Pro Oil and Gas Otago

January 21st, 2014 at 1:00 pm by David Farrar

The ODT reports:

A group of businesses is moving to claim the high ground as debate intensifies over the arrival of oil companies in Otago waters.

However, with Anadarko’s drilling ship, the Noble Bob Douglas, due by the end of the month, protest group Oil Free Otago has also warned more protest action could be expected.

The warning came days after a group of four Dunedin businessmen created a new group, Pro Oil and Gas Otago, to spell out their support for gas exploration off Dunedin’s coast.

The group’s Facebook page has attracted more than 1300 ”likes” since Saturday, including from pro-drilling city councillors Andrew Whiley and Mike Lord, and support was continuing to climb.

Spokeswoman Robyn Broughton, of Dunedin, said the group wanted to counter ”scaremongering” by opponents of oil and gas exploration, and planned to meet representatives from the Dunedin City Council and oil companies.

A public event designed to demonstrate the city’s willingness to embrace the industry and its potential economic benefits was being discussed, although plans were yet to be confirmed, she said.

The city had an opportunity for ”astronomical” economic benefits from a natural gas find, but public debate to date suggested the city would not welcome the industry.

”I don’t want to see my grandchildren raised in London or Europe. I want something that will encourage our young people to come home … [gas drilling] has the ability to do that,” Mrs Broughton said.

It’s nice that some people are prepared to speak up for economic growth.

Their Facebook page now has almost 3,000 likes.

 

Tags: ,

79 Responses to “Pro Oil and Gas Otago”

  1. Joanne (177 comments) says:

    The anti-mining people irritate me. The Greens and Labour rabbit on about children in poverty. Terrible. So why don’t they support a industry that will provide jobs and growth. All I hear about is the Greens ghost jobs.

    Labour criticise Paula Bennett and say there are no jobs for people to go to. And yet oppose an industry that will provide those. Duh!!

    Does not make sense the argument from those parties.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 21 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Kea (12,817 comments) says:

    Oil spills are a real problem and must be prevented to protect the environment. There is a growing problem with political activists attacking oil operations and risking disaster.

    I have some ideas on how to protect our natural Taonga:

    1. Create an exclusion zone around oil activities.

    2. Shoot anyone who breaches it.

    Vote: Thumb up 19 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. lofty (1,310 comments) says:

    It is pleasing to see that there are people in NZ willing to stand up and counter the drivel and misinformation that comes from the politically driven ideologues that masquerade as “environmentalists” .

    I wish them all the best, the truth will eventually see its way through in spite of watermelon, and opportunistic labour rhetoric to the contrary.

    Vote: Thumb up 19 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. tvb (4,418 comments) says:

    Too often the debate on this industry revolves around emotional pictures of temporarily polluted coastlines and wildlife in the unlikely event of an oil spill. The economic risks of NOT doing this are significant. New Plymouth has nice beaches too and they can manage as well. Dunedin is a loser town proped up on Government handouts notably the University. A vibrant oil and gas industry will be a much needed boost similar to the gold rush which built the town in the first place.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Keeping Stock (10,337 comments) says:

    I was among the first hundred or so to like the Pro Oil and Gas Otago page, and it’s been great to see momentum building there. I’m just heartily sick and tired of the hippy-crites from Greenpeace and the Green Party (yes, I’m talking about YOU Gareth) being given the opportunity to control the debate in the media. What is good about this page is that a number of key media people in the South support it.

    And I agree with Joanne above; we can’t just pick and choose what jobs we have. We have to accept that there is an element of risk in things like mining and oil/gas exploration, then do everything we can to mitigate the risk. But the rewards if commercial quantities of minerals, oil and gas are find are more than worth it.

    Vote: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Kea (12,817 comments) says:

    Even large oil spills quickly dissolve due to natural processes. Oil is a natural organic product and bacteria and other life forms eat it. It has long been known that clean up efforts often do more damage than they prevent. They are largely done because of he demand to be seen to be “doing something”. Clean ups are done for emotional reasons not rational ones.

    Those who are interested will find numerous studies confirming this online.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Joanne (177 comments) says:

    I agree with Keeping Stock.

    I taught in the north for awhile. What depressed me is I knew these kids had no jobs to go to. An industry like mining is what they need.

    The risk can be minimised, not completely eradicated and that unfortunately is the small price to pay for growth and jobs which lift people out of poverty. What doesn’t lift people out of poverty is politicians sitting on their bums talking about how bad the poverty is.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. tas (625 comments) says:

    I think their profile picture is rather unfortunate.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. mandk (993 comments) says:

    I took my son to the Bird Man event on Wellington waterfront yesterday. The oil-free people were there handing out stickers for people to wear. I don’t think it crossed their minds that the adhesive on the stickers was almost certainly made from petrochemicals, the stickers themselves were made from petrochemicals, and the printing on the stickers was done using ink made from petrochemicals.
    But, hey, as long as you stand up for your principles that’s ok, isn’t it?

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. mister nui (1,027 comments) says:

    It is very pleasing to see a group finally formed to counter some of the spin, deceit and downright bullshit proffered by the anti oil + gas brigade. PEPANZ have done themselves, the industry and the country a longtime disservice by not forming a group such as “Pro Oil and Gas NZ” before now.

    As someone who owns a business that is pretty much solely reliant on the global oil and gas industry for income, I have a bit of inside knowledge about how the industry operates and how much money gets about. Right now, we earn not a single tuppence from the NZ industry, but earn income in places as varied as Australia, Malaysia and Cameroon, amongst others. I would dearly love to be able to bring myself and some of my staff home to NZ and assist with building a great industry here, as well as making sure that some of those earnings flow into NZ, rather than offshore services companies. Although, considering I take money out of all of those other economies, which ultimately benefits NZ, this may sound a bit hypocritical.

    I have guys in this industry, with pretty much no formal qualifications, earning up to NZD2500/day, not all of them earn that, but the lowest paid guy I have right now earns USD1100(NZD1325)/day. How many of these people crying into their cornflakes about a pretty much non-existant chance of an oil spill, wouldn’t snap up a job paying that much per day? I’ll guarantee all but the hardline ideologues.

    An offshore drilling rig costs about a cool million to run a day, about 400,000 of that is just the dry-hire of the rig, the rest is potentially earnings that can come through the local economy. Say, even if it were only 300,000/day through the local economy, that is pretty bloody good. Some of these supporting services costs are; labour, materials, food and drink, helicopters, training, supply boats (which also need labour, food and drink etc.). Yes, some of these services will not immediately be able to be provided out of NZ, but, let me tell you, there is a shitload of experienced Kiwis doing this allover the world, just waiting for the opportunity to come home.

    Yes, the exploration phase doesn’t last a helluva long time, and it is where the big coin is spent in a short period, but, god willing, we have a big find, the production phase will sustain these services and wages for a bloody long time. Salaries for 18 weeks work per year (3 on, 3 off, 3 on, 6 off roster) for rig pigs (laundry, kitchen staff etc.) run at about 180k in Aussie. Pretty damn good!

    What pisses me off is the lack of countenance to the misinformation constantly proffered by the hard left fuckwits. Why that stupid imbecile Gareth Hughes is asked for an opinion on anything oil and gas related, beggars my belief. The stupid idiot knows not the first thing about oil and gas exploration/production, especially in NZ. The chances of a leak of oil during drilling off the West Coast of the NI are somewhere between slim and fuck-all, not only because of the technology used, but the simple fact the physical properties of oil found in NZ will NOT FUCKING FLOW NATURALLY. NZ oil is heavy waxy oil (the best you can get) and simply does not flow without loads of stimulation. Obviously our hard left media is also against reporting facts such as these too…. And then the fact they’re drilling for gas offshore Otago makes it even harder to have an oil spill, but why let simple facts such as these get in the way of hysterical green fuckwittery.

    Hopefully the momentum behind this small group can become nationwide, it would be nice if PEPANZ got behind this initiative and assisted it to become nationwide and get real facts out there.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 25 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. iMP (2,384 comments) says:

    The seabed is constantly venting sulphur, noxious gases and oil into the ocean. Earthquakes are opening the plates constantly and there are natural fissures. How many naturally erupting volcanoes are on the go right now? When is Greenpeace going to protest Mother Nature, hmmm?

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. OTGO (549 comments) says:

    I’m a very casual Facebook user. I actually searched for Pro Oil and Gas Otago.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Kea (12,817 comments) says:

    But wont using oil affect imaginary weather forecasts based on pretending computer models ?

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

    iMP,

    I read somewhere, the economist or similar, that the amount of oil that seeps annually into the Gulf of Mexico from natural seeps is more than the amount vented by the deepwater horizon disaster.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Kea (12,817 comments) says:

    alex Masterley, a year later water quality in the Gulf was the same as before the spill.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Pete George (23,559 comments) says:

    2. Shoot anyone who breaches it.

    But wont using oil affect imaginary weather forecasts based on pretending computer models ?

    That’s the sort of nutter statements that risk losing credibility for pro-oil business interest groups. Especially when it appears to get support.

    Pro Oil and Gas have had a major effect on the exploration debate in Dunedin. The anti-drilling lobby were launching a carefully established “everyone opposes” campaign and the Facebook launch and rapid increase in Likes of Pro Oil and Gas quietened the anti lobby who seemed a bit stunned. They’ll come back with more strategies but it’s going to be difficult for them to get the wider public support they seemed to think was a given.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Kea (12,817 comments) says:

    “That’s the sort of nutter statements that risk losing credibility …. Especially when it appears to get support.”

    LOL :) Oh the irony from the prig.

    That is the sort of logic you get when you pretend to hold views that you do not hold.

    Maybe we should just charge the protestors with Rape a PG ?

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Tom Jackson (2,553 comments) says:

    The anti-mining people irritate me. The Greens and Labour rabbit on about children in poverty. Terrible. So why don’t they support a industry that will provide jobs and growth.

    Because it’s contributing to carbon emissions which will eventually cause massive worldwide poverty.

    I have a (mildly implausible) solution: we hold a special election with an open ballot over whether New Zealand should reduce emissions. If the yes side win, emission reducing policies are enacted, but if current climate science is proven false, those people and their descendants are hit with a 5% income tax premium. However, if the no side win, we do nothing, and if climate change arrives, the “noes” and their descendants don’t get fed.

    Fair, no?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 19 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Kea (12,817 comments) says:

    Because it’s contributing to carbon emissions which will eventually cause massive worldwide poverty.

    They are here :)

    I like the vote idea Tom. But first we need to educate the ignorant masses fed years of lies by luddites.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Rich Prick (1,700 comments) says:

    I imagine an Oil Free Otago to be a rather grim dark-ages kind of place.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. alex Masterley (1,517 comments) says:

    rp,
    Otago is a rather grim and dark middle ages kind of place.
    Dunedin has barely changed since I first visited the place in 1971.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Tom Jackson (2,553 comments) says:

    I imagine an Oil Free Otago to be a rather grim dark-ages kind of place.

    That’s just Otago. The Scots inject a massive dose of dour wherever they go.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Kea (12,817 comments) says:

    Tom, are you suggesting a return to Whale Oil lamps ?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. All_on_Red (1,582 comments) says:

    Hey Tom, how much has CO2 caused the global temp to go up in the last 17 years?
    Source too please

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Tom Jackson (2,553 comments) says:

    Hey Tom, how much has CO2 caused the global temp to go up in the last 17 years?
    Source too please.

    Why 17 years? Oh wait… I know why…

    Nice try.

    How about putting yourself on the “Kill me if climate change happens list” if you are so confident?

    What you think doesn’t matter, and nor will your vote once the powers that be realise that they need to do something about it, so stop wasting your breath.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 15 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. All_on_Red (1,582 comments) says:

    Ok Tom,
    100 years.
    You do realise that the earth is not really like a “greenhouse”.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. All_on_Red (1,582 comments) says:

    “nor will your vote once the powers that be realise that they need to do something about it,”

    Or realise they need to do nothing. Which is what is happening around the world. You do need to keep up. And your World Government is not going to happen. Your totalitarian dream is in tatters.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Kea (12,817 comments) says:

    Tom Jackson, took the news that the Ice Age had ended very badly. Be gentle with him boys :)

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Tom Jackson (2,553 comments) says:

    Or realise they need to do nothing. Which is what is happening around the world. You do need to keep up. And your World Government is not going to happen. Your totalitarian dream is in tatters.

    Won’t need a world government. Military leaders and corporate bigwigs will have a quiet word, and things will get done – that’s how the world already works in case you hadn’t noticed.

    Get in the way if you like. The worst that will happen is that you’ll be batoned by a cop.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. OTGO (549 comments) says:

    Told you Tom wanted to be a Sandman.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Tom Jackson (2,553 comments) says:

    Tom Jackson, took the news that the Ice Age had ended very badly.

    Are you really that stupid?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Tom Jackson (2,553 comments) says:

    BTW for those who didn’t pay attention at school, the earth is currently in an ice age and has been for 2 ½ million years now.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Kea (12,817 comments) says:

    Are you really that stupid?

    Yes :)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. mister nui (1,027 comments) says:

    Tom, the problem with you and all your luddite friends, is you keep carping on with the same statement: “we need to invest in clean, green, sustainable technologies” or similar such statements of equally vague meaning.

    Not once have any of you and your buddies ever defined what these “clean, green, sustainable technologies” are, that are economically viable and will not lead to mass starvation and further poverty. Every single one you come up with has far worse consequences than the satus quo; of burning fossil fuels.

    If you’re so sure of these clean, green, sustainable technologies, please enlighten me as to what they are. Furthermore, please tell me how much of your own money you have invested in them to get them off the ground, as I’m sure, them being as great as you’re going to tell me they are, you will have invested in them….

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Tom Jackson (2,553 comments) says:

    Not once have any of you and your buddies ever defined what these “clean, green, sustainable technologies” are, that are economically viable and will not lead to mass starvation and further poverty. Every single one you come up with has far worse consequences than the satus quo, of burning fossil fuels.

    Well, there are a variety of things we could do. We already have wind and hydro, and developments in solar are coming along (if you want to privatise electricity efficiently, you should support domestic solar generation, but that’s another issue). There’s also efficiency gains to be made on the consumption side (building regulations, stopping unnecessary waste, etc.).

    The generally accepted view is that we should start taxing emissions, which constitute a market failure (it is the present system that is not economically viable). You then take the collected taxes and get corporations and universities to bid for them on the basis of green tech research.

    How this mild scheme of pigovian taxes and research grants gets conflated over time with environmental Stalinism is beyond me.

    But if you don’t understand what a market failure is, then you have no business commenting on the topic, so your last paragraph is moot.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Kea (12,817 comments) says:

    mister nui, I find myself jumping to Tommies defense. The luddites have laid out a clear plan to modify the earths climate.

    1. Tax.

    2. Global communism.

    The link between CO2, tax and political systems is well established by climate “scientists”.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. davidp (3,581 comments) says:

    Kea>Tom, are you suggesting a return to Whale Oil lamps ?

    Whale oil is organic, and organic is (by definition) pure and virtuous. I think the country needs a goal in this area… maybe aim to provide 50% of our lighting using organic lamps by 2020?

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Kea (12,817 comments) says:

    “We already have wind and hydro”

    Both opposed by the luddite greenies.

    “The generally accepted view is that we should start taxing…”

    Told ya so mister nui ;)

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

    What’s this “generally accepted view” rubbish.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Kea (12,817 comments) says:

    davidp, so is crude oil organic.

    The term -Carbon- means Organic. All known life is Carbon based.

    Carbon compounds form the basis of all known life on Earth, and the carbon-nitrogen cycle provides some of the energy produced by the Sun and other stars.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Tom Jackson (2,553 comments) says:

    What’s this “generally accepted view” rubbish.

    It’s what rational, educated people who have actually studied the issue accept, which doesn’t mean much here.

    However, like I said, unless you understand the economics of market failures, your opinion on this doesn’t count. Pretty much nobody on this blog understands that, so it’s not a surprise that most of what is posted on this blog is daft.

    Both opposed by the luddite greenies.

    A species whose sole remaining habitat appears to be your mind.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. davidp (3,581 comments) says:

    mister nui>Not once have any of you and your buddies ever defined what these “clean, green, sustainable technologies” are, that are economically viable and will not lead to mass starvation and further poverty.

    It may help that the Obama administration have defined “green jobs” to show how important they are in the US economy. They include people employed in second hand record stores, bus drivers, people employed in bicycle shops, people employed in antique shops, people employed by zoos, environmental lobbyists, people employed sorting used clothes, and people who repair environmentally-efficient domestic appliances. These workers are the future of a Green economy.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Kea (12,817 comments) says:

    “Both opposed by the luddite greenies.”

    A species whose sole remaining habitat appears to be your mind.

    Tommy the greenies go hysterical at the mere mention of another hydro project.

    They also oppose windfarms, which I do too, given the huge number of birds they chomp their way through, to create a trickle of of unreliable and uneconomic electricity… on the days it blows… but not if it blows too hard, because then they have to shut them down !

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Kea (12,817 comments) says:

    It may help that the Obama administration have defined “green jobs” to show how important they are in the US economy.

    Each Green Job Obama Created Cost $11 Million

    With labor participation at 63 percent, Obama will only need to spend a few quadrillion dollars to create green jobs for everyone. I sure hope China lends us that money at a reasonable 200 trillion a year in interest, or the economic recovery might slow down.

    According to the Institute for Energy Research, the Department of Energy has spent nearly $26 billion since 2009 on its Section 1703 and 1705 loan programs. However, these two programs only yielded 2,308 permanent jobs — meaning the cost to taxpayers was $11.25 million per job.

    http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/each-green-job-obama-created-cost-11-million/

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. alex Masterley (1,517 comments) says:

    rational, check
    educated, check
    studied the issue check,
    disagree with the “generally accepted view” rubbish though.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. mister nui (1,027 comments) says:

    Well, there are a variety of things we could do. We already have wind and hydro, and developments in solar are coming along (if you want to privatise electricity efficiently, you should support domestic solar generation, but that’s another issue).

    Jesus wept.
    You lot don’t support building any more hydro schemes.

    Wind generation is hugely inefficient, requiring the mining of rare earths and many other metals, the ratio of copper used in 1GW of wind generation vs. 1 GW of thermal/hydro generation is greater than 1000x, if my memory serves me correctly, and that’s without counting the extra copper cabling required at the generation site. It creates a nuisance/disturbance to the public. It kills birds (how the fuck you greenies support this, when you’re all supposed to be animal lovers, I’ll never fucking know). They’re huge ugly blights on the landscape. They require large market subsidies, ultimately paid for by the taxpayer, to make them economically viable – if they didn’t have these, they would be prohibitively expensive, driving the people you purport to defend, the poor, further into poverty. Most importantly, wind generation is not reliable – what are we supposed to do on a cold, still winter night, when there is no wind to generate electricity? Sit round the fire singing kumbuya, trying to keep warm?

    Now solar, I’m not even going to bother smashing that one for six, the fact that you even brought it into the debate shows that you’re blinded by idealism rather than reality.

    There’s also efficiency gains to be made on the consumption side (building regulations, stopping unnecessary waste, etc.).

    Not sure that we need too many more regulations, perhaps less, but I do not disagree that there are efficiencies to be made on the consumption side, especially around the construction of houses, double glazing on all new builds for starters.

    The generally accepted view is that we should start taxing emissions, which constitute a market failure (it is the present system that is not economically viable). You then take the collected taxes and get corporations and universities to bid for them on the basis of green tech research.

    Oh, fuck off. Whose generally accepted view? You and your luddite buddies? Again, this bureaucratic nonsense only serves to hurt the poor and in many instances, assist the rich, whilst of course creating employment in the public service for you and your like-minded buddies. Hardly efficient, and taxes will always deter the smart minds from creating new technologies, no matter how you and your friends “redistribute the wealth”.

    How this mild scheme of pigovian taxes and research grants gets conflated over time with environmental Stalinism is beyond me.

    Conflated isn’t the word I would use, but environmental Stalinism is the RESULT of your policies.

    But if you don’t understand what a market failure is, then you have no business commenting on the topic, so your last paragraph is moot.

    Of course I understand what a market failure is; Every business that requires subsidy or special government regulation to keep it afloat should fail – Simple as that.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Kleva Kiwi (289 comments) says:

    Tom Jackson (1,997 comments) says:
    January 21st, 2014 at 4:09 pm

    “Well, there are a variety of things we could do. We already have wind and hydro, and developments in solar are coming along (if you want to privatise electricity efficiently, you should support domestic solar generation, but that’s another issue). There’s also efficiency gains to be made on the consumption side (building regulations, stopping unnecessary waste, etc.).”

    You need to go back to school buddy. The HEAVILY subsidised wind generation industry is in its death throws. With major subsidies (we are talking upwards of 60%) being pulled by major economies (such as UK, Germany, US) they are expecting 10’s of 1000’s of job losses as the industry proves itself un-viable. The UK alone expects 80,000 people will loose their jobs, Germany more as it switches back to coal fired plants to avoid blackouts. The multi billion dollar hand outs are stopping…

    Also last year the solar panel industry contracted more than 30% as there is NO DEMAND for this expensive tech. Once again subsidies are being pulled. China, the worlds largest panel producer had 3 out of the 5 largest manufacturers in the world file for bankruptcy. Oh its not looking good…

    Hybrid and electric vehicles have a larger carbon footprint over their lifetime than their equivalent fossil fuel powered equivalents, often 2-3 times as the processes required to manufacture the batteries are highly pollute. Not to mention the electricty comes from the grid for the electric versions, often from coal fired power plants, which are far more inefficient than petrol based combustion engines…

    Hydro power is opposed at ever turn by greenies. Cant dam a river some random snail might have to move…

    For every green job created, 3 people loose their jobs. Just look at Spain, Germany, UK, France for these failed experiments…

    Tom, the answer to the worlds energy needs is simple. Its called Nuclear Energy. Oh no he says. Thats the worst!
    Well no its not. It is the cheapest, cleanest form of energy man kind knows of. If more investment was made in this tech then we could reach 5th generation plants which supposedly would have 0 waste…

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. mister nui (1,027 comments) says:

    It may help that the Obama administration have defined “green jobs” to show how important they are in the US economy. They include people employed in second hand record stores, bus drivers, people employed in bicycle shops, people employed in antique shops, people employed by zoos, environmental lobbyists, people employed sorting used clothes, and people who repair environmentally-efficient domestic appliances. These workers are the future of a Green economy.

    Oh and that’s going to keep us all fed and warm on those -40°C days that “climate change” has been bringing the US of late….

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. mister nui (1,027 comments) says:

    Tom, the answer to the worlds energy needs is simple. Its called Nuclear Energy.

    Bravo that man.

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

    Well said Kleva Kiwi

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. scrubone (3,099 comments) says:

    Well, there are a variety of things we could do. We already have wind and hydro, and developments in solar are coming along (if you want to privatise electricity efficiently, you should support domestic solar generation, but that’s another issue). There’s also efficiency gains to be made on the consumption side (building regulations, stopping unnecessary waste, etc.).

    Not one of those technologies has the ability to produce industrial quantities of energy. (outside of the additional problems pointed out above)

    The interesting thing is, geothermal does. But the green movement never talks about that. It’s almost like they think energy use is bad per se.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. OneTrack (3,089 comments) says:

    scrubone – “But the green movement never talks about that. It’s almost like they think energy use is bad per se.”

    And we have a winner.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. All_on_Red (1,582 comments) says:

    “The fields carpeted with solar panels and the North Sea wind farms may have gratified the green conceits of Germany’s middle class but they have come at a terrible economic and social cost. According to Nature, the international science magazine, this year German consumers will be forced to pay €20bn (£17bn) to subsidise electricity from solar, wind and bio-gas plants, power with a real market price of €3bn.
    To pay for this green adventure, surcharges on electricity for households have increased by 47pc, or €15bn, in the past year alone. German consumers already pay the highest electricity prices in Europe; before long, the average three-person household will spend around €90 a month for electricity, almost twice as much as in 2000. Currently, more than 300,000 German households a year are seeing their power shut off because of unpaid bills.
    Two-thirds of the electricity price increase is due to new government surcharges and taxes to subsidise renewable energy. While electricity prices have rocketed and the middle classes receive handouts to put solar panels on their houses, pensions and wages have not kept up, hitting Germany’s poorest hardest.”
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/10577513/Germany-is-a-cautionary-tale-of-how-energy-polices-can-harm-the-economy.html

    People like Tom don’t care about poor people

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. Kea (12,817 comments) says:

    All_on_Red, Warmist hate the poor, but only if they are white.

    Thousands are freezing to death in the Northern Hemisphere in a series of frigid winters and this year looks set to be another shocker. They can not afford heating thanks to the green energy fantasies imposed on them by central government and the crippling tax to fund the Warmist movement and pay the climate “scientists”.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. All_on_Red (1,582 comments) says:

    Yep, you got it. The thing is the ” poor” don’t get the correct and full info from the MSM and being low information voters to start with, they are deliberately kept in the dark and taken advantage of- to their own detriment.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. Kea (12,817 comments) says:

    All_on_Red, yes and the comfortably off middle classes are happy to pay a bit more to feel smug and make a fashion statement to their peers. They are the ones I really dislike.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Yoza (1,872 comments) says:

    mister nui (851 comments) says:
    January 21st, 2014 at 1:47 pm

    It is very pleasing to see a group finally formed to counter some of the spin, deceit and downright bullshit proffered by the anti oil + gas brigade

    This is completely insane, the oil industry spends billions on misinformation campaigns. The attempt to portray those in the oil industry as earnest little battlers from struggle street whose primary concern is the welfare of humanity defies belief. This is a cold blooded industry run by sociopaths to whom human life has no value if it presents an obstacle to their commercial benefit.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. safesally (47 comments) says:

    I see Yoza is having his period again :)

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. Kea (12,817 comments) says:

    Comrade Yoza, Greetings. How is the potato harvest in your sector ?

    1. Oil companies harvest a natural product to meet demand. A demand from people like you.

    2. Take away the demand, from people like you, and they will not harvest the product.

    3. Oil companies pretend AGW is real for PR reasons. They have no reason to oppose it as the world just can not get enough of their product (Because of the demand from people like you)

    4. The real money is in the AGW business and industries based on it. We are talking a multi Trillion dollar global industry invested in heavily by the worlds most powerful people. Careers and fortunes are all based on the myth.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. Komata (1,191 comments) says:

    Mister-nui

    Here, here, sir, thank you for asking ‘my’ sorts of questions (the sorts I have been asking for years).

    The Gweens will of course NEVER answer your questions, but it makes me wonder, where is the ‘learned’ Toad – this forum’s tame Green Party’s apologist? He ALWAYS defends the indefensible (and will always ‘vanish’ rather than answer ‘inconvenient’ questions).

    Has he been banned?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. mister nui (1,027 comments) says:

    The attempt to portray those in the oil industry as earnest little battlers from struggle street whose primary concern is the welfare of humanity defies belief. This is a cold blooded industry run by sociopaths to whom human life has no value if it presents an obstacle to their commercial benefit.

    You truly have no idea, you little marxist jerk. How do you know the background of myself and my employees? Many of us have come from struggle street, but identified opportunities, worked hard and ultimately made the best from any opportunity given to us. Far more than I can say about an angry, hate-filled, envious twerp, whose only contribution to the world is daily epistle’s against the people who actually contribute.

    I will also guarantee, from the work that I have done, I have done far more than you could ever dream of to develop wanted and needed infrastructure for the betterment of peoples lives. How many power stations have you built in Africa, Asia and South America?

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. Tom Jackson (2,553 comments) says:

    rational, check
    educated, check
    studied the issue check,
    disagree with the “generally accepted view” rubbish though.

    Which makes you just as big a fool as the rest of the clowns here who don’t understand the economics of climate change. It’s not even the difficult stuff that goes over your heads, but the basic principles.

    Fortunately, people with actual skin in the game will be less accommodating of your stupidity and intransigence come decision time. It’s rather quaint how you folks are slowly painting yourselves into a corner. When things need to be done, it just won’t matter what you think, because there will be more at stake than quaint notions of democracy. You seem to have this odd idea that the people who really make things happen will actually listen to you because they’ve tolerated you as useful idiots in the past.

    Nuclear power would also be fine, although that won’t fly in NZ due to the political climate and earthquake risks.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. Tom Jackson (2,553 comments) says:

    You truly have no idea, you little marxist jerk. How do you know the background of myself and my employees?

    You’re exhibit A for the banality of evil.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. mister nui (1,027 comments) says:

    Evil in your mind maybe, Tom. But I sleep with peace at night, knowing all the great things I have done with fossil fuels have brought comfort, well-being and economic opportunities to many, many people across the globe.

    You would rather them washing their clothes in filthy rivers, having to walk miles to get potable water, or worse still, not have access to potable water, no electricity at schools for their children to learn at, no economy outside of subsistence farming…. I could go on and on…. All in the name of an ideology of not allowing anyone to use fossil fuels. Well, except you and your elitist friends.

    Contemptuous asshole.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. All_on_Red (1,582 comments) says:

    Tom, it’s your ignorance and fanatical belief which is contrary to modern science which condemns the elderly and poor to die.
    You are the one who is evil and who lacks humanity. Every day which passes as nature proves your unproven ideas wrong is the day closer to you realising what a gullible fool you are.
    I’d debate the finer detail of climate science with you but alas, it would be a waste of time as your ideology blinds you to reason.
    Fortunately the world is waking up and you will be passed by as you are exposed by the truth.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. Yoza (1,872 comments) says:

    mister nui (853 comments) says:
    January 21st, 2014 at 8:13 pm

    I will also guarantee, from the work that I have done, I have done far more than you could ever dream of to develop wanted and needed infrastructure for the betterment of peoples lives. How many power stations have you built in Africa, Asia and South America?

    Which countries would these be? When foreign corporations build infrastructure in target countries they do so to benefit their own interests; Indonesia built toads throughout East Timor so it could move its troops more effectively about the island, but the Indonesians would have everyone believe that these roads were built for the benefit of the locals. I would suggest that nothing you have done in any country in which you have operated was an act of benevolent largesse in the interest of the local community, more than likely your activity was the consequence of a cost/benefit analysis that served the profit motives of your paymasters.

    You speak like someone seeking absolution, your narrative is not that of a clear conscience. Do you hire the mercenaries or have you just witnessed the carnage they leave in their wake?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. Yoza (1,872 comments) says:

    All_on_Red (734 comments) says:
    January 21st, 2014 at 10:37 pm .

    Tom, it’s your ignorance and fanatical belief which is contrary to modern science which condemns the elderly and poor to die.
    You are the one who is evil and who lacks humanity. Every day which passes as nature proves your unproven ideas wrong is the day closer to you realising what a gullible fool you are.
    I’d debate the finer detail of climate science with you but alas, it would be a waste of time as your ideology blinds you to reason.
    Fortunately the world is waking up and you will be passed by as you are exposed by the truth.

    You are quite literally barking mad if you think you can use science to disprove the case for catastrophic anthropogenic global warming, the only argument now is the rate at which the disaster is unfolding. Denying global warming is occurring is to admit to being profoundly ignorant or incurably insane.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. mister nui (1,027 comments) says:

    Oh dear Yoza. Let’s just pretend you’re right and I’m a mercenary…..

    Has anyone who is not a hard leftist marxist, ever done any good in the world, in your eyes?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. All_on_Red (1,582 comments) says:

    Oh leave it out comrade Yoza. Ive forgotten more about climate science than you will ever know.
    But hey, prove me wrong and describe in your own words how CO2 is going to cause 4 degrees C in warming. Even the IPCC doesn’t think that will happen but off you go.
    Put up or shut up.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. Yoza (1,872 comments) says:

    All_on_Red (735 comments) says:
    January 22nd, 2014 at 1:48 am

    Oh leave it out comrade Yoza. Ive forgotten more about climate science than you will ever know.
    But hey, prove me wrong and describe in your own words how CO2 is going to cause 4 degrees C in warming. Even the IPCC doesn’t think that will happen but off you go.
    Put up or shut up.

    No time, I need to go to work. However, this article provides a synopsis that is easy to follow and is linked to peer reviewed studies:

    The greenhouse gas qualities of CO2 have been known for over a century. In 1861, John Tyndal published laboratory results identifying CO2 as a greenhouse gas that absorbed heat rays (longwave radiation). Since then, the absorptive qualities of CO2 have been more precisely measured and quantified by laboratory results and radiative physics theory (Herzberg 1953, Burch 1962, Burch 1970, etc).

    So according to lab results and radiative physics, we expect that increasing atmospheric CO2 should absorb more longwave radiation as it escapes back out to space. Has this effect been observed? The paper Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997 (Harries 2001) attempts to find out. In 1970, NASA launched the IRIS satellite that measured infrared spectra between 400 cm-1 to 1600 cm-1. In 1996, the Japanese Space Agency launched the IMG satellite which recorded similar observations. Harries 2001 compared both sets of data to discern any changes in outgoing radiation over the 26 year period. The resultant change in outgoing radiation was as follows:

    here there is a diagram of a graph

    What they found was a drop in outgoing radiation at the wavelength bands that greenhouse gases such as CO2 and methane (CH4) absorb energy. The change in outgoing radiation over CO2 bands was consistent with theoretical expectations. Thus the paper found “direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth’s greenhouse effect”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. Yoza (1,872 comments) says:

    mister nui (854 comments) says:
    January 21st, 2014 at 11:23 pm

    Oh dear Yoza. Let’s just pretend you’re right and I’m a mercenary…..

    Has anyone who is not a hard leftist marxist, ever done any good in the world, in your eyes?

    I think hard left Marxists are as stupid as hard right neoliberal fanatics.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. alex Masterley (1,517 comments) says:

    Tom, personal attacks are so passé.
    Why demonise those who disagree with you?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. Pete George (23,559 comments) says:

    aM – it’s not just Tom, it’s standard practice here for a persistent and vocal minority. And you get attacked and demonised for pointing that out.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. alex Masterley (1,517 comments) says:

    PG – sad but true.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. All_on_Red (1,582 comments) says:

    Not even close Yoza.
    Here’s a hint. Your explanation should include words like “climate sensitivity, positive feedback, radiative forcing, hot spots,”
    I think it would be best if you first try to find out what modern science has to say about where climate sensitivity is. Then you might like to move onto the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, and ENSO and you might actually learn something.
    Have a look when you get back from weeding the potatoes on the collective.

    Btw, for a “greenhouse effect” to work you need convection and conduction. This can only happen if the system is enclosed ie,with walls and a roof. There ain’t no roof on planet earth.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. Yoza (1,872 comments) says:

    Try linking to peer reviewed research to support your fantasies A-O-R. Here’s a hint. It is sparse to nonexistent
    Although, judging by your tone, I expect you will be submitting a paper to a reputable journal which refutes the research of thousands of scientists, …I won’t be holding my breath.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. All_on_Red (1,582 comments) says:

    ha I could give you many many Peer Reviewed Papers especially detailing how climate sensitivity is now estimated to be 1.3 degrees C per century, how there are no hot spots, sea ice extent has expanded, sea levels are rising only 2-3mm per decade, how Urban Heat Island Effect creates heat etc etc but frankly it wont change your mind as you are stuck in an ideological mind set. So really I’m not going to waste my time. Also its far more fun showing you up to be a moron. :-)
    Back to the potato fields for you Comrade

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. Yoza (1,872 comments) says:

    Heh, a simple ‘no, I have nothing’ would have sufficed.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. hj (6,996 comments) says:

    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Climate_change_controversies
    Not much to see in the Scientific Contrversey/climate change …
    where are the knowlegeable team oil editors?
    Ans: are piss and wind.

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