Greenpeace v Simon Bridges

Written By: - Date published: 6:57 pm, November 20th, 2013 - 106 comments
Categories: disaster, energy, Environment - Tags:

Vega verses Noble Bob Douglas

In a David verses Goliath type scenario the Greenpeace yacht Vega has recently engaged in passive opposition to Andarko’s plans to drill a deep sea oil well off Raglan.

The Vega has been doing what yachts can do the world over, that is sail the High Seas, weigh drop anchor and stay put for a while.

It appears that the area that it has decided to stay put in may be the same area that Andarko wishes to drill holes in the sea bed to see if there are copious amounts of oil located underneath.  The leaders of Greenpeace, like many of us, think that it is too dangerous to drill wells in the high seas, and that in any event if our world wants to survive then it has to leave some of the oil in the earth’s crust and why not leave the dangerous expensive stuff alone?

Simon Bridges is saying that the drilling will not be held up but time will tell.

The National Government anticipated that there would be opposition to its proposal to drill baby drill and passed in rather extraordinary circumstances laws that would make it an offence to protest.  The proposals, entered into law through a Supplementary Order Paper that was not considered by the select committee, were draconian and it appears breached the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 and arguably various international treaties regarding rights of passage of the Sea.  Such was the quality of the work that the SOP’s provisions had to be amended by an amending Act before they came into force.

In Bridges’ haste it appears that he may not have covered all the possibilities that the intelligent people who constitute Greenpeace could think of.  Because when I look at yesterday’s events I think that there may be a loophole that Greenpeace is happily exploiting.

Basically Bridges did not think of Mahatma Ghandi type passive opposition.  And this could prove embarrassing.

The Bridges SOP created a number of offences, the most relevant of which are contained in section 101B of the Crown Minerals Act 1991.  This section makes it an offence to intentionally engage in conduct that results in damage to, or interference with, any structure or ship or any attached equipment that is in an offshore area and that is to be, used in mining operations or to interfere with any operations or activities being carried out, or any works being executed, on, by means of, or in connection with such a structure or ship.

It is also an offence if a person is the master of a ship which without reasonable excuse enters a specified non-interference zone for a permitted prospecting, exploration, or mining activity; or the person leaves a ship and, without reasonable excuse, enters a specified non-interference zone for a permitted prospecting, exploration, or mining activity.

There are a couple of potentially interesting issues.  The Vega is very passively doing nothing but bobbing up and down.  It is obviously not going to cause damage to any other ship.  It will not interfere with the other ship unless the other ship interferes with its rights as a wind powered ship to bob up and down.

It has entered a specified non interference zone and if the authorities can work out who the master of the ship was at the time that it weighed dropped anchor then they may be in trouble.  But I am sure pretty sure that the identity of that person will not be offered up.  I would also bet that no one will get into trouble for leaving the ship to enter a non interference zone because they are already there.

The Crown has rather draconian powers to remove the Vega from the area but only if an enforcement officer “has reasonable cause to suspect that a person is committing, has committed, or is attempting to commit an offence against section 101B.”  So if the ship keeps bobbing up and down and does not damage  Andarko’s equipment and there is no particular cause to believe that any particular person who is present was in charge of the ship at the time it entered then there may be some doubt that the power can be exercised.

Having said that I cannot imagine the Government holding back and I expect the Navy to take action pretty quickly.

But if they consider that they do not have power to act then Simon Bridges may regret the indecent haste in which he had the amending legislation passed.

106 comments on “Greenpeace v Simon Bridges ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. BM 1
    20 November 2013 at 7:15 pm

    Cunliffe need to come out and back Green peace to the hilt.
    Put a line in the sand and show where Labour stands

    “No offshore drilling while I’m in charge” should be the path Cunliffe takes.

    • Colonial Viper 1.1
      20 November 2013 at 7:19 pm

      Or just increase the royalties to 20% and require that projects are done as joint ventures with a new NZ Govt minerals exploration operation.

      • BM 1.1.1
        20 November 2013 at 7:41 pm

        Currently we make around 40% on new developments, you’re giving our resources away at 20%.

        • mickysavage 1.1.1.1
          20 November 2013 at 7:46 pm

          No we don’t we make 5% of part of the value of the minerals by way of royalty when theoretically we own 100% of the minerals. We then receive tax once the wells start to produce a profit just like we do from every other business in the country.

          • Lanthanide 1.1.1.1.1
            20 November 2013 at 8:17 pm

            I’m sure international oil companies are very good at structuring their subsidiary drilling companies to ensure they never produce a profit.

        • Naturesong 1.1.1.2
          20 November 2013 at 7:52 pm

          Royalties are:
          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.
          Quick FAQ

          None of the royalties relate to the worth of the oil coming out of the ground, but are based on figures arrived at after accountants have worked out how best to reduce their exposure.

          Also massive tax subsidies so they are able write of a ton of stuff that relates to exploration.
          Crown Minerals (Royalties for Petroleum) Regulations 2013

          • Captain Carrot 1.1.1.2.1
            22 November 2013 at 9:11 pm

            Your figures are right but interpretation is wrong. Ad valorem is on net revenue which the value of the product sold minus storage and transport cost only. Apr method is laid out in the regs. In either case the govt can deem what is payable if they disagree with what has been paid.

        • tricledrown 1.1.1.3
          20 November 2013 at 8:21 pm

          blinkered monetarist not sinCe the kirk govt has there been that sort of royalty facts right please the level of royalties paid now are more like 2%.
          You out of date just like your ideology.

        • Murray Olsen 1.1.1.4
          20 November 2013 at 11:50 pm

          Why do RWNJs keep lying about the royalties when they are 5% and anything else would maybe come from a tax on profits, which these operations would be structured to minimise? Are you guys instructed to lie or is it just that you love Key so much and are like schoolkids wearing their favourite All Black’s jersey?

      • Draco T Bastard 1.1.2
        20 November 2013 at 10:11 pm

        Nope. Change it to contract rather than license. The government contracts the private operator to mine/drill etc but is the full owner of the resources extracted at which point the government can do what it likes with those resources. Sell them, use them, whatever.

        It can also cancel the contract if/when it decides that no longer needs those resources or even just decides to leave them in the ground.

      • Captain Carrot 1.1.3
        22 November 2013 at 8:50 pm

        So you want to throw scarce tax dollars that could be used for schools or health into high risk drilling ventures most of which will come up empty? Genius.

    • karol 1.2
      20 November 2013 at 7:25 pm

      I think you mistake Cunliffe for a Green MP. The Greens are well onto the leisure travels of the Vega.

    • Naturesong 1.3
      20 November 2013 at 7:30 pm

      Why the strawman?

      If your argument is robust you would represent Labours position correctly, which I believe is a moratorium on deep sea drilling until it can be deemed safe.

      At the very least, you would expect better legislation around risk mitigation, and clean up should there be an oil spill.

      For my part, as a member of the Green party, I advocate for;
      – Review oil and gas royalties and bring them inline with other countries instead of the giveaway they are currently
      – Removal of subsidies to the Oil and Gas industries
      – A sinking lid policy on all Oil and Coal extraction
      – Promote alternative energy sources … subsidise solar and wind power generation for homes.
      – Tax breaks for R & D into alternative energy sources.
      – Money for Universitys wanting to conduct further research.
      – Look for opportunities for regional development that do not tie communities to dying industries

      There’s lots to do, and opportunities for research and jobs.

      • BM 1.3.1
        20 November 2013 at 7:51 pm

        These are just weasel words, Greenbour will set the level of safety so high it wouldn’t be feasible to drill for oil any where.

        I say David Cunliffe needs to stop talking out of both sides of his mouth and show where he and the labour party stand regarding off shore drilling it’s either yes or no.

        At least Key and National have the cojones to actually state and campaign on what their positions are surrounding mining and oil exploration, unlike Mr Dickless who changes who tune depending on the audience he’s addressing.

        • Paul 1.3.1.1
          20 November 2013 at 7:55 pm

          You guys are busy tonight?
          Were you sent you over here because of bad internal polling on the real issues, rather the nonsense you keep posting…

        • mickysavage 1.3.1.2
          20 November 2013 at 7:55 pm

          BM you are trolling. How about you discuss the post and stop running Slater lines.

          For instance, what do you think about Bridges’ law changes now?

          And if you are going to make allegations against David Cunliffe, how about you actually back these statements up with reputable links?

          • BM 1.3.1.2.1
            20 November 2013 at 8:22 pm

            I don’t consider myself trolling.

            As I said in a previous post, Key backs offshore drilling, I have no idea where Cunliffe stands.

            As for Bridges’ law changes,good stuff, we need to keep the crazies under control and this sort of legislation helps no end.

            • tricledrown 1.3.1.2.1.1
              20 November 2013 at 8:36 pm

              Bullshitting Moron most people are against drilling so most people are crazies so keep that attack line up toiletroll.
              Last election National had a healthy lead right up to the election now they are borderline like their supporters you had better be careful with your rhetoric as you are not conforming to your masters instructions.

              • BM …
                20 November 2013 at 8:51 pm

                No they’re not.

                Most people realize that we need oil to keep the economy moving.
                Offshore oil drilling = $$$$$ and jobs for NZ.

                It’s only the Luddites and greenie dung eaters that have an issue with whats going down, every one else is like “Go JK, you’re the Man, PM for life”

                • Rogue Trooper …
                  20 November 2013 at 9:18 pm

                  …PM for 29 lives .

                • One Anonymous Knucklehead …
                  21 November 2013 at 6:35 pm

                  Most people realize that we need oil to keep the economy moving.

                  And well, duh, most people realise that the oil is going to run out, and furthermore, that continued addition of carbon dioxide, methane, and other greenhouse gases to the atmosphere can only end in a very human catastrophe.

                  I suggest you factor Stephen Franks’ opinion of Julie-Anne Genter into your analysis of the Green Party, because your zombie slogans just expose your ignorance and/or mendacity.

            • Ad 1.3.1.2.1.2
              20 November 2013 at 9:48 pm

              You will have to get used to nuance and complexity with Labour.
              Because that is the party of balance, not black or white.

            • Spartacus 1.3.1.2.1.3
              21 November 2013 at 6:12 pm

              The crazies needing to be kept under control are reckless mad-rich oil companies and their whimpering science ignoring national party apologists. All power to Vega.

        • Naturesong 1.3.1.3
          20 November 2013 at 8:06 pm

          Weasel words? Not really.

          Though I won’t be voting for David Cunliffe, he’s been pretty consistant.
          He has clearly stated his goals and the conditions he believes he can deliver them under.
          A lifetime ago it would have been called a conservative, or at the very least, a responsible position.
          He’s not promising anything he cant deliver.

          Like most decisions that involve a great number of systems, people, viewpoints, stakeholders … the only answer that is soundbite size is: “It’s more complex than that”.

          Unlike John key, who is happy to promise the world, and deliver none of his “Brighter Future”.

          And lets face it, any government Cunliffe leads will be shackled by the 70B dollars of government debt the current lot will leave by the time they get voted out next year.
          Add to that the constant sucking sound you will hear for the next 30 years in the form of several PPP’s

          Nationals Blighted Future

          • Wayne 1.3.1.3.1
            21 November 2013 at 6:46 am

            Nationals failure to deliver must be why the OECD says NZ has one of the strongest economies in the OECD.

            Labour is not going to be able to realistically argue that the National has run the economy into the ground. That will not be seen as credible by voters, especially to voters who will be weighing up which party to vote for.

            Far more sensible for Labour to set out an alternative approach, which to be fair to Mr Cunliffe, he is starting to do – though it is not obvious to me that it will be seen as an appealing alternative.

            So far he has not made the poll breakthrough that might have been anticipated, given that that he clearly has better media and rhetorical skills than Davis Shearer had.

            • One Anonymous Knucklehead 1.3.1.3.1.1
              21 November 2013 at 7:06 am

              Nats down what, five points in eight weeks? No impact whatsoever.

            • Draco T Bastard 1.3.1.3.1.2
              21 November 2013 at 5:34 pm

              Labour is not going to be able to realistically argue that the National has run the economy into the ground.

              That’s actually incorrect as the ~$70b of borrowing that National have engaged in while propping up failing businesses proves.

            • Rogue Trooper 1.3.1.3.1.3
              21 November 2013 at 10:26 pm

              better comment, not-with-standing a typo Wayne.
              Yet, such fools errands.

        • Naturesong 1.3.1.4
          20 November 2013 at 8:10 pm

          Greenbour will set the level of safety so high it wouldn’t be feasible to drill for oil any where.

          I see you believe in socialising the costs and privatising the profits.

          No surprise there

      • Ian 1.3.2
        20 November 2013 at 9:15 pm

        Why don’t you get a real job and make something to trade or sell ? I detect in your post that you have a personal vested interest in following these policies in that you will have a job for life.Why would any govt remove subsidies on oil and gas industry development and give all the research money to fringe dwellers ?

        • tricledrown 1.3.2.1
          20 November 2013 at 9:23 pm

          ian you are in favour of subsidies,oil companies are the most profitable companies in the world they pay subsidies to the national party for favours =corruption!

          • Ian 1.3.2.1.1
            20 November 2013 at 9:28 pm

            Please explain ?. I am not familiar with how the oil industry pays subsidies to the National party .

            • Colonial Viper 1.3.2.1.1.1
              20 November 2013 at 10:13 pm

              It’s kowtowing to US corporates, silly billy.

            • Naturesong 1.3.2.1.1.2
              20 November 2013 at 10:30 pm

              I’m with Ian here.
              As far as we know, the National Party does not receive donations from oil companies.

              But given the tax laws in New Zealand, recently recognised as a tax haven, I imagine it’d be pretty easy for an oil company, or oil lobbying company to set up a shell company and make regular small anonymous donations.

              So, they might well do, but no one has found them out yet.

              • Colonial Viper …
                20 November 2013 at 10:32 pm

                its nothing that obvious I’d wager. In the US they have perfected the scheme: you reward compliant politicians AFTER they leave office. With executive jobs and positions on the Board.

                • Naturesong …
                  21 November 2013 at 1:52 am

                  Thats clearly the case with banking and finance (Ruth Richardson, Simon Power et al.)

                  Oil and gas though?
                  Maybe Simon Bridges will be the first, he is doing a lot of pro-bono legislating, lobbying and spin for Andarko at the moment.

        • Naturesong 1.3.2.2
          20 November 2013 at 10:05 pm

          I detect in your post that you have a personal vested interest in following these policies in that you will have a job for life.

          I’m curious as to how you were able to come to that conclusion? Projection much?

          I trade my knowledge, skill, ability to think critically, problem solving, as well as being able to see the big picture at the same time as drill down into excruciatingly fine detail.
          The ability to explain complex systems in language management types can understand is also an invaluable skill.

          Infrastructure design mostly, though sometimes I get stuck doing a bit of project management. And occasionally coordinate groups of specialists in order to solve complex problems.

          I’m one of those folks that got a net benefit from the tax breaks and tax increases enacted by the National Government. I’m in the top 5% of earners if I remember correctly. And far less than I earnt when I was working in either the UK or Australia.

          You advocate continuing subsidies to dying industries, but reject without any thought research and support for solutions that would reduce our reliance on energy that polutes at every stage from extraction to combustion.
          You advocate for socialising costs and privatising profits.
          Do you have a vested interest?

    • Wayne 1.4
      1 December 2013 at 6:12 pm

      So right agree totally!

  2. alwyn 2
    20 November 2013 at 7:20 pm

    Did you really mean to say that the Vega was going “to weigh anchor and stay put for a while”
    To weigh anchor, as any sailor would tell you, is done in order to sail away, not to stay put.
    If you were going to stay put you would drop anchor, although I cannot imagine a boat that small having sufficient cable on board to do so in 1500 metres of water.

    [Right you are alwyn. I have just shown the extent of my maritime prowess. Now corrected – MS]

    • alwyn 2.1
      20 November 2013 at 8:00 pm

      Thank you for taking the comment in the manner in which it was intended. As I former enthusiastic sailor I found the sequence of events in the sentence rather funny. I wasn’t just trying to be a nitpicker.

  3. Rogue Trooper 3
    20 November 2013 at 8:00 pm

    bobbing along nicely so far; will be interesting to see how far the Tories are gonna’ push the boat out on enforcement. Greenpeace activity brings the media spotlight onto this smuggling coven. The TVNZ poll I completed showed overwhelming support for the activists, four times those voting for non-interference.

  4. Tim O'Shea 4
    20 November 2013 at 8:35 pm

    I think that Naturesong is being overly harsh with the comment – “Unlike John key, who is happy to promise the world, and deliver none of his “Brighter Future”. We all know that John Boy actually meant was “A brighter future for New Zealand’s wealthy”.

    MS – the fact that the “specified non-interference zone” has not actually been specified as yet (or at least that’s the impression I got from the radio comms by the skipper of the bully boat), and that the Vega is (as you have said) already sitting there, rather than entering such a zone – is that enough for them to get round the amended act, or has the “specified non-interference zone” already been pre-stipulated, i.e. before the flotilla got out there?

    • mickysavage 4.1
      20 November 2013 at 9:01 pm

      Hi Tim

      There is this document:

      http://www.linz.govt.nz/docs/hydro/ntm/pdf13/thisweek.pdf

      It is a bit like Hitchikers guide to the galaxy where the Vogons responded to criticisms that plans to destroy the Earth had been available for 9 months. They were apparently at the bottom of a locked filing cabinet, stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying “Beware of the Leopard”.

      http://whatsthepont.com/2011/09/01/beware-of-the-leopard-vogon-planning-revisited/

      Google made it a bit easier …

    • KJT 4.2
      20 November 2013 at 10:11 pm

      That is an interesting one.

      Usually the notice to Mariners that informs ships about a safety, or non interference, exclusion zone stipulates that vessels are not to navigate, or approach, within a set distance of a rig, seismic survey vessel, installation vessel or drill ship.

      For example, the 2 mile exclusion zone around the Rena. Another example of a Neo-Liberal disaster. http://kjt-kt.blogspot.co.nz/2011/10/rena-neo-liberal-failure.html

      Nothing about vessels that are already there before the oil platforms or ships arrive.

      In fact, under international law about “freedom of passage” they have every right to be there at that point. Which would make it an “interesting” court case if they arrested any foreign nationals on the open sea.

      There is also an absolute duty, under international, and NZ maritime law, to obey the “collision rules” if “risk of collision exists”.

      I.E. You cannot run over someone, even if you are a vessel “privileged” with a designated “exclusion zone”.

      • KJT 4.2.1
        20 November 2013 at 10:21 pm

        If the Vega is, as I presume under sail, The relevant rule in this case is the rule that says, in open waters, power driven vessels give way to sailing vessels.

        • KJT 4.2.1.1
          20 November 2013 at 10:33 pm

          Given that. You can make another vessel go around in circles, legally, for some time.
          Fishing vessels do it to us rather often. Sometimes they do so many circles when they are trawling, I think they are deliberately taking the piss. Amusing themselves watching this large vessel turning all over the ocean trying to avoid them.

        • Captain Carrot 4.2.1.2
          22 November 2013 at 9:18 pm

          That’s not a hard and fast rule. Biggest one is to avoid collision, and ships with limited abilities to manoeuvre have rights even in a power-sail situation

  5. vto 5
    20 November 2013 at 8:47 pm

    absolute brilliance

  6. vto 6
    20 November 2013 at 9:32 pm

    even the sea has sparkled for them

  7. veutoviper 7
    20 November 2013 at 9:33 pm

    MS – Thanks for the informative post on the legal ‘ins and outs’ of the new legislation. It ccertainly appears rather muddy.

    Your comments re the position of the master of the ship prompted me to re-listen to Geoff Robertson’s interview this morning with Bunny McDiarmid, Executive Director of NZ Greempeace who is on the Vega.

    Twice (once at the start and again at the end) Robertson described Bunny as “skipper of the Vega” and this stood out to me on my first hearing of the interview – hence my re-listening to it again after reading your post. Bunny did not question or amend the description. So, possibly Greenpeace have designated her as skipper (or ‘master’) in view of the new legislation.

    http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/morningreport/audio/2576973/greenpeace-yachts-hold-position-at-offshore-protest

    PS – being a pedant, there is one more reference to ‘weigh” anchor in one of your paragraphs on the ‘master’ issues.

    [Corrected and I am the pedant! – MS]

  8. infused 8
    20 November 2013 at 9:41 pm

    So much misinformation in one post it’s amazing.

    “an offence to protest” – where does it state this?

  9. Ad 9
    20 November 2013 at 9:52 pm

    Since I like driving large sedan cars I have to be consistent. Also I love the export revenue and tax revenue. Also I love the jobs. Worked for New Plymouth… drill baby …….
    and tax their ass.

    • Rogue Trooper 9.1
      20 November 2013 at 10:07 pm

      ” a man you don’t meet everyday” -The Pogues.
      (The Dark Lord rides in a Merceydeez Bendz).

    • KJT 9.2
      21 November 2013 at 9:48 am

      I understand the viewpoint. And where people like miners are coming from.

      Especially, like many people I work with, I can make 2 to 5 times more money working on a rig, or AHTS, than anywhere else. Oil exploration companies are good employers.

      Which would present me with an ethical dilemma if I was out of work and offshore takes off again in NZ. The temptation to earn enough to retire early would be strong.

      Even though I strongly believe we should be looking for sustainable alternatives to fossil energy.

      Then again who would you rather have running a drillship?
      A Greenie, or someone who doesn’t give a toss?

      Or is that just a mealy mouthed self justification?

      • McFlock 9.2.1
        21 November 2013 at 12:28 pm

        I suppose it depends on how different your actions would and should be from the one who doesn’t care.

        • KJT 9.2.1.1
          23 November 2013 at 3:37 pm

          It is one of our problems, that in asking for coal mining and drilling to cease, we are also asking the people who make their income from those industries to sacrifice their income.

          In many cases the people asking have nothing to lose as they are in academic, or other jobs, which do not depend directly on fossil fuels.

          Feeding and housing your family is pretty high on the immediate priority list, for most of us.

          I hope that more on our side of the fence realises we have to show that the path ahead does not involve disproportionate sacrifice from one sector of the community. Another reason for reducing inequality and promoting “Green” jobs. A lot of the skills involved in offshore oil are valuable for wind and tidal power production, for example..

          The right, of course, is trying to ensure that some of them bear none of the costs.
          (The ones that said New Zealand could not afford higher wages while they increased their wealth by 17%).
          Helped along, of course, by ignorant sycophants, who dream of being one of the “elite”.

  10. Kevin Hester 10
    20 November 2013 at 10:07 pm

    Pretty average reporting. The Vega has neither ‘weighed anchor’ or ‘dropped anchor'( hardly likely in 1500m of water). She is simply ‘under way’ or possibly ‘Hove too’. being that she is undersail and that the Bob Douglas is motoring underway she must give way to a sailing vessel ‘under sail’.
    The NZ Government Failed many years ago to alter International maritime Law with their failed attempt to force International registered vessels to comply with local Cat 1 restrictions. This was overturned in international maritime courts as I suspect these new draconian ‘ Andarko amendments” will also be.

    • Rogue Trooper 10.1
      20 November 2013 at 10:09 pm

      Excellent reading of the charts.

    • mickysavage 10.2
      20 November 2013 at 10:13 pm

      Sorry Kevin. I am a sailing pedant. I used these phrases thinking that they were appropriate. I should have stuck to “bobbing up and down” …

      Glad to see that the Andarko amendments may be under threat …

    • William 10.3
      21 November 2013 at 10:38 am

      Kevin wrote: “being that she is undersail and that the Bob Douglas is motoring underway she must give way to a sailing vessel ‘under sail”

      In this situation that is almost certainly wrong, even if the exclusion zone had not been declared. The Bob Douglas will be lowering equipment to the sea floor and then dropping the drill down. She will therefore be classed as a vessel restricted in its ability to manoeuvre.
      Section 22.18 of the Collision Regulations states;

      (2) a sailing vessel underway must keep out of the way of—
      (a) a vessel not under command:
      (b) a vessel restricted in its ability to manoeuvre:
      (c) a vessel engaged in fishing;

      So long as she is doing such work, and is displaying the required shapes during the day and lights at night, it is the resposibility of the Vega to keep clear.

      The regulations are at
      http://www.maritimenz.govt.nz/Rules/List-of-all-rules/Part22-maritime-rule.asp

      • Murray Olsen 10.3.1
        21 November 2013 at 6:57 pm

        What’s interesting there is that the Anadarko support ship was showing dayshapes and when asked about it (by Mike Smith, I think), replied that they had forgotten to take them down, and removed them. When the Ignoble Bob Douglas arrived, it was not doing any of the things you mention, so Kevin’s point could at least be argued. In fact, it is argued, and by some old bloke called Peter Williams, whom I consider the best legal mind Aotearoa has ever produced.

      • KJT 10.3.2
        22 November 2013 at 2:47 pm

        The point is, that the drillship and support vessels are not doing any of those things until, AFTER they are in position.

        Until then the Vega has as much right to occupy that bit of ocean as anyone else.

        Which was why the case was lost against the fishing vessel that was in the way of a seismic survey.

        Cannot claim “right of way” under those rules until you are actually doing the activity.

        Similarly, a fishing vessel, or trawler, cannot claim right of way unless actually engaged in fishing activities which restrict their ability to manoeuvre.
        A fishing vessel heading for its fishing grounds, or a drill ship heading for its drilling position, has no more rights than any other power driven vessel.

        Despite the fact, that many fishing vessels still carry their day shapes when alongside the wharf, the rules require that day shapes are only shown when you are engaged in fishing, or the allowed activities which restrict your ability to give way.

        The NZ Government, can of course, make laws which override international maritime law in NZ waters, but they run the risk of breaking international treaties about, “freedom of passage”.

  11. veutoviper 11
    20 November 2013 at 11:06 pm

    Well, here is another interesting angle to the whole situation.

    According to I/S on NRT, the Environment al Defence Society think there may be legal problems with Andadarko’s consent in that apparently the EPA did not themselves sight the Environmental Impact Assessment ……………………………

    http://www.norightturn.blogspot.co.nz/2013/11/unlawful-drilling.html

  12. John Lawrence 12
    21 November 2013 at 7:03 am

    “It would seem that the vessel that’s at fault is the Anadarko, because that’s the vessel that has moved in and caused the 500 metre rule to be infringed.” ~ Peter Williams QC

  13. The Outrider 13
    21 November 2013 at 1:48 pm

    It would be a very great pleasure to see a rancid, runny globule of eggy mess running down SB’s face over this. Good work Vega and Greenpeace.

  14. Tracey 14
    21 November 2013 at 4:55 pm

    Cunliffe is not against offshore drilling ” in principle”.

    As an aside bainimarama in fiji told mcdonald and kfc govt wants 20% on profits or you can fuck off. Kfc fucked off.

    casino just outside denarau is not open to fiji nationals and big royalty deal in place.

    leases for 99 years in denarau hotels were so obe sided he ruled they have to be renegotiated… and they have been with fairer distribution back to fijians.

    no wonder nz and aussie pms dont like him.

  15. Tracey 15
    21 November 2013 at 4:55 pm

    Cunliffe is not against offshore drilling ” in principle”.

    As an aside bainimarama in fiji told mcdonald and kfc govt wants 20% on profits or you can fuck off. Kfc fucked off.

    casino just outside denarau is not open to fiji nationals and big royalty deal in place.

    leases for 99 years in denarau hotels were so obe sided he ruled they have to be renegotiated… and they have been with fairer distribution back to fijians.

    no wonder nz and aussie pms dont like him.

    • KJT 15.1
      22 November 2013 at 2:59 pm

      Interesting that Fijians I know generally approve of Bainamarama! (Hope I have spelt it correctly).

      Comments include. “He is getting rid of a lot of corruption and dodgy business deals, including many imposed by overseas interests”.

      And. “NZ, Australia and the USA should bloody well keep out of Fiji’s internal politics”.

      When I was in Fiji last, I noted that the trade and tourist boycotts were hurting ordinary Fijians, and genuine foreign investors in Fijian industry, badly, and not making NZ very popular.

  16. Foreign Waka 16
    21 November 2013 at 7:42 pm

    Simon Bridges, well known as the Devils Advocate. This men should declare himself stateless as he clearly is not interested in NZ having a sustainable future.

    • McFlock 16.1
      22 November 2013 at 3:00 pm

      The Devil would hire good lawyers.

      Bridges strikes me as Simon Gilmour with a slightly better hairdo.

      • One Anonymous Knucklehead 16.1.1
        22 November 2013 at 3:02 pm

        I think he has more in common with Aaron.

        • McFlock 16.1.1.1
          22 November 2013 at 3:53 pm

          damn – completely correct, that’s who I was going for.

          Multitasking and swearing at style sheets at moment.

          • McFlock 16.1.1.1.1
            22 November 2013 at 8:38 pm

            omygosh, I’m so dreadfully embarrassed – the above means that I had almost no idea who he was! 🙂

  17. KJT 17
    22 November 2013 at 3:05 pm

    Celsius says it rather succinctly.

    http://www.celsias.co.nz/article/offshore-oil-nz-world-can-not-use-it-and-survive/?utm_source=CelsiasWeekly&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=20131122

    “we know that the world can not even use all the oil that is already on the oil companies’ balance sheet without sending the world into massive warming.So this is a fuel that the world pays in terms of its own sustainability to use”.

  18. Dumrse 18
    22 November 2013 at 6:32 pm

    “… and passed in rather extraordinary circumstances laws that would make it an offence to protest.” You can’t get away with this shit. You need to publish the link that shows the law that …it is an offence to protest. Typical left exaggeration or lying about what the law actually says. Something about 500 metres rings a bell, what was that ?

    • Naturesong 18.1
      22 November 2013 at 6:50 pm

      Those flaky commie pinkos the Law Society seem to back the assertion.

      And they also raise issue with the method, and highlight the fact that this sort of sloppy law making is becomming a pattern with this governement.

      http://www.lawsociety.org.nz/lawtalk/lawtalk-archives/issue-817/sop-sinks-mining-protesters

      You’re fine with the government trashing democracy as long as your team wins?

      • Colonial Viper 18.1.2
        22 November 2013 at 7:09 pm

        I understand that over the years they got rid of a shit load of experienced people who knew how to draft legislation and knew the context each piece of legislation needed to fit in with vis a vis everything else which had been passed before it.

        So now its a mess.

      • Dumrse 18.1.3
        22 November 2013 at 8:16 pm

        Savage said “…it’s an offence to protest.” Or words to that affect. He is full of shit. He also said nothing about which side wins. Neither did I.

        • McFlock 18.1.3.1
          22 November 2013 at 8:23 pm

          Go try and protest next to the ship, see how far you get.

          • Captain Carrot 18.1.3.1.1
            22 November 2013 at 9:24 pm

            You mean Like Lucy lawless did in New Plymouth ?. OMG ITS ILLEGAL TO PROTEST!!!

            • McFlock 18.1.3.1.1.1
              22 November 2013 at 9:29 pm

              Funnily enough, nope – that was, if I remember the law at the time, trespass and unlawfully on building.

              There’s since been a law change that upped the penalties and tried to make it illegal to simply move into a random area of the open ocean, with the express purpose of eliminating some protests.

              • Captain Carrot …
                22 November 2013 at 9:51 pm

                Many areas in nz have restrictions on protests. It is not an absolute right. Even the Bill of rights act says so.

                • McFlock …
                  22 November 2013 at 10:01 pm

                  That’s as may be.
                  The point being that the nats introduced wonderful new restrictions so that anadarko could explore for oil unhindered by protestors who obey the international laws of the sea.

                  Just as long as they carry a box of nappies to stop any 1500m-deep oil leaks they accidentally cause, of course.

                  • Captain Carrot …
                    22 November 2013 at 10:21 pm

                    You need to read a bit more on the laws of the sea if you think safety zones are a new concept. I doubt the protesters could claim any rights under theLOTS either as it is mainly covering innocent passage

                    • One Anonymous Knucklehead …
                      23 November 2013 at 7:13 am

                      And yet, if any attempt is made to interfere with Vega’s innocent passage, it will be the National Party that ends up sinking.

                      That’s me you can hear, drilling holes in the hull below the water line.

            • Martin 18.1.3.1.1.2
              23 November 2013 at 9:23 am

              If it’s illegal to protest then the social contract is voided.
              If the state won’t keep us from harm then what does that make our Police force, or armed forces forces for that matter?

              The social contract will only work with our consent.

        • Naturesong 18.1.3.2
          22 November 2013 at 10:10 pm

          Reading fail.
          You should re-read the post.