Dear Editor,
It has taken more than two weeks, immense public pressure, and a rejection by grieving families of the government’s memorial-site proposal, but the Maritime Administration Department has finally moved. MARAD has issued a formal invitation for Expressions of Interest (EOI) from marine salvage contractors to raise the MV Barima, with submissions due by close of business on August 14. That reversal matters, and so does what’s written into the fine print of the invitation itself.
Families made clear they wanted the “bones” or “dust” of their loved ones back, not a plaque over a grave at sea — and to its credit, the government listened. But raising the ferry is not a single, simple task. It’s a fork between two very different jobs, and this time MARAD appears to understand that.
A pure wreck removal would cut the hull apart, lift what comes up, and close the site — fast, cheap, and final. It would also destroy the one piece of evidence that could confirm or rule out mechanical failure: the engine, at the centre of a Commission of Inquiry now examining a disaster that has already produced murder charges against the captain and two crew members.
Encouragingly, the EOI itself doesn’t leave that choice to chance. MARAD is explicitly requiring bidders to describe their proposed technical approach with emphasis on protecting and documenting forensic evidence for the Commission of Inquiry, alongside environmental protection measures. That single clause is the difference between a salvage operation that serves the truth and one that simply clears a channel. Given that the wreck sits in soft mud at 13 to 15 metres, with poor visibility and strong currents, whichever firm is selected will need real experience recovering evidence under exactly these conditions, not just general ship-lifting credentials.
I am honest about my feelings that the boat should remain on the seabed as a memorial. French military divers have already described the wreck’s interior as extremely difficult to access, citing mud, tides, and debris, with one calling a full salvage “very, very hard” to accomplish given the hull’s fragile state. A forensic search means divers working room by room through that wreck for weeks, and if the structure fails partway through, families could lose both the remains they’re owed and the evidence investigators need — the worst of both outcomes, after months of delay and millions spent. A memorial site, whatever its emotional cost, guarantees an ending and stops asking divers to risk their lives against a hull that may not survive the attempt intact regardless of how it’s funded.
I am cognizant that argument only holds, if the wreck really is too fragile to recover safely — and that is a technical judgment, not a political one. It should be made by structural engineers and the Commission of Inquiry based on hard data, not announced unilaterally by a government that spent two weeks trying to avoid this decision altogether.
None of this comes cheap, and the public should go in with realistic expectations. Based on comparable salvage operations elsewhere — factoring in forensic documentation requirements, a compartment-by-compartment search for the 30 people still missing, the “no cure, no pay” contingency terms MARAD itself is asking bidders about, and weeks of post-lift barge storage — a defensible estimate for a job done properly runs somewhere between US$1.5 and 2.5 million, or roughly G$315 million to G$525 million at current exchange rates. For context, that would exceed the combined G$275 million Guyana has already spent on the Barima’s 2017 rehabilitation and its aborted 2026 dry-docking tender. If the winning bid comes in dramatically below that range, taxpayers and families alike should ask what’s being left out of the scope.
The EOI is only the first step — MARAD says it will shortlist firms before issuing a full technical tender. That next stage is where this promise gets tested, both on price and on principle. The forensic-evidence language must survive intact into the final contract, with real accountability if a contractor cuts corners once the cameras are gone. Anything less would make today’s announcement a formality rather than a commitment.
The families of the Barima have waited two weeks for the government to even agree to try. They deserve a process that follows through — or, if the engineering truly says otherwise, an honest explanation of why it can’t.
Sincerely,
Keith Bernard
Discussion