Today, the NZ Herald reported:
Personally I don't think the cost should be a major factor in deciding whether part of the Rena should remain on astrolabe reef... Such a decision should be about the environmental impact.
So it's been nearly two years since the Rena first grounded and hazardous substances have still not been recovered... Talk about incompetent.
Closing or sealing any hazardous substances in containers on board the Rena or lost at sea will simply not work because the ocean has a way of getting into things built of steel.
Obviously the government should be ensuring that the Rena wreck is cleaned up properly and the question needs to be asked as to why they haven't been doing their jobs properly?
There's been no proper monitoring of the area to date and what would an insurance company know about the effects on the environment from the various unrecovered hazardous substances anyway? Absolutely nothing that's what.
There's still around 2000 litres of oil and lubricants on board the wreckage and around 28 containers carrying approximately 21,700 kg of Ferrosilicon, 24,096 kg of Potassium Nitrate, 23,240 kg of Alkylsulphonic Acid liquid, 5,400 kg Trichloroiscyanuric Acid and 490 tonnes of Cryolite yet to be recovered. Most of these were lost overboard.
There's a total lack of any proper scientific study concerning the environmental impact these hazardous substances are having on the Bay of Plenty.
Despite that lack of information, there's no doubt that leaving these various toxic substances to slowly leech into the ocean will be an environmental disaster of monumental proportions... Therefore it should not be allowed to occur.
More empty words I'm afraid when you consider the continued long-term damage to the area such environmental terrorism would cause.
Clearly there would be more long-term destruction by leaving the wreck on Astrolabe reef. Also, there are always dangers with such work... However removing the Rena wreck can be carried out safely and the owners and insurers are just fear mongering in the hope of saving some money.
Being that the salvers have failed to uphold their promise of having no wreckage above sea level by the end of 2012, we can assume that the estimate of five years is also incorrect.
However if there was any real impetus to remove the Rena wreck it could be done a lot faster and the fact that there isn't is just as much the fault of the company responsible as it is the governments. National simply don't care about the continued environmental damage caused by their and the salvers incompetence.
The owners and insurers of the MV Rena want to leave part of the cargo ship on the Astrolabe Reef - but Tauranga's Mayor would rather have the whole wreck gone.
The cost of dealing with the ship, smashed into pieces on the reef off the Tauranga coast, has now shot past $275 million and is set to become one of the most expensive maritime salvages in history.
Personally I don't think the cost should be a major factor in deciding whether part of the Rena should remain on astrolabe reef... Such a decision should be about the environmental impact.
This year, the insurers plan to remove contaminants to meet environmental guidelines, take away as much remaining cargo as possible and clear or close any hazards making the wreck unsafe for diving.
Under the proposal, some debris would remain around the site, and a discharge consent would have to be sought to account for slow release from the weathering of wreck steel and paint, residue oils and any lingering cargo contaminants.
So it's been nearly two years since the Rena first grounded and hazardous substances have still not been recovered... Talk about incompetent.
Closing or sealing any hazardous substances in containers on board the Rena or lost at sea will simply not work because the ocean has a way of getting into things built of steel.
Obviously the government should be ensuring that the Rena wreck is cleaned up properly and the question needs to be asked as to why they haven't been doing their jobs properly?
The insurers said the site would be monitored regularly, and pollutants would have a "minimal and temporary" effect. However, they said some contaminants from remaining cargo, hull paints or oils could affect the sea floor, potentially "restricting some ecological regeneration".
There's been no proper monitoring of the area to date and what would an insurance company know about the effects on the environment from the various unrecovered hazardous substances anyway? Absolutely nothing that's what.
There's still around 2000 litres of oil and lubricants on board the wreckage and around 28 containers carrying approximately 21,700 kg of Ferrosilicon, 24,096 kg of Potassium Nitrate, 23,240 kg of Alkylsulphonic Acid liquid, 5,400 kg Trichloroiscyanuric Acid and 490 tonnes of Cryolite yet to be recovered. Most of these were lost overboard.
There's a total lack of any proper scientific study concerning the environmental impact these hazardous substances are having on the Bay of Plenty.
Despite that lack of information, there's no doubt that leaving these various toxic substances to slowly leech into the ocean will be an environmental disaster of monumental proportions... Therefore it should not be allowed to occur.
If the company gained consent it would establish a "restoration package" to fund a range of research scholarships and grants for projects in the Bay of Plenty.
More empty words I'm afraid when you consider the continued long-term damage to the area such environmental terrorism would cause.
Removing the entire wreck would mean extending the period the exclusion zone would need to remain in place, involve greater disturbance to and destruction of the reef environment and "major operational challenges" including risks to workers, the ship's owner and insurers said. A previous assessment estimated that option could take up to five years.
Clearly there would be more long-term destruction by leaving the wreck on Astrolabe reef. Also, there are always dangers with such work... However removing the Rena wreck can be carried out safely and the owners and insurers are just fear mongering in the hope of saving some money.
Removing the entire wreck would mean extending the period the exclusion zone would need to remain in place, involve greater disturbance to and destruction of the reef environment and "major operational challenges" including risks to workers, the ship's owner and insurers said. A previous assessment estimated that option could take up to five years.
Being that the salvers have failed to uphold their promise of having no wreckage above sea level by the end of 2012, we can assume that the estimate of five years is also incorrect.
However if there was any real impetus to remove the Rena wreck it could be done a lot faster and the fact that there isn't is just as much the fault of the company responsible as it is the governments. National simply don't care about the continued environmental damage caused by their and the salvers incompetence.
