BudgetAn initial first budget came to 28,201, at this stage, the lack of information prevented a more realistic assessment. the main differences between this budget and something more realistic, lay in freight charges (overestimated by ?6000 , due to a whole container being costed) and an ability to borrow more equipment than hoped for.
At the time of drafting the first proposal, the UK had left the ERM and was doing well against the Deutschmark, (against which the Danish Kroner was pegged). All predictions were that the pound would at least hold its own in these circumstances. There was a need to present a budget that appeared lower in order to secure funding as a realistic project and the 5% allowance of ?1221 was an early casualty, subsumed into the 10% contingency fund. In the circumstances, the pound moved from an exchange rate of 9.5 DKr to 8.31 DKr, which should be a lesson to anyone else so tempted.
Air fares to Greenland are high and this left the expedition with relatively high marginal costs. Although the option of increasing numbers to eight was considered, the resulting contributions to overheads was relatively low and allowing for the thinner spread of grants, the gain would have been negligible, even supposing that the right persons being found. On the other hand, the expedition could have stayed in the field at little extras cost, but time constraints prevented this.
The initial hope was that the split between donations and members contributions would be approximately 50:50. In the event, it was 1/3 to 2/3 prior to departure. The sale of equipment and photographic rights should eventually reduce the difference to the original goal or just under. The latter is based on financial contributions. When we consider that the expedition received considerable help by means of free assistance and discounts on some goods, the ratio improves. Excluded from this calculation however, is the personal spending of members on clothing, equipment and sundries for personal use, (including diving equipment).
The current balance sheet is presented in the Appendices
Top of Section
To Balance_Sheet
The expedition had two policies. At the time the freight was shipped out in advance, the main policy had not been arranged. Accordingly, Cintrex Freight arranged cargo insurance for the round trip with an extension to cover the shipped goods in the field.
Travel insurance was arranged separately. The expedition sought several alternative quotes, but the travel insurance policy issued by Alexander & Alexander, tailored to expeditions (recommended by the RGS), was both comprehensive and competitive.
The exploration Board of Imperial College reimbursed insurance costs for equipment under both policies, together with the travel cover for the one current student of the college. The expedition paid for the rest of the travel cover and for extensions to the Alexander & Alexander policy to cover goods that accompanied members out by air but had to return by sea for logistical reasons.
The expedition had high hopes of financial support from the energy, chemical and water industries in line with the practical implications of a bettor understanding of how ikaite forms. In particular, the global warming and gas hydrate formation aspects should have been attractive subjects.
Approaches were made to: All major oil companies in the UK. Oil and gas consultancies specializing in pipeline work. The major electricity generators. Most of the large electricity distributors. Chemical companies involved in energy and / or water fields. Some water distribution companies.
Unless personal contacts were available, the approach took the form of a cold call by telephone, followed by a letter and expedition brochure if appropriate. With ONE exception, our efforts were fruitless.
The larger companies invariably invited applications to be made, but then wrote back to advise that they would not support the expedition. If a reason was given, it was often that the company concerned had chosen to support community based projects in the UK. Exceptionally, BP pointed out that they only supported conservation based expeditions. However, it seemed that the criteria set was charitable rather than based on an evaluation of a potential benefit to the industry.
Smaller companies were more straight forward in indicating that they did not support this sort of undertaking.
The exception was Lloyds Register of Shipping which was approached due to its interest in the energy business through is Offshore Division. The expedition was grateful for their donation of ?200.
Appeals to charitable foundations were more successful and the following provided financial support:
Imperial College Exploration Board: ?1250 to expedition + ?716.38 to Insurances Gino Watkins Trust: ?1500 Rolex Watches - through the RGS - ?900 + Rolex watch Gilchrist Educational Trust: ?500 British Sub-Aqua Jubilee Trust: ?500 Oxford Brookes Alumni Association: ?100 Royal Holloway University of London, Travel bursary: ?50 Two other organizations provided a total of ?57.50 against work done for them by individual members.
Other than cash sponsorship, members also approached a large number of equipment and other suppliers for support, - makers and distributors of diving equipment inflatable boats, radio and navigation equipment, video & photographic suppliers and food suppliers - largely this was also to no avail.
A full list of those who assisted us and our sponsors in money and in kind, is presented in the acknowledgements section, at the end of this report.
Other than funding etc, the expedition sought the support and approval of various bodies, for validation reasons. In addition the sanction of the Greenland Home Rule Government through the Danish Polar Centre (DPC) in Copenhagen was essential.
Applications to funding bodies, where appropriate, always sought approval of the goals of the expedition as both feasible and desirable, as a separate matter to the award of funds that might follow later. In this way applications could be made to purely funding bodies at an early stage with the advantage of already received approvals.
Though our formal application to the DPC was made without approvals from the RGS and Imperial College, our application was supported by our informal contacts with the DPC - gained by a visit to Copenhagen in December 1994 and support from the leader of the planned Danish expedition.
The DPC approval covered operational and safety matters and took the form of a permit, to be shown to any official authority requesting it. Future expeditions may wish to know that local police retain the power to revoke it. The DPC also obtained the permission of the Danish Navy for the use of the base facilities, for transit purposes.
The Greenland Telecoms Agency (Tele Attaveqaatit) licensed the hand held radios, used for local communication within the confines of Ikka Fjord.
Greenland lies within the European Community and accordingly, there were no taxes to be levied on expedition stores imported for our use. Nor was a 'Carnet de passage' required to ensure the tax free return of goods. Alcohol and chocolate would have been taxable had we chosen to import them, and firearms would have been subject to various restrictions.
Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) approval was not required. However, details of the expedition were passed on to the West European Department of the FCO for the attention of the Danish "desk", who passed them onto the British Consul in Copenhagen. At the same time, details of the British Honorary Consul in Greenland were obtained. Fortunately, this precaution proved unnecessary.
Back to Report Index