The Petrobas protesters

April 12th, 2011 at 9:01 am by David Farrar

Stuff reports:

spokesman Steve Abel said protesters were sending a message that the ship, and deep-sea drilling, were not welcome in New Zealand waters.

Don’t speak for all of New Zealand please.

Prime Minister John Key said the Government wanted to know what powers police had inside New Zealand’s exclusive economic zone. “You’re in an interesting space in the economic zone. There’s also issues about that boat, which is a foreign-flagged vessel … if that was happening on dry land, then the police would be in a position to do something about it.

“No-one’s arguing that people don’t have a right to protest, but when it actually stops the company carrying out what it’s been legally granted the ability to do, then that concerns me.”

And that is the key thing. Protest is good. Protest which impedes people from exercising their legal rights is bad. That is protesters setting themselves up to be above the law.

Tags:

228 Responses to “The Petrobas protesters”

  1. toad (3,674 comments) says:

    Are you suggesting that the protesters don’t have the legal right to swim where they have been swimming, DPF? We are talking about two rights under law – the rights of Petrobras and the rights of the protesters – that have come into conflict. Andrew Geddis has some legally informed opinion on the issue over here.

    DPF: I have the right to cross a road. I don’t have the right to block it.]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. virtualmark (1,305 comments) says:

    This would be the protestors burning fossil fuels to get out to sea in order to impede a vessel exploring for fossil fuels.

    Go figure.

    I’d have more respect for them if they kayaked out there.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Pete George (23,793 comments) says:

    People have a right to swim in the sea in the likely path of a ship? Stupidity is a right I guess.

    Why aren’t swimmers obstructing oil tankers on their way to New Zealand? They are a real risk of disaster.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. voice of reason (490 comments) says:

    Thanks for that link Toad – a rare thing that. A lucid article explaining the situation with facts and reasoned argument.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Bobbie black (507 comments) says:

    Yeah, I agree DPF it is a very different to say whaling and anti-nukes.

    Protestors have lost the plot recently, probably as they have nothing to really protest about in NZ.

    They should move to countries where there are some real attrocities taking place and put their “skills” to good use.

    Sailing into a Japanese whaling boat then claiming the Japanese rammed them and then trying to do a citizen’s arrest is a good example of protestors losing the plot.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. gazzmaniac (2,306 comments) says:

    If we still had the skyhawks we could just shoot the protesters.
    Seriously though, if they’re in our waters we can do whatever we like (within the current law) to any vessel. If they’re breaking the law they can be boarded and arrested. I suspect that’s the Navy’s jurisdiction.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. mattyroo (1,030 comments) says:

    toad, pleased you’re here. Just in case you missed it, I posted the below over on the GD. Please can you help me out with understanding your greenie mates economics, as per my question below.

    Rhetorical question, but, Is Nathan Argent from Greenpeace one of the most economically illiterate people in NZ?

    Argent said protesters were trying to protect New Zealand’s economy. Tax breaks for firms looking for oil should be spent on green energy development.

    Petrobras commit to spending an amount of money in NZ (I believe in this instance it is more than $180million) which they get a tax break on. If they were not spending the money, it would not exist, neither would the tax break. Effectively there is no money being spent by the gummint.

    So, I’m fucked if I know where Mr. Argent thinks this money is going to come from to spend on his “green energy development”.

    Perhaps toad and his ilk could illuminate me…..

    Even worse, I thought Adam Bennett was smarter than that, to not challenge Argent’s economic fuckwittery.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10718679

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. big bruv (14,217 comments) says:

    “Are you suggesting that the protesters don’t have the legal right to swim where they have been swimming,”

    If they do then we need to change the law.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. dime (10,207 comments) says:

    Who the hell is steve abel? not welcome?? i think they are more than welcome!

    fucking lefties always speak on behalf of the masses.

    can anyone tell me if steve has a lisp and a creepy beard?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. TripeWryter (716 comments) says:

    After all the dire predictions of the Apocalypse in the Gulf of Texas a year ago, and how the shores around it would be left pedrmanently toxic, how is it doing now?

    Is the bug that began ‘eating’ the escaped oil still doing so?

    We don’t hear so much from that now.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Murray (8,803 comments) says:

    Toad i’ll sugest they don’t have the right to go swimming.

    not with the deliberate intention of impedding a merchant ship going about its lawful activites.

    Who the fuck is greenpeace to DICTATE who may and may not trverse our economic zone?

    Serously toad you and your hippie mates, who the fuck do you think you are that you can do whatever the hell you like and then whinge and bitch when you’re required to obey the fucking laws that govern us all?

    Fucking green fascisim.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Komata (1,220 comments) says:

    IMHO, the problem is not that the ‘protestors’ don’t have a right to protest, it is rather that Greenpeace holds that its opinions are ABOVE that of elected soveriegn states and that it has the right to override the duly elected governmetn of those states. This is of course totally in accordance with the Americo-centric view of the world that GP holds and the US concept of ‘Democracy’, with the very useful fall-back (for GP) that when things get tough and sovereign states do react in what GP perceives as a ‘negative’ (ie anti GP) manner, GP can then scream that such actions are ‘Anti-American’ to the nearest US embassy and it will come running to defend its citizens against the nasty local government, bringing with it Uncle Sam and all his mates. After all how DARE anyone protest against the actions of ANY US citizen. The group is well practiced in this and its actions are NOT random – they follow a carefully constructed plot and format, and makes use of a variety of methods . For GP it is a win-win situation that they use to their own advantage and to further their own vested interests, and the fact that local ‘useful idiots’ make themselves willingly available helps them considerably as it tends to deflect the attention away from GP – especially when the local MSM abdicates any responsibilitiy and asks no questions and does no close investigations. Finally, don’t be fooled into believing that this protest is about Oil -it’s not. What it is actually about is GreenPeace, money (although it is actually extremely wealthy) Power, and its position within the ecolocical/environmental ‘industry’ and ‘world’. The protest is merely a sideshow to keep GreenPeace in the public eye and enhance its profile, image and money-making potential amongst ‘those who matter.’ Ignore it, and it would eventually go away – or resort to increasingly bizarre (read ‘desperate’) actions tio mainitain its ‘income bae’ and stop the cheques from ‘philanthropists’ from drying up. Ultimately, for GP, it’s about money – an oxymoron really if you think about it . . .

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Bobbie black (507 comments) says:

    Wasn’t it Destiny Church doing a big “protest” in Auckland a few years ago?

    Perhaps we should begin to question the credentials and motives of protestors more these days than say in the 70’s, when they were all harmless weed smoking hippies.

    Time for another Dave Dobbyn song to balance things:

    “Well – come offshore.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. hj (7,142 comments) says:

    @ Toad:

    CLENDON CHALLENGES MINISTERIAL NO ON OFFSHORE DRILLING
    Green MP David Clendon isn’t taking no for an answer over whether Maori have a right to a share in oil and gas under New Zealand’s continental shelf.
    Mr Clendon got the one-word answer last week when he asked Energy Minister Gerry Brownlee if the Government intended to consider Te Aupouri’s claims to resources off 90-Mile beach which are being opened up for prospecting.
    He doesn’t accept the Government’s assertion that the International law of the Sea and the Continental Shelf Act rule out treaty claims.
    “This is a very live issue and if there is wealth to be extracted it would seem clear both under treaty and under international law that Maori should get a reasonable claim, a reasonable royalty from that wealth,” Mr Clendon says.
    http://www.waatea.blogspot.com

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Manolo (14,161 comments) says:

    One word to describe these bastards: eco-terrorists.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Longknives (4,949 comments) says:

    My Two Cents (for what its worth)- I respect the right to protest but seeing the SAME dropkicks week-in and week-out at every available cause kind of lessons their credibility in my books. Do they really give a toss about the environment? Or could it be that they are protesting simply because they have nothing else to do? (other than smoke pot, sponge up benefits and complain about ‘evil capitalists’)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Put it away (2,872 comments) says:

    Smelly hippies are not welcome in New Zealand waters.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. James Stephenson (2,265 comments) says:

    Bush Lawyering Time…Petrobras are doing a seismic survey therefore the area they’re operating in is a place of work. Right? It seems an obvious conclusion that the Government are therefore “Persons who control a place of work” under the Heath and Safety in Employment act.

    It is a duty of a person who controls a place of work to “take all practicable steps” to ensure all persons in the vicinity of a place of work are not harmed by hazards arising.

    So I suggest that if the hippies insist on jumping in the water, that the government take the practicable step of rounding the buggers up to ensure that they’re not harmed by the hazard of being run over by a ship.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. alex Masterley (1,535 comments) says:

    I saw a photo of the protester having a dip yesterday. There is quite a bit of hypocracy in the Greenpeace approach.
    They obviously got out to the ship by RIB which would have been towed down from Auckland.
    So use of diesel and petrol to fuel their transport to and from the launching site. The use of petrol to fuel the rib used, and assorted petrochemicals used in it’s construction and then the use of drysuits to keep the protesters safe in the water.
    Drysuits and associated equipment also have significant elements of petrochemicals in their manufacture.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Richard Hurst (885 comments) says:

    Does Greenpeace have a safety plan in place (like any responsible organization in the private sector would ) if the protesters get into a dangerous situation either as a result of being in front of a ship or of swimming far out at sea? Will ACC have to pay compo etc if a protester is injured? Will coast guard/ navy or Petrobas be compensated by Greenpeace if they have to spend time and money rescuing protesters if they get into trouble? Will the DHB that an injured or half drowned protester might get sent to, be compensated if medical treatment is needed?

    Finally: How does Greenpeace justify burning fossil to go out to sea in order to protest about looking for more fossil fuels?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. JeffW (327 comments) says:

    I would be quite happy for Greenpeace to buy the resource to leave it under the sea. Until they do, they should p*** off.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. James Stephenson (2,265 comments) says:

    There is quite a bit of hypocracy in the Greenpeace approach.

    Henceforth I shall call you alex Masterofthenderstatement. If there was an international prize for intellectual dishonesty Greenpeace would be on the podium every year.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Bobbie black (507 comments) says:

    Actually, I am quite amazed that a hippy can swim these days.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. gazzmaniac (2,306 comments) says:

    I was recently approached by a greenpeace collector in the street, who a form in front of me to authorise a monthly donation from my bank account (they don’t take cash any more by the way – I did ask). I told them to fuck off. Not taking no for an answer I started walking, so they followed. I had to threaten violence for him to leave me alone, and he didn’t like it when I said I didn’t support Greenpeace because it was a direct threat to my livelihood. He brought up the usual hard sell, the gay whales, the poor defenceless environment etc which I still ignored. The only thing I regret not asking is how much commission he was being paid.
    The corporate environmentalists are simply parasites. They use hard selling (which I always walk away from, or if I can’t I listen to their speil and say NO) and use the same sort of bullshit that other ripoff merchants such as timeshare do. They use lies to support their argument. It is wrong, and they prey on people who don’t know how to say no.
    By the way it’s not limited to just Greenpeace – I had a similar incident with a UNICEF collector. I used to donate a fair bit to UNICEF through their envelopes on QANTAS planes (I travel on one once a fortnight for work) but since then I have donated a nice round number. 0.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. ben (2,279 comments) says:

    Greenpeace can go to hell.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. si_rangi (60 comments) says:

    I say leave them on the East Coast, it keeps them away from us here in Taranaki. Where have they been for the last 30 years? Do they think this is the first time a seismic exploration project has been undertaken in NZ waters? Anyway, I think the biggest issue that will be faced environmentally is the exploitation of iron sands.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. voice of reason (490 comments) says:

    Reading the Greedpiece blogs – seems some of them made it out under sail but mention is made of their Satellite phones not working.
    Considering the amount of fossil fuels taken to launch a satellite this is just another example of their hypocrisy.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Komata (1,220 comments) says:

    But alex, you aren’t supposed tio notice such minor and irritating details – you’re supposed to be an ignorant, unthinking yokel who is just waiting to be saved from yourself by the wonderful, gallant, ‘we know what is good for you’ ‘American Good Guys’ who run GreenPeace (at least that’s what they would like you to believe), and who have invited themselves into your back yard so that they can pull up the plants, wreck your irrigation system and turn the dog and cat against you before moving-on and leaving you to somehow clean up the mess they’ve made. And if you remonstrate with them and ask what they are going to do to correst and rebuild all the damage they’ve caused, the answer is ‘What damage’ we know nothing about THAT – go talk to the worms or grass-grubs. WE didn’t do anything.

    As I said, you’re not supposed to notice. . .

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. southtop (251 comments) says:

    me thinks a rather large burley trail may be the solution to this situation?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. hj (7,142 comments) says:

    Greens ought to understand the fundamental population size energy flow relationship. We are going to need energy to achieve sustainability, unless we are going back to wheel barrows and picks and shovels.
    Keith Locke and Sue Bradford (and disciples) show every sign of wanting a larger population for Aotearoa/ NZ.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. dime (10,207 comments) says:

    southtop – bahahahahaha outstanding

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. toad (3,674 comments) says:

    @mattyroo 9:21 am

    As for the economics of it, Rod Oram is worth a read:

    Thus, it’s no surprise the government has picked its favourite option, producing lots more oil and coal, as the number one component of its 12-part strategy.

    Yet it did so knowing the risks. The strategy paper clearly states that the world’s energy future will be shaped by factoring the cost of fossil fuels’ greenhouse emissions into world markets; by energy-production technology and consumption changes; and by oil prices that will “rise and become more volatile”.

    The government argues, though, the best way to hedge these risks is to become bigger producers of the very energy sources creating the risks. If we produce and export more oil and coal we’ll gain respite from global pressures.

    This is a fatally flawed view. Yes, our seabed geology suggests we might have some large hydrocarbon reserves. Companies such as Petrobras, the Brazilian state-owned company, are looking.

    But this is expensive, very slow and high-risk work that is low on the international oil industry’s priorities. Even if they found a billion-barrel field it would equal only 10 days’ supply for the world; and if a find looks worth developing, it will be foreign oil companies that make multibillion-dollar investments and reap the rewards.

    Oh, we’d get a very impressive boost in exports. But that’s largely a bookkeeping exercise, as Ireland discovered with its foreign-owned high-tech exports. Little of the real economic value beyond some meagre royalties and taxes and some hard, well-paid jobs would stick to the ribs of the New Zealand economy. Worse, we’d still be slave to world oil-price and supply trends.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. lofty (1,317 comments) says:

    Rod Oram is rarely worth a read, and this case more so.

    I speak for all NZ’rs when I say that we desire oil & gas exploration in and around our coasts waters.

    I have as much credance in this issue as Greenpeace spokesman Steve Abel, whoever he is.

    Greenpeace, the Greens here in NZ are hypocritical mongrels, and if a scrap is being sought, I will join and participate in any counter protest that may be forthcoming, and I am certain that the pro numbers would out strip the cons anytime.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. nasska (12,088 comments) says:

    We may, as a nation, yet pay an unacceptable price for not utilising the mineral resources we have. Either through our insatiable appetite for foreign money, our inability to develop industry that doesn’t involve cows or simple military takeover the potential, yet undeveloped, riches we sit on must make NZ & Co a tempting target.

    What on earth would make anyone think that a foreign power would give a damn about clean green NZ if they could smell billions worth of coal, oil or rare metals. I fear that if we don’t exploit it ourselves someone else will & I doubt that we will enjoy the experience.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. decanker (185 comments) says:

    “How does Greenpeace justify burning fossil to go out to sea in order to protest about looking for more fossil fuels?”

    This is the weakest style of argument that gets churned out against environmental protection campaigners.

    How does a roading lobbyist justify catching a train to his meeting? How does a libertarian justify borrowing an Ayn Rand book from the library? How does a socialist justify drinking a nice glass of chardonnay? How does a capitalist justify exploiting the school zoning system he’s opposed to?

    See, it’s a lame argument that avoids the issue.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Kimble (3,955 comments) says:

    Fail-toad, failed.

    If you freaks are talking about “protecting” the NZ economy then you need to show how the actions of the protesters prevented harm. Not that they prevented something that might not be AS good as some might think.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. mattyroo (1,030 comments) says:

    toad, that does not in anyway answer my question.

    How do the tax breaks, conceded to PetroBras, pay for Argent’s “green energy development”?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. tristanb (1,127 comments) says:

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10718730

    Govt happy to intervene in oil – why not whaling?

    So the Greens want the government to defend Japanese whaling ships against protesters? I thought that would be left up to the Japanese government.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Kimble (3,955 comments) says:

    “Worse, we’d still be slave to world oil-price and supply trends.”

    Just like we are a “slave” to world milk prices, world timber prices, and world money prices. My point is proven by the fact that this is the WORST Oram has to say about offshore drilling. At worst we are no better off. Except for some royalties and taxes, the value of which we dont know yet, and hard, well-paid jobs (dont those just suck?), of course.

    Sooooo…. net gain? Yep, net gain. Even a pessimist sees that the NZ economy is being “protected” from a little bit of extra tax and some jobs.

    Why dont you greens try something new? Try being honest about your motives.

    You arent “protecting” our economy, you have shown a number of times that our economy is of a distant secondary concern. You dont like fossil fuels. Be honest.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Still_Watchin_Ya_All (8 comments) says:

    Newsletter 3 from Mshattan:

    We usually post our newsletter in the general debate column, but with the Petrobras upheaval, we are here.

    The H team is excited by the Greenwar response to seismic exploration in Aotearoa’s ocean economic zone.

    Such stirring keeps the spirit of socialism alive!

    How encouraging to hear the stance of the State mouthpieces – Radio New Zealand and Television NZ. We are proud they are solidly behind Greenwar. The email response to Radio Labour’s mention of the topic, including Marie Leadbetter, sister of Red Keith Locke. This is proof that advertising-free Radio NZ is the nation’s gift to the Left.

    H2 chuckled to hear that Radio Labour in its morning chinwag touched two or three times on the fact that the exploration contractors are foreigners – Brazilians. It cunningly steered away from the fact that Greenwar in NZ is dominated by foreigners, fellow lefties from Europe mainly. Many of them Scandinavians (and keep it to yourselves about the Norwegians and Icelanders being fond of whale meat). To hell with Brazilians and their waxing anyway. Chauvinism! Huer-ray for the androgynist Greenwar-niks.

    When the kiwi dollar dives, petrol at $3.50 a litre will show the NZ right wing that they will have to get behind Greenwar, too. Buses, bikes, horses, sail boats are coming and not a minute too soon. Cow farms will go to make way for oats for the return of the horse. Walk and talk. Walk and talk. That’s the leftist way.

    NZers will come to hate oil, and shudder at the thought of that so we can keep our own cars, trucks (don’t mention buses or trains), and planes within the reach of working, waged families.

    Oil is for the boy-loving Arabs. NZ is destined to be a Green paradise (pink inside of course), a return to the Shangri La that existed before the Industrial Revolution, and where no-one got old because they died before they were 40.

    FERAL FROM FERAL FIEFDOM

    (Sorry for a brief jump to another string’s topic)

    The H team agrees Damien O’Connor deserves a whack for his anti-Gay comments.

    And people tut-tutted when I described West COasters as feral. Old Left, New Right, feral.

    Everyone knows Gays are intelligent, and chiefly without families. They will naturally be over-represented in a brilliant political party like Labour.

    What really upsets us is describing a group of Gays as a gaggle. A gaggle! That’s the description of geese. Gays are insulted by being likened to such a plain bird. Gays are beautiful people!

    MAORI NAME FOR UNITED NATIONS

    We await suggestions for the new Maori name we will campaign to have introduced as a secondary title for the United Nations.

    H1,

    Mshattan

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. alex Masterley (1,535 comments) says:

    Komata,
    Thank you for reminding me that i should not point out the emperor has no clothes.

    If the greenpeace types had rowed out to the area in jolly boats made from drift wood and swamp kauri whilst wearing woollen clothing coated in lanolin, and communicating using flag signals I might have been impressed.

    I forgot to point out that each of the drysuits would have had a personal locator beacon which would have used GPS technology to locate a swimmer if they became lost. Those things, the computers they use, the cellphones all use amounts of petrochemicals in their manufacture and also rare earth minerals which if anything are more valuable than oil and gas.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. toad (3,674 comments) says:

    @lofty 10:04 am

    I speak for all NZ’rs when I say that we desire oil & gas exploration in and around our coasts waters.

    Crap. Some of us have a very different vision. And we are talking about deep sea exploration here, not kilometre or two offshore.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. lofty (1,317 comments) says:

    Crap back toad, I have as much right to state this as any of your disingenuous spokes persons.

    The only difference is that the herald will not report my statement..big deal.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. James Stephenson (2,265 comments) says:

    Crap. Some of us have a very different vision.

    Yeah, a green theme park until your campaign against fossil fuels has stopped people flying here, then it’s mud huts and knit-your-own-yoghurt time. No thanks.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. KiwiGreg (3,278 comments) says:

    Just when you think the arrogance of Greenpeace and their sheer hatred for our livestyles cannot be exceeded….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. big bruv (14,217 comments) says:

    “Crap. Some of us have a very different vision”

    Yes..we are well aware of your vision Toad. Thankfully only 6.72% of Kiwis are that stupid.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Kimble (3,955 comments) says:

    Oh come on, fail-toad, We KNOW some of you have a very different vision, that was probably the fcking point.

    The Left LOVES to say they speak on behalf of all New Zealanders. Your entire political philosophy is that you do whats best for other people because they dont know that its good for them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. kaya (1,360 comments) says:

    I don’t object to looking for oil off the coast of NZ and initially was critical of the Greenpeace reaction, but then I read the whole article and came to this bit:

    The Green Party yesterday said it wanted an end to deepwater exploration…………….until there were assurances that a blowout and oil spill similar to the Deepwater Horizon catastrophe in the Gulf of Mexico last year could be swiftly dealt with.

    I think that’s a fairly sensible point of view? Apart from a couple of lambswool blankets we haven’t got the ability to cope with a major oil spill. The economic cost would be greater than any gain. If that makes me a hippy then I’d better get the missus to knit me a hemp jumper.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. tvb (4,553 comments) says:

    Greepeace are a bunch of middle class do-gooders. If they try and disrupt oil drilling in NZ then I think the Government will have the public demand that Greepeace be blown out of the water by our frigates. Eco-terrorism is a fine line to cross but if they cross it then they can expect the public will demand the full force of the state including frigates, preventive detention, incarceration in China to apply.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. James Stephenson (2,265 comments) says:

    I think that’s a fairly sensible point of view?

    No, it’s not. A sensible point of view is to do the exploration, find out what’s down there, and then we can talk about costs and benefits involved in extracting it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. bhudson (4,741 comments) says:

    toad,

    That opinion piece from Oram is tripe. How, by not exploiting our mineral resources, do we free ourselves from the slavery to world oil-price and supply trends?

    Just to be clear, what is implicit to Oram’s statements is that if we not an oil producer, but only a consumer, then we are freed from slavery to price and supply trends. What utter twaddle!!

    (Oram also seems to overlook the cash that would accrue to NZ from those large foreign interests extracting our hydrocarbon deposits. Not to mention the employment opportunities and associated spin offs within our domestic economy.)

    What is perhaps worst of all is that Oram is whinging about how producing oil would not be a panacea, but fails to posit a credible and real alternative solution.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. hj (7,142 comments) says:

    “But this is expensive, very slow and high-risk work that is low on the international oil industry’s priorities. Even if they found a billion-barrel field it would equal only 10 days’ supply for the world; ”
    ….
    but Iwi will still want their cut.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. kowtow (8,929 comments) says:

    National needs to get tough on this nonsense.

    This is not “protest”,this is economic terrorism. It’s a crime against the wealth and future benefits of this nation.

    “Iwi” involved in this and Greenpeace need to be told that they are not welcome at any govt forum /discussion/consultations etc. Too much is given to these people in the name of openness etc. Bollocks.

    Any foreign greenpeace people in NZ need their visas taken off ‘em and booted out.

    We need wealth ,jobs,economic activity. Fuck ‘em. Grow some balls National.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. scrubone (3,097 comments) says:

    No, it’s not. A sensible point of view is to do the exploration, find out what’s down there, and then we can talk about costs and benefits involved in extracting it.

    Exactly what I was going to say.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. lofty (1,317 comments) says:

    Oh and Toad I agree with you in that we probably have a very different vision.

    I have a vision of a prosperous economy, with well paid workers, enjoying happy lives, bringing up happy and responsible children who are well fed and loved. who enjoy the gifts that modern technology bring us. Well educated with well resourced schools, and teachers. Brought by the Oil & mineral dollars, that are presently locked up.

    Is that similar to your vision toad?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. scrubone (3,097 comments) says:

    Methinks the Greens’ thinking boils down to this: “We should only exploit a resource if fairies will do all the work and give us all the money. In fact, forget the work and the exploiting, let’s just have the money”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Camryn (481 comments) says:

    At the moment, NZ gets reamed by international carbon rules since oil carbon counts against where it is burnt (which hurts oil importers like us) and forestry / agriculture carbon counts against where it is produced (which hurts forestry / agricultural product exporters like… again… us). If we were to become an oil exporter, at least we’d only be getting hit once. I still think all carbon should be counted, if at all, against the end consumer since they cause the demand that drives the supply.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. Pete George (23,793 comments) says:

    I’d modify the statement to:

    A sensible point of view is to do the exploration, find out what’s down there, and then we can talk about costs, risks and benefits involved in extracting it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. Manolo (14,161 comments) says:

    I expect the fifth-columnist Nick Smith to side with Greenpeace, any minute now. :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. voice of reason (490 comments) says:

    Are Petrobas actually even looking for Oil ??
    I thought the survey was about the potential for Natural Liquid Gas not oil.

    If so then I’m sure Greenpeace itself could be mined for plenty of that!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. scrubone (3,097 comments) says:

    How about:
    “A sensible point of view is to do the exploration and extracting, and then we can talk about what we can spend the money on.

    Ok, not very sensible. But I make the point because we’ve already spent the money.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. Luc Hansen (4,573 comments) says:

    Don’t speak for all of New Zealand please.

    What sanctimonious drivel.

    List MP Hekia Parata said this morning that “…New Zealanders want the exploration to go ahead.”

    Would DPF reply,

    Don’t speak for all of New Zealand please,

    Ms Parata?

    Only fools and pedants take this line of argument seriously.

    We all know that both speakers are referring to their respective constituencies of supporters. So let’s get that crap put of the way.

    As for the protesters getting in the way of Petrobas, well, that’s what protest is all about in its long and proud history. Think Ghandi and civil disobedience. More recently, think of Tahir Square and all those law-breaking protesters who brought Egypt’s economy to a grinding halt. Think Springbok tour protests in the eighties.

    What upsets me is how our government and police always act to suppress dissent, often with hostile intent (think Red Squad, Muerant’s wild-eyed bully boys) and the dissenters then turn out to be on the right side of history – this will definitely be so in this case.

    And the argument that a majority of Kiwis may well currently support the exploration taking place is also deceptive. The arguments in favour are seductive. The project holds out the promise of a quick and easy path to riches, whether real or imagined (and there are numerous examples where oil wealth has escaped the masses in the countries which own much of the oil), and, of course, well, it’s only a survey, after all.

    But there are deeper (excuse the pun) issues at stake here, as highlighted by Greenpeace (environmental protection) and Rod Oram – many of will remember I have been pointing out on here for some time that world opinion will turn against fossil fuel, especially the desperate search for hard-to-get oil and non-conventional sources, and especially coal.

    Many people are compelled to put all the arguments and facts to the public, rather than one-sided propaganda, and we have had reason in the past to be very grateful to these people. We should always support the right of peaceful protest, and, yes, sometimes we even support violence in pursuit of our ideals, as in Libya currently, if you believe Obama.

    The simple fact is that as the effects of climate change become increasingly apparent, more and more of us will support those who aim to break our addiction to an energy source that is destroying the very climate that enable civilisation to occur. And we already have access to enough oil to ensure this outcome.

    We must stop stealing from our children and grandchildren and concentrate on alternative energy sources.

    The Petrobas project should be stopped.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. scrubone (3,097 comments) says:

    Tourism: air miles.
    Dairy, beef, sheep exports: food miles
    Mining: don’t get me started

    It seems that every major sector of our economy is subject to some attempt by the green movement to hobble or destroy it except exotic forestry.

    Great, let’s have more of that. We can genetically modify the trees to grow fast enough to make it worth.. never mind.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. emmess (1,398 comments) says:

    As for the economics of it, Rod Oram is worth a read:

    Toad, don’t try and pretend you and your Greenpeace mates give a crap about economics.
    Or do you want to try and explain how countries of the Gulf would be better off economically by leaving the oil and gas in the ground and relying on tourism?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. toad (3,674 comments) says:

    @lofty 10:46 am

    I have a vision of a prosperous economy, with well paid workers, enjoying happy lives, bringing up happy and responsible children who are well fed and loved. who enjoy the gifts that modern technology bring us. Well educated with well resourced schools, and teachers. Brought by the Oil & mineral dollars, that are presently locked up.

    All but the last bit. What’s you vision for when the oil runs out, lofty? Or, actually, long before that for when it becomes so expensive due to the cost of extracting it that hardly anyone can afford to drive a car or heat their home?

    That said, I’m not opposed to oil extraction per se in the short to medium term, although we should be working towards reducing our dependence on it. But I am opposed to extracting it from places where, if something goes wrong, we have no clue how to fix it. Do we really want to risk a catastrophe of Deepwater Horizon magnitude off our shores?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. Graeme Edgeler (2,972 comments) says:

    I was going to quote all the bits people said in order to respond: re ACC, Health and Safety Laws, protest laws and everything else, but there were too many. The simple response is this:

    The protests are not occurring in New Zealand. New Zealanders are protesting a foreign ship in international waters. This has nothing to do with us. This has nothing to do with New Zealand law.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. scrubone (3,097 comments) says:

    What upsets me is how our government and police always> act to suppress dissent, often with hostile intent (think Red Squad, Muerant’s wild-eyed bully boys) and the dissenters then turn out to be on the right side of history – this will definitely be so in this case.

    Um, actually your memory is selective. There’s plenty of occasions where “protests” have been removed and the police have proven to be on the right side of history. I seem to recall some port workers strikes for example.

    But there are deeper (excuse the pun) issues at stake here, as highlighted by Greenpeace (environmental protection) and Rod Oram – many of will remember I have been pointing out on here for some time that world opinion will turn against fossil fuel, especially the desperate search for hard-to-get oil and non-conventional sources, and especially coal.

    Funny how those who tell us of “opinion turning” are so often found filling up their car the next day at the local BP or Caltex. I’ll believe opinion has turned when those outfits are closing stations wholesale. Before then, you can show me as many polls and surveys as you like, it doesn’t change the facts on the ground.

    The simple fact is that as the effects of climate change become increasingly apparent, more and more of us will support those who aim to break our addiction to an energy source that is destroying the very climate that enable civilisation to occur.

    Well, the efforts of the green movement to link disasters of any sort whatsoever with varying winds… sorry, “Climate Change” (did I just imply that the climate changes regardless? Oops, my mistake) most certainly is becoming increasingly apparent – and bizarre.

    We must stop stealing from our children and grandchildren and concentrate on alternative energy sources.

    I take it you’d support massive cuts to government expenditure then? Because someone’s got to pay the price of our current spending beyond our means.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. Kimble (3,955 comments) says:

    “What upsets me is how our government and police always act to suppress dissent…”

    Like the Hikoi of Hope?

    The government and police so successfully suppressed dissent that no one ever heard of that nation long, peaceful walk and protest on the steps of parliament.

    “… and the dissenters then turn out to be on the right side of history…”

    Like the skinheads protesting about immigration, and their calls to implement racial segregation in New Zealand?

    Gosh Luc, I didnt realise that you were such a Nazi.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. scrubone (3,097 comments) says:

    All but the last bit.

    Translation: the guy who wants to pass on the world in a pristine state to the next generation would also like to pass them the bill for our current way of life.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. Kimble (3,955 comments) says:

    “What’s you vision for when the oil runs out, lofty? Or, actually, long before that for when it becomes so expensive due to the cost of extracting it that hardly anyone can afford to drive a car or heat their home?”

    So you dont want to use oil because it wont last forever. Brilliant. Lets apply that logic to the use of another resource. Dont hire anybody that isnt immortal.

    If it becomes too expensive to use, we will use less of it. The alternatives will become relatively cheap and get used instead.

    But again, you are being disingenuous. You dont care that it will run out, or that people might not be able to afford it in the future, because neither of those are reasons to leave it in the ground today.

    You dont care about people not having oil in the future, as evidenced by the fact that you dont want them to have it right fucking now!

    Be honest. For fucks sake, you Greens just cant do it, can you?!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. kaya (1,360 comments) says:

    James Stephenson, Scrubone – do the exploration first then analyse cost/benefits. Fair enough.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. Zarchoff (97 comments) says:

    The protests are not occurring in New Zealand. New Zealanders are protesting a foreign ship in international waters. This has nothing to do with us. This has nothing to do with New Zealand law.

    Well, actually it is occurring within our 200 mile economic zone (which covers mineral exploration) so technically it has a lot to do with NZ.

    You gotta laugh at the Greenies though. Anti-oil, anti-mining, anti-industry and they are out there in petrol and diesel powered boats with satellite phones, GPS devices, laptops, radar etc. They should have paddled out in waka or rode on the backs of whales and dolphins!!!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. lofty (1,317 comments) says:

    “What’s you vision for when the oil runs out, lofty? Or, actually, long before that for when it becomes so expensive due to the cost of extracting it that hardly anyone can afford to drive a car or heat their home?”

    Thanks Kimble I was just about to say similar things.

    I would add however that I have great faith in the ingenuity of man to find solutions to issues that may well arise. what we need to do is to exploit the resources now, educate and fund our future generations so that they are equiped to find those sought after solutions.

    Mankind was created or evolved depending on your viewpoint, to do great deeds, I get excited when wonderous things happen because of our ability to think & reason, today is the 50th anniversary of Yuri shooting an orbit for goodness sake, as we speak there are at least 4 people sitting in the space station, doing research on how we may progress in the future, how wonderful.
    If we do not equip our children we may as well turn back the clock and sit in the pond. I say bugger that, lets go NZ.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. dog_eat_dog (785 comments) says:

    Why is it people like Luc have no qualms about loading our grandchildren with the huge debts it would take to switch to alternative energy sources, all the while attempting to keep our goods competitive with cheaply-produced foreign ones? I don’t know if anyone will be able to afford kids if the economy keeps its current slide up, not that bothers the Green Army, who just spout off emotive rubbish regardless of logic or reason.

    PS: Oil is used in plastics, shampoo and literally every household product that isn’t pure steel or whatever. But alternative energy will solve our problems, sure.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. James Stephenson (2,265 comments) says:

    The protests are not occurring in New Zealand. New Zealanders are protesting a foreign ship in international waters. This has nothing to do with us. This has nothing to do with New Zealand law.

    So there are no responsibilities placed on the government when it comes to exploiting our EEZ? So if Petrobas were to employ some big blokes with guns to keep the protesters away this would also have “nothing to do with us”?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. All_on_Red (1,737 comments) says:

    Greenpeace has just become an evil corporate in its own right. Their income to ye 09 was USD $280 million!
    There is enough observational evidence now to show that CO2 only warms the world by about .6 degrees C per 100 years. Despite CO2 still rising over the past 30 years, warming has stopped (source RSS and UAH data) They have yet to see ANY evidence that our temps will rise the 2-6 degrees predicted by the IPCC. Sea levels have actually started to decline. The Pacific Decadel Oscilallation has more influence that CO2 on our climate.

    Interesting article from a scientist who was a lead reviewer for the IPCC and now thinks a bit differently.
    Enjoy.
    “Let’s be perfectly clear. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, and other things being equal, the more carbon dioxide in the air, the warmer the planet. Every bit of carbon dioxide that we emit warms the planet. But the issue is not whether carbon dioxide warms the planet, but how much.
    Most scientists, on both sides, also agree on how much a given increase in the level of carbon dioxide raises the planet’s temperature, if just the extra carbon dioxide is considered. These calculations come from laboratory experiments; the basic physics have been well known for a century.
    The disagreement comes about what happens next.”

    http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/04/07/climate-models-go-cold/

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. TripeWryter (716 comments) says:

    To Luc Hansen …

    I wish Rod Meurant and his ‘bully boys’ had been on hand to prevent the assault of a sister-in-law outside Athletic Park, Wellington, by a leading anti-tour protester.

    I witnessed unprovoked assaults on two policemen outside Lancaster Park, in Christchurch, just before the protesters tried to crash the game by going through the railway yards.

    It seemed to me that if you didn’t try to incite violence you didn’t get a baton over the head. There were exceptions, of course. The bashing of the clowns by the constabulary near Eden Park, which no copper saw or heard …

    As one who didn’t have a view of the rightness or wrongness of the tour, I found the efforts of some anti-tour protesters to try to persuade me to their view repellent.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. Komata (1,220 comments) says:

    JS

    ‘So if Petrobas were to employ some big blokes with guns to keep the protesters away this would also have “nothing to do with us”?’

    Oh but it would James – it would. The minute that these big blokes started using the GP vessels for target practice yopu would hear the screams (of outrage) in Antarctica – and Wellington and Washington . .; all this despite the fact that GP and its ‘useful idiot’ suporters are acting in ways which could be most politely called ‘provocational’.

    This is of course the way that GP et al work – they ‘needle’ and ‘needle’ then scream like stuck pigs whern the person /organisation they are provoking reacts in an entirely reasonable way (as you do!), denying any responsibility and turning the ‘victim’ into the ‘aggressor’ (with carefully-arranged MSM coverage of course) It seems to be a socialist thing, and they are certainly very well practiced at it. Given time, it will inevitably happen in this instance as well, and Campbell et all will be positively drooling to shyow Petrogas in a poor light. As i said, it’s asocialist thing . . .

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. publicwatchdog (3,112 comments) says:

    Ok all my little pet goldfish!

    You will just LOVE this post!

    I’m looking forward to a CASCADE/GEYSER of little goldfish bubbles over this one!

    Now – don’t disappoint me – will you?

    ;)

    Does the Bank of America have shares in Petrobas?

    If YES – then will John Key personally profit from oil drilling because he has shares in the Bank of America?

    (Register of pecuniary interests for NZ MPs). Pg 36

    http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/MPP/MPs/FinInterests/8/c/3/00CLOOCMPPFinInterests20101-Register-of-Pecuniary-Interests-of-Members.htm

    John Key admits on 3 February 2011 at a Grey Power meeting that he has shares in the Bank of America.

    (3 minute You tube clip)
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VXwNoaOpDMw

    Does the Bank of America have shares in Petrobas?

    The Bank of America was one of the banks which helped to manage the $70 billion worth of Petrobas shares sales last year.

    http://www.themoneytimes.com/featured/20100926/petrobras-raises-record-70-billion-through-share-sale-id-10129711.html

    Petrobras Raises Record $70 Billion Through Share Sale

    “Petrobras said banks appointed to manage the share sale also have a greenshoe option to buy another 188 million shares worth about 5 billion reals. Citigroup (NYSE: C), Bank of America Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley (NYSE: MS), Credit Suisse (NYSE: CS), HSBC, JPMorgan, Deutsche Bank (NYSE: DB), Societe Generale, and a handful of Brazilian and Spanish banks were appointed to manage the share sale.”

    Even if the Bank of America have just acted as ‘financiers’ as opposed to being shareholders – they will still presumably be getting paid for their services, and will thus be financially benefiting?

    If yes – wouldn’t that mean John Key would arguably personally profit from oil drilling on the East Cape?

    Just whose interests is John Key looking after here?

    His own?

    ‘perception, perception, perception……..’

    NOT a good look for the Prime Minister of NZ – ‘perceived’ to be the ‘least corrupt country in the world’?

    Being able to call up the navy to help protect your ‘investment’?

    Penny Bright
    http://waterpressure.wordpress.com

    PS: When did the public ever get a chance to have a say on deep sea oil drilling in the first place?

    ‘WHEN INJUSTIVE BEOMES LAW – RESISTANCE BECOMES DUTY!”

    Thought you’d like that one! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. All_on_Red (1,737 comments) says:

    Gee Penny , god help John Key if you discover he has shares in telecom. I mean he uses the phone! And Telecom supplies phone services all over NZ!!!!!!! Its a conspiracy. What an idiot you are.
    Perhaps you could pay some attention to the link in Wind tech between Green party members and guys like Tim Flannery in Oz.

    “PS: When did the public ever get a chance to have a say on deep sea oil drilling in the first place?”

    At the last election. We won, you lost-suck it up.

    Meanwhile, back to Greenpeace here is a great interview between two of the original founders.
    http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Transcript+heavy+weight+bout+between+founders+Greenpeace/4522943/story.html#ixzz1IwkGO3bU

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. scrubone (3,097 comments) says:

    Wow – John Key has shares in Bank of America.

    Will the horror never end?!?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. Lance (2,709 comments) says:

    Greenpeace doesn’t want oil exploration
    The price of oil is about supply and demand

    Therefore there should be large billboards proclaiming “Greenpeace want you to have higher petrol prices”.

    That would go down like a shit sandwich with the public

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. publicwatchdog (3,112 comments) says:

    “All_on_Red (94) Says:
    April 12th, 2011 at 12:36 pm

    Gee Penny , god help John Key if you discover he has shares in telecom. I mean he uses the phone! And Telecom supplies phone services all over NZ!!!!!!! Its a conspiracy. What an idiot you are.
    Perhaps you could pay some attention to the link in Wind tech between Green party members and guys like Tim Flannery in Oz.

    “PS: When did the public ever get a chance to have a say on deep sea oil drilling in the first place?”

    At the last election. We won, you lost-suck it up. ..”

    errr…. remind me where National told the voting public that they intended to allow deep sea drilling for oil?

    Can you please provide the link to the National Party policy statement on deep sea drilling for oil?

    So that voters could ‘cast an informed’ vote – that sort of thing………….

    Thanks!

    :)

    Penny Bright
    http://waterpressure.wordpress.com

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. scrubone (3,097 comments) says:

    Lance: I just don’t see the point myself.

    I mean, why bother trying to drive up the price of something that you believe is going to run out anyway? Seems like it’s a whole lot of effort for basically no reward since it’s going to happen anyway.

    Unless of course you believe it’s not actually going to run out within any sort of meaningful time frame.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. Nookin (3,557 comments) says:

    Penny
    Assume for the moment that Key has 10,000 shares in Bank of America. Please calculate in $ terms, the impact on the value of these shares as a result of the potential disruption of a single exploratory voyage by a Petrobas vessel.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. scrubone (3,097 comments) says:

    errr…. remind me where National told the voting public that they intended to allow deep sea drilling for oil?

    Perhaps you could first remind us where the deep sea drilling for oil is happening right now?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. Viking2 (11,665 comments) says:

    I think I’m right in suggesting that Steve Abel is a descendent of the Abel Family fromm Auckland that made it self a fortune refining tallows and oils and producing potato chips.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. Kimble (3,955 comments) says:

    mmm, a corporate watchdog keeps an eye on corporations to make sure they dont do anything the dog doesnt think they should, and then bites them if they do.

    So what does a publicwatchdog do?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. scrubone (3,097 comments) says:

    Penny
    While you’re at it, you could read the Green Party policy and point me at the section that warns of the danger of deep sea drilling?

    National’s policy makes it very clear that they wanted increased exploration. Obviously, this is going to involve undersea drilling. Heck, didn’t the Labour party write a large oil exploration licence themselves for the southern ocean?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. James Stephenson (2,265 comments) says:

    Further to Graeme’s 11.06 – it seems Government’s legal advice is that we can apply NZ law in our EEZ.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. davidp (3,585 comments) says:

    Nothing like a foreign based multinational organisation telling NZ what to do with our own assets. What is Labour’s position on this? If they’re opposed to asset sales and foreign control of strategic assets, then you wouldn’t expect them to support international greenery essentially appropriating our assets for their own purposes.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. Fisiani (1,051 comments) says:

    Try swimming in front of the Interislander Ferry. Does any sensible or sane person reckon that is allowed? Such idiots should be arrested for obstruction of legal activities.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. Kimble (3,955 comments) says:

    This is nothing like a foreign based multinational organisation telling NZ what to do with our own assets. Who cares what Labour’s position is on this.

    FYP

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  94. Yvette (2,757 comments) says:

    Penny [12.23] well spotted!

    Government grants Petrobras survey rights.
    Orient Express arrives to do seismic study of Raukumara Basin.
    Greenpeace protest.
    Key hints at police and Navy action.
    Greenpeace turn rabid.
    Petrobras pulls out, lodging $118 million action against New Zealand Government.
    Government caves and pays up.
    Key, through Citigroup (NYSE: C), Bank of America Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley (NYSE: MS), Credit Suisse (NYSE: CS), HSBC, JPMorgan, Deutsche Bank (NYSE: DB), Societe Generale, and a handful of Brazilian and Spanish banks, laughs himself stupid as funds pour into his Credit Suisse accounts.
    Nearly enough to finance NY 9/11 v2 and Auckland 12/12

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  95. Bevan (3,232 comments) says:

    Translation: the guy who wants to pass on the world in a pristine state to the next generation would also like to pass them the bill for our current way of life.

    THAT needs to go on a billboard!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  96. minto57 (197 comments) says:

    I think that if you are a member of greenpeace you should give up your car as this is clearly a conflict of interest

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  97. Ryan Sproull (7,360 comments) says:

    “No-one’s arguing that people don’t have a right to protest, but when it actually stops the company carrying out what it’s been legally granted the ability to do, then that concerns me.”

    Hahahaha. “Hey, protest is fine. Just so long as it doesn’t actually prevent anything from happening.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  98. Ryan Sproull (7,360 comments) says:

    I think that if you are a member of greenpeace you should give up your car as this is clearly a conflict of interest

    Interestingly, a Greenpeace supporter would help the environment much more by killing their dog (or preferably not getting one in the first place).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  99. RightNow (7,014 comments) says:

    Even more interestingly, a Greenpeace supporter would help the environment much more by killing themselves.

    The cheek of these protesters trying to usurp NZ’s sovereignty.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  100. publicwatchdog (3,112 comments) says:

    Has Petrobas, or the company carrying out the ‘exploratory work’ on their behalf, actually made a complaint to the NZ Government or the NZ Police about the protests?

    If not – who has?

    Is John Key reacting to an actual complaint – yes or no?

    Has a complaint been actually been made, by anybody? – yes or no?

    Who has triggered this reaction from John Key?

    Upon what is it based?

    Or is John Key just sending in the navy to arguably look after the interests of his corporate mates – without even being asked?

    How ‘shonky’ is that?

    Penny Bright
    http://waterpressure.wordpress.com

    PS: Keep burping those empty goldfish bubbles !
    You are just SO making my day;)

    All the best!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  101. Pete George (23,793 comments) says:

    I would add however that I have great faith in the ingenuity of man to find solutions to issues that may well arise. what we need to do is to exploit the resources now, educate and fund our future generations so that they are equiped to find those sought after solutions.

    There is a problem with that dream. The ingenuity and advances of humans has not been linear. There has not always been a solution ready to pop up immediately a problem occurs.

    In simplified terms what it we run out of oil and it takes 100 years to devise practical alternatives? Even a 10 year gap would mean huge problems.

    At some stage, sooner or later, things will come unstuck, we won’t keep advancing, there will be a major downturn. It may be self inflicted, it may be natural. Disease protection is one area where eventually we won’t have a cure on hand for something new.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  102. RRM (10,097 comments) says:

    And that is the key thing. Protest is good. Protest which impedes people from exercising their legal rights is bad. That is protesters setting themselves up to be above the law.

    Surely in a situation like this, the whole reason you are protesting is that you don’t like the law and what it allows?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  103. rakuraku (162 comments) says:

    I wonder if the Government realises one of the largest volcanic fields in the North Island is only 50-100 miles away undersea.

    Its going to have to be one helluva strong rig to sustain a seismic 9.0 earthquake like the one that hit Fukushima in Japan.

    White Island is only 30 miles away and they reckon she is ready to blow anytime.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  104. publicwatchdog (3,112 comments) says:

    # Kimble (2,269) Says:
    April 12th, 2011 at 12:57 pm

    mmm, a corporate watchdog keeps an eye on corporations to make sure they dont do anything the dog doesnt think they should, and then bites them if they do.

    So what does a publicwatchdog do?’

    Check out :

    http://waterpressure.wordpress.com

    http://www.stopthe supercity.org.nz http://www.pennybright4mayor.org.nz http://www.stopprivatisation.org.nz

    http://www.kiwisfirst.co.nz

    You did ask!

    All the best.

    :)

    Penny Bright

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  105. rakuraku (162 comments) says:

    I doubt whether the local Iwi will get a sniff of any of the financial action, it will be the NZ elite who control this country who will be getting the cream.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  106. RRM (10,097 comments) says:

    # RightNow (2,522) Says:

    The cheek of these protesters trying to usurp NZ’s sovereignty.

    Curious, I don’t see that attitude very much in evidence any time that “the anti-smacking legislation” is discussed on here…?

    Evidently Kiwibloggers are only fair-weather fans of the sanctity of NZ legislation :-P

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  107. RRM (10,097 comments) says:

    Originally posted by Publicwatchdog:
    So what does a publicwatchdog do?’

    Check out : some crap

    Just go away. There is a general debate thread for all of your off-topic attention-seeking.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  108. hj (7,142 comments) says:

    He unfurled a protest banner on Tiananmen Square in Beijing
    http://english.ntdtv.com/ntdtv_en/ns_asia/2010-02-25/370181680425.html

    Just long enough not to attract attention??
    http://www.greens.org.nz/events/meet-green-mp-gareth-hughes-christchurch

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  109. RightNow (7,014 comments) says:

    RRM – the anti-smacking legislation is domestic in scope, what has it to do with NZ’s sovereignty?
    FYI My comment was particularly aimed at the suggestion that NZ ceded sovereignty to Warner Bros in relation to the Hobbit debacle.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  110. RRM (10,097 comments) says:

    Rightnow – you are saying “How dare the Greenpeace protesters challenge NZ laws” and I find that surprising as other NZ laws are challenged here constantly.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  111. bhudson (4,741 comments) says:

    RRM,

    “Surely in a situation like this, the whole reason you are protesting is that you don’t like the law and what it allows?”

    I would argue that not liking a law does not automatically grant you the right to do as you please in defiance of it. (Recognising that there is some question as to whether or not the protesters have broken any laws as yet.)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  112. Luc Hansen (4,573 comments) says:

    scrubone,

    I’m not sure which port workers you are referring to, but successful repression does not necessarily equal being on the right side of history. It could just be a case of to the victor go the spoils. Another example I could have quoted was Bastion Point. Someone quibbled on the Hikoi. Exceptions do not make the rule.

    dog eat dog

    In fact, this is one of the common misrepresentations by the denier fraternity. There are many reports by credible groups, including multinational institutions and private behomeths like PWC that show the transition to currently available alternative energy sources would be a net positive for economic growth. For example, the Stern Report said

    Tackling climate change is the pro-growth strategy for the longer term and it can be done in a way that does not cap the aspirations for growth of rich or poor countries.”

    And a legacy of a modest amount of debt in return for assets inherited by future generations is not intergenerational theft. I would classify as intergenerational theft running up debts for general consumption without a credible plan to repay that debt ASAP eg the last round of tax cuts for which we are borrowing 70 million per week. This from a government that for a fraction of this is going to throw CHCH quake victims to the dogs in the form of the miserly dole.

    And pouring CO2 into our atmosphere in such amounts that it will drastically change for the worse the wonderful climate we inherited for free is surely intergenerational theft of the worst kind.

    All on Red

    The scientific consensus (98% of active, published climate scientists) is strongly of the opinion that climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 is around three to one, with estimates ranging from around 1.5:1 up to 7:1. The latter would have horrifying consequences for humans and other species.

    By all means swim with the sharks wallowing in the uncertainties, but these sharks are outliers and the weight of current scientific thinking is against them.

    One fact that most here would be ignorant of is the species are currently becoming extinct at a faster rate that any known previous mass extinction episode. Intensifying climate change will only cause that to accelerate and we could lose all the species that make mass civilisation possible. If that happens, it will be very nasty.

    Finally, to all the tiresome people who want to be led by example, we live in today’s world. I drive, I fly (in planes, for the numerous pedants), I use natural gas and certainly do my bit to add to the problem. But I would change that as soon as I rationally could. That’s why governments must come to the party.

    It’s a shame Labour can’t show some political courage on this.

    Let me know if I have missed anyone. I’ve got some housework and gardening to do.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  113. RightNow (7,014 comments) says:

    RRM, fair enough if that’s what you inferred. However I’m not convinced that Greenpeace are challenging NZ laws, as it seems they may not actually be breaking any. It’s quite possible that any outcome involving litigation may be entirely on a civil basis rather than a criminal basis.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  114. Inky_the_Red (764 comments) says:

    How dare people protest and stop businesses do why they paid for (bribes?). Send the police and the military to stop them all.

    Since we are economically heading for the third world maybe our politics needs to catch up

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  115. Auberon (779 comments) says:

    Hey, it’s after midday – I know that because Penny Bright is out of bed.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  116. magic bullet (776 comments) says:

    DPF

    “Don’t speak for all of New Zealand please.”

    errrm – you named this place “kiwiblog” David. As if you are the distilled essence of “kiwiness”. So please excuse me while i relate this inner-chuckle to other readers.

    “Protest which impedes people from exercising their legal rights is bad.”

    Do you also believe that laws which cause more damage than good are stupid? The right to protest should not relate to whether it is effective or not – i.e. costs the bread-heads money. Profit is a business’ raison d’être after all – particularly when businesses these days are all slim, and efficient. There is only room for considering profit in a competitive, largely deregulated global market.

    This means that business has shifted into an Ebenezer Scrooge institutional logic, to cope with the reality of the market place. His former business-partner, and deceased friend, the ghost of Jacob Marley, might tell him:

    “Man kind was always my business. Their common welfare was my business!”

    So, the Ebenezer Scrooges of the world can listen, but they have no choice but to give in to the unregulated market-place, and its institutional ideologies. What happens when Ebenezer Scrooge stops listening to Jacob Marley? Ask Nero. Ask the Wiemar republic, ask Mary Antoinette. When the rich and the powerful become so arrogant that they stop listening to the people, what happens?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  117. Batman (103 comments) says:

    Let one of the Navy’s new Offshore Patrol Vessels off the leash and send them down there to keep the two sides apart. i’m sure their 25mm bushmaster naval cannons would make those GP swimmers think twice about getting in the way!

    Let the HMNZS Wellington blow them out of the water if they get in the way. bloody ‘Greenpeace’ eco-terrorists.

    their skippers are violating the rules of good seamanship, and should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  118. RightNow (7,014 comments) says:

    magic bullet, the rich and powerful stopped listening a looong time ago. What’s happened?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  119. All_on_Red (1,737 comments) says:

    Batman,
    One of them left Devonport this morning. On the way I hope.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  120. RRM (10,097 comments) says:

    batman:
    I disagree with you. Therefore, I should kill you. Seems reasonable…?

    But yeah, this leftie went swimming in the sea at New Plymouth at christmas time. Didn’t taste / see / smell any oil, pollution or environmental catastrophes…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  121. lyndon (321 comments) says:

    That is protesters setting themselves up to be above the law.

    What law might that be? Scanned the thread, haven’t seen anything.

    The fact is that two people engaged in legitimate activities can get in the way of each other. That may be the case here, although the police claim to have advice they can intervene.

    Related, though not critical: Andrew Geddis (link among the first comments) notes Petrobras doesn’t have a right to do the survey so much as an exclusion from the general prohibition.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  122. Angus (536 comments) says:

    If I was in charge of the refueling depot at the port where these beatniks operate from, I’d refuse to sell them any fuel.
    If these flat-Earth no-growth environmental Marxists hate the petroleum industry so much, they can get fucked if they want any diesel to run their protest flotilla. They can fuck off and run their ships on lentil juice or hash oil.

    These bearded, sandal-wearing Greenies have no redeeming features at all; the whole environmental movement nothing but a toxic mixture of pessimism, misanthropy and Marxism.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  123. All_on_Red (1,737 comments) says:

    Luc,
    If you think science is proved by concensus you are a fool.
    And that 98% figure has been well discredited. Try addressing the points raised with Peer Reviewed Research and actual observed data instead of stupid commenst like, “other people said so , so it must be true”.
    You obviously lack any sort of ability to read and think for yourself.
    The facts are:
    Temps have stopped going up despite CO2 rising
    Sea levels have stopped rising
    3 to 1 forcing has not occured and the models suggesting that have been proved to be wrong

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  124. Kimble (3,955 comments) says:

    “Protest which impedes people from exercising their legal rights is bad.”

    This is true. “Protest” doesnt mean you can do whatever you like.

    A person protesting the use of highways by trucks can do so all they like. What they cant do is tear up the road, impede trucks, or shoot truck drivers.

    A protest outside an abortion clinic cannot block people from going in.

    To see these greenies actions in the proper light, look at the actions after ignoring their stated (rambling bullshit) reasons.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  125. magic bullet (776 comments) says:

    RN

    “the rich and powerful stopped listening a looong time ago.”

    I disagree. They still have focus groups, but that’s just to manipulate popular opinion to their own ends. So eventually they will lose their effectiveness, because you can’t fool all the people all the time. The elites really are dicing with danger imo – because, as the African revolutions have demonstrated, a spark is all it takes.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  126. RRM (10,097 comments) says:

    Angus:

    Marxism is a socio-economic system where the state controls the means of production and distribution.
    Greenpeace is a bunch of citizens who don’t want to see oil exploration around the East Coast.

    Time for a nice soothing cuppa tea and a lie down I think.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  127. Kimble (3,955 comments) says:

    Yeah, the whole “98% of scientists agree” line is complete BS. All everyone who trots it out achieves is to declare themselves willing to lie to score a point, or too ignorant to be taken seriously.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  128. magic bullet (776 comments) says:

    RRM – You should save that as a template stock-sentence just for kiwiblog. May save you quite a bit of time!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  129. Kimble (3,955 comments) says:

    magicbullet thinks that any time some poor person disagrees with him it must be because they are stupidly doing what a rich person told them to do.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  130. Luc Hansen (4,573 comments) says:

    Rodney Hide going feral in question time. “Eco-terrorists,” “eco-fascists,” rule of law…blah, blah, blah…a Mussolini wannabe.

    You guys must love him!

    Send the navy! Shoot them!

    Jeez, one can’t even go for a casual swim in the ocean these days ;-)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  131. magic bullet (776 comments) says:

    Kimble: do you not have any friends, or are you just fucking around here?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  132. Luc Hansen (4,573 comments) says:

    Sorry, Kimble, you are just wrong.

    Here’s just one reference for you: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/apr/07/scientific-consensus-climate-change

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  133. Kimble (3,955 comments) says:

    “Marxism is a socio-economic system where the state controls the means of production and distribution.
    Greenpeace is a bunch of citizens who don’t want to see oil exploration around the East Coast.”

    According to a founding member of Greenpeace, “the fall of communism brought an influx of anti-corporate extremism to the environmental movement because, “suddenly, the international peace movement had a lot less to do. Pro-Soviet groups in the West were discredited. Many of their members moved into the environmental movement, bringing with them their eco-Marxism and pro-Sandinista sentiments.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  134. lyndon (321 comments) says:

    A person protesting the use of highways by trucks can do so all they like. What they cant do is tear up the road, impede trucks, or shoot truck drivers.

    Yet a bunch of people protesting with trucks can shut down the central city for half a day. Wonder how that happened?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  135. Kimble (3,955 comments) says:

    magic bullet, do you have sex with puppies or are you just a giant tool?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  136. Kimble (3,955 comments) says:

    “Yet a bunch of people protesting with trucks can shut down the central city for half a day. Wonder how that happened?”

    By breaking the law.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  137. lyndon (321 comments) says:

    By breaking the law.

    Which one? The one that prevents you driving down a road? Who got arrested?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  138. All_on_Red (1,737 comments) says:

    Luc,
    Quoting newspaper articles again are you. And the Guardian of all places. Whats next, Press releases from Insurance companies? Oh wait.
    You are so ignorant its a waste of time talking to you.
    I suggest you spend a month or two reading articles on this website and following the links to the Papers they talk about.
    http://www.wattsupwiththat.com
    Real data, real sources, real Peer Reviewed research. I still havent seen anything from you disputing the RSS and UAH satellite data showing temps are currently now where they were 30 years ago.
    Go on. Prove me wrong. Where is the warming?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  139. RightNow (7,014 comments) says:

    Oh crap, am I missing Rodney in full speech? In The House time…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  140. Kimble (3,955 comments) says:

    luc, science is not a democracy or a popularity contest.

    It doesnt matter that 98% of scientists believe that Darwins theory of evolution is correct. The fact of evolution is backed up by observation. The fact of AGW is not.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  141. Batman (103 comments) says:

    RRM: Oh don’t get me wrong. they should be literally killed, apologies if I gave that impression. what i meant by that is that they should be merely frightened off by warning shots as a worst case scenario! a show of force to remind them to stick within the law is what is required!

    agree on New Plymouth. its safe as mate! (to a degree)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  142. Kimble (3,955 comments) says:

    lyndon, the same law that prevents me building a brick wall across a road. The same laws that prevent me from blocking access to your home. The same laws that prevent me from imprisoning you.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  143. Batman (103 comments) says:

    whoops, they should NOT be literally killed!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  144. lyndon (321 comments) says:

    Kimble, that’s more than one law.

    I’m talking about an actual protest that really happened. And nobody was charged with any of the criminal crimes you mention or (AFAIK) any others because the truckies weren’t doing anything illegal. They were driving down the road. There is also, as far as I am concerned, not anything wrong with driving down the road.

    You might want it to be illegal, but I don’t think it is.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  145. magic bullet (776 comments) says:

    Kimble – you’re one of the reductio ad absurdum/essentialist/reductionist right wing debating crowd, and i have no time for your bullshit. You trade in ad hominem and reductionism, and nothing enlightening, illuminating or edifying results. To be honest, you’re lowering the standards here, and should probably content yourself with “No Minister” or one of those other self-parodying histrionic blogs.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  146. Peter (1,694 comments) says:

    Sharks. The survey boat should encourage sharks. Large sharks.

    The greenies are into nature.

    Let nature take it’s course.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  147. magic bullet (776 comments) says:

    What are you in to Peter? Marketing? Advertising?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  148. lyndon (321 comments) says:

    For example, they might be served notice under section 55 of the maritime transport act:
    http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/AK1104/S00299/notices-served-on-protest-flotilla-to-restrict-movement.htm

    Not sure how much of a halt that will cause.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  149. publicwatchdog (3,112 comments) says:

    # Auberon (557) Says:
    April 12th, 2011 at 2:14 pm

    Hey, it’s after midday – I know that because Penny Bright is out of bed.”

    errrr……. pays to presume nothing – check everything ‘Auberon’.

    To make the assumption that the time I start posting on Kiwiblog is somehow related to the time that I arise in the morning, is one not based on facts or evidence, and is in fact, not accurate.

    Was actually rather busy giving as many media as possible the ‘heads up’ about the Petrobas / Bank of America / John Key connections, and the fact that there appears to have been no actual complaint made about the protestors.

    Was a VERY productive morning actually :)

    BTW:

    It is not a crime to prevent the commissioning of a greater crime – did you folk know that?

    Possibly not?

    :)

    Penny Bright
    http://waterpressure.wordpress.com

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  150. Peter (1,694 comments) says:

    >>What are you in to Peter? Marketing? Advertising?

    GP certainly are…..

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  151. Luc Hansen (4,573 comments) says:

    Kimble:

    I still havent seen anything from you disputing the RSS and UAH satellite data showing temps are currently now where they were 30 years ago.

    You are delusional. I would say that someone has made up stuff that sucked you willingly in.

    AGW is soundly based on abservation and to suggest otherwise is simply to deny fact.

    I have in front of me “Jan-Dec Surface Mean Temp Anomalies” constructed by NCDC/NESDIS/NOAA which clearly shows both a strong underlying warming trend, no matter the short term variations (“pauses” to risible deniers like yourself). Furthermore, it makes your claim that the world is now cooler than 30 years ago nonsensical.

    The Land & Ocean combined temperature anomaly made 2010, according to this very credible source, the warmest year in the last 131 years. And what you need to understand is that even though temperature rise may stall for a while, the emissions are still being pumped into the atmosphere and it will come through at some point. The last decade has been one of reducing sunspot activity and this is now picking up again, so that is going to be an additional, albeit short term, forcing, although overall, the activity of sunspots is neutral, anyway, because of its cyclical, roughly symmetric, nature.

    The Guardian article neatly summarises the very proof you were asking for as regards the scientific consensus. If you wish, I could post each line of evidence separately and without attribution, but why should I?

    Wattsupwiththat is so thoroughly discredited that I just don’t bother wasting my time anymore. Next thing, you will be quoting Wishart on evolution.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  152. lofty (1,317 comments) says:

    Jeeze P Bright you are such a sanctimonious self righteous person,.

    Oh and by the way. I am not your little anything, goldfish or otherwise, so dont presume to call me so.
    It pays to check everything & presume nothing.

    I still think you are quite mad, but I guess thats what allows you to think you take the moral high ground on every subject matter put forward here, it is often refered to as a delusion of granduer I believe.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  153. Kimble (3,955 comments) says:

    You mean the protest in NZ, I was thinking of the much more common protests in France. The ones where trucks blocked access to ports and government buildings, iirc.

    “There is also, as far as I am concerned, not anything wrong with driving down the road.”

    And there is nothing wrong with smoking. Or gambling. Or firing a shotgun. However, there is plenty wrong with those actions in specific contexts like in a nursery, in a mosque, and in a crowded elevator.

    Consider this, if you were surrounded, boxed in, by trucks on a large highway, and they did not let you stop, or pull over, or get past, would that just be some truck drivers driving down the road? What if they were doing it as a protest? Why would that change anything?

    It is not my position that all protests are wrong, or illegal. It is that not all actions are right, just because they are “protests”. The point at which they go from good protests to bad protests is when they infringe on the rights of other people.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  154. Kimble (3,955 comments) says:

    Wasnt me luc.

    And i didnt ask for evidence of scientific consensus. My point was that scientific consensus doesnt count for anything. Darwins theory of evolution does not stand on the consensus of scientists. Darwins theory doesnt even stand on people respect of Darwin. At best, you are wasting your time declaring a consensus.

    98% of scientists can and have been wrong.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  155. immigant (950 comments) says:

    Another perfect example of how an unwashed and vocal group of tunnel visioned deadbeats try to fuck up any chance of this country improving the standards of living under a thin veil of taking a moral high ground.

    Sigh. We will all be poor but very eco friendly. Flax blankets and crocs for everyone.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  156. Luc Hansen (4,573 comments) says:

    Oops, sorry Kimble. Your point is noted and rejected as self-serving crap. The basics of AGW is as accepted as Darwin’s theory of evolution, where evolution was the observed fact and natural selection the explanation. In this case, the observed fact is that of a warming planet (amongst many other lines of evidence, these days, as the science is developing rapidly) and fossil fuel emissions is the theory explaining this rise. No other explanation has been accepted as credible.

    All on Red

    I turned the page on my notes and found the latest RSS and UAH findings. They both rank 2010 as the second warmest year in the last 32 years. So what are you talking about?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  157. lyndon (321 comments) says:

    Your scenario: It might not just be some truck drivers driving, but they would only be breaking the law if they were breaking the law.

    I suppose my point is relates to the way we constantly ‘infringe on the rights of other people’ by, for example, occupying space that might otherwise be available to them, where you both ‘have a right’ to be. Your position needs to be a hair more complicated before it works.

    And if it were protest it might make a difference – AFAIK both the law and the courts recognise special (though obviously not boundless) protection for protest, especially political protest. But I haven’t bothered arguing that because I haven’t seen the need to.

    Just as there are road rules it seems there are navigational ones and the police feel able to intervene if there are breaches. But even if I agreed about the morality, the law doesn’t and shouldn’t cover every ‘bad’ thing.

    Before the misunderstanding about the trucks, I asked what law DPF thought they were placing themselves above. If anyone present knew, they would presemably have said.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  158. Kimble (3,955 comments) says:

    Luc, what is self-serving about a position that scientific consensus is meaningless? Explain that logic.

    Because the only inference we can take from that, is that things like the theory of evolution is only true because the scientists mostly agree it is. And thats rubbish.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  159. nasska (12,088 comments) says:

    Luc @ 4.47pm

    It must be the masochist in me to intrude on your mission to save the globe but before you don your red Jockeys,turn your apron around & fly out the window in search of illegal CO2 could you address the small problem of vulcanian pollution.

    It was calculated that that the first four days of the last Icelandic volcanic eruption more CO2 was blasted into the atmosphere than was curtailed by everything done to control emissions during the previous five years. Mt Pinatubo in 1991 was worse…..in one year it spewed out more greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere than the entire human race has in the past 40 million years.

    I realise that your grip on reality is sufficient for you to know that mankind cannot & never will be able to control volcanic activity but why do you refuse to see that man’s contribution to global warming is minuscule if it exists at all?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  160. All_on_Red (1,737 comments) says:

    Luc
    Even James Hansen from GISS (have you heard of him?) says the warmest year thing is statistically insignificant.
    The land based Temps are inaccurate, thats where the satellites come in.
    Or do you think Nasa are “discredited”?
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/03/uah-global-temperature-anomaly-published-1998-still-warmest-year-in-the-uah-satellite-record/

    The latest results show is actually cooler.
    Both Remote Sensing Systems data here and also data from Nasa’s Aqua satellite system collated by UAH (copyed courtesy of Dr Roy Spencer)
    The point is the temp today is the same as it was 30 years ago when those separate satellites were launched.
    So where is the warming Luc? CO2 has gone up, but not the temp.

    Saying WUWT is discredited is just silly.
    Anyway, pop over to GD, Sonny Blunt has a message for you.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  161. All_on_Red (1,737 comments) says:

    Oh , cant wait for the latest NOAA sea temp figures as the trend in temps is DOWN. I’ll link it for you when it arrives.
    Wheres the warming Luc?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  162. Luc Hansen (4,573 comments) says:

    nasska

    Just study the scientific findings on this myth: http://www.skepticalscience.com/volcanoes-and-global-warming.htm

    The main point:

    The fossil fuels emissions numbers are about 100 times bigger than even the maximum estimated volcanic CO2 fluxes.

    You are yet another delusionist.

    Kimble

    Your are dissembling. It’s not the consensus that makes a theory valid. It’s the evidence. The consensus simply reinforces the views of the scientific community, especially in the circumstances of prolonged attack on the science itself. Peer review, for example, is about getting other scientists in that field to agree that your method is valid – it’s a form of consensus. It provides added credibility.

    Stop rambling about the consensus and go argue with scientists on why 98% of them are wrong. Just normal risk management principles demand that such a consensus is most probably correct – as far as our current knowledge can tell.

    It’s always a problem for people who adopt a position early in the piece to change their view. Your position has no claim to scientific substance – in fact, it is contrary to established facts.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  163. Luc Hansen (4,573 comments) says:

    All on Red

    The point is the temp today is the same as it was 30 years ago when those separate satellites were launched.</blockquote

    Simply untrue. I repeat, the latest UAH data (satellite measured tropospheric temps) shows 2010 as the second warmest year in the last 32 years. In 1980 the combined land/ocean temp anomaly was almost 1F lower.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  164. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    We are currently blessed with having Greenpeace in Opotiki using it as a base for the protest at the Cape.

    The organisers have several, no doubt, well meaning young people out on the streets signing people up.

    What is of particular amusement to some locals is the fleet of vehicles they have, no hybrids here, just big petrol vehicles.

    The protest is a matter for locals and NZers not some international socialist organization who use people and events to generate publicity for themselves.

    On this whole thing,I would hate to see my coastline damaged by a spill, but presently the ship is only looking about, there is no drilling and unlikely to be for many years – it cant hurt to look but

    I drove to Whanagaparoa on the weekend hunting and the entire coast is out against this , the government should be very careful – the East Coast is not an electorate that is guaranteed

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  165. Luc Hansen (4,573 comments) says:

    All on Red

    you can google this paper THE CLIMATE OF 2010 IN HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE. Derek S. Arndt*, Ahira Sánchez-Lugo, Chris Fenimore, Richard R. Heim, Jr., Jake Crouch … (Opens as a pdf where i found it.)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  166. Kimble (3,955 comments) says:

    You still havent explained how my position is self-serving.

    “It’s not the consensus that makes a theory valid. It’s the evidence.”

    So… what I have been saying from the beginning then? Righto.

    Go back and read my comments in this thread. Quote one in which I stated what my thoughts on AGW are.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  167. wat dabney (3,840 comments) says:

    Luc,

    AGW is soundly based on abservation and to suggest otherwise is simply to deny fact.

    Er, actually it’s not. It’s based on computer models. Models which have proved hopeless at predicting the recent climate trend.

    In fact, no alarmist conspiracy theory is required to explain recent trends:

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  168. mattyroo (1,030 comments) says:

    Gee whizz, this debate has certainly brought out the ill-informed fuckwits from the left.

    One of the best was rakuraku stating that the rig will have to be well designed to survive a 9.0 earthquake…. If rakuraku knew the first thing about rigs he would know that any earthquake will have zero-point-fuckall effect on a rig. The people onboard would not even know one had occurred.

    There were other idiots speculating that an earthquake will rupture the well, therefore causing a leak. I have much more faith in reservoir engineers determining the appropriate drill path than some wanne-be expert on Kiwiblog! Why are all these people not rushing to protest the oil leakages on Stewart Island everytime there is an earthquake? Mother Gaia destroying herself… That is the reason why a lot of resevoirs that have been drilled in NZ historically are empty, as earthquakes have caused the reservoirs to crack and let all the oil leak out. At times there are very visible oil slicks all around the NZ coast from this natural phenomena. But, lets not let the facts get in the way of shrieking like a banshee.

    Why do these idiots insist on “debating” issues that they clearly know nothing about. If I wasn’t out all day being productive I could sit here smashing to smithereens the arguments of all these idiots.

    Oh, and should I be surprised toad has not answered the question that I put to him?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  169. smttc (767 comments) says:

    Man, I just watched Hekia Parata go up against Bunny (pfftt) McDiamard of Greenpeace on Close Up. And I grow in admiration of her political skills every day.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  170. kaya (1,360 comments) says:

    smttc – fuck we must have been watching a different show?
    Parata came across ilike a glove puppet reciting pre learned lines and quoting stats. She got her ass kicked by the lentil eater imho. (No I’m not a lentil eater).

    mattyroo – I take it you work in that industry. What do you think?

    I didn’t realise that the Deepwater Horizon rig was also drilling an exploratory well at 1500m and that Petrobas is proposing drilling at 3000m, double that depth? That sounds like dodgy shit, how would they deal with a blowout at that depth? It would cost a shot load more than NZ would gain from any royalties I would think.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  171. publicwatchdog (3,112 comments) says:

    Just in case any of my little pet goldfish (ESPECIALLY ‘Lofty’ ;) missed this?

    :)

    http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/71603/peters-backs-protest-against-oil-exploration

    Peters backs protest against oil exploration

    Updated at 8:45pm on 29 March 2011

    New Zealand First leader Winston Peters is backing Te Whanau a Apanui’s protest against oil exploration off the eastern Bay of Plenty coast.

    A flotilla of boats, including one from Te Whanau a Apanui, is on its way to Cape Runaway to take a stand against the Brazilian oil giant Petrobras’s plans.

    Mr Peters told Waatea News New Zealanders have no confidence the Government has properly weighed the environmental and social risks.

    “The key issue,” he says, “is: have we been asked or consulted on this issue. And the answer is no. They just went ahead just like Gerry Brownlee tried to on the national parks.”

    Mr Peters says the royalty rates are so small that New Zealanders stand to make very little if Petrobras does discover oil.”

    Fair points don’t you think?

    (Well – provided you have something to think with?

    Meant of course, in a be nice to toothless little goldfish way – especially those who are wilfully blind as well – eh ‘Lofty’?

    ;)

    Penny Bright
    http://waterpressure.wordpress.com

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  172. mattyroo (1,030 comments) says:

    kaya, yes I do, and have done for some time, all over the world.

    I don’t know how you determine that PetroBras is proposing drilling at 3000m when all they are doing is a 2D seismic survey to identify locations of possible exploration wells. Yes, the basin has depths in excess of 3000m, but that does not mean they will be drilling there – let’s hold our horses on that one shall we.

    Nevertheless, the Brazilians (PetroBras in particular) pioneered deep-water exploration and have a great deal of experience in deep-water exploration. I don’t know what the deepest water PetroBras has drilled in is, but I have personally been on a PetroBras rig in 2200m of water depth…

    It doesn’t sound like “dodgy shit” to me, because there have been lots (thousands) of wells drilled in deep-water and been very few incidents. Yes they can and do happen, but the right regulatory framework has to be in place, with the right controls. Whilst PetroBras is Brazilian, if they were to operate here in NZ, they would be operating under our framework, on a vessel, manned and operated by New Zealander’s – I have a lot more faith in Kiwi operations tahn I do many others.

    I’ll guarantee all of the screaming banshees on here and elsewhere have absolutely no idea why the Deepwater Horizon accident occurred, they’re jsut saying that because it occurred once, then it is guaranteed to occur in NZ.

    A good example of PetroBras operating in similar conditions to what we could expect in NZ is the BW Pioneer in the GoM, which is installed in a water depth of 2600m. It is the first FPSO in US waters of the gulf and had to undergo a very long and rigorous approval and certification process.

    If PetroBras do find oil in the Raukumura basin, then I will bet that they are only the field operator and they use a vessel supply company, such as BW Offshore (Norwegian) to supply and operate the vessel, the same structure as with the two FPSO’s operating already off the Taranaki coast.

    I did some quick back-of-the-envelope calculations, and in my estimation, an oil discovery off the East coast would be worth ~$80,000/day to the LOCAL economy. Do people on here seriously suggest that one of the poorest regions in NZ should be denied ~$30million p.a.? To me, the maori there are not protesting about the exploration per se, they are protesting because they have not been paid off. What’s the bet they soon remember there was a Taniwha, or some other such bullshit, in this water that they need to be “compensated” for.

    I posted on here the other day, about the Ekofisk oil field in Norway, in case you missed it, here it is again, giving an example of the benefits to the COUNTRY of the royalties, the same royalties that the left keep screaming about being of little value to NZ. The same royalties that keep some of the lefts pet projects going in Norway, such as ECE. Here it is:

    I hope all the fuckwits that protested in this: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10716909 are going to renounce all the benefits they receive from the state, because without some sort of mineral exploitation, their benefits are unaffordable. What’s the bet that some are the beneficiaries of interest free student loans, others will be welfare for families claimants, and of course there will be the obligatory dole budging set in there. Not to mention all the maori who have been beneficiaries of taxpayer largesse through treaty settlements. Any productive people are too busy earning a crust to protest.

    How about some of these fascists consider for a moment some of the benefits that exploration can have on some of their pet projects. For example, Ekofisk oil field in the Norwegian sector of the North Sea….

    Phillips Petroleum (now Conoco Phillips) discovered the field in the sixties, with it first coming on line in 1969. At the time of development, it was estimated that ~17% of the oil in the field was recoverable, however due to advances in technology, it is estimated today that more than 50% will be recoverable. Now for the bit that all these fuckwits are denying all New Zealanders and future generations…..

    These numbers may not mean much to some of you. However, 1% increase in recovery is sufficient to provide all Norwegian children free childcare over 3 years!

    Last summer, about 1700 people were working in the field on a daily basis. Which means that roughly 5000 people had their work place offshore. Those people are being denied the opportunity of jobs and an income by the luddites. Nevermind all the associated services and infrastructure jobs created onshore. (Due to the rotational type work, whilst only 1700 people may be engaged offshore at any one time, this equates to ~5000 FTE jobs.)

    I suggest we open up one of the sub-antarctic islands for all of the luddites to go and exist, in their green Jerusalem, without all of the modern conveniences that capitalism and oil exploration has brought them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  173. mattyroo (1,030 comments) says:

    Winston Peters appears to be about as informed as you on this subject Penny….

    Read my above post re what the royalties, from one field producing ~250,000 bopd, can do for a country. If I’m not mistaken, Norway has a 10% royalty regime, and NZ is proposing a 6%.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  174. kaya (1,360 comments) says:

    mattyroo – cheers. It’s always good to have as much information as possible before jumping up and down about shit. No doubt drilling has merit. We need to wait till all the analysis is in/

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  175. bhudson (4,741 comments) says:

    mattyroo,

    Their ideological blindness to the reality of the world we live in is why the Greens will never get close to the treasury benches. Even Labour spurn their economic illiteracy.

    As for Peters – his opposition is solely to get himself some media air time. He’d attend the opening of an envelope if it got him in the press.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  176. Rodders (1,756 comments) says:

    Winston Peters – has he paid back the $158,000 yet?
    Until he does, his opinion isn’t worth a dime.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  177. bhudson (4,741 comments) says:

    Rodders,

    I’ve read a few of his comments here. Dime is worth a great deal more than Winston’s opinions

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  178. Nookin (3,557 comments) says:

    Penny
    1. Is the government unconditionally bound to grant drilling rights to Petrobas or indeed anyone if there is oil or gas?
    2. Have the royalties been set already and if so what are they?
    3. What made Brownlee stop if it was not the consultation process?
    4. How can you say that your success in the Finau signs case brought about the change in the Local Government Act when the decision that you lauded was made after the 2002 amendment was passed?
    5. Do you think that, possibly, Mr Peters might be guilty of some cynical opportunism?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  179. reid (16,681 comments) says:

    Sharks. The survey boat should encourage sharks. Large sharks.

    Exactly. Let’s hope they’re innocently dropping delicious and bloody garbage scraps over the side, as I type.

    Wouldn’t that be a shame.

    The protester’s sense of entitlement to use whatever tactics they want, is saddening, but not surprising. What is also saddening is we as a society don’t take responsibility for calling them out for the morons they actually are, apparently cause many of our public opinion shapers, the journos, are just as stupid as they are.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  180. RightNow (7,014 comments) says:

    Hey, Obama got BP to fork over US$20B for the deepwater horizon affair. Drill baby drill.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  181. mattyroo (1,030 comments) says:

    A it late now, but, can I make one small request to everyone?

    It is spelt: Petrobras, not Petrobas. In fact, more correctly, it is actually spelt: PetroBras

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  182. Rodders (1,756 comments) says:

    @bhudson – I had overlooked that there is a Dime here (my apologies to him).
    I’ll rephrase: Winston Peter’s opinions aren’t worth a penny.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  183. mattyroo (1,030 comments) says:

    reid said:

    the journos, are just as stupid as they are

    I commented early on in this thread about the economically illiterate journalism of Adam Bennett (someone whom I previously thought had a reasonably good economic brain) at the Herald. I actually emailed Adam and pulled him up about the crap that he wrote, here is his response:

    Hi xxxxxx, I’m not sure where the material you quote comes from. It wasn’t in the story I wrote last night. I assume it’s been added subsequently. I’m not happy about it as I believe I do a good enough job of appearing economically challenged myself without being credited with other people’s misconceptions. Regards, Adam.

    So, does the Herald have people going round editing pieces to put a particular slant on them, after someone writes them? Contemptible pricks.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  184. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    Mattyroo

    Superb comment.

    As I stated above, I would hate to see an accident on my/ our coast just like I’d hate to see anyone I know in a car crash. Its unlikely but possible.

    The only part I disagree with is about the locals wanting to be paid off.

    I believe that we along this coast are suffering from lack of information more than anything. This area desperately needs investment. There is a lot of wealth in orcharding and dairy and there is a advanced proposal for a large aquaculture farm off Opotiki itself. We run a local business and rely on investment and change to the area from Opotiki to Potaka

    I think you will find that Te Whanau Apanui are not begging for the dollar. They did not suffer the confiscations that many tribes did and have no history of grasping and milking off the govt.

    The protest was organised by Greenpeace , they arrived and were welcomed, greenpeace have stuck their nose in, making all the noise and comment as they always do.

    To re-iterate information is king and if its not being shared this leaves the ground fertile for scare mongering and interference by those with an agenda but like I said above the govt must be careful or they could loose this electorate on this issue alone.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  185. nasska (12,088 comments) says:

    mattyroo @ 8.16pm

    Thank you. Very informative comment.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  186. mattyroo (1,030 comments) says:

    Fair comment pauleastbay re the locals.

    My concern is the lack of intelligent INFORMED information going around about this whole debate. The greenies have jumped on this shrieking like banshees, as they always do. Why the fuck is the government and the industry not putting out good informed commentary from the other side. Come on John Pfahlert, do what you’re paid to do as head of PEPANZ. If you want the oil industry to survive in NZ, you seriously need to pull your finger from your ass.

    If we’re not careful, the fuckwit greenies will kill this initiative before it gets off the ground, as they did with mining. You’ve got to give it to them, they’re a well organised bunch, controlling what gets in the media, even if all of it is lies and half-truths.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  187. reid (16,681 comments) says:

    Matthew Hooten made a very good point the other week when he said that IF you REALLY do believe in the nonsense that is peak oil, then that is EVEN MORE reason to drill.

    As usual lefties have it any way they want, from day to day, as it suits. Almost as if they had no anchoring principles at all.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  188. Nookin (3,557 comments) says:

    “# mattyroo (517) Says:
    April 12th, 2011 at 8:36 pm

    A it late now, but, can I make one small request to everyone?

    It is spelt: Petrobras, not Petrobas. In fact, more correctly, it is actually spelt: PetroBras”

    Thanks Mattyroo. Can’t have the Rs drop out of petroleum exploration!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  189. publicwatchdog (3,112 comments) says:

    UPDATE: Anti-Petrobas protest! Views of Maori, Environment and Conservation Organisations of NZ, Maori Party, Labour, NZ First, Green Party, National, Police ……..

    Here you go folks – in order to assist with more informed debate and discussion on this topic, I have researched and put together the differing views from as many parties as possible so you can read as many as possible, and get a better understanding of the different perspectives.

    ‘Seek truth from facts’?

    Throw away your ‘Women’s Weekly!’

    ;)

    Penny Bright
    http://waterpressure.wordpress.com

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  190. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    Mattyroo

    ..If we’re not careful, the fuckwit greenies will kill this initiative before it gets off the ground, as they did with mining………

    They are very very well organised, like I said, they are in town signing people up and have been for over a week now, their side of the story is getting well circulated and lots of publicity. Lies lies and pamphlets.

    The govt has got to get off its arse and remember Christchurch is just one part of NZ and concentrate, ChCh is not the diversion they seem to think it is.

    I would have thought Petrobras would have at least made the effort to meet and greet along the coast here. There PR appears to be crap. No one has seen or heard from them

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  191. Nookin (3,557 comments) says:

    ‘Seek truth from facts’?

    Throw away your ‘Women’s Weekly!’

    You mean I can’t rely on the Women’s Weekly for truth and fact?
    Oh fuck, there goes my thesis!!!!!!!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  192. Rodders (1,756 comments) says:

    Penny said “Throw away your ‘Women’s Weekly!’”

    That comment is sexist.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  193. mattyroo (1,030 comments) says:

    One thing I should make clear;

    I’m not overly concerned about the water depth, it is more the reservoir depth that makes stopping a leak difficult, due to the length of the well, i.e. the depth between the seabed and the top of the reservoir. This is why the DWH incident took so long to stop, as the distance that had to be drilled, to intersect the well at a depth close enough to the reservoir to make any plugging guaranteed to work, was one of the longest ever.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  194. Hurf Durf (2,860 comments) says:

    Is the Ady Gil 2 out of dry docks yet? Maybe they can plough it into the Ocean Pioneer and blame Petrobras.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  195. reid (16,681 comments) says:

    They are very very well organised, like I said, they are in town signing people up and have been for over a week now, their side of the story is getting well circulated and lots of publicity. Lies lies and pamphlets…

    …I would have thought Petrobras would have at least made the effort to meet and greet along the coast here. Their PR appears to be crap. No one has seen or heard from them.

    Perhaps Paul PetroBras didn’t expect this from a mere initial seismic survey. Perhaps they underestimated the leftardation inherent in your average Kiwi, a latent mentalness just waiting to burst forth at the first sign of any threat whatsoever to anything at all, that sounds really scary.

    Now you and I know this is precisely what your average Kiwi on the street really is like, but you must admit, it’s not fucking normal, is it.

    And these Brazilians are tough blokes, used to battling piranha and anaconda and the people in the Sao Paulo barrios so when they come upon our frankly quite alarmingly girly-bloke population as it has become in 2011 you can understand why they’re a bit on the back foot, PR-wise.

    What I would suggest they do, is land a party ashore and immediately approach the nearest list-holders, kick their arse, take their names, and rip up their stupid little lists.

    If they read this and wish to get in touch, this can be arranged.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  196. publicwatchdog (3,112 comments) says:

    # Rodders (717) Says:
    April 12th, 2011 at 9:26 pm

    Penny said “Throw away your ‘Women’s Weekly!’”

    That comment is sexist.”

    That’s only on ‘low’ Rodders!

    Don’t boyz read the ‘Women’s Weekly’?

    Surely the ‘wilful blindness’ doesn’t extend to the ‘Women’s Weekly’?

    Nooooooooooooo …..

    ;)

    Penny Bright
    http://waterpressure.wordpress.com

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  197. Lawrence Hakiwai (117 comments) says:

    Luc Hansen said

    “Don’t speak for all of New Zealand please.

    What sanctimonious drivel.

    List MP Hekia Parata said this morning that “…New Zealanders want the exploration to go ahead.”

    Would DPF reply,

    Don’t speak for all of New Zealand please,

    Ms Parata?”

    Great point, if it wasn’t for the fact Hekia Parata is a minister of the crown appointed by the government of New Zealand.

    So guess what genius?

    She does speak for all of New Zealand.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  198. Rodders (1,756 comments) says:

    Penny said “wilful blindness”

    I would prefer “wilfully visually-impaired”, thank you.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  199. tom hunter (5,134 comments) says:

    Brazil is a rising global power, albeit with a long way to go, but they showing economic smarts. Following Obumble’s recent visit to the country, where he praised their oil exploration and told them that America would be a good oil customer….. this article appeared in the WSJ – The Secret to Brazil’s Energy Success (warning – subscribers only). I liked this part:

    Brazil has gone from importing 77% of its oil from foreign sources in 1980 to importing no oil by 2009. A great success story in conservation and alternative energy? Not really. Total Brazilian oil consumption still more than doubled. The biggest factor is that Brazil increased its domestic oil production over the last two decades by 876% (not a typo). Most of that production has come from offshore exploration.

    Economically smart, using modern technology to make their citizen’s lives better.

    Also, who would you rather hang out with – Greenpeace or people who know how to have fun.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  200. James (1,299 comments) says:

    Public ownership leads to societal conflicts….can’t be avoided except by privatising.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  201. James (1,299 comments) says:

    Petrobas counter PR campaign.on East Coast…..”No oil revenue forthcoming…no more benefits for you”.

    Watch the bludging scum shut up quick smart.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  202. niggly (832 comments) says:

    Let one of the Navy’s new Offshore Patrol Vessels off the leash and send them down there to keep the two sides apart. i’m sure their 25mm bushmaster naval cannons would make those GP swimmers think twice about getting in the way!

    Greenpeace can give thanks to Helen Clark for the Navy’s patrol vessel’s keeping an eye on them!

    Yes, thanks to Helen, who decided to cancel the Navy’s 3rd Frigate in favour of patrol vessels!

    Now if the Navy didn’t have patrol vessels and only their Frigates, I really doubt a Frigate would have been despatched, because of their overseas defence diplomacy functions tieing them up, plus the fact that a Frigate would look like a goliath compared to the Greenpeace david’s! Wouldn’t be a good PR look for the gummit!

    So Greenpeace, next time you are in NY having a chat to Helen, you can thank her for these unintended consequences! :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  203. niggly (832 comments) says:

    Petrobras said today that the protest action had diminished the value of doing business in New Zealand.
    The ship hoped to find liquefied natural gas in the 12,333 square kilometre area and has the right to drill one well.
    http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/4874546/Police-issue-notices-to-oil-company-protesters

    So Petrobras are surveying the area for natural GAS?

    And Greenpeace/Forest & Bird/marxist eco-environmentalists are playing the fear factor card by scaring the East Coast locals into thinking there could be an OIL spill destroying their “food basket”?

    Why do organisations like Greenpeace wish to manipulate public opinion like this?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  204. niggly (832 comments) says:

    @ Lawrence. I’ve been impressed by Hekia Parata front-footing the issue in various media since this started.

    Also I wonder whether if the Govt allowed some iwi some royalties, Greenpeace might find they wouldn’t get support from some East Coast iwi (as they claim)?

    Now if the Govt gave some iwi royalties, but followed the Norway (oil and gas revenue model) to ensure future revenues were put aside for the public good, perhaps some royalties directed to iwi could off-set funding for social development etc?

    Just a thought, wonder what are the true pros and cons either way?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  205. reid (16,681 comments) says:

    Why do organisations like Greenpeace wish to manipulate public opinion like this?

    Because they’re bleeding heart idealistic sometimes unemployed leftards who wish to make a statement niggly and how awful you are to imply they’re manipulating public opinion.

    They’re reflecting it niggly. R-E-F-L-E-C-T-I-N-G it. This IS public opinion. It WILL happen, to our pristine coast-line. Oh the humanity. Next will come the [quelle horreur] burning of the filthy stuff sending our pwecious pwanet into a tailspin of stupendous humanitarian nightmare.

    And you really want that, don’t you.

    This is my personal estimation of the amount of concrete one has to penetrate to get sense thru to these people and frankly, all of their supporters.

    So let us therefore brace ourselves, that if the Empire lasts for a thousand years, men will still say: THIS, was their finest hour.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  206. Kimble (3,955 comments) says:

    “Why do organisations like Greenpeace wish to manipulate public opinion like this?”

    According to a founding member of Greenpeace, “the fall of communism brought an influx of anti-corporate extremism to the environmental movement because, “suddenly, the international peace movement had a lot less to do. Pro-Soviet groups in the West were discredited. Many of their members moved into the environmental movement, bringing with them their eco-Marxism and pro-Sandinista sentiments.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  207. reid (16,681 comments) says:

    The ship hoped to find liquefied natural gas in the 12,333 square kilometre area and has the right to drill one well.

    I wonder how they came up with 12,333 sq km?

    I imagine it must have been a terribly difficult modeling equation calculating the probabilities, decomposing, recomposing, algorithms and transformations galore etc only to come up, after all, with 12,333 sq km.

    The people in the lab said… er… well they weren’t even asked were they. What a stupid question. Next.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  208. Grizz (613 comments) says:

    “Now if the Govt gave some iwi royalties, but followed the Norway (oil and gas revenue model) to ensure future revenues were put aside for the public good, perhaps some royalties directed to iwi could off-set funding for social development etc?”

    How about an opportunity for jobs and employment?

    I do not think we should get all premature about the benefits of offshore East Cost gas. We do not even know if it exists in the first place. Really this whole debate and protest is pointless until we have a better understanding of what actually exists under the seabed.

    By the way, I heard previous surveys in the Great Southern Basin had found oil or gas. Does anyone have any info on this. If it does exist, what is stopping further exploration/extraction?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  209. Grizz (613 comments) says:

    Here is an interesting article from scoop 5 years ago. It outlines the Labour stance on oil exploration:

    “Bidding opens for oil and gas in Great South Basin
    Monday, 31 July 2006, 2:12 pm
    Press Release: New Zealand Government
    Hon Harry Duynhoven
    Associate Minister of Energy

    1 August 2006 Media Statement

    Opening of bidding round launches race for oil and gas in Great South Basin

    Associate Energy Minister Harry Duynhoven today announced the much anticipated opening of bidding for new petroleum exploration permits in the Great South Basin off the south-eastern coast of Otago and Southland.

    Mr Duynhoven confirmed that forty blocks are being offered for bidding, each approximately 9,000km2 in size.

    “This is perhaps the most exciting development in oil and gas exploration in New Zealand since the discovery of the Maui field almost 40 years ago. The Great South Basin has long been regarded as a region with enormous exploration potential.

    “The Great South Basin is a frontier region where the potential for high reward is matched by high risk in terms of exploration costs and challenging sea and weather conditions. We are therefore offering large blocks that will provide companies with the scope of opportunity needed for the exploration commitment we are seeking,” Mr Duynhoven said.

    The Crown Minerals Group has consulted extensively with exploration companies around the world to establish bidding terms that will attract the best possible bids.

    “Using funding established as part of the Government’s 2004 exploration initiatives, Crown Minerals conducted a 3,200km seismic survey of the basin in March this year with the data being offered to companies in the lead up to the bidding process.

    “Initial processing of the seismic data has revealed new signs of oil and gas and the size of the basin appears to be far larger and more extensive than previously thought,” Mr Duynhoven said.

    “Although the Great South Basin is a proven petroleum system, it will require several years of exploration before the full potential of the basin is properly understood. We therefore need to attract companies with good technical skill, significant financial capability and the right exploration strategy to provide us with the best chance that the basin can contribute to New Zealand’s energy future.”

    Mr Duynhoven said that a number of the major oil companies have already indicated interest in the region, and in the coming months Crown Minerals will continue promotion of the bidding round in North America, Europe and Asia.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  210. alex Masterley (1,535 comments) says:

    So why is the East Cape area so different from the Great South Basin.
    I know! It is easier to get to from Auckland and not so cold.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  211. publicwatchdog (3,112 comments) says:

    2006 – Pre-BP big fat oil drilling Gulf of Mexico disaster?

    Remind me when either East Coast Iwi or the public got a say before the permit was granted to Petrobras?

    Remind me when National stated in their 2008 pre-election policy that it was their intention to allow deep sea oil drilling – so that the public could ‘cast an informed vote’ on this issue?

    Got any links to any ‘black and white’ which proves the above actually happened?

    Oh dear – if not – I guess it’s another OIA to (shonky?) Prime Minister / (not so ‘ex’) ‘corporate’ raider John Key?

    Come on my little pet goldfish!

    Bubble, bubble (try your best to :) make some trouble!

    (Willie Shakespeare – move over – whaddya reckon? ;)

    Penny Bright
    http://waterpressure.wordpress.com

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  212. Kris K (3,570 comments) says:

    In related news:

    Kaipara Harbour Turbines – More Subversives who Should Be Jailed

    There are a lot of people who have put a lot of money into the venture to generate electricity by means of tidal turbines in the Kaipara harbour. They invested that money in the project on the unspoken undertaking that their venture would be protected by the laws of New Zealand.

    Once again we have separatist and communist groups and assorted hangers on threatening breaches of law by interfering with this project and apparently the Police will not enforce laws to prevent it. The developers putting their money into this project have been through an exhaustive FOUR YEAR process to prove their plan is OK with environmental regulations. They have agreed to halt the project and remove their turbines from the harbour if there are any damaging effects. The project is subject to constant review by environmental authorities. The project should therefore go ahead and be protected from saboteurs and vandals and subversives by NZ law when it does. [continues]

    Hat tip: TrublueNZ

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  213. Rodders (1,756 comments) says:

    Hat tip : http://www.linkwhore.co.nz

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  214. RightNow (7,014 comments) says:

    Spondred

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  215. Rodders (1,756 comments) says:

    I just couldn’t resist ;)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  216. Luc Hansen (4,573 comments) says:

    I see I government has taken a leaf out of the Israeli Handbook on Avoiding International Law by seeking a declaration from the Crown Law office that “suggests” NZ Police may have jurisdiction in the area under survey.

    Isn’t it nice having such a compliant branch of the government?

    I would imagine Greenpeace would be happy to see this tested in Court, if the cops have the balls to arrest anyone.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  217. bhudson (4,741 comments) says:

    Luc,

    So what exactly, pray tell, is the problem with NZ asserting its jurisdiction within our Exclusive Economic Zone? What would be the use of an EEZ designation if you had no rights over it?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  218. black paul (120 comments) says:

    This thread is pretty funny. Quite a lot of “HEY THEY BURNED SOME OIL TOO!!” going on.

    Well yeah, do you reckon the protesters might like to see less fossil fuels being used? And do you reckon that they might calculate that allowing deepwater drilling will mean a greater volume of oil being used than their (mostly sail powered) boats use during the protest? Pretty basic maths, guys.

    The other one that cracks me up is “FASCISTS! ECOFASCISTS!!”

    Right, so the state gets in bed with the corporates in a non-consultative fashion and the people OPPOSING the deal are fascists? ok…

    Still, I shouldn’t expect much when David kicks off with “Don’t speak for all of New Zealand please.” You might want to have a look at the name of your website David. It sure as hell doesn’t represent much to do with Kiwis.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  219. Luc Hansen (4,573 comments) says:

    bhudson

    Take a look at the link provided in the very first comment on this post and argue with them.

    While I’m here

    DPF: I have the right to cross a road. I don’t have the right to block it.]

    First, the protesters are not on a road. As you will see if you did look at the Pundit link, humans are not ships.

    Second, blocking a road is in the civil disobedience textbook. I used to do it when protesting the Vietnam war.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  220. bhudson (4,741 comments) says:

    Luc,

    The Andrew Geddis piece does not claim that the Police have no jurisdiction – it merely provides an opinion that Andrew cannot determine under which statute and provision the Police might take action. That will be shown when and if they take further action.

    But you didn’t answer my question. I didn’t ask under which statute they might enforce action on the protesters, but what exactly is the issue with NZ claiming jurisdiction over our EEZ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  221. Luc Hansen (4,573 comments) says:

    bhudson

    I think you will find that, in international law, economic zone rights are a different beast to law within one’s sovereign territory.

    I generally dislike hypothetical examples, but take the case of the Arctic Ocean with overlapping economic zone rights of numerous countries. Say one country has more liberal sovereign laws than the others. Who wins?

    In fact, in the case of mineral rights, for example, it is settled, so far, by negotiation. This tells me that we have no automatic police jurisdiction over the EEZ, but I’m willing to listen to informed comment.

    As I said, the report said the Crown Law office only “suggested” jurisdiction “may” exist.

    I doubt that, as does Greenpeace.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  222. bhudson (4,741 comments) says:

    As I said, the report said the Crown Law office only “suggested” jurisdiction “may” exist.

    I doubt that, as does Greenpeace.

    Which suggests, Luc, that you have missed the point.

    I think you will find that, in international law, economic zone rights are a different beast to law within one’s sovereign territory.

    I think what you will find, if you happen to look into it Luc, is that the rights, and particularly the extent of what you might refer to as “sovereign rights” are either undefined, or incompletely so. Hence why NZ is taking the position that those rights extend in full.

    It’s very difficult to win back position if you cede it right at the beginning (be it a negotiation or hearing.) Which was the point in the first place Luc – that is why NZ has claimed our police jurisdiction extends to our EEZ.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  223. SPC (5,664 comments) says:

    The best investment one can make with scarce carbon resources is not to use them – they are certain to increase in value over time. Greenpeace are not economic illiterates. The environment problem is extent of use (greenhhouse gas buildup has Kyoto liability consequences) and environment pollution risk. Something that ticks both boxes and increases the value of any asset left in the ground while the rest is sorted is not to our longer term disadvantage.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  224. bhudson (4,741 comments) says:

    SPC,

    You argument glosses over the opportunity costs of not exploiting a resource with tangible and significant value right now. The venture offers not only royalty revenues to the govt, but also employment opportunities and stability for the communities the labour would be drawn from. That employment also provides further spin off benefits to the domestic economy through the spending (or saving/investments) of those employees, along with both income and consumption tax revenues.

    This at a time when we are having to borrow large amounts in order to try to deliver economic stimulii while not cutting social services and the social programme. On top of that there is also a large city and surrounding region to rebuild and restore after a major local disaster.

    That the Green’s seem unable to fathom this and appreciate that points to economic illiteracy (or even idiocy)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  225. tom hunter (5,134 comments) says:

    The best investment one can make with scarce carbon resources is not to use them – they are certain to increase in value over time.

    Of course the question then arises as to what level of value the resource would have to rise to for environmentalists to approve its extraction and use? Oil at $100 per barrel is obviously not sufficient, so what would the price have to be: $200, $400?

    There’s also the problem that – since the intention of Greens the world over is to drastically reduce or even eliminate fossil fuel usage, it would lead to much lower prices for such resources. The result would be a 2050 version of SPC arguing that the oil should not be extracted because the vastly reduced demand makes it not worth the effort.

    Greenpeace are not economic illiterates.

    This is just one example that they are, but it’s beside the point. This is merely a cute political tactic: delay rather than outright opposition.

    Meantime other countries will get richer by doing the exact opposite, re the WSJ quote above about Brazil:

    Brazil has gone from importing 77% of its oil from foreign sources in 1980 to importing no oil by 2009. A great success story in conservation and alternative energy? Not really. Total Brazilian oil consumption still more than doubled. The biggest factor is that Brazil increased its domestic oil production over the last two decades by 876% (not a typo). Most of that production has come from offshore exploration.

    Perhaps some on the left would like to calculate the $100’s of billions of dollars Brazil is thus able to spend on other things, money both earned from oil exports and saved from not having to import oil. It’s not often you get such a double win.

    That’s economic literacy.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  226. Luc Hansen (4,573 comments) says:

    bhudson

    Greenpeace is currently seeking advice from Geneva on the very point we are discussing, so I suggest we await developments.

    Tom Hunter mentions Brazil’s exploitation of its oil resources. Brazil is a johnny-come-lately in terms of carbon emissions, and the fairest method I have seen devised for a process of reduction of fossil fuel use is “contraction and convergence” where the contraction is from the countries that have benefited the most from past emissions, while the developing nations (mainly, former European colonies raped by empires past) still use fossil fuel energy to enable them to improve their living standards, but eventually we all reach a similar level. Brazil was one of the countries most upset by the Copenhagen failure.

    However, that aside, in pure economic terms, as Rod Oram pointed out (maybe he read my posts on here :-) ) the world is changing and by the time these long term plans, such as our deep sea oil and Southland’s lignite coal) are ready to actually produce, not only will there not be a market for them, but there will most probably be internationally sanctioned restrictions on the sale of this energy source.

    And it’s a bit nonsensical to suggest that a dwindling and ultimately finite resource will become cheaper as a result of this. There will be oil and gas used for quite some time yet, but it be used more sparingly and it will become much, much more expensive, not the reverse.

    There is another point, which is that oil and gas are not the worst problem; coal is. If we can reduce coal use quickly, we have a wider window in which to scale back oil and gas use.

    A lot is going to happen in the next 10 years.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  227. Ritchie (3 comments) says:

    Fucking green peace are up to their usual crap, headline grabbing that is. Wonder if they see any “groundswells” (a favourite term for rent-a-mob) out there? Next thing they’ll be telling us wots-his-name Bethune is a hero!!??
    Anyway, I need oil, how else can I run my 3 cars (and ones a V8!!), diesel truck, 2 large m’bikes and a lawn mower, not with wind (unless the blowhards at greepeace can generate enough) or fucking sunshine.
    Same old crap, different “protest”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  228. SPC (5,664 comments) says:

    tom, I suspect that one of the factors driving up the value of the Brazilian currency is the move to local oil supply (similar things happen to countries exporting carbon resources) and there has been a significant rise in cheap imports replacing domestic production of goods.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote