So long as it's well designed and will actually work, then **** yeah, I'm all for it.

subasurf said..

So long as it's well designed and will actually work, then **** yeah, I'm all for it.

Has there been an artificial surf reef built that delivered?

I can't see how it costs so much and how they often don't work.

Right angle relative to prevailing swell and it will peel left or right as it breaks.
Right depth and it will work in 1m swell, or 2m or 3m etc.

The rest of the job is dumping rubbish that will not move on the bottom of the ocean. How much can a bunch of concrete pyramids and a boat to drop it off for a week, really cost?

$2 mill to $5 mill sounds like snouts in the trough to me !! But I wouldn't know and if I was an Albany rate payer I would be saying NO !!!

patsken said..
$2 mill to $5 mill sounds like snouts in the trough to me !! But I wouldn't know and if I was an Albany rate payer I would be saying NO !!!

But if it was to be right next to that one you sail (that does not work), and the new one was guaranteed to work?

subasurf said..

So long as it's well designed and will actually work, then **** yeah, I'm all for it.

I think you will be waiting a while. Its fantasy at the present point in time to suggest that a beautiful man made reef totally dedicated to surfing could happen - and for Mr Shepherd to say that if an artificial reef was created Albany could host a junior surfing competitions that would bring a lot of money to the City is pure fantasy. History suggests this in over 30 locations across the globe. Up to the present point in time there is no real data to suggest that anyone would actually travel to surf an artificial reef - does anyone know anyone who has gone on a trip with the sole intention of surfing an artificial reef (AR)?

But the real issue is more of a technical one. Most reefs built to date have had a multi purpose - not just surfing - mainly coastal protection. They are very expensive to build and even more expensive to remove. These days if you wanted to build an AR here in Australia you would probably have to use large geo-textile bags. The main problem with ARs (from those reefs presently in operation) is that over time most structures settle below their pre-designed optimal height or suffer enormous scouring around them which leads to either high maintenance costs or under performance (most likely). Because these reefs are built with a multi purposes they seem to not do one job or another well - more likely neither. We still have a lot to learn. Most of the shoreline morphology behind the reef structures often differs significantly from what the design predictions indicated as well. Many of these ARs are actually failing at their desired purpose of protecting the coast due to structural problems - inherently caused by the problem of trying to build such a structure in a high wave climate. Its hard. There needs to be some significant break throughs in both construction techniques and design before we will see a long lasting high quality surfable reef built. Its a shame as on paper they like such a good idea. Sadly the reality is very different. You might very well be able to build a reed to protect the coastline but having a top quality surf break off the end of it is more than likely to be a short term benefit than a long term success.

Here is Narrowneck before it started to settle - showing you what maybe possible if you can master the wide ranging wave height and period, the tidal range and the multi directional wave climate - yes its no small ask My advice would be to concentrate on protecting those really nice natural waves that we do have at the moment and hope that someone with some really deep pockets fines a breakthrough soon that can deal with all of these issues. Otherwise its just a massive waste of the public purse - as has been proven elsewhere several times.

I can't see an artificial reef being much good at Middleton beach.
It's mostly protected from any swell other than from the South east, and even from the Sth east, there are a couple of islands in the way.
Also, I don't think people would be too happy about sitting more than 50 metres off shore there because white pointers still come through that area, probably left over from the old wale processing days across the other side of the bay.
In any case, the small swell which does finally get through there makes a half decent small beach break on the nice sandy beaches without the expense of an artificial reef.
I think it's a lot of money for probably liittle benefit.

I might say that for the millions spent on the cable station artificial reef, it gets very little use now.
Mostly there's either none or very few people on it, even when it is working.
I think the shark situation has had a big effect in that regard.
Three hundred metres offshore is along way to paddle with a white pointer surverying the menu.

[edit} ooops ! I meant protected from any swell except from the south east,, not south west.
I've fixed it now.

They already have a issue with beach erosion around emu point The amount just spun me out..

My kids love Middleton though..You will see loads of Dolphins, jogging the board walk they almost seem to follow you up and down

gs12 said..

Mark _australia said..

I can't see how it costs so much and how they often don't work.

Right angle relative to prevailing swell and it will peel left or right as it breaks.
Right depth and it will work in 1m swell, or 2m or 3m etc.

The rest of the job is dumping rubbish that will not move on the bottom of the ocean. How much can a bunch of concrete pyramids and a boat to drop it off for a week, really cost?

remember this is WA where the usual ratio of people working and doing nothing on construction site seems to be about 1:7. One guy driving a earth moving machine, the rest is standing around watching, supporting a showel or simply not doing anything. We have lot of expats at work and it is a standing joke amongst them. No wonder this is the most expensive location in the world to do anything ....

If that is true ( I wouldn't be surprised if it is..) what a joke! People who slack off at work like that are just as bad as dole bludgers..

gs12 said..


remember this is WA where the usual ratio of people working and doing nothing on construction site seems to be about 1:7. One guy driving a earth moving machine, the rest is standing around watching, or simply not doing anything.

Sounds like most worksites,

1 x worker that actually works,

plus

1 x mandatory safety observer in case the worker hurts himself,
1 x supervisor,
1 x safety rep,
1 x quality control bloke,
1 x project owners representative that got bored netsurfing in the office- so came outside to annoy everyone,
1 x bloke with a clipboard that I could never figure out what he was supposed to be doing,
1 x office wallah bringing another bunch of paperwork for the worker to sign off [so he takes responsibility for someone elses stuff-ups]

been there-done that.....................

stephen