Can we risk a real spill?

30 comments on “Can we risk a real spill? ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Richard Down South 1

   13 October 2011 at 1:10 pm

   Pretty much sums up the situation with Deep Sea Drilling in New Zealand
2. Colonial Viper 2

   13 October 2011 at 1:28 pm

   I’m pretty sure that the amount of oil which came up in the deep water horizon was more than that…let me look it up

   …OK assuming the deep water horizon spill was mostly light crude with only a little heavy crude, approx 700KT was estimated to have been spat out. Roughly 412x the weight of bunker oil the Rena was carrying.
3. insider 3

   13 October 2011 at 2:03 pm

   So is this just another case of nimbyism on a national scale? We’ll happily take the benefits but pass the risks offshore. That is part of the discussion, and like it or not, there are potentially huge upsides if there are commercially viable finds.
   • alex 3.1

     13 October 2011 at 2:43 pm

     I’m sorry, but at this stage, who cares if there are potential commercial benefits? Will that offset the poisoning of our ocean, one of the most important natural resources we possess? The livelihoods of BOP fishermen have been completely blighted by this minor spill, what would happen if there was a major one? No more Terakihi for dinner, and no more jobs for fishermen. Besides, its massively irresponsible to put potential profits for foreign companies ahead of the ecological safety of our own country.
     • Colonial Viper 3.1.1

       13 October 2011 at 3:24 pm

       insider knows the cost of everything and the value of nothing.

       And if it can’t make captitalists some money it must be worthless/useless.
   • Blighty 3.2

     13 October 2011 at 2:45 pm

     I’m prefectly happy with not having a giant oil spill in my backyard. Especially if we don’t have the capacity to handle a relatively small one.
   • weka 3.3

     13 October 2011 at 3:21 pm

     “So is this just another case of nimbyism on a national scale? We’ll happily take the benefits but pass the risks offshore. That is part of the discussion, and like it or not, there are potentially huge upsides if there are commercially viable finds.”

     Speak for yourself mate. I’m happy and willing to move to a post-(cheap) oil life and economy now.
   • Colonial Viper 3.4

     13 October 2011 at 3:26 pm

     So is this just another case of nimbyism on a national scale? We’ll happily take the benefits but pass the risks offshore.

     That’s what everyone else does to us.

     New Zealand lets just stop being naive ok.
   • Steve 3.5

     13 October 2011 at 3:35 pm

     You’re right, I think many people *would* happily take the benefits… if there weren’t a huge stack of risks undermining them. The way it is now, we take only 5% of the revenue any drilling would generate through royalties and if an accident does occur, we’re stuck with practically all of the responsibility to clean it up. This incident proves that New Zealand is woefully unprepared to deal with any kind of spill, let alone what could happen with a deep sea well blow out.
     • insider 3.5.1

       13 October 2011 at 4:22 pm

       So let’s be consistent and take the worst case for everything and decide not to do stuff because of that.

       A volcano called Krakatoa erupted once with a really big bang and killed a lot of people; let’s evacuate Auckland and Taupo and Tauranga. There have been two major tsunamis in recent years; lets only live on hills. There was a big earthquake in Chch; let’s move out of most of NZ. The AMoco Cadiz went aground and spilled a lot of oil; let’s close our borders to all tankers.

       These are patently silly ideas, but so is a blanket ban on oil exploration.
       • felix 3.5.1.1

         13 October 2011 at 4:44 pm

         This is no longer in the realm of weighing up the probability of a hypothetical oil spill vs the hypothetical advantages to be gained from deep water oil drilling.

         Oil spills are an inevitable consequence of drilling the stuff out and moving it around. It happens, that’s not in contention. The questions are how often and how big.

         John Key probably doesn’t realise just how central the sea, the beach and the coast is to our lifestyle here in NZ, but Kiwis can now see for themselves the result of a relatively small spill.

         Rationalise the probabilities all you like, but you won’t convince a single Kiwi to let him gamble with our beaches, our coastal environment, our playground, our foodstore, our wildlife and our very way of life. Not after this.
       • Blighty 3.5.1.2

         13 October 2011 at 5:39 pm

         god, insider, get a grip. There’s well-understood processes for deciding when to do a potentially dangerous activity

         “http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle

         The precautionary principle or precautionary approach states that if an action or policy has a suspected risk of causing harm to the public or to the environment, in the absence of scientific consensus that the action or policy is harmful, the burden of proof that it is not harmful falls on those taking the action.

         This principle allows policy makers to make discretionary decisions in situations where there is the possibility of harm from taking a particular course or making a certain decision when extensive scientific knowledge on the matter is lacking. The principle implies that there is a social responsibility to protect the public from exposure to harm, when scientific investigation has found a plausible risk. These protections can be relaxed only if further scientific findings emerge that provide sound evidence that no harm will result.

         In some legal systems, as in the law of the European Union, the application of the precautionary principle has been made a statutory requirement.”

         In this case, you could do deepsea drilling IF you could prove you had the ability to fix it if it goes wrong. Is that really too much to ask?
   • fmacskasy 3.6

     13 October 2011 at 11:43 pm

     Yeah. But you’re not the one who’ll clean up the mess. Or compensate those who lose their incomes, as a result of an oil disaster like the Gulf of Mexico.
4. The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell 4

   13 October 2011 at 3:12 pm

   I heard that a man was once killed by a falling coconut. As I result, I refuse to visit Tonga.
   • Blighty 4.1

     13 October 2011 at 3:24 pm

     I’ve proven I can’t drive a go cart at 5km/hr without crashing, therefore, I don’t drive F1 racecars.
   • fmacskasy 4.2

     13 October 2011 at 11:44 pm

     The Tongans say “thank you”.
     • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell 4.2.1

       14 October 2011 at 9:55 am

       No they don’t. They say malo.
       • fmacskasy 4.2.1.1

         14 October 2011 at 12:37 pm

         Same diff.
5. The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell 5

   13 October 2011 at 3:37 pm

   I haven’t drunk beer since the London Beer Flood of 1814:

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

   Just not worth the risk.
   • Blighty 5.1

     13 October 2011 at 4:25 pm

     after the Deepwater disaster has proven the danger of deepsea drilling and the Rena disaster has shown that New Zealand lacks the capacity to contain even a relatively small oil spill – it’s just not sensible to do deepwater drilling without a much improved capacity to handle the consequences.

     What’s your alternative? Drill and pray?
     • insider 5.1.1

       13 October 2011 at 4:46 pm

       It hasn’t proven it at all. It’s been well known for a long time. Ixotc happened in 1979. 3m bbl spilt. We still managed to successfully develop Maui B, Maari and Pohokura.
       • Blighty 5.1.1.1

         13 October 2011 at 5:41 pm

         Maui B Maari, and Phokura are not in deep water.

         Deepwater Horizon showed an inability to reliably cap a burst deepwater well. Capping shallow water ones was already well understood.
       • lprent 5.1.1.2

         13 October 2011 at 5:51 pm

         Gas, oil online 2009 after 4 years, and gas. So the only one that is oil (ie the issue that we’re discussing), has only just been developed and put into production.

         So simple minded diversion dribble when you start comparing oil with oil.

         The question that needs asking is what happens when the Maari well springs a leak. Do we wait for a few weeks to get equipment from offshore while oil globules go out and kill fisheries and coastlines? The current evidence is that is exactly what will happen.
         • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell 5.1.1.2.1

           14 October 2011 at 9:10 am

           simple minded diversion dribble

           Like saying that, because there was once an oil spill under no circumstances whatever should anyone ever drill for oil offshore? Ever.
           • fmacskasy 5.1.1.2.1.1

             14 October 2011 at 12:41 pm

             No, Gormless.

             It means that we can barely cope with one piddly freighter.

             What makes you think we could hope to deal with deep sea oil gushing out into the waters, as happened last year in nthe Gulf of Mexico?

             Your willingness to risk other peoples’ lives and areas is so “big” of you. You (and a few others) are like cheerleaders for risky ventures that, when they go horribly wrong, melt away and never assume responsibility for anything.

             As with other neo-liberals, it’s someone elses’ fault/responsibility…
       • KJT 5.1.1.3

         14 October 2011 at 10:15 am

         Ah. You were not there.
   • Galeandra 5.2

     13 October 2011 at 4:29 pm

     Yeah, but you’re likely to choke to death on crumbs, oily ones at that. I’d take beer any day.
   • fmacskasy 5.3

     13 October 2011 at 11:46 pm

     You’re right. It’s too risky for you to drink beer. Or any intoxicant for that matter.
6. TEA 6

   13 October 2011 at 8:40 pm

   Drill and pray if you wish.
   Which is absolutely a silly idea, but so is a blanket ban on oil exploration.
   The Southern Basin oil tenement is a long way off the coast of Southland and if there was a spill Chile would more likely get any unwanted oil than the coast beaches in Otago or Canterbury. We could not even get a iceberg to come ashore at Dunedin and had to fly poor old Shrek out for his moment of glory on top of the passing iceberg to promote merino wool.
   The currents are to strong off the east coast of the south island.
7. Nick 7

   13 October 2011 at 9:25 pm

   Here’s a similar infographic by Greenpeace http://www.greenpeace.org/new-zealand/en/campaigns/climate-change/Rena-oil-spill/Oil-spill-volumes/

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS