More fracking good news

More fracking good news

Two positive developments out of the Hawkes Bay this week: Hastings District council has voted unanimously to take a precautionary approach when it comes to fracking, and a whānau has ‘locked their gates’ barring Tag Oil from fracking on their land, resulting in TAG Oil backing away from the proposed exploratory fracking well in the area.

Hastings Mayor Lawrence Yule said that “The aquifer is the life blood of Hawkes Bay and one of the most significant and pure forms of water in New Zealand. Council will seek to protect the aquifer and other waterways as an immediate priority. This could involve HDC’s formal opposition during a consenting process and we will adopt a precautionary approach.” Taking a precautionary approach to fracking, or any resource extraction, is a significant departure from the way that councils and regulatory agencies approach consenting such activities. It means that if there are any suspected risks associated with the activity to the environment or communities concerned, the burden of proof lies with those who wish to carry out the activity to prove that it will not be harmful, as opposed to the usual case where communities are forced to prove these risks themselves.

A similar motion will be on the agenda next Wednesday in the Wellington Greater regional Council, where the public is welcome to attend and have their say.

This week the news that a whānau in the Hawke’s Bay has successfully blocked TAG Oil from drilling a fracking exploration well on their land was confirmed in the Napier Mail. Though TAG says they could ‘reinvestigate’ later, this news goes to show that landowners still have significant control over whether fracking will be allowed to continue.

I’m confident the brave move by this whānau will be just the beginning, as more farmers and landowners join those who are demanding that this dangerous practice be stopped.

This great news comes in the same week the Taranaki the Council have revealed a litany of incidents, accidents and pollution as a result of fracking and drilling for oil and gas.

All those hard working kiwis who are speaking out about the dangers of fracking should pat themselves on the back this week. Together we can keep the frackers out of our backyard!

38 Comments Posted

  1. Uh Paul? I AM a Green and I DID post it to tell you that. Maybe your stereotype needs to be sharpened up and focused a bit?

  2. No, it is not experimental. Environmentally safe frack fluids are in use now….

    They are being developed because of all the negative press. It is in nobody’s interest to have an accident and encouraging and working with industry in positive ways is much more productive than fighting them on every step and regurgitating mis-information. They are not all bad guys.

  3. “What he drank was apparently CleanStim, which when Halliburton announced it in November was undergoing field trials” (from the report linked to above)

    So if fracking is safe, why is Halliburton developing a new fracking fluid to replace those currently in use?

    “there are environmentally safe, food grade fracking fluids but the greenies won’t tell you that.”

    Apparently this stuff is ‘undergoing trials’, so seems to be not in use yet. Not a good argument for fracking now, with existing technologies.

  4. The Halliburton exec drinking fracking fluid is true….there are environmentally safe, food grade fracking fluids but the greenies won’t tell you that. If conventional drilling was new, the greenies would fight against it….everything has some risk but done intelligently, it is still safe to get out of bed. Let’s drill and frack but do it safely.

  5. For those who say fossil fuels are not subsidised. And that is before we count the subsidy to the fossil fuel industry that is the costs of America’s wars.

    “”UNEP says that population growth, unsustainable consumption in western and fast-industrialising nations, and environmentally destructive subsidies all need urgent action. The phase out of $400bn annually of fossil fuel subsidies needs a finishing date, the over-fishing of our oceans needs regulation and corporations need to forced to calculate and publish their ecological footprint.”” (UNEP. Rio+20).

  6. Good to hear this mayor is concerned for the well being of his community. Here in Pennsylvania, USA we have not been so lucky and we have hundreds of families unable to even bath in with the water coming out of their taps.

  7. Spam – Near’s I can tell, it is the only one NOT funded by the mobs that benefit from fracking. One vs Many… and you may recall that I discount ALL the findings of the studies done pretty comprehensively. I don’t really trust what I am hearing from either side.

    …and I find it irrelevant.

    Again… because whatever you get when you frack Mother Earth, if it is burned, it produces CO2 and if it is simply released it is methane which is worse in the short term and becomes CO2 anyway. In other words, there isn’t a free lunch here, and you’re still pushing a CO2 producing power source. Which is unsustainable, and Mother Earth is pulling out a big can of “whup-ass” to take care of the folks who think it is still OK to do this to her.


  8. Over the last 60 years, there have been more than 1.2 MILLION successfully fracked wells in North America with not one single documented instance of aquifer contamination as a result of horizontal fracking. There have been some instances of poor cement finishing in the vertical part of the well. This has NOTHING to do with fracking. This according to USA’s Environmental protection Administration – no friend to the fossil fuel business.

    The opposition to well supervised fracking is, in my opinion, based on widespread ignorance and fear promoted by the neo-Luddites who irrationally oppose all uses of fossil fuels to power our societies and more productive life styles. They instead hope to rely on rainbows and unicorns to make the economy thrive.

    Those of you who actually think for yourselves, do some research. Google will provide the intelligent and discerning reader all the information he/she needs to make an informed decision. Don’t rely on the scaremongers…

  9. The biggest load of shit from Photo yet.
    1. Ever heard of IKEA. Pine furniture exported world wide.
    2.The standard of workmanship on imported furniture makes me almost want to cry. With the waste of unsustainable tropical hardwoods.
    3. All the countries we import from protect or support their home industries in some way. Business support, (Singapore, Taiwan, South Korea), Artificially low exchange rates, (China, Germany), straight out protectionism, (USA) industry support (Most of South America) Export incentives and social welfare/education (Finland, Scandinavia)cheaper finance (Most other countries without our RBA)..
    We are the only mugs, in the “first world”, who kill off our manufacturing for the delusion of “free trade” for our farm exports.

    The idea that every country is going to succeed by out-exporting the others in a “free market” is an oxymoron.
    No country has been a successful exporter without a thriving and protected internal economy. How much has Africa gained from exporting commodities?

  10. Photonz1 – pretence?
    OneTrack – all reasonable people, of course.
    Frog, do you not have a SPAM filter working?

  11. Nor is the Cornell study anything like a lie, it is simply one scientific study that was NOT funded by the industry.

    No. It was funded by the Parklands Institute – a lobby group that has poured $US 6 Million into anti-fracking lobbying. But as long as it’s not industry funded, must be objective. Right?

  12. Funny thing is Photonz, in THIS thread the OP contains no links to what you are calling misinformation… just actions by the Hastings and Wellington councils. Nor is the Cornell study anything like a lie, it is simply one scientific study that was NOT funded by the industry. I don’t think you actually have a leg to stand on, calling him names like that.

  13. So – we can’t grow hardwoods ? We can grow everything else but not hardwoods? Where do their hardwoods come from Photonz? Sustainably grown? I think not.

    The ability of our people is not the equal of theirs? You are seriously advancing this as an argument for not having an industry here? What ARE we shipping that pine out for? It becomes building materials like 2×4’s and plywood. Funny, I’m SURE we have the ability to make those too…

    They have tariffs and we don’t, and this makes THEM smarter than we are… because THEY have industries and we do not.


  14. Mmmmm..perhaps I was wrong. Photonz1 is an embarrassment. Still, I spoke up for his retention, so won’t renege. I just hope he doesn’t persist with the trite and the vacuous…

  15. Jackal says “Dear admin, photonz1 has been consistently calling Green MP’s liars.”

    Not consistantly – only when the are caught spouting lies or misinformation.

    I see a lot of hypocrasy from the Green Party – flying off to conferences in Africa and Europe then complaining about carbon emmisions, mining and drilling – without which they would never have been able to take their overseas junket.

    Likewise Gareths agrument against fracking and the link to all the problems caused by it, when fracking isn’t mentioned as a reason for any of them.

    That’s not honest. It’s misleading. And it has to be asked whether it’s deliberate or not.

  16. bj asks “Why don’t we build FURNITURE here instead of shipping logs.”

    Because we don’t have enough free trade agreements.

    Asian countries typically have 20%,30%, and 60% tarrifs on NZ furniture compared to zero tarrifs on logs.

    Secondly, the wood we have in NZ is mainly cheap pine. Their furniture is typically made from much more beautiful and valuable hardwoods, and their labour costs are cheaper (and arguably their craftsmanship is superior as well).

    Even without tarrifs, we would be trying to sell inferior products at way over the top prices.

  17. I would far rather see Phil.U brought back than what you propose. The list of people banned from this blog is quite short and needs to be shorter.

  18. “Creative tension is what blogs are all about.” True, but photonz1 is using a political website to publish disinformation. That’s the kind of tension that isn’t required. The rightwing should be able to promote their ideas and policies without lying!

  19. No, Jackal, let’s not dob people in or call for bans – that’s right winger behaviour 🙂
    Let photonz1 have his say. Ping him for his shallowness, mock him for his inability to reason clearly, but banning? Nah. Creative tension is what blogs are all about.

  20. Um! It was Bernie Napp who wrote; “alarming tendency for political debates to be run on persistent misinformation,” not me photonz1.

    Dear admin, photonz1 has been consistently calling Green MP’s liars. I would suggest this is trolling and you ban him from commenting on this blogsite. The sewer is a far more appropriate place for such idiots!

  21. BJ,

    Why is it that furniture built 100 years ago is still able to be furniture while that built 10 years ago is rubbish?

    Depends on what people want. Some are quite happy to pay say $3000+ for two pieces of made in NZL dining/living room furniture that MAY be around in 100 years.

    Other people like me are happy to pay $700 for similar NZL pine furniture made in China (that has now lasted 8 years and appears to easily last another 20 or more).

    What I saved on furniture cost I could spend on new sails (wife trade off arrangement – smart eh – we both get what we want) so the NZL economy did OK.

    However if you think setting up factories in NZL will retain the money here you need to take into consideration the start up cost repayments.

    NZL does not have many billions lying around in private or public accounts to do green field start ups to allow competition with the Ikeas of this world (that is why Criterion Furniture folded).

    You need $500M just for factory and plant, product design, initial stock run, sales staff, promotional material, factory wages bill, etc.

    Finance from that has to come from either the state or private, each needing a repayment on investment.

    I’m all for taking the power away from banks, but would like to see how to transition from where we are now to where you want to go.

    The proposal you envisage is totally achieable and will come to pass, just not by the NZL Greens. They are not interested in formulating a transition.

    It will come to pass IF we all step outside the banking system and bypass it. The power actually lies with the people, it is just that we give it away so easily.

    And I dont think the NZL Greens are keen to give the power back to the people.

    After all, they who want to legislate how we shower, will have no hesitation to legislate the peoples power away.

  22. The price will be significantly higher.

    It will be paid to New Zealanders and it will ultimately be part of an economic rebalancing that sees us building things we don’t throw away.

    Why is it that furniture built 100 years ago is still able to be furniture while that built 10 years ago is rubbish? There is a cost to doing things right Gerrit, and I know that YOU know that. One of the aspects of that is that disposable things are in REALITY vastly more expensive than things that last (and are produced here), get repaired and refurbished (because the tools to do so are available here) and last some more. The subsidized cost of the disposables that currently applies has to be adjusted, the cost of the locally produced items will not change much at all… and yes, we will not be able to afford so much consumption, but we WILL have industries here, people will see that they can stay here and work here and live here.

    The Russians have a saying – “I am not so wealthy that I can afford to buy cheap things” … and it applies to NZ more than almost anywhere.

    What I would LIKE is to take the issue of money out of the hands of the banks, and make the shift to a redeemable, energy backed, currency, a big CO2 tax and return, and the tariffs to support it against foreign goods. It is a whole package sort of thing. Thee Government could lend to build power generation and the cost of transferring money and goods in and out of the country would do much of the rest of the work for us. Then focus on some industries and areas where we have or can have strength – agricultural and food processing hardware, wind turbines and renewable energy capture, film entertainment and animation, pharmaceuticals – and push a bit.

    In the LONG run we’re better off, the society is sustainable and it does not have to grow the way the banks need it to grow now… and we give our kids a future that is not tenant farming on the country that was once theirs.


  23. BJ,

    Why don’t we build FURNITURE here instead of shipping logs.

    Very simple, people in NZL wont buy more expensive furniture, or any other manufactured goods if the price is significantly higher (and trust me it will be).

    Back in corporate days was involved in manufacturing water based, ozone friedly paint aerosols. Target market foretry industry that use aerosols by the pallet load.

    Unfortunately this totally green product failed to sell simply on price.

    Research shows that people will pay 10% more for a green product but not more.

    Something the Greens need to take into consideration when promoting the 100K new jobs in “green” industries.

    Begs the question, how will the Greens make investing in the new “green” industries attractive.

    As you ay we no longer have serious manufacturing capacity in NZL. To restart any from a green field position requires serious financial capital.

    Tax incentives an option to attract private investment? May you would like your kiwwsaver funds be diverted to a state green field start up?

  24. Photonz –

    The reason “our lives depend on using products from people in other countries” (and that should read “lifestyles” IMO, we could survive on what we have here), is the obsession of multiple governments with AVOIDING any appearance of protecting or encouraging our own manufacturing industries.

    The REASON that this country is broke, broken and getting broker, is this total aversion to building things here – “because we don’t have the market advantages” to do so. There are reasons that way doesn’t, can’t and won’t ever work for a country like NZ that as isolated as it is.

    It is the most stupid thing we do. These guys have the basics down pretty well…

    We absolutely HAVE to do something better with what we’ve been given. Why don’t we build FURNITURE here instead of shipping logs. Why don’t we build industries instead of shipping raw materials. New Zealanders have been running away from the Muldoon error-era for a lifetime now, AND YOU ARE WRONG!!! The country went bankrupt then because the money of our country was not under the our control. We could do better.

    Being alarmed by the notion of fracking the country (which is pretty much the intent of the extraction industries) isn’t a lie at all. Gareth is looking for arguments that resonate. I don’t mind him much, as there is a single argument that trumps all the pro-fracking Bullshit.

    Everything you get from Mother Earth after you’ve fracked her is burned and adds to the CO2 burden in the atmosphere. The EROEI of fracked product is lower than the naturally occurring stuff and so more is required… and that added CO2 is added on top of this…

    As far as I am concerned there is no excuse for doing more damage to the planet to obtain more material with which to do damage to its atmosphere.

    There is NO EXCUSE for the risible level of tax leveled on the CO2 emitters and the fact that we are subsidizing the big emitters is criminal behaviour.

    You think Gareth has become a regular “Polly”… but he isn’t a patch on the pathological lying bastards who are running the Beehive today.


  25. Jackal says “alarming tendency for political debates to be run on persistent misinformation.”

    You mean like Gareths link to a litany of problems that he says are due to fracking, when the not one of the problems mention fracking as a cause.

    Is that the sort of misinformation (read lies) that you’re talking about?

    I used to to think Gareth was honest and believable. But in his second term he repeatedly shafts his own credibility with, to use Jackals term, persistent misinformation.

    Nowdays he just spits out b/s like all the other long term polititians. Then emmits more carbon than 99% of New Zealanders by flying around the country pretending to be green.

    We pretend that we don’t want to frack/drill/mine, while every day our lives depend on using products from people in other countries who do.

  26. You are quite a correct in enunciating We in industry have a theatrical role to play also, and, maybe, we have not done plenty to explicate what fracking is, what the risks are, you bet they can be and are mitigated.

  27. Uh Bernie??? When whatever you manage to get out of the Mother Earth by fracking her comes out and you burn it, you DO produce more CO2.

    This is what our CO2 production looks like Bernie, and it really doesn’t matter much if you pay the extra to capture the fugitive emissions, seal things tight ass, and keep the fracking fluids from being long term toxins… we can’t afford your CO2.

    … or anyone else’s really.

    We have to do better, and Fracking isn’t going to get us there.

  28. Bernie Napp

    I was just wondering… did you used to comment here under the name Spam?

    I believe that we as a nation should hang our heads in shame at the alarming tendency for political debates to be run on persistent misinformation.

    What misinformation are you talking about exactly? If you want to throw some baseless criticism around, at least try to back it up with some facts.

    We in industry have a role to play as well, and, perhaps, we have not done enough to explain what fracking is, what the risks are, and how they can be and are mitigated.

    There’s a huge difference between managing propaganda and actually mitigating the intrinsic environmental and health impact that is scientifically linked to fracking. You don’t mitigate the waste for instance by burning or dumping it.

    This is not a victory for Aotearoa: it is another nail in the coffin of rational thought.

    So are the people who are placing bans and moratoriums on fracking around the world not thinking rationally?

    Did you know your insulting some of the most powerful people in the world? Their decisions are based on proper research (some of which was conducted by the oil and gas industry), that I’m sure you would prefer didn’t exist.

    Wake up Mr. Napp, we no longer live in the Mesozoic Era.

  29. Bernie manages a very entertaining web page on the Wonders of Fracking and other Mining Marvels. It’s High Comedy.
    You should visit the Straterra Home Page.
    All of you.

  30. Yes it’s worth celebrating the victory of ignorance and superstition. Another step in the green’s plan for us to live in a truly global village.

  31. Industry has spearheaded spin-doctoring and misinformation campaigns, now they moan that people don’t trust them and are ‘irrational’. As ye sow, so shalt ye reap.

  32. Bernie, you are quite right in saying “We in industry have a role to play as well, and, perhaps, we have not done enough to explain what fracking is, what the risks are, and how they can be and are mitigated”. Perhaps that’s because everytime Cam Wylie opens his mouth nothing but fracking fluid comes out.

  33. I believe that we as a nation should hang our heads in shame at the alarming tendency for political debates to be run on persistent misinformation. We in industry have a role to play as well, and, perhaps, we have not done enough to explain what fracking is, what the risks are, and how they can be and are mitigated. This is not a victory for Aotearoa: it is another nail in the coffin of rational thought.

Comments are closed.