Oil rigs – coming to a beach near you?

Written By: - Date published: 7:58 am, November 19th, 2013 - 98 comments
Categories: auckland supercity, climate change, Conservation, Economy, energy - Tags:

Piha with oil rig
Exploration for oil has been in the news recently.  The Government scheduled consultation with local government about the release of offshore petroleum exploration permits from September 20 until November 14, during the Local Government election campaign period and before newly elected Councils had settled down to work.  Whatever the intention was the timing meant that the proposal was given less consideration than it should have.

Dunedin City Council was on the ball, announced to the public that the consultation was occurring and invited feedback.   It also publicly expressed concern at the timing.  As reported in the Otago Daily Times:

Council sustainability adviser Maria Ioannou, in a statement yesterday, said the decision was ”unexpected” and made public consultation more difficult.

The Dunedin City Council and other councils had ”pointed out this makes it difficult for councils to make a democratic submission on an issue of significance”, she said.

The department had launched consultation on the 2014 block offer, which sought to allocate petroleum exploration permits, but brought forward its own deadline for submissions from councils, iwi and hapu to November 14.

Consultation during an earlier block offer in 2012 ran from November to January this year, and council staff had expected a similar time frame this time around, she said.

Instead, they had been informed on September 18, the day before consultation started, that it would be conducted during local body elections and conclude on November 14.

The Council adopted a principled position on the previous Block Offer release.  In its written submission it highlighted the importance of community consultation, the need to localise any economic benefits, expressed concern at the potential risks and noted that the historical data relied on was not relevant to drilling in deeper more dangerous areas, and suggested that a ring fenced fund dedicated to mitigating and adapting to climate change should be established and paid for by the industry.

Christchurch City also lamented the shortness of time to respond to the proposal and has expressed opposition to the proposal.  From Stuff:

[Deputy Mayor Vicki Buck] told fellow councillors this week the risks of deep-sea oil drilling off the Canterbury coast were unacceptably high.

“The difficulty here is the risk is all ours, the profits are all the oil companies’,” Buck said.

New Zealand had insufficient capacity to deal with a deep-sea oil spill. If one occurred, it could have a devastating effect, not only on the environment but also on Canterbury’s export-led economy, as it would tarnish the region’s reputation.

“It is risk beyond what I think anybody would rationally take. We put the entire beach line at risk,” Buck said.

Even if oil was found off the coast, it would not make the region self-sufficient in oil, as none of it could be refined at Marsden Point.

“What is drilled here will be exported – we still end up at the bottom of any fuel supply chain,” the deputy mayor said.

So how did Auckland Council handle this issue?  Well firstly it did not announce that this consultation was happening. It did not even tell the Waitakere Ranges Local Board about the proposal despite the fact the Board’s area includes most of Auckland’s west coast and the pristine beaches of Whatipu, Karekare, Piha and Bethells Te Henga and even though the draft submission was discussed with Iwi.  Its submission said there was insufficient time for consultation with local boards to happen but I do not know why we could not at least have been told about the consultation.

Auckland Council’s submission expressed general support for the proposal although it requested that the 6 nautical mile exploration free zone from the coast be extended to 12 nautical miles.  It proposed that any activities adhered to DOC’s guidelines for minimising acoustic disturbance to marine mammals and asked the Government to take action to ensure that risks of oil spills and other discharges are minimised, particularly in areas close to the coast.  But in my view the submission could have been stronger, much stronger.

There was only one vote against the proposal, that of Cathy Casey.  Well done Cathy.

So what could possibly go wrong with off shore drilling for oil?  Shouldn’t we relish in the opportunity of us all becoming very rich?

Unfortunately with New Zealand’s royalty and tax structures little local benefit is received.  We do not have a regime like Norway or Venezuela where most of the benefit is retained locally.

The environmental risks are significant and the proposed protective measures appear to be totally inadequate.  The Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill in the Gulf of New Mexico shows how much damage can occur.  And New Zealand does not have the same resources as the United States in handling these potential disasters.

And most importantly if we as a civilisation are going to address climate change we need to leave some of the world’s oil in the ground.  And what better oil to leave than the really expensive sort where if an accident did occur then our west coast beaches would be devastated.

I would have liked to have said this as an elected representative in my council’s submission to the Government about the Block Offer release.  Unfortunately I will not get a chance …

Reprinted from futurewest.org.nz

98 comments on “Oil rigs – coming to a beach near you? ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. tinfoilhat 1
    19 November 2013 at 8:11 am

    Disgraceful !

  2. Tat Loo (CV) 2
    19 November 2013 at 8:22 am

    Good write up MS. Oil and gas drilling was a major local body election campaign issue down here in Dunedin. It should have been the same in Auckland.

  3. One Anonymous Knucklehead 3
    19 November 2013 at 8:26 am

    Oh, but we should honour the deal, that’s democracy. /sarc

  4. BM 4
    19 November 2013 at 8:34 am

    Thought this was interesting, according to the webpage I linked to below.

    Oil is our 4th largest export (after dairy, meat and wood), with a value of around $2.2 billion.

    Oil, gas and minerals industries contributed over $4.2 billion to GDP in 2009 (with oil and gas contributing over $2.5 billion).

    Government collects around $300 million in company tax per annum.

    Government collects around $400 million in royalties per annum from petroleum (and has collected over $4 billion in royalties to date).

    At a minimum, the industry provides 3,730 full time equivalent jobs and supports a further 3,970 FTEs in other parts of the economy (total FTEs nationwide 7,700).

    New Zealand companies capture between 30 and 80 per cent of the construction of major oil and gas projects in New Zealand, and there is the potential to capture more.

    The government will receive around 42%[1] of the profit of new oil and gas developments.

    http://www.pepanz.com/news-and-issues/issues/economic-contribution-to-nz/

    Interesting, I was under the impression NZ made nothing out of oil?
    Also makes me wonder what Vicky Buck is on about?, it’s obvious she hasn’t got a clue about how much revenue oil exploration brings to the country.

    • Te Reo Putake 4.1
      19 November 2013 at 8:45 am

      Oil Industry PR firm is upbeat about Oil Industry. Whodda thunk it?

      The issue isn’t the Government’s tax or dividend cut, it’s the damage done to the environment when a) the extraction work is done correctly, and b) when the extraction work fails disastrously.

      • BM 4.1.1
        19 November 2013 at 8:50 am

        [Deputy Mayor Vicki Buck] told fellow councillors this week the risks of deep-sea oil drilling off the Canterbury coast were unacceptably high.

        “The difficulty here is the risk is all ours, the profits are all the oil companies’,” Buck said.

        Unfortunately with New Zealand’s royalty and tax structures little local benefit is received. We do not have a regime like Norway or Venezuela where most of the benefit is retained locally.

        Does rather make these two statements from Mickey Savages opening post look like complete horse shit though.

        • mickysavage 4.1.1.1
          19 November 2013 at 9:02 am

          BM

          The figure of 42% that the Government receives does not appear to be right. Oil companies operating under a prospecting permit have to pay a royalty of 5% of the net sales revenues of the petroleum obtained under the permit. Corporate tax is 28%. So net sales revenues would have to be three times profit for this to be correct.

          It is also misleading. The oil belongs to us. We are actually losing 95% of the value of the oil and in return getting back a share of the profit the oil companies make.

          And you could address the other points:

          1. Environmental risk.
          2. We have to leave some of the oil in the ground and risky deep sea wells would appear to be a good place to start.

          • BM 4.1.1.1.1
            19 November 2013 at 9:09 am

            There you go.
            Bit of an angle there for the greenies to attack oil exploration.

            They should go through that list and point out all the lies and exaggeration, thus showing that BIG OIL are a pack of lying bastards who can’t be trusted.

            As for the other points, we’ve been drilling off shore for the last 40 years and why should we leave oil in the ground?

            I say get it out of the ground and put it to good use like buying next years election.

            • One Anonymous Knucklehead 4.1.1.1.1.1
              19 November 2013 at 9:26 am

              Yawn. Can we get through your zombie arguments a bit quicker?

              Key words: depth, metres, liar.

              • Kiev …
                19 November 2013 at 1:24 pm

                FYI – 6 miles off shore, wouldn’t be that deep.

                Looking at – http://www.nzcharts.co.nz/Chart/42 – indicates around 100m of depth.

                • One Anonymous Knucklehead …
                  19 November 2013 at 1:58 pm

                  FYI, “Anadarko’s drilling ship, the Noble Bob Douglas, is en route to the Romney Prospect in the Taranaki Basin, about 100 nautical miles (204 kilometres) west of Raglan, where it will begin drilling in 1500 metres of water this month.”

                  I’m curious as to how you formed the impression that it was only 100m. Or did you know the truth and lie anyway?

                  Dupe or duplicitous? Which is it?

                  • BM …
                    19 November 2013 at 2:14 pm

                    1500 meters isn’t that deep, they’ve been drilling at those depths since 2000.

                    This one here is drilling at 2400m

                    http://www.shell.com/global/aboutshell/major-projects-2/perdido.html

                    • McFlock …
                      19 November 2013 at 2:23 pm

                      Two points:

                      firstly, the only reason they’re drilling at those depths is because there’s not much left in the way of low-hanging fruit (shootin’ at some food, when up through the ground came abubblin’ crude…).

                      Secondly, it’s deep enough to be a bugger to seal if the valve blows. And we couldn’t even handle the Rena. So flip the mining receipts against possible damage to a billion dollars in fisheries and 15-odd billion in tourism, and it suddenly becomes a pretty dumb idea..

                    • One Anonymous Knucklehead …
                      19 November 2013 at 3:08 pm

                      I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised that the party that could select Aaron Gilmore is so challenged by the notion of cost benefit analysis but…

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      19 November 2013 at 3:11 pm

                      I think they have the idea of cost-benefit down tight

                      benefit for themselves, costs for the rest of us

                  • Kiev …
                    19 November 2013 at 3:20 pm

                    Refer to the topic of this thread – ‘Oil Rigs coming to a Beach near you’ – and it’s topic of drilling to be allowed from 6Ks (3nm) of the shore. To emphasize teh point, the ‘shopped image – shows a rig within swimming distance of the shore.

                    At 100 nautical miles (200K’s) it’s unlikely you could see Noble Bob Douglas from the beach.

                    • One Anonymous Knucklehead …
                      19 November 2013 at 3:34 pm

                      You wouldn’t have any trouble seeing the consequences of an accident though. Speaking of which would you like me to cite a global clean-up company’s boasts about how many tens of thousands of “incidents” they’ve attended?

                    • Draco T Bastard …
                      19 November 2013 at 3:52 pm

                      Actually, If you had read it you would’ve know that is was 6 nautical miles:

                      Auckland Council’s submission expressed general support for the proposal although it requested that the 6 nautical mile exploration free zone from the coast be extended to 12 nautical miles.

                      Now, maybe that sentence is wrong but I read it as where the council doesn’t want people exploring for fossil fuels.

                • Rogue Trooper …
                  20 November 2013 at 2:04 pm

                  chicken!

    • Jenny Kirk 4.2
      19 November 2013 at 8:55 am

      BM – these new oil permits are for exploration in extremely deep waters – which has not been tried before in NZ. ie it is EXPERIMENTAL.
      The current oil/gas drilling off Taranaki is in much shallower waters.
      NZ does not have the capacity to deal with big oil spills – we apparently have only three small boats on hand, and would have to get in overseas equipment which, as we saw with the Rena spill, takes weeks to arrive here.
      The Andarko experience in the Mexican Gulf happened with exploration drilling.
      The risks to NZ’s waters are HUGE. And there is no guarantee the explosions with oil rigs that happen elsewhere won’t happen here.

      that’s why we’re all worried about these new permits for off-shore drilling.

    • Tiger Mountain 4.3
      19 November 2013 at 8:59 am

      A bit more digging, heh, required BM.

      From your linked sites front page…
      “PEPANZ (Petroleum Exploration and Production Association) is an incorporated society, operating as a trade association, which promotes the interests of petroleum producers and explorers in New Zealand.”

      Well bully for PEPNZ, but we still have the small matter of fossil fuel running out and the predicted scramble for the harder to get stuff in difficult locations. An Anadarko rig drilling at one and a half km deep with their track record in the Gulf of Mexico does little to instill confidence. According to Greens and Mana Anadarko are operating as a limited liability NZ company ($100,000) at this stage. They had to fork out billions in the Gulf.

    • One Anonymous Knucklehead 4.4
      19 November 2013 at 9:15 am

      You missed the other side of the ledger BM. The cradle-to-grave costs and assumed risks.

      You failed to account for the known costs of extra weather-related damage (cf: Munich Re et al claims statistics) and sea-level rise, for example. The assumed risks are equally grave, especially in the short term.

      Only 42%? Vicki Buck may not know how much revenue is generated, but if revenue generated is the benchmark why aren’t we following international best practice? After all, we’re liable for 100% of the risks.

      I say we wait a few decades – maybe a century or so, and then drill using better technology and less risk. The oil will be worth a lot more by then too, in real terms.

      • BM 4.4.1
        19 November 2013 at 9:27 am

        Bud, it’s going to happen if you like it or not.

        Facts are if it’s not National who sign on the dotted line, it will be Labour, we have a growing aging population who’ll need supporting and a shrinking job pool.
        The jobs that were there 30-40 no longer exist and will never be back

        Endlessly taxing the crap out of people is not the answer even Cunners realizes that, we as a country need to find other avenues to bring in money so we can maintain our current life style.

        Oil and gas seems like a good option to me.

        • Puckish Rogue 4.4.1.1
          19 November 2013 at 9:40 am

          Don’t bother using common sense and logic on here, try using emotional arguements instead

          • rhinocrates 4.4.1.1.1
            19 November 2013 at 9:53 am

            Emotions like reckless greed?

          • One Anonymous Knucklehead 4.4.1.1.2
            19 November 2013 at 10:06 am

            “Endlessly taxing the crap out of people” is such a puerile way to express your ingratitude for the benefits you take for granted. I note you failed miserably to address the issue of best practice where profits are concerned, and no answers to my comments on risk.

            Puckish Rogue, the boundaries between emotion, logic and common sense are more or less illusory. Sorry to break that to you.

            Perhaps you can articulate your reasons why we should assume these risks, and should we choose to do so, why we should accept less than 100% of the profits.

          • karol 4.4.1.1.3
            19 November 2013 at 10:40 am

            PR: Don’t bother using common sense and logic on here, try using emotional arguements instead

            I fear you have pasted a line from your handlers’ instruction manual into the wrong place. Need to be more careful.

          • Draco T Bastard 4.4.1.1.4
            19 November 2013 at 4:04 pm

            He’s not using rational arguments. Digging up and selling our resources as fast as possible to increase the bank balances of a few, mostly foreign, bludgers* isn’t rational.

            * Otherwise known as shareholders

        • Naturesong 4.4.1.2
          19 November 2013 at 10:26 am

          If you think oil and gas will solve unemployment and get the government out of the fiscal hole they’ve been digging for the last 5 years, you’re not applying yourself.

          New Zealand has previously built a brand of clean and green. Sadly that’s been trashed by the present government. It was worth $20.17 billion per year in 2005.
          Likely worth a lot less now since Keys Ratner moment where he compared our brand to one of the most inneffective and hypocrytical brand slogans in recent history (I’m lovin’it! – the low wages, the non existant breaks, the lack of guaranteed hours ….)

          A brand should reflect its product or the product should be made good to reflect its brand.
          If it does not then the brand is either an outright lie, which once the targetted demographic works out that they’ve being lied to is very unforgiving.
          Or its being harvested – which is clearly the main governing strategy behind the current National governement.
          You see this behaviour in large corporates. Extreme damage gets done to the long term health of companies, in the short term however, you get good quarterly profits as the company literally eats itself.
          HP an object lesson in this type of behaviour. It is only now starting to recover from being run by these types of parasites (1999 – Carly Fiorina, through to 2010 – Mark Hurd).

          As well as that brand, New Zealand has other things going for it.
          Kiwi ingenuity; A previous reputation for innovation (Richard Pearse, John Britton, Bill Hamilton, Ernest Rutherford etc …)
          A reputation of being plucky and punching above our weight; see inventors above, plus Jean Batten, Edmund Hillary, John Walker. Add Lorde, Ko and Catton to that list.

          We also have a large amount of natural resources, agriculture, forestry etc.
          And what are the most important things facing the world?
          Fresh water, quality food, affordable power and the looming problems with extreme weather and rising sea levels.

          The future of New Zealand is not with letting a dying industry trash the place to extract the last dregs of oil, but with value added manufacture of our raw materials, it’s with innovative ideas for cheap power, ways of delivering clean water, it’s with sustainable farming practices, developing systems and infrastructure to weather future storms

          If New Zealand stepped up and actually addressed poverty and removed the barriers to education, all of the human capital that is currently languishing on the sidelines would be in play.
          It requires that those that want our vote actually work for the benefit of New Zealanders instead of the petty one-upmanship that currently happens; “Yay, my team won, who cares that the policy causes harm to a number of New Zealanders. In your face, yeah!”

        • weka 4.4.1.3
          19 November 2013 at 10:27 am

          “Oil and gas seems like a good option to me.”

          What happens when those things run out (in the sense that they become economically unviable)? We have to figure out how to live on a finite planet eventually, why not now with the full power of oil behind us while we still have it?

          • Naturesong 4.4.1.3.1
            19 November 2013 at 10:37 am

            Oil is already uneconomical – Risk of spills, price of immediate response or cost of damage to the environment, peoples livelihoods, health costs, offsetting carbon released is not currently priced in.
            If it was, then deep sea drilling would not be happening in New Zealand.

          • BM 4.4.1.3.2
            19 November 2013 at 10:45 am

            It will never happen, people are not going to give up their way of life because of something that may or may not happen sometime in the future.
            Most people don’t think beyond whats happening next week.

            If Greenpeace or other Greenies want to “save the world” they need to put down the placards stop all the silly protests and put effort into coming up with a viable alternative to fossil fuels.
            Power down is not a viable alternative either.

            That’s the only way you’re going to see change.

            • Naturesong 4.4.1.3.2.1
              19 November 2013 at 10:59 am

              Stopping subsidies to Oil companies would be a start.
              Pricing in all the actual costs of producing and consuming oil – you know, user pays, being responsible etc.

              Use that money to subsidise development of alternative energy sources; solar and wind generation as part of every home every home for a starter.

              Quality public transport that isn’t a complete pain to navigate, you know, like other modern cities have.

              And just as an aside, “Greenies” as you call them, don’t want to “Save the World” like it’s some kind of abstract thing.

              We want to save our home, yours too.

            • Tracey 4.4.1.3.2.2
              19 November 2013 at 1:28 pm

              Do you believe that drilling is a panacea BM?

            • SpaceMonkey 4.4.1.3.2.3
              19 November 2013 at 4:41 pm

              Nope… the other way you’ll see change is if the power down is done for us… or, more correctly, to us.

        • karol 4.4.1.4
          19 November 2013 at 10:37 am

          Please cite some evidence for this line about Labour:

          Facts are if it’s not National who sign on the dotted line, it will be Labour,

          For instance, Moana Mackay has spoken strongly against the lax regulations of deep sea oil drilling:

          16 October:

          “This is deeply concerning given the permissive nature of the legislation which would regulate the drilling of any wells in the EEZ. The further aware from shore we get, the greater the risk and the less we know about the environment we are operating in, and yet regulation of this activity gets weaker, not stronger. That’s crazy.

          The National Government is desperate to grease the wheels for the oil and gas industry because they have no plan B for regional economic development. And unfortunately they are prepared to weaken environmental protections and risk ‘catastrophic’ impacts on our precious marine environment in order to do so,” Moana Mackey says.

          18 October:

          This spin line by Righties (Labour would do just the same as national re mining/asset sales… whatever) is wearing a bit thin, and ignores the very real differences between National and Labour.

          Then when it comes to the Greens, the spin line is to discredit them…..

          • BM 4.4.1.4.1
            19 November 2013 at 10:54 am

            Until Cunners comes out and categorically states that there will be no offshore drilling, it’s going ahead.

            Those press releases are just political waffle.

            • felix 4.4.1.4.1.1
              19 November 2013 at 11:02 am

              Thank you for conceding the election this early.

              • Arfamo …
                19 November 2013 at 11:07 am

                BM has a point there, though. At the very least Cunners has to come out and say there will be no drilling under the shithouse “owner bears all costs of a disaster” arrangement the Nats have signed up to. Preferably he should just say, it’s not going to happen at all.

                • Enough is Enough …
                  19 November 2013 at 11:19 am

                  Agree 100%. It is a very simple policy position. No ifs, no buts, Just no fucking drilling.

                  Labour will get such a bounce if they come out and state that simple policy.

                  • Tracey …
                    19 November 2013 at 1:41 pm

                    unfortunately his stance is to only say “We are not opposed to responsible mining, but we won’t approve new mines on high value conservation land.” 4 Nov 2013

                    Is all conservation land “high value” or has he left himself wiggle room?

                    • Arfamo …
                      19 November 2013 at 1:43 pm

                      The only person who can answer that is Cunners. Anyone else can only speculate.

                    • Tracey …
                      19 November 2013 at 1:48 pm

                      Arfamo

                      I guess I am trying to find out if “high value” is a statutory term or a term of art/

                    • Arfamo …
                      19 November 2013 at 1:50 pm

                      He knows this blog is here and has posted here. The question’s been asked. It’s a good one. Be interesting to see if he responds. But this thread’s about risky oil drilling isn’t it?

                    • Tracey …
                      19 November 2013 at 2:18 pm

                      yes, you are right it is.

                      “We need to protect our forests and rivers and mountains.

                      Labour will protect our environment.

                      We will reverse National’s gutting of the Resource Management Act.

                      We will rebuild our Conservation Department to protect our world-class conservation estate.

                      We won’t, for example, build a monorail through a world heritage park.

                      We are not opposed to responsible mining, but we won’t approve new mines on high value conservation land.

                      We will insist on best practice environment and cleanup standards before we approve any more deep sea oil drilling.”

                  • King Kong …
                    19 November 2013 at 2:02 pm

                    The only bounce they would get from that kind of ridiculous policy announcement, would resemble someone “bouncing” down a very large flight of stairs.

                    • Enough is Enough …
                      19 November 2013 at 2:19 pm

                      What has been the largest protest in New Zealand since the Foreshore and Seabed Hikoi?

                      Answer: When New Zealanders marched down Queen Street in their thousands to tell Brownlee that he had no right to mine and drill New Zealand. The slob then ran away from that policy never to be touched again.

                      That same sentiment exists with drilling into our seabed. Kiwis don’t want it and anyone who will stand up and say it won’t happen under their watch, will benefit.

                    • One Anonymous Knucklehead …
                      19 November 2013 at 2:26 pm

                      Stop the press! Partisan National Party hack “King Kong” would disagree with Labour Party policy if only he knew what it was!

                    • Arfamo …
                      19 November 2013 at 2:52 pm

                      We have restarted the presses after realising KK was simply a fly in the ink that was easily squashed.

                    • King Kong …
                      19 November 2013 at 3:01 pm

                      My response was to the policy of banning all drilling but don’t let me stop you if you think you know better.

                      Maybe Labour could announce they are going to reintroduce their desire to lower every bodies shower pressure at the same time. A kind of double pronged attack of genius.

                    • Arfamo …
                      19 November 2013 at 3:39 pm

                      Are you the biscuitbucket at other times KK? He likes to keep harping on about the Clark dictatorship. She got the boot and traded up to a better salary at the UN. What on earth have her machinations & misjudgements to do with what Labour under Cunners will do?

                    • One Anonymous Knucklehead …
                      19 November 2013 at 3:39 pm

                      I daresay they’re quaking in their boots at this trenchant criticism from such an impartial source.

                    • felix …
                      19 November 2013 at 5:21 pm

                      “Maybe Labour could announce they are going to reintroduce their desire to lower every bodies shower pressure at the same time”

                      Wow, still peddling that lie. What an amazing mind you have.

                    • Arfamo …
                      19 November 2013 at 5:28 pm

                      The explanation for how his mind works is probably best explained here:
                      http://thestandard.org.nz/shhh-its-the-p-word/#comment-731024

        • Draco T Bastard 4.4.1.5
          19 November 2013 at 3:58 pm

          Endlessly taxing the crap out of people is not the answer even Cunners realizes that, we as a country need to find other avenues to bring in money so we can maintain our current life style.

          Ah, the RWNJ expounding his delusional belief that money is a resource.

          We don’t need money to support that aging population – we need resources. The resources that both National seem determined to dig up and sell as fast as possible bringing about actual, real poverty for NZ.

    • David H 4.5
      20 November 2013 at 7:19 am

      It looks to me that Vicky buck is worried about the beaches in the event of a spill. NZ beaches are covered in oil and the oil company mysteriously goes broke and we get to clean up someone else’s fucking stinking mess on our pristine beaches.

  5. Jenny Kirk 5
    19 November 2013 at 8:46 am

    Under the new Crown Minerals Act, the Govt does NOT have to consult with ordinary general public – it only has to “consult” with iwi and councils. And I guess its up to the various councils as to whether they pass that “consultation” phase onto their local/community boards !

    Looks like Auckland Council fell down on this one, Mickey. Not a good look. Nor hopeful for the future that Auck Cl will keep you informed of “progress” on this matter.

    And it shows up the IMPOTENCE of local boards on important environmental matters in their region.

    Up here in the north, we’re faced with a Unitary Authority for the next local govt elections – 10 people based in Whangarei to service the whole of the wide geographical area of the north with a number of local boards which – according to the draft proposal – will NOT have much ability to comment – let alone make firm recommndations – on RESOURCE CONSENT matters. The Govt has already approved prospecting permits for both mining and off-shore oil/gas drilling in the north – and the newly proposed local govt structure will just make it harder for locals (including tangata whenua) to object.

    By the way, our research shows there’s little in the way of real big paying jobs for locals when/if mining/drilling occurs. The overseas companies bring in experts for all those jobs – locals get the dregs like lower-paid labouring, truck driving, etc. Neither Waihi or Reefton townships have high employment rates with good incomes for those in jobs, and they’re NZ’s major gold mining towns.

  6. Enough is Enough 6
    19 November 2013 at 9:10 am

    There is only one party that will stand up and oppose this.

    If you do not want to see Oil spills destroying our beaches, you have only one option in 2014. That is vote Green.

    Every other party either supports it or indifferent.

    Vote Green

  7. rich the other 7
    19 November 2013 at 10:17 am

    Just more green scaremongering,
    Crude oil in NZ has to be pumped out using submersible pumps, it doesn’t GUSH .
    vote green and return to the cave.

    • One Anonymous Knucklehead 7.1
      19 November 2013 at 10:23 am

      This is from the new wells that haven’t had any exploratory drilling yet, right?

  8. karol 8
    19 November 2013 at 10:26 am

    Thanks for this clear outline of the issues and the problem.

    It is really important that local authorities and communities are given much more say in the governance and regulations related to their own environments.

    I also agree that local boards in Auckland Council need to be strengthened. They were deliberately disempowered by Rodney Hide.

  9. Will@Welly 9
    19 November 2013 at 10:57 am

    Whether you agree or disagree with the deep-sea oil exploration, long term, it is not going to provide the jobs or revenue stream that Taranaki is providing. All the oil will be drawn up, and shipped directly off-shore, in tankers to Singapore. The rigs will be owned by off-shore entities, the majority of the workers will have their wages paid into accounts overseas, and the risks will be ours.
    No real plan has been drawn up, no contingencies allowed for, just a Government desperate to squeeze whatever minimalistic dollar it can squeeze out of any nook and cranny to prove it knows best. Rena proved that it is a Government completely out of it’s depth when it comes to the environment. Dairying is another prime example – they just don’t give a damn – as Johnny said in 2011, “Show me the money.” The man can be brought for $2-00 !!

  10. Sarah 10
    19 November 2013 at 1:22 pm

    Pike River was opened without any regard to safety so we ‘could create jobs and wealth’. Instead it lost lives and went bankrupt. We are always hearing of risky un environmental ways to make money for NZ, but they don’t seem to create any wealth only pollution and problems..When oil companies spill they do not clean it up they litigate. Firstly there should not be deep sea drilling and secondly there should be a billion dollar bond to Government when they start, to clean up any spills.

  11. rilsildowgtn 11
    19 November 2013 at 1:48 pm

    http://www.greenpeace.org/new-zealand/en/

    Up to date cat and mouse game as Andarko arrive AFTER turning off its global position reporting system……

  12. captain hook 12
    19 November 2013 at 2:00 pm

    hey I need the gas so I can haul my fat guts round on a hardly davison in the weekends and then drive my chainsaw an my leaf blower and aaaaaaaarrrrgggghhhhh……..

  13. Natwest 13
    19 November 2013 at 3:21 pm

    It seems to me the Labour Party are morphing themselves into the Greens.

    But I guess if the best you can do in terms of an economic strategy is the establishment of another Government insurer – you may as well become a quasi green party and start objecting to anything that could be of economic benefit to the country.

    • One Anonymous Knucklehead 13.1
      19 November 2013 at 3:36 pm

      Labour’s economic record speaks for itself, and oops, it’s better than National’s. When you can do better you’ll have some grounds to criticise, but until then you just look ignorant of history.

      • Natwest 13.1.1
        19 November 2013 at 4:38 pm

        Take your blinkers off – they are confusing you.

        • One Anonymous Knucklehead 13.1.1.1
          20 November 2013 at 9:32 am

          Really. Which party consistently maintains higher per-capita GDP? It’s Labour. Which party always maintains higher employment? Labour. Which party pays down debt? Labour. Which party acts in New Zealand’s interests rather than those of its clients? Yep, you guessed it.

          They also manage not to sell the laws of the land while they’re at it.

          You vote for the high debt high unemployment low wages low ethics low productivity lowlife party if you want. Probably reflects your character in some way I expect.

    • framu 13.2
      19 November 2013 at 4:03 pm

      “objecting to anything that could be of economic benefit to the country”

      thanks for proving you know shit about green policy. You do realise that very few of them are those hated ivory tower/public servant types and most of them have either owned their own businesses and/or had very successful careers in the private sector?

      everytime some loud mouth does this kind of line all they are saying is “i never read their policy, i cant be bothered to even try and comprehend it – but i know theyre all commies”

      but dont let me stop you – im happy for you to keep going and see if you can fit your other foot in your gob – go on, you can do it

      • Natwest 13.2.1
        19 November 2013 at 4:31 pm

        Yep, I will.

        One example, Green energy – a complete an utter disaster.

        Just go look at the germans and their energy sector its a complete shambles, thanks to dumb arse Greens.

        And the list goes on and on.

        • framu 13.2.1.1
          19 November 2013 at 4:52 pm

          show us where NZ GREEN, not german green policy is “objecting to anything that could be of economic benefit to the country” – and it has to be anything, not a specific thing and not a thing that the greens think could be done better or differently

          thats the question genius

          and youve come back with… hmm… well its not a policy is it, its a technology, and it doesnt prove your claim in the slightest

          “start objecting to anything that could be of economic benefit to the country.”

          thats the claim you made about the greens – presumably the nz greens

          unless of course your talking about the germans from the get go – which makes you look even more foolish considering that everyone else is talking about NZ

          you made a claim – back it up properly or.. you know the drill

        • Arfamo 13.2.1.2
          19 November 2013 at 4:53 pm

          Citation? Where’s this “list that goes on and on”?

  14. Natwest 14
    19 November 2013 at 5:10 pm

    anti mining;
    anti drilling;
    anti convention centre;
    anti roading;
    anti free trade agreements;
    pro – rail (1900’s technology);
    pro-increased regulation;
    nationalise the energy sector;
    and of course the doozy of them all – if you have’nt enough – just print some more.

    Just a few to get you going

    • chris73 14.1
      19 November 2013 at 8:13 pm

      Anti Hobbit as well except for when theres a red (irony alert!) carpet to walk down 😉

      • framu 14.1.1
        20 November 2013 at 7:34 am

        thats been shown by PJs words himself that the whole hobbit thing was all BS for leverage

        and it wasnt anti hobbit – it was anti specific law change for a foreign corporate because they couldnt be bothered with getting their contracts right

        so it helps if you get the most basic of facts right

        note: the law change affected contractors more than actors

    • Martin 14.2
      19 November 2013 at 10:04 pm

      I think you have it about right Nat West

      or just sum it up:

      anti planet wrecking.

    • Paul 14.3
      20 November 2013 at 6:14 am

      You mean for the environment and against unfettered capitalism, which is enriching a tiny elite against the interests of the 99%.
      The more interesting question is ( assuming why you’re not part of that tiny group) why do you support a system and people who are so clearly against your own ( and your children and grandchildren’s interests)?

      Maybe you deny climate change.
      Maybe you don’t have children
      Maybe you’re part of the uber rich.

      Or maybe just you’re a schill for the elite who pay you a few crumbs to write the rubbish you do.

    • framu 14.4
      20 November 2013 at 7:31 am

      all your anti’s are missing one important thing

      anti – they way it is currently being done

      so keep misrepresenting the arguments all you want – its just further evidence you dont know what your talking about

      maybe you could actually back up your spurious foolish outbursts with a fact based argument instead of arse based slogans?

    • fender 14.5
      20 November 2013 at 10:06 am

      Go west young man…

  15. Tracey 15
    20 November 2013 at 7:38 am

    How much do the companies pay for the exploratory licenses?

  16. Tracey 16
    20 November 2013 at 7:42 am

    “Homegrown titanium innovation to be unveiled

    By Christopher Adams
    1:25 PM Tuesday Nov 19, 2013

    New titanium materials have been created by New Zealand scientists at Callaghan Innovation, the Government’s research and development institute, including one that mimics the structure of human bones that could be used in biomedical implants.

    Callaghan Innovation’s Ian Brown said the materials had unique characteristics and could potentially add value to a range of industry sectors such as biomedicine, engineering, construction and marine.

    The research is part of the New Zealand Titanium Technologies Platform, through which Callaghan Innovation has partnered with other research providers to develop a “pan-industry” manufacturing base for high-value exports.

    Brown said the research team had made big advances in the processing of titanium powder to create materials with highly controlled porosity (the property of being porous), which improved the ability to produce lightweight, durable structures.

    Callaghan Innovation was having discussions with a number of potential partners for the “uptake” of the products produced in the research phase, he said.

    The new materials will be presented at an International Titanium Materials conference in Hamilton early next month.

    Callaghan Innovation has combined the operations of Industrial Research Limited (IRL), certain parts of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, staff from New Zealand Trade and Enterprise and the Auckland Foodbowl, a food innovation facility.

    The institute is named after Kiwi physicist Sir Paul Callaghan, who died from cancer last year.”

  17. locus 17
    20 November 2013 at 10:43 am

    Oil companies like those in all other sectors in NZ do whatever they can to avoid paying tax, and oil companies can afford to hire the best tax lawyers and accountants. Also royalties in NZ are way lower than most other countries in the world, despite NZ having lower risk and lower costs of production than most other countries. Ergo NZ is a soft target and is getting rather successfully exploited.

    Drilling in deep water (anything more than 200 metres means having to use semi-submersible rigs or drill ships) is more complex and more risky. Also deeper water is further offshore so more difficult logistics and support from shore in the event of a major accident. Spills far offshore have more time to disperse naturally than close to shore, but spread more widely and have a much great extent of coastal impact. Deep water well blow-outs are much harder to cap (assuming a cap is readily available) than in shallow water, and a relief well will take months to drill irrespective of water depth. Again, a deep water blowout will allow a much wider spread of oil before reaching the shoreline.

    Oil companies have no idea at all about the reservoir characteristics if there have been no discoveries there prior to the exploration drilling. What this means is that there could be any kind of oil at any kind of pressure. If there’s a blowout it would be equally likely for this to be toxic, high pressure, high volume – as low pressure/volume. Either way an offshore blowout from an oil reservoir would have massive environmental impacts.

    In all likelihood companies will be drilling for oil and gas around NZ coasts for a 100 years to come unless we find a more cost effective power source. So the best way forward is to demand double backup belt and braces failsafe multi-layered protection systems so that there is no chance that oil will be spilled. These systems exist, so all we have to do in NZ is to demand that the oil companies use them or they don’t get to drill or produce oil offshore. The cost of the most extensive protective systems you could possibly imagine would not be more than one year’s oil revenue.

    So c’mon NZ get some legislation and teeth – show the world the way to get a grip of this. And double the oil royalties so we get a fairer share of the revenues. And quadruple the NZ oil pollution fund levies so that the oil industry is paying for a realistic oil spill response capability, just in case the worst does happen .

    Europe is well on its way to enforcing this kind of legislation in all EU waters and is requiring that EU based companies apply the same stringent risk management methods to their other operations worldwide http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/13/st09/st09633.en13.pdf

    • Colonial Viper 17.1
      20 November 2013 at 10:45 am

      RE: tax avoidance. I was very disappointed to read that PGC is relocating its company registration from Canterbury to the UK tax haven of Guernsey. It’s pretty shit.

  18. Rogue Trooper 18
    20 November 2013 at 5:45 pm

    informative post thanks mickeysavage

  19. tricledrown 19
    20 November 2013 at 11:52 pm

    Cv PGC Its owned by a chinese company

    • Colonial Viper 19.1
      21 November 2013 at 12:16 am

      So we first lost the profits offshore and now we lose the taxes too? I’m feeling better already. (but thanks anyway)

  20. Tracey 20
    21 November 2013 at 3:59 pm

    “Mr Cunliffe said Labour was “not opposed in principle to responsible and environmentally sensible” offshore exploration.

    But any consent to be granted under a government led by him would need world-class environment standards, top clean-up capability, full liability cover, a fair deal for taxpayers and a high level of consultation.

    Mr Cunliffe said the deep sea drilling industry was a “responsible” one, and hoped for a “mature conversation” with Texas oil giant Anadarko, which is behind the plans.” 21 Nov 2013