Gordon Campbell | Parliament TV | Parliament Today | News Video | Crime | Employers | Housing | Immigration | Legal | Local Govt. | Maori | Welfare | Unions | Youth | Search

 


Trust us – we know what we’re doing

Trust us – we know what we’re doing

NZ Herald opinion piece published 13 January 2014

By Gary Taylor

A recent Herald editorial supporting Shell’s proposals to drill for oil and gas off Southland’s east coast, said “subject only to appropriate environmental protection” New Zealand “should relish this show of confidence by a major exploration company.”

Putting aside the opposition of many to any oil and gas extraction for a moment, it’s worth exploring that caveat: do we have appropriate environmental protection in place or not?

To make this assessment, we need to understand just how the environmental consenting regime might work for Shell’s project.

Until quite recently there was no proper environmental regulation of our ocean waters. The National-led Government which created the Environmental Protection Authority has given the EPA the consenting role for offshore oil, gas and mining. The Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act was passed into law in 2012.

It created three consenting classes for activities in our oceans: permitted, discretionary and prohibited. Oil and gas exploration would be treated as discretionary. Applications would be publicly notified, submissions called for, a hearing held with rights of cross-examination and a decision made. An approval would have conditions.

Since then the international petroleum industry has lobbied intensively and obtained a troubling concession from Government: a special consenting class called non-notified discretionary has been inserted into the act and will be activated by proposed regulations that will remove any public involvement in exploration consenting.

This will mean that Shell's project in the Great South Basin would not be notified, there would be no opportunity for public comment and no hearing. Environmental approvals for deep-sea exploration drilling would be processed in-house by the new EPA.

The Government is saying that regulations should be proportionate to the risks being managed. It says the risk of a major oil spill is low and so the regulatory oversight should be light. But risk has two key dimensions: probability and consequences.

A low probability/high consequences event should be treated as a high-risk and red-flagged. International best practice should be brought to bear, first to reduce the likelihood of a catastrophic event to the absolute minimum and secondly to ensure that well-formulated conditions and contingency plans are in place to deal with a spill if it happens.

However much the petroleum sector and cheer-leading ministers proclaim to the contrary, the fact remains that deep-water oil and gas exploration is a high-risk activity. The Deepwater Horizons well in the Gulf of Mexico, which led to the worst oil industry spill in history, was an exploration well. It caused around US$100 billion ($120 billion) of damage and devastated wildlife and communities.

The chances of such a catastrophe occurring here may be low, but the consequences if it did happen would be huge for our economy and our environment. There is a sound public policy case for a fully transparent and robust process that enables sensible public comment and scrutiny.

The alternative, of approvals all being dealt with in-house, opens up the possibility of regulator capture by the industry and the kind of laissez-faire oversight that led to the Deepwater Horizons incident and, in the New Zealand context, the Pike River disaster. "Trust us - we know what we're doing" just doesn't cut the mustard.

A public hearing with rights of cross-examination would be a way of testing whether an applicant has an acceptable track record and is properly resourced; that drilling in the proposed location will not of itself harm the environment; that it is applying best practice drilling techniques; that it is taking all possible measures to avoid a spill; that contingency plans to mitigate an incident are all in place; that well-capping devices are readily accessible within an acceptable timeframe; and that adequate monitoring will be undertaken by the authorities. A hearing would examine whether consent should be given, and if so what conditions should apply.

We are all aware that the Government is keen to encourage oil and gas exploration. Indeed, the Minister of Energy has been embarrassingly effusive in his advocacy for the sector. The Herald's editorial was itself very gung-ho.

Meantime, the Green Party and Greenpeace argue the opposite position, largely on climate change grounds.

It is important that the polarised nature of the debate about the wider merits of oil and gas doesn't distract us from making sound decisions about environmental regulation. We should not lose our senses in the rush for a gusher.

New Zealand has 14,000km of coast and the fourth largest ocean area in the world, habitat to many precious birds and marine mammals. The Minister for the Environment has a duty of care to protect the environment. She has called for submissions on the EEZ regulations by the end of January.

Those who support oil and gas exploration subject to adequate environmental safeguards should make their voices known. A secretive, in-house approvals regime is unacceptable and dangerous. New Zealanders expect strong, effective and transparent oversight of the petroleum industry.

*************

Gary Taylor is chairman of the Environmental Defence Society www.eds.org.nz.

ENDS

© Scoop Media

 
 
 
 
 
Parliament Headlines | Politics Headlines | Regional Headlines

Gordon Campbell:
On The Eleanor Catton Rumpus

If anyone was in doubt about the accuracy of the comments made in India by Eleanor Catton, the reaction from some quarters here at home has gone a long way to proving her point.

By ‘some quarters’, I mean (a) RadioLive host Sean Plunket who called Catton a “traitor” and (b) Prime Minister John Key who dismissed her views as being those of a typical Green Party supporter, which is apparently almost as bad.

In context, Catton seemed to be talking about the mixed feelings she felt after what she had created suddenly becoming a kind of public property claimed by the entire country and its leaders. That must feel weird at any time, in any place. Catton evidently finds it particularly alienating when the government of the day has shown little interest in the arts beyond their promotional/economic value. More>>

 

More Rent Assistance, Less State-Owned Housing: John Key Speech - Next Steps In Social Housing

"We are going to ensure that more people get into social housing over the next three years, whether that is run by Housing New Zealand or a community provider. The social housing budget provides for around 62,000 income-related rent subsidies a year. We are committed to increasing that to around 65,000 subsidies by 2017/18, which will cost an extra $40 million a year." More>>

ALSO:

The Future Of Work: Andrew Little - State Of The Nation 2015

In 2005 when I led the EPMU we worked together with Air New Zealand to find a way to keep engineering jobs that were heading overseas. A lot of these workers were people I’d known for years and they were facing not just losing their jobs but not being able to find the kind of work they do without going overseas. A lot of people were facing personal and financial upheaval.... More>>

ALSO:

Gordon Campbell: On The Sabin Case, The Pressures On Greece And (Songs About) Coyotes

Mike Sabin is a National MP, and the current chairman of Parliament’s law and order committee. Yet reportedly, he is being investigated by the Police over an assault complaint... However, the PM will not comment on any aspect of the story. More>>

ALSO:

Houses, ISIS, King (& Catton): PM Post-Cabinet Press Conference

The Prime Minister met with reporters to discuss: • Social housing, the Auckland housing market • The prospect of joining international forces to combat ISIS • David Bain’s compensation • The lowering of the flag for the King of Saudi Arabia's death ... More>>

ALSO:

Gordon Campbell: On Tomorrow’s Speeches By John Key And Andrew Little

The Key government has already kicked off the political year on a stridently ideological note, with Environment Minister Nick Smith choosing to lay all manner of sins at the door of the RMA. Tomorrow, the government will wheeling out its best salesman – Prime Minister John Key – to sell its plans for state housing… . More>>

ALSO:

Transport: Auckland Looks To Light Rail

The Board of Auckland Transport has called for an investigation into a light rail network, which could relieve traffic congestion on some of the region’s busiest roads. This stems from work in 2012 (the City Centre Future Access study) which responded to a government request to develop a robust and achievable solution for access to the CBD. More>>

ALSO:

RMA: Smith's Claims Don't Match Evidence - Greens

The Motu group’s research into the impacts of planning rules looked at the costs related to housing development but not the benefits of environmental protections and does not recommend significant changes to the RMA to reduce the cost of new house builds. More>>

ALSO:

Get More From Scoop

 

LATEST HEADLINES

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Politics
Search Scoop  
 
 
Powered by Vodafone
NZ independent news