Networks of influence: (dis)Advantage NZ

21 comments on “Networks of influence: (dis)Advantage NZ ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Jenny Kirk 1

   30 April 2013 at 10:15 am

   Yes – and while they’re all networking and playing golf, in the background are beavers busily dismantling the Resource Management Act into something which will be a travesty of the original, and will have economic development at the forefront instead of protection of the environment.

   The NAct Govt has already put out a couple of discussion documents on RM reform and water regs and had a hurried, and little-advertised “consultation” meetings/hui at various town centres, telling people there was a need to get this legislation through urgently. Something to (not) wait for !
2. BM 2

   30 April 2013 at 10:17 am

   Labour’s energy spokesperson Moana Mackey said the dangers of the exploratory work haven’t been addressed, and should be halted until it can be done safely.
   She said the Government should not be relying on royalties from oil and gas exploration to boost the economy and tougher regulation is needed.

   So no drilling for oil is labors position, just more taxes.Fantastic.

   If Moana Mackey is so worried maybe she should take a trip up to the North sea oil fields
   and see how the Brits and Scandinavians do it.
   There’s nothing new about off shore drilling.
   • karol 2.1

     30 April 2013 at 10:36 am

     Patrick Reynolds on The Auckland Transport Blog has a very good post on what NZ can learn from North Sea Oil. Part of the North Sea problem is that Thatcher squandered the economic benefits it provided. She did what “neoliberal” governments tend to do: stripped the resource for short term gain. Reynolds says:

     With North Sea production now increasingly in the rear view mirror, it looks very much like a wasted opportunity, most of it sold, after all, at around $10-15 a barrel. Nothing like an unrestrained free market to efficiently strip a resource as quickly as possible [again; compare and contrast to the more controlled exploitation by the other beneficiaries of this same resource]. So whenever I read praise of Thatcher’s or Blair and Brown’s financial management with no mention of the North Sea largess I find it hard to take seriously.

     Reynolds concludes form the North Sea evidence, and NZ’s context, that NZ would be better to wean itself off oil dependency.

     With urgency. To work towards a situation where the quantities we are either producing or importing are used in the most value-added and vital parts of the economy and not simply squandered on more inefficient and wasteful uses. …

     We are, unlike the UK, in a very much better position with regards to electricity generation, and there is still a great deal that can be done to improve from the current 80% renewable figure. 100% renewable generation is an important task; it certainly would be better to not be burning gas and coal to make electricity. [Although they are making some good moves in the UK now too].
     • BM 2.1.1

       30 April 2013 at 10:59 am

       The Auckland Transport Blog seems to be a NZ version of sites such as peak oil.com and the oil drum.

       The only way to wean NZ off oil is if we went nuclear, but that isn’t going to happen so oil is here to stay for the foreseeable future.
       • David 2.1.1.1

         30 April 2013 at 11:31 am

         Yeah mate, because nuclear powered cars and trucks is very realistic. As well as that, the North Sea isn’t deep water drilling, I am prepared to be corrected on that by all and sundry, I’m no expert, but provided they are the people commenting here who have two brain cells to rub together.

         P.S Should I add a sarcasm tag for my first sentence, or do you think BM can figure it out himself?
       • felix 2.1.1.2

         30 April 2013 at 1:51 pm

         “The Auckland Transport Blog seems to be a NZ version of sites such as peak oil.com and the oil drum.”

         It’s actually – surprise – a blog about transport issues facing Auckland, and a very well informed one at that.
         • lprent 2.1.1.2.1

           30 April 2013 at 2:24 pm

           Yeah. The people writing there are pretty damn good on Auckland’s infrastructure woes.
       • Colonial Viper 2.1.1.3

         30 April 2013 at 6:30 pm

         The only way to wean NZ off oil is if we went nuclear,

         The amount of fossil fuel energy needed to build the nuclear power plant, supply it with nuclear fuel rods, and finally decomission the plan at the end of its operating life, is simply HUGE.
     • Rich the other 2.1.2

       30 April 2013 at 1:35 pm

       Karol ,
       What’s happened, wasn’t it the greens who were embracing advantage nz just a few weeks ago?

       You quote Reynolds ,he is misguided.
       Recently, thank’s to fracking , Britain discovered vast gas reserves under Blackpool (I think that’s the right city) enough to supply Britain for another 50 years.

       It’s a Good job they sold the north sea gas and took the benefit’s or they would have had a massive oversupply and not had any of the benefits.
       • karol 2.1.2.1

         30 April 2013 at 1:53 pm

         The Green’s have welcomed Pure Advantage reports in the past, which says they aim for a green economy, as opposed to the Key government approach of exploiting the environment for corporate profit.

         As I understand it, “Advantage NZ” is the title of the conference, not a group.

         There are many reports on the dangers of Fracking, and while the UK government promotes it, others in the UK are opposed.
         • Wayne 2.1.2.1.1

           30 April 2013 at 6:19 pm

           Karol, you are ignoring the report by the Environment Commissioner on fracking in NZ
           • karol 2.1.2.1.1.1

             30 April 2013 at 6:33 pm

             Wayne, no I’m not. The environment Commissioners Report doesn’t give a green light to fracking, as argued by Gareth Hughes – who has spent a lot of time travelling around NZ fracking sites.

             The PCE’s report does not say that fracking in New Zealand is safe; the report concludes that fracking companies do not have a ‘social license’ to operate and that the regulation is fragmented and light-handed. The PCE has identified numerous ways in which fracking can cause environmental harm, and said, “the potential for important aquifers to be contaminated as a result of fracking is very real.” The report’s key recommendation is fracking can be effectively managed if best practice is enforced through regulation, but said at this stage she can’t be confident that operational best practices are actually being implemented and enforced in New Zealand.

             I believe these are good arguments for a halt until better rules are enacted especially given the large expansion of fracking planned for New Zealand.
   • framu 2.2

     30 April 2013 at 12:39 pm

     “So no drilling for oil is labors position”

     umm . do you not even read the bits you quote?

     it says – stop and figure out the risks properly and dont put all your economic eggs in one basket

     WTF is going inside you head?
     • BM 2.2.1

       30 April 2013 at 1:33 pm

       No it doesn’t
       It means lets put in place impossible conditions that oil companies have to adhere to, making exploration and drilling uneconomic.
       Labor lacks the cojones to come out and say “we wont allow off shore drilling” so they set up obstacles to halt it that way.
       Sneaky socialist weasels.
       • felix 2.2.1.1

         30 April 2013 at 1:43 pm

         What you call obstacles are what other people call acceptable standards.

         Just a matter of priorities really.
         • Colonial Viper 2.2.1.1.1

           30 April 2013 at 6:33 pm

           Labour standards, unions, health and safety, environmental safeguards, minimum wage and other inconvenient “obstacles” to the capitalist pillage of our country.
   • Murray Olsen 2.3

     30 April 2013 at 6:24 pm

     1. Where did Moana Mackey mention taxes?
     2. There’s plenty new about drilling at the depths they propose here. Petrobras presently has the best technology for deep work, but our seas are deeper, and Petrobras has a shocking environmental and safety record.
     3. Norway kept control of its oil and built a sovereign wealth fund.
     4. There are many rescue and rehabilitation vessels near the North Sea for when something goes wrong. There are none in Aotearoa, all we have is assurances from proven liars and ethical dwarves.
     5. I want to paint Shell Survey Vessel on the side of my car and run you down. Can you ask Simmy if he’ll change the law for me like he did for those nice whale killing ships?
3. Jane 3

   30 April 2013 at 12:03 pm

   Part of me thinks it’s worth going and finding out, it will probably turnout there is nothing there anyway and we can all just stop worrying about it.

   Not sure how I’d feel if it turned out to be truely enormous and worth tens of trillions, free house, car, boat and personal train stops for all!
   • muzza 3.1

     30 April 2013 at 12:16 pm

     No chance of a free anything, Jane – any royalties earned, will be heading directly back to the same people who own the mining companies, to service the growing interest requirements of NZs out of control public debt!
     • framu 3.1.1

       30 April 2013 at 12:41 pm

       ” any royalties earned” – after the product is sold at a loss to off shore parent company and the real profit earned outside NZ

Links to post

1. Networks of influence: Key & Anadarko Petroleum - The Standard: posted on 2 May 2013 at 12:25 pm

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS