TO 3 FEET.
WEDNESDAY NORTHWEST WINDS 5 KNOTS BECOMING EAST IN THE AFTERNOON. SEAS 2 TO 3 FEET. SLIGHT CHANCE OF SHOWERS AND THUNDERSTORMS.
PS. Wednesday is at the end of their forecast and has a lower probability of being accurate IMO.
That forecast is a marginal dive day even during the summer. 3 foot seas is no joke to get in and out of the boat with gear. I see that the periods are are 8 seconds followed by a secondary at 0.7 at 8 seconds.
That is also not taking into account the high wave that were prior and the ones that will follow during the coming weekend.
Even if the area gets 2 or 3 days of divable day it needs about a week of those days just to get the visibility so a diver can at least see his gauge.
If they do go out I see it as a waste of fuel.
I do not think it is a law Firm, they are more discreet or usually wait until case is settled so that names are not put out. Looks like a novice. Learning the system the hard way it looks. So IMO it is a name for the future.
Maybe the post gang that likes to do all the mug shot searching and background checks on SFRX divers wants to take that search up.
Do not think it is a fee for that. In Florida the cost to serve papers is $50. The only thing that I can come up with is maybe transcripts which are $1 a page.
If transcripts, it leads me to ponder who would want these. A sharehold just wants to know the courts final ruling and that is free. IMO not someone or some firm thru the case that has been plastered all over this post. The Judge would just provide it to the lawyers which they have to.
So it is either another firm or person getting info for another case or soon to be. What question that were askedcand the response would be good to have in that case.
The lost fleet of 1715 trailer
??????
AMZ552-290830- VOLUSIA-BREVARD COUNTY LINE TO SEBASTIAN INLET 0-20 NM- 323 PM EDT MON MAR 28 2016
TONIGHT SOUTH WINDS 10 KNOTS BECOMING WEST 5 TO 10 KNOTS AFTER MIDNIGHT. SEAS 3 TO 4 FEET WITH A DOMINANT PERIOD 9 SECONDS. MOSTLY SMOOTH ON THE INTRACOASTAL WATERS. SLIGHT CHANCE OF SHOWERS AND THUNDERSTORMS IN THE EVENING.
TUESDAY NORTH WINDS 10 KNOTS. SEAS 3 TO 4 FEET WITH A DOMINANT PERIOD 9 SECONDS. A LIGHT CHOP ON THE INTRACOASTAL WATERS. SCATTERED SHOWERS AND ISOLATED THUNDERSTORMS IN THE AFTERNOON.
TUESDAY NIGHT NORTHEAST WINDS 10 TO 15 KNOTS. SEAS 3 TO 4 FEET WITH A DOMINANT PERIOD 9 SECONDS. A LIGHT CHOP ON THE INTRACOASTAL WATERS. SLIGHT CHANCE OF THUNDERSTORMS IN THE EVENING. SLIGHT CHANCE OF SHOWERS.
WEDNESDAY EAST WINDS 15 KNOTS. SEAS 3 TO 5 FEET. A MODERATE CHOP ON THE INTRACOASTAL WATERS. SLIGHT CHANCE OF SHOWERS.
WEDNESDAY NIGHT SOUTHEAST WINDS 15 KNOTS. SEAS 4 TO 5 FEET. A LIGHT CHOP ON THE INTRACOASTAL WATERS.
THURSDAY SOUTHEAST WINDS 15 TO 20 KNOTS. SEAS 4 TO 6 FEET. CHOPPY ON THE INTRACOASTAL WATERS. SLIGHT CHANCE OF SHOWERS.
THURSDAY NIGHT SOUTH WINDS 15 KNOTS. SEAS 4 TO 5 FEET. CHANCE OF SHOWERS.
FRIDAY SOUTH WINDS 15 TO 20 KNOTS DIMINISHING TO 10 TO 15 KNOTS IN THE AFTERNOON. SEAS 4 TO 6 FEET. CHANCE OF SHOWERS AND SLIGHT CHANCE OF THUNDERSTORMS.
FRIDAY NIGHT SOUTHWEST WINDS 5 TO 10 KNOTS. SEAS 3 TO 5 FEET. CHANCE OF SHOWERS AND SLIGHT CHANCE OF THUNDERSTORMS.
SATURDAY WEST WINDS 5 TO 10 KNOTS BECOMING NORTHWEST 5 KNOTS IN THE AFTERNOON. SEAS 3 TO 4 FEET. CHANCE OF SHOWERS AND SLIGHT CHANCE OF THUNDERSTORMS.
The following is what the rule states:
A recovery permit may be issued only after the existence and nature of a historic shipwreck site has been documented by exploration permit activities and mutually agreed upon by the division and the permittee.
I am not the type to read the ending of the book before before I read the whole story, I will wait for it to unfold as the story goes. This is a fun investment not a needed investment for me.
The 3 item rule is a myth. This was a rule that was trying to be imposed on the industry by the State which they have since been called on by numerous companies. The requirement is to have proof of a historical ship wreck material. IMO the 3 item rule was a Dr Smithiziam.
I also would not know where to start.
To find someone to turn over a lease that may produce a profit in 2 to 3 years let alone 3 to 5 years would be most difficult with out paying thru the nose. As well as the time it would take to get the State to understand you are not a company that is not going to just plunder the oceans must be madding.
So as I said before, you need to start some where.
I imagine, build a reputation with the State, work on the areas you can, playing the cards you have until you can either add more cards or trade some, and like the others before get lucky.
Not me bubba, I will stick with just being a share holder.
Got to start some where. Where would have you started if just getting in the business?
Well I have exceeded my personnel limit of posts and time so TTFN.
When posting court dockets, rulings, and legal opinions, I assumed a better understanding of torts. Sorry my bust.
My point was neither in support or against SFRX. I specifically went to a document that has affected all in the industry for the last 2 years. I wanted to see the response and how objective it was. When a conclusion is predetermined the outcome will always be the same.
Try looking at it with a different prospective. Don’t read it as to support your conclusion but as if you were on the bench with the scales at equal balance.
First we look at the document itself and see this is the authority the State has in awarding permits. Their rules.
Then look at the paragraph 1A-31.060. What is its intent? The intent is to tell the State what must be in all Permits. So let’s look at what all permits is. As you have stated on a number of occasions per paragraph 1A-31.0062 there are 2 types. Again not going over this because you have address this so well.
Now look at the last statement of the parent paragraph 1A-31.060. It states “Each Permit Must Include:”. This is very direct and really needs on further comment.
So with the above understanding all sub-paragraphs to follow must be included is all permits.
On your post you posted all sub-paragraphs. Sub (1) thru (12) and (15) are not relevant to this matter and cloud the issue so let’s just set them aside.
As you point out the heart of the matter is sub (13) and (14). So let look at those 2 subs.
Sub (13) if you can agree with me is a list of “Can Not Dos”.
Sub (14) is what can be done with guidance.
Would you agree with me that any item in sub (13) cannot be put in Sub (14)?
So with the eyes of the bench being equal then the reverse is the same, items in Sub (14) cannot go into Sub (13).
This bring me back to can the State Prohibit and place Sub (14) into Sub (13)?
Now you stated they can state “There are No Conditions for this Permit”. Can they really do that? IMO there are a few key words missing.
Statement “Notice of the conditions under which the use of propwash deflectors is allowed.” Should have had the words “IF” or “When”, without those 2 simple words the rule must be followed as written.
So in short the State must provide conditions, they can make those condition so restrictive that they can not be met but again they must be included in all Permits.
Torts, can’t live with them can’t live without them.
Agreed, and was not the point I was trying to make.
Not too sure but you have your opinion and I have mine.
As for how else, hand fanning is one, someone mention torpedoes which is a step above and it is not as tiring for the divers and quicker.
There is also requirements in the enclosure of the permit to provide to the State pictures and drawings. Might need one for the other.
Also since you have some knowledge of contract law you might want review,
CHAPTER 1A-31 PROCEDURES FOR CONDUCTING EXPLORATION AND SALVAGE OF HISTORIC SHIPWRECK SITE, 1A-31.060 Requirements for All Permits. Key word "Each permit must include".
This doc is what the State can and can not do.
By this guidance can the State state Not Prohibited?