web analytics

Banners on the Beach protest tomorrow

Written By: - Date published: 9:55 am, November 22nd, 2013 - 98 comments
Categories: uncategorized - Tags:

Banners on the beach poster

98 comments on “Banners on the Beach protest tomorrow ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Ake ake ake 1
    22 November 2013 at 10:38 am

    Have a good day and keep the banners flying!

    The government is being very irresponsible by keeping secret the magnitude of the risks of deep sea oil exploration.

    From this side of the Ditch, the view is that things are worsening for folks back in Aotearoa.

    • BM 1.1
      22 November 2013 at 11:20 am

      The government is being very irresponsible by keeping secret the magnitude of the risks of deep sea oil exploration.

      Please explain the risk because what I’ve been reading seems to point in the direction that Greenpeace and the Greens are telling total bullshit about the risks associated with deep sea oil drilling off the cost of NZ.

      • Ake ake ake 1.1.1
        22 November 2013 at 11:43 am

        What have you been reading?

        • BM 1.1.1.1
          22 November 2013 at 11:50 am

          I’ve been reading that the oil fields found around NZ are mostly low pressure.
          To extract oil from these fields, the oil has to be pumped out unlike the gulf of Mexico where the oil fields are under pressure.
          Turn off the pump the oil stops flowing.

          Makes a Gulf of Mexico scenario basically impossible.

          • One Anonymous Knucklehead 1.1.1.1.1
            22 November 2013 at 11:56 am

            “Mostly”. I note you are talking about existing wells.

            Please look up the definition of “exploratory”.

            • BM 1.1.1.1.1.1
              22 November 2013 at 12:08 pm

              According to Petroleum Exploration & Production Association chief executive David Robinson all the wells in Taranaki are all low pressure wells.

              Anadarko is scheduled to begin drilling at two deep-sea sites
              1. Taranaki Basin
              -Chances of a blow out here is nil
              2.Canterbury Basin.
              – Don’t know and not sure where one would find that information, but I’d take a guess and say it’s along the same lines as the Taranaki Basin.

              • One Anonymous Knucklehead …
                22 November 2013 at 1:02 pm

                Plenty of information available on the geology of the Canterbury Basin, along with some quite specific predictions of hydrocarbon traps and seals.

                It would be quite a coincidence if the geology there were similar to that off Taranaki, what with them being on different tectonic plates and all, but it’s your guess, not mine.

              • Ian Todd …
                25 November 2013 at 5:39 pm

                You need to understand the difference between shallow water drilling and the proposed deep water wells. There is no such thing as nil risk as you suggest. The government’s assessed risk at Taranaki site is 10%. At the deep water sites, it’s 70%. Whilst it’s true that a ‘notifiable incident’ includes injury to staff, collisions, fires and spills, at 7 times the risk of Taranaki is a heck of a chance to take with our coastline.

                The government’s tide and wind modelling shows a single blow out at Raglan would gradually pollute the top half of the west coast of NI. I think it’s reprehensible of Minister Amy Adams to change the word when ‘quoting’ from a risk report. She described the consequences of any spill as ‘significant’. The actual word used was ‘catastrophic’.

                And because Anadarko have set up Anadarko NZ Ltd, they can walk away from the cost of the clean up once their assets are taken. Here is a list of the safety equipment listed onboard the Noble. Like many others, I honestly thought it was a spoof article, but it’s not.
                http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1311/S00274/anadarko-oil-spill-equipment-grossly-inadequate.htm

                As an American judge said to a corporation recently, “I’m going to judge you on what you do, not what you say you’re going to do.” How well do you think they would cope with a spill?

          • Enough is Enough 1.1.1.1.2
            22 November 2013 at 12:04 pm

            The law of averages tells us there will be a major spill in New Zealand waters at some point in time. That is fact.

            The only way to prevent the inevitable spill is to pull all wells out now.

          • blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) 1.1.1.1.3
            22 November 2013 at 12:04 pm

            @ BM
            Oil is on the way out. It is a backwards approach to pursue such. It not only endangers the environment it also has been creating a lot of wars and suffering (indirectly I guess, due to the greed of the individuals profiting from it). It is a backwards move to start drawing NZ deeper into this filthy (physically and morally) industry.

            Humans are extremely clever (well some are) and can devise other ways to propel vehicles and ‘industry’; it is time that we started investing in green technology.

            It would be nice to have a government that was looking toward the future and being real about this issue of energy. Not one that attempts to fool its citizenry into believing that this is the way to create jobs and that the risks are minimal. Just so a few can profit at the expense of everyone else. That approach is really simply a waste of all our time and energy.

            • BM 1.1.1.1.3.1
              22 November 2013 at 12:13 pm

              Not for a long time.
              We could have a huge revenue stream sitting 100k off shore and you don’t want to touch it?

              Can you not think of all the good this money could make to our country?, do you want people to stay poor?

              Great free health care, free education and you want to turn that down because oil’s supposedly on the way out, unbelievable!.

              • Enough is Enough …
                22 November 2013 at 12:18 pm

                Free Health Care and Education is available to us today without these unecessary wells. All we have to do is elect a government that will do that [i.e. the Greens]

                This country is extremely wealthy. The only problem is the nation’s wealth is not distributed evenly amongst the nation’s people.

                A truly progressive tax system would reap the benefits you refer to.

                Gifting dirty oil to foreigners will not achieve that.

                • Just Like Tiger Woods …
                  22 November 2013 at 2:04 pm

                  If that’s your belief, then it is a blind one.

                  See how well your socialism is working out in Venezuela.

                  • One Anonymous Knucklehead …
                    22 November 2013 at 2:18 pm

                    How’s the ongoing determined effort to overthrow Venezuela’s democratically elected government going?

                    Newsflash: destabilisation destabilises. Oh, and “my” Socialism looks a lot more Nordic in origin.

                    • BM …
                      22 November 2013 at 2:24 pm

                      Nordic? what as in Norway, the great oil producer of the north.

                      Do you think that socialist utopia would have happened without the revenue raised from oil?

                    • Just Like Tiger Woods …
                      22 November 2013 at 3:19 pm

                      Norway?

                      You mean the country that allowed oil drilling by US oil giants, which, once discovered, Norway created their own national oil company. The oil pays for their generous “socialism”, not redistribution.

                      Something to think about.

                    • Just Like Tiger Woods …
                      22 November 2013 at 3:21 pm

                      Always someone elses fault, eh.

                      Just can’t admit that destroying production and distribution incentives quickly destroys an economy.

                      At some point, you’re going to need to admit the socialism experiments do not work.

                    • One Anonymous Knucklehead …
                      22 November 2013 at 3:29 pm

                      Someone else’s fault? What new drivel is this? Oh, no wait, it’s the old drivel, the zombie argument walks again.

                      Why can’t you parrots ever say anything original? So tiny is your intellect that you spend hours desperately trying to come up with new ways to say someone else’s lines.

                      Take this witless shite, that Socialism is somehow about deflecting blame, based on the notion that reasons are excuses. Do you enjoy espousing illiteracy or are you just too stupid to understand the difference?

                      We need better wingnuts.

                      PS: Perhaps if you could comprehend, you might have comprehended some of my other remarks on this thread, and noticed that they undermined your stupid assertion that I deny the value of hydrocarbons before you even made it. What kind of fuckwit makes a basic mistake like that?

                    • One Anonymous Knucklehead …
                      22 November 2013 at 3:35 pm

                      PPS: Higher per capita GDP, lowest unemployment in NZ history, lower GINI. If these are examples of my “Socialism” not working, then your National Party must be completely shit, failing as they do to even match these paltry achievements.

                    • Just Like Tiger Woods …
                      22 November 2013 at 3:40 pm

                      Your eloquence is really something, One Anonymous Knucklehead

                      Your anger is understandable, because. once again, there is living proof that socialist economic principles don’t work in practice. Venezuela is collapsing from self-inflicted ideological idiocy, and Chavez is to blame.

                      They implemented it, they need to take the blame for the predictable results.

                      Regarding your suggestion to read your other posts, I’m not sure I want to read them as I fear the level of rhetorical flatulence involved. If you want to calm down and discuss things like a reasonable adult, then perhaps there is a way forward.

                    • One Anonymous Knucklehead …
                      22 November 2013 at 3:48 pm

                      Argues in circles,
                      Like an absurd wingnut bird,
                      Flapping makes no sound.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      22 November 2013 at 3:51 pm

                      Venezuela is under the usual massive banking/US sanctions pressure.

                      You must call 48M Americans on food stamps a success of capitalism then. And Walmart organising public donations for their own underpaid staff.

                    • One Anonymous Knucklehead …
                      22 November 2013 at 3:54 pm

                      We can play this game all day: USA recidivism rate: 50-odd percent. Nordic nations: twenty-odd percent.

                    • Just Like Tiger Woods …
                      22 November 2013 at 4:11 pm

                      “Venezuela is under the usual massive banking/US sanctions pressure.”

                      Always someone else’s fault, eh. Funny how the failure of socialism is always the capitalists fault. The US doesn’t blame the faults of capitalism on Greece, or Russia, or China, or North Korea does it? No, it blames it on their own people, namely banks.

                      If socialism is that vulnerable to US policy, then perhaps that tells you something about one of the many flaws of socialism.

                  • One Anonymous Knucklehead …
                    22 November 2013 at 4:55 pm

                    Maybe you can explain why you present the weird imperialist adventures of the USA as some sort of natural order, rather than continuing with this failed attempt to draw conclusions about Socialism based on cherry-picking Chavez’s populism rather than Holland’s reduced prison population, or some of the other available comparisons.

                    Oh, and perhaps, while you’re at it, you can explain why you and the other wingnuts all rehearse the same lines. Not an original thought among you.

                    Lift your game, it’s like Sarah Palin hour.

                    • Just Like Tiger Woods …
                      22 November 2013 at 5:16 pm

                      Well, Europe is in trouble.

                      Their level of state spending is not sustainable, which is why the likes of Sweden have swung right. The Netherlands is another interesting example when it comes to dealing with offenders. They use containers as housing to isolate problem families. The Dutch are quite Germanic when it comes to dealing with people who don’t play nicely.

                      I’m not sure why so many on the left seek to put people in boxes and stamp a label on them. Perhaps it makes life appear more simple. I don’t see myself as being right or left, but issue based and pragmatic. If something makes sense to me, I’ll support it, and I don’t really care where the idea comes from. The Greens are right about drug law, for example, and National are wrong.

                      Chavez style socialism sounds nice, but the evidence is that people soon go without. The lesson seems to be that incentives and market signals are important.

              • blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) …
                22 November 2013 at 12:19 pm

                A poor argument BM
                Green technology can provide the funds we require…that is if our stupid bloody government started encouraging it.

                There is a good chance that more alternatives would already have been developed if it weren’t for the greedy monopolistic behaviour of this fossilized industry.

                I suggest that you start thinking outside the fossilized square that’s been provided for you care of the industry players and our current idiotic government, BM.

                • Just Like Tiger Woods …
                  22 November 2013 at 3:31 pm

                  That is false.

                  If that opportunity existed, the private sector would be all over it. There is no shortage of investment money chasing projects, but there is a shortage of good projects.

                  You don’t get a profitable enterprise just because you throw money at something. See the myriad of failures in those industries, prime examples being Suntech, Solyndra and the Spanish solar industry. They threw billions at it, and got absolutely nowhere.

                  I suggest you start thinking in terms of comparative and competitive advantage, not fanciful ideological wish lists.

                  • One Anonymous Knucklehead …
                    22 November 2013 at 3:45 pm

                    Where will the competitive and comparative advantages be? Geography, obviously plays a part. We can’t change that, but maybe we’ll get lucky.

                    The oil is getting harder and harder to access, weaning ourselves off it is not an option, it’s going to happen whether we like it or not.

                    So the other advantages can be delivered by successful adaptation, but research involves going down blind alleys occasionally; whoopdeedo, you can point at one.

                    I note the private sector manufactures solar panels and windmills. Does that count as “all over it”, or does it just throw your shallow “argument” a bone?

                    • Just Like Tiger Woods …
                      22 November 2013 at 4:17 pm

                      We’ll replace oil one day. Until then, we need oil.

                      So, if the hippies and peaceniks don’t like oil, then they’re going to need to come up with a lot more alternative energy at a lot lower price point in order to substitute. The first world isn’t going to stop using the energy oil provides for ideological reasons. Even hippies like Hughes makes substantial use of plane travel in order to be “effective”. Well, so does everyone else, Mr Hughes.

                      Shrugs.

                      So get inventing. Trying to stop oil use without equivalent energy replacement at reasonable cost won’t work.

                    • Naturesong …
                      22 November 2013 at 5:18 pm

                      We’ll replace oil one day. Until then, we need oil.

                      Oil companies already have access to enough oil that if it were all used, the effect on our climate presents an existential threat to humans.
                      We have enough oil. There is no need to drill for more.
                      This is known as an argument from ignorance.

                      So, if the hippies and peaceniks don’t like oil, then they’re going to need to come up with a lot more alternative energy at a lot lower price point in order to substitute.

                      Labelling those who disagree with you with regard to the danger presented by fossil fuel use as “hippies and peaceniks” shows that you are disingenuous.
                      It’s also an example of an ad hominem.

                      .. a lot more alternative energy at a lot lower price point in order to substitute

                      This is correct as far as it goes, but it makes the assumption that profit is the primary consideration for any activity. The profit motive may well be the root of the problem facing the world.
                      You are also ignoring the fact that the oil industry is heavily subsidised, and does not price in a lot of the cost of extracting and using the stuff.
                      Pollution produced during extraction and consumption is externalised and some of that is paid for with public monies.
                      The increased number of fires in Australia, the additional damage caused due to increased intensity of storms. Oil spills where the state (our taxes) pick up the bulk of the clean up costs.

                      The first world isn’t going to stop using the energy oil provides for ideological reasons.

                      No. But they may stop using it for existential reasons. However it may be too late by then.

                      Even hippies like Hughes makes substantial use of plane travel in order to be “effective”. Well, so does everyone else, Mr Hughes.

                      Gareth Hughes also makes a point of being carbon neutral and has initiated sequestration measures (planting a shit load of tree mainly) to cover his carbon use.

                      Even so, I think air travel will be one of the last things to go.
                      In the mean time;
                      * closing coal powered generation
                      * redirecting the subsidies that currently go to oil companies toward clean end point generation (solar and wind generation on every house and building).
                      * a commitment to quality public transport which will reduce emmissions per journey for commuters, reduce the driving time when do actually use a car.
                      * continuation of the Greens insulation initiative, which has produces great results reduced power costs and health savings.

                      The area of alternate energy is currently worth billions, and in the next couple of decades will be worth tens of billions. For New Zealand, it’s a massive opportunity. The current government, they really have no clue.

                      So get inventing. Trying to stop oil use without equivalent energy replacement at reasonable cost won’t work.

                      This is a red herring.
                      Many people are actively working toward alternatives, however currently there is not a level playing field. If the actual costs of oil were included into the price, you would see a massive shift to alternative power sources.

                    • Just Like Tiger Woods …
                      23 November 2013 at 10:27 am

                      “Oil companies already have access to enough oil that if it were all used, the effect on our climate presents an existential threat to humans.We have enough oil. There is no need to drill for more.This is known as an argument from ignorance.”

                      There is no evidence using oil presents an existential threat to humans. If a company thinks it needs to meet demand with supply, then they do so.

                      “Labelling those who disagree with you with regard to the danger presented by fossil fuel use as “hippies and peaceniks” shows that you are disingenuous.It’s also an example of an ad hominem.”

                      Perhaps, but it’s also descriptive. People often use the term “right-wing” or “Tories” or “wing-nuts”. Should they?

                      “This is correct as far as it goes, but it makes the assumption that profit is the primary consideration for any activity. The profit motive may well be the root of the problem facing the world.”

                      Well, you could generate energy at a loss, but it isn’t sustainable. Eventually, you get Greece, where they can no longer pay for many essential services.

                      “You are also ignoring the fact that the oil industry is heavily subsidised, and does not price in a lot of the cost of extracting and using the stuff.”

                      How is it subsidised? Are you against subsidy?

                      “The increased number of fires in Australia, the additional damage caused due to increased intensity of storms. ”

                      That is false. There is no evidence to connect oil use to storm activity.

                      “No. But they may stop using it for existential reasons. However it may be too late by then.”

                      I see no evidence to suggest this is true.

                      “Gareth Hughes also makes a point of being carbon neutral and has initiated sequestration measures (planting a shit load of tree mainly) to cover his carbon use.”

                      How about he stops flying and plants trees? Because he seems to be missing the point as trees eventually release carbon. They are a medium term store, not elimination.

                      “The area of alternate energy is currently worth billions, and in the next couple of decades will be worth tens of billions. For New Zealand, it’s a massive opportunity. The current government, they really have no clue.”

                      Just because a market is worth billions doesn’t mean you can get a share of it just because you throw money at it. The silicon chip industry is worth billions, but if we have no competitive advantage, then we will command no market share.

                      If it were as easy as deciding to do it and throwing money at it, I’d be all over it. Business is not that easy and suggesting it is shows a fundamental misunderstanding on how businesses are created and thrive.

                      “Many people are actively working toward alternatives, however currently there is not a level playing field. If the actual costs of oil were included into the price, you would see a massive shift to alternative power sources”

                      Great. I’m not sure about the subsidies you’re talking about, and whether you reject all subsidy.

                  • Colonial Viper …
                    22 November 2013 at 3:46 pm

                    Government can step in and get the research done as government has got a longer time horizon than the private sector and no need to meet the requirements of profit demanding shareholders.

                    If that opportunity existed, the private sector would be all over it. There is no shortage of investment money chasing projects, but there is a shortage of good projects.

                    Most of this private sector money is afraid of real risk.

                    That’s why they park up with T Bills.

                    • Just Like Tiger Woods …
                      22 November 2013 at 4:26 pm

                      So, what you’re saying is that the taxpayer will keep making a loss for a lot longer. Sounds great!

                      There is also no assurance taking a long time horizon in new energy tech will turn to profit one day. It might, but more than likely won’t.

                    • blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) …
                      22 November 2013 at 4:38 pm

                      @JLTigerWoods,

                      Who exactly do you think is going to fork out for the bill in the event of an oil spill occurs in one of these deep sea drill sites proposed for the coasts of New Zealand?
                      Who has lost revenue in the event that that occurs?

                      The taxpayer.

                    • Just Like Tiger Woods …
                      22 November 2013 at 4:53 pm

                      It’s like asking who will fork out for a 747 crash into Central Auckland. The taxpayer, mostly. Could it happen? Yeah, it might, but it’s not likely.

                      Same with pumping out sluggish, mud-like oil. There’s a very low likelihood of a major problem. Meanwhile, the upside benefit is significant.

                      It’s a tiny risk I don’t mind taking. The fact it makes the Greens go into comical hysterics is a nice bonus.

                  • blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) …
                    22 November 2013 at 3:51 pm

                    Not so JLTW

                    You appear to be omitting to factor in the negative effects of monopolies that are clearly evident these days.

                    The advantages that those already in large industries are receiving – tax ‘incentives’, cheap finance and lobbying power.

                    ‘Investment money’, in case you haven’t noticed (and obviously you haven’t) has been more interested in making money off things like mortgage debt recently than investing in something that might actually give benefit to people.

                    To join the dots for you: being ‘too big to fail’ is a negative monopolistic effect. A sector being so huge they get bailed out when ‘market discipline’ rears its stern head is an example of why market theory is defunct at present.

                    You are citing ideology that has failed and is failing us in front of our very eyes – not least due to the monopolistic effects that you are refusing to acknowledge.

                    Wake up

                    • Just Like Tiger Woods …
                      22 November 2013 at 4:23 pm

                      You’re arguing a straw man. I’m not advocating monopolies. Do you advocate state monopolies?

                    • blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) …
                      22 November 2013 at 4:31 pm

                      Not strawman at all. By your comment I believe that you are not acknowledging the destructive effect of monopolies that is going on at present across the western world. You can’t keep arguing ‘standard business practice’ theories when the pivotal mechanism of that ideology is currently so corrupted it isn’t functional.

                    • Just Like Tiger Woods …
                      22 November 2013 at 4:55 pm

                      Blueleopard, I dislike monopolies as much as you do. They are a clear sign of market and regulatory failure.

                      I don’t see why some then champion state monopolies, as the graft and inefficiency and destruction is just the same.

                  • Paul …
                    23 November 2013 at 11:28 am

                    How much does BP pay you?

            • One Anonymous Knucklehead 1.1.1.1.3.2
              22 November 2013 at 12:16 pm

              I think that’s a simplistic view. Most of our technological achievements are down to the energy density of oil. There’s a good reason why life expectancy has improved so dramatically in the last hundred years.

              You might call it greed, but people like having the security that cheap energy brings.

              We have to stop using it, but a strategy that pretends the only people with skin in the game are oil barons is doomed, and that’s before we even begin to address the military implications.

              My personal view is that the weather will degrade our capacity to emit carbon before any real progress is made. I hope to be proved wrong.

              • blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) …
                22 November 2013 at 12:46 pm

                Hi OAK

                I am unclear whether your comment is in response to mine or not, however you referred to greed and that is a word that I used and so I am guessing you are responding to my comment.

                I am of the opinion that green energy technology has likely been slowed down by the oil industries need to continue to profit through their monopoly (I accept this isn’t cold hard fact, I think it is a reasonable call though.) Some may call this ‘profiteering’ rather than greed, or perhaps ‘a pragmatic approach of looking after one’s own interests [profits]’ however when this occurs at the expense of a greater good, this is when a more pejorative term such as ‘greed’ can become a more accurate term to use.

                Out of a similar such ‘phenomenon’ – keen to profit- I believe the oil industry is now researching green technologies with the understanding that their resource is on the way out. So why does our Government not take such an intelligent approach?

                You appear to be arguing that we all have a vested interest in oil, yes we certainly are reliant on oil at present, however we also have a [greater] vested interest in having a healthy environment and energy sources that create less damage to our environment and that are renewable. So lets get on with dealing with that interest.

                • One Anonymous Knucklehead …
                  22 November 2013 at 1:18 pm

                  I’m arguing that a strategy that pretends oil barons are the only people with vested interests is doomed. Leave the super-villains to Batman.

                  Having described them as greedy you then credit them with intelligence. Perhaps they’re just becoming more ethical with the introduction of unleaded petrol.

                  • blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) …
                    22 November 2013 at 1:41 pm

                    OAK,

                    A greedy group is capable of pursuing an intelligent idea. Or do you not think so?

                    I believe it is not only intelligent to to invest (time and money) into green technology it is sensible. I believe the oil industry is now doing that. I think that the lack of investment into this area is and was not intelligent and some of this lack was driven by greed. I am relaying the picture as I see it occurring and sorry this doesn’t fit in with your apparent need for everything to be either something for ‘Batman’ to deal with if they are not perhaps ‘Mary-Poppins-like’ non-perjorative. These are the facts as I understand them and this is what I put forward.

                    I think that ‘calling’ a sector’s behaviour as it is can be very helpful, especially when it is that quality that is tripping everyone else up. I fail to understand why your view that doing so leads to a strategy that is ‘doomed’? I have supplied a reasoned response as to why I referred to them as greedy. I would appreciate the same from you.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      22 November 2013 at 1:57 pm

                      OAK’s simply saying that there are far wider interest groups who favour the continued use of fossil fuels than just the fossil fuel barons.

                      Most people who live in the modern world for instance.

                      Who may say that they are keen to stop deep sea oil drilling. But aren’t going to give up their summer holiday to Australia, nor their purchases of imported goods, because they enjoy the benefits of fossil fuels too much.

                    • blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) …
                      22 November 2013 at 2:05 pm

                      @ CV

                      As stated in my first reply:

                      “yes we certainly are reliant on oil at present, however we also have a [greater] vested interest in having a healthy environment and energy sources that create less damage to our environment and that are renewable. So lets get on with dealing with that interest.”

                    • One Anonymous Knucklehead …
                      22 November 2013 at 2:14 pm

                      That’s pretty much it CV, and it isn’t just trips to Aussie. Cosmetics, plastics, ink, sellotape, aspirin etc. etc.

                      You’re going to have a hard time convincing people that the manufacturers and consumers of these goods are all a pack of bastards.

                      It comes down to a choice between seriously diminished quality of life administered voluntarily and seriously diminished quality of life administered by the weather.

                      I’m sorry to say my money’s on the weather. It’s not going to stop me trying to make a difference, but.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      22 November 2013 at 2:21 pm

                      “yes we certainly are reliant on oil at present, however we also have a [greater] vested interest in having a healthy environment and energy sources that create less damage to our environment and that are renewable. So lets get on with dealing with that interest.”

                      Who is this “we” business? The people with the most power, capital and authority in society don’t care.

                      All they are doing is lumping most of the costs of their recent decisions on to those under 30.

                      It’s what they’ve been doing since Thatcher, and it’s what they’re still doing now. Inter-generational inequity is booming, not receding.

                      Look at rich countries in Warsaw telling poorer and developing countries like the Philippines to fuck off, during the climate talks.

                      OAK

                      It comes down to a choice between seriously diminished quality of life administered voluntarily and seriously diminished quality of life administered by the weather.

                      I think that the voluntary and conscious move can create a society where our material standard of living is unavoidably significantly less, but our cultural, spiritual and community standard of living is overwhelmingly high.

                      If we leave it to the climate and unmanaged break downs in complex civilisation systems, its gonna be way uglier.

                    • One Anonymous Knucklehead …
                      22 November 2013 at 2:27 pm

                      “Don’t care”?

                      You think they are completely unconcerned with the loss and destruction of all that precious real estate they’ve hoarded?

                    • One Anonymous Knucklehead …
                      22 November 2013 at 2:30 pm

                      “Way uglier”. Oh agreed. Our culture, spirit and community will help mitigate this.

                    • blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) …
                      22 November 2013 at 2:31 pm

                      @OAK
                      I think that I understand where you are trying to say now and it appears that you are missing what I am am attempting to say.

                      I am emphasizing research because it is always easier to make a change when one is swapping from one thing to another, rather than completely removing something from our lives.

                      I mentioned ‘greed’ in that it seems reasonable to conclude that the reason we have not a huge variety of options already is due to the profiteering of a certain industry – not because we are not capable of finding alternatives. We are.

                      I think you are picking up on the word ‘greed’ and fixating on that and not actually looking further into what I am putting forward.

                      Sorry if my writing style confuses – sometimes don’t put things in the simplest of terms.

                    • blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) …
                      22 November 2013 at 2:49 pm

                      @ CV

                      “Who is this “we” business? The people with the most power, capital and authority in society don’t care…”

                      So what are you trying to say? “Oh, so now that those with power, capital and authority in society don’t care, then we should all just give up and stop thinking about ways to deal with the issue.”

                      This is defeatism

                      And yep, I know, having read your comments elsewhere, it is unlikely that ‘giving up’ is what your view is, however, just take a look at what you are really saying here.

                      Yes, I agree, people effecting public decisions at present don’t appear to care (or think further ahead than the length of their noses). However last I checked the Roman Emperor is not the main power in the West anymore….surprising perhaps, but things have a habit of changing.( /sark)

                      And how does this occur? People change their minds in response to circumstances and through talking together.
                      Enough people change their minds and things start happening.

                      It appears that OAK and you are saying “oo don’t talk about greed and research because people won’t do it anyway because it might mean a massive change in their lifestyles”.

                      You are bound to say this is a strawman, and perhaps it is somewhat, however, really take a look at what you are implying by what you write.

                      Actually there might not be a massive change required if new forms of energy are cultivated…and as you say in response to OAK, any changes required (where ‘conveniences’ can’t be replaced) might end up enhancing our lives, not being a degeneration of them.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      22 November 2013 at 2:51 pm

                      You think they are completely unconcerned with the loss and destruction of all that precious real estate they’ve hoarded?

                      They would be concerned if they allowed themselves to believe that the next 50 years might be very different to the last 50.

                      But hindsight bias means that its extremely difficult for humans to view things as being much different to their recent past.

                      Also many of these people know that they won’t be around in 15 years let alone 50. So as a mate of mine says – if you know oil is going to run out, you should make sure to use your fair share right now.

                      @BL: I don’t think much further research is required. The changes we need to enact now are well well within our current capabilities.

                      (I will respond to your longer comment in a moment) 🙂

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      22 November 2013 at 2:58 pm

                      BL, I always appreciate your points of view.

                      In reply I would say:

                      1) Defeatism: a captain who does not know what is possible and what is not will surely lead his entire crew and passengers, however bravely, to disaster.

                      2) Roman Empire. The Empire fell. Massive knowledge and wealth was lost. Peoples were scattered and millions lost. It took mankind centuries to recover, although recover they did through a very painful and dark time. The lessons of the end of empire are there, except ours is a global empire. So no /sarc there at all.

                      <blockquote.Actually there might not be a massive change required if new forms of energy are cultivated…

                      Certainly, there are opportunities there. But nothing will beat a 20L can of diesel.

                      And yes, I agree that life may actually be much better for us at generally lower levels of available energy and material resources.

                      “oo don’t talk about greed and research because people won’t do it anyway because it might mean a massive change in their lifestyles”.

                      It’s important to talk about what we want, and about issues of greed and avarice.

                      Research as I noted above is a bit beside the point. Everything we need to have for a solid sustainable civilisation is well within our grasp now.

                    • blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) …
                      22 November 2013 at 4:11 pm

                      @ CV

                      It is a little amusing that you cite in the same comment that “defeatism is a captain that doesn’t know what is possible” and then go onto say that “we probably don’t need more research”!

                      I was reading [only a wee bit] of information on energy and it seems that so far nothing has been discovered that is as powerful as fossil fuels is for creating energy. I was of the understanding that this is one of the reasons that we continue to use it.

                      There is a possibility that there is some way to create energy that is cleaner and as powerful, however it seems from what I read [and again, I can’t say it was extensive reading] this is yet to be discovered and would require more research.

                      Research was not actually my main point – I did say I wanted a government that “encouraged” green technology. This means encouraging the use of it, not just researching it. [I am all for research though too for the reason cited in the above paragraph.]

                      I am of the understanding that the oil industry get some sort of subsidies to make it more affordable for people (bit unclear on this point) and it is this type of thing that is ‘skewing’ people’s perception that it is more cost effective or irreplaceable.

                      I do agree that we have enough knowledge to get moving on a greener lifestyle now however having observed things like the improvements in the efficiency of cars over my lifetime, I deduce that more research is likely to provide better efficiency for green energy devices aswell.

                      Thanks for the positive feedback, coming from someone whose views and extensive knowledge I admire – that is very pleasing!

                    • One Anonymous Knucklehead …
                      22 November 2013 at 4:39 pm

                      Blue Leopard, I get your objection, but I’m not really saying that. Practically speaking, if we can’t replace the benefits that hydrocarbons represent, then we face Hobson’s choice: between reduced life expectancy – to put it another way increased infant mortality, plus weather related damage (and associated risks) which is going to happen anyway – cf: the forty-year lag between CO2 emissions and climate change, or, BAU and the inevitable weather related damage.

                      This is why “our” “leaders” are (present tense) planning for a medium to high level catastrophe: because that’s the most likely scenario no matter which path we choose.

                      When enough people get this – that sacrifices are going to be made, then maybe we’ll start working out how to address this in a concerted effort, and we will keep doing what we can as individuals in the meantime.

                      I can’t see any value in apportioning blame, or judging people for being curious and inventive. We have enough on our plates already.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      22 November 2013 at 5:20 pm

                      OAK

                      Blue Leopard, I get your objection, but I’m not really saying that. Practically speaking, if we can’t replace the benefits that hydrocarbons represent, then we face Hobson’s choice: between reduced life expectancy – to put it another way increased infant mortality

                      Of course, it’s also possible to accomplish good life expectancies with much less spending and resources. Cuba being a good example. Less easy availability of McDonalds and private motorised transport plus more requirement for physical work and bicycling. Fewer Playstations and less broadband = organise more community get togethers and local bands.

                      BL

                      I was reading [only a wee bit] of information on energy and it seems that so far nothing has been discovered that is as powerful as fossil fuels is for creating energy. I was of the understanding that this is one of the reasons that we continue to use it.

                      We should start with the understanding that energy is neither created nor destroyed…

                      Move on to the understanding that the power of fossil fuels comes from embodying millions of years of energy captured from sunlight, heat, pressure and gravitational forces, stored in highly concentrated, convenient, relatively safe to handle and simple to transport forms.

                      Then recognise that it takes 50-100 years (or more) to move a civilisation from one power source to another. People power to beasts of burden to wood/charcoal to coal to oil to building out a power grid which covers a nation. The transition to nuclear is very slight and incomplete because nuclear is bad, expensive, low energy.

                      Therefore – any really good energy source which is going to come along and save us from fossil fuels in time would already be well on the scene. Put another way: the cards we have in our hand right now, are the only cards we have to play.

                      The cornucopian fantasy that mankind is going to discover and commercialise cold fusion (or dilithium crystals or tylium or zero point energy) in time is at this stage a true deus ex machina worthy of an SF show.

                      Personally, I’m betting on the true old faithfuls, things like hydro, coal, geothermal to see us through.

                      btw the only truly green kW of energy is the one which is not used.

                    • blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) …
                      22 November 2013 at 6:15 pm

                      @ OAK

                      “I can’t see any value in apportioning blame, “

                      Addressing the ’emotions’ driving a problem is helpful in the process in of working out how to solve that problem.

                      A bit of exaggeration :

                      “or judging people for being curious and inventive. We have enough on our plates already.”

                      Nope, there is no way I promoted such views. In fact, I was promoting ways to encourage the curious and inventiveness of humans.

                      @ CV
                      Same message to you. A bit of exaggeration:

                      “The cornucopian fantasy that mankind is going to discover and commercialise cold fusion (or dilithium crystals or tylium or zero point energy) in time is at this stage a true deus ex machina worthy of an SF show.

                      Nope, I was not aiming at such, just believe that we are likely to discover improved energy sources/ways to use the energy we have.

                      @OAK & CV
                      Apart from these ‘errors’ I think you both make some good points and debating like this deepens my understanding. Thank you 🙂

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      22 November 2013 at 6:33 pm

                      Always welcome…we need a lot more people to understand…then we need to make the politicians realise that a lot of people get it and want it.

      • BLiP 1.1.2
        22 November 2013 at 4:39 pm

        ‘

        Your question is misdirected. Ask Anadarko what the risk is . . . only trouble with that, though, is that they are not saying. Nor is the John Key led National Ltd™ government. Its a secret.

      • Ian Todd 1.1.3
        25 November 2013 at 4:54 pm

        The main thing is to understand the difference between Taranaki wells in shallow waters and the proposed deep water drilling. Using the government and Anadarko’s own criteria, the risk of a reportable incident at a Taranaki well in shallower, calmer waters is 10%. Using the same criteria, the risk balloons to 70% in deep water sites. Following an OIA, the government’s modelling, based on tides and winds, shows one blowout at Raglan would eventually pollute the top half of the west coast of NI. (The rescue rig is 15 days away). Amy Adams changed the wording in the risk analysis report, describing any incident as ‘significant’. The word used was ‘catastrophic’. Anadarko has set up Anadarko NZ Ltd as a stand-alone company who can just walk away from a spill once their relatively meagre assets are taken. We are are left with polluted beaches and 99% of the clean up costs. I’ll get Anadarko’s safety equipment list – what they currently have on the drilling ship – barely enough to clean up a spill on the forecourt of your local gas station. No wonder the EPA has abdicated its responsibility by not sighting their ERP. This isn’t tree hugging stuff, there are plenty of alternatives in bio fuels and solar/wind. Create the jobs and industry in NZ and keep the profits here. We’re playing for keeps here. Let’s have a New Zealand we can be happy to pass on to future Kiwis.

  2. karol 2
    22 November 2013 at 10:54 am

    How long do the protests go on for? Would it be worth me going to one of Auckland’s west coast beaches after work?

    • Tiger Mountain 2.1
      22 November 2013 at 11:26 am

      good bit of info here karol
      http://www.getfree.org.nz/banners/

      You can put a “virtual” banner and message on the beach of your choice if you cannot make it in person, which will be conveyed to the flotilla. I’ll take a sign with dog to Kakamatua inlet but more formal things are planned for Piha and Bethells etc.

      • blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) 2.1.1
        22 November 2013 at 11:54 am

        That virtual banner idea is excellent. I have been watching that page since it started and it is so lovely to see the whole map of New Zealand being increasingly covered by virtual banners. Truly heart warming and good stuff NZ and Greenpeace!

    • mickysavage 2.2
      22 November 2013 at 11:40 am

      Hi Karol

      They are pretty sharp. At Piha there is a 12 pm meet up, short speeches 12:30 or so, 1 pm haka and after that people can do what they want.

  3. Tautoko Viper 3
    22 November 2013 at 11:24 am

    Banner painted. I am heading to Muriwai tomorrow to support those heroes who are in the protest flotilla.

  4. mickysavage 4
    22 November 2013 at 11:47 am

    If people think that there is no reason to be concerned they should check out the inventory of safety equipment on the drill ship. Apparently “[t]he documentation lists the Contents of the “Environmental Spill Response Kit” to be carried on board the drill ship:

    The kit on the drillship includes:
    • 15-4’ socks, 5-8’ socks, 190 pads, 16 pillows;
    • 2-10 lb Albozorbit, 15 disposable bags with ties;
    • 4 pair of nitrile gloves, 4 pairs silvershield gloves;
    • 4 each splash resistant goggles, 4-Tyvek coveralls XL;
    • 1 non-sparking shovel; and
    • 1 emergency response guidebook.”
    (page 58-59, Anadarko Discharge Management Plan from the Environmental Impact Assessment.)”

    The link is at http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1311/S00274/anadarko-oil-spill-equipment-grossly-inadequate.htm

    They should add one super duper bit of legislation that is apparently capable of absorbing oil spills all by itself …

    • marty mars 4.1
      22 November 2013 at 12:09 pm

      What a very sad little list.

    • vto 4.2
      22 November 2013 at 12:20 pm

      That’s fucked.

      Bottom line is that they should not be allowed to drill unless there is a full clean-up ship/s in port in NZ ready to pounce instantly there is a problem.

      We don’t let motor racing happen unless there is an ambulance at the track.

      We don’t even let a house be built unless there is a sediment catch mound built before starting.

    • miravox 4.3
      22 November 2013 at 12:23 pm

      “They should add one super duper bit of legislation that is apparently capable of absorbing oil spills all by itself …”

      haha. compare and contrast NZ’s world best practice legislation with the new EU legislation…
      http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/13/st09/st09633.en13.pdf

      btw: Do they have a sub-sea well capping device located in NZ? I hear that is important – plus the people with the expertise on standby to deploy it?

    • BM 4.4
      22 November 2013 at 12:25 pm

      Probably because that’s all they’d need if there was a spill.
      Why stock the ship with stuff that won’t be of any use.

    • Just Like Tiger Woods 4.5
      22 November 2013 at 2:02 pm

      If you have to pump the oil to get it to move, as you do in NZ, then the chance of a blow-out is almost non-existent. The danger is the pump stops working and you lose production until you can lower another one down.

      Therefore, there is no need for instant response, just in the same way there is no need for a fire-truck standing besides your TV in case it bursts into flames.

      • Colonial Viper 4.5.1
        22 November 2013 at 2:25 pm

        This is the stupidest thing you’ve ever said, and that’s something.

        • alwyn 4.5.1.1
          22 November 2013 at 2:48 pm

          Give him (or her) a break CV.
          You and I know that we wouldn’t need a fire truck next to the TV. Our TVs are quite small and a small CO2 extinguisher would be adequate.
          JLTW might have one of those enormous TVs though and would be likely to have a truely enormous fire.
          ps How do you get those faces to display? I would hate for anyone to take this particular comment seriously.

          • Just Like Tiger Woods 4.5.1.1.1
            22 November 2013 at 3:17 pm

            If you have to pump oil to even get it to move, then why would you need instant clean-up response in case of a high pressure rupture?

            • Naturesong 4.5.1.1.1.1
              22 November 2013 at 4:36 pm

              Please supply evidence that during a rupture, no oil would escape without being pumped.

              Andarko themselves stated:

              In the environmental impact assessment it last month lodged with the Environmental Protection Authority for its Taranaki operation, the company conceded a loss of well control would hold “significant impacts” for the environment, but stated this was “extremely unlikely”.

              Currently the only modelling we have was created by the data science agency Dumpark.
              We do not have access to Andarkos modelling becuase they won’t release it, and neither will our government.

              If its safe as houses as you state, why does Andarko disagree with you, and why won’t our government release the data?

              • Just Like Tiger Woods …
                22 November 2013 at 5:06 pm

                A loss of a high pressure well control would have consequences, but they aren’t likely to find a high pressure well, and even less likely to lose control of one.

                If they did find one of significant size, that would be very interesting. We could start planning for Norway level state spending. Even if they did find one, there is nothing to suggest it is at a high-risk of blowing out.

                • fender …
                  22 November 2013 at 5:16 pm

                  She’ll be right eh ‘mate’, and the wife will never come after me with a golf club either….

                • Naturesong …
                  22 November 2013 at 5:29 pm

                  Please cite your source for your assertion that the modelling is based on a high pressure blowout.

                  And please supply the data that disproves Andarkos statement that “loss of well control would hold significant impacts for the environment”

                  Just as an aside, the way you argue is dishonest. You dont back up any claims with data, and in almost every post you rely on the following logical fallicies;
                  * Ad Hominem
                  * Appeal To Emotion
                  * Appeal to Fear
                  * Appeal To Majority
                  * Argumentum Ad Nauseam
                  * False Dilemma
                  * False Premise
                  * Red Herring
                  * False Analogy
                  I will no longer responding to most of your posts.
                  However when I do it will be to point out the logical fallicies therein.

        • Just Like Tiger Woods 4.5.1.2
          22 November 2013 at 3:15 pm

          Aren’t you something.

          When you get a break from being superior, Mr Viper, perhaps you could tell us why you’d spend a lot more on risk mitigation than the situation requires.

          Because that would be stupid.

          • blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) 4.5.1.2.1
            22 November 2013 at 4:20 pm

            @JLTiger Wood
            …yeah! Like the financial system did. They worked out a fabulous new way to mitigate [ignore more to the point] risk. That worked. LOL

            • Just Like Tiger Woods 4.5.1.2.1.1
              22 November 2013 at 5:03 pm

              If there is virtually no chance of a high pressure blow-out due to low pressure oil extraction, then why would you mitigate as if you were expecting a high pressure blow-out as being highly likely?

              Everything is a risk, and we mitigate to a level appropriate. We can never eliminate risk. Anyone expecting to is not being realistic.

              • blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) …
                22 November 2013 at 5:43 pm

                The argument going on here really is whether a person considers any risk ‘worth it’.

                You are either creating a strawman by citing ‘as if you were expecting a high pressure blow-out as being highly likely?’ or completely missing the point…or both.

                The point being relayed by some, I believe, is that any chance of an oilspill is not worth the risk, whether the risk is small or large. Never mind ‘highly likely’, which I don’t think anyone has put forward.

                I hold to this view; any risk is not worth it. And this is based on the level of devastation that occurs when these events happen. You appear to ignore this perspective and continue to think that arguing the risk being small …or ‘virtually no chance’ is relevant.

                It might be more helpful to your case if you could attempt to argue the point that the devastation caused by recent deep sea oil disasters – the people dying due to the toxic clean up chemicals, the toxic beaches, the businesses ruined, the lives ruined, the environmental damage wasn’t all that bad. Did the oil company cover all the expenses of that damage? That would be a good start wouldn’t it? I don’t imagine that they did. I am guessing there’s been court-cases and the American government had to meet the shortfall.

                Perhaps this is why you are bringing in the concept of ‘high pressure’ wells. You are saying the risk to the environment is not going to be like the Gulf of Mexico disaster, that the risk is ‘almost non-existent’. You expect the reader to take that as fact, however Naturesong has linked to information from Anadarko themselves that states if something went wrong there would be ‘significant impacts’ on the environment and I note that you haven’t responded to that comment.

                So get to it and argue the point that it fine for companies to come in, take the oil, take the profits and in the event that anything goes wrong its perfectly o.k that they are not prepared to pay for the whole lot of damages they caused. Taxpayers will. And even if they did pay for everything, please explain to me how some of these damages can be corrected by money?

                If you manage that, you might just change my opinion. Otherwise I’ll just stick to hoping that we get a community and government that starts putting real focus on green technologies and makes a concerted effort to move away from the on-its-way-out-dinosaur industry that is oil.

                • blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) …
                  22 November 2013 at 5:57 pm

                  Correction – I apologise, I see you have replied to Naturesong’s comment. Good to see you didn’t simply ignore it.

                  Now it would be good to see you taking up Naturesong’s suggestion and supply some links 😉

              • Naturesong …
                22 November 2013 at 6:01 pm

                There are 2 strawmen here.

                “If there is virtually no chance of a high pressure blow-out due to low pressure oil extraction, then why would you mitigate as if you were expecting a high pressure blow-out as being highly likely? ”
                The answer is of course, that you would not. And no one is suggesting that happen.
                However, Andarko has admitted that loss of well control would have significant impacts, but the likelyhood of that happening is low.
                Thus, we should mitigate the risk at 2 levels;
                1. Best practice during the exploratory phase.
                2. Should the well become uncontrolled, that the response happen as quickly as possible.

                New Zealand has not ratified the International Convention on Civil Liability for Bunker Oil Pollution Damage, which was adopted to ensure that adequate, prompt, and effective compensation is available to persons who suffer damage caused by spills of oil. Or the International Convention Relating to Intervention on the High Seas in Cases of Oil Pollution Casualties which affirms the right of states to “take such measures on the high seas as may be necessary to prevent, mitigate or eliminate grave and imminent danger to their coastline or related interests from pollution or threat of pollution of the sea by oil”.

                The second strawman is this:

                Everything is a risk, and we mitigate to a level appropriate. We can never eliminate risk. Anyone expecting to is not being realistic.

                We are not mitigating to a level appropriate.
                No one is saying that you can remove risk.
                You end by casting all those who are calling for considered risk mitigation as being unrealistic.

  6. ak 6
    22 November 2013 at 4:52 pm

    Get the kids painting and take em all to the beach tomorrow. Be part of history on a beautiful day.

    Then chip in for an ad on the way home.

    NO means NO Mr Key. Hands off our assets.

    • Just Like Tiger Woods 6.1
      22 November 2013 at 5:09 pm

      Nothing like a confused protest, then.

      Will we be seeing the red n’ black flags, too?

  7. risildowgtn 7
    22 November 2013 at 4:57 pm

    Foxton Beach

    Banners done and more joining tomorrow.
    wooohooo