Te Ikaroa – Seismic Testing Presents Significant Risk To East Coast

64 comments on “Te Ikaroa – Seismic Testing Presents Significant Risk To East Coast ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Katipo 1

   15 November 2016 at 11:55 pm

   Reminds me of this story i was reading a few days ago…
   https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/nov/02/oil-drilling-caused-killer-earthquake-in-boomtime-california-scientists-suspect
2. One Two 2

   16 November 2016 at 12:05 am

   http://i.stuff.co.nz/the-press/5714919/Big-quake-fails-to-stop-Texas-oil-giant

   There are commonalities with events in time preceding, and post the Christchurch quakes

   The above link is a singular example
3. marty mars 3

   16 November 2016 at 8:13 am

   Yep unacceptable. This must be stopped.
4. One Anonymous Bloke 4

   16 November 2016 at 8:30 am

   There’s a reason Wikipedia’s article on induced seismicity doesn’t mention seismic testing. It’s the same reason Greenpeace don’t mention earthquakes in their objections to seismic tests. Can anyone guess what that reason is?

   There are plenty of good grounds to oppose seabed mining and/or oil prospecting without resorting to pseudoscience.
   • weka 4.1

     16 November 2016 at 9:15 am

     You want to make a point about science and you want people to guess what it is? Try making the point directly OAB instead of expecting people to mindread.
     • One Anonymous Bloke 4.1.1

       16 November 2016 at 10:04 am

       There’s no evidence that seismic testing causes earthquakes; pretending there is simply undermines credibility, and therefore the rest of the perfectly good arguments against it.
       • weka 4.1.1.1

         16 November 2016 at 10:23 am

         From mind-reading to mindless arrogance, great.
         • One Anonymous Bloke 4.1.1.1.1

           16 November 2016 at 10:59 am

           What?

           You asked me to make the point more clearly. What’s arrogant about pointing out there’s zero evidence? What’s arrogant about wanting the best arguments brought against seismic surveys?

           Lose the hostility.

           [You can see in the discussion below what I was asking for. IMO statements of assertion of authority, or claims of Science Says, without explanation are arrogant especially in this context. I have no problem if you don’t have time or inclination to get involved the explanatory conversations.

           Please don’t tell me what to do – weka]
           • One Anonymous Bloke 4.1.1.1.1.1

             16 November 2016 at 11:52 am

             The point I’m making isn’t really about the science. It’s about the way that false claims undermine genuine arguments.

             For example, like saying the inevitable investigation into the structural issues at Statistics House will be incomplete unless it looks for shoddy materials and construction, and thermite nanoparticles. Some people might take you seriously: the investigating engineers will not be among them.
             • Andre …

               16 November 2016 at 12:00 pm

               That’s a little unfair to those people worried about seismic testing. Without fairly detailed science/technology knowledge, it’s quite understandable to link seismic exploration with seismic events. Particularly since there’s a well established link between oil extraction and induced seismicity.

               Whereas nanothermite…
               • One Anonymous Bloke …

                 16 November 2016 at 12:16 pm

                 It was the best analogy I could think of at the time 🙂
             • weka …

               16 November 2016 at 12:01 pm

               And that’s a good discussion to have. The some people are the ones that that will just roll their eyes when told they’re wrong because Someone else knows better than them. I’d like to see bridges built that increase scientific and logical thinking literacy. I wonder if you are unaware of how obscure your points are some of the time, until you explain your thinking, when you generally have bloody good things to say.

               I think sometimes we lose a lot of activist ground over this particular dynamic (the science/non-technical split) because of how it plays out.
               • KJT …

                 16 November 2016 at 8:15 pm

                 There is almost zero or no evidence that seismic testing can cause earthquakes. It is a possibility. It is also a possibility that rock concerts, with all their vibration and noise, cause earthquakes.
                 Using unverified claims like this makes it harder for those of us who have studied the subject to take protests seriously.
                 Better to say, seismic testing is a precurser to drilling when evidence shows that we cannot continue to expand the use if fossil fuels without causing worse AGW.
       • Michelle 4.1.1.2

         16 November 2016 at 11:28 am

         While there might not be any evidence that seismic testing causes earthquakes there is plenty of evidence to show what a spill is devastating does just look at the USA spill by BP it costs 40 billion now do we really want to take such risks and go there we need to learn lessons from these mistakes .
         • One Anonymous Bloke 4.1.1.2.1

           16 November 2016 at 11:40 am

           All the more reason not to bring false arguments to the table.
           • Michelle 4.1.1.2.1.1

             16 November 2016 at 12:10 pm

             Spilling is not a false argument One a …bloke we only have to look at the Rena and what has happened here a very rich group ruined our waterways and literally got away with it. This is a breach of our TOW and these breaches are continuing rampantly under our Tory government.
             Time to vote for a change the brighter future bullshert has been nothing but an aspiration.
             • One Anonymous Bloke …

               16 November 2016 at 2:29 pm

               Sorry Michelle we’re at cross-purposes: my comment is that since everything you say is true, other people adding dubious claims about earthquakes reduces the value of your argument.
               • Macro …

                 17 November 2016 at 1:33 pm

                 Totally agree on this point – it is why I comment on the AGW posts where we have the alarmist claims of some here that the global temp is going to go through the roof in the next 10 years or what ever. There is no evidence for that and they just undermine the work of so many others making such outlandish claims.
                 • weka …

                   17 November 2016 at 1:48 pm

                   I saw that just now in r0b’s post. The alarmist stuff also stops people from changing and acting.
                   • Macro …

                     17 November 2016 at 2:02 pm

                     Exactly. I’m totally opposed to the search for Oil off the East Coast. And the likelihood of it being “successful” is around zero! They are only doing it because they are being subsidized by Govt who haven’t a clue wrt the potential anyway! A few years back I met a geologist/economist in WA who specialised in this sort of stuff for oil companies. His livelihood depended upon him being able to pick where would e the best places on earth to look for oil. Making a mistake can cost millions. The Nat govt was touting the prospect of oil off the east coast at the time – Brownlee et al. His response was – RUBBISH! they won’t find anything there! To date he has been right.
                     Why do we have to continue to disrupt ecosystems in a worthless search purely for the vanity of a couple of over inflated egos? And if, in the unlikely event, oil in production amounts was found, why do we need it when there is enough already on the planet to overcook us?
                   • weka …

                     17 November 2016 at 4:29 pm

                     Does that mean that the oil companies are stupid, or they just have it built into the business model to take a number of offers regardless? Trying to make sense of that.

                     Re oil abundance, there is a time fast approaching when we will need to talk about the connection between our opposition to oil drilling locally and our dependence on oil drilling elsewhere, and what we are doing about it.
                   • McFlock …

                     17 November 2016 at 5:00 pm

                     Does that mean that the oil companies are stupid, or they just have it built into the business model to take a number of offers regardless? Trying to make sense of that.

                     Standard risk/return model: if the government is offering absurdly cheap licensing and assistance, the companies might as well explore.

                     The odds are low, but the cost is relatively low, too. Even if they don’t find oil, they might find something else they can put in the bank later – either other deposits, or even just detailed charts they can sell to fibre cable-laying companies. But also there’s always the slim chance they’ll find something that makes geologists go “that’s odd” and makes the company billions.
         • Andre 4.1.1.2.2

           16 November 2016 at 11:45 am

           Yep. Plus, we already know globally where there’s way more oil than can reasonably be burned. So why accept the damage caused by trying to find yet more, or even consider accepting the risks of extracting it if any is found?
         • KJT 4.1.1.2.3

           16 November 2016 at 8:17 pm

           Yes there is, but spills are uncommon. Anthropogenic global warming from fossil fuel use is a certainty.
           • corokia 4.1.1.2.3.1

             16 November 2016 at 8:49 pm

             +1 KJT
   • stunned mullet 4.2

     16 November 2016 at 9:16 am

     “There are plenty of good grounds to oppose seabed mining and/or oil prospecting without resorting to pseudoscience.”

     Agreed.
     • weka 4.2.1

       16 November 2016 at 9:33 am

       Make the argument then eh? instead of just writing off people’s fears with a pejorative. If there is no risk, explain this, and personally I’d like that explanation contextualised in the fact that the public were told that fracking wasn’t a risk either.

       It’s a good opportunity to learn about the science.
       • Andre 4.2.1.1

         16 November 2016 at 10:06 am

         Ok, seismic testing involves somehow making really loud bangs at the surface or top of the seabed, then measuring the acoustic waves that reflect off different layers deep in the earth. The really loud bangs really fuck with nearby creatures that depend on acoustic sensing and pressure sensing to live their lives, but they have very little energy and don’t move around or stress large chunks of the earth. None of that acoustic energy gets stored anywhere for possible later release.

         In contrast, oil/water extraction/injection changes the stress fields and material properties over huge volumes deep within the earth over very short time periods. Those changes might be small in magnitude, but they are spread over a huge volume and can store a lot of energy.

         Those suddenly altered stress fields are then likely to relieve themselves by suddenly rupturing (ie induced earthquakes). Whereas stresses that build up over long periods of time through natural geologic processes have more of a chance to relieve themselves gently by plastic deformation.

         https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflection_seismology

         https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_seismicity
         • weka 4.2.1.1.1

           16 November 2016 at 10:22 am

           Thanks Andre. Can you then put that in the context of people having used science to say that fracking and allied techs were safe? eg was the science wrong, were people misusing the science etc.

           This is important, because writing off people’s fears via the pejorative of ‘pseudoscience’ just creates further splits between science and the very large part of the general public who don’t trust science. I can take a guess as to what the differences might be (between fracking and this situation), but I think it’s better for people with the background to explain it clearly to increase scientific literacy.
           • stunned mullet 4.2.1.1.1.1

             16 November 2016 at 10:48 am

             Weka

             Andre has done a sterling job as above.

             I’m no fan of the “seismic gun” as the effects on marine wildlife are largely negative and well documented.

             Unfortunately this discussion has all the makings of another ‘shit fight’ of people defending entrenched positions such as whenever vaccination is mentioned on this site – hence I’m vacating this thread as of now.
           • You_Fool 4.2.1.1.1.2

             16 November 2016 at 10:54 am

             My understanding is that Big Oil was able to get their scientists to say that fracking is safe in the same way their scientists say climate change isn’t a thing… in the case of fracking they were just first off the bus because it was their thing they wanted to do
             • weka …

               16 November 2016 at 11:45 am

               Thanks YF. So were the initial stories saying that fracking etc was safe was misuse of science rather than there not being good scientific evidence?

               Following it from the lay persons end, it looked more like the science hadn’t been done yet and the industry was able to say a whole bunch of shit for quite a long time until the science proved them wrong.
               • Pasupial …

                 16 November 2016 at 12:43 pm

                 There was good quality scientific evidence, but the industry chose to diregard it:

                 In 1969 Chevron Oil allowed the USGS to use one of its wells to more closely study the effects of fluid pressure on faults. The well was in a seismically active zone of the Rangely oil reservoir in Colorado, and Chevron had been injecting water into the well to stimulate petroleum production. USGS scientists turned the injections on and off and followed the fluid pressure as it migrated through deep rocks. They came up with the exact injection pressure required to trigger quakes. When the pressure exceeded that level, earthquakes rumbled; when the pressure fell below the level, they quieted down.

                 The experiment showed that human-triggered earthquakes could be controlled by adjusting wastewater-injection pressure. Unfortunately, the lessons of Rangely and the Rocky Mountain Arsenal were apparently forgotten by the early 2000s, when fossil-fuel companies embarked on the shale-gas boom. “Scores of papers on injection-induced earthquakes were published in the geophysical literature in the following 40-plus years, and the problem was well understood and appreciated by seismologists,”

                 https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/drilling-for-earthquakes/
                 • weka …

                   16 November 2016 at 1:25 pm

                   Fuck.
               • KJT …

                 16 November 2016 at 8:24 pm

                 The industry were well aware of the effects of fracking, just as they are aware of AGW.
                 Exxon, and others, deliberately fudged the science, paying their own people to mis -represent the science. Tobacco companies were the first to do it.
                 Unfortunately the general public does not have access to scientific journals and papers.
                 Most people have to rely on “journalists” Interpretations.
                 • Macro …

                   17 November 2016 at 1:39 pm

                   Exactly.
                   Heartland Institute are the major culpirts for disinformation.
           • Andre 4.2.1.1.1.3

             16 November 2016 at 10:55 am

             The people that claim fracking doesn’t cause earthquakes are in the same position of those that claimed smoking is safe, or asbestos is safe, or climate denial: they’re ignoring the vast majority of evidence in favour of a few cherry-picked bits of data. It’s the usual story of vested interests getting their story out first, so it sticks because it takes a long time for the effects to show and the evidence to become clear.

             In the case of seismic testing, it was used widely long before fracking so there’s a long history of it being used in a wide variety of places without inducing earthquakes, with no physically plausible mechanism for it to actually cause earthquakes. Whereas with fracking, there are many instances of earthquakes starting shortly after starting fracking, in areas with no history of earthquakes, coupled with a physically plausible cause-and-effect mechanism.

             How to separate good science from pseudo-science from outright bullshit is a topic way beyond the constraints of random blog comments and my limited communication skills. But in short, credible science comes down to a convergence of all the available evidence (no cherry-picking), plausible mechanisms for the effect, repeatability, predictive ability for new situations, coherence with other established science, and an absence of credible alternatives.
             • weka …

               16 November 2016 at 11:48 am

               cheers, I will update the post.

               (see my comment to YF above, re the knowledge process on fracking)
             • KJT …

               16 November 2016 at 8:39 pm

               First thing is to ask. “Who paid for the research?”.
               I would take a study that says “coffee is good for you”, for example, seriously if it came from an independent Ph D student, than i would from someone
               paid a scholarship from, say, Robert Harris
   • marty mars 4.3

     16 November 2016 at 9:17 am

     Yes my main opposition is the distruption to marine mammals. The earthquake stuff I need some evidence for.

     I should have read the post better 😐
     • Michelle 4.3.1

       16 November 2016 at 11:28 am

       who cares your right marty mars those driller can f… of
       • One Anonymous Bloke 4.3.1.1

         16 November 2016 at 11:45 am

         +1
     • Pasupial 4.3.2

       16 November 2016 at 1:29 pm

       Note that the terminology used is; “seismic event”, not “earthquake”. I suspect that there has been a game of Broken Telephone (Chinese Whispers) played between the people who read and discussed the research, and the person who wrote the press release. Unfortunately, I didn’t bookmark the articles I now only vaguely recall myself, so this attempt to clarify may only further obscure the point.

       As I understand it, the seismic blasting does not usually show the oil itself, but can reveal geological structures which have in the past been associated with hydrocarbon finds. However, there are naturally occurring oil seeps which are of particular interest to the prospectors and so come in for increased examination. The problem here is that these seeps occur at fracture points, so that bombarding them with air-gun pulses may cause the rate of seepage to increase. This would be a; negative event caused by a seismic source, but not what a geologist would mean by a; “seismic event”.

       On land they sometimes just dill a hole and use explosives to create the pulse. If the energy produced by air-guns has a similar magnitude, then imagine throwing sticks of dynamite at the SH1 landslides to see if there is anything underneath. It might not cause new earthquakes, but it would likely create a lot of damage because of the area’s instability:

       Explosives, such as dynamite, can be used as crude but effective sources of seismic energy… Generally, the explosive charges are placed between 6 and 76 metres (20 and 250 ft) below ground, in a hole that is drilled with dedicated drilling equipment for this purpose. This type of seismic drilling is often referred to as “Shot Hole Drilling”.

       https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seismic_source
       • weka 4.3.2.1

         16 November 2016 at 9:40 pm

         So how big a seismic event is possible? I saw something the other day about concern that the trench system off the coast of Kaikoura could now be unstable and that if there are undersea landslides they could trigger a no warning tsunami (various opinions on how likely that is). I think the theory was that the aftershocks might collapse recently unstable land there.

         So if the seismic testing had been planned for along that area would it make sense to not do it because of risk, or is there no risk because the force of the blasts isn’t enough to cause a problem?

         As an aside, does the increased seepage cause pollution or is it still within normal ocean amounts?
         • Pasupial 4.3.2.1.1

           16 November 2016 at 11:23 pm

           I tried typing keywords into google this morning, but couldn’t find the paper I semi-recall from a couple of weeks, maybe a month, ago. I’m not about to invent facts when I just don’t know (and at the moment I am again being time-jacked by the obsessive need to follow another country’s politics, so I’m not about to resume researching).

           One thing I do recall was a bind the (maybe Canadian?) researchers found themselves in. The best way to find marine fracture seepage was to use seismic blasting. But doing so might distort the evidence they were trying to reveal (plus risk increased pollution). Also, this morning; while surfing through various pieces that had promising sounding titles, I saw something about natural seepage accounting for around 10% of ocean hydrocarbons. There was some runoff from shipping and coastal urban, but 80+% being from drilling leakage. However, the only citation I can give is once again; somewhere on the internet.
           • weka 4.3.2.1.1.1

             16 November 2016 at 11:47 pm

             Thanks, all good learning.
5. Pasupial 5

   16 November 2016 at 10:28 am

   Some local governments are solidly against deep sea oil exploration. If yours’ isn’t already, then maybe you could make a submission that they should speak up too:

   Yesterday, councillors were required to vote on the local authority’s draft submission to the Government’s ”block offer” for next year, when the Government invites applications for permits to explore for petroleum resources, primarily oil and gas, in defined blocks of land and sea… Auckland and Christchurch city councils had opposed the offers…

   Cr Andrew Whiley, who drew derisive laughter at times from Oil Free Otago supporters in the public gallery, asked about feedback from the community that opposed the block offer.
   ”Are you referring to the silent majority or vocal minority?” Cr Whiley asked.
   Ms Ioannou said submissions were consistently opposed to exploration…

   Crs David Benson-Pope, Garey, Hawkins, Marie Laufiso, Newell, O’Malley, Chris Staynes, Kate Wilson and Mr Cull voted for the submission opposing the block offer.
   Crs Whiley, Conrad Stedman, Mike Lord and Doug Hall voted against, while Cr Rachel Elder abstained.
   Cr Vandervis had left the room to attend an appointment when the vote was taken.

   https://www.odt.co.nz/news/dunedin/dcc/council-green-grass-oil-exploration-issue

   It’s good to recall councillors voting history when they come up for re-election. The reason Whiley drew so much laughter is role as; “spokesman for Pro Gas Otago”, means he is hardly impartial.
   • weka 5.1

     16 November 2016 at 12:16 pm

     Heh.

     Are all councils going to have to vote on this, or is it just those that think it’s an issue?
     • Robert Guyton 5.1.1

       16 November 2016 at 8:29 pm

       The Southland Regional council voted on this today, following my motion that the council oppose the Government’s proposal to offer the two Southland blocks to the oil industry. The motion was lost, despite prolonged and heated debate (read about it in tomorrow’s Southland Times) 🙂
       • weka 5.1.1.1

         16 November 2016 at 9:41 pm

         Have you seen the other councils decisions? Is the Southland one different because it is inshore and therefore likely to be seen to bring different benefits?
         • Robert Guyton 5.1.1.1.1

           16 November 2016 at 9:52 pm

           I have, weka. They are, it has to be said, not regional councils, as ours is. However, their stand is symbolic in the ways ours should have been, imo. There is no justification, I believe, for any council to remain silent or even neutral at the prospect of new oil, coal or gas extraction. Not now.
           • Pasupial 5.1.1.1.1.1

             16 November 2016 at 11:31 pm

             I seem to recall that some in Invercargill were keen to host drilling operations from Bluff, when Dunedin was looking too hostile to Anadarko. Maybe the same thinking here?

             Thanks for making the effort and at least getting those councilors in favour of deep sea drilling to identify themselves to the voters. I am sure you did your best.
             • Robert Guyton …

               17 November 2016 at 9:08 am

               Thanks, parsupial. I had to be adroit to avoid being boxed in by the chair’s efforts to close the discussion, but I’d made plans and employed the “point of order” strategy twice, to good effect. I didn’t expect to gain a majority for the vote but did want to bring the issue to the forefront. Water on the rock and coverage in The Southland Times. There will be ripples. One of the blocks is onshore, hence the presence of a farmer presenting objections, which he did very well indeed. I believe some councillors cannot differentiate between fossil fuels that are already in storage or in active wells and those that are yet to be exploited, such as those potentially under the farms of Southland, “we can’t live without oil” is the behind the scenes expressed view.
6. KJT 6

   16 November 2016 at 8:29 pm

   It is significant, that our Governments first reaction to the Paris agreement was to open bidding for more exploration blocks. After making protesting at sea equivalent to an act of terrorism
   In other words, no one in National takes AGW seriously, whether they believe the science, or not.
   • Robert Guyton 6.1

     16 November 2016 at 8:34 pm

     Eric Roy, past Deputy Speaker of the House and National party MP, now councillor for Environment Southland, went into bat for the fracking industry at today’s meeting, citing his first-hand experience visiting fracking operations overseas.
     • corokia 6.1.1

       16 November 2016 at 9:01 pm

       Are the proposed Southland blocks likely to be fracked?
       Thought they were the- lets f*ck the climate with conventional (albeit very deep) off shore oil and gas drilling- variety.
       Guess the fossil fuel cheerleader Roy thought he’d try and impress the locals with his overseas anecdotes.
       Good on you Robert for proposing the motion. At least you tried and it goes down in the record that you did so. And when the extremely pissed off next generations go looking for who to blame, Eric Roy and the others are clearly named.
7. Robert Guyton 7

   16 November 2016 at 9:14 pm

   Corokia – I don’t blame Eric – his belief is genuine, I think. He does come across though, as a cheerleader for the industry. The on-shore block in Southland is huge and has been explored before. I’m assuming there are significant reserves beneath farms from Tuatapere to Lumsden. I believe the council has a moral obligation to state its opposition to releasing fossil fuels from beneath the regions soil. Our obligations under the RMA are not affected by such an expression of opinion, I believe. Some councillors argued strenuously in favour of the council adopting a neutral stance, Chairman Horrell in particular. I hope his views are included in the (expected) article tomorrow. I’ll post the online report here.
8. Robert Guyton 8

   17 November 2016 at 6:42 am

   Environment Southland urged to oppose oil and gas exploration in the south

   As promised.

   “When they had finished speaking, Environment Southland councillor Robert Guyton moved a motion for the council to oppose the Government’s 2017 block offer proposal for two oil and gas permits in Southland.

   He received voting support from councillors Maurice Rodway and Rowly Currie, but they were out-voted by councillors on the strategy and policy committee.

   Environment Southland chairman Nicol Horrell, who believed there were insufficient substitutes to fossil fuels at this stage, said if the council opposed the Government’s block offers now it would take it out of discussions further down the track.

   “It’s appropriate to remain neutral at this stage.”

   However, a council staffer said the council would still be able to make submissions on the issue in future.”
   • weka 8.1

     17 November 2016 at 8:10 am

     “Environment Southland chairman Nicol Horrell, who believed there were insufficient substitutes to fossil fuels at this stage”

     Yeah, but it’s not like the oil is going to be give to Southland right? It’s going to be given to a private company who will sell it offshore.

     Questions…

     It was a sub committee vote, not the whole council?

     “[Horrell] said if the council opposed the Government’s block offers now it would take it out of discussions further down the track.”

     What discussions and why would the council be taken out of them?

     Any chance Ngāi Tahu will oppose?

     Can you explain what a neutral stance is in this situation?
9. Robert Guyton 9

   17 November 2016 at 8:58 am

   Hi weka – good questions:
   yes, the motion was put to a subcommittee (strategy and policy) as the public presentations had to be made before today, the closing date for submissions to the Government. The motion was amended to refer the motion to full council, but the majority voted that down.
   Nicol Horrell’s argument was, I believe, “insufficient” on many fronts.
   Horrell means that the council could be challenged, were it to serve as the decision maker at consenting time, having expressed an opinion previously. I believe that,just as a councilor can express an opinion but still sit on a hearing panel with an open mind, as we are trained to do, a council can do likewise. In any case, independent commissioners can be called in for the hearing and the council can submit at that hearing. I don’t know what Ngai Tahu’s position will be. I feel I know what it should be, but, he aha te mea nui o te ao? He tangata. I would like to debate that sometime, that whole anthropocentric belief 🙂
   The neutral stance the council has opted for means what ever they want it to mean and feels safe to a risk averse institution, imo. I believe elected representatives should now speak out about serious issues and extraction of fossil fuels is a biggy. Agricultural greenhouse gases is another, but that’s for our next meeting of council (on the agenda already 🙂
   • weka 9.1

     17 November 2016 at 9:26 am

     Thanks! That helps to understand what is going on at the local body level.

     I always had problem with that whakatauki myself, so would likewise be interested in a korero some time.
     • Robert Guyton 9.1.1

       17 November 2016 at 9:36 am

       I’ve never heard of it being challenged. I brought up the issue of “people centred” focus at the council earlier this week, with regards the visions we hold and are adjusting, but there was no recognition of what I was talking about. I mentioned the word “altruism” but that brought an immediate negative reaction. At yesterdays discussion on Predator Free NZ 2050, I tried again but the resulting blank looks reflected those earlier disengaged stares 🙂 Factoring in concepts other than “humans rule” is difficult in those forums.
       • Macro 9.1.1.1

         17 November 2016 at 1:48 pm

         We have a similar situation developing here in the Coromandel. We need to see just how Te Tiriti settlements finally fall.
10. CoroDale 10

    20 November 2016 at 6:08 pm

    It’s not science connecting seismic tech and quakes, it’s God. Every time we let US warships in our waters, God punishes our stupidity with seismic national disasters. But God reminds us to look on the bright side of life. Appreciate the asset prices.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS