23:40:16 Saturday 12 April 2025

Rena wreck – stay or go?

As experts continue the Rena salvage at sea, Western Bay of Plenty residents are left to ponder the future shape of their coastline.

Once the containers and oil are removed from the vessel, there remains the matter of: ‘what to do with the ship itself?'

It is broken in two, with the stern section already mostly submerged and its bow section, a far from buoyant hunk of steel, positioned oddly on the Astrolabe Reef.

Should it stay, or should it go? What should be the future of the Rena wreck and the Astrolabe Reef? SunLive asked downtown Tauranga shoppers what they thought.

7 comments

Dive

Posted on 16-01-2012 13:16 | By Rik

The rena should become a dive site which will bring more money into the local economy. Others wise it will cost a lot of taxpayer money to remove it all.


Turn the reef into a reserve

Posted on 16-01-2012 12:09 | By IanM

The toxicity of the ship (i.e. its antifouling and remnant oil) will slowly fade away. If the wreck underwater is stable and is not a navigation hazard, then it will slowly become part of the reef. It should be removed from the top of the reef, primarily because it will not remain there forever and could become a navigation hazard. The reef itself should be turned into a reserve and protected from all fishing apart from traditional subsistence take by tangata whenua. Then the wreck can return some of its costs through tourism.


Reserve for All or Fish For All

Posted on 16-01-2012 12:37 | By tabatha

The tangata whenua that IanM talks about are all the people of the area so how do you distinguish between visitors and locals, other than boat registration and licensed operators virtually impossible. If the Rena is left it has to be made safe for all, that is surface and dive fishermen. If there is possibility of a diver being snagged because of exposed metal bits it has to go. After all it is trespassing in Tauranga's back yard and is not a really welcome guest and brings bad memories for many people I think. It is worth more as scrap rather then rubbish sunk in the water. The reef is natural the Rena is man made. I rest my case.


TAX PAYER or BOAT OWNER

Posted on 16-01-2012 17:02 | By tabatha

Those who say it is going to take Taxpayer money maybe right in the interum but you can bet your bottom dollar that the Government will be getting any money they spend back from the Insurers and owners of the Rena, in fact I am sure I have read they are paying for the clean up and required to do so under maritime laws. The emotion of diving on wreck on a great reef seems out of place to me. If they want a wreck pay for it themselves and take it away from the natural reef it is on.


AB

Posted on 17-01-2012 09:58 | By Alan Baker

Clean the whole disgusting mess up and return it to as it was before this catastrophe happened.


Remove the complete wreck

Posted on 18-01-2012 00:49 | By smokeybella

It will be a large undertaking but I believe it is vital for the Bay Of Plenty that the entire ship is dismantled, and removed completely, and the environmental damage totaly cleaned up, both on the sea floor and on the shoreline. To not do so, will mean an ongoing continuation of bits and pieces of flotsam oil and other polution continueing to wash ashore into the years ahead, and forever show how inadequate our law makers and politicians really are. The negativity of carrying out such a major undertaking can and will become a positive benefit locally by creating substantial extra employment opportuities for both business and workers either directly or suportivly involved. Returning the Bay to its pre Rena environmental status is an absolute must, and we are told that it is a physically achievable proposition if the politicians have the guts to make the Ship owners carry out their legal responsibility. A successful conclusion will mean that we are able to regain the pride we had in what was our very beautiful "Bay"


Gotta go!

Posted on 18-01-2012 18:18 | By TheCameltoeKid

From what I understand Costamare's insurers are to pay for the removal not the taxpayer. My personal view is that it should be removed. The sooner the better.


Leave a Comment


You must be logged in to make a comment.