Greenpeace loses in court

December 20th, 2013 at 10:00 am by David Farrar

Stuff reports:

has lost a bid to have the granting of Anadarko’s offshore drilling permit declared erroneous in the High Court.

Greenpeace’s case was based on Anadarko’s omission of annexes from the impact assessment it was required to submit to the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) to be granted a petroleum exploration permit for an area in the Taranaki Basin.

Anadarko is drilling an exploration well it began within the permit area on November 26. …

The High Court ruled the evidence did not indicate any error by the EPA, and said there was no evidence that resubmitting the impact assessment supplied in the discharge management plan would achieve any meaningful objective.

A “careful and proper consideration of the completeness of the impact assessment” has been undertaken by the EPA. In addition, the impact assessment was independently and internally reviewed, Justice Mackenzie found.

The EPA will be pleased with the ruling that it has done its job well. Oil drilling and prospecting is not without risk, but the probability of a major problem is very very low.

Tags: ,

22 Responses to “Greenpeace loses in court”

  1. Komata (1,191 comments) says:

    But will this be the end of the matter? Of course not, don’t be silly; Greenpeace have an agenda (and a public to gull), so they will merely put a self-serving spin on it to make themselves look even better, and approach the matter from another tack.

    After all, with socialists, it’s the goal which is the focus (always).

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Cunningham (844 comments) says:

    Great news, I would like to think the economic terrorists would accept the ruling but I think there is zero chance of that happening. Until we are living in caves and moving around in horse and cart they will continue to sabotage anything they don’t agree with (which is pretty much everything).

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Nookin (3,352 comments) says:

    Of particular interest is the fact that the Greenpeace case failed on every single point considered by the judge. Emphatically, the judge found that EPA’s decision was correct. The only point that it appears not to have considered is the issue of delay (waiting until drilling started before applying for review). One can only hope that the award of costs will deter the use of litigation for strategic purposes regardless of merits

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. alex Masterley (1,517 comments) says:

    I read the judgment.
    Greenpeace’s case was about perception rather than reality.
    I hope their perception costs them dearly.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 20 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. burt (8,275 comments) says:

    Oh well… I guess these guys will need to sink a very expensive boat by ramming it into the oil drilling platform then claim the platform rammed them and try to claim insurance….

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. andretti (130 comments) says:

    The whole issue of drilling/oil leaks has been blown out of all proportion,for instance the gulf of Mexico spill was estimated to be about 4.5 million barrells which seems a bit.Then you check out the natural seep that takes place a bit further out and you find that every year natural seep is 1 million barrells per year for thousands of years and doesnt pose many problems for the environment.There is even a large natural seep of the east coast of NZ,its not convieniant for Greenpeace to mention all of this.

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Manolo (13,828 comments) says:

    Drill baby, drill.

    Vote: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Monty (978 comments) says:

    What green peace fear most of all is a incident free discovery of oil. At that point they will prove to be caught lying, manipulating, and feeding misinformation to the gullible of NZ. At precisely that point the vast majority of NZers will get all very excited about potential wealth and the vast majority will be chanting out loud drill baby drill.

    The Green Taliban will at that point know they are fighting the wave of public sentiment and that the genie is definitely out of the bottle. The green Taliban will become totally irrelevant.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. alwyn (427 comments) says:

    Was there any award of costs against Greenpeace, or did they get let off by another sympathetic judge?

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. peterwn (3,274 comments) says:

    alwyn – “Costs are reserved. The parties may submit memoranda.” This means they should try and agree on costs and if they cannot, the judge will give a costs judgment later. Greenpeace will no doubt argue that they should not pay the other side’s costs and the judge will either agree or let them off lightly.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Ross12 (1,432 comments) says:

    I just heard they “might” appeal. They know how to spin the BS and fool the stupid MSM. There is no way they will appeal.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Yoza (1,879 comments) says:

    The EPA will be pleased with the ruling that it has done its job well. Oil drilling and prospecting is not without risk, but the probability of a major problem is very very low.

    But if there is a major spill the clean up costs will be payed for by the New Zealand tax-payer.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. RRM (9,932 comments) says:

    Good result.

    Fuck off haters. Find a real environmental cause. You are all getting older now, I would have thought you’d have grown out of this anti-globalization, anti-the-establishment-in-general chest thumping by now?

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. RRM (9,932 comments) says:

    But if there is a major spill the clean up costs will be payed for by the New Zealand tax-payer.

    In order to have a major spill, they will first have to find significant oil; and if they do that, that’s a win for the taxpayer!

    Try to think positive. You may find you enjoy it! ;-)

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Yoza (1,879 comments) says:

    RRM (8,421 comments) says:
    December 20th, 2013 at 1:21 pm

    In order to have a major spill, they will first have to find significant oil; and if they do that, that’s a win for the taxpayer!

    Try to think positive. You may find you enjoy!

    The oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, of which Anadarko was one of the contributing culprits, was an exploratory well that found ‘significant oil’ very suddenly. If there is a risk, and deep water wells are inherently riskier than other forms of oil exploration, then that risk should be borne by those doing the drilling.

    People buy insurance policies precisely because ‘thinking positive’ is insufficient.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. All_on_Red (1,584 comments) says:

    Yoza
    The pressure in the wells here is different to the Gulf of Mexico. Here we have to pump the oil/gas out whereas in the Gulf there is ample pressure for pumping not to be needed (as much if at all).
    This makes the risk of a spill here a lot lower

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. RRM (9,932 comments) says:

    I notice the Greenpeace public action deliberately asked people to rally on West Coast beaches…

    I guess the irony of seeing a Greenpeace organised protest on the conspicuously white sands of Papamoa so soon after the Rena (and the attendant prophecies of ecological Armageddon) might have prompted people to ask the “wrong” sort of questions… i.e. ones that show Greenpeace in a less than perfect light.

    Greenpeace lie. They lie, and they exaggerate, and they obfuscate. They hang their coal face guys out to dry in nasty Russian jails, and then put up glossy “donate!” posters up all over town. They exhibit a lot of the worst qualities of the “big” companies they rail against.

    How many tonnes of oil were purported to be on Brent Spar, again?

    5,000? Or was it actually more like 50?

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. DJP6-25 (1,388 comments) says:

    Wow, fancy a rich multinational losing in court. I assume they had an excellent legal team. What with a $300.000.000 turn over and all. So their case must have been full of holes.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. OneTrack (3,111 comments) says:

    “Greenpeace will no doubt argue that they should not pay the other side’s costs and the judge will either agree or let them off lightly.”

    They are a big, evil corporation pulling in millions of dollars a year. They can easily afford costs.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Yoza (1,879 comments) says:

    All_on_Red (708 comments) says:
    December 20th, 2013 at 1:56 pm

    Yoza
    The pressure in the wells here is different to the Gulf of Mexico. Here we have to pump the oil/gas out whereas in the Gulf there is ample pressure for pumping not to be needed (as much if at all).

    The deeper the wells are the higher the pressure, there is no guarantee that Anadarko will not hit a high pressure reserve. What I am saying is the New Zealand government, at the very least, should demand that any corporation preparing to drill in our economic zone should be prepared to contribute at least $10 billion in clean up costs. If it is as safe as they say, no corporation would worry about offering such a guarantee.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. All_on_Red (1,584 comments) says:

    Wow, only 10 Billion. Why not 10 gazillion trillion?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Yoza (1,879 comments) says:

    All_on_Red (710 comments) says:
    December 21st, 2013 at 7:44 am

    Wow, only 10 Billion. Why not 10 gazillion trillion?

    If it is as safe as they say it shouldn’t be a problem, BP has ended up coughing out more than $20 billion for its part in the Deep Water Horizon oil spill. Why should the New Zealand public carry the bulk of the risk?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote