Monday, November 30, 2009

Are offshore choppers safe?

30 November, 2009

Federal NDP defence critic Jack Harris appeared before the Wells inquiry and argued the inquiry needs to broaden its mandate and hear testimony from Department of National Defence and Canadian Forces (DND/CF) officials about how search and rescue (SAR) works.

Inquiry commissioner Robert Wells agreed, saying it's hard for him to analyze how well search and rescue works "without knowing exactly what the Department of National Defence SAR does." Wells has asked the DND/CF to provide a witness who can testify about SAR response. To do so, Wells had to check and see if he was overstepping the mandate of his commission -- and has decided he did not overstep.



While that might be good news, it would be better if this inquiry were far broader.

This is a harsh point to make, but the inquiry -- as it is currently constituted -- is very much closing the barn door after the horse has already left.

It's talking about helicopter safety after a specific crash, and that's fundamentally where the inquiry begins and ends.

That's not to say that its work isn't valuable and important. It is. Wells' recommendations will no doubt lead to changes in helicopter travel to and from Newfoundland and Labrador's offshore platforms and may ripple far more widely, making significant changes in other parts of the oil industry -- and perhaps in mining and tourism and other areas where there are significant concerns about helicopter safety.

But it's also a lost opportunity. There are a huge number of areas where offshore safety could be examined -- and could be examined before we have a tragedy that forces more retrospective concern.

Are offshore helicopters safe? Should we be examining ways to make them safer, or should we be asking if helicopters are the best method to transport workers to offshore platforms as well? Are the industry's offshore safety standards capable of withstanding a rigorous review? Are offshore escape systems reasonable and functional? We're already involved in an inquiry where a helicopter crashed -- and that helicopter failed a specific test of its ability to operate with a rapid loss of oil from its main gearbox. The manufacturer walked around that test by sayings the loss of oil was an extremely remote occurrence. Not remote enough, apparently.

In other words, the helicopter was able to meet paper standards and rules, but may not have met the level of performance it needed to.

While we're looking at helicopters, why aren't we looking at the possibility of having performance standards, not only for aircraft, but for escape systems and lifeboats? Do the current life-safety systems work well enough in our particular combination of weather conditions, sea-state, and the sheer distance of our offshore facilities from any kind of help? Are standby vessels able to help, or would they merely be forced to stand by and watch tragedy unfold? Have we met the safety needs offshore, or are we happy enough checking off boxes about the paper standards that are met, all the while turning a blind eye to real-world circumstances?

If there's a problem with this inquiry, it's one that the commissioner has started to spell out: it's limited to a specific event. If we're lucky, the recommendations will help to prevent similar occurrences.

In other words, it will close one barn door.

It just seems like we're content to leave other ones open until they have their own specific disaster to deal with.

-- The Canadian Press

Swiss Offshore Banking

Dispelling myths about Swiss offshore banking and proving that Switzerland is now a compliant and respected offshore jurisdiction

Swiss Offshore Banking A Swiss bank account is often thought of as the dirtiest of naughtiest offshore bank accounts. People seem to assume that if it’s in Switzerland then it is bound to be wrong and all tied up with illegal transactions, privacy and dodgy dealings.

Now whilst we’re quite happy for people to have this perception if it gives them a little thrill, unfortunately the truth is so far from this myth that we thought we’d better tell the truth about Swiss offshore banking in the name of responsible journalism!



Switzerland is not on any black lists for lack of banking compliance, it does not have any anonymous bank accounts in place, it has double taxation agreements in place, and its Federal Department of Finance even welcomed the decisions of the G20 nations to strengthen the stability of financial markets through the introduction of among other things, measures to tighten banking regulations. So what other myths can we dispel about offshore bank accounts in Switzerland…?

You don’t actually have to be a multimillionaire to have a Swiss bank account, anyone can open an account in theory, as long as they comply with the given bank’s ‘know your customer’ due diligence checks for example. People often choose Switzerland as it is considered a politically and economically safe jurisdiction, and if an account holder works abroad in a less than stable nation or earns a wage in a less than stable currency, it can make sense to place one’s banking in a secure jurisdiction.

Depending on which bank and which account you choose, minimum opening balances can be very reasonable, and some accounts don’t even have a requirement for an account holder to maintain a minimum balance once an account is open. So you see, banking in Switzerland can be like banking anywhere else! People just choose the jurisdiction for its security and stability, its reputation and its account offerings.

In the past it was assumed that a bank account in Switzerland was used for one thing only – hiding money. As a result such funds would surely earn no interest and be non investable – again, the truth is a long way from this. Money banked in Switzerland can earn interest, it can be invested, it can be saved, easily accessed, withdrawn and it can even reside in an account on which there are no day-to-day fees. In other words – as boring as it may seem, a Swiss offshore bank account is just like any other offshore bank account!

And finally, a numbered account is NOT anonymous! Yes, you can have a numbered account in Switzerland – this means that your account has a number instead of a name. However, think about it, this number has to relate to someone ultimately doesn’t it, particularly in this day and age of greater transparency and cracking down on money laundering etc. So whilst a numbered account will allow you privacy when you’re carrying out transactions because only a very few select people know the name associated with the account, it will not ‘protect’ anyone in any way if they are attempting to misuse their account.

So, Swiss offshore banking can no longer be thought of as the seedy, dodgy secret of criminals – rather Switzerland’s excellent reputation as a financial centre of stability and privacy means that it maintains a strong presence on the global stage when it comes to winning business from those who want to manage their money through one of the most respected offshore jurisdictions in the world.

source: www.shelteroffshore.com