The value of fracking

November 8th, 2012 at 10:00 am by David Farrar

Stuff reports:

New Zealand’s multibillion-dollar energy industry will become uneconomic if is banned from drilling operations, an industry report says.

Banning the controversial practice could potentially endanger the future of the lucrative sector, says the report, prepared by New Zealand-owned Todd Energy. …

Todd’s conclusions highlight the importance of the industry to New Zealand’s energy supply and coffers and raises the possibility of major oil and gas players walking away from uneconomic prospects.

The result of a three-month research project, the Todd report has been written as its submission to the PCE inquiry. Close to 180 pages long, it is the most comprehensive industry report into fracking published in New Zealand.

It says opposition to fracking in New Zealand is being based not on evidence, but on misinformation and emotion.

The 2010 movie Gasland, which received significant public attention, has also been comprehensively discredited, the report says.

It’s ironic that the Greens are so against fracking, as in the US it has helped reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

THE GOOD OIL

Contributes $2.2 billion to GDP every year

Provides more than 6000 jobs for Kiwis

Each worker produces about $525,000 in labour productivity, which is five times the national average

Estimates show the Government received $1b from the oil and gas sector in the 2009-10 year

Decisions should be based on science. My prediction is that regardless of what the PCE finds, the Greens will still insist on a moratorium (euphemism for a ban).

Tags:

27 Responses to “The value of fracking”

  1. flipper (3,832 comments) says:

    Good Lord, DPF.
    Do you really have confidence in Wright and her followers?

    That woman went before a Parliamentary Select Committee (on the ETS bill) recently to oppose the Bill. She said she had NOT considered the economic impacts on the NZ economy of the existing arrangement …..NOR had she considered what other nations are doing.

    The Government should just tell the wets to “go and get a towel”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. RRM (9,638 comments) says:

    It’s ironic that the Greens are so against fracking, as in the US it has helped reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

    It’s almost like there’s some other problem with fracking that they are concerned about :-P

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Kleva Kiwi (281 comments) says:

    “It’s almost like there’s some other problem with fracking that they are concerned about ”

    What problem is that? That it is among the top contributors of wealth generation in this country which means less poor people to support the ridiculous emotive based policies of the greens?

    Or is it another problem that the Greens have dreamed up that dosn’t actually exist?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. PaulL (5,983 comments) says:

    Kleva Kiwi: the other problems with fracking are:
    1. It allows reduction in greenhouse gas emissions without shutting down growth. Which means capitalism wins again
    2. It provides a new source of hydrocarbons, which means that solar and wind and other renewables are still not cost effective. Hydrocarbons are indisputably bad, and finding a new way to access them is therefore also indisputably bad
    3. Peak oil. If we have another 100 years of gas coming, then peak oil isn’t real. Wrong again, sucks to be Green
    4. Provides time to jump from hydrocarbons to nuclear directly, rather than going to dispersed and low density renewables. Nuclear is also indisputably bad

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Monty (966 comments) says:

    The Greens only survivie because they have causes with which to scare the public. Lets look back at some

    Firstly there was genetic engineering – - now of course in North America there is 6 x the total landmass of NZ planted in GE crops – no ill effects except manufactured lies
    Peak oil – and oil is about to run out – been around since the 1970s. New discoveries and better technologies and although expensive we still manage
    Bio-Fuels – I love this one – millions put into poverty and led directly to the deaths of millions as well
    Global warming – no discernable change in temperatures due to man made influence – so they started calling it climate change, then people grew weary of that so the phrase they now use to scare the gullible is Climate crisis –
    Public Transport – The Greens essentially want to ban private motor vehicles and force everyone into public transport – it will never happen
    ETS – the price f carbon is about $2 a tonne and dropping – whoops
    Organic farming – while good for fools with too much money the world could not be fed if all production was organic -
    I could go on about
    green technology companies going bankrupt
    Fracking reducing the cost of gas 75%
    Extraction mines being the economic salvation of NZ
    Open cast mining and a couple of snails
    the list is endless. The Greens survive on spreading lies and mis information scaring the gullible and plain ignorant. They twist statistics, prevent progress, and will generally bring economic ruin to NZ.

    It was no accident that Clark never ever wanted to rely on the Greens to hold her government together. Clark knew that once under the spotlight of actually having to implement Greeen policy they would be severly exposed. Instead she preferred to run a Government supported by the insideous winston.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. PaulL (5,983 comments) says:

    Monty – you miss the biggest one of banning DDT, which was the most effective control of mosquitos and therefore malaria. I agree that we shouldn’t be using DDT in first world countries purely to increase food production (the downsides of DDT are reasonably severe). But it’s a different calculation when we’re talking about people dying of malaria.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. greenjacket (435 comments) says:

    Monty +1

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. dime (9,662 comments) says:

    Next election we should do a billboard highlighting the greens ban list. Like the thing DPF did over that banning of free speech labour garbage.

    How much is a billboard for a month? 10k? 100 kiwiblog dirtbags kicking in $100….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. nasska (10,897 comments) says:

    …”Next election we should do a billboard highlighting the greens ban list”….

    We’d better find ourselves a bloody big billboard. The list is at about 150 entries & growing.

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

    Aren’t billboards on the list?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. gazzmaniac (2,319 comments) says:

    Monty – you’ll find there are some issues with GM plants, one of them being that “roundup ready” soy now grows as a weed across North America.

    If you promote incorrect data then you stoop to their level.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. bhudson (4,736 comments) says:

    Aren’t billboards on the list?

    No – they just cover messages they don’t like with stickers

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. dime (9,662 comments) says:

    multiple billboards??

    anyone registered thegreensbanlist.co.nz yet? facebook pages etc

    we need a plan to overcome their bullshit marketing. ya know, a picture of the earth with the slogan “vote for me”. that sorta shit that seems to work with morons.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Griff (6,989 comments) says:

    Why are the greens not pushing hydro? It’s the greenest cheapest most efficient energy source it’s also 100% renewable! We have plenty more rivers we could dam. The Maori don’t use them for transport we gave them roads and wheels after all . Trout do just as well in lakes.Lakes give you an outdoor playground for sports and recreation. Attractive for the tourist and expands the amount of tourist expending and jobs.The land value lost would be recovered in the value added to the surrounding area.

    DAM THE RIVERS ITS THE GREENEST TECHNOLOGY !

    We have the technology and the support industry already. The cement and the steel are made here Its the best thing we could do for the future and it saves us money in power bills.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. nasska (10,897 comments) says:

    Dime

    In 2008 DPF gave us a list of 85 things the Greens would like to ban. It would do for a start & there’s plenty more enties to be added. Ref: http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2008/10/the_greens_banned_list.html

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. dime (9,662 comments) says:

    Naaska – yea thats the list!

    Maybe pick the top 20 things that would piss off the waitakere man..

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. dime (9,662 comments) says:

    5.Ban violent TV programmes until after 10 pm
    12.Ban Urban Sprawl
    30.Ban alcohol advertising on TV and radio
    40.Ban sale of chips and lollies on school property
    47.Ban imported vehicles over seven years old
    53.Ban all food and drink advertisements on TV if they do not meet criteria for nutritious food
    58.Ban crown agency investments in any entity that denies climate change!!
    59.Ban crown agency investments in any entity that is involved in tobacco

    62.Ban NZ from military treaties which are based on the right to self defence
    64.Ban new casinos
    65.Allow existing casinos to be banned
    66.Ban promotion of Internet gambling
    79.Ban new urban highways or motorways
    85.Ban programmes on TVNZ with gratuitous violence

    not much of that appeals to the waitakere man :P

    there would be shit loads more.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. dime (9,662 comments) says:

    How about one that says

    “want a mning job that pays 100 grand a year and is in new zealand?”

    dont vote greens :D

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. bhudson (4,736 comments) says:

    dime,

    It could be simplified down to one: “Ban progress”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. David Garrett (6,731 comments) says:

    There are two things you can guarantee about this report:

    1. No-one in the Green caucus will read it cover to cover.

    2. No matter what it says, they will remain opposed to fracking….for all of the reasons (and others) PaulL lists at 10.37.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. flipper (3,832 comments) says:

    Paul L
    Yep…Rachael Carson and her disciples have a lot to answer for.
    Dr Paul Reiter, of the Institut Pasteur and the world leading authority on malaria, has likened the ban in DDT to third world genocide.
    Wonderful people the red melons.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. wreck1080 (3,800 comments) says:

    Energy is the most valuable resource a country can produce.

    Greens are against a successful New Zealand.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Kleva Kiwi (281 comments) says:

    The last entry on the Greens banlist billboard would read: Ban this billboard

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Richard29 (377 comments) says:

    “It’s ironic that the Greens are so against fracking, as in the US it has helped reduce greenhouse gas emissions.”

    That’s because the bulk of electricity supply in the US is coal and gas has half the carbon dioxide output. In NZ a majority is Renewable (hydro and wind) with coal only a small part. Completely different energy production profile.

    Of course that is only if we are burning gas to make electricity. It’s a different discussion if we’re extracting gas for export or for pumping into peoples houses directly for direct domestic use as a heating and cooking fuel(which is a lot less wasteful than burning it to drive a turbine to create electricity to send down a wire to heat an element).

    The big tragedy in NZ is that we used up vast quantities of gas energy from Maui on cheap as chips flat rate ‘take or pay’ contracts to generate electricity (displacing hydro which had to be spilled from the dams at times because there was excess supply) and now we are having to search for new sources as great cost to use efficiently for consumer heating etc.

    As usual we got shown up by the Nordic countries – Denmark has always had a policy of leaving most of their non renewable gas resource in the ground and drip feeding it out to the market at a rate that ensures the maximum return for the sovereign wealth fund that owns it. We just bring in the first overseas bidder we can to monetise our resource as quickly as possible and then take a paltry royalty which the government spends on Opex leaving no ongoing pool of wealth for the country.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. PaulL (5,983 comments) says:

    or for pumping into peoples houses directly for direct domestic use as a heating and cooking fuel(which is a lot less wasteful than burning it to drive a turbine to create electricity to send down a wire to heat an element).

    True if you’re using an electric element to generate heat. Probably not true (depending on a bunch of maths) if you’re using reverse cycle / heat pumps to generate heat.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. OneTrack (2,806 comments) says:

    Griff 11:23 “Why are the greens not pushing hydro”

    Snails. And what bhudson said at 11:46

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. scrubone (3,082 comments) says:

    Richard29: our lack of gas a couple of years ago meant that power plants were being converted to run on coal. So it’s not an irrelevant point at all.

    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.