Second opinion on Rena

Divers are likely to die in salvage operations involving the wreck of the Rena, an independent study has found.

The ‘second opinion' on the fate of the former container ship supports the owners and insurers call to leave the remains of the wreck on the Astrolabe Reef.

A side scan sonar image of the wreck of the Rena on Astrolabe Reef.

The Rena struck the reef on October 5, 2011 and subsequently broke up and sank.

Global Salvage Consultancy's review of the original report from TMC marine Consultants Ltd shares the conclusion that full removal of the wreck will involve operational challenges and compounded costs, making the removal disproportionate.

GSC's review of a hazard analysis and risk assessment confirms there are likely probabilities of encountering fatalities in surface and diving scopes.

The earlier TMC Report is criticised by GSC for considering only traditional wreck removal methods and focusing on the use of sheerlegs or jack-ups in the salvage operation.

GSC also considers using a converted tanker as a dedicated salvage platform to improve overall workability, safety and reduce costs. GSC also considers tipping rocks over the remainder of the wreck, which is technically viable but may not be culturally appropriate.

'For all scenarios - with an extensive scope of subsea diving, lifting and (re-)mooring activities - the likelihood of encountering health and safety issues is high,” reads the report.

'Even though technically and operationally achievable, the combined operational challenges and compounded total cost makes a full wreck removal disproportionate in the opinion of GSC.”

GSC has concerns about the stability of the aft section of the wreck after the hull moved during Cyclone Lusi in March 2014. There is tension cracking, shear tearing and dislocation of the engine room and the collapse of the starboard side shell.

The tension cracking appears to be an ongoing process, and given the near complete detachment of the engine room double bottom, it is expected the aft end will detach from the engine room in due course.

With the wreck's structural integrity unstable, collapse of the port side shell could occur at any time. GSC also considers the aft end to be unstable and a hazardous environment to work in.

'Removing it is an extremely delicate and risky operation due to the instability,” says the report. 'Consequently, diver intervention should be reduced to a minimum.

'It is worth emphasising that if the wreck, equipment, cargo and associated debris field are left on the seabed as requested in the consent application, it is highly likely that this will attract recreational divers and souvenir hunters, which in turn might cause a long-term risk of injuries and even fatalities.

'This risk can be mitigated by removing as much of the debris as possible, as well as the fore section and major parts of the midsection.”

Meanwhile the Bay of Plenty Regional Council's S87F report on the application and submissions is expected to become public information later this week.

The report was completed on Monday and is being checked by technical contributors, says media advisor Sue Allen Craig.

She says: 'We are looking to release that on Thursday this week. It's just a process it needs to go through to get signatures.

'The S87F report outlines and takes into account everybody's submissions, all scientific and technical reports and frames a view then used as advice through to the environment court. It becomes a legal document.”

Once the applicant receives the regional council report they have ten days to submit and put it forward to the Environment Court.

You may also like....

6 comments

H&S 2nd opinion

Posted on 04-11-2014 16:43 | By DAD

They say to remove wreck it would be a Health and Safety risk but it is a BIGGER Health and Safety risk to leave it there!


Money is the ONLY reason

Posted on 05-11-2014 07:50 | By Murray.Guy

This report confirms that it is about money. Yes, TOTAL removal is possible by highly paid professionals albeit with associated risks, with similar risks to private persons and the environment should it remain, BUT frankly, we think the cost is too high, that the rights and future risks to Motiti and our coastline are expendable! I wonder if Global Salvage Consultancy have any relationship with insurers, yesterday, today or potential future?


too precious

Posted on 05-11-2014 09:41 | By Captain Sensible

Let's not get too precious about it. In this country, a murderer does not have to support the victims family for life. And a thief does not have to pay back the value of his thefts. And a fraudster is even allowed to keep his knighthood. So close enough is good enough for the Rena clean up. Remove the oil and pollutants and leave the rest.


Well said Capt Sensible

Posted on 05-11-2014 10:44 | By Councillorwatch

We don't always get what we want and evildoers certianly never seem to get what they deserve. Once the oil and pollutants are gone the rest may have to be left. Wasn't an old tug deliberately sunk out there as a dive attraction? In a perfect world the Rena would go. But it isn't perfect. Yes, Murray, I think it probably is also about the money but it is all very well to think about professional divers and their skills until someone is killed. Then the told you so brigade pipes up.


Wisechief

Posted on 05-11-2014 12:42 | By Wise Chief

It is not as difficult to remove as we are being told. Why? Simply because it is in shallow water and near shore. It would not go amiss Andrew to urge the owners or insurers to pay local serial inventor Ken Pedlar to provide the solution with his small team of local experts for I have little doubt a man of his Engineering and Physics long proven lateral thinking knowhow and practical expertise would be able to provide an economic local solution to remove it all. Thats is providing he gets all the steel etc and immunity from prosecution when removing it. Thus if some funds were to magically come his way for a change rather than the locals and others hamper him towards such outcome we might just have man for the job here in our midst. At least work, jobs and money will go to locals.


Rubbish! - GET RID!

Posted on 05-11-2014 13:45 | By Mary Faith

There is machinery available capable of removing the wreck in its entirety. No need for divers to risk their lives. They are trying to get away with a penny pinching exercise. THEY HAVE THE MONEY TO DO THE JOB PROPERLY! The environment court will be letting the people of NZ down if they don't opt for total removal!!!!


Leave a Comment


You must be logged in to make a comment.