NRT: Who’s scaremongering now?

Written By: - Date published: 8:45 am, December 17th, 2013 - 193 comments
Categories: john key, Mining, Minister for Photo-ops - Tags:

no-right-turn-256On their usual friday bad news dump (such a large amount of it these days), the National government dropped this clanger. Greenpeace was right and John Key is a moron when it comes to geology and evidently about risk assessment. No Right Turn wrote about it. We held it over to get past the National’s Monday morning bad news clutter.

When Greenpeace released oil spill modelling showing that a blowout in the well that Texan oil cowboys Anadarko were drilling off the Raglan coast would spew 10,000 barrels a day into the oceans and have a 50% chance of smothering our beaches in oil, John Key called it “scaremongering”. Today, his government used the cover of the Len Brown report to dump Anadarko’s 1700 page discharge management plan. And its spill modellign is even more catastrophic than Greenpeace’s:

According to information just released, Anadarko’s modelling assumed a spill rate of 12,000 barrels of oil every day for one well location and 18,000 barrels at another. Greenpeace’s own spill modelling report, released in October, which was called “scare-mongering” by prime minister John Key, assumed a more conservative 10,000 barrels per day.

Anadarko’s oil spill data estimates a spill would reach New Zealand shores in 66.05% of cases in autumn and 51.82% in summer.

And remember, Anadarko expects to deal with this with 4 pairs of nitrile gloves and a shovel.

This is insanity. Crossing your fingers and hoping that nothing goes wrong is not a policy. Oil companies should not be allowed to drill unless they have a means of capping a blowout immediately on hand, and have lodged a bond to cover all cleanup expenses and collateral economic damage. And if that means they don’t drill here, tough. Our environment is not for sale.

As for Key, accusing people of “scaremongering” when you know very well they not is dishonest bullying. Sadly, that’s pretty much all we can expect from our Prime Minister nowdays.

lprent: At this point, the prophetic image from last year comes to mind….   
with-stupid

 

193 comments on “NRT: Who’s scaremongering now? ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. BM 1
    17 December 2013 at 9:08 am

    I’m happy with the risk to reward ratio.

    You may not be, but that’s what elections are for, make it a major part of the lefts election campaign.

    if there’s more of the anti drilling people than there is pro drilling, than there will be a change of government, we don’t drill and the oil stays in the ground.

    Democracy.

    • Tracey 1.1
      17 December 2013 at 9:19 am

      Can you outline the figures for the risk to reward ratio. Am genuinely interested in how much money NZ is expecting to have “pumped” into its economy.

      “Despite Key saying that “out of 50,000 wells drilled in the Gulf of Mexico, there had been a problem with only one of them”, Radio NZ reported otherwise…

      But official US figures show that between 1964 and 2012 there were 259 spills of 50 barrels or more from various Gulf wells. They also show the deeper the wells went, the higher the chance of a spill. –

      ““Yes, it is true that Anadarko Petroleum Corporation had a 25 percent ownership of the company or one of the companies that had a problem in the gulf. I think it is also worth remembering that in the Gulf of Mexico since 1947, 50,000 wells have been drilled, and to the best of my knowledge that problem in the gulf was the one major one that most people can remember.” – John Key, 23 October 2012, Parliament

      an industry specialist Dugald Roberts, who has 30 years of experience in US and Middle Eastern oil exploration, described the PM’s claim as “nonsense”,

      “… one in every 20 wells will have containment issues and even that’s a conservative figure.”

      On Fox News media report stated,

      According to government statistics, from 2006-2010, there have been 40 spills in the Gulf of Mexico of 50 barrels or more. No spills that large have occurred this year, but if a spill does occur, industry officials say they’re ready.

      Do you think using “urgency” often is more or less democratic than the usual process?

      • BM 1.1.1
        17 December 2013 at 9:30 am

        There’s some fairly large numbers floating around.

        I’ve also read that natural oil seepage into the gulf of Mexico far exceeds any man-made spills.

        In the Gulf of Mexico, there are more than 600 natural oil seeps that leak between five and one million barrels of oil per year – roughly 80k to 200k tonnes.[33] When a petroleum seep forms underwater it may form a peculiar type of volcano known as an asphalt volcano.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petroleum_seep#Offshore_seeps

        Like I’ve written before, I’m happy to take the risk, if we do have a incident, it would be a bit of a bummer, but nature will clean it up, it’s what it does.

        • Tracey 1.1.1.1
          17 December 2013 at 9:33 am

          yeah I get that but you are basing your decision on an actual risk-reward ratio that you have worked out or seen somewhere. That’s what I am asking you?

        • lprent 1.1.1.2
          17 December 2013 at 9:45 am

          The gulf of mexico is a *large* area.

          Yep, wikipedia estimates it as being 1,600,000 km²

          NZ’s land area is a mere 268,680 km²

          So you’re comparing a gas driven point source leak in NZ and comparing to widespread *seepage* in a frigging massive gulf?

          Nothing like a right winger with scale issues eh? John Key has the same problem.

          • BM 1.1.1.2.1
            17 December 2013 at 9:56 am

            But the drilling is going on in the Tasman sea, which according to google is 2.3 million km².

            Unless I’ve misunderstood what you’re getting at, I’m not sure what the size of NZ has to do with anything?

            • felix 1.1.1.2.1.1
              17 December 2013 at 10:14 am

              And the risk:reward ratio you’re happy with is…

              • BM …
                17 December 2013 at 10:27 am

                Small risk of a oil spill : Norway of the south pacific.

                • Colonial Viper …
                  17 December 2013 at 11:19 am

                  So you’d back a state owned oil company like Norway’s Stat Oil, with it’s profits flowing into a NZ Sovereign Fund?

                  • BM …
                    17 December 2013 at 11:23 am

                    That would be my preference.

                    • Lanthanide …
                      17 December 2013 at 12:33 pm

                      Well that’s not what we’re getting.

                      What we’re getting is a foreign oil company that will take 95% of the profits off-shore.

                      Still worth the risk-reward?

                      I agree with you; I would actually be quite happy if we had a Norway-style government company that funnelled the profits into a superannuation fund. But we aren’t going to get that.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      17 December 2013 at 7:43 pm

                      Awesome, welcome to the state based economy my friend.

                    • Matthew Whitehead …
                      17 December 2013 at 8:03 pm

                      Presumably you’d still want them to have a real cleanup plan in place though?

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      17 December 2013 at 8:53 pm

                      A state owned oil company would accept whatever requirements it’s directors, the Government, put on it.

                      Ain’t that right, BM?

                    • felix …
                      17 December 2013 at 9:04 pm

                      “That would be my preference.”

                      And yet here you are, day in and day out, spinning for and swooning over pretty much the opposite arrangement.

                • Macro …
                  17 December 2013 at 7:28 pm

                  You have no idea what the risk is do you!!

                  This is extreme depth – the risk is 1 in 19 – that is bowel motion 1 in every 19 drilled in depths greater than 1500 m (and this is) has a spill. And these muppets have a bad track record and have defaulted in almost every case they have destroyed the environment.

            • lprent 1.1.1.2.1.2
              17 December 2013 at 12:50 pm

              But the drilling is going on in the Tasman sea,

              Nope – the drilling is going on within a few metres (within the Tasman sea) at any point in time. It is a point source.

              The comparison you gave was the seepage from multiple sources across 1.6 million square kilometres. No single seepage in any natural point source even in the gulf of mexico is likely to be more than a few hundred barrels per year over the whole year. Most seepages will only release a few barrels per year. It causes very limited damage and mostly gets mopped up by the local bacteria.

              Whereas if the oil company screws up in the Tasman we will get up to 10,000 barrels per day from a single spot. It overwhelms and destroys all local ecosystems.

              That is why your comparison was as moronic geologically as John Key’s ability to asses risk.

            • Foreign Waka 1.1.1.2.1.3
              17 December 2013 at 8:34 pm

              OMG – please read up on the issue before you sign up your support for something your grand kids might question you on some day..

        • Will@Welly 1.1.1.3
          17 December 2013 at 11:30 am

          So you, B.M. are “happy” to take the risk. Good on you. It must be real handy having an arsehole at both ends, that way, if one’s blocked you can always spout forth from the other.
          If there’s a decent spill, and given the depths these companies are wanting to drill at, there’s a damn good chance. First, we can kiss good-bye to the bulk of our fishing industry, then the tourist industry. No one will touch our seafood, no one will want to cone here regardless where the oil spill is – New Zealand will become a no-go zone for most tourists.
          As for dairying and Fonterra, consumers won’t touch them with any hint of a scandel, regardless where the spill is. Most consumers are oblivious to “dirty dairying”, but they won’t be oblivious to a major oil spill.
          All three would have major repercussions on the jobs and lives of those living in New Zealand. Our economy would be buggered.
          Going by the model presented, it would take 30 – 40 weeks to cap the well. Of course, there is a quicker solution, we take you out there B.M., and shove you down the well. That would seal any blow out.

          • David H 1.1.1.3.1
            18 December 2013 at 3:04 pm

            @will And then the thieving bankers come in and steal everything thats of value aka Greece. Maybe thats their master plan..

    • framu 1.2
      17 December 2013 at 9:26 am

      “I’m happy with the risk to reward ratio.

      You may not be, but that’s what elections are for”

      erm – isnt that what adequate precautions, robust response plans, full insurance and transparent, honest corporate behaviour are for?

      and did you spot that anadarko and key have been bullshitting us – again

      • felix 1.2.1
        17 December 2013 at 10:17 am

        Nah, risk is all dealt with by election. If National win then there’s no risk.

        Ditto bullshitting, if National win then they weren’t lying.

        Welcome to right-wing reasoning.

    • geoff 1.3
      17 December 2013 at 9:29 am

      @BM
      I’m happy with the risk to reward ratio.

      Normal transmission really has resumed because if you actually think that then you’re either really fucking stupid or you’re a selfish coward who doesn’t give a fuck about the implications of a big spill. Which is it?

      Democracy?? You’re fucked in the head.

      • Tracey 1.3.1
        17 December 2013 at 9:34 am

        Do you have any figures to show his happiness/contentment with the risk-reward ratio is misplaced?

        • weka 1.3.1.1
          17 December 2013 at 9:43 am

          geoff, BM is happy with a Mad Max scenario future, so I’m guessing he is a selfish coward who doesn’t give a fuck about the world other than how it affects him.

          • BM 1.3.1.1.1
            17 December 2013 at 9:49 am

            Differing opinions does not make one a coward.

            • weka 1.3.1.1.1.1
              17 December 2013 at 10:06 am

              True, and it’s not that you have a different opinion that makes you a coward.

              • Polish Pride …
                17 December 2013 at 2:44 pm

                “True, and it’s not that you have a different opinion that makes you a coward.”

                So what is it exactly then that makes you think BM is a coward…….?

                • McFlock …
                  17 December 2013 at 2:58 pm

                  because cowardice is the craven brother of egotism and greed, is my guess.

                • felix …
                  17 December 2013 at 8:49 pm

                  “So what is it exactly then that makes you think BM is a coward…….?”

                  He claims to base his confidence on a risk:reward ratio but when asked for detail he refuses to offer up his data or his analysis.

                  My interpretation, based on BM’s track record to date, is that he never had any data and he never did any analysis and he never calculated any such ratio. He is running on pure hype and spin and slogans and he is too cowardly to admit it when caught.

      • Wayne 1.3.2
        17 December 2013 at 12:02 pm

        Geoff,

        You seem to ignore, for instance, that Norway is apparently able to take the risk to their fiords, which are as every bit as pure as the NZ coastline. Or do you think all Norwegians are “selflish cowards”.

        It seem to me that this debate has got a bit extreme. We apparently are unable to see that there are other developed and sophistocated nations with pristine environments and high value fisheries who seem to be able to manage the risk of oil exploration.

        Not all oil exploration supporters are rabid anti environmentalists. There is such as thing as a reasonable assessment of risk. The North Sea (which is pretty rough) has never had an oil spill of significance in 40 years,. Yes they have had accidents, but they have been dealt with.

        • framu 1.3.2.1
          17 December 2013 at 12:22 pm

          the bit your missing out wayne is that anardako and the nats rubbished greenpeace’s figures, said “oh its fine – weve got a plastic shovel” then lordy lordy – their own figures are even worse!

          Ok – the risk of a spill might be low – but considering the info thats come to light would you consider anardako’s response plan adequate in the event of a major situation?

        • Naturesong 1.3.2.2
          17 December 2013 at 12:26 pm

          You seem to ignore, for instance, that Norway is apparently able to take the risk to their fiords, which are as every bit as pure as the NZ coastline

          I nominate you for the most ill-informed comment (so far) today

          That very argument has been happening all year in Norway in the lead up to the election.

          The conservatives won the election, so it starts: http://bigstory.ap.org/article/norway-opens-arctic-border-area-oil-drilling

          “This is a clear break in Norwegian policy,” said Nils Harley Boisen, of the World Wildlife Fund. “And moving completely against all expert advice on what is safe operations.”

          You also neglect to mention that the oil extraction offshore of Norway is around 200m to 400m.
          As opposed to the +1500m that Anadarko are attempting in New Zealand. The increased depth, vastly increases the chance of losing control of a wellhead.

          Also notable is that historically Statoils saftey and environmental standards are the highest in the world (for an oil company) – Cause that’s what happens when an entity is democrtically accountable.

        • lprent 1.3.2.3
          17 December 2013 at 1:01 pm

          .. that Norway is apparently able to take the risk to their fiords,..

          That is a completely stupid comparison. Show me a fiord that has a depth of 1.5 kilometres depth. FFS the North sea has an average depth of 95 metres and most of the oil is extracted in the shallow parts. It’s maximum depth is 700m.

          There is a slight difference in depth. The norwegians can get human divers down to most of their wells. They can even use explosives at the depths their wells are at to cause a collapse of the well walls.

          Here we have to wait 35 days to get a capping device to NZ and probably something like a month to actually plug the thing. That is because it is a bloody long way down

          Are you deliberately pretending to be an idiot?

          The reason why this debate is wound up is because of morons giving arguments like that which are basically display more of a greedy opportunism rather than any consideration of the the technical factors.

          • Wayne 1.3.2.3.1
            17 December 2013 at 2:24 pm

            Iprent,

            Unusual level of personal abuse from you.

            Obviously I am aware of the depths of the drilling.

            One of the main problems of Deepwater Horizon was the failure of the blowout preventer, actually always the most likely failure point. A huge amount of redesign work has gone into these devices. Actually Anadarko should relaese the info on the design of its preventer. These days often operated by remote vehicles rather than divers since just about everything on a preventer is machine driven, no old fashioned hand wheels.

            I suspect a lot of NZers would prefer the Norwegian model. Contractors would still be used since they have the expertise, but I can see the appeal of the Norwegian approach.

            • KJT 1.3.2.3.1.1
              17 December 2013 at 2:32 pm

              The blowout preventer is designed as an absolute last resort. When all else fails.

              No matter how good the preventer is, there is always a high chance of it failing to contain the blowout.

              Good well management is always preferred. More difficult the deeper you go and the rougher the water, and, of course, during exploration, when you don’t really know 100% what is down there..

            • McFlock 1.3.2.3.1.2
              17 December 2013 at 2:33 pm

              Of course it’s operated by rovs, it’s too deep for anyone to go down there and fix it if something goes wrong. And, as you say, the most likely failure point.

              When we couldn’t deal with a ship’s propulsion fuel load.

              But then the problem is the age-old problem of capitalism: the people taking the profits are not the people who are facing the risks.

              • Draco T Bastard …
                17 December 2013 at 10:39 pm

                But then the problem is the age-old problem of capitalism: the people taking the profits are not the people who are facing the risks.

                QFT

                and this government is all about rewarding the capitalists with our wealth while we get to clean up after them.

            • KJT 1.3.2.3.1.3
              17 December 2013 at 2:39 pm

              I would prefer that we put the money into sustainable energy and substitutes for fossil fuels.

              I can accept properly managed drilling risks, but the ultimate downside risk, AGW, is way to high,

              • Tracey …
                17 December 2013 at 4:20 pm

                or even into software engineering and stuff like that which we are

                a. very good at; and
                b. currently have shortage

                4 out of 5 of the top paid jobs on trademe are apparently in this area.

                • Colonial Viper …
                  17 December 2013 at 4:25 pm

                  In the future that I am expecting to unfold over the next couple of decades, I think that KJT’s priorities should be of national priority. At the level of a war footing, in fact.

                  • Tracey …
                    17 December 2013 at 4:31 pm

                    I guess I was meaning there just dont seem to be any oil rigging jobs going on trademe…

                    • KJT …
                      17 December 2013 at 7:17 pm

                      There are oil industry jobs around right now.

                      They advertise in the trade press, not local newspapers or websites.

                      But they are doing their level best to avoid employing locals.
                      There is a whole swag of applications to the immigration department right now, from the oil industry, saying they cannot get suitable New Zealanders.

                  • Draco T Bastard …
                    17 December 2013 at 10:41 pm

                    I think building renewable power should be effectively at a war time setting now. Chasing fossil fuels is a fools dream.

                    • Paul …
                      17 December 2013 at 10:48 pm

                      If we don’t realise we’re all in this together soon, it’s curtains…and the climate and nature don’t differentiate between rich and poor.

            • lprent 1.3.2.3.1.4
              17 December 2013 at 4:16 pm

              It isn’t unusual. Just depends on how irritating the code I’m working on is *and* how irritating the fallacy I’m reacting against in comments. Comparing the engineering required for extracting oil in Norwegian fjords (less than 50m depth) with what is required at 1500 metres is an instance of the latter. Sort of a lawyer looking for an analogy with similar words rather than an engineer looking at an equivalence… 😈

              One of the main problems of Deepwater Horizon was the failure of the blowout preventer, actually always the most likely failure point. A huge amount of redesign work has gone into these devices.

              Blowout preventers are a last ditch failsafe. There were about 4 system failures prior to that.

              Blowout preventers have a rather appalling record when you look at them over the decades. They tend to fail when required about one time in four in non-experimental situations. But each time that they push them deeper underwater they just fail in different ways – so new depth ranges are all experimental. Problem is that it takes a decade or so to work all of the bugs at any particular depth. These drills are at about the same depth at Deepwater Horizon (1500m vs 1600m)..

              It simply doesn’t matter how much work has gone into them since 2010. There is exactly one way to test them and that is to have a decades worth of data on how the perform at the depth that they operate at. The post-mortem Deepwater Horizon in 2010 proved pretty conclusively that they had no real idea how they’d operate. It wasn’t a “failure”, it was an example of systematic design flaw. Effectively they started a whole new redesign for these components at that depth.

              Basically the new design is effectively untested except in a lab.

              Remote vehicles have all of the problems of any engineering running at a few kilometres distance under a pile of water. The cold kills both circuitry and code. The pressure does the same. The reality is that neither have a good track record and have very high failure rates.

              Simply the technology isn’t nearly up to scratch for the depths they’re trying to operating at. And we’re on the arse end of the world a long long way from the type of technical expertise and equipment required to handle problems and failures. Basically we haven’t got the gear to handle a simple minor oil spill from a cargo vessel in this country.

              Whoever authorised this experiment here needs their damn head hammered for extreme stupidity (or much the same thing – dumb greed)

            • Macro 1.3.2.3.1.5
              17 December 2013 at 9:46 pm

              Wayne the US BSEE notes that the risk factor increases with depth. The Norwegian fjords average less than 200m in depth, This is NOT, the ultra-depths that are being drilled here (> 1500m) so if you are aware of the depth difference then it is willfully false to compare their drilling with the risks being taken here. As I noted earlier the US BSEE observes that the number of spillages for ultra-deep oil drilling is 1 in 19, with at least 12 sites to be drilled that gives a greater than 60% chance of a spillage.

              The sad fact is that these muppets your friends have given the rights too, have a very poor track record of cleaning up after their “accidents”.
              http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gW0w9mhMXv88nAy_3HtLRei_c-JA?docId=430a9829-c7d9-4de7-a9ed-121e988c1b7 so NZers will be left with another mess to clean up.

              Oh well cleaning up mess is good for GDP “growth” I suppose. So you can boast about that as well – *sigh*.

            • brokenback 1.3.2.3.1.6
              18 December 2013 at 6:01 pm

              Not Correct.

              The Mocando disaster was a result of deviation from planned well engineering by the BP/Anardarko management team that resulted in a compromised cement seal in the voids between the casing and the overburden strata . The oil & gas migrated up this compromised annulus and between the larger diameter casings higher up the well .
              The well unloaded too quickly for conventional well control despite the fact that the BOP was operated .
              The blowout occured outside the cased well .
              There were plenty of warning signs from the well but cowboy attitudes & financial pressure prevailed and the wrong decisions were made.

              Aside from the environmental disaster , 13 working men died in excrutiating deaths in the massive explosion & fireball.

        • KJT 1.3.2.4
          17 December 2013 at 1:23 pm

          NZ Government and their agencies have proven totally inept in managing safety in standard marine operations, like ordinary shipping. Forgotten the Rena already. Not to mention the “success” that was Pike River.

          What makes you think they are any better with offshore oil exploration?

          I wasn’t too impressed with what I saw of Andarko’s safety case for the present round of exploration.

          33 days to get help if anything goes wrong, for example.

          Are you aware that a blowout was only averted off the Taranaki coast, in the 80’s, because a nearby rig was able to supply more drilling “mud”.

          Risk management takes account of the effects of an event as well as the likelihood.

          Not just drilling risks, but the almost 100% risk of AGW.

        • Tracey 1.3.2.5
          17 December 2013 at 3:04 pm

          Have you impressed on your former national colleagues the sense of replicating the norwegian model in toto? If yes, what was their reaction? If no, why not.

          • Wayne 1.3.2.5.1
            17 December 2013 at 5:09 pm

            Well, I know Simon Upton thinks that is the best approach for New Zealand given our political and historical culture. But he was more from the Bolger/Shipley era. However he now has a key environmental role in the OECD, so is very aware of contemporary European trends.

        • geoff 1.3.2.6
          17 December 2013 at 7:04 pm

          Fuck you Wayne. Here’s extreme, you’re a fucking cunt. A greedy, lawyer tongued arsewipe who slimes about this place under the pretense of ‘reasonableness’. Extreme but accurate.

          The world is heading to environmental disaster because we have burnt too many fossil fuels and you, the fucking cunt that you are, are advocating we dig some more up and burn that as well.

          • blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) 1.3.2.6.1
            17 December 2013 at 7:16 pm

            +1 Have to say I agree with you here, Geoff, that the only thing that ‘reasonableness’ and ‘Wayne’ have in common is the grand attempts at appearing reasonable that Wayne puts a great deal effort into.

            It is really quite appalling to find out the guy was an MP and to realise what extremist views exist and are condoned in the National Party and by the NZ public.

            • Tracey 1.3.2.6.1.1
              17 December 2013 at 7:22 pm

              he’s still very adept at NOT answering a straight question.

            • geoff 1.3.2.6.1.2
              17 December 2013 at 7:32 pm

              He has been probably living in his right-wing-nutter bubble for so long that he thinks his views are completely normal. You take his perspective, you bolt on that slick lawyer-speak veneer and you realise what a persuasive weapon his type is for the right.

              There’s plenty of people with shit for brains who guzzle up the crap that the likes of Wayne spews because he can phrase things in sensible language, he rarely gets in a flap and he seldom, if ever, resorts to personal attacks.
              In my view that is what makes his view that much more toxic and I am going to continue to call him on it.

              • blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) …
                17 December 2013 at 7:52 pm

                I have a horrible feeling his views are normal […in some circles anyway!] However your comment made me realise just how nutty his type of views are, whether many hold them – whether they are considered ‘normal’ or not.

                Agree about the ‘more toxic’ bit too

                • geoff …
                  17 December 2013 at 8:01 pm

                  You make a good point, I should have said Wayne thinks his views are correct rather than normal(whatever normal means).

                  • blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) …
                    18 December 2013 at 2:06 am

                    @ Geoff

                    I think you had it right the first time.

                    I think normal has something to do with ‘lots of people do/think/feel it’ and following on from that it becomes associated with being ‘o.k.’ – acceptable.

                    I believe this is what you meant by saying ‘Wayne thinks his views are completely normal’ – Wayne think’s its o.k [because it has become the norm in his circles].

                    And yes I agree – he probably does and as I added before – just because they are ‘accepted’ doesn’t stop them from being nutty ideas

                • Draco T Bastard …
                  17 December 2013 at 10:58 pm

                  We’re living in a world where reality has become a radical idea. This has happening, IMO, because the politicians and the economists have taken us down that path and now they can’t say that it’s wrong because they’d lose face and so we keep doing the wrong things that will bring massive destruction.

                  • Colonial Viper …
                    17 December 2013 at 11:08 pm

                    Our academics, intellectuals and news media are failing to live up to their societal responsibility to ground our nation in facts and reality. And failing to challenge our politicians when they are not.

          • Tracey 1.3.2.6.2
            17 December 2013 at 7:21 pm

            wow, dude, calm down. You will do yourself an injury.

            • geoff 1.3.2.6.2.1
              17 December 2013 at 7:35 pm

              Tracey, aggressive language can serve a person very well. It does not mean I have lost my temper etc. The idea, which has sprung up from Politically Correct politik, that we should all be nice to one another all the time is very counter-productive.

              • Tracey …
                17 December 2013 at 7:40 pm

                nothing to do with politically correct anything. You can make yourself clear without using words like C###. If you can’t that is a sad indictment on you.

              • lprent …
                17 December 2013 at 8:07 pm

                Personally I find that being nice is completely at variance with my personal nature. Gave it up years ago. It used to get in the way of getting jobs finished

              • greywarbler …
                17 December 2013 at 9:04 pm

                geoff
                Aggressive language is best used like hot chillis – sparingly. And if you are going to use sexual language don’t call men out by comparing them to the sexual parts of womens bodies. That’s grosser than calling a man a dickhead. For a woman what would be PC foul language – bitch? Better still what about reviving some of the older terms of derision in your google dictionary. That would be colourful you varlet.

                ‘we should all be nice to one another all the time is very counter-productive.’ Why don’t you learn to be rude without swearing? That would be a good discipline for you if you have become chronically potty mouthed.

                • geoff …
                  17 December 2013 at 10:40 pm

                  Fuck off ya PC cunt.

                  • Draco T Bastard …
                    17 December 2013 at 11:01 pm

                    You’re really not doing yourself any favours.

                    • blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) …
                      18 December 2013 at 1:52 am

                      @ Greywarbler & DTB

                      So while Geoff gets given a hard time for his choice of words – the truth in his message appears to have been missed or playing a greatly distant second.

                      People like Mr Wayne carry on denigrating valuable qualities of decency, rationality and reasonableness by pushing their contemptuous agenda with a veneer of these qualities until they mean nothing to anyone anymore and people stop aspiring to develop these qualities because they become associated with double-standards, two-faced behaviour, irrationality and lies. Our society suffers in response to this process.

                      How can anyone call this travesty for what it is when the language required to describe it is commonly regarded as non-decent?

                      I am usually very unimpressed by harsh language however occasionally it can be put to good use. I believe on this occasion Geoff has achieved this in his response to Wayne.

                    • Draco T Bastard …
                      18 December 2013 at 2:31 am

                      Use harsh language, doesn’t bother me. I’ve called people fucken morons and delusional psychopaths so it certainly won’t bother me if other people use such language.

                      No, the problem is with the word cunt which is another word for vagina which means to say that the way that geoff is using it is sexist, misogynist and hateful. Part of the rape culture that we’re trying to address.

                    • blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) …
                      18 December 2013 at 1:18 pm

                      Thanks for your response DTB good to have that clarified.

                      I find myself in a dilemma about whether I view the use of the word cunt as a term of abuse as misogynist because I tend to view it as deriving from negative attitudes toward sex rather than womankind. Probably helps also that I have heard the word penis being employed in a similar fashion. I have no such dilemma about the use of the words ‘girl’ or ‘woman’ as terms of abuse, which clearly derive directly from negative attitudes about women, and I have no time for.

                      I guess because of this indecision on my part disingenuously ignoring, withholding and/or twisting facts to suit agendas as is increasingly occurring on a National level and occurred in this debate and which is undermining the process of useful debate is a greater offense to me than the slang words used in response in this particular instance.

                      However I acknowledge your point and that it errs on the side of caution is probably best at present – thank you.

        • Murray Olsen 1.3.2.7
          17 December 2013 at 7:21 pm

          Wayne, you seem to ignore, for instance, that Norway has a state owned oil company that operates under a regulatory scheme that is designed to protect their environment. They do not have a Hawaiian cowboy puppet government intent on bringing in one of the worst of the recent offenders, and gifting them the chance to ruin our coasts and our fisheries, and all for miniscule returns. Every day I read more horror stories about Anadarko. They are the last company we should be handing our heritage over to.

          There are also other major differences, but the type of company and the government (lack of) oversight are the two most relevant ones here. FFS, I’d prefer Petrobras to Anadarko, and they don’t exactly have a stellar record.

          • greywarbler 1.3.2.7.1
            18 December 2013 at 7:51 pm

            blue leopard
            What convoluted reasoning you have. I objected to the word cunt as being unpleasant and unreasonably coarse and anti-women and carrying on with attitudes that disrespect women to the point of rape culture. Dickhead penis doesn’t have the same connotation – more used like bugger which now doesn’t mean someone is talking about homosexuality.

            I wouldn’t have thought that any ordinary decent man would need this explained to them. I said : “Aggressive language is best used like hot chillis – sparingly. And if you are going to use sexual language don’t call men out by comparing them to the sexual parts of womens bodies.

            A reasonable comment and criticism. And anyone who throws sexist language like cunt around is vile. And so I am not surprised to receive in return the nasty reply from
            Jerkoff geoff

            Fuck off ya PC cunt.

            Aggresive and foulmouthed, yes. As emphatic expression, not appropriate.

            • blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) 1.3.2.7.1.1
              18 December 2013 at 9:13 pm

              Hi Greywarbler

              Yep I thought that last reaction from Geoff wasn’t cool.

              I take it that you read my response to DTB?

              I realized I was saying something contentious and somewhat expected to get a firm reply back. I nearly didn’t comment for that reason, yet chose to express my opinion.

              What you said here : “– more used like bugger which now doesn’t mean someone is talking about homosexuality.” sums up much what I feel about the word cunt as a term of abuse. I was introduced to it as meaning something like ‘a very very annoying person/thing’ prior to discovering its previous meaning[s] and therefore view it as a word that has developed different and separate meanings over the course of time.

              Check out modern usage of the word ‘bad’, ‘sick’, ‘killed it’. English language has a habit of words shifting meaning.

              I get the feeling you didn’t register what I concluded by saying to DTB – that it probably is better to err on the side of caution on this matter.

              I’m sorry you view my reasoning as convoluted I do find the word offensive and I avoid using it along with a number of other words, yet not for the reasons you expect of me, sorry.

              • greywarbler …
                19 December 2013 at 10:00 am

                Thanks blueleopard for your considered reply. However…

                You have some opinions of your own as we all do. Also you have the option of your own to set standards of speech for yourself, and not do or say something just because a lot of people do it. It would be good if you could use your discretion to show respect for women and not use such blatantly sexist, disrespectful descriptions when criticising people, especially men, (women are not referred to as cunts are they!)

                Why do men use that term then. Because as sexist males who have a disdain for women, applying that female term for their most private parts and people-making orifice, to a man is condemning him as a specially stupid type in their eyes. Also women are attacked sexually by men far more than the reverse. Using the term cunt implies that you think this is an everyday okay practice.

                If you do have intelligence coupled with sensitivity to women’s concern about their treatment in society, you will form your own disciplines, control your own behaviour and not just follow what other people do dragging your knuckles as you go.

                And that applies to geoff who is trying to apply some totally fallacious and spurious reasoning. It’s probably too late for you geoff to learn anything about how it is necessary to show respect and restraint to other people when criticising them, and limiting abusive language.

                This should always be the case even when they are too small to react with a punch in the nose. I suggest you are the type who would think twice about abusing a gang member with other muscle men around him, but women give you no cause for restraint so get whatever sick stuff comes out of your mouth.

                And this could just as well be applied to racist sledging on the sports field. Inner discipline means considering and limiting the words and ways that you speak

            • geoff 1.3.2.7.1.2
              18 December 2013 at 9:17 pm

              Jerkoff Geoff? I like it!

              How unsurprising that you didn’t pick up on the irony of the fuck off ya PC cunt.

              Fortunately you don’t decide what language is and isn’t appropriate and your interpretation of the significance of using the word cunt in the context that I did is, thankfully, not widespread.

              Are you aware that you are trying to censor people? You’re attempting to misappropriate perfectly good words like cunt by using utterly bullshit excuses like, it encourages rape culture and that it disrespects women.

              Compare it with the word nigger. Nigger has essentially one accepted meaning, as a racist derogatory term.
              Cunt is nothing like nigger. Cunt is used in a multitude of contexts each with its own meaning and if, whenever you hear/see it used, you immediately think of female genitalia or that it promotes rape culture, then you’ve got some personal problems.

      • DJ 1.3.3
        17 December 2013 at 2:03 pm

        I laugh at the double standards on here. LPrent comes down hard on some people for personal attacks and lets other off. sorta makes the constant references to the rules and regs a joke.

        • lprent 1.3.3.1
          17 December 2013 at 2:12 pm

          I guess that you are too illiterate to actually read the policy that you are alluding to. The prohibition is against “pointless abuse”. When I call someone an idiot it is with the point that says exactly why I think they’re being an idiot. Same with most of the other people here. They know the rules.

          geoff did have a point in that rant. Perhaps it eludes you because you didn’t understand it?

          Of course people like yourself who are too lazy to read the “rules and regs” don’t understand them. Instead you spend time rolling around wanking on your brain…

        • Tracey 1.3.3.2
          17 December 2013 at 3:08 pm

          You should pop over to whale oil, you wont find double standards hypocrisy or personal abuse over there.

    • Naturesong 1.4
      17 December 2013 at 10:21 am

      With regards the risk vrs reward.

      In New Zealand, the government levy on oil extraction is on profit.

      It’s pretty clear in the recent law suit against Anardarko that they are past masters in shuffling money around in order to hide profit and reduce ability to pay out liability.
      Herald link and Reuters
      Also, the specialists that run the rig, won’t be locals when they already have access to trained and qualified people from overseas.

      We risk catastrophic damage to our reputation, and “Brand” (fuck I really hatte that marketing speak).
      And in return, possibly a few truck drivers will be employed.

      So, public risk, vrs, little to no reward.

      • Bearded Git 1.4.1
        17 December 2013 at 10:57 am

        Good one Naturesong. Couldn’t agree more-and I’m a qualified accountant.

        Any taxes should be levied per barrel extracted (or equivalent) and at a high rate. Not sure what they do in Norway (have the feeling the oil companies may be state owned, or partly?) but this may be the model to follow.

        I would be very interested in anyone out there with info as to how oil production is taxed in other countries for the benefit of the wider populace.

        • BM 1.4.1.1
          17 December 2013 at 11:09 am

          Statoil is run along the same sort of lines as what our power companies will be.

          As of 2013, the Government of Norway is the largest shareholder in Statoil with 67% of the shares, while the rest is public stock. The ownership interest is managed by the Norwegian Ministry of Petroleum and Energy.[5] The company is headquartered and led from Stavanger, while most of their international operations are currently led from Fornebu.

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statoil

          • Naturesong 1.4.1.1.1
            17 December 2013 at 11:38 am

            Do you mean you are expecting the already corporatised and recently privatised public utilities to engage in some some unethical practices and the odd bit of corruption?

            Or are you talking about the New Zealand public protesting and boycotting privatized public utilities herer in a similar way that Norwegians are with Statoil?

            NB. Yes, I know these are a couple of cheap shots, but I couldn’t resist 😈

        • Naturesong 1.4.1.2
          17 December 2013 at 11:10 am

          Actual royalties are set out here:

          Royalty regime
          The Crown Minerals (Royalties for Petroleum) Regulations 2013 set out rates and provisions for the payment of royalties on petroleum production from initial permits granted after 24 May 2013. The royalty terms and conditions for permits granted before 24 May 2013, and any subsequent permits to those existing permits, is determined by the relevant minerals programme.

          New Zealand’s internationally competitive royalty regime stipulates the payment of either an ad valorem royalty (AVR) or an accounting profits royalty (APR), whichever is the greater in any given year.

          The royalty rates are either:

          5% AVR, that is 5% of the net revenues obtained from the sale of petroleum, or
          20% APR, that is 20% of the accounting profit of petroleum production.

          If a discovery was made between 30 June 2004 and 31 December 2009, the following applies:

          AVR of 1% for natural gas
          APR of 15% on the first NZ$750 million cumulative gross (offshore) or 15% on the first NZ$250 million cumulative gross (onshore).

          In calculating the accounting profit deductions are made and may include associated production costs, capital costs (exploration costs, development costs, permit maintenance and consent costs and feasibility study costs), indirect costs, decommissioning costs, operating and capital overhead allowance, operating costs and capital costs carried forward and decommissioning costs carried back.

    • Cemetery Jones 1.5
      17 December 2013 at 11:53 am

      Surely part of that democracy you cherish is a government which is up front with us about the ugly details? How else are you to make an informed choice about whether or not you are pro or anti drilling?

    • blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) 1.6
      17 December 2013 at 12:45 pm

      BM hijacks this thread by his statement “I’m happy with the risk to reward ratio.”

      This is not what this thread is about – it is about the Government not telling the people what the risks are in the first place, it is about the government not acknowledging the risks at all.

      How can we assess whether we are prepared to accept the risks when we are kept in the dark?

      Yet it is worse than that – when an organisation lets people know what the risks are – the government lied to us by saying they were exaggerating…and they weren’t – they were being conservative

      This is not governing with the peoples’ interests uppermost in mind. It is not governing at all. This is the government not doing its job [again] – unless somewhere along the line a government’s job has become that of pushing the agenda of big business – in which case why do ‘we’ fund them?

      A government should act for the greatest good for the greatest amount of people and it does not seem to be doing that at all.

      What part of democracy does this government understand?

      Where has our democracy gone?

      So who cares whether BM is privy to the risks and prepared to accept them? What has that got to do with anything? Perhaps also BM is prepared to accept the risks without knowing what they are? Whatever the case may be it is not relevant to the issue raised by this thread’s article.

    • Conquestored 1.7
      17 December 2013 at 4:01 pm

      It’s funny that you think destroying peoples lives for money is democracy. Maybe educate yourself a bit before distributing your disgusting, weak-minded choices. Democracy is about pro-evolution not pro-capitalism so don’t point fingers at democracy unless of course you’re scared for some reason. We will never stop blaming your kind.

  2. greywarbler 2
    17 December 2013 at 9:31 am

    On top of the oil spill modelling that Conan the Earth Destroyer peanut brains are satisfied with,
    this morning there is a story on frakking in New Plymouth.
    The query is whether it is safe to farm on, particularly for dairy. The Greens have said they are not correct in doing so, Alberta doesn’t allow it.
    But Doug Edmeads? independent expert, says that it is fine. Nothing of any danger is showing up in sampling.
    There is no barium, residues of petrochemicals, heavy metals. No salts.
    Kathryn Ryan is asking all the right questions.
    Has your work been peer reviewed. He says that it is open for review and very little response has shown up. Green Party critique did not amount to anything of substance. Questioned as to whether plants are taking up petrochemicals, he says that plants produce their own waxes or something.

    Gareth Hughes says that terms of reference are flawed. The testing sample was tiny, not sufficient to give representative sample. Hughes quotes examples that negate totally what this ‘independent’ tester reports. (We have to watch accepting NACTs expert opinions wherever.
    ACC is another with pet experts with their own bent influencing their objectivity.)

    • weka 2.2
      17 December 2013 at 10:12 am

      “The query is whether it is safe to farm on, particularly for dairy”

      Yeah that’s right. Our premier ecological concerns are whether one form of strip mining and fucking the land will interfer with another form. This is a consequence of the shift in the past decade or so from conservation for its own sake to justiftying conservation on economic terms. As with politics the centre has been shifted so far that we don’t even know what ecological intelligence is any more.

  4. aerobubble 4
    17 December 2013 at 9:59 am

    Fracking fluids? Not same as petroleum waste water? Hard to tell.

    So, you’ve just been hired CEO of a mining company, you need to get rid of losts of waste…

    …hire a guy to test land that’s had dump only the most lightly contaminated waste, maybe even the waste hydrocarbons have come from a refinery, so don’t measure the amount dumped, don’t measure the soil before dumping, but add to that, don’t test for toxic chemicals or arsenic, or all the nastiness in raw crude. Don’t take many at all samples either. Now give the green light to dumping toxic waste on land, sandy soil no less, like there would be any previous indication of leaching. I mean sand! Its so uniform preciously because its so temporary and porous.

    Sorry, but that’s not science. Don’t measure inputs, outputs, or measure stuff that would be there if they dumped the most toxic waste, I mean Canada has serious bureaucracy managing the waste and you think you can just dump it on a sand soil someplace? Oh, please your fired for bad publicity.

  5. greywarbler 5
    17 December 2013 at 10:09 am

    Any further comments on fracking should be carried on in MS Frack thread started about 10 a.m. with probably lots of discussion going to be focussed there.

  6. Tracey 6
    17 December 2013 at 10:49 am

    BM

    are you confirming you dont actually have a risk reward analysis upon which you base your green flag upon? Its that which concerns me. Not that you have a differing opinion but rather you opened with a strong statement that appears to have little factual foundation. Truly I was hoping you had some analysis of risk reward to ally some of my misgivings.

  7. red blooded 7
    17 December 2013 at 11:02 am

    I think there are two distinct issues raised by the original posting, and BM was slick enough to pull people away from one of them. The “risk to reward ratio” is something he and other short-term Blinkered Monkeys like him see entirely in money terms. (Hey – if the world is going to fry anyway and coming generations are going to have to deal with a catastrophic shift in weather patterns, we may as well make a buck and turn our backs in the meantime). The other issue being highlighted here though was the dishonesty of the government and JK in particular. They made some pretty extreme attacks on Greenpeace, which got plenty of airtime and credibility at the time. I haven’t heard/seen anything yet about this report, which shows how baseless those attacks were, except here.

  8. tricledrown 8
    17 December 2013 at 11:08 am

    Bumptious
    Meglomaniac
    Desperate driller
    Nationals chickens home to roost.

  9. Natwest 9
    17 December 2013 at 11:23 am

    The anti-busines/anti-progess rag.

    The ‘Rena’ was going to be a massive pollution issue for our waters – according to Greenpeace/Labour and the Greens.

    Um! All gone – well buggar me.

    Just more hyperbole and scaremongering from the left.

    • Naturesong 9.1
      17 December 2013 at 11:50 am

      Unless you live in the Bay of Plenty.

      They are still removing bits of it.
      While it looks like the damage will not be as long term as previously thought, theres still issues in the area.

      Not to mention the folks whose livelihoods were badly affected, or in some cases ruined.

      http://www.stuff.co.nz/environment/rena-crisis/9247168/Rena-row-still-raging

    • framu 9.2
      17 December 2013 at 12:25 pm

      do you have straw neighbours in that straw village you just built?

      • idlegus 9.2.1
        17 December 2013 at 1:11 pm

        the enquiry basically said we were bloody lucky to get away with that. how long will our luck last, & that being a small ship in relatively benign waters

    • KJT 9.3
      17 December 2013 at 1:41 pm

      The risk was increased immensely by the lack of funding and competence, in both the Government and MNZ.

      And, we still have much greater risks, of a much more serious re-occurrence, because of the “race to the bottom” that is allowed for shipping on our coasts..

      As the inquiry said, “it was luck”. Definitely was not good management.

      • Tracey 9.3.1
        17 December 2013 at 3:15 pm

        source/link for “it was luck”?

        • idlegus 9.3.1.1
          17 December 2013 at 5:58 pm

          it was in a tv3 news bulletin (when the inquiry came out), cant find any links when i search. the inquiry (according to the same report i saw) said it was also because of the hard work by the volunteers that the situation wasn’t was resolved quickly. & maritime nz patted itself on the back for letting the volunteers help.

            • KJT 9.3.1.1.1.1
              17 December 2013 at 6:47 pm

              Thanks.

              “A common view of those interviewed, reflecting on the outcomes of the response, was
              that “it could have been a lot worse”. They felt that fate or luck had played a part in so
              far as the vessel itself had held together long enough against the forces of nature for the
              response to become reinforced and to gather the strength and organisational shape to
              deliver the mitigations against multiple pollution and other risks as effectively as it did.”

          • Tracey 9.3.1.1.2
            17 December 2013 at 6:46 pm

            thanks for trying gus

        • KJT 9.3.1.2
          17 December 2013 at 6:39 pm

          Looking for the source I read. Haven’t found it yet.

          Seems pretty obvious to me that it was luck, however.

          1. Given the joke that is New Zealands oil spill response capability.
          2. The fact that the weather was calm initially, and the ships was hard on the reef, meant it did not break up while MNZ took time to dick around and get their shit together.

          http://kjt-kt.blogspot.co.nz/2011/10/kia-ora-contradictory-statements-and.html

          http://kjt-kt.blogspot.co.nz/2011/10/rena-neo-liberal-failure.html

          We are now hearing more within the industry about the tiring muck around the Rena crew had in Napier, previous to departure.
          Very common that crews are awake for hours expecting to shift ships in and out of port, in the interests of port efficiency, of course. At the same time that standards of training and manning has been reduced drastically.

          • Colonial Viper 9.3.1.2.1
            17 December 2013 at 6:43 pm

            Lazy slack attitude at the top levels now permeates all of NZ society. Who would bother creating with sweat, innovation and hard work anything of value which actually works when you can just try for a quick cut or commission off someone else’s ponzi scheme, and bail before the consequences come home to roost.

            The classic bankster mindset.

            The final proof in the pudding for me was the total balls up in getting people to the World Cup opening on time, after literally years and years and millions of dollars of planning.

            • KJT 9.3.1.2.1.1
              17 December 2013 at 7:01 pm

              Sit in the job, polish the chair, collect the money, cut wages, cut investment, get rid of all the skilled people (they cost money which could go on pumping up the share options), flog off essential plant, then avoid responsibility when it turns to shit.

              Essential management skills.

    • Tracey 9.4
      17 December 2013 at 3:14 pm

      and how much money had the rena bought into the NZ economy to warrant the spending it took to deal with it and to fully compensate the businesses. Some iwi still cannot fish their areas.

    • Tracey 9.5
      17 December 2013 at 3:17 pm

      “Costs to the taxpayer had blown out to over 50M as at the end of last year.” Some folks here seem to be alergic to thinking for themselves. Dupes, taking us down with them.

  10. tricledrown 10
    17 December 2013 at 11:45 am

    Ratfest.
    At a cost to taxpayers $30 odd million.
    Only a small spill.
    If a bigger spill happened how many billions would it take to clean up.
    Pike River !
    The Gulible right wing expect the rest of us to say nothing.
    Facism.

  11. tricledrown 11
    17 December 2013 at 11:50 am

    Natwest Bm.
    Stop talking fracking effluent.

  12. adam 12
    17 December 2013 at 11:59 am

    I think if there is an accident – then we should all get to kick Mr Bridges in the balls. Oh and BM you happy to line up and take one for the team too? Kick in the nuts that is.

  13. Colonial Viper 13
    17 December 2013 at 1:24 pm

    Time to do the 20 year transition off fossil fuels for transport.

    • blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) 13.1
      17 December 2013 at 1:54 pm

      +1 This is an excellent idea.

      • Colonial Viper 13.1.1
        17 December 2013 at 3:24 pm

        Lot’s of jobs, lots of international attention, lots of very valuable new knowledge.

        • blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) 13.1.1.1
          17 December 2013 at 6:35 pm

          So many advantages to this idea.

          Will we choose this positive way forward
          or will NZ politicians and voters turn it into a missed opportunity?

          • Colonial Viper 13.1.1.1.1
            17 December 2013 at 6:40 pm

            Almost by definition, visionary leadership and pressure for change has to come from outside of Parliament.

            Time to break out of the neoliberal policy straight jacket, time to get ready for the future and build our nation.

            • blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) 13.1.1.1.1.1
              17 December 2013 at 7:00 pm

              Good point although we do have some good options to choose from amongst NZ political parties…so long as people take advantage of MMP and stop being so loyal to useless parties.

              I think your focus here, however, on ‘us’, is the most effective way forward and the way to ensure we move in the positive direction we wish for…it seems like our politicians are selling out for private gains on both sides of the divide and it shouldn’t be assumed that they are working for our interests anymore.

              • Colonial Viper …
                17 December 2013 at 7:26 pm

                Abso-frakin-lutely.

                Movements of people focussed on different campaigns of economic justice need to hold all politicians of all stripes, to account.

          • Draco T Bastard 13.1.1.1.2
            17 December 2013 at 11:43 pm

            Will we choose this positive way forward

            Not under this or even a Labour government as they’ll both keep NZ working to profit the foreign banksters.

    • weka 13.2
      17 December 2013 at 8:03 pm

      “Time to do the 20 year transition off fossil fuels for transport.”

      Anyone know what the DCC has done with the Peak Oil report it commissioned for Dunedin city?

  14. Lez 14
    17 December 2013 at 1:26 pm

    Natwest WRONG Oil is still on the beach Under the sand at Papamoa And so is the Toxic Cleaner So Go Bugger Yourself

  15. tricledrown 15
    17 December 2013 at 3:20 pm

    Yes CV we have world leading technology right here in NewZealand .
    Induction powered cars buses have been developed in NZ .
    The govt should get in behind this technology and start rolling out this technology.
    Its being trialed in the UK and Italy .
    Our economy would grow by far more than any gas or oil could deliver.

  16. geoff 16
    17 December 2013 at 7:15 pm

    How come all the right wing wankers are so keen to use norway as an example for its oil exploration but not for its successful redistributive economic system. Oh that’s right, they’re selfish, right wing pieces of shit that couldn’t find their way out of a paper bag unless it involved screwing someone over.

  17. Foreign Waka 17
    17 December 2013 at 8:52 pm

    It really should be that the decision makers on this potentially life destroying operation (risk description) are held personally responsible. This is reasonable given that there is sufficient information available to describe the risk/benefit ratio. One would expect that the decision makers will err of the safe side in the interest of the country’s land, foreshore and sea and its associated industries that represent the economic base on which the country survives. No hiding behind trust funds.

    • Lloyd 17.1
      17 December 2013 at 11:07 pm

      Is their sufficient information available to describe the risk/benefit ratio?

      Is the effect on global warming/global sea level rise (including property loss from sea level rise)/sea acidification included in the analysis.

      How about the loss compared with investing the same money in the development of electric induction charging roads/car parks as a New Zealand led export?

  18. greywarbler 18
    17 December 2013 at 9:08 pm

    I went fishing for links to pieces on oil spills.

    Brief summary
    http://www.groundtruthtrekking.org/Issues/AlaskaOilandGas/ExxonValdezSpill.html
    and long report
    [PDF]
    Review of Offshore Oil-spill Prevention and Remediation …
    (Canada)
    http://www.gov.nl.ca/nr/publications/energy/nloffshore_oil_review.pdf‎
    and
    Alaskan Native culture affected
    http://www.jomiller.com/exxonvaldez/articles/picougill1.html
    and
    Assessment of fault in legal safety measures before exxon oil spill short summary
    http://www.adn.com/evos/stories/EV265.html
    and
    http://www1.american.edu/ted/projects/tedcross/xoilspl7.htm
    Summaries of oil spills around the world.

  19. McGrath 19
    17 December 2013 at 10:06 pm

    There is this from the NZ Herald quoting the Enviroment Minister recently
    “Risk of a well blowout was closer to 0.25 per cent. This was based on a rate of 2.5 blowouts per 1000 wells in the Gulf of Mexico.”
    If that is correct, then I’m happy with those odds.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/index.cfm?objectid=11160976

    • Colonial Viper 19.1
      17 December 2013 at 10:15 pm

      Those statistics were put together by US gov regulators who were fucking oil industry executives and doing drugs with them.

      Seriously, literally, actually.

      • McFlock 19.1.1
        17 December 2013 at 10:25 pm

        personally I’d be interested to know how many wells in that report were at >1500m.

        I’m sure that those odds are a bit more than 0.25%.

        • Colonial Viper 19.1.1.1
          17 December 2013 at 11:30 pm

          And as you know, the severity of an incident is crucial to consider. 0.25% chance suggests that a deep sea well could conceivably operate for hundreds of years without incident.

          Which is of course, bullshit.

        • Naturesong 19.1.1.2
          19 December 2013 at 1:51 pm

          Stats from Gulf of Mexico; shallow water oil drilling 1 in 272 wells has a spill, while that number increases to 1 in 35 wells for deep sea drilling and to 1 in 19 wells for ultra-deep sea drilling.

          Less than 50 barrels is not considered a spill, or rather not included.
          Deep sea drilling is 300m – 1499m, and ultra deep is +1500m depth.

          Raw stats for ultra deep was 24 spills for 465 wells.

          Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement Stats

  20. McGrath 20
    17 December 2013 at 10:27 pm

    Even if the odds were 10x (ie: 2.5%), the risk is still worth it. That is assuming there is oil there in the first place.

    Would it not be better to find out what is there (if any), and then have a more informed debate?

    • McFlock 20.1
      17 December 2013 at 10:35 pm

      So now you’re cool with a 1 in 40 chance?
      At what level of risk would you not place our fisheries, tourism industry, and environment under the sword of Damocles?

      You’re like a surgeon who wants to perform an operation that has a teeny-tiny risk of death, just to see if anything’s in there.

      • Paul 20.1.1
        17 December 2013 at 10:37 pm

        Is it worth it when so little is actually going to New Zealand?
        Sounds like our risk, their profit.
        Same old capitalism for the poor, socialism for the rich mantra.
        Could you explain that McG?
        Why are you prepared to. Take such a risk when the real money goes to overseas corporations?
        Do you work for them?
        Or are you just incredibly uninformed?

  21. McGrath 21
    17 December 2013 at 10:50 pm

    In a nutshell, I’m “cool” with a 1/40 chance if it creates a significant industry with significant employment industries. For example, An oil industry in Northland will help to reduce high unemployment numbers in the region. This cannot be a bad thing surely?

    • McFlock 21.1
      17 December 2013 at 11:02 pm

      Well, if the sole concern were economic, it depends entirely on what other industries it endangers.

      And as macro points out, that’s 1 in 40 per well you’re happy with. A dozen wells, and you’re perilously close to not giving a damn whether a blowout occurs at all.

      So your crocodile tears over jobs in Northland are demonstrably false. I’d much rather recreational fishing, tourism, yachting, and even commercial fishing continue to grow than gamble it all on 40 black.

      • Paul 21.1.1
        17 December 2013 at 11:09 pm

        Agreed McFlock. Remembering also that the profit goes overseas.
        Are you able to adopt the Cui bono (who benefits) principle McG? It is the most important question to ask when evaluating any situation.

        • McFlock 21.1.1.1
          17 December 2013 at 11:11 pm

          He just assumes that if ordinary people are opposed to it, he’ll be one of the beneficiaries. Debate ended, as far as he’s concerned.

  22. Paul 22
    17 December 2013 at 11:03 pm

    Well if that was the only factor to consider, then yes…
    However, it’s not . Oil drilling that entails destroying our tourism industry, our dairy industry and our environment, then no.

    Also and more importantly, fossil fuels are destroying the planet. The only reason companies like Andarcko are considering drilling for oil in such places is because we are running out of oil. Wouldn’t it be better to be spending the time, energy and money ( and investing in jobs) in such alternatives.

    Finally a question, McG, do you accept that climate change is being caused by rising levels of CO2 in the atmosphere?

    • Lloyd 22.1
      17 December 2013 at 11:19 pm

      Before climate change how about oceanic acidification and sea level rise? These are already happening in an ever-increasing rate with sometimes unexpected negative consequences that are almost certainly not included in an oil companies cost-benefit calculations.

      • McFlock 22.1.1
        17 December 2013 at 11:21 pm

        acidification worries the shit out of me, along with runoff dead zones like in Gulf of Mexico.

  23. McGrath 23
    17 December 2013 at 11:11 pm

    Paul

    Yes I confess, I work for “them”. Its all a giant global conspiracy… Much like BM, I’m sure he works for “them” too… Or perhaps its simply just the opinion of those who don’t mind Oil Exploration. Shane Jones is keen for it, Greenpeace is also keen for it in a roundabout way. It wasn’t love that powered their boat recently to Russia…

    Just because your’e offended doesn’t mean you’re right .

    • Paul 23.1
      17 December 2013 at 11:17 pm

      I’m not offended McG. The question about you working for an oil company was rhetorical. It would make sense as you would benefit form oil drilling.

      I’m actually waiting for your answer to the questions I asked.
      1)Who benefits from Andarcko oil drilling in New Zealand?
      2) Do you accept that climate change is occurring due to climate change.

      Using the conspiracy word is not really a debating technique but an attempt o undermine, that’s all. it only works a few times. Use it too much and people can see why you do it.

      Referencing BM and Shane Jones in support of your argument suggests I may be wasting my time expecting a reasoned debate based on evidence.

    • Colonial Viper 23.2
      17 December 2013 at 11:26 pm

      NZ should keep all that energy for ourselves, not gift it to foreigners to benefit from.

      • Paul 23.2.1
        17 December 2013 at 11:30 pm

        You would think that was the rational approach.
        That’s why I wonder why McG is so keen to take these risks when I can’t see how he or the country would benefit?
        So far he’s mentioned some jobs in Northland….
        He has dodged the issue you mention

        • Colonial Viper 23.2.1.1
          17 December 2013 at 11:32 pm

          Exchanging vital physical resources (concentrated energy) for digitally printed currency credits created out of thin air by keystrokes.

          Yes, it’s ridiculous.

          • felix 23.2.1.1.1
            17 December 2013 at 11:53 pm

            Also the energy units are increasing in value. The currency units, not so much.

            • Colonial Viper 23.2.1.1.1.1
              18 December 2013 at 1:22 am

              the energy units are increasing in value, and in relative scarcity (ease of obtainability)…while the currency units are being produced in an unlimited flood of keystrokes…

  24. McGrath 24
    17 December 2013 at 11:22 pm

    What’s my opinion on climate change? If you really want to know, it’s basically inbetween. I don’t believe its as bad as the climate scientists say, if it was we’d be drowning under melted polar ice caps by now. Equally I don’t believe those that say we’ve nothing to do with it as shitting in your own nest with pollutants must do something. What the true answer is, i’m honestly not sure.

    • Paul 24.1
      17 December 2013 at 11:26 pm

      OK, then you are aware of the connection between drilling for fossil fuels and rising CO2 levels?

    • McFlock 24.2
      17 December 2013 at 11:27 pm

      So you’re not sure, but you choose to not believe the people who have spent decades studying the issue? Fascinating.

    • Colonial Viper 24.3
      17 December 2013 at 11:27 pm

      I don’t believe its as bad as the climate scientists say, if it was we’d be drowning under melted polar ice caps by now.

      You’re sorta stupid, right? Or do you simply believe in saying stupid things as a diversion?

      It’s very difficult to tell with you.

      Time for NZ to get off transport fossil fuels.

      • Paul 24.3.1
        17 December 2013 at 11:34 pm

        I think just desperately uninformed. Probably relies on Slater for his information.
        It’s scary to see how easily people learn not to question and simply regurgitate the prejudices of others.

  25. McGrath 25
    17 December 2013 at 11:35 pm

    Who benefits from oil drilling? Ask the future government (be it Labour or National) regarding additional taxes and royalties earned. Ask those who are directly or indirectly employed as a result of any additional oil finds. On the flip side, the oil companies will also benefit, and so will local businesses with supply contracts to the oil firms?

    • McFlock 25.1
      17 December 2013 at 11:40 pm

      nah, the flipside is the damage to the economy, to employent, and to the environment from a blowout.
      Which the company doesn’t face, although it reaps the significant bulk of the profits.

      Great holiday season in Tauranga a couple of years ago – and that was just one container ship, not a blowout.

    • Paul 25.2
      17 December 2013 at 11:40 pm

      I think you’ll find the vast majority of the profits will go overseas McG.

    • Paul 25.3
      17 December 2013 at 11:40 pm

      I think you’ll find the vast majority of the profits will go overseas McG.

  26. McGrath 26
    17 December 2013 at 11:52 pm

    I could post endless articles about how past climate predictions have failed to materialise, however I fear I’d be wasting my time such is the intransigence displayed. Anyway, I leave you with the words of that font of all knowledge “BM” where its all about democracy and choice. Besides, I need to get ready for my corporate masters to earn my top 10% NZ salary bracket tomorrow. Goodnight all!

    • Colonial Viper 26.1
      18 December 2013 at 1:27 am

      You need to think on the time scale of a redwood McGrath. Currently you’re thinking on the time scale of a cicada. No wonder you can’t see shit.

    • Draco T Bastard 26.2
      18 December 2013 at 2:16 am

      I could post endless articles about how past climate predictions have failed to materialise

      And every single one of them would be outright lying.

    • KJT 26.3
      18 December 2013 at 8:32 am

      You have just outed yourself McGrath.

      Another chair polishing, wannabee one of the big boys, on 80k a year.

      What causes it? small dick complex?

    • tracey 26.4
      18 December 2013 at 8:37 am

      LOL, by using BM as your “source” of anything brings more than just your posts into question. he has been unable to actually outline the basis for his risk-reward ration contentment. he started strongly but finished very soon after with less than a whimper.

  27. tricledrown 27
    18 December 2013 at 8:07 am

    McG addicted to Oil .
    97% of peet review sciemce shows you are captive of the oil industry.

  28. tricledrown 28
    18 December 2013 at 8:19 am

    Peer reviewed that is.
    The depth of these wells offshore means it will be 20 years before they can be used as the technology is not able to retrieve this oil.
    So this govt is telling porkies about benefits to NZ economy.
    By then electric cars will have taken over and it will have been pointless drilling and risking our enviroment!

    • Tat Loo (CV) 28.1
      18 December 2013 at 8:25 am

      No, electric cars will not be “taking over” as only a very small proportion of people will be able to afford them as the economy continues to struggle.

      • aerobubble 28.1.1
        18 December 2013 at 12:57 pm

        I disagree. Sure urban sprawl has locked in high energy usage patterns… …for those that live there. As populations continue to increase, more people will live in denser areas, and since they won’t own or run as many cars, they will have more spending power. Why buy an electric car when you don’t need a car at all, and the economic pressure for you to not own a car is so real (share car ownership, renting, etc).

        Its NZ sprawl that is the huge burden on the economy in future decades.

    • Draco T Bastard 28.2
      18 December 2013 at 2:49 pm

      Not electric cars but electric trains and buses. There’s no way we have the generation capacity to run electric cars and we probably never will have as we have other, more important, things to do with our resources.

  29. greywarbler 29
    19 December 2013 at 10:03 am

    aerobubble
    Have you a link on sharing car ownership – say neighbours sharing?

    • aerobubble 29.1
      19 December 2013 at 12:50 pm

      I think its called a market opportunity.

    • greywarbler 29.2
      19 December 2013 at 5:49 pm

      Car ownership sharing among neighbours etc has already been done was my point. So how to go about it I thought would be good to know. But i haven’t time to look that up. Done looking up links for the post for this year.