A ROYAL Caribbean cruise ship poured clouds of soot over the Dockyard Marina, causing thousands of dollars in damage to boats and unknown environmental harm.

Three weeks later the cruise line giant has yet to recompense boat owners although it admits emissions from its ship, , caused the problem. Some 17 boat owners are now seeking damage compensation.

A disgruntled boater contacted this newspaper, fed up with what he described as the "uncooperative" response from the company. Confronted by the boat owners for compensation, the cruise line initiated a piecemeal process of requests, eventually seeking an estimate for repairs, photos of the damage and proof of boat ownership.

"I turned up one day and my boat was covered with slightly rusty spots in quite large patches," the man explained. "Not knowing what it was, I tried to clean it off with the usual detergents but it wouldn't work."

It wasn't until a later conversation with the manager at Dockyard Marina, Mark Osinga, that the man learned the problem had been caused by the cruise ship. He was advised to contact Meyer Freight, the local agents for the Royal Caribbean cruise line.

A company representative asked him to provide an estimate of his costs. The man complied and assumed everything was taken care of. A few days later, however, he was asked to submit photos of the damage, "presumably because they thought some people were taking the piss" and presenting inflated claims.

"I heard nothing and so I called again a week later and was told I would have to provide proof of ownership," the man railed. "They did the damage and now they're making it inconvenient for us when we're the injured parties."one of many mega-ships in the Royal Caribbean line, made her maiden voyage in 2000. The vessel, which has a passenger capacity of 3,100, regularly makes two-day calls into Dockyard, arriving from New Jersey.

Meyer Freight yesterday declined to comment, saying a statement was forthcoming from Royal Caribbean International.

Michael Sheehan, a spokesperson for Royal Caribbean International, said the company had every intention of repaying the boaters once its insurance company was satisfied it had properly investigated the case.

"We are aware that we had a ship at King's Wharf and soot from it was blown onto some of the nearby vessels and we are working with any guests needing to have cleaning done to their vessel," he said. "We want to quickly and amicably deal with this."

Asked why a seemingly routine claim, where his company had admitted fault, was taking so long to process, Mr. Sheehan explained that it wasn't a typical scenario for Royal Caribbean. And he refused to be drawn on whether the boat owners would receive their cheques in a matter of days, weeks or months.

"It's an unusual situation for us, something quite out of the ordinary. There might be things that are necessary that we're not familiar with. We're working with our insurance company here in the US and our agent in Bermuda is assisting us. It would not be doing (the situation) justice to try to give a specific date of payment. We're working as quickly as possible."

He likened the situation to the insurance process which follows a car accident, saying that companies typically asked for "various bits of documents".

Pressed for the possible cause of the incident, the spokesperson admitted he had no idea, but speculated that "some soot, maybe on the inside of one of the smokestacks, might have blown out, its particles landing on the nearby vessels".

"We don't know what the cause was. It was definitely an unusual situation and we're trying to resolve it as quickly and as amicably as we can. We are sorry that the entire situation took place."

The matter remained a sore point for the boater, who said it could have been handled more efficiently had Royal Caribbean International agreed to a deal proposed by Dockyard Marina. He also questioned the environmental impact the emissions might have had.

"I was told that the Marina contacted Royal Caribbean and explained about the damage and offered to clean up the boats and, as there were about 20 or so involved, give them a reduction on costs. They came back and said each individual had to make a claim.

"They're making it difficult in order to try and reduce the (size of the claim) ? the Marina itself was prepared to help out. They're not being good corporate citizens. We only picked up on it because it fell on our boats. What about the crap that is being dumped around that we don't see, that ends up in the environment?"

Similar questions have been raised in the past after boats at the Dockyard Marina were showered with soot by visiting ships. In 1995, Government launched an investigation into soot problems, conducting pollution tests as a result of emissions by one ship in particular, the .

Those tests proved levels of a sulphur dioxide exceeded guidelines by up to 100 per cent when onshore winds were blowing. Sulphur dioxide can be an irritant that affects the eyes, nose and throat especially among the elderly, the young, or people with respiratory problems.

Contacted yesterday, Mr. Osinga agreed boat owners at the marina frequently suffered ten or 15 years ago, but pointed out that today's cruise ships are made to be "much more efficient and cleaner running".

Environmental Protection Department head Tom Sleeter agreed.

"All of the cruise ships that apply for a licence to enter Bermuda have to meet the standards of the Clean Air Act," he said. "Sulphur content has to be less than two per cent. The higher the level of sulphur, the higher the level of sulphur dioxide. And so we control the level of sulphur to control the soot and sulphur dioxide emissions.

"Some of the older ships, one in particular, caused a lot of problems at the yacht basin but the new ships don't do that. We haven't had a complaint for more than five years. We regularly check the fuel specs of the vessels before we license them."

He agreed the recent damage to boats at the marina "was dirty and a nuisance" to the owners. With regard to its environmental hazard, however, Dr. Sleeter would only say "it would be better if the soot wasn't in the water" but that it was unlikely it "was extremely toxic".