More info on Cape Canaveral Shipwreck Scatter Fields

[seekerGH]

Interesting developments. Answers from State of Florida

"Admitted that GME discovered the Defendant Site. Although admitted that GME initially was granted an Exploration Permit modified to allow for limited test excavation at the Defendant Site, GME violated the terms of the permit and said permit was revoked by the State of Florida."

"GME’s permit has been revoked and GME cannot lawfully conduct operations at the Defendant Site."

"AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
1. This Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction and GME is barred from recovering any of the awards it seeks under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act and the Sunken Military Craft Act as the Defendant Vessel represents the wreckage of sovereign military vessels of the Republic of France and apparel, tackle, appurtenances, cargo and remains and personal effects of citizens of France who perished in the service of France.

2. This court lacks subject matter jurisdiction under the Abandoned Shipwreck Act because, if the court denies the claim of the Republic of France, then the site contains an abandoned shipwreck embedded in the sovereign lands of the State of Florida over which there is no Admiralty jurisdiction.

3. Any salvage award or other award in favor of GME is barred by its unlawful conduct, damage to and endangerment of the Site and the Defendant Vessel, failure to comply with appropriate archaeological protocols and State of Florida permit requirements, and other failures to exercise due care.

4. Any salvage or other award in favor of GME is further barred by its unclean hands and misconduct, including misrepresentations, omissions and bad faith conduct prior to and in the conduct of in this case.

5. Any salvage award in favor of GME is barred because both the Republic of France and the State of Florida, the only possible owners of the Defendant Vessel, have rejected any salvage by GME."

The State makes an interesting point, even though one may not know the identity of the shipwreck, the identity of the artefacts are known, and under the Law of Finds, that is what counts.

As this is a response, it is too bad that the other questions and assertions are not available.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Family Maps of Hinds County, Mississippi, Deluxe Edition - Grab it through Amazon!

[ARC]

Grounds for revocation ?

 

[seekerGH]

But after 450 years in the sea, the reason not to have a greenish color or a calcium carbonate covering is sand blasting from the sand constinly blasting these cannon, look at the emblems they are whore down quite a bit almost to the point of being gone

From your own video..not encrusted and shiny?


Again, some of the artefats show effects of current scouring, this is not a case for non-embedment, nor are the images of encrustation and embedment. Yes, as you so eloquently stated you could have used ping pong paddles (and kept the permit?) but you chose not to.
Case appears to be filed under the Law of Finds, well, shipwreck or not, ownership of that column and the cannon are easy to prove, and the owners have come forward.

 

[Black Duck]

Thats a iron cannon Dum ass

I will not respond to u anymore seeker as you are like fake news, and you obviously have no real experience, so YOU DO NOT COUNT

From your own video..not encrusted and shiny?
View attachment 1454843

Again, some of the artefats show effects of current scouring, this is not a case for non-embedment, nor are the images of encrustation and embedment. Yes, as you so eloquently stated you could have used ping pong paddles (and kept the permit?) but you chose not to.
Case appears to be filed under the Law of Finds, well, shipwreck or not, ownership of that column and the cannon are easy to prove, and the owners have come forward.

 

[Jolly Mon]

Cutting to the chase of the State's response:

The shipwreck belongs to the Kingdom of France...but if it doesn't... it belongs to the state of Florida. Of course Florida law allows for the extension of a salvage permit to GME...but the state is denying issuance of a salvage permit because of alleged "misconduct" by GME.

IMHO, GME should pursue the repeated refusal of the State of Florida to issue salvage permits as prima facie evidence of the unwillingness of the State of Florida to issue said permits.

In fact, state archaeologists are engaged in a criminal conspiracy against individuals and business interests in the State of Florida.

The root of the conspiracy lies in nothing more than "professional" archaeological dogma against allowing for profit salvage of shipwrecks in the State of Florida. This dogma is in contradiction to established Florida law.

A handful of appointed bureaucrats have usurped the executive, legislative and judicial branches of State government in order to promote a highly dubious belief system...which belief system, oddly enough, benefits themselves and their colleagues directly. Putting "professional" archaeologists in charge of the issuance of private salvage permits is a gross conflict of interest. Weasels in charge of the henhouse.

Seriously people, wake up. Until something changes mightily, remember that certain influential bureaucrats in the State of Florida are out to steal your finds. State archaeologists are engaged in a criminal conspiracy to profit from your monetary investments and hard work. Under the current system, an exploration permit is nothing more than a lie...a bait and switch designed to garner information for the personal and professional benefit of State archaeologists.

And it's a damn shame...

 

[Black Duck]

correct

Cutting to the chase of the State's response:

The shipwreck belongs to the Kingdom of France...but if it doesn't... it belongs to the state of Florida. Of course Florida law allows for the extension of a salvage permit to GME...but the state is denying issuance of a salvage permit because of alleged "misconduct" by GME.

IMHO, GME should pursue the repeated refusal of the State of Florida to issue salvage permits as prima facie evidence of the unwillingness of the State of Florida to issue said permits.

In fact, state archaeologists are engaged in a criminal conspiracy against individuals and business interests in the State of Florida.

The root of the conspiracy lies in nothing more than "professional" archaeological dogma against allowing for profit salvage of shipwrecks in the State of Florida. This dogma is in contradiction to established Florida law.

A handful of appointed bureaucrats have usurped the executive, legislative and judicial branches of State government in order to promote a highly dubious belief system...which belief system, oddly enough, benefits themselves and their colleagues directly. Putting "professional" archaeologists in charge of the issuance of private salvage permits is a gross conflict of interest. Weasels in charge of the henhouse.

Seriously people, wake up. Until something changes mightily, remember that certain influential bureaucrats in the State of Florida are out to steal your finds. State archaeologists are engaged in a criminal conspiracy to profit from your monetary investments and hard work. Under the current system, an exploration permit is nothing more than a lie...a bait and switch designed to garner information for the personal and professional benefit of State archaeologists.

And it's a damn shame...

Jolly man , here is the thing, GME did 14 different permits in 2 .5 years, and completed them 100 %, 14 separate permits including the area where we found 6 scatter fields, and never once was there a legit complaint not once.
Only once did they question us on a report ( they were wrong as everything they said we did not do we did and i pointed all this out to them)

That happened when we asked for a savage permit, they never said no until we found out they stabbed GME in the back with the French and when we filed an arrest because we knew they were going to screw us, that is when they canceled our contract and started saying we did not follow rules, but again they are lying and wrong and we will prove it, then its breach of contract, as long as there are archaeologist running the permits in florida you will never get a Salvage permit unless u get it in Lou of a law suit or they think you do not know what u are doing, "sound familiar "

 

[Jolly Mon]

Jolly man , here is the thing, GME did 14 different permits in 2 .5 years, and completed them 100 %, 14 separate permits including the area where we found 6 scatter fields, and never once was there a legit complaint not once.
Only once did they question us on a report ( they were wrong as everything they said we did not do we did and i pointed all this out to them)

That happened when we asked for a savage permit, they never said no until we found out they stabbed GME in the back with the French and when we filed an arrest because we knew they were going to screw us, that is when they canceled our contract and started saying we did not follow rules, but again they are lying and wrong and we will prove it, then its breach of contract, as long as there are archaeologist running the permits in florida you will never get a Salvage permit unless u get it in Lou of a law suit or they think you do not know what u are doing, "sound familiar "

Exactly. There were no complaints until you made a major discovery...and then you were accused of rampant violations in order to deny the salvage permit. The State's use of the phrase "unclean hands and misconduct" to describe GME's actions is just hilariously ironic.

The State's answers make it clear they realize the claim of France under the Sunken Military Craft Act is weak.

I am not a lawyer and do not claim to be, but your case could possibly shine the light of day upon the persistent misconduct and willful abuse of authority of the Florida Division of Historical Resources. They are denying the lawful rights of individuals and business entities in the State because of an obvious conflict of professional interest.

I wonder, has GME filed a formal complaint with the Florida Inspector General? This is the office tasked with rooting out corruption and abuse of power within Florida government agencies.

If the obvious and longstanding pattern of the Division to deny salvage permits is laid bare, it cannot stand.

The Division has built for itself a glass house.

You have a stone...

And the presence of that fleur de lis means the case wil attract much attention.

 

[Black Duck]

Exactly. There were no complaints until you made a major discovery...and then you were accused of rampant violations in order to deny the salvage permit. The State's use of the phrase "unclean hands and misconduct" to describe GME's actions is just hilariously ironic.

The State's answers make it clear they realize the claim of France under the Sunken Military Craft Act is weak.

I am not a lawyer and do not claim to be, but your case could possibly shine the light of day upon the persistent misconduct and willful abuse of authority of the Florida Division of Historical Resources. They are denying the lawful rights of individuals and business entities in the State because of an obvious conflict of professional interest.

I wonder, has GME filed a formal complaint with the Florida Inspector General? This is the office tasked with rooting out corruption and abuse of power within Florida government agencies.

If the obvious and longstanding pattern of the Division to deny salvage permits is laid bare, it cannot stand.

The Division has built for itself a glass house.

You have a stone...

And the presence of that fleur de lis means the case wil attract much attention.

The is correct, and France has no claim and no way to prove its the Trinite because it is not the Trinite, this ship is 90 miles north of our sites,
However there is French material not related to our sites 10-13 miles North of us, as seen in Armstrong's books, but the Trinite is 90 miles North.
We have been in contact with the inspector general, The judge is up tell now following the law and if the law is followed GME will win this case with France and the State of Florida.

Thanks for the real input

 

[seekerGH]

France has no claim and no way to prove its theTrinite because it is not the Trinite, this ship is 90 miles north of our sites,

The Trinite has been found? I have never, ever heard of a shipwreck being found NOT exactly where historical accounts state it sank, never.

No shipwreck claim and it appears the Court case was not filed under the Law of Finds, nor the Law of Salvage, but for 'finders-rights purposes' (?!?!) determination. So, not filed under Law of Salvage, nor Law of Finds, so what exactly to you think is the rule of law here that is to be followed?

Are you asking the Court to determine ownership of stuff you found? Great, they can do that. But really, why would you want them to when ownership is easy to determine? At least under the Law of Finds, you have some potential recourse for an award. Simply asking the Court to determine ownership, well, that is easy. What if the Court determines the stone column belongs to France, what then, what is the award mechanism? (especially since you do not have a permit from Florida to work the site?)

The stone column, why is that difficult to determine ownership?

It appears that you and your team have provided ample evidence that the column belongs to France, so while doing that in the social media, and as noted before, the media article where you claimed it was captured by the Spanish, then claiming inability to identify ownership? Using the Odyssey playbook? read how that game ended. You should also be aware of how attorneys fees are allocated in these cases. The case already has what, over 70 filings, and has not gone to discovery?

Just because you claim you cannot identify the wreck, or ownership of the artifacts, does not mean the artifacts cannot be identified. If that lack of identity claim was successful in Court, nothing would ever be 'identified'.

There are only 2 possibilities. The column belongs to France, or it belongs to Spain as a captured item. If Spain does not intervene, then by default, it belongs to Florida.

Meanwhile, as you do not have permission to recover, what does all of this matter? Again, look at the Odyssey case on the Victory, Ownership has been transferred to the non-profit, but Odyssey violated the terms of excavation, and still do not have a permit to disturb the bottom. Starting to sound familiar?

 

[diverrick]

This whole thing is just another case of now that you found it, we want it. Sates and countries do this all the time. They make no efort to find it, but when someone pops up for finding, it is now thiers. Typical of big brother taking your stuff. Old shipwrecks need to go to who ever finds them, not the state they sunk off of. Nor should it go to the country it flew its flag under, as they abandoned it hundreds of years ago.

 

[Jolly Mon]

There are actually myriad possibilities as to the original owner of the wreck:

French crown, French privateer, French pirate, Spanish Crown, Spanish privateer, Spanish pirate, Spanish merchant, English Crown, English privateer/pirate/explorer, Native American dugout, etc., etc., etc.,

The crux of the matter is that, lacking provenance, the scatter field DOES belong to the State of Florida.

And, in that case, the State should immediately issue a salvage permit to GME.

But, of course, the State Archies are not about to issue a salvage permit to ANY private Salvor...

This is in direct contradiction to established Florida Law.

The pattern of salvage permit denials of the Department of Historical Resources is undeniable. It constitutes abuse of authority.

It is, in fact, conspiracy.

 

[Au_Dreamers]

I'm not sure of the accuracy of some statements made concerning the ASA.

I've been puzzled by the law and how states ignore the law since it became law.

So here goes.

Section 1 provides that this Act may be cited as the "Abandoned
Shipwreck Act of 1987".

Section 2 provides Congressional findings regarding state jurisdiction over submerged lands which should include abandoned shipwrecks. The Committee notes that the term "abandoned" does not require the original owner to actively disclaim title or ownership.
The abandonment or relinquishment of ownership rights may
be implied or otherwise inferred, as by an owner never asserting
any control over or otherwise indicating his claim of possession of
the shipwreck.

Ok, so let's pump the brakes right there.
To me the language is pretty clear and simple.

The purpose of S. 858 1 is to vest title to certain abandoned historic shipwrecks that are buried in State lands to the respective States and to clarify the management authority of the States for
these abandoned historic shipwrecks.

Section 6 defines the rights of ownership to those abandoned
shipwrecks covered by this Act. Section 6(a) asserts the title of the
United States to any abandoned shipwreck that is: (1) embedded in
submerged lands of a state; (2) embedded in coralline formations
protected by a state on submerged lands of a state; or (3) on sub-
merged lands of a state and is included in or determined eligible
for inclusion in the National Register. This assertion of title by the
United States is an exercise of its recognized sovereign prerogative
to assert title to abandoned shipwrecks that lie within waters of
the United States.


Section 6(a) asserts United States title to any abandoned ship-
wreck that is embedded in submerged lands of a State, embedded
in coralline formations protected by a State on submerged lands of
a State, or on submerged lands of a State and is included in, or determined eligible for inclusion in, the National Register.

section 6(c) transfers title
of the abandoned shipwrecks that fall within section 6(a) from the
United States to the respective state in which the shipwreck is located. The transfer of title takes place immediately upon enactment of this Act and simultaneously with the U.S. assertion of title
under section 6(a)

In one fell swoop of the pen the United States of America declared all shipwrecks within their territorial waters abandoned and asserted title to them and then asserted title of those shipwrecks within State water to those States.

Again I believe it's pretty clear.

Under this law, States have title to shipwrecks within their waters because they have been declared abandoned by the United States.

 

[seekerGH]

In one fell swoop of the pen the United States of America declared all shipwrecks within their territorial waters abandoned

Au dreamers...No, that is not correct, check the case law on Juno and La Galga. (already detailed here on TNET)

This concept was tried before with the Juno and La Galga. 4th Circuit Court ruled for Spain, and US Supreme Court refused the case.

Under the Abandoned Shipwreck Act of 1987 (ASA), a state acquires title to all abandoned vessels embedded within its submerged lands. In defining the term abandoned, the ASA merely provides that abandonment occurs the moment an owner relinquishes its rights to a sunken vessel. On appeal to the Fourth Circuit, Virginia and Sea Hunt argued that the ASA's definition of abandonment should permit a court to imply abandonment where a sovereign fails to declare its ownership in a timely manner. The Fourth Circuit disagreed, holding that, as under admiralty law, a sovereign owner appearing before a court to assert its ownership to a shipwreck retains title to the vessel unless an express and affirmative declaration of abandonment is proven.

The Fourth Circuit applied the express abandonment standard to the 1763 Treaty and determined that Spain had not relinquished its rights to LA GALGA. First, although Article XX of the treaty contains "sweeping language of Spain's cession," it never explicitly refers to vessels, warships, shipwrecks, or frigates. Since the treaty contains a detailed catalogue of "non-territorial state property" to be conveyed, but does not include shipwrecks, the Fourth Circuit concluded that Spain had not expressly abandoned its title to the vessels. Likewise, Article XX expressly limits the cession to Spanish property located "on the continent of North America." The specificity of this territorial limit convinced the court that the shipwrecks were not part of the cession since they were located on the seabed.

Next, the court noted that Article XX grants the King of Spain an unlimited amount of time to retrieve his personal property; the other provisions of the treaty specifically set time limits on similar actions. Therefore, absent an affirmative act of abandonment, Spain could retrieve the vessels at any time.

Finally, both Spain and Great Britain agreed that the vessels were not included under Article XX. When the parties to a treaty agree to the interpretation of its provisions, the courts must defer to the parties' understanding unless there is "extraordinarily strong contrary evidence." The court was bound by Spain and Great Britain's interpretation since Virginia and Sea Hunt were unable to rebut.

In concluding that Spain retained its right to both LA GALGA and JUNO, the Fourth Circuit emphasized that anything short of an affirmative act of abandonment will undermine a state's or private salvage company's claim to a sovereign shipwreck. This decision stresses that, as under customary international law, sovereign shipwrecks should be protected from unauthorized interference.

It was also noted that the Treaty of 1903 between the US and Spain, (after the explosion of the USS Maine), protected the Nations rights to their warships when sunk in foreign waters.


Please provide the source of your quotes, as these appear to be Section by Section provided for US National Parks Service by a House Committee Committee notes, not actual Law nor application.

ESTABLISHING THE TITLE OF STATES IN CERTAIN ABANDONED SHIPWRECKS
MARCH 14, 1988. Ordered to be printed
]\lr. UDALL, from the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs,
submitted the following
REPORT
[To accompany S. 858]
[Including the cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The .Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, to whom was referred the bill (S. 858) to establish the title of States in certain abandoned shipwrecks, and for other purposes, having considered the same, report favorably thereon without amendment and recommend that the bill do pass.

S. 858 would assert federal title to certain abandoned shipwrecks and would transfer title to the state on whose submerged lands the shipwreck is located, unless the shipwreck lies within the boundaries of lands administered by the National Park Service (NFS).
This bill would also direct the NFS to develop guidelines on managing shipwrecks and providing public access. Neither the NFS nor the affected states are expected to incur significant additional costs as a result of this bill.

Section 6(c) transfers title from the United States to the respective States for those shipwrecks that meet the criteria of Section 6(a). The Committee notes that the United States only abandons its sovereignty over, and title~to, sunken U.S. warships by affirmative act. Passage of time or lack of positive assertions of right are insufficient to establish such abandonment.

The United States subsequently affords this right to any sovereign owner, not inclusive of a shipwreck and contents, but also contents, irrespective of an associated wreck. (ie the column)

There are actually myriad possibilities as to the original owner of the wreck:

Yes, but as the historical accounts state, and accounts provided by GME research to the Press, the column was taken by the Spanish Troops. It is doubtful that cannon and stone columns were transported by native dugout. It would be entertaining to assert this in Court!

Again, if it were that easy to claim lack of identification on a shipwreck, that is what everyone would do. As noted by the Odyssey Admiralty case with the Mercedes, the statements made to the Press were used to show that Odyssey actually did know the identity. The case in point, video on Youtube shows far more than limited excavation, clearly shows embedment, and especially in the case of the column, ownership. Statements to the press state that the column was captured by the Spanish and was enroute to Cuba? This concurs with historical accounts, so on prima facie, what would a Court rule?

The crux of the matter is that, lacking provenance, the scatter field DOES belong to the State of Florida.

And, in that case, the State should immediately issue a salvage permit to GME.

Why is that? According to the State, the permit has been rescinded due to a myriad of reasons (some of which are evident in the video) If the State owns the wreck, they can choose whomever they want to recover the site. As noted with Odyssey and the Victory, a violation of recovery permits has not allowed a permit for 4 years and ongoing...
Does the State own the lease area?

I will look for papers and other research published by GME to ascertain their level of expertise on publication.

 

[seekerGH]

posted by Jollymon:

Florida cannot prove the identity of the vessel.

France cannot prove the identity of the vessel.

GME (apparently) cannot prove the identity of the vessel...

Who will then decide the identity or probable identity of the vessel ?

The courts.

Remember Juno/ La Galga ?

I cannot quite fathom the rationale that a captured French monument from the St. John's river area would have been shipped to Havana on a merchant vessel.

What merchant vessels traveled the southern coastal route southward from the St. John's river area to Havana?

It is much more likely that said monument would have been shipped to Havana on a Spanish Crown vessel...therefore the monument would belong to...drumroll... Spain !!!...Ouch and Double Ouch.

These opinions are not meant to disparage GME in any way. For the love of God I hope GME prevails in this dispute.

Concur. Keeping that in mind, note that the Admiralty Claim was filed to determine ownership. While it does not state Law of Finds, under the Law of Finds, ownership can be determined. I would caution in playing with BS interpretations of the Law of Salvage and Law of Finds. (look what happened in the SS Central America after all these years)

I would also note that a broad Admiralty claim over such a large area of artifacts, feigning identification, is fraught with error and has been dismissed by the Court (ie Odyssey Marine and La Vierge du Port)

The column, well, ownership of that, even lacking a ship identification as claimed, is very easy to determine, and France has intervened with Spains Lawyer.

In my ever so humble opine....Game over.
I strongly suggest looking at how much in attornies fees this is costing for an assertion of a few cannon of marginal value.

 

[seekerGH]

great discussion, and perhaps a learning experience for all. There are the Laws, and there is the real world application of said Laws.

I welcome the conversation and interpretations of other salvors in these matters.

 

[enrada]

When Odyssey was about to lose the cargo from the Mercedes, I wrote a letter to Greg Stemm and Melinda MacConnel urging them to take all the coins and dump(spread) them back on the Mercedes site. Unfortunately they did not heed my advice and allowed Spain to set a precedence in taking back artifacts at no cost to them. I would strongly urge SOMEONE to temporarily remove the cannon and marble monument from the site. If Commercial Archaeology is to have any leverage over Spain, France and the State of Florida, you have to have some bargaining chips. Move them to a safe location and cover them up. That way when you get compensated for them SOMEONE can refind them and they won't get plundered in the meantime. Obviously they are hard to find if 5 Archies(desk jockeys) couldn't find them. Forget about the insitu nonsense. Replace the word "insitu" with these words "for job security" and you will find that Florida will have to hire a Resource Manager(Archie) if they ever come into possession of these artifacts. Also Odyssey was given 80% of the value of the 42 pounder and 12 pounder they recovered from the Victory. This amounted to 94,000 British pounds.
Is Spain interested in getting back the tons of mercury they lost in the oceans that has changed to methyl mercury?
Time to fight back.

 

[seekerGH]

I wrote a letter to Greg Stemm and Melinda MacConnel urging them to take all the coins and dump(spread) them back on the Mercedes site. Unfortunately they did not heed my advice and allowed Spain to set a precedence in taking back artifacts at no cost to them.

They did not listen to you? No way, I can see how morons they are! Thanks for that. Simply brilliant. Oh PLEEEEZ provide a copy of your letter!

I would strongly urge SOMEONE to temporarily remove the cannon and marble monument from the site.

Oh yes,

Move them to a safe location and cover them up. That way when you get compensated for them SOMEONE can refind them and they won't get plundered in the meantime.

Oh yes, lets do it this weekend! No wait, I bet you could write another letter to Greg Stemm and he would be all over it. You go girl!

Is Spain interested in getting back the tons of mercury they lost in the oceans that has changed to methyl mercury?

I really doubt if Spain was transporting Mercury back to the Old World. Should you actually have a concern, you would be able to determine that South America is in fact, full of cinnabar, and had little need to transport it from the Old World to the New World. Do you think that they were transporting Mercury back to Spain?

Assuming they did transport Mercury, you claim tons, (substantiation of this claim?)
What is that volume? What is the conversion rate of mercury to methylmercury in a saltwater aerobic/non aerobic environment?

Also Odyssey was given 80% of the value of the 42 pounder and 12 pounder they recovered from the Victory. This amounted to 94,000 British pounds.

Actually, no, Odyssey was paid to recover those 2 cannon. It was not based on value of the cannon, but recovery costs. Sorry.

In the interest of science, please explain how mercury is converted to methylmercury in a saltwater environment.

 

[seekerGH]

Well, there we are...looking at all of the actions on the recovery, the explanations and posts on this issue...

One simply cannot fathom the historical, Archaeological, State, Government, nor the rightful owners assertions on sunken shipwrecks.

Time to evolve the treasure hunting business, or become a casualty.

 

[Au_Dreamers]

great discussion, and perhaps a learning experience for all. There are the Laws, and there is the real world application of said Laws.

I welcome the conversation and interpretations of other salvors in these matters.

There in is the problem..... some judges don't rule by laws.

 

[enrada]

I think the only copy I have is on my older Mac with a bad Li-ion battery but I stand by the fact that I sent a letter to both of them containing the suggestion to dump all the coins back on the Mercedes site.
When I was talking about mercury I was referring to other Spanish ships coming to the New World, not on this wreck site. Sorry I wasn't quite clear.
I checked on Odyssey's website and they suggested salvage award, another site said value of the cannon. I stand corrected.
A number of sites under Google explain the mercury issue, interesting reading. That's one of the ways that mercury gets into the food chain.