The Rena wreck has been cleared for use as a dive site, should the owners and insurer's application to leave the remainder of it on Astrolabe Reef be approved by the Environment Court.
Contained in resource consent information now available online at www.renaresourceconsent.org.nz is a report from Tauranga commercial diver, wreck explorer and underwater photographer Shane Wasik, who after considering the risks concludes diving Rena will be safer than other New Zealand wreck dives.
People will be able to dive to the Rena if the decision is made to leave it where it is.
'The hazards of diving the wreck by recreational divers, acting within safe diving practice guidelines and within the limits of their level of experience, are not considered to be significant when compared with other wrecks already in New Zealand,” says Shane.
That's if all the suggested mitigation measures are undertaken, along with wreck access management procedures, education materials and monitoring – as detailed in the consent application's Wreck Access Plan and Monitoring Plan.
'As with any other wreck, the Rena will never be completely ‘safe' to dive,” says Shane.
'However, the proposed measures will make sure that divers of average experience can explore the wreck in relative safety and the site is left in a responsible manner with more mitigation than other accidental wreck sites in New Zealand currently provide.”
There are risks, as with all recreational diving, says Shane.
With the accidental nature of the Rena and challenging environmental conditions at Astrolabe Reef, there are potential risks to divers. The Reef was considered an ‘advanced' dive prior to the Rena struck the reef on October 5, 2011.
'As such, the expectation is that divers should already be adequately prepared to dive there – regardless of the wreck,” says Shane.
'The Rena hasn't been artificially prepared and scuttled as a diving attraction, so will have potential risks common to other accidental wreck sites that recreational divers visit in New Zealand.”
Before the Rena collided with it, Astrolabe Reef was a notable recreational diving site both in the Bay of Plenty and New Zealand.
The reef has a unique topography with gullies, plunging walls, shelves, caverns and caves and is exposed to prevailing west or south westerly winds and oceanic swells.
Before October 2011, the reef was considered to be an ‘advanced' dive site.
Since the ship struck the reef an exclusion zone has prevented any recreational diving at the site.
The exclusion zone will be lifted and public access restored, as part of the consent proposal.
The wreck only occupies a small part of the total reef, so those wishing to explore it and not undertake a wreck dive will still be able to do so once the exclusion zone is lifted, says Shane.
The Rena site is the biggest, has the greatest depth range and gives the easiest access to depths exceeding recreational limits of all other New Zealand wreck dives.
The wreck site, including debris field, is estimated to be over an area of about 10,000m2 and ranges from about one metre at the bow section to 56m in depth at the lowest point of the aft section.
As part of the proposal, a Wreck Access Plan is to be provided which includes measures such as vessel manoeuvring arrangements and moorings, safe diving areas, safe boating guides and recommended operating conditions.
Implementation of this plan is considered to minimise many of the potential dive safety hazards to recreational divers on the wreck of the Rena, particularly immediately after the exclusion zone is lifted and interest in diving the wreck is likely to be at its highest.
The wreck and debris field occupy less than two per cent of the entire area of Astrolabe Reef. Even if the area above the normal 30m maximum recreational diving depth of the reef is considered, the wreck still occupies a very small proportion of the reef.
Normal diving exploration of the reef will continue much as it had before the Rena grounded, says Shane.
'However, it is noted that a result of leaving the wreck on the Reef will be that divers will want to explore the wreck.”
Following the grounding and break-up of the ship, work was done to reduce the bow section to one metre below low tide.
What remains of the bow is now in several sections. The proposal is to leave these sections on the reef.
Debris field:
The proposal is to leave the structural hull parts, equipment, containers and cargo in the debris field surrounding the wreck, following further clearance to remove where practicable:
• TCCA canisters, aluminium ingots, inorganic material, entanglement and other hazards to a depth of LAT -30m.
Aft Section, including any remaining cargo:
Parts of the hull structure of the aft section have broken off and part of the accommodation block has been removed.
The proposal is to leave what remains of the aft section including structural material, equipment and cargo still within it, the engine room and accommodation block to the level of D Deck.



17 comments
One And The Other
Posted on 15-06-2014 08:44 | By Disappointed
Is it not the fact that the wreck has shifted and is now at a depth too great to safely orchestrate its removal been a large part of the argument to leave it and its toxic cargo in place? Yet to support leaving it on the reef we are now being told that it will be a safe dive site? This type of double speak is standard operating procedure by PR professionals designed to muddy the waters of public opinion - or more correctly in this case "pollute the waters".
Typical
Posted on 15-06-2014 09:20 | By local yokel
So it is going to be deemed safe for recreational divers to access but we are being told by the insurers etc that the enviroment down there is too unsafe for their experienced salvors to work in even though they have all the specialist equipment to do the job.I think it is just a smoke screen for the powers that be to get out of cleaning up the mess that their clients caused. it needs to be removed. Why should we put up with someone elses rubbish in our pristine enviroment but I guess our government dont want to force them to do it and that be will open the doors for other future shipwrecks to be left where they lie.
?????? diving $$$$$$
Posted on 15-06-2014 11:41 | By Me again
Soo it's safe to dive around as long as they pay the ferry man BUT not safe to get it up and out of the water. Five to ten years down the track we have some marine virus that make the water unsafe seafood unsafe to eat well done environment court I mean you probably won't be around to see the effect you have left in your decisions will you. By the way do other wrecks that are left in our waters have what this wreck has,Poisons!!
Rena
Posted on 15-06-2014 15:07 | By sangrae
So if the rena is safe for reacreational divers why is it not safe for the salvage divers who supposedly have more experience whos bluffing who?
@sangrae
Posted on 15-06-2014 16:40 | By Sambo Returns
do not be to logical in your thinking, it will confuse people.
Exactly..
Posted on 15-06-2014 17:01 | By awaroa
What's wrong with this picture.. The safety limits (depth) for rec divers would mean if they were to do an actual 'wreck' dive, it would be 'unsafe'.. Something smells a bit fishy..
Dive site - Yeah Right!
Posted on 15-06-2014 17:04 | By Mary Faith
My thoughts exactly Sangrae. They have put their foot in it here! Another piece of spin to go with the other half truths they are trying to put across the general public! I have emailed BOP Regional Council this question. If and when I receive a reply - I will add it as a comment under this article.
Ridiculous
Posted on 15-06-2014 19:02 | By Raewyn
Sangrae has it correct! If the wreck needs to be left there because it is too dangerous for the professional divers how is it deemed safe for recreational Divers!
Recreational v commercial
Posted on 15-06-2014 20:17 | By Chur Bro
There's a huge difference between going for a 20 - 30 minute recreational dive and working to saturation limits, 2 commercial divers have already almost been lost, and the Rena has sunk further.
rena
Posted on 15-06-2014 20:24 | By dumbkof2
The normal divers wont be going anywhere near the depth that most of the wreck is lying. Leave the damm thing where it is and get over it
Environment Courts and a degree of sanity
Posted on 15-06-2014 20:55 | By Murray.Guy
Than goodness we have independent, intelligent and mostly unbiased (note I say 'mostly) judges and commissioners! Scary stuff some of these posts, as in the total absence of any logic or sanity! Thank goodness the decisions made will be sound judgement based following actual, factual evidence and reality - rather than a numbers game. Fingers crossed the BOP Regional Council apply the same professionalism when applying themselves to their role.
Murray Guy's comments on Environment court
Posted on 16-06-2014 12:20 | By Councillorwatch
Would it be too cynical to ask if those independent intelligent and unbiased judges and commissioners would be ones who would agree with Murray Guys views, but those who weren't so good would be ones who disagreed?
From BOP Regional Council
Posted on 16-06-2014 13:44 | By Mary Faith
Further to my comment below - this is the reply received from BOP Regional Council - "Prior to the Rena running into the reef, the reef was a popular recreational dive spot. The intention of the applicant is to make the reef accessible for safe recreational diving again. Recreational divers and salvage divers undertake diving for very different purposes. The activities that salvage divers would be undertaking to remove the wreck and its contents from the reef would be very different to those that recreational divers would be undertaking. It is this difference that fundamentally changes the safety and risk aspects of the dive between the two groups".
Councillorwatch
Posted on 16-06-2014 17:27 | By YOGI BEAR
Sadly the Council picks the commissioners and pays them, no commission yet known would diverge from "biting the hand that feeds" as the saying goes. So the decisions that come out are completely understandable now aren't they.
Rena
Posted on 23-06-2014 11:37 | By Ladradog
I read all the comments on the salvage of this vessel, and I always see how dangerous it is for the professional divers to work at the depths quoted. As a commercial oilfield diving supervisor with over 30 years experience I say that this is rubbish, as there is a technique called Saturation Diving which is generally carried out these days on a dedicated Dive Support Vessel. There is only one problem that I can see, is that as far as the Insurers are concerned, is that it costs a large amount of money to use this method of diving. Therefor the cheapest option is to leave it where it is.
View
Posted on 25-06-2014 12:14 | By DAD
I find it very amusing that the people making the decisions on the wreck are not allowed anywhere it, so how can they make any decision made on hear say?
Thats clever
Posted on 06-07-2014 01:39 | By GreertonBoy
Cutting the remainder of the hull down to a metre below low tide is such a good idea, now the next drunk captain can run into it as well and get another one stuck? Surely the cleanup can be continued in the future as required? The debris field can be constantly worked on with electromagnets pulling up containers and ferris metals without harming the reef or creating too much drama? I think any agreements reached should retain the ability be added to in the future, so if in 5 years time something 'toxic or terrible' turns up, the owners insurance can be forced to at least assist with its removal or neutralisation (say if a toxic container begins leaking etc) I don't think that any agreement/settlement should finalise permanently the responsibilities of the ships owners, we don't know what nasty suprises lay in the future.
Leave a Comment
You must be logged in to make a comment.