Some protest...

[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 and oh...free market, cause US of A)

http://grist.org/climate-energy/arka...ill-nightmare/

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/201...ls-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-relea...210636721.html

http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2...spill-cleanup/

effects of oil spills - also just cost of business

http://serc.carleton.edu/NAGTWorksho...es/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 and oh...free market, cause US of A)

http://grist.org/climate-energy/arka...ill-nightmare/

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/201...ls-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-relea...210636721.html

http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2...spill-cleanup/

effects of oil spills - also just cost of business

http://serc.carleton.edu/NAGTWorksho...es/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-sp...e-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/Economi...izon_oil_spill

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.
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-sp...e-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/Economi...izon_oil_spill

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.
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/offsh...andards_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/offsh...andards_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.