Excellent news

June 23rd, 2012 at 2:00 pm by David Farrar

The Herald reports:

A High Court bid by Greenpeace and a Maori tribe to quash a permit granted to Brazilian giant Petrobras for exploration off the East Coast has been thrown out.

The applicants claimed the Government failed to meet environmental and consultation obligations under the Crown Minerals Act, Treaty of Waitangi obligations and international law.

Justice Warwick Gendall said their claims for judicial review failed on all counts. Not only that, he said that if he had found an error of law in the process he would have taken the rare step of not granting relief.

In effect, he is saying he would not have overturned the permit because of the time delay in the applicants’ issuing proceedings.

The challenge was not made until 15 months after the permit had been granted, by which time Petrobras had spent at least $8 million, and the time between the notification of the relevant block on offer and the challenge was two years nine months.

It is good the court found there were no merits to the claims, but also noted the extreme bad faith in filing so late in the piece.

Some environmental groups was to ban anything that has any environmental risk. Mining, fracking, drilling – ban it all. That is a route to poverty. Have a look at Australia. GDP growth in Western Australia is something like a staggering 16%, while in some of the large states, they are actually in recession. You can’t criticise the Government for the growing gap with Australia, and oppose the industries which are generating the wealth in Australia.

Of course risk to the should be mitigated and minimised. But it can never be eliminated.

Tags: ,

68 Responses to “Excellent news”

  1. David Garrett (5,134 comments) says:

    A good decision, but I fear it may be a flash in the pan. We have now grovelled to Maori groups so comprehensively and for so long that it has become expected that the government will “consult” over absolutely everything with its “treaty partner.” I would not be surprised if another less clear headed Judge failed to follow this decision in similar circumstances.

    I find it quite amusing that “Maori” – whoever that word might encompass – are now supposedly so opposed to offshore oil exploration. I recall two occasions working offshore Taranaki where prior to spud in, Kaumatua came out to “bless” the rig and wish it success. In the case of the SEDCO 600 which drilled its first ever well here, the rig super was also presented with a nice carving to hang in the mess.

    A cynic might say that the pleasant gentlemen came out that day merely for the chopper ride and a nice lunch, but I prefer to believe they genuinely wished us well in our endeavours. Now, 25 years later, elements in “Maoridom” – another stupid word – realise there is money to be had in making a fuss if there is insufficient “consultation.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. wat dabney (3,461 comments) says:

    Surely Greenpeace currently has enough on its plate at the moment with the Rio conference, planning how to kill millions more black people?

    Rick Moraco (climatedepot.com) says of Rio: “Failure here is good for the world’s poor people. Failure is the only option for this conference if you care about the environment and poor people. Carbon based energy has been one of the greatest liberators of mankind in the history of our planet.

    James Lovelock, the father of the modern green movement says “sustainable development” is “meaningless drivel”.

    I will go further and say we need to redefine sustainable development as oil, gas, coal — energy that works and energy that lifts people out of poverty.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. edd (145 comments) says:

    Where’s the public private partneship here? What bargen basement royalties are we accepting from these forigeners? It’s no wonder NZ’s consumer economy is standing still. It’s a multi-national free for all.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. wat dabney (3,461 comments) says:

    You mean apart from possibly billions of dollars invested, good salararies paid, local rates paid and taxes paid?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. krazykiwi (9,188 comments) says:

    edd, I suspect we’re charging the maximum royalties we can to allow the investor to regard their venture as economic. The reason our economy is standing still is that we waste billion of dollars every year sustaining a bloated state which prioritises spending my money to get the incumbant – of any leaning – re-elected.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. trout (865 comments) says:

    Perhaps spelling ability is an indicator of IQ after all.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    “..What bargen basement royalties are we accepting from these forigeners?..”

    a pitifully low royalty..one of the lowest in the world..

    ..a deal negotiated by that master of the universe..gerry brownlee..

    ..by crikey..!..he showed them..eh.?

    ..what stupid/peasant/fucken mugs we are…eh..?

    ..any of you economic-geniuses on the right care to explain the economic-sense in that…?

    ..for us lesser mortals…who are just gobsmacked by that pitifully low rate..should they find the oil..

    ..this bunch of clowns has sold us out well before the first drill bites…

    ..philip ure whoar.co.nz

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    “..krazykiwi (8,038) Says:
    June 23rd, 2012 at 3:19 pm

    edd, I suspect ..”

    kk proving once again just what he/she dosen’t know….

    ..virtually everything this clown says is just ideologically-stained orifice-plucks…’suspicions’…

    ..phillip ure whoar.co.nz

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. krazykiwi (9,188 comments) says:

    kk proving once again just what he/she doesn’t know….

    philu proving once again that after 8000 posts he doesn’t know that I am a male.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. David Garrett (5,134 comments) says:

    Royalty rates (and ours are NOT the lowest in the world, but then who would believe the village idiot) are arrived at by considering a number of factors including: 1) the prospectivity of the area [has oil been found there in commercial quantities before? or even in sub commercial quantities?]; 2) the technical difficulty of drilling in the area; 3) the distance and therefore cost of mobilizing a semi submersible or drillship to drill a well or wells here; 4) the likely level of recovery if there should be a commercial discovery [i.e how much oil is likely to be there?] 4) the likely costs and regulatory difficulties in drilling production wells etc.etc.

    Offshore east coast New Zealand is completely unexplored – at least in the area concerned. There are only two offshore wells in the whole east coast basin, the last of them drilled exactly 20 years ago, the other twenty years before that. And that gives a major clue – unless it is attractive to come way down here and drill a well or two, explorers will simply go somewhere easier. There are proven sedimentary basins all over the world.

    In addition to what it has already spent, Petrobras will spend another USD20-30 million drilling a well. There are nine chances in ten that it will ALL be wasted, since 9/10 wildcat wells – those drilled in unexplored territory – are dry. But even if it is dry, we will gain immensely in geological knowledge of the area. If the permit is relinquished, all the seismic data, well logs, cuttings analyses, test results (if any) etc. become the property of the government for nothing.

    I say bring it on….offer them the best deal available in the world. It would only take one decent discovery to make New Zealand entirely self sufficient in petroluem AND a net exporter. Nice prospect when it doesn’t cost the New Zealand taxpayer a cent.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Nick K (916 comments) says:

    I hope indemnity costs were awarded against both applicants. Then I hope the Judge multiplied them by 1,000.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Mr_Blobby (91 comments) says:

    David Garrett.
    “A cynic might say that the pleasant gentlemen came out that day merely for the chopper ride and a nice lunch, but I prefer to believe they genuinely wished us well in our endeavours.”
    A friend of mine was involved in something similar. The local somebody came out for the so called blessing. But it was not for a chopper ride and a nice lunch. Serious sums of money had to be paid and the payment had to be in Cash and no receipt was given. This was a multinational corporation having to somehow account for a substantial cash withdrawal without proper paperwork.
    Greenpeace is a nuisance that will piss, fart and go away. Maori have 3 rules 1. Object 2. Object 3. If in doubt refer to rule 1 and 2. Having said that once the appropriate consultation fees have been agreed and paid the problem will go away. The problem is the fees are not fixed and are negotiated on a case by case basis and are subject to change and renegotiation. Different to say a building consent where you know in advance what the fee is and it doesn’t change.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    “..philu proving once again that after 8000 posts he doesn’t know that I am a male…”

    why should i care..to ‘know’..?

    ..you anonymous rightwing trolls all blur into one..

    ..such is the emasculation/dis-empowering of anonymity…

    ..still..yr choice/call..

    ..eh..?

    ..you could always start a trend…

    ..and come out as yrslf..

    ..eh..?

    ..then i might pay a bit closer attention..

    ..’till then..you are but one of a baying/anonymous mob..

    ..eh..?

    ..how can you not be..?

    ..with yr gender the least of anyones’ concerns..

    .phillip ure whoar.co.nz

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. ZenTiger (419 comments) says:

    “Royalty rates are arrived at by considering a number of factors” blah blah blah.

    I think one of those factors appear to be either an inability to charge a fair rate to benefit New Zealand, or perhaps something far more sinister, from stupidity to bribery or naivete. It’s not only the Maori who traded away sovereignty for a few muskets and shiny baubles. Both Labour anad National have a history of this too.

    I’m with Phil U on this one.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. David Garrett (5,134 comments) says:

    And as for the enviromental risks, yes, they are significant in such deep water. But as DPF says while they can never be eliminated, they can be mimimized. One thing oil companies understand is MONEY. Many countries require massive bonds to be paid which are held pending completion – or proper abandonment – of the well. It would be right and proper for the fines for any spills to be massive – way beyond what the RMA provides for.

    I dont know if anyone has done any kind of analysis of what the Gulf disaster will eventually cost BP; what I do know is that the last of the civil suits arising from the Exxon Valdez disaster was only settled last year – 25 years after the event. The Gulf disaster – and the costs arising from it – will be front and centre in the minds of every oil company exploring offshore.

    Zen Tiger: You clearly either did not read my post or don’t understand it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    “..Royalty rates (and ours are NOT the lowest in the world,..”

    second lowest..are they..?

    ..dance on the head of a fucken pin..why don’t you..?

    ..fact:..some countries get a 60% royalty rate…

    ..big jezza wrestled an approx 5% (from memory)..for us here in new zealand..

    ..(those figures again..?..60% for other countries….5% for us..)

    ..this is what garrett is trying to defend as a good deal..

    ..it is such a donkey of a deal..you can barely hear gattett..for the hee-hawing..(of laughter..from the oil companies..

    ..”5%..?..high-fives all around..!”..)

    phillip ure whoar.co.nz

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Monique Watson (1,062 comments) says:

    It’s quite a wide net to cast:
    The applicants claimed the Government failed to meet environmental and consultation obligations under the Crown Minerals Act, Treaty of Waitangi obligations and international law.
    What were the specific points of law their case was based upon?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Longknives (4,048 comments) says:

    I find Greenpeace and Maori strange bedfellows when it comes to Envirnonmental issues- Things must get awkward when someone mentions that whole ‘Whaling’ thing (bearing in mind Hone is pushing for Maori to have exclusive rights to hunt and slaughter Whales in our waters…)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    all all of this proves..(low royalty-rate..etc..etc..)..is that this deal..like most this govt does…

    ..has no basis in rational economic policies/ideas/sense..

    .but is just a matter of selling our economic/environmental future..down the river..

    ..(and for blankets and beads..anyone yet able to muster the 5% is better than 60% argument..?..no..?..not yet..?

    ..need more time..?..)

    ..and this all in the name of some blind neo-lib/rand-ite ideology..

    ..with a bit of asset/class-theft also firmly in the mix..

    ..(i repeat..this administration will go down in the history books..as one of the most reviled ever..)

    phillip ure whoar.co.nz

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Ross Miller (1,624 comments) says:

    A victory for common sense over blind ideology and pig headedness and I too hope the Mr Justice Gendall takes the view that the appeal was vexatious and awards costs accordingly.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Viking2 (10,720 comments) says:

    Ross Miller (1,485) Says:
    June 23rd, 2012 at 4:44 pm

    A victory for common sense over blind ideology and pig headedness and I too hope the Mr Justice Gendall takes the view that the appeal was vexatious and awards costs accordingly.

    That would be good but better still the protestors should have to post a bond before a court hearing. That gets rid of the vexatious.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    care to explain the ‘common-sense’ in a 5% royalty-rate..(with 100% environmental-costs from any accident/’disaster’..)..r. millar..?

    ..or does ideology overcome economic-rationality in what passes for yr political-thinking/discourse..?

    ..phillip ure whoar.co.nz

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Spam (586 comments) says:

    edd (21) Says:
    June 23rd, 2012 at 3:11 pm
    Where’s the public private partneship here? What bargen basement royalties are we accepting from these forigeners? It’s no wonder NZ’s consumer economy is standing still. It’s a multi-national free for all.</block quote>royalties are 20% on profits and then they also pay the corporate tax rate of a further 30%. Despite what the greens say, companies are liable for costs of oil spills etc (and have to have their oil spill response plans signed off by the government, as well as their safety cases etc). The other green lie is that our royalties are the lowest in the world. They show this by comparing against other companies that have nationalized oil companies, and therefore hire relative returns. I doubt the greens want to have a national oil company…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Mark (496 comments) says:

    Philu, I am interested about how you lost your manhood, did you have an accident or are you just the dumbest person in NZ.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    mark..u do know the ad-hom is the sign of an argument lost..eh..?

    c’mon..!..explain the ‘economic-rationality’..of a 5% royalty-rate..

    ..when other countries get 60%..

    ..explain that..

    phillip ure whoar.co.nz

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Spam (586 comments) says:

    Phil – the royalty rate is not 5%. It is:

    Petroleum royalty regime

    New Zealand has developed an internationally competitive royalty regime stipulating the payment of either an ad valorem royalty (AVR) or an accounting profits royalty (APR), whichever is the greater in any given year.

    The royalty rates are either:

    5% AVR, that is 5% of the net revenues obtained from the sale of petroleum, or
    20% APR, that is 20% of the accounting profit of petroleum production.

    If a discovery is made between 30 June 2004 and 31 December 2009:

    Ad Valorem Royalty (AVR) will be 1% for natural gas
    Accounting Profits Royalty (APR) will be 15% on the first NZ$750 million cumulative gross (offshore) or 15% on the first NZ$250 million cumulative gross (onshore).

    In calculating the accounting profit deductions are made and may include associated production costs, capital costs (exploration costs, development costs, permit acquisition costs and feasibility cost), indirect costs, abandonment costs, operating and capital overhead allowance, operating costs and capital costs carried forward and abandonment costs carried back.

    So it’s the higher of 5% of revenue, or 20% of profit. So you are clearly wrong. Then, they also pay a further 28% company tax on profits.

    http://www.nzpam.govt.nz/cms/petroleum/legislation/

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Simon Arnold (94 comments) says:

    philu

    Where can you get 60% for new offshore wells in a region with no history?

    I asked mr google and found http://www.er.gov.sk.ca/Crude-Oil-Royalty-Facts on the first page of results. This that might give you some insight into how this market works. Note rates up to over 50% for higjly productive old wells, down at 2.5% plus other tax concessions for new drillings.

    Did I “explain that” (although not the first time it has been explained on this thread).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Spam (586 comments) says:

    …and Phil:

    This favourite graph of your green mates:
    http://blog.greens.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/Govt-oil-take.png

    this is the one that Gareth uses to claim that we have low royalties. However he completely ignores the fact that most of those countries with higher returns from oil have national oil companies, or use production sharing contracts. Would you be happy for the NZ government to spend BILLIONS exploring for and developing oil and gas fields?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. David Garrett (5,134 comments) says:

    simon: You are wasting your time mate…you are arguing with one of the greatest minds alive today…his blog is about to bought out for millions….no one else on here can hold a candle to him…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. slijmbal (1,133 comments) says:

    I actually spent a couple of years working at Shell’s oil exploration and production labs with the seismic boffins many moons ago. Finding oil is a very expensive business and as DG says most new ocean based areas are pretty much hit and miss. Many of the techniques used on land aren’t available so you’re pretty much forced to dig exploratory wells and hope for the best.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. edd (145 comments) says:

    I want more than 5% for my 1:4millionth odd share of new zealands oil. Or does the oil belong to anyone who drills it?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    well..y’see spam..to the casual observer..

    ..there does appear to be a bit of ground between that 5%…and 60%…eh..?

    ..room to move..as it were…donchareckon..?

    ..and yes..!..labour were as inept at negotiating royalties..as national have proved to be..

    ..phillip ure whoar.co.nz

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. hmmokrightitis (1,458 comments) says:

    Guys, you’re missing the point, facts don’t matter to the village idiot. He offers up numbers based on what comes out his arse, to suit his argument. He will now resort to name calling and side step the issue entirely, or not visit this thread again.

    Prove me wrong you fatuous twat

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Redbaiter (6,479 comments) says:

    “I want more than 5% for my 1:4millionth odd share of new zealands oil. Or does the oil belong to anyone who drills it?”

    So why don’t you buy some shares in the exploration companies you commie swine. Shoulder some of the risk. Or is that too much to ask?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    um.!..the numbers i have quoted are facts..

    ..what do you need to be led to..to prove that..?

    …it’s all common knowledge…

    ..consider yrslf ‘proven wrong’..eh..?

    ..and personally..i have never seen a ‘fatuous twat’…

    ..delightful as they are..they are usually devoid of such obvious personality characteristics..eh..?

    ..have you seen one yet..?..or are you still waiting for the acne to clear up..?

    ..phillip ure whoar.co.nz

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. edd (145 comments) says:

    @ red batter…

    Give it all away for free then?

    “Welcome to NZ. Take whatever you can.” Hows that for an NZ business slogan.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Spam (586 comments) says:

    well..y’see spam..to the casual observer..

    ..there does appear to be a bit of ground between that 5%…and 60%…eh..?

    You mean the 5% that is really 20% + 28% tax = 48%?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. edd (145 comments) says:

    We should end up with 60% of profits. They can have 40% of the billions for their risk.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Redbaiter (6,479 comments) says:

    Why don’t you answer the question dickhead?

    By merely living in a country you are automatically due the benefits of the work and risk of others? Fuck off to Nth Korea you horrible little commie swine. To think so many of you with your brain damaging education and ignorance of history now live in this country. It is enough to make one puke.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. edd (145 comments) says:

    I’d be infavor of a public/private partnerships with regards to the exploitation of our natural reasourses. But there’s no point having that conversation with you now is there. You’d like a world ruled by big business. Cause make no mistake, one way or another, someone’s gona hold the balance of power over us little people. If it’s not our shame of a democraticaly elected government then its gona be the biggest richest ahole who wants our little island for themself.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Simon Arnold (94 comments) says:

    David

    I don’t know about him being that good, he’s obviously decided that he’s not in my league :( I don’t even warrant abuse.

    Perhaps its because I let on I know how to use mr google!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Redbaiter (6,479 comments) says:

    You want wealth and a high standard of living then work for it parasite. And get off the backs of those who are trying to achieve those objectives for themselves.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. edd (145 comments) says:

    You got some mean goggles on brother. Dehuminization. Your probably a violent raciest as well. Hows your mate over there in Norway going with his trial?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. thedavincimode (6,119 comments) says:

    edd

    Can you please explain how a high risk activity like mineral exploration, let alone offshore oil exploration, sits with a PPP model. Could you also explain why other countries have preferred the royalty route, even when oil & gas was easier to find than it is now. Are they just a bunch of silly old things?

    Do global pricing parameters around royalty arrangements, ostensibly reflecting competitive market pricing, simply reflect the fact that Governments are a bunch of wooftahs and don’t realise they are being taken for a ride or alternatively, that they are too stupid to be up for a punt that is is safe as Fiscal Blowout for the win in the fifth at Ellerslie?

    Could you please offer some insights into your capital/risk/return model in this context that would warrant assumption of exploration risk by the state (ie you and me old thing) when, as my dear old chum m’baiter in effect points out, if you’re feeling a bit spicey you can always invest in exploration in your private capacity. Or do you consider that the state should invest on behalf of those who can’t afford to, or those that can afford to and choose not to?

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

    DPF said

    Of course risk to the environment should be mitigated and minimised. But it can never be eliminated.

    All true.

    But the environment, as we have always known it, can be seriously damaged for a very, very long time, if not essentially eliminated for the foreseeable future.

    And as far as mitigation and minimization are concerned, The Rachel Maddow Show does some very good work on oil spill clean up efforts and, basically, little has changed since the black and white TV days.

    A little known fact is that the blowout protectors have a 50% fail rate in testing, let alone in practice, but somehow this is considered OK?

    Imagine if the brakes on our cars failed 50% of the time – and this was the industry norm!

    That said, explore all you want, no worries. With the time lag between exploration and exploitation, if any deep sea wells do get drilled in our waters then we are fucked, anyway, and God help our children and grandchildren.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. edd (145 comments) says:

    My boss invested in pike river to the tune of 100k. Lost the lot. Maybe if the government had been involved he’d still have his money. Not to mention that other matter… When it comes to exploriation of reasourses I don’t think it’s one or the other. We’ll have to agree to disagree..

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. wat dabney (3,461 comments) says:

    Anyone concerned about the environment should be advocating that extraction take place where environment protections are highest, which means in places like NZ.
    The protests against drilling in NZ are therefore nothing to do with environmentalism and everything to do with NIMBYism: these people would sooner that the petrol that fuels their cars come from less-environmentally-friendly locations which are remote from NZ.

    And when it comes to NZ, deep sea is best as it poses far less risk to coastlines.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. Viking2 (10,720 comments) says:

    What, YOU, edd want the poor old taxpayer, (obviously not you), to gaurantee you and your boss money?

    Had it all worked out no doubt he would donated the rewards back to the taxpayer.
    That’s not even a Tui. Its more like seagull shit in the eye.

    Why should the taxpayer, that’s a few of us, have to front up with a gaurantee?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Viking2 (10,720 comments) says:

    Given also that the sea drift and prevailing winds are away from the East Coast the risk is more that it might just travel courtesy of the sea direct to a South American refinery where they will scoop it up and pay any royalty.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. wat dabney (3,461 comments) says:

    I want more than 5% for my 1:4millionth odd share of new zealands oil. Or does the oil belong to anyone who drills it?

    I think you hit it on the head, edd.

    Without lifting a finger and without risking 1c of your own money you are complaining about not getting your fair share.

    Your fair share is zero.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. edd (145 comments) says:

    Who said a gaurantee? I was talking about profit sharing partneship between the co. and the govt. The company is bound by the will of their share holders and the government is bound by the will of their voters (supposedly), which makes a balanced approach to dangerous and highly profitable enterprises. Is that the best of both worlds or is it just stupid.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. mister nui (883 comments) says:

    lukey said:

    A little known fact is that the blowout protectors have a 50% fail rate in testing, let alone in practice, but somehow this is considered OK?

    Where did you learn that lukey? Tested a few have you? I have, and I know you’re talking out a hole in your ass.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. thedavincimode (6,119 comments) says:

    edd

    Not quite the answer I was hoping for. Unfortunately, my worst fears have been realised. You are, I’m afraid, a bit of a fuckwit.

    Hopefully you avail yourself of the free community budgeting services.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. mister nui (883 comments) says:

    wat dabney said:

    Anyone concerned about the environment should be advocating that extraction take place where environment protections are highest, which means in places like NZ.
    The protests against drilling in NZ are therefore nothing to do with environmentalism and everything to do with NIMBYism: these people would sooner that the petrol that fuels their cars come from less-environmentally-friendly locations which are remote from NZ.

    That is it exactly wat. I have worked in some real shitholes around the world and seen some real destruction of the environment, generally by National Oil companies. The greenies much prefer this out of sight out of mind approach to oil production, so their conscience is clear whilst they fly off to their care-for-mother-gaia talkfests in Rio.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. Spam (586 comments) says:

    @luc. That 50% failure rate would be per ram, which is why standard practice is to have multiple rams on each stack, and a couple of stacks. And then test them frequently.

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

    Mister Nui, as I said, my source was TRMS. They have highlighted this fact many times.

    Thanks so much for your polite response.

    As for where our petrol comes from, electric cars are eminently competitive if the true cost of oil on the environment i.e. the externalities, were properly accounted for and reflected in the pump price.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. edd (145 comments) says:

    thedavincimode

    It seems the pleasure was all mine. But you do make a good case for giving our reasourses away for a song. Are you invested in Petrobras?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. nasska (9,520 comments) says:

    Edd

    If you are looking for a career as an Investment Adviser please don’t give up your day job just yet.

    You do however, show obvious talent in another field & should you contact Ms H Clark at UN HQ your abilities will be put to good use. I refer of course to the way you effortlessly & singlehandedly united two of the warring factions on Kiwiblog. Until you put forward your rather puerile suggestions concerning oil exploration ‘Redbaiter’ & ‘the davincimode’ have never agreed on a single subject & have abused each other ceaselessly for nigh on four years.

    If you could expand your activities by drawing lightening & thus joining adversaries on a global scale peace within our time is not an impossible dream.

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

    Spam

    And still the oil spills…anyway, my real point was that by the time all this comes to pass in our waters, we won’t be exploiting oil as we are today.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. Spam (586 comments) says:

    @luc: enlighten us. Where does the electricity for the electric cars come from, including the infrastructure to transport it from the generators? Think conservation of energy (ie the total energy provided for electric cars must be the same as that provided by fossil fuels, correcting for efficiency)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. wat dabney (3,461 comments) says:

    As for where our petrol comes from, electric cars are eminently competitive if the true cost of oil on the environment i.e. the externalities, were properly accounted for and reflected in the pump price.

    This is plain rubbish. Honestly, you are so divorced from reality that the only possible conclusion is that you post this stuff here for a feel-good wank.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. mister nui (883 comments) says:

    The Rachel Maddow Show.

    Laugh my fucking tits off.

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

    Ah, yes, you come across as a girl.

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

    wat

    Are you truly that ignorant of mainstream economic thinking? I mean, it’s not even 101 level these days – kids learn it at school.

    You and Spam and mister nui just aren’t serious partners for discussion.

    Ideal for our host, though.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. Spam (586 comments) says:

    So you make comments that don’t stand up to scrutiny, and when challenged say I’m not worth serious discussion? Wow.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. edd (145 comments) says:

    @ nasska

    Sell the kiwi and buy US dollars first thing on Monday. Can’t miss.

    And thank you for you complement about being puerile. I looked the word up on google and am now a wiser boy…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. kowtow (6,706 comments) says:

    Lucy just wants the Arabs and Persians to have all the wealth so they can continue to buy useful idiots and isolate the evil Zionists.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. hmmokrightitis (1,458 comments) says:

    I said: “Guys, you’re missing the point, facts don’t matter to the village idiot. He offers up numbers based on what comes out his arse, to suit his argument. He will now resort to name calling and side step the issue entirely, or not visit this thread again.

    Prove me wrong you fatuous twat”

    Didn’t name phil, not even. And yet, straight away, within minutes…

    But somehow you managed, oh great one, to assume straight away whom I was talking about. With no doubt whatsoever.

    So, thusly, QED.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.