The cost of turning the HMCS Yukon (a 366 feet long, 40 feet wide, Canadian destroyer escort) into an artificial reef off the coast of San Diego came to about 1.2 million (June 2000) and while that may not seem very high, a portion of the prep work was carried out by volunteers. Not sure of how much removal had already been completed when they received the ship into the reef project.
Cost of Artificial Reefs?
- Thread starter TMHeimer
- Start date
Please register or login
Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.
Benefits of registering include
- Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
- A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
- You can make this box go away
tarponchik
Contributor
I wonder why concrete isn't used more often, like in Dania erojacks? Or just plain boulders, same kind as used in jetties everywhere. Maybe won't look as cool as a shipwreck but as a reef it may last longer.
Concrete is very commonly used. Most of the new artificial reef construction in Florida is concrete-based. Concrete rubble. Concrete sculptures. Concrete patch reef analogues. Concrete spires/stacks. Concrete Pipes. Concrete (insert anything here).
It's a lot cooler to swim through the engine room of a wreck than to swim past concrete boulders. That may not be a good reason for you, but for a lot of people it's a big difference.
tarponchik
Contributor
And I am not the only one. The TS said "It is common knowledge that artificial reefs help the environment by providing a place for aquatic life to attach itself, fish to use as shelter, etc..."
100days-a-year
Contributor
Jax is full of concrete, probably about 80% are reported to the state. I've run over sizeable piles a couple miles from any published numbers. Unless they were " secret " research reefs. Then again there are a couple of big ships no one can account for either, maybe some clandestine do-gooders sank some junk to benefit the environment.
clownfishsydney
Contributor
To be honest, I really doubt that any of the warships sunk in Australia as dive sites (the main reason they have been sunk, not as artificial reefs) has come anywhere close to creating an enough economic benefit to the state/area to cover the cost to sink it. Generally, after a rush for the first year or two, they have all become places that are hardly utilised. I think the only one that might succeed would be one sunk off Sydney where at least there is a good number of divers. All the rest are in rural locations, away from population centres (even the Melbourne one is quite a drive). Also, the prices charged are inevitably excessive and cannot be sustained past a few years.
The ex HMAS Brisbane a scuttled dive site is filled with 200 tonnes of concrete [yes, 200 tonnes] and too many bits missing form the ship , not a 'real wreck' [ like the Yongala 89 km East of Townsville] , is doing OK for the local dive operators.
The fish life on it is also pretty good now.
I was a guide on it when it was first scuttled for the local dive shops [having served on DDGs] , it is doing OK as an artificial reef, but at what coat?
Again, not "a real wreck", I still dive it , nostalgia,for the fish life, because I can, too lazy do dive the real wrecks I dived in the past, cost, too old, only 28m to the sand ? Could be.
I digress : It's an
The fish life on it is also pretty good now.
I was a guide on it when it was first scuttled for the local dive shops [having served on DDGs] , it is doing OK as an artificial reef, but at what coat?
Again, not "a real wreck", I still dive it , nostalgia,for the fish life, because I can, too lazy do dive the real wrecks I dived in the past, cost, too old, only 28m to the sand ? Could be.
I digress : It's an
Artificial Reef .
WeRtheOcean
Contributor
- Messages
- 392
- Reaction score
- 218
- # of dives
- None - Not Certified
Makes you wonder about the ones actually sunk in wartime combat. What's really in the water at Chuuk Lagoon?
clownfishsydney
Contributor
Agree. My view is that they overclean the wrecks. Sure, you need to suck out all the oil and bilge water, but you don't then need to make them so clean you can eat off them. The holes cut in very big ships are certainly good, but again some have been overdone, with too many holes.
Similar threads
