The Press on Rena
October 10th, 2011 at 4:00 pm by David FarrarThe Press editorial:
As might have been expected, the Green Party has jumped on this incident to advance its campaign against exploration for oil in deep waters off New Zealand. This is just political opportunism. There can be no comparison between a properly run deep-sea drilling operation, far offshore and subject to rigorous environmental safeguards, and an accident in which a ship has hit a well-charted reef a few hundred metres off the coast. As the Prime Minister said, the only connection is that both are at sea.
How it hit such a well charted reef is yet to be determined. Hopefully there will be some accountability for what has happened.
October 10th, 2011 at 4:08 pm
Silly Phil says the government should have cleaned it up (all by themselves?) four days ago and now it is turning into the worst maritime disaster in NZ history and it’s all their fault!
He’s more than old enough to remember the ferry on Barretts Reef. Didn’t one or two die?
Now await the heart-rending photos of oil-drenched penguins. Why do these things always turn into cliches?
Vote:October 10th, 2011 at 4:09 pm
water melons
Vote:October 10th, 2011 at 4:16 pm
This is of course the same Green Party that promoted more coastal shipping as part of its supposedly “smart” transport policy that was designed to get freight off the roads and onto ships and trains. They can’t have it both ways – either they hate ships or they like them.
From the Greens’ website…
6. Coastal Shipping
Vote:Coastal shipping is one of the most energy-efficient means of transporting freight. It uses roughly half the energy of rail and one eighth of the energy of road transport. The domestic shipping industry in New Zealand has stabilised at a low level after a period of decline that spanned several decades, although shipping still carries a reasonable volume of domestic freight. The Green Party believes New Zealand needs a sustainable domestic shipping industry that is competitive and uses best practice …
October 10th, 2011 at 4:21 pm
Goff is engaging in gutter level political opportunism at its worst. I guess we cannot blame him too much, given that his own party is so embarrassed by him that they will not have his face on their billboards.
Vote:October 10th, 2011 at 4:21 pm
Its more about the effects of large quantities of oil washing up on shore, the Deepwater BP rig was properly run, and there was still a spill. You can’t account for human error.
Vote:October 10th, 2011 at 4:29 pm
Phil seems to have a very short memory, the Mikhail Lermontov sank under similar circumstances, hitting a well documented hazard, while he was a minister in 1986.
Vote:October 10th, 2011 at 4:31 pm
More of the Greens “Lets go back to the Dark Ages” policy. And Phil showing his desperation as his end (26 Nov) draws nigh.
Vote:October 10th, 2011 at 4:36 pm
There are claims the crew were regularly drunk — and, this will be a question that will be asked in the inevitable investigation.
Sent the kids down to collect some globs of oil as a souvenir —but, they were chased off by a bunch of people in white boiler suits
The beach clean up response seems quite well organised.
Vote:October 10th, 2011 at 4:38 pm
Auberon- Well said. Hypocrites of the highest order….
Vote:October 10th, 2011 at 4:43 pm
I dont believe National has reversed Labour’s diversion of road user charges to subsidise coastal shipping, just another example of Labour lite.
Vote:October 10th, 2011 at 4:49 pm
TAIC and MSA are investigating the casualty.
TAIC focus’s upon lessons to be learnt, whilst MSA focus’s on causation and liablity.
The master, whoever was in charge on the bridge at the time of the casualty and the look out will be sweating as there may well be prosecutions under the Maritime Transport Act at the very least.
Additionaly the owners of the vessel will have laiblity issues for the damage caused by the bunker oil discharged from it.
And then there are the insurance claims made by those with cargo of the vessel.
The numbers will be well north of $50 million.
Vote:October 10th, 2011 at 5:13 pm
I was braced for the “We told you so’s” about the gas drilling, and I’m sure they will coming shrill and irrational.
Vote:That said, you would have thought a government trying to sell hydrocarbon exploration off the coast would have been a bit faster off the mark with floating booms as damage control, given their claims that emergency systems like that were there waiting.
October 10th, 2011 at 5:16 pm
The PM is grasping at straws here.
One obvious connection is that both have the potential to cause massive amounts of oil to devastate the marine and coastal environment.
Another obvious connection is that New Zealand is clearly terribly underprepared to deal with any significant maritime oil spill, whatever the source. That it took almost 5 days before any oil at all was taken off the Rena is evidence enough of that.
Vote:October 10th, 2011 at 5:24 pm
@Auberon 4:16 pm
And it is. But when it involves a rust bucket with massive deficiencies crewed by slave-wage workers, it is a disaster waiting to happen. The Maritime Union has information that suggests Maritime NZ inspected the Reno on September 28 and found:
Deficiencies in charts, FFS, as well as the rest of it. How the hell is a vessel able to go to sea in that state. Another failure of neo-lib deregulation.
Vote:October 10th, 2011 at 5:26 pm
> Goff is engaging in gutter level political opportunism at its worst.
Look on the bright side, Lee. I doubt Goff would ever blame his opposite when a guy tries to harm himself in the debating chamber. That is lower than a snake’s belly.
Vote:October 10th, 2011 at 5:26 pm
Slight difference, Toad.
A shipwreck can happen anywhere off an extensive coastline and it is totally impractical to have facilities immediately available by the shortest most practical route. The situation is slightly different with Marine exploration where any consent can insist on satisfactory preventative measures being immediately available.
Vote:October 10th, 2011 at 5:32 pm
“There can be no comparison between a properly run deep-sea drilling operation, far offshore and subject to rigorous safeguards, and an accident in which a ship has hit a well-charted reef a few hundred metres off the coast. As the Prime Minister said, the only connection is that both are at sea.”
I’m sure a week ago, the prime minister would have assured us that ships in NZ waters were also ‘subject to rigorous environmental safeguards”. Maybe Key doesn’t see a similarity between an operation that suffers an unexpected accident that dumps lots of oil in the sea, and an operation that has the potential to suffer an unexpected accident that dumps a lot of oil in the sea, but most people can make that link pretty easily.
Vote:October 10th, 2011 at 5:47 pm
@alex Masterley 4:49 pm
At the moment I don’t give a shit about who is responsible for paying for it. What I care about is that it is already causing devastation to the Bay of Plenty marine, coastal and likely esturine environment, and that adequate safeguards should have been in place to firstly prevent it from happening and, secondly, if it were to happen, mitigate it before the environmental devastation occurred.
FAIL, all round, for both National and Labour on that – 25 years of policy failure that focuses only on who pays for it when it goes wrong. No amount of money from insurers will bring back the fish, seabirds, and other marine creatures that are dying because of this. Can’t you ne-libs get your heads around things other than the $$$$$ being important?
Vote:October 10th, 2011 at 5:49 pm
@Nookin
Exactly!
The problem with the Greens’ (gee there are so many) is that most of them have never worked/managed/owned in a sector that involves heavy operations. You can’t mitigate against every risk to achieve certain things.
They are out-of-touch with working New Zealand.
Vote:October 10th, 2011 at 5:53 pm
@toad
You are a f***** arrogant arse. Your suggestion that “ne-libs” only care about money is offensive and shows how disconnected you are from people who work, and shows that you have no idea that money pays for things like oil clean up crews, NZDF manpower, Maritime NZ, the EPA, etc etc etc.
Go back to the swamp you amphibious luddite.
Vote:October 10th, 2011 at 5:56 pm
Toad,
“@Auberon 4:16 pm so [coastal shipping] is [Green Party policy]. But when it involves a rust bucket with massive deficiencies crewed by slave-wage workers, it is a disaster waiting to happen.”
But you can make exactly the same point about oil exploration, can’t you. If you advocate well regulated coastal traffic then there can be no objection to a similarly well regulated oil industry.
So the Green Party was indeed being its usual shameless hypocritical self when it dishonestly tried to make political capital from this accident.
Vote:October 10th, 2011 at 5:57 pm
@Sam Buchanan
In case you hadn’t realised. In most cities there is a petrol station every 15 blocks. Some moron tanker driver could drive his truck off the road, spill the load, shit, could even cause a massive fire…
Are you suggesting we get rid of petrol stations?
Vote:October 10th, 2011 at 6:00 pm
Anyway, National’s going to win the election so have fun enjoying another three years of opposition.
Vote:October 10th, 2011 at 6:09 pm
Massive over reaction – even if all the oil ends up in the sea on the scale of oil spills that have happened it would be a very small one.
And the environment has always recovered quite quickly even after the largest ones.
Vote:October 10th, 2011 at 6:10 pm
I happen to agree with PART of toads 5.24pm…..this part “when it involves a rust bucket with massive deficiencies crewed by slave-wage workers, it is a disaster waiting to happen.”….
By allowing floating garbage tins access to our waters a disaster similar to this was bound to happen sooner or later. At least this will be addressed by the authorities & hopefully lessons learned. The cleanup will probably be successful & in time nature will heal the damage.
I would like to know who is going to pay for the cleanup since the taxpayers with bottomless pockets usually end up screwed one way or the other. Given that the ship is supposedly managed by Greek interests this could set off alarm bells over their ability to pay. How much insurance do they have? More importantly have they paid the premiums?
These are the questions I would like answers to.
Vote:October 10th, 2011 at 6:10 pm
Another thing to ponder
Oh no! It’s an ecological catastrophe
Vote:October 10th, 2011 at 6:22 pm
@wat dabney 5:56 pm
The Greens are not advocating no off-shore oil drilling ever. They are advocating a moratorium on it until there are adequate safeguards in place and an end to providing subsidised (free) geotechnical information to oil companies.
Given that we do not even have the local resources to contain the heavy fuel oil from a stranded cargo ship, it is clear we would suffer horrendous environmental and economic consequences if a deep water oil well were to develop a leak.
Vote:October 10th, 2011 at 6:25 pm
Toad, the PM should have said
‘and all three are at sea.’
Oil exploration, coastal shipping AND the Greens
Vote:October 10th, 2011 at 6:32 pm
If Toad thinks Greens could do a better job of introducing laws protecting us from oil spills best they get their Green arses into power and stop hiding and waffeling on at others expense.
Personally from what I have seen of this massive oil slick there is worse polution left every year by German backpackers in Abel Tasman National Park.
Vote:October 10th, 2011 at 6:37 pm
I find myself in the unusual position of having sympathy for the Greens here. This is probably not going to be a major environmental disaster. Even if some fuel oil leaks, this isn’t an oil tanker so any damage will probably be relatively small in the long run.
However – there is a tendency in NZ for Governments (not just the current one) to say that we have rigorous safety standards, this kind of thing could never happen here, etc – whether it is true or not. Actually, we either don’t have those standards, or if we do, they are not enforced. If you think back to disasters like Cave Creek, or more recently the Pike River Mine, or the Rena grounding, the response is always one of stunned amazement that something like that can happen here, followed by an inquiry that reveals that corners were cut usually because of a lack of money.
That’s what makes me worry about deep sea oil exploration. If we can’t keep a coal mine on solid land safe from explosions, etc, how on earth are we going to ensure we don’t get problems out at sea in a far more challenging environment?
Vote:October 10th, 2011 at 6:41 pm
Toad,
“The Greens are not advocating no off-shore oil drilling ever. They are advocating a moratorium on it until there are adequate safeguards in place and an end to providing subsidised (free) geotechnical information to oil companies.”
Of course the day will never come when the Greens advocate lifting such a moratorium, though they’ll quite happily drive their cars and fly in planes using oil imported from countries which have far lower industry regulation than would apply in NZ.
You don’t mind despoiling Africa, eh. Whilst at the same time making a very comfortable living from a hypocritical and self-serving campaign to prevent a world-class industry from drilling in NZ waters.
And free information to oil companies? So what? It’s a loss leader with the aim of raking in many thousands of times that amount after luring companies here by reducing their risk.
“Given that we do not even have the local resources to contain the heavy fuel oil from a stranded cargo ship, it is clear we would suffer horrendous environmental and economic consequences if a deep water oil well were to develop a leak.”
There’s nothing “clear” about it. You’re complaining that a remote part of the world where there is no oil industry doesn’t have a fleet of specialist boats standing by in case a non-existent rig has a leak.
Vote:October 10th, 2011 at 6:42 pm
It is easy to rant hysterically from the side-lines like the usual suspects here.
“The Greens are not advocating no off-shore oil drilling ever. They are advocating a moratorium on it until there are adequate safeguards in place and an end to providing subsidised (free) geotechnical information to oil companies.”
Yeah right.
Vote:Talk is cheap (And what are the “adequate safeguards”?)
They can (and do) say and promise anything because they know that they will NEVER be held accountable EVER for any of their unrealistic, over the top promises and ‘policies’ because they will NEVER be in the position to govern.
October 10th, 2011 at 6:44 pm
Nick R – SHIT HAPPENS.
If you engage in any activity there is always a risk that something will go wrong. It is the human condition.
What we do is try and identify the risks and mitigate them. But unless you want to curl yourself up int a ball and die you have to live with some levels of risk.
Coal mines will explode from time to time, ships will run aground, planes will crash from now til doomsday – we can make these things rarer but we can’t eliminate them
Vote:October 10th, 2011 at 7:16 pm
Put it in the too hard basket ,like Pike River CHCH, debating before the election ETC ETC,and anyway the PM choses to holiday overseas not at the mount where plebe might have sun bathed but not with oil on the sand. The plastic smiling smarly hollow man will be heading towards the USA and his holiday home(but not in NZ) like the average plebe but towards his masters homeland, the USA
Vote:October 10th, 2011 at 7:30 pm
@plebe
Now that is a typical gramscian analysis of the situation complete with sideswipes at the ‘wealthy’ and the ‘evil Americans’.
Vote:Another Alinskian progressive Greenie, far removed from reality?
October 10th, 2011 at 7:33 pm
I don’t think it was rust or 150 year old charts that caused the problem. Look to the bridge:
Vote:http://briefingroom.typepad.com/the_briefing_room/2011/10/breaking-news-confirmed-rena-nearly-hit-oil-tanker.html
October 10th, 2011 at 7:33 pm
@Andrei 6:44 pm
For once I agree with you. Problem is with this, as well as with leaky homes and coal mining, we are not mitigating the risk, but ignoring it in the name of political ideology.
If we were genuinely mitigating the risk of an oil spill from a ship that runs aground, we should have had the capacity to get a tanker there to start offloading the oil within 24 hours. We did not – it took five days.
Vote:October 10th, 2011 at 7:35 pm
The sooner its all ashore the better. As long as the water temp remains cool its appears to be easy to pick up and dispose of.
Summers coming and we want it cleared out of the way before the weather turns nice and we want to go watch all the beautiful, lithe slim young things on the beech wearing little but a couple of strings. Roll up oil and roll on summer.
All you other jealous buggers can come and check these sights out about Xmas time.
and just to show its not just low paid and rust buckets that hit reefs and islands here in the BOP this happened Sunday.
Gamefisher runs aground on Motiti
http://www.sunlive.co.nz/news/17235-gamefisher-runs-aground-on-motiti.html
Just about spitting distance apart.
And while others were studying their desk tops here what some of the locals are doing. No doubt some bone head will come along and want to prosecute then for caring etc.
Vote:Good example of how the powers that be are unable to harness people power for the community benefit. Free labour versus paid and so on.
http://www.sunlive.co.nz/news/17252-beach-love-tests-official-response.html
October 10th, 2011 at 7:39 pm
Ian Wishart
Thanks for that. The question must be asked….how the hell did these clowns make it to New Zealand?
Vote:October 10th, 2011 at 7:41 pm
@plebe
Up your dose – or lower it, buddy.
Vote:October 10th, 2011 at 7:49 pm
@Nasska…I understand they were aiming for the North Pole and missed.
Vote:October 10th, 2011 at 7:50 pm
GPS assisted grounding?
Its to easy to rely on modern technology like GPS plotters, radar and AIS.
MK one eyeball and the human brain still beats machines for safe navigation.
Vote:October 10th, 2011 at 7:57 pm
I had a Navman unit instruct me to drive through a 50 year old Macrocarpa once. Something about paper roads.
Vote:October 10th, 2011 at 8:06 pm
The only scum that Labour can dredge up is in their party. Cheap political shots by tossers.
Vote:October 10th, 2011 at 8:07 pm
The Greens are just bloody insane with this response. I actually support at lot of green ideas but they do have a bat shit crazy element to them that just makes me scared. I have blogged MV Rena including Goff’s stupidity tonight. A ship grounding is no different to a car crash from the point of view of a bureaucracy they respond in a pre-set way. We are still in response and that will change but this is not an issue to make political mileage, Goff might gain a few votes today but hell when the truth comes out Key will maintain votes. Guess I just officially joined VRWNLLWC.
As a voter who has always voted for the center left I guess the most effective thing I can do is destroy my ballot or vote for the Maori party.
Vote:October 10th, 2011 at 8:17 pm
@Ian
Vote:What institute did the captain and the officers get their ticket from?
In the future:
Treat all ships registered with that company (or even all ships flying that flag) or ships with crewmembers with those dubious qualifications as suspect.
Insist they have a New Zealand Pilot on board (At their cost) whenever they are sailing in New Zealand waters.
October 10th, 2011 at 8:17 pm
BeaB said
Quite so BeaB; 51 people perished when the Wahine hit Barrett’s Reef in Wellington Harbour on 10 April 1968. I’m younger than Phil Goff, but I remember the storm and the tragedy vividly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahine_disaster
That WAS a disaster. But “disaster” is a word that’s chucked around far too loosely. The Christchurch earthquake in February was a disaster, as were the Air NZ crash on Mt Erebus, and the Pike River mine explosion. Disasters involve loss of human life on a large scale IMHO. This is a nasty situation, but the death of a few birds doesn’t compare to the loss of human life, irrespective of what the Greens might say. And Phil Goff’s reaction is naked political opportunism at its most base.
Vote:October 10th, 2011 at 8:18 pm
Is the head of Maritime NZ a Pom or a South African? Has he offered to step down? What happened in Bluff? Not much by the sounds of things.
Vote:October 10th, 2011 at 8:45 pm
@other Andy
Vote:Realise I am not the Iain you are commenting to but you have raised a very good point. They were outside pilotage, but I have to say that qualifications need reviewed across the maritime industry, I can skipper ( drive ) a commercial ( and do under supervision ) boat but have no formal qualifications so can not under NZ law skipper a boat. Our rules are very tough as they should be the international rules are meant to be even tighter, clearly they are not when it allows boats to entre our territorial water.
October 10th, 2011 at 8:56 pm
Forgotten the Mikhail Lermontov, Other_Andy?
As I recall it was a New Zealand Pilot from Picton who steered it into the rocks.
Vote:October 10th, 2011 at 9:00 pm
@IHStewart 8:07 pm
Accepted, but everyone knew from very early on that it was carrying a significant quantity of oil which was at serious risk of leaking. So why the hell did it take the best part of 5 days to get a tanker capable of offloading that oil to the scene? It’s “how the bureacracy responds” is not a good enough excuse. Sure, the safety issues needed to be assessed before offloading could commence, but surely the priority should have been to get a vessel there asap that was capable of offloading the oil while those safety issues were being assessed.
Bureaucracy FAIL imo.
Vote:October 10th, 2011 at 9:02 pm
@Andrei
You’re right…
Vote:Forgot about that one.
October 10th, 2011 at 9:26 pm
Hi Toad I think you ask good questions I indeed asked them in my blogs on the issue but I had not looked at the personnel issues or the unloading of fuel inventory. If you are arguing for not drilling in NZ waters then you are in my opinion mad. Sorry we need to take advantage of those resources and make New Zealand a richer place. If you are saying we need better rules regarding navigation of ships well yes and no. Yes we need better rules but that is in electronics, but they are useless without proper training. Trust me it will be asleep on the job or pissed or…I can’t read charts’.
Vote:October 10th, 2011 at 9:28 pm
Toad really has turned up a lot here hasn’t it?
Not going down well then, the fake anguish, the deep concern, and the whoops own goal that is now desperately trying to change the subject from the Greens typically stupid ludditism.
Hint. The ship was going around ports in NZ to pick up cargo
Therefore Greens were for coastal shipping before they were against it.
The ship hit a reef 20kms offshore and way way off track, but somehow this requres a ban on offshore oil exploration.
All the rest of the predictable bullshit has been toad trying to walk back the green’s stupidity. I guess its up there with “gimme my flag back” in the new super mature and responsible approach to economic progress.
Another hint for toad on its latest pretend concern. What is a significant quantity of oil? Is it any different from the quantity that any other ocean going container vessel would carry? should all container vessels be accompanied by oil spill crews and spare tankers in case they hit a reef?
Turning to the fake outrage about the response. How fast do tankers go? Where was it? What was already in it that needed to be offloaded? How fast could it reasonably get there? what kit needed to be loaded on board?
Are you really claiming that this was a slow response? Compared to what? the voices in your head?
Of course Greens are always experts, after the fact.
I am pleased that Toad hates bureacracy though, there was me thinking that the Greens supported selfless public servants. Something to remember all you Wellington Central Voters, the Greens despise you.
Vote:October 10th, 2011 at 10:00 pm
@toad
“Bureaucracy FAIL imo.”
And yet the Greens rally for more bureaucracy to make things better/safer/cheaper/fairer/etc.
Here’s a scenario I think we should consider. What say that as well as nationalising the rail, we nationalised off-shore shipping too? And then, as has been the case with the hydro stations in the 2000s the owner (because it wanted juicy dividends to bribe voters) didn’t do the maintenance/upgrades it should have (note Mighty River and Genesis are doing extra work to make up for stuff not done in the 2000s) the ships aren’t properly maintained. And boom, one crashes. Do we really think, especially under a Labour/Green govt (not that one of those has even existed) the response would be apolitical and rapid and we would get a proper review of what happened.
Doubt it.
Things aren’t perfect. But they’re a shitload better than they would be if baby-faced know-nothing 29 year-old MPs were in charge.
Vote:October 10th, 2011 at 10:06 pm
That reminds me, our old friend Charles Chauvel was the Deputy Chair of Meridian before he was an MP – and they chundered money into the coffers, but didn’t properly maintain Tekapo A&B. So the next time Goff and Labour get teary-eyed about the hydro-dams getting poor treatment and bad maintenance, and power prices going up… just remember that they are bloody liars.
Vote:October 10th, 2011 at 10:11 pm
IV2 well said. Some people get it some do not.
Vote:October 10th, 2011 at 10:16 pm
@toad
Before I go to bed can I ask you a question?
Why do you use photos on your hoardings/billboards with kids and nice scenery which is largely emotional but says nothing about your actual policies?
Is it because you know that people can be manipulated by these things or is it because the new voters that will get you to 7,8,9,10% wouldn’t actually like most of your policies so it’s best not to talk about them? Or is it both?
And then how do you square this electioneering approach with your apparent belief in democracy, dialogue, and the other shit you guys pretend to believe in regarding participation in politics?
Have you got to the stage where you wake up at night now and realised that you’re just a politician and not that righteous eco-warriors you fashion yourself as when you’re having a pint at Matterhorn or Mighty Mighty?
Vote:October 10th, 2011 at 10:26 pm
Deficiencies in charts, FFS, as well as the rest of it. How the hell is a vessel able to go to sea in that state. Another failure of neo-lib deregulation.
Um, “the rest of it” could mean nothing at all. All you’ve done is made/quoted a list off stuff on the ship that apparently didn’t meet standards. That could mean anything from “almost rusted through” to “not painted the right colour”. You could have a car go for a WOF for example, and the inspector fail the tires, but that does not mean they’re about to fall off at the next corner.
It seems there was a problem with the ships charts. Sure, one that was so minor that they were happy to order a new set and deliver them to the next port. They were clearly not so incomplete as to cause an immediate concern.
Vote:October 11th, 2011 at 9:14 am
So I am still asking ”What happened in Bluff??”
Vote:Were they given a bunch of roses or some pineapple lumps?
How long till we hear the heads roll in the bucket??..on that’s right , we are in NZ , NOONE is ever responsible…pathetic.
October 11th, 2011 at 10:56 am
I would advise the Territorial Authorities including the local Iwi to seize the vessel and arrest the crew pending an investigation. All items aboard the vessel will be forfeited if fault is found on behalf of the owner and operators of the vessel.
Vote: