Wilson vs Heatley

32 comments on “Wilson vs Heatley ”

• Comments are now closed

1. insider 1

   4 December 2012 at 6:15 pm

   It was a silly question. Just because it is uneconomic for one company does not make it uneconomic for others. That’s why there are lots of different sized oil companies operating different sized fields in nz alone and opportunities get traded up and down the scale ladder. Same with retail – not every town has a McDonald’s but plenty that don’t do have burger bars.
   • Colonial Viper 1.1

     4 December 2012 at 6:33 pm

     Just because it is uneconomic for one company does not make it uneconomic for others.

     Of course. By cutting a few corners, skimping on oil well blow out preventers, getting huge tax payer subsidies and tax breaks, a project can suddenly become economic.
     • insider 1.1.1

       4 December 2012 at 6:50 pm

       Or by not having to sustain an expensive global corporate infrastructure and shareholders demanding a regular annual return of x%, making it too much hassle for too little reward

       It’s why fletch ears doesn’t bid for your driveway reseal
       • Colonial Viper 1.1.1.1

         4 December 2012 at 6:58 pm

         Sure, you can always lower the required rate of return on a project allowing it to suddenly become “feasible”.

         Or try and drive down wages and headcount to maintain the return that shareholders want.
         • insider 1.1.1.1.1

           4 December 2012 at 7:54 pm

           Or you could employ local engineers and geologists instead of fifo ones, have an office and management in hamilton not houston and run your finances on myob instead of sap.
           • Colonial Viper 1.1.1.1.1.1

             4 December 2012 at 10:14 pm

             Sorry I missed something? What does Joe’s Engineering Shop down the road know about deep sea drilling and natural gas extraction which will allow you to cancel the consulting contracts from Bechtel and Halliburton?
             • insider …

               5 December 2012 at 9:59 am

               Your faith in nz workers and skills is touching
               • felix …

                 5 December 2012 at 10:11 am

                 Funny. When it’s building trains or houses we can’t possibly handle it, but when it’s drilling the deepest most dangerous underwater wells ever, we’re kushti.

                 Probably worth a bookmark.
                 • insider …

                   5 December 2012 at 10:52 am

                   Where are these plans for “the deepest most dangerous underwater wells ever”? If it were true, could a nz company do it alone? Unlikely as I’ve already stated. But could they run an exploration programme leading up to that? For sure. It’s been done plenty of times before.
                   • felix …

                     5 December 2012 at 11:33 am

                     Thought you said anyone who thought this was going to be economic was deluding themselves. So why waste NZ resources on it at all?
           • Shona 1.1.1.1.1.2

             5 December 2012 at 7:13 pm

             Wrong insider your ignorance of deepwater drilling is showing. The workers will be predominately fifo and most of them will be kiwis and scots(living in or working in ozzie)More Aussies will try for the exploration jobs here too due to tax changes for them working offshore and NZ at least having a reciprocal tax agreement with OZ.The deepwater drilling conditions around NZ are known for being amongst the most dangerous in the industry. Especially due to the unpredicatable weather.The only workers with the level of experience required will all be flown in. We don’t have the expertise here. My partner has over 30 years experience in the offshore drilling industry and the point of hire for experienced workers is either Perth or Singapore. While there is an excellent training base in New Plymouth there simply isn’t the infrastructure in NZ to train the required number of crews.Oh and they won’t be working for crappy kiwi dollars or wage rates either. No one with the required level of skill will even consider it.We don’t have the engineers for the job in NZ.
       • Pascal's bookie 1.1.1.2

         4 December 2012 at 7:02 pm

         So much for this being a big economic deal then eh?

         But TBH, aren’t we talking about some of the deepest well sites in the world out there?

         Not really a job for someone who’s looking for something to with their redundancy payout.
       • CnrJoe 1.1.1.3

         4 December 2012 at 7:16 pm

         issue we have here is that a smaller company will have even less resources in case of disaster – and these are so difficult to reach ( even Petrobras finds it uneconomic?) places that disaster is more likely and harder to deal to. so don’t do it.
         • insider 1.1.1.3.1

           4 December 2012 at 8:11 pm

           Not really. If it is that difficult small companies won’t have any money to develop in the first place, and there is a Long way to go before a hole is even considered. They would usually farm in a larger company if there was any potential in the play. You saw that recently with shell buying into a southern permit.
           • vto 1.1.1.3.1.1

             4 December 2012 at 10:12 pm

             ha. On the economics and business side this is yet another slap in the face for this government and their unthinking approach to things.

             Petrobras are out of here because they can see the writing on the wall. There is hell trouble coming and everyone is heading for home.

             It is like the last mad lolly scamble has the first kids running for cover right now.
             • insider …

               5 December 2012 at 10:01 am

               This is an untested province. Anyone surprised at this result has only been deluding themself that a lot more was known about it than actually was
               • vto …

                 5 December 2012 at 10:20 am

                 insider, your potsts around this are all over the place and counteract each other.
                 • insider …

                   5 December 2012 at 10:25 am

                   Examples would be helpful. But on past form I’d suggest you read more closely first.
                   • vto …

                     5 December 2012 at 10:28 am

                     Example. This… “Just because it is uneconomic for one company does not make it uneconomic for others”
                     \
                     and this … “Anyone surprised at this result has only been deluding themself that a lot more was known about it than actually was”
                   • insider …

                     5 December 2012 at 10:41 am

                     As I thought, you need to read more closely.
   • AsleepWhileWalking 1.2

     4 December 2012 at 9:59 pm

     I hear the royalties oil companies pay our government when they are successful are some of the lowest (if not THE lowest) in the world. (Sorry no ref)

     So…basically the government is so enamoured with the idea of doing business and gaining theoretical jobs they not only sell our resources but they do so at a massive discount.

     What will it take for the National party to stop offering our country up as an industrial doormat, hmm?
     • insider 1.2.1

       5 December 2012 at 10:04 am

       The raukumara is a clear demonstration why our royalties are low. Petrobras burned millions for nothing. You can’t charge a premium rate for high risk areas. Labour had similar rates when was in power.
2. Te Reo Putake 2

   4 December 2012 at 6:31 pm

   Astonishing thing to say from Heatley, especially given that he has form in the blubbing department. If I were a psychologist, I imagine I’d be saying that he was unintentionally letting his true feelings out. But then, he can’t be the only National MP who’s depressed about how dismal this government has turned out to be. I wonder how the others hide it?
   • weka 2.1

     4 December 2012 at 6:54 pm

     What’s wrong with crying?
     • Te Reo Putake 2.1.1

       4 December 2012 at 8:11 pm

       Nothing, Weka. But it’s unusual in a politician because in that environment its seen as a sign of weakness. cf Helen Clark being disrespected at the Waitangi marae.
   • Rob 2.2

     4 December 2012 at 9:11 pm

     They are too dumb to know or like Key and never face up to real scrutiny.
3. geoff 3

   4 December 2012 at 6:38 pm

   Mary Wilson’s shrill badgering during interviews gives me the shits and even though it was a National party MP I actually thought that line from Phil Heatley was kinda funny.
   What’s the skinny on Phil Heatley anyway? As far as National MPs go is he a scumbag like Steven Joyce or is he ok?
   • insider 3.1

     4 December 2012 at 6:54 pm

     He’s promoted beyond his capabilities, but thinks he’s quite trick
   • RedLogix 3.2

     4 December 2012 at 10:01 pm

     Mary Wilson’s method is meant to give you the shits… as it does her victims. Most interviewees are usually professionally prepared all afternoon by PR or marketing experts; while Mary Wilson has a dozen or more stories to cover. So part of her method is to get them emotionally reacting to her badgering and hopefully let something slip from under the facade.

     Now while she’s got researchers doing some of the work for her we know that RNZ is under-funded so that only goes so far, so Mary uses a little needle. Not elegant, not nice … but can get quite interesting results.
4. Northshoreguynz 4

   4 December 2012 at 6:53 pm

   Give that woman a show of her own on TV. She can be scary.
5. Optional 5

   4 December 2012 at 9:18 pm

   Wilson is a general purpose radio presenter and is usually ill-prepared and out-of-her depth in any story that transcends the ‘human interest’ Page-One-of-the-Sun trivia. Nevertheless it’s still telling that most National Ministers and many Senior Civil Servants left with egg on their faces from trying to implement or defend idiotic Government Policy refuse to appear on her “show’. At least Heatley fronted.
   • Pascal's bookie 5.1

     5 December 2012 at 11:25 am

     Nah.

     Mary Wilson is a rare talent, and a national bloody treasure who should stay right where she is, doing what she does.

     the post 5 o’clock spot is for hard interviews on the days breaking news. there isn’t time for a lot of prep. It’s not not like the BBCs hard talk for example, where the interviewer has had weeks for prep.

     What Wilson does is press hard on the subject’s talking points, and like I said, she is really really good at it.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS