Why didn't the Mermaid Vigilance save the Geokinetics workers who had to abandon the Trinity II?

Workers are still healing and family members are still mourning, but the companies involved in the tragedy following the September 8, 2011 storm in the Bay of Campeche are already busy defending themselves.

In particular, Mermaid Marine Australia says it denies any responsiblity for what happened to any of the workers. Ironically, one of the workers who died in the incident, Aaron Houweling, was Australian (from Narangba in southeast Queensland). So, MMA is turning its back not only on Americans and residents of other countries, but also on the family of a fellow Australian.

Geokinetics personell advised the media that they hired MMA to provide its vessel to "standby" and protect or rescue the workers if necessary, in light of the approaching Tropical Storm Nate. In light of this statement, many people have been questioning why the MMA vessel, the Mermaid Vigilance, left the workers to fend for themselves in the ocean rather than even TRYING to rescue them?

Mermaid Marine never answered this question. Instead, MMA asserted this defense: "Mermaid Vigilance had been operating as a cable-laying vessel and not a standby boat as claimed by a lawyer acting for the American victims." But this legal claim was based on the clear statement of Geokinetics that the MMA vessel was a "standby" vessel. MMA's claim that its vessel was not a standby vessel was asserted by Jeff Weber, who is the Managing Director of the company. It will be interesting to see how these companies work out their conflicting positions in the U.S. lawsuit filed over this matter.

Setting aside this conflict, and even assuming MMA is correct and Geokinetics is wrong on whether MMA was asked to provide a standby vessel, it is undisputed that the crew on the Mermaid Vigilance KNEW THE WORKERS ON THE TRINITY II LIFTBOAT WERE FIGHTING FOR THEIR LIVES. Why didn't the vessel try to save these men in this life-threatening situation? The Mermaid Vigilance could have easily tried to rescue these men. The Mermaid Vigilance is a HUGE VESSEL (see picture above) - here is a link to data on this vessel. The MMA vessel is 70 METERS LONG AND 17 METERS WIDE. Why did the Captain of this massive vessel feel like he and his 37-MAN CREW could not try to help these workers?

It is interesting that MMA would immediately reject any notion that it bears at least some responsibility for what happened to these offshore workers. MMA tells the media it sent a team to "investigate" the incident, so how can this Australian company say whether or not it accepts any liability before its "team" even finishes its own investigation? Would it not be a more responsible course of action for Mermaid Marine to say: "We are investigating this tragedy, and we will advise whether we feel our company bears any responsibility after we complete our investigation."?

We continue to wait for MMA to provide answers to these questions. Unfortunately, it looks like we will have to obtain answers through the litigation involving this matter.