Some protest...

[Paul in NZ]

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/9324942/Raglan-residents-slam-lack-of-consultation

Raglan Fishing Charters' Brian Hooker is worried about the environmental impact on marine life and is threatening to lead a fleet of boats to picket the Anadarko vessel the Noble Bob Douglas when it arrives at the end of next month.

I hope they are all either sailing or rowing out there.... Because where do they think the fuel for their boats and cars comes from?

[Robbo]

Is'nt it amazing how these greenie teleban bastards all drive to these protest sites in their clapped out old bombs that blow smoke everywhere and drink fuel like there's no tomorrow and have the cheek to protest about issues that generally contribute to the NZ economy. The same economy that funds their dole payments. Hypocracy at its best. :mad::mad:

[Banditbandit]

yeah .. I'm really sure that Brian Hooker, who owns Raglan Fishing Charters, collects the dole ....

[MisterD]

yeah .. I'm really sure that Brian Hooker, who owns Raglan Fishing Charters, collects the dole ....

Yeah he just drives around the ocean, burning fossil fuels and contributing to the depletion of our fish stocks while calling himself an "environmentalist". Oh-kaaay...

[Oscar]

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/9324942/Raglan-residents-slam-lack-of-consultation

Raglan Fishing Charters' Brian Hooker is worried about the environmental impact on marine life and is threatening to lead a fleet of boats to picket the Anadarko vessel the Noble Bob Douglas when it arrives at the end of next month.

I hope they are all either sailing or rowing out there.... Because where do they think the fuel for their boats and cars comes from?

204km from shore.
I'll bet he's out there fishing all the time..

[Banditbandit]

Yeah he just drives around the ocean, burning fossil fuels and contributing to the depletion of our fish stocks while calling himself an "environmentalist". Oh-kaaay...

Yeah .. I get that bit - and agree .. it was Robbo's generalization of these people as being on the dole I was responding too ...

[Paul in NZ]

204km from shore.
I'll bet he's out there fishing all the time..

Has to - hes already caught all the stuff close in... ;-)

[HenryDorsetCase]

You're a funny lot.

I think concern about Donnie Darko raping our oceans and deep sea drilling in particular is well founded. This is yet another example of how the profit is privatised and the risk is the public purse.

Drilling over 200m deep is classed as "Deep sea" I gather that these wells are 1500m down. The oceans where they are drilling are amongst the wildest on the planet. The technology to do it is absolute bleeding edge, and the consequences of a cockup will be catastrophic. In fact this is more akin to nuclear power than it is to traditional oil drilling. You think if shit happens Donnie Darko will stick around to clean up? Fuck no, they're back to texas leaving the taxpayers of this country to clean up their shit.

You guys are all focussing on some (in my view) stupid ad hominem arguments and not actually looking at what is happening. Take of your Nazional party blinkers, discount smarmy cunt Key's bland assurance of how relaxed he is about it, and actually think.

Its one of the few areas I agree with Greenpeace on.

[MisterD]

Its one of the few areas I agree with Greenpeace on.

So we chuck it all in the "too hard" basket and go back to our organic yurts and knit our own yoghurt by the flickering light of burning cow pats?

Sorry, I'm going with technological progress and the triumph of human ingenuity...

From the Dom Post's editorial:



Here, unlike the Gulf, the most likely finds are gas and light condensate, not heavy black oil. Here, the pressure in underwater fields is typically so low gas and condensate have to be pumped out. At Deepwater Horizon oil spewed out. Then, a cap for the well had to be designed and built before it could be deployed. Now so-called "stacking caps" are kept at strategic locations around the world, available to be deployed at a couple of weeks' notice.

[mashman]

Fucker must be jealous. Oil is for money, not for progress... else they wouldn't waste so much on trivial shit. Then again, they're only taking oil out of the ground, some other fucker turns it into "product" so it ain't their problem eh.

[Hitcher]

The tree-hugging, whale-fondling, oxygen-deprived brigade, spurred on by a profit-driven multi-national corporation (Greenpeace) are not at all worried (yet) about where the profits go from offshore oil and gas production. They'll move on to that once their current concerns get shot down in flames.

They have onanised themselves into a lather about their perceived risks of inadvertent oil discharges, based on recent events such as the grounding of the Rena and the really big oil slicks in the Gulf of Mexico.

What they are choosing to ignore are facts, science, logic and reason. Offshore oil production is extremely low risk -- less than 0.001%. There are thousands of production sites around the world, many of which are in particularly difficult locations, such as the North Sea, Bass Strait and Torres Strait. Oil companies know what they're doing, and have robust systems in place to minimise risks and prevent spillage or leakage.

The biggest environmental risks associated with sea-borne oil come from vessels colliding, grounding or sinking, not from exploration companies boring holes in the ocean floor.

[bogan]

So we chuck it all in the "too hard" basket and go back to our organic yurts and knit our own yoghurt by the flickering light of burning cow pats?

Sorry, I'm going with technological progress and the triumph of human ingenuity...

From the Dom Post's editorial:

Depends if it is actual technical progress, or whether those wishing to go ahead with the plan just don't care as much about the risks.

I meant here is a lot of ambiguity in that quote, what if they find pressurized heavy black oil? Pack up and go home? Shit hits the fan, can the well capping be done in those circumstances in a timely manner or is it weather dependent, a couple of weeks sounds like a long fucking time for oil to be spewing out.

[Smifffy]

So we chuck it all in the "too hard" basket and go back to our organic yurts and knit our own yoghurt by the flickering light of burning cow pats?

Sorry, I'm going with technological progress and the triumph of human ingenuity...

From the Dom Post's editorial:

Human ingenuity is indeed limitless. So too is human greed when it comes to cutting corners/bending rules to make a buck. It wasn't the lack of engineering nouse that caused the deepwater horizon blowout. Just like it wasn't poor engineering/failure/lack of information that parked the Rena on Astrolabe reef. Was it a lack of ingenuity that caused the leaky homes crisis?\

Mankind has been ingenious since forever, and in our last big resource grab, we ended up with forests devoid of Kauri trees, and rivers and creeks filled with cyanide. All done with the latest technology and with the local economy in mind and at heart.

What will be the real benefit to our economy? Do these companies hire locally? No. Do they spend their profits in their area of operation? No? Look at how rich Papua New Guinea has become from all of the resources drawn from them by multi-nationals over the years.

Do you think this project will make your fuel any cheaper?

We could rather be encouraging companies that are interested in developing fuel & chemicals from forest biomass (trees), we are certainly well placed to do so so, and there is a lot happening in this field.

[MIXONE]

If that "smarmy cunt" donkey is for it then I'm agin' it.

Fucking overblown,used car salesman imo...

[Oscar]

You guys are all focussing on some (in my view) stupid ad hominem arguments and not actually looking at what is happening. Take of your Nazional party blinkers, discount smarmy cunt Key's bland assurance of how relaxed he is about it, and actually think.



I'd like to think that you did that on purpose.
Somehow, I doubt it.

[Oscar]

The tree-hugging, whale-fondling, oxygen-deprived brigade, spurred on by a profit-driven multi-national corporation (Greenpeace) are not at all worried (yet) about where the profits go from offshore oil and gas production. They'll move on to that once their current concerns get shot down in flames.

They have onanised themselves into a lather about their perceived risks of inadvertent oil discharges, based on recent events such as the grounding of the Rena and the really big oil slicks in the Gulf of Mexico.

What they are choosing to ignore are facts, science, logic and reason. Offshore oil production is extremely low risk -- less than 0.001%. There are thousands of production sites around the world, many of which are in particularly difficult locations, such as the North Sea, Bass Strait and Torres Strait. Oil companies know what they're doing, and have robust systems in place to minimise risks and prevent spillage or leakage.

The biggest environmental risks associated with sea-borne oil come from vessels colliding, grounding or sinking, not from exploration companies boring holes in the ocean floor.

Yup.

Also the Greenpeace study was based on high pressure (1800psi) heavy crude being the culprit (as in the Gulf of Mexico).
There has never been any high pressure dark crude found off NZ.
Basically we've only ever found gas and small quantities of light sweet crude at much lower pressures.

But don't let the facts get in the way of some good propaganda...

[Zedder]

Human ingenuity is indeed limitless. So too is human greed when it comes to cutting corners/bending rules to make a buck. It wasn't the lack of engineering nouse that caused the deepwater horizon blowout. Just like it wasn't poor engineering/failure/lack of information that parked the Rena on Astrolabe reef. Was it a lack of ingenuity that caused the leaky homes crisis?\

Mankind has been ingenious since forever, and in our last big resource grab, we ended up with forests devoid of Kauri trees, and rivers and creeks filled with cyanide. All done with the latest technology and with the local economy in mind and at heart.

What will be the real benefit to our economy? Do these companies hire locally? No. Do they spend their profits in their area of operation? No? Look at how rich Papua New Guinea has become from all of the resources drawn from them by multi-nationals over the years.

Do you think this project will make your fuel any cheaper?

We could rather be encouraging companies that are interested in developing fuel & chemicals from forest biomass (trees), we are certainly well placed to do so so, and there is a lot happening in this field.

The only winner in the NZ oil production game is the Gubbermint. Hundreds of millions of dollars in royalties and company taxes per year come their way.

I recently read that the US biogas company KiOR has just received a USD$100 million injection of funds. Interestingly also, the US Congress has a requirement that gasoline companies buy the product. Good news.

[awa355]

Yeah he just drives around the ocean, burning fossil fuels and contributing to the depletion of our fish stocks while calling himself an "environmentalist". Oh-kaaay...


A bit like motorcyclists riding around burning fossil fuels for no real reason other than we want to and, if we want, we can call ourselves "enviromentalists" for burning less fuel than cars. :niceone: At least, Brian brings home a fish to eat most days.

[Milts]

Is'nt it amazing how these greenie teleban bastards all drive to these protest sites in their clapped out old bombs that blow smoke everywhere and drink fuel like there's no tomorrow and have the cheek to protest about issues that generally contribute to the NZ economy. The same economy that funds their dole payments. Hypocracy at its best. :mad::mad:

Driving an old uneconomical care is significantly more efficient than building an entirely new car from scratch.

[Robbo]

Driving an old uneconomical care is significantly more efficient than building an entirely new car from scratch.

Regardless of weather it is or it is'nt, this is about Hypocricy and not Efficientcy.:msn-wink:

[Smifffy]

Regardless of weather it is or it is'nt, this is about Hypocricy and not Efficientcy.:msn-wink:

Clearly it ain't about spelling, grammar or punctuation.

[puddytat]

Well I think we'll get out there quite comfortably in this.....289059

[BMWST?]

The tree-hugging, whale-fondling, oxygen-deprived brigade, spurred on by a profit-driven multi-national corporation (Greenpeace) are not at all worried (yet) about where the profits go from offshore oil and gas production. They'll move on to that once their current concerns get shot down in flames.

They have onanised themselves into a lather about their perceived risks of inadvertent oil discharges, based on recent events such as the grounding of the Rena and the really big oil slicks in the Gulf of Mexico.

What they are choosing to ignore are facts, science, logic and reason. Offshore oil production is extremely low risk -- less than 0.001%. There are thousands of production sites around the world, many of which are in particularly difficult locations, such as the North Sea, Bass Strait and Torres Strait. Oil companies know what they're doing, and have robust systems in place to minimise risks and prevent spillage or leakage.

The biggest environmental risks associated with sea-borne oil come from vessels colliding, grounding or sinking, not from exploration companies boring holes in the ocean floor.
tell that to the people of Louisiana

[Milts]

Regardless of weather it is or it is'nt, this is about Hypocricy and not Efficientcy.:msn-wink:

My mistake. I thought you were calling them hypocrites for being uneconomical, which would be incorrect as they were utilising the most economical method. Clearly you were calling them hypocritical for another reason which I failed to understand.

[Robbo]

Clearly it ain't about spelling, grammar or punctuation.

Grammar "ain't"..:nono: Geeze Smiffy, we both must have gone to the same school..:rolleyes:

[mashman]

My mistake. I thought you were calling them hypocrites for being uneconomical, which would be incorrect as they were utilising the most economical method. Clearly you were calling them hypocritical for another reason which I failed to understand.

If they use things that are made of oil, then how dare they protest oil being removed from the ground. Total hypocrisy.

[Road kill]

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/9324942/Raglan-residents-slam-lack-of-consultation

Raglan Fishing Charters' Brian Hooker is worried about the environmental impact on marine life and is threatening to lead a fleet of boats to picket the Anadarko vessel the Noble Bob Douglas when it arrives at the end of next month.

I hope they are all either sailing or rowing out there.... Because where do they think the fuel for their boats and cars comes from?

That's a bit black an white man.

We all live in the modern world an none of us have a say in that,but the fact we're consumers ourselves shouldn't be enough to stop people protesting against what they believe is bad for the environment as it is today.

We can't change the damage done already but we should stop it getting worse when ever we can.

Raglan fishing charters are like many other charters,they don't get out everyday,what they do is sustainable,their profits go a longway toward the local community and their not destroying anything that you and I don't also have a thumb in..

Shooting the messenger is a pretty mean thing.

[The Reibz]

They plan on drilling 1500m under the ocean. Incase there are people that don't know shit about the ocean around, that is around 1440m past safe diveable depth. So if there is a blowout there is no way to repair it. Lets see whos first to have a winge when the entire west coast of NZ is covered in oil and all the snapper die.

This country used to mean something. 40 years ago we were standing up against big corporations and countries. World leaders in it actually, told the yanks to stick it up their arses. We should be building more wind farms and hydro plants. Not drilling for oil, oil is old news. Oh wait John sold off all our assets, there goes that idea.

Time to go stock up on the KY for the next 50 years while we get our arses raped by the rest of the world.

[Tazz]

They plan on drilling 1500m under the ocean. Incase there are people that don't know shit about the ocean around, that is around 1440m past safe diveable depth. So if there is a blowout there is no way to repair it. Lets see whos first to have a winge when the entire west coast of NZ is covered in oil and all the snapper die.

This country used to mean something. 40 years ago we were standing up against big corporations and countries. World leaders in it actually, told the yanks to stick it up their arses. We should be building more wind farms and hydro plants. Not drilling for oil, oil is old news. Oh wait John sold off all our assets, there goes that idea.

Time to go stock up on the KY for the next 50 years while we get our arses raped by the rest of the world.

Yup. Look at Aus and their mining. The bulk of the money goes to China and now the Chinese are stockpiling a lot of the resources mined too XD The buggers are even putting Tungsten in their gold. If you're going to rip all this stuff out of the ground you'd at least think you'd do it yourself and put some of the profits back into the place/make sure it is done correctly.
When you get offshore companies rocking in it is the all about the bottom line, not the long term.



What they are choosing to ignore are facts, science, logic and reason. Offshore oil production is extremely low risk -- less than 0.001%. There are thousands of production sites around the world, many of which are in particularly difficult locations, such as the North Sea, Bass Strait and Torres Strait. Oil companies know what they're doing, and have robust systems in place to minimise risks and prevent spillage or leakage.


Why do you think it is low risk man? It is because of people standing up against it.
If they were just let swoon in and do as they please it would be the most cost effective methods used, not the safest.

People are just so quick to roll over and take it these days.

[Paul in NZ]

That's a bit black an white man.

We all live in the modern world an none of us have a say in that,but the fact we're consumers ourselves shouldn't be enough to stop people protesting against what they believe is bad for the environment as it is today.

We can't change the damage done already but we should stop it getting worse when ever we can.

Raglan fishing charters are like many other charters,they don't get out everyday,what they do is sustainable,their profits go a longway toward the local community and their not destroying anything that you and I don't also have a thumb in..

Shooting the messenger is a pretty mean thing.

No more black and white than the protesters and lets be fair you have a pretty black/white record in previous posts. Besides these discussions do better if you take a stance and see what happens

Charter fishers are some of the worst offenders. Look at what happens when they take out big groups and each person has a limit bag. 10 on the boat and everyone expects the limit to take home and everyone of them thinks they are being responsible fishers - collectively its a nightmare.

AND they are outside the legislation in that they take commecial (or near commercial) quantities and don't have to report catch or limit themselves to a quota like the commercial guys do...

[SPman]

Oil companies know what they're doing, and have robust systems in place to minimise risks and prevent spillage or leakage. Bullshit. Events around the world over the last 20+ years belie that fact. Oil companies are very good at shifting all responsibility for their multitudinous fuck ups onto the local communities and letting them swing. Their history is not good, despite all the "assurances" from those with vested interests. Also, the record of the 2 firms involved in NZ offshore drilling are not that great, and there are no real safeguards in place, despite Mr Shysters bland assurances. Combine that with NZ's "three dinghies and some scoops" oil spillage response team, and if the worst did happen, the coast would be fucked.


Charter fishers are some of the worst offenders. Look at what happens when they take out big groups and each person has a limit bag. 10 on the boat and everyone expects the limit to take home and everyone of them thinks they are being responsible fishers - collectively its a nightmare. Private fishermen cause as much damage, if not more, to the local coastal fisheries, than the despised commercial fisheries - and god knows, they are bad enough!

[noobi]

Bullshit. Events around the world over the last 20+ years belie that fact. Oil companies are very good at shifting all responsibility for their multitudinous fuck ups onto the local communities and letting them swing. Their history is not good, despite all the "assurances" from those with vested interests. Also, the record of the 2 firms involved in NZ offshore drilling are not that great, and there are no real safeguards in place, despite Mr Shysters bland assurances. Combine that with NZ's "three dinghies and some scoops" oil spillage response team, and if the worst did happen, the coast would be fucked.



Dont let facts get in the way of some good corporation bashing.
http://www.epa.gov/osweroe1/docs/oil/fss/fss04/etkin_04.pdf

tl;dr

Any spill is more obvious because of the media
number of oil spills in decreasing
number of barrells of oil extracted is increasing
number of spills per million units of production is decreasing

[gammaguy]

Is'nt it amazing how these greenie teleban bastards all drive to these protest sites in their clapped out old bombs that blow smoke everywhere and drink fuel like there's no tomorrow and have the cheek to protest about issues that generally contribute to the NZ economy. The same economy that funds their dole payments. Hypocracy at its best. :mad::mad:

It takes more energy to make.a new car than it does to keep an old one on the road for around 50 years

The only reason they keep making new ones is the planned obsolescence built in to every one of them,we are all consumers and suckers and they are laughing at us

If you all cared about the environment you'd be driving an old but well maintained car like I do,riding old but well maintained fuel guzzling headbanging two strokes that used less energy to make than diesels like I do,and you wouldn't wear any underwear either.
After all nothing focuses you on the environment better than a stiff breeze blowing up yer...

Closer to nature and all that


Just saying

[SPman]

Dont let facts get in the way of some good corporation bashing.
http://www.epa.gov/osweroe1/docs/oil/fss/fss04/etkin_04.pdf

tl;dr

Any spill is more obvious because of the media
number of oil spills in decreasing
number of barrells of oil extracted is increasing
number of spills per million units of production is decreasing
Well, that covers navigable waterways covered by the EPA. Sure enough, minor spills do seem to be decreasing - good for them.
Now, what about the rest of the world?
How about the damage from previous spills, blowouts, mayhem, which, even after 20 yrs, are still having a massive effect on the environment initially fucked ?
Get a badly maintained oil pipeline let go in the Arctic....another drill blow out at sea or land.
Oil companies have a well proven record of paying out absolute minimal compensation, and none if they can get away with it - and they often do,due to bribery and corruption around the world on a massive scale - people in authority on the take is where it's at!

[noobi]

Well, that covers navigable waterways covered by the EPA. Sure enough, minor spills do seem to be decreasing - good for them.
Now, what about the rest of the world?
How about the damage from previous spills, blowouts, mayhem, which, even after 20 yrs, are still having a massive effect on the environment initially fucked ?
Get a badly maintained oil pipeline let go in the Arctic....another drill blow out at sea or land.
Oil companies have a well proven record of paying out absolute minimal compensation, and none if they can get away with it - and they often do,due to bribery and corruption around the world on a massive scale - people in authority on the take is where it's at!

You're not talking about NZ anymore are you.

http://www.environmental-research.com/publications/pdf/spill_statistics/paper4.pdf


Reduction in U.S oil spillage largely mirrors international trends. Spill numbers and amounts have decreased since 1990, though very large spills can skew oil amounts.

[SPman]

.......though very large spills can skew oil amounts.

Sorry - most of those statistics are meaningless in the situation being protested about. The Rena was a moderate spill by international standards and was a fuck up from beginning to (not yet) end. To think the Government have learnt anything other than cover up and denial from the whole sorry scene is debatable. If there was a comprehensive disaster plan with assets in place, and enforced safety requirements encumbent on the rigs and their operations, there may be a case for letting them in. Blind faith by the PM that "she'll be right" doesn't cut it!

[Ocean1]

Well I think we'll get out there quite comfortably in this.....289059

Went for a wee ride on a 53ft cruiser the other day, lovely old boat. There were about a dozen of us, along with the old girl about 7 tons worth, we travelled a tad under 100k and the Gardener 6LB used 18 litres. Not bad for 90 year old technology.

[Ocean1]

Sorry - most of those statistics are meaningless in the situation being protested about.

Wasn't it you that raised 'em?

And I wonder if the relevant authorities might have a better handle on any related risk assessment than us, eh? Or is beating up on JK justified anyway 'cause we don't like him?

[noobi]

Sorry - most of those statistics are meaningless in the situation being protested about.

You're the one you who stated
Bullshit. Events around the world over the last 20+ years belie that fact. as a response to
Oil companies know what they're doing, and have robust systems in place to minimise risks and prevent spillage or leakage.

So I provided statistics which shows that the systems are in fact becoming much more robust and leakage is being reduced. What parts don't apply here?

[Smifffy]

Wasn't it you that raised 'em?

And I wonder if the relevant authorities might have a better handle on any related risk assessment than us, eh? Or is beating up on JK justified anyway 'cause we don't like him?

And I wonder are these relevant authorities connected in any way to the relevant authorities that had the great handle on risk assessment when it came to revamping the underground mining safety regulations, eh? Having independent underground inspectors was just too costly. Cheaper to destroy the place and kill 27 miners. Bloody good thing the engineering was sound though. Don't worry about any of that though, think of the jobs, and the economy.

[BMWST?]

dont worry the "MARKET" will take care of everything!

[Road kill]

You're the one you who stated as a response to

So I provided statistics which shows that the systems are in fact becoming much more robust and leakage is being reduced. What parts don't apply here?

The parts where oil spills do still happen.
The part where even a small one will cause damage we can't afford.
The part where oil spills do still happen.
And the part where oil spills do still happen.
Which part of oil spills do still happen,,do "you" not get ?

[noobi]

The parts where oil spills do still happen.
The part where even a small one will cause damage we can't afford.
The part where oil spills do still happen.
And the part where oil spills do still happen.
Which part of oil spills do still happen,,do "you" not get ?

What parts do "I" not get?
I was never debating that they don't happen, did you even read what I wrote or did you just have a preconceived idea and want to ignore what I posted?
No where did "I" say anything which hinted the opposite of what "you" said.

I pointed out that oil drilling is becoming 'safer', and less prone to accidents. Which I then backed up with statistics which showed that.

No one wants an oil spill to occur, least of which is the company involved, but then again, no one wants to die in a fiery road accident, yet people still do. Knowing that, I still drive around and shit.

[Ocean1]

And I wonder are these relevant authorities connected in any way to the relevant authorities that had the great handle on risk assessment when it came to revamping the underground mining safety regulations, eh? Having independent underground inspectors was just too costly. Cheaper to destroy the place and kill 27 miners. Bloody good thing the engineering was sound though. Don't worry about any of that though, think of the jobs, and the economy.

I doubt it, but that relationship isn't required to explain poor decision making, is it? Just as, without the slightest research I doubt that the company, (or one or more of it's employees) was complying with whatever safety measures were actually required of them. As a matter of interest was any one of those omissions, or a collection of them the principle cause of the loss?

And yes our govt often gets it wrong in weighing risk against reward, and while they're far better informed than the likes of us lot they're also under far more pressure to produce revenue to support a burgeoning non-productive sector.

Which is why the control mechanisms of a couple of decades ago were better, they removed the temptation to cut corners. When we had authorities constituting professional experts that wrote industry standards with which both public and private enterprise had to conform we all knew where we were. Now we have a system which says "we're not here to advise you of best practice, but if one of your employees gets hurt we'll see you in court". Very helpful.

[Ocean1]

dont worry the "MARKET" will take care of everything!

Actually, you're perfectly correct, if product is priced appropriately it covers the cost of any risk of environmental damage.

Which it usually is, in a FREE market.

[Tazz]

Actually, you're perfectly correct, if product is priced appropriately it covers the cost of any risk of environmental damage.

Which it usually is, in a FREE market.

Yeah like when Nuclear goes wrong, oil is buffed right out in exchange for cash. No harm done.

XD

[blue rider]

stuff that does not happen because no one speaks about it or sum such thing ( with excellent engineering one may add, really :yawn: and oh...free market, cause US of A)

http://grist.org/climate-energy/arkansas-town-in-lockdown-after-oil-spill-nightmare/

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/10/27/2843021/oil-spills-unreported/

http://www.nbcnews.com/video/nightly-news/53300272 (oct. 16th 2013) recent, and believed to be the largest land based oil spill in the US (i am sure the engineering was oarsome when initial build)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_Mayflower_oil_spill


health risks to peeps? Oh thats just business

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/gulf-coast-oil-spill-cleanup-workers-receive-no-cost-medical-review-by-dr-greg-vigna-md-jd-210636721.html

http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2013/04/19/corexit-deadly-dispersant-in-oil-spill-cleanup/

effects of oil spills - also just cost of business

http://serc.carleton.edu/NAGTWorkshops/health/case_studies/bp_oil.html



but look, Mr. Smiling Assassin Key is not worried, so she'll be right Mate.

Green Clean NZ....Yea sure, Tui!

[Smifffy]

I doubt it, but that relationship isn't required to explain poor decision making, is it? Just as, without the slightest research I doubt that the company, (or one or more of it's employees) was complying with whatever safety measures were actually required of them. As a matter of interest was any one of those omissions, or a collection of them the principle cause of the loss?

And yes our govt often gets it wrong in weighing risk against reward, and while they're far better informed than the likes of us lot they're also under far more pressure to produce revenue to support a burgeoning non-productive sector.

Which is why the control mechanisms of a couple of decades ago were better, they removed the temptation to cut corners. When we had authorities constituting professional experts that wrote industry standards with which both public and private enterprise had to conform we all knew where we were. Now we have a system which says "we're not here to advise you of best practice, but if one of your employees gets hurt we'll see you in court". Very helpful.

We agree on much of this. My point being that despite all assurances, regulations and controls that will be promised, there is still a high chance error/omission/risk acceptance that will place OUR environment at risk,and likely leaving US to deal with the consequences.


Actually, you're perfectly correct, if product is priced appropriately it covers the cost of any risk of environmental damage.

Which it usually is, in a FREE market.

I guess that's why tusk ivory is so expensive on the FREE market...

A good thing whale oil used to be so cheap though, those fuckers are practically overrunning the joint around Kaikoura now. More modern production methods really dropped the price of that blubber. It was great for the economy and local jobs too. Why don't we bring that industry back?

[BMWST?]

We agree on much of this. My point being that despite all assurances, regulations and controls that will be promised, there is still a high chance error/omission/risk acceptance that will place OUR environment at risk,and likely leaving US to deal with the consequences.



I guess that's why tusk ivory is so expensive on the FREE market...

A good thing whale oil used to be so cheap though, those fuckers are practically overrunning the joint around Kaikoura now. More modern production methods really dropped the price of that blubber. It was great for the economy and local jobs too. Why don't we bring that industry back?

i predict we will at some point

[Zedder]

stuff that does not happen because no one speaks about it or sum such thing ( with excellent engineering one may add, really :yawn: and oh...free market, cause US of A)

http://grist.org/climate-energy/arkansas-town-in-lockdown-after-oil-spill-nightmare/

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/10/27/2843021/oil-spills-unreported/

http://www.nbcnews.com/video/nightly-news/53300272 (oct. 16th 2013) recent, and believed to be the largest land based oil spill in the US (i am sure the engineering was oarsome when initial build)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_Mayflower_oil_spill


health risks to peeps? Oh thats just business

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/gulf-coast-oil-spill-cleanup-workers-receive-no-cost-medical-review-by-dr-greg-vigna-md-jd-210636721.html

http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2013/04/19/corexit-deadly-dispersant-in-oil-spill-cleanup/

effects of oil spills - also just cost of business

http://serc.carleton.edu/NAGTWorkshops/health/case_studies/bp_oil.html



but look, Mr. Smiling Assassin Key is not worried, so she'll be right Mate.

Green Clean NZ....Yea sure, Tui!

There's certainly not much to be proud of from an oil company perspective alright. Prior to 1982 though, there weren't even any regulations governing off shore oil drilling procedures, which had been happening since the 1970's, let alone transportation of the products. Even after 1982, which is when I was in the industry, I clearly remember being told forcibly to mind my own business if any safety or environmental concerns were raised.

However, although too late for many, work is currently underway to strengthen and add to the regulations covering all aspects including liability and compensation internationally.

[Brian d marge]

What they are choosing to ignore are facts, science, logic and reason. Offshore oil production is extremely low risk -- less than 0.001%. There are thousands of production sites around the world, many of which are in particularly difficult locations, such as the North Sea, Bass Strait and Torres Strait. Oil companies know what they're doing, and have robust systems in place to minimise risks and prevent spillage or leakage.

The biggest environmental risks associated with sea-borne oil come from vessels colliding, grounding or sinking, not from exploration companies boring holes in the ocean floor.

So in energy from nuclear sources , You might want to come over here and have a look at that 0.001% failure risk

Stephen

[blue rider]

There's certainly not much to be proud of from an oil company perspective alright. Prior to 1982 though, there weren't even any regulations governing off shore oil drilling procedures, which had been happening since the 1970's, let alone transportation of the products. Even after 1982, which is when I was in the industry, I clearly remember being told forcibly to mind my own business if any safety or environmental concerns were raised.

However, although too late for many, work is currently underway to strengthen and add to the regulations covering all aspects including liability and compensation internationally.

they sure do, however they won't.

they will strengthen what they absolutly have to, and the regulations are written by the industry, not some independed body, so again, what must be done will be done but not one iota more.

as for those for whom it is to late,(consider the the big spill in the gulf of mexico was just in 2010), the families will appreciate the concern.

http://beforeitsnews.com/gulf-oil-spill/2013/08/aussies-blow-lid-off-bps-gulf-oil-corexit-deaths-health-catastrophe-2441278.html

the survivors of the Excon Valdez clean up
http://www.rense.com/general16/yers.htm


no I have absolutly no trust nor confidence that the Oil producing companies will do more than they must in safety standards, training for staff etc etc. Safety, Training and such all cost money, and spending money will cut into profit, and profit is the only thing that counts.
At the end the local economy that might be crushed by such an envrionmental disaster is not the concern of anyone but maybe the locals....and if they can't find jobs anymore in their neighbourhood, they can just pull up their bootstraps and move elsewhere? Yes?



In BP's Initial Exploration Plan, dated 10 March 2009, it said that "it is unlikely that an accidental spill would occur" and "no adverse activities are anticipated" to fisheries or fish habitat.[24] On 29 April 2010, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal declared a state of emergency in the state after weather forecasts predicted the oil slick would reach the Louisiana coast.[25] An emergency shrimping season was opened on 29 April so that a catch could be brought in before the oil advanced too far.[26] By 30 April, the USCG received reports that oil had begun washing up to wildlife refuges and seafood grounds on the Louisiana Gulf Coast.[27] On 22 May 2010, the Louisiana Seafood Promotion and Marketing Board stated said 60 to 70% of oyster and blue crab harvesting areas and 70 to 80% of fin-fisheries remained open.[28] The Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals closed an additional ten oyster beds on 23 May, just south of Lafayette, Louisiana, citing confirmed reports of oil along the state's western coast.[29]

from here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_effects_of_the_Deepwater_Horizon_oil_spil l

a bit of a read on profits of the oil producing industries 2007 - 2011 (BP gulf desaster was in 2010)

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42364.pdf


but we can all put our faith in to Mr. Key and his words of wisdom. :facepalm:
It is going to be fun to find out which business he is going to do consulting for, once his little middle Managment gig as Prime Minister in NZ is over. For a while I thought he was going to be back to banking, but maybe its big energy. Surely the man is already peddling his CV, cause he for sure is not interested in doing anything for NZ.

[Ocean1]

Yeah like when Nuclear goes wrong, oil is buffed right out in exchange for cash. No harm done.

XD

What?

And shit.

[Zedder]

they sure do, however they won't.

they will strengthen what they absolutly have to, and the regulations are written by the industry, not some independed body, so again, what must be done will be done but not one iota more.

as for those for whom it is to late,(consider the the big spill in the gulf of mexico was just in 2010), the families will appreciate the concern.

http://beforeitsnews.com/gulf-oil-spill/2013/08/aussies-blow-lid-off-bps-gulf-oil-corexit-deaths-health-catastrophe-2441278.html

the survivors of the Excon Valdez clean up
http://www.rense.com/general16/yers.htm


no I have absolutly no trust nor confidence that the Oil producing companies will do more than they must in safety standards, training for staff etc etc. Safety, Training and such all cost money, and spending money will cut into profit, and profit is the only thing that counts.
At the end the local economy that might be crushed by such an envrionmental disaster is not the concern of anyone but maybe the locals....and if they can't find jobs anymore in their neighbourhood, they can just pull up their bootstraps and move elsewhere? Yes?




from here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_effects_of_the_Deepwater_Horizon_oil_spil l

a bit of a read on profits of the oil producing industries 2007 - 2011 (BP gulf desaster was in 2010)

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42364.pdf


but we can all put our faith in to Mr. Key and his words of wisdom. :facepalm:
It is going to be fun to find out which business he is going to do consulting for, once his little middle Managment gig as Prime Minister in NZ is over. For a while I thought he was going to be back to banking, but maybe its big energy. Surely the man is already peddling his CV, cause he for sure is not interested in doing anything for NZ.

Thankfully the oil companies won't have any say in the new rules unlike the European Union and European Commission: http://ec.europa.eu/energy/oil/offshore/standards_en.htm

[Tazz]

What?

And shit.

I'm just firing up the powerpoint presentation, but basically (as I read it) you stated if the product is priced correctly is outweighs any harm it can do to the environment, and I called utter bullshit on that in a sarcastic fashion.

Maybe you were being sarcastic yourself? I dunno, it's hard to read people on the internet =/


Actually, you're perfectly correct, if product is priced appropriately it covers the cost of any risk of environmental damage.

[Ocean1]

We agree on much of this. My point being that despite all assurances, regulations and controls that will be promised, there is still a high chance error/omission/risk acceptance that will place OUR environment at risk,and likely leaving US to deal with the consequences.

Aye. And that's one side of the story. The other is the returns, which, far from being the often portrayed evel commercial grasping profit-driven earth-raping side, actually has some readily quantifiable benefits.

So when you've added the cost of supply AND the cost of the supply of an acceptable spill response then you need to compare that total to the advantages represented by the product itself.

Until you've done that, got the complete data set, it's all a bit silly, innit? Unless you're of the opinion that there is no possible product price that balances the environmental risks. Which might be a valid point of view, but I seriously doubt any such assessment coukld be shown to accurately value the advantages that the product represents.


I guess that's why tusk ivory is so expensive on the FREE market...

A good thing whale oil used to be so cheap though, those fuckers are practically overrunning the joint around Kaikoura now. More modern production methods really dropped the price of that blubber. It was great for the economy and local jobs too. Why don't we bring that industry back?

Again, if the cost of the possible extinction of a species is factored into the price then I doubt any entity on the planet could afford actual ivory.

My interpretation of "free" market might be a little unorthodox, but it's a far more sustainable and realistic take, eh?

[Ocean1]

Thankfully the oil companies won't have any say in the new rules unlike the European Union and European Commission: http://ec.europa.eu/energy/oil/offshore/standards_en.htm

Aye. Actual performance targets, industry standards no less.

They've been around forever, they've also been getting more effective, as someone else pointed out.

Still, this latest looks like good work.

[Ocean1]

I'm just firing up the powerpoint presentation, but basically (as I read it) you stated if the product is priced correctly is outweighs any harm it can do to the environment, and I called utter bullshit on that in a sarcastic fashion.

Maybe you were being sarcastic yourself? I dunno, it's hard to read people on the internet =/

Oh. No, no sarcasm.

But read above a bit and get back to me , eh?

[SPman]

In response to oral questions in the House today, Acting Minister of Energy and Resources Hekia Parata stated that the Government will not require a bond from Anadarko before drilling commences, and that Maritime New Zealand would be entirely responsible for containment and clean-up in the event of a catastrophic leak.

"Deep water oil drilling is still a very new activity, and we've already seen one catastrophe in the Gulf of Mexico that will cost tens of billions of dollars and cause untold ecological damage," said Mrs Turei.
"Now our Government is about to allow drilling in water five times deeper than any well has ever been drilled in New Zealand waters, with no environmental permitting regime in place, or infrastructure to respond if there is spill," said Mrs Turei.
"The Minister continues to state that 400 Maritime emergency responders will be on hand. Never mind that there were upwards of 45,000 responders and nearly a thousand vessels involved in the Gulf containment.

"Even Anadarko, in their annual report, state that the lack of infrastructure in deep water means that they may not be able to quickly or effectively execute any contingency plans related to future events similar to the Gulf oil spill.
"John Key's Government is turning a blind eye to the huge risks involved, and they're willing to let New Zealand taxpayers foot the bill if anything goes wrong," said Mrs Turei.

[Zedder]

Aye. Actual performance targets, industry standards no less.

They've been around forever, they've also been getting more effective, as someone else pointed out.

Still, this latest looks like good work.

Yep, it's good work alright. It's a case of the sooner the better for international regulations not controlled by the oil companies.

The industry "standards" have traditionally been seen as controlled by the oil companies far too much, procedures were by consensus and recommended practice mainly.

As an example, in 1994 the Minerals Management Service of the USA government adopted a purely voluntary Safety Systems Management model which had been developed by the American Petroleum Institute, after the Exxon Valdez disaster.

[Tazz]

Oh. No, no sarcasm.

But read above a bit and get back to me , eh?

:lol::lol:

Yeah if we lived in a text book that would be all gravy.

Without looking I'm pretty sure the tourism industry would be more valuable to us short and long term anywho using that logic. I'd imagine it also distributes the wealth a bit better. The oil will always be there (until we stick a straw in it) but once the natural beauty of our country (that we can profit from also) is gone, it is more than likely gone for good.

Aside from all that we don't really have a need to bust our asses to carry all the risk to make a little money while lining the pockets of the Chinese or whatever 'investors' come to the fore at this stage either.

[MisterD]

Without looking I'm pretty sure the tourism industry would be more valuable to us short and long term anywho using that logic. I'd imagine it also distributes the wealth a bit better. The oil will always be there (until we stick a straw in it) but once the natural beauty of our country (that we can profit from also) is gone, it is more than likely gone for good.


Last time I checked, Norway was managing to have a very profitable oil industry and scenic tourism industry at the same time. No reason we shouldn't also...although hopefully we can avoid the eye-wateringly high booze prices.

[Brian d marge]

Are there any ivory tusk carriers left, fk me I thought they went years ago
As for the environmentours is fine we set up no go areas where people cannot go for generations . I think russia did similar

Stephen

Oh and it does trikkle down.

Sent from my SC-01F using Tapatalk

[Tazz]

Last time I checked, Norway was managing to have a very profitable oil industry and scenic tourism industry at the same time. No reason we shouldn't also...although hopefully we can avoid the eye-wateringly high booze prices.

Knowing Norway they would also have the money to make sure there are extensive safety measures and counter measures for worst case in place also?
I don't see that happening here. We don't have the cash.

In a few decades when everyone else is running out and willing to throw wads of cash at it to do it right go nuts I say lol.

[MisterD]

Knowing Norway they would also have the money to make sure there are extensive safety measures and counter measures for worst case in place also?
I don't see that happening here. We don't have the cash.


I'll type this slowly so you can understand more easily.

Question: Where do you think Norway gets all that money from?
Answer: North Sea Oil.

[Tazz]

As for the environmentours is fine we set up no go areas where people cannot go for generations . I think russia did similar


:lol::lol:

Sounds like a plan. I believe they even threw in a few birth defects, deadly illnesses and some extra fingers and toes around the place also.

For or against though it has to be said I think we could do a lot better than Russian safety standards without even trying ;)

[Tazz]

I'll type this slowly so you can understand more easily.

Question: Where do you think Norway gets all that money from?
Answer: North Sea Oil.

So before they started drilling they had money from oil, to put into oil? Shit that is clever.

[Brian d marge]

Are there any ivory tusk carriers left, fk me I thought they went years ago
As for the environment it is fine we set up no go areas where people cannot go for generations . I think russia did similar

Stephen

Oh and it does trikkle down.

Sent from my SC-01F using Tapatalk



Sent from my SC-01F using Tapatalk

[Smifffy]

Are there any ivory tusk carriers left, fk me I thought they went years ago
As for the environmentours is fine we set up no go areas where people cannot go for generations . I think russia did similar

Stephen

Oh and it does trikkle down.

Sent from my SC-01F using Tapatalk

There is still a market among arseholes for tusk ivory, and tusks are still being harvested. According to some theorists, that is ok because there's a profit in it, and the market allows the price to be high enough to mitigate any environmental damage. Yeah right.

Trickle down? Like the money grabbed from the RWC or the Americas cup investments? Hah!

Like how Waihi is the richest town per capita in NZ? Oh wait.

So which parts of NZ do you think would be the best to not allow people to go to for generations? :crazy:

In fact, as far as 'trickle down' is concerned, why should we accept the crumbs, from trickle down, given what is at risk and what is at stake. We hold the risk and they make the profit, I've never regarded that as particularly smart business practice.

[Ocean1]

There is still a market among arseholes for tusk ivory, and tusks are still being harvested. According to some theorists, that is ok because there's a profit in it, and the market allows the price to be high enough to mitigate any environmental damage. Yeah right.

What sort of market controls do criminals obey, dude? They've never been particularly amenable to the rule of law, you must've noticed, no?

I'll repeat it, if the cost of making an animal extinct is applied to the market then nobody on earth could afford ivory. And that's already the case, so the cause of the continued killing of elephants isn't the failure of some esoteric theoretical market fantasy, it's the criminal activity circumventing a perfectly natural free market structure. And just to clarify the meaning, it's simply a free exchange between buyer and seller. Nothing whatsoever in there about theft or illegal slaughter.

Humans, having already assumed ownership of the "product" (as the only possible stewards of endangered species) have already set the price pretty high, if you're caught you're shot. So until there's some relaxation on the legal protection afforded arseholes and we can shoot anyone actually purchasing ivory then I don't think fucking around with market restrictions is going to help much, do you?

I'm all loaded up and ready, but I don't see the fed's letting us loose any time soon.

[Brian d marge]

What sort of market controls do criminals obey, dude? They've never been particularly amenable to the rule of law, you must've noticed, no?

I'll repeat it, if the cost of making an animal extinct is applied to the market then nobody on earth could afford ivory. And that's already the case, so the cause of the continued killing of elephants isn't the failure of some esoteric theoretical market fantasy, it's the criminal activity circumventing a perfectly natural free market structure. And just to clarify the meaning, it's simply a free exchange between buyer and seller. Nothing whatsoever in there about theft or illegal slaughter.

Humans, having already assumed ownership of the "product" (as the only possible stewards of endangered species) have already set the price pretty high, if you're caught you're shot. So until there's some relaxation on the legal protection afforded arseholes and we can shoot anyone actually purchasing ivory then I don't think fucking around with market restrictions is going to help much, do you?

I'm all loaded up and ready, but I don't see the fed's letting us loose any time soon.

You do not know what you are talking about

Sent from my SC-01F using Tapatalk

[imdying]

I don't give two shits about the environment in general, but there are some pretty severe risks involved for the ecology of New Zealand. We'll take a swipe at that shit soon enough I expect, but I wish they'd wait till oil is really scarce so we can screw the cunts over price good and proper... we're taking all the risk, we deserve to be remunerated well for it.

[Smifffy]

What sort of market controls do criminals obey, dude? They've never been particularly amenable to the rule of law, you must've noticed, no?

I'll repeat it, if the cost of making an animal extinct is applied to the market then nobody on earth could afford ivory. And that's already the case, so the cause of the continued killing of elephants isn't the failure of some esoteric theoretical market fantasy, it's the criminal activity circumventing a perfectly natural free market structure. And just to clarify the meaning, it's simply a free exchange between buyer and seller. Nothing whatsoever in there about theft or illegal slaughter.

Humans, having already assumed ownership of the "product" (as the only possible stewards of endangered species) have already set the price pretty high, if you're caught you're shot. So until there's some relaxation on the legal protection afforded arseholes and we can shoot anyone actually purchasing ivory then I don't think fucking around with market restrictions is going to help much, do you?

I'm all loaded up and ready, but I don't see the fed's letting us loose any time soon.

Excellent. Now let's afford that same level of regulation and protection to the pristine NZ coastline, and the oil/gas/whatever is not worth extracting, so leave it there, until the technology is sound, and the NZ govt can hold a cleanup bill sized bond, earning interest for the duration of the operation, and until the site is remediated after operations cease, along with royalties, taxes etc.

Sorry I thought you were talking about the free market - governed only by the law of supply and demand, but since you've now opened the scope for regulation, we need to regulate the fuck out of it, not the slap happy, lackadaisical, she'll be right attitude we've taken for the last couple of generations, and of which John Key appears to be the zenith (or nadir?).

[Ocean1]

Excellent. Now let's afford that same level of regulation and protection to the pristine NZ coastline, and the oil/gas/whatever is not worth extracting, so leave it there, until the technology is sound, and the NZ govt can hold a cleanup bill sized bond, earning interest for the duration of the operation, and until the site is remediated after operations cease, along with royalties, taxes etc.

Fine. But before you put that to any vote let's see you quantify the consequences of doubling the price of oil. Is the risk of environmental damage still not worth it?

Double it again. If you spent most of that extra cost on risk mitigation measures then you've likely halved the actual risk to the environment. You've also comprehensively fucked the quality of life of everyone here, and you've destroyed the livelihood of many, including a lot of those in the third world who just barely get by with fuel at current prices.

Which was my point from the start, so far there's been not a murmur about the substantial costs on the other side of the equation, it appears nobody here has any idea what they are let alone any practical idea how to go create alternatives.

I suppose we could solar power the world's cargo ship fleet...

[Ocean1]

You do not know what you are talking about

Coming from a well regarded expert in the field I'll take that as a compliment.

[Ocean1]

Sorry I thought you were talking about the free market - governed only by the law of supply and demand, but since you've now opened the scope for regulation, we need to regulate the fuck out of it, not the slap happy, lackadaisical, she'll be right attitude we've taken for the last couple of generations, and of which John Key appears to be the zenith (or nadir?).

I am. As I said, in the case of ivory we've already established that it's not for sale at any price. That's that market frozen solid, no regulation is going to affect it any further. They rarely do. What you're really bitching about is the thieves, so concentrate your efforts on law enforcement.

And if you expect any modern politician to actually massively increase the price of our most important resource and remain in place long enough to make it stick you're living in a far more ephemeral and colourful place than he is.

[Brian d marge]

Coming from a well regarded expert in the field I'll take that as a compliment.

Your welcome a compliment from a more knowledgable person is a rare gift

Sent from my SC-01F using Tapatalk

[Smifffy]

Fine. But before you put that to any vote let's see you quantify the consequences of doubling the price of oil. Is the risk of environmental damage still not worth it?

Double it again. If you spent most of that extra cost on risk mitigation measures then you've likely halved the actual risk to the environment. You've also comprehensively fucked the quality of life of everyone here, and you've destroyed the livelihood of many, including a lot of those in the third world who just barely get by with fuel at current prices.

Which was my point from the start, so far there's been not a murmur about the substantial costs on the other side of the equation, it appears nobody here has any idea what they are let alone any practical idea how to go create alternatives.

I suppose we could solar power the world's cargo ship fleet...

I didn't say ALL oil needs to be that expensive. Just that particular bit. Let 'em drill for oil in downtown Manhattan or on Rodeo Drive, or the Whitehouse lawn. NZ deep sea oil is not going to single handedly solve a world oil shortage, nor create one through lack of drilling.

The world's cargo ship fleet at one time was actually wind powered, or didn't you know that? I wonder what would happen if the rest of the world decided that cargo ships should be nuclear powered? I suspect our nuclear free stance would be gone by lunchtime.

The world's cargo ship fleet could just as easily be powered by DME sourced from NZ radiata pine. Of course the technology for that is still in its infancy. Not like the extremely well developed tech used for drilling deeper than ever in an ocean so far untapped.

The wind powered cargo ships had less emissions and higher employment meaning more jobs. The major downside being it takes longer to get your iShit from China.

[BMWST?]

Fine. But before you put that to any vote let's see you quantify the consequences of doubling the price of oil. Is the risk of environmental damage still not worth it?

Double it again. If you spent most of that extra cost on risk mitigation measures then you've likely halved the actual risk to the environment. You've also comprehensively fucked the quality of life of everyone here, and you've destroyed the livelihood of many, including a lot of those in the third world who just barely get by with fuel at current prices.

Which was my point from the start, so far there's been not a murmur about the substantial costs on the other side of the equation, it appears nobody here has any idea what they are let alone any practical idea how to go create alternatives.

I suppose we could solar power the world's cargo ship fleet...

its only a matter of time before fuel is double the price it is now.Even if we dont do anything with "our" oil

[Zedder]

its only a matter of time before fuel is double the price it is now.Even if we dont do anything with "our" oil

All the more reason to crank up the biomass industry.

[Smifffy]

its only a matter of time before fuel is double the price it is now.Even if we dont do anything with "our" oil

The only reason that it isn't already double the price it was in 2008 is the discovery and extraction of US shale oil deposits, aka Fracking. Of course that's working out really well for everybody. The Shale oil reserves dwarf those in our little corner of the world, but of course according to the money grubbers if we don't give it up now, we'll be starved of the lifeblood of commerce and the economy. Yawn.

[Banditbandit]

So ... all that fuss, hurrah, protest, trumpet blowing, banner waving ... and Anadarko have not found oil off the Taranaki Coast ...

http://nz.news.yahoo.com/a/-/newshome/21252719/oil-sides-argue-over-drilling-safety/

And off course there is going to be no danger from oil spill and leakage ... it's hard to spill or leak what is not there ..