Northern Marine Incident

surprised that the salvage company that was brought in that they didn't at least pickle the engines so they would cover costs if the whole mess goes sour...unless an insurance company wrote a quick check which doesn't happen too often.

mabe it was just a hired crane/barge and paid for out of pocket...and that in itself is also unusual in my neck of the woods.

psneeld said:

surprised that the salvage company that was brought in that they didn't at least pickle the engines so they would cover costs if the whole mess goes sour...unless an insurance company wrote a quick check which doesn't happen too often.

mabe it was just a hired crane/barge and paid for out of pocket...and that in itself is also unusual in my neck of the woods.

Click to expand...

Oh there will definitely not be a quick check from the insurer unless someone willing to accept a small one. They seemed most interested in getting it out of the water and not incurring environmental damages and in investigating the boat and accident. Insurance company may well claim some policy exclusions. And I definitely don't expect them to total it. They'll claim the hull isn't damaged. To my knowledge that's true. Property insurer may try to push claim to business liability insurer, if not the same, and assuming there is one. Or claim still it's not a property claim but a business liability one due to negligence or design. I'm not claiming any of these things are justified, just how insurers often work in these situations. If they can't settle on the low side dollar wise, there is no incentive for the insurer to settle anytime soon.

I think the only salvage effort was simply to get it back on land and out of the way. I can imagine the biggest salvage issue was "who is going to pay the salvage company and for what." No major work going to be done while it was unstable and in a sling. Now, who even knows who owns it. Northern closed up shop before it was even salvaged. The buyer sure doesn't want it although might ultimately become his. He does have a lien on the equipment recorded in January 2013.

Right now I think you've got the boat nobody wants. Northern, insurer, buyer.

a salvage company would be foolish to not ensure easy payment from something...I hope if your info is correct on nothing happening...they have cotacted a fed magistrate and fed marshalls have posted it.

psneeld said:

a salvage company would be foolish to not ensure easy payment from something...I hope if your info is correct on nothing happening...they have cotacted a fed magistrate and fed marshalls have posted it.

Click to expand...

By saying not a quick check from insurer, I was referring to the overall claim, not the salvage portion if the insurer actually contracted for the salvage.

I don't know who contracted with the salvage company nor how they protected themselves for payment. Did they get at least partial payment up front? I have no idea. I suspect they did but from whom I don't know. If insurer contracted then salvage company will probably be paid promptly. They generally pay salvage they contract for with no problems. So if the insurance covered salvage likely no issue. Or did the Coast Guard bring in the salvage company? If so the Coast Guard will pay if NM doesn't and will then be collecting what they paid plus any possible fines.

I also have no idea what the salvage costs would be. It was a project for several days. I'd definitely think into six figures, but not into seven. I feel certain the salvage company protected themselves either with payment up front, contract with insurer, or contract with Coast Guard.

Just to add to it. Does the city charge for storage of the vessel now? Any fines for leaving it where it is? Would it at any point be deemed abandoned? Or is that land leased and if so to whom? Generally you can't just put a 90' boat somewhere and not expect to incur further charges and perhaps even fines there too.

Just a very complicated mess, which will likely take a long time to be fully sorted.

Delfin said:

Any thoughts then on why she turns turtle when released from the slings?

Click to expand...

I've read no direct evidence of this, though I have seen some "My brother in law talked to a guy who said someone....". Sorting true fact from peoples ideas of what went on is very difficult.

The weight study shows she was heavy on the port side, both generators are mounted 5' off centerline there. She rolled onto her port side and lay partially submerged for roughly 24 hours. Every loose item in the boat and a great deal of soakage added lots of weight up high on the port side, which was already heavy. The tanks on the low side which were empty on launch could have partly filled with seawater. I would not be a bit surprised if she then exhibited a tendency to roll that side down without major remedial work being done.

psneeld said:

surprised that the salvage company that was brought in that they didn't at least pickle the engines so they would cover costs if the whole mess goes sour.

Click to expand...

My uncle owned a West coast boat hauling company and his trucking company and shops were located in Washington state. He was always on the lookout for 40' and larger water damaged boats, usually on the Gulf coast, that he could pick up, he said "for .10c on the dollar." Whenever he had an empty truck returning they would haul it back to their shop. Usually not much had been done to them by the insurance company other than draining the engines and filling them full of diesel.

During the slow winter season his shop mechanics and crews would strip, flush and replace the interiors, wiring harness and work over the engines and running gear, then sell them. He didn't make much profit from the boats, but more importantly he didn't have to lay off his mechanics and crews during the winter months. When they were done they were like a new boat, minus the electronics. His favorite restorations were Tollycrafts, I suppose because the plant was located nearby and parts available.

Someone will end up rehabbing that boat and when properly loaded and ballasted it will be a wonderful boat.

True but usually a salvage company asks for something upfront or knows they can get something valuable out of the salvage.

When we do smaller vessels and the boat is crap but a working engine is worth several thousand...we pay for or do the pickling and will have it held under lien till payment is made.

Usually large vessels aren't an issue because they easily cover the salvage..but in this case there are plenty of hands out...

Capt.Bill11 said:

So if the vessel was launched with only the 20,000 pounds of ballast on board with little or no other ballast on board do you think the vessel could/would behave the way it did?

Click to expand...

Hard to say.....How did she behave? Exactly?

Would the boat be great with the extra 38,000 pounds and roll over without it? No, I certainly would not expect that.

I don't believe this is a simple occurrence that's due to one particular mistake. Most marine accidents that I've seen properly analyzed end up being caused by a train of mistakes, often going back years. This is why I pay attention to such things, they are another intriguing puzzle that will teach us something.

Roddan Engineering estimates a full load displacement of 291,000 pounds, and specifies 58,000 pounds of ballast, almost 20% of full load weight! This (IMO) is nuts from the get-go. Surely there is a more sensible way to cross an ocean?

The morning after this happened, before I had seen any pictures, video, or read any theories, I thought it must have been a trailer/ramp problem. The builder has subsequently come out and claimed the aft dolly dropped in a hole in the ramp....that could be.

But viewing the doctored video of the actual launch is dismaying to say the least. The stability report by Roddan Engineering claims that, with all (58000 pounds) ballast aboard she would have positive stability to over 60 degrees heel. In the video she exhibited no positive stability at all. Was this due to downflooding and free-surface through the engineroom door? Was it due to the dolly-in-the-hole theory? A mix of both coupled with her being heavy on the port side, perhaps massively heavy unknown to anyone. And was she truly completely afloat (and developing full stability) when she rolled? Or was she still "aground" with bow on the trailer?

One thing I do know is that this sort of accident is preventable. I also know that getting owner's and builder's to fund the study necessary to prevent this is, in some cases, impossible.

Tad Roberts said:

I've read no direct evidence of this, though I have seen some "My brother in law talked to a guy who said someone....". Sorting true fact from peoples ideas of what went on is very difficult.

The weight study shows she was heavy on the port side, both generators are mounted 5' off centerline there. She rolled onto her port side and lay partially submerged for roughly 24 hours. Every loose item in the boat and a great deal of soakage added lots of weight up high on the port side, which was already heavy. The tanks on the low side which were empty on launch could have partly filled with seawater. I would not be a bit surprised if she then exhibited a tendency to roll that side down without major remedial work being done.

Click to expand...

Makes sense.

psneeld said:

True but usually a salvage company asks for something upfront or knows they can get something valuable out of the salvage.

When we do smaller vessels and the boat is crap but a working engine is worth several thousand...we pay for or do the pickling and will have it held under lien till payment is made.

Usually large vessels aren't an issue because they easily cover the salvage..but in this case there are plenty of hands out...

Click to expand...

Definitely a lot of hands out. The thing is we don't know who engaged the salvage company, Coast Guard or Insurer or, possibly but unlikely, builder.

BandB said:

Definitely a lot of hands out. The thing is we don't know who engaged the salvage company, Coast Guard or Insurer or, possibly but unlikely, builder.

Click to expand...

Definitely not the USCG unless it looked as if an environmental issue was at or near at hand....and from the pictures...not really enough for the USCG to dedicate funding.

it's usually the owner...so Northern I would guess if it was still not sold.

but it's all just speculation who actually contracted the salvor unless someone has better info.

Tad Roberts said:

Roddan Engineering estimates a full load displacement of 291,000 pounds, and specifies 58,000 pounds of ballast, almost 20% of full load weight! This (IMO) is nuts from the get-go. Surely there is a more sensible way to cross an ocean?

But viewing the doctored video of the actual launch is dismaying to say the least..

Click to expand...

When I saw the video last week, the boat never appeared to be afloat before it tried to turn turtle.

But, I saw the video that was posted on cruiser forum by the company and it was obviously edited.

I can't see the company surviving this fiasco and it sounds like, maybe they shouldn't.

psneeld said:

Definitely not the USCG unless it looked as if an environmental issue was at or near at hand....and from the pictures...not really enough for the USCG to dedicate funding.

it's usually the owner...so Northern I would guess if it was still not sold.

but it's all just speculation who actually contracted the salvor unless someone has better info.

Click to expand...

Actually Coast Guard was there first, was concerned about environmental issues. The concern was certainly not huge considering there was only 120 gallons of fuel aboard. But whether them, insurance, or Northern, don't know for sure.

Wxx3 said:

When I saw the video last week, the boat never appeared to be afloat before it tried to turn turtle.

But, I saw the video that was posted on cruiser forum by the company and it was obviously edited.

I can't see the company surviving this fiasco and it sounds like, maybe they shouldn't.

Click to expand...

But will there be another reincarnation like last time? I see bankruptcy and liquidation again as probable. I don't think Andy would try to buy assets and restart it but perhaps Bud would. I think right now they could still be trying to sell the company but at less than they were seeking. There just aren't a lot of buyers out there interested in small boat builders. There have been circumstances in the past where a boat purchaser was the largest creditor and ended up owning the company, but I don't see that in this situation. Boat buyer was already planning to sell the boat so don't see him wanting involvement.

Yes, the video I think you're referring to was by the person Northern has used in the past and had there to video their huge launch. Obviously, that didn't work as expected. I don't know if he decided on his own not to show it all or if they restricted what he showed publicly.

Now as to the possibility of the reincarnation I mentioned above. Bud Lemieux has gone to the press and told them to stop using the Northern Marine name and use New World Yacht Builders. Indicates another entity owns the assets and leases them to New World. Bud has now make the conflict, which I knew existed but due to sources didn't mention, between he and Andy public. There's more to come. But not impossible to see Bud end up with the equipment and molds and the name Northern Marine across at his new property.

Buds release:

Northern Marine founder issues statement to Trade Only | Trade Only Today

And an update that now shows the NTSB taking over the investigation. Rest assured the insurer is continuing their own investigation.

Yacht capsizing investigation continues, will take months - goanacortes: News

While the boat is referred to as a $10 million yacht, it was for sell for $9.2. Don't know what the initial buyer paid.

The information from Bud above also indicates that any buyers or vendors have even less to go after as New World, if Bud is to be believed, not only doesn't own the building and land, but doesn't own the assets such as the equipment and perhaps tooling or molds, although they didn't have molds in a traditional sense. Perhaps only leasing the name as well. But sounds like now an entity with a lot of debt and very few assets.

So, an ugly situation turns uglier and don't be surprised at more. To my knowledge Andy has still not spoken publicly since the incident.

Remarkable set of photos from the launch and sinking. This link is in the middle of them. Navigate from there.



Northern 90....

I said it on the day she sank and now with the pictures, I'll say it again, somebody was running a stern thruster in a direction that would hasten to roll her.

I just can't see how a stern thruster (looks to me it was running) could turtle a properly ballasted ship, even one that was still on it's trailer.

And no, picture #61 does not show a transom engine room door open, as previously suggested.

I saw bubbles (disturbed water) next to the boat in one picture but could not determine where they were coming from...I spent a millisecond thinking what if it were the tires on the transporter that got repairered after the fact when no one was looking....

but.... also was the statement about engine room down flooding so the bubbles could be related to that.

Rambler said:

And no, picture #61 does not show a transom engine room door open, as previously suggested.

Click to expand...

No, the transom door was not open, and the company statement that the trailer wheel fell into a hole off the ramp, and the port side fin also fell into the same hole, causing the boat to roll over as if on the hard is also untrue, as I can see zero damage to the port side fin that allegedly was supposed to have taken the entire weight of the vessel.

This boat was simply going to be happiest upside down, and were the water deeper where she was launched, that is how she would have floated. If not for long.

psneeld said:

I saw bubbles (disturbed water) next to the boat in one picture but could not determine where they were coming from

Click to expand...

I wondered the same thing and with the dark antifouling paint color it is difficult to see what's there on the hull. But there is one picture when it's out of water where it looks like that may be the engine exhaust outlet. The rear thruster appears to be quite a bit further forward on the keel.

Edelweiss said:

I wondered the same thing and with the dark antifouling paint color it is difficult to see what's there on the hull. But there is one picture when it's out of water where it looks like that may be the engine exhaust outlet. The rear thruster appears to be quite a bit further forward on the keel.

Click to expand...

I'll wait for an actual investigation document..not a bunch of speculation and interpretation of "reported" "truths".....

Not that it might be correct..but usually the 'findings of fact" section give you leads where to focus on what the final decision is.

It was mentioned earlier by Delphin that the boat had only 30,000 lbs of ballast when launched. There's a 81' NM listed for sale in Seattle and it has 54,000 lbs of ballast. So if Delphin is correct then it seems a safe bet that it was under ballasted and destined to flip on launch.

DCBD said:

It was mentioned earlier by Delphin that the boat had only 30,000 lbs of ballast when launched. There's a 81' NM listed for sale in Seattle and it has 54,000 lbs of ballast. So if Delphin is correct then it seems a safe bet that it was under ballasted and destined to flip on launch.

Click to expand...

I assume you have full knowledge of the design stability issues at hand and know that full ballast (which is a disaster for transport) is required to float upright in a mill pond?

DCBD said:

It was mentioned earlier by Delphin that the boat had only 30,000 lbs of ballast when launched.

Click to expand...

It's sad seeing that beautiful boat sitting there in the empty lot everytime I drive down R ave!! Invariably it won't be one cause. . . the investigation will find a number of elements and maybe some contributory negligence that together caused the accident.

psneeld said:

I assume you have full knowledge of the design stability issues at hand and know that full ballast (which is a disaster for transport) is required to float upright in a mill pond?

Click to expand...

Nope, you're right, I don't know jack about that stuff and even less of this incident. But I'm willing to bet (assuming Delphin is correct) that once the investigation is completed, that will be the outcome. Just my opinion.

That boat could make somebody a nice home if they dug a hole and buried it to the waterline and mounted it somewhere with a nice view. It wouldn't be the first "interesting" home in Annacortes. Solve that stability question for once and all.

psneeld said:

I assume you have full knowledge of the design stability issues at hand and know that full ballast (which is a disaster for transport) is required to float upright in a mill pond?

Click to expand...

You can look that up yourself in the report from the engineer hired to do a stability study. With machinery and ballast, she carried around 30,000# of fixed ballast that the study showed needed to be increased by more than double, or by around 17 LT. What ballast there was at launch was apparently heavy on the port side, since she rolled in that direction not from any extreme sudden heeling movement brought on by the launch but from around 15% from the point she appears to have floated free, continuing to roll to the position she wanted to assume, which was upside down. She was only prevented from reaching that point of stability when she rolled into the breakwater.

New World has been criticized for its practice of launching its vessels like you were floating a 26' Trophy. It has worked up to this point, but does require adding ballast afterwards. In this case, that was a fatal mistake since the boat was clearly not ballasted to withstand floating upright in water, something which many professional mariners (perhaps even you) consider a deficiency.

pilothouse king said:

That boat could make somebody a nice home if they dug a hole and buried it to the waterline and mounted it somewhere with a nice view. It wouldn't be the first "interesting" home in Annacortes. Solve that stability question for once and all.

Click to expand...

Actually, if they add 38,000# of lead in the areas indicated she needed it by the engineer, you'd have an actual boat. I haven't seen any activity on the vessel at all, so I assume her interior is unsalveagable, although I heard they had pickled the engines.