Rena to hold her secrets

For over a year and a half now The Jackal has been attempting to learn exactly what was onboard the MV Rena when it ran aground near Tauranga on 5 October 2011. I was wanting this information to try and work out the potential environmental impact, but unfortunately my efforts have been in vain.

On 10 October 2011, I made a formal request under the Official Information Act (PDF) to Maritime New Zealand for information relating to what the MV Rena was carrying, which they declined. I then approached the Ombudsman about that lack of disclosure.

This week, I received the Ombudsman's final ruling on the matter:

OFFICIAL INFORMATION ACT COMPLAINT
MARITIME NEW ZEALAND
REQUEST FOR A COPY OF THE INVENTORY LIST FOR THE MV RENA

Ombudsman

Thank you for your email of 19 September 2012, concerning your Official Information Act (OIA) complaint about the decision of Maritime New Zealand (MNZ) to refuse your request for the inventory list of the cargo on the MV Rena.

Following receipt of your email, the investigator assisting me sought further information from MNZ and the Mediterranean Shipping Company (MSC), the shipping company that chartered the MV Rena. By email of 8 May 2013, MNZ released some further information to you.

I have now had an opportunity to consider your comments on my provisional view and the further information provided to me. Having considered all the issues raised, I have now formed the opinion that it was open to MNZ to refuse your request, on the basis that it is necessary to protect information where the release of that information would be likely to unreasonably prejudice the commercial position of the shipping company and those shipping and receiving cargo on the MV Rena (section 9(2)(b)(ii) of the OIA refers).

While there is a high public interest in the release of information about the cargo on the MV Rena, the further information provided to you meets this interest.
I have outlined the basis for my opinion below.

My role

As an Ombudsman, I am authorised to investigate and review, on complaint, any decision by which an agency subject to the OIA refuses to make official information available when requested.

My role in undertaking an investigation is to evaluate the grounds for refusing requests for official information in terms of the tests set out in the OIA, and to form an opinion as to whether the request was properly refused.

Background

On 10 October 2011 you requested the inventory list detailing what the MV Rena cargo ship was carrying when it struck Astrolabe reef on 5 October 2011.

By letter of 8 November 2011, MNZ advised that it held the cargo manifest for the MV Rena, and that it was withholding this information pursuant to section 9(2)(b)(ii) of the OIA.
You asked me to investigate the decision to withhold the cargo manifest.

Relevant to this investigation, section 9(2)(b)(ii) of the OIA provides good reason for withholding official information where it is necessary to: "protect information where the making available of the information ... would be likely unreasonably to prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied or who is the subject of the information".

The interest in withholding the information must not be "outweighed by other considerations which render it desirable, in the public interest, to make that
information available" (section 9(1) of the OIA refers).

Comments by MNZ

The investigator assisting me met with MNZ to discuss the decision to withhold the manifest.

She was advised that the manifest is the only information held by MNZ that falls within the scope of your request. It was provided to MNZ following the notice issued on 6 October 2011 pursuant to section 248 of the Maritime Transport Act 1994.

The manifest is very detailed, and includes:

who is shipping the cargo;
who is receiving the cargo;
the route on which the goods are shipped;
the number and kind of packages;
a description of the goods; and
the gross weight and measurements of the goods.

Shipping manifests are not available to the public, and are very rarely provided to port control authorities. MNZ advised that shipping routes are commercially sensitive.

The route a particular vessel takes impacts on the profit ability of thatvessel. I understand that this information cannot be determined from other publicly available documents. MNZ advised that if the shipping routes were released, it would be likely to impact on the competitive position of the shipping company.

The manifest also provides information on MSC's customers. Release of information identifying MSC's customers would prejudice MSC as it would enable competitors to target the MSC's customer base. The prejudice would be unreasonable as the information is not publicly available for any other shipping company.

Where operating commercially, details of the vendor, purchaser and volume of goods is also commercially sensitive. The volume of goods bought and sold, and the supplier of those goods, impacts on the commercial position of both the vendor and purchaser. Based on the information recorded in the manifest, other suppliers of similar products could target purchasers, and competitors to purchasers would be made aware of the volume and type of goods being imported and their source.

The investigator queried whether this information could be removed from the manifest and the manifest then made available with essentially just a list of the cargo on the MV Rena.

She was advised that this information is already publicly available, and was provided to you. However, it transpired that this reference was only to the list of dangerous goods.

My provisional opinion

By email of 18 September 2012, I advised you of my provisional view on the complaint.
I considered that the commercial position of both MSC and commercial vendors and purchasers of goods would be likely to be prejudiced by release of the manifest, through the disclosure of shipping routes, customers of MSC, and details of vendors and purchasers of the goods carried together with the level of stock bought and sold.

This would be unreasonable as it is commercially sensitive information that is not made available in regard to any other shipping company.

I therefore accepted that release of the manifest would be likely to unreasonably prejudice the commercial position of MSC and commercial importers and suppliers of goods on the MV Rena (section 9(2)(b)(ii) refers).

I considered that there was some public interest in the release of information about the cargo on the MV Rena, though this would be confined to toxic or dangerous cargo. I could not see what public interest there would be in information on general cargo carried by the MV Rena. Having reviewed the manifest and the information made available by MNZ, I considered that the public interest was met by the already available information.
I invited you to comment on my provisional view.

Your comments

By email of 19 September 2012 you commented on my view. You advised:

I have not made a request for the MV Rena's entire Cargo Manifest, I have made a request for the inventory list. I am not interested in knowing who is shipping what cargo, who is receiving the cargo, the address of either party or the route the cargo takes. I am specifically interested in exactly what is being shipped and in what quantities?

Maritime New Zealand has released some of this information already because of public interest in dangerous goods, but that release of information does not entirely fulfil my request for information. The reason I'm interested in exactly what the MV Rena was carrying is because of the cumulative effect of various substances. I believe Maritime New Zealand has not considered this aspect and might view some substances to be innocuous when in fact they are not when combined together. Only a complete inventory list including quantities will allow a proper environmental impact calculation to be undertaken.

Maritime New Zealand has shown that there's no commercial sensitivity in releasing information on what the MV Rena was carrying because they have already released information concerning dangerous substances.

Please let me assure you that the information if released will not be released further to any competitor shipping companies. Information concerning what the MV Rena was carrying will only be published if there is a public or scientific interest in making that information available to the general public.

There's considerable public interest in the effects on the environment from the MV Rena disaster and no reasonable argument for not releasing the requested information because of commercial sensitivity. In my opinion, there's no risk to the companies financial or legal position by upholding my request and any commercial prejudice that is being perceived is entirely unreasonable.

Further comments from MNZ

The investigator discussed your comments with MNZ.

As noted above, the only information held by MNZ that fell within the scope of your request was the manifest. MNZ did not hold a less detailed list of the goods on the MV Rena.

The investigator therefore suggested release of one of the fields in the manifest that described the goods carried on the MV Rena.

MNZ were unable to provide detailed comments on the specific field.

Comments from MSC

The investigator consulted MSC on the release of the specific description field. In doing so the investigator noted the public interest in release of information about the cargo on the MV Rena.

MSC advised that release of the column would be extremely detrimental to its business. Many of its clients work in a small export sector, and release of the detailed description of the goods and volume shipped would provide competitors with an advantage over MSC.

MSC gave the examples of specific products, and how competitors could review the released information and then target specific exporters. MSC advised that importing and exporting in New Zealand is extremely competitive.

The investigator asked how that differed from the scenario where a shipping company could list the exporters of a specific product and target the exporters who do not currently use that company's services. MSC advised that knowing the current shipping company an exporter used would enable a competitor to tailor a package specifically to that exporter, with reference to the current service provided by MSC.

MSC also noted that the specific field of the manifest is the only free field section of the manifest. Clients can enter any details they wish to be on the bill of lading into that field.

The investigator sought release of a high level list of goods on the MVRena. MSC advised that it would not be willing to release quantities, as this would often disclose the client, but could release a high level list.

Further information released to you

By email of 8 May 2013, MNZ released to you the high level list of goods created by MSC following its meeting with the investigator.

Here's the released short description of goods the MV Rena was carrying:

Click on images to enlarge

My opinion

Based on the information outlined above, I have now formed the opinion that it is open to MNZ to refuse your request, on the basis that it is necessary to protect information where the release of that information would be likely to unreasonably prejudice the commercial position of the shipping company and those shipping and receiving cargo on the MV Rena (section 9(2)(b)(ii) of the OIA refers).

While there is a high public interest in the release of information about the cargo on the MV Rena, the further information provided to you meets this interest.
I have now concluded my investigation of your complaint.

Yours sincerely

David McGee Ombudsman

It's unfortunate that Maritime New Zealand is refusing to release the full inventory, making me wonder exactly what substances the MV Rena was carrying that they don't want the public to know about?

I guess we will never know what this substance leaking from the stricken ship, which in my opinion looks a lot like yellowcake, actually is.

Interestingly enough the Australian government also sites "unreasonably prejudice of commercial position" as a reason to not inform the public of what ships are carrying yellowcake. Is it just a coincidence that the MV Rena was on a known shipping route for transporting yellowcake from Australia? I guess New Zealand isn't as nuclear free as the public is led to believe.

Rena environmental terrorism continues

Today, the NZ Herald reported:

The owners and insurers of the MV Rena want to leave part of the cargo ship on the Astrolabe Reef - but Tauranga's Mayor would rather have the whole wreck gone.

The cost of dealing with the ship, smashed into pieces on the reef off the Tauranga coast, has now shot past $275 million and is set to become one of the most expensive maritime salvages in history.

Personally I don't think the cost should be a major factor in deciding whether part of the Rena should remain on astrolabe reef... Such a decision should be about the environmental impact.

This year, the insurers plan to remove contaminants to meet environmental guidelines, take away as much remaining cargo as possible and clear or close any hazards making the wreck unsafe for diving.

Under the proposal, some debris would remain around the site, and a discharge consent would have to be sought to account for slow release from the weathering of wreck steel and paint, residue oils and any lingering cargo contaminants.

So it's been nearly two years since the Rena first grounded and hazardous substances have still not been recovered... Talk about incompetent.

Closing or sealing any hazardous substances in containers on board the Rena or lost at sea will simply not work because the ocean has a way of getting into things built of steel.

Obviously the government should be ensuring that the Rena wreck is cleaned up properly and the question needs to be asked as to why they haven't been doing their jobs properly?

The insurers said the site would be monitored regularly, and pollutants would have a "minimal and temporary" effect. However, they said some contaminants from remaining cargo, hull paints or oils could affect the sea floor, potentially "restricting some ecological regeneration".

There's been no proper monitoring of the area to date and what would an insurance company know about the effects on the environment from the various unrecovered hazardous substances anyway? Absolutely nothing that's what.

There's still around 2000 litres of oil and lubricants on board the wreckage and around 28 containers carrying approximately 21,700 kg of Ferrosilicon, 24,096 kg of Potassium Nitrate, 23,240 kg of Alkylsulphonic Acid liquid, 5,400 kg Trichloroiscyanuric Acid and 490 tonnes of Cryolite yet to be recovered. Most of these were lost overboard.

There's a total lack of any proper scientific study concerning the environmental impact these hazardous substances are having on the Bay of Plenty.

Despite that lack of information, there's no doubt that leaving these various toxic substances to slowly leech into the ocean will be an environmental disaster of monumental proportions... Therefore it should not be allowed to occur.

If the company gained consent it would establish a "restoration package" to fund a range of research scholarships and grants for projects in the Bay of Plenty.

More empty words I'm afraid when you consider the continued long-term damage to the area such environmental terrorism would cause.

Removing the entire wreck would mean extending the period the exclusion zone would need to remain in place, involve greater disturbance to and destruction of the reef environment and "major operational challenges" including risks to workers, the ship's owner and insurers said. A previous assessment estimated that option could take up to five years.

Clearly there would be more long-term destruction by leaving the wreck on Astrolabe reef. Also, there are always dangers with such work... However removing the Rena wreck can be carried out safely and the owners and insurers are just fear mongering in the hope of saving some money.

Removing the entire wreck would mean extending the period the exclusion zone would need to remain in place, involve greater disturbance to and destruction of the reef environment and "major operational challenges" including risks to workers, the ship's owner and insurers said. A previous assessment estimated that option could take up to five years.

Being that the salvers have failed to uphold their promise of having no wreckage above sea level by the end of 2012, we can assume that the estimate of five years is also incorrect.

However if there was any real impetus to remove the Rena wreck it could be done a lot faster and the fact that there isn't is just as much the fault of the company responsible as it is the governments. National simply don't care about the continued environmental damage caused by their and the salvers incompetence.

Corexit makes oil 52 times more toxic

Yesterday, Global Research reported:

The Georgia Institute of Technology and Universidad Autonoma de Aguascalientes (UAA), Mexico published an article in the journal Environmental Pollution finding that dumping the dispersant Corexit into the Gulf of Mexico increased the toxicity of the mixture up to 52-fold over the oil alone.

It just so happens that the dispersant used in the Gulf of Mexico was Corexit 9500A, the same dispersant used by Maritime New Zealand in the Rena disaster on the East Coast of New Zealand. At the time, the now disgraced Minister of the Environment, Nicolas Rex "Nick" Smith said:

Corexit is no more toxic than dishwashing liquid.

Corexit 9500 is a most dangerous substance, and is hazardous for human health at levels of only 2.61 parts per million (ppm). Oil is toxic at 11 ppm. In combination these substances would be one of the most toxic known to mankind at 0.2 ppm.

Of course authorities at the time of arial spraying failed to warn the public to keep away from areas where they could be exposed to the highly toxic substance, and with further scientific studies showing that Corexit increases oil atomization and therefore makes it more likely to become airborne, this was a major failing by New Zealands authorities.

Meanwhile other studies have shown that the use of Corexit actually prolongs oil spills by inhibiting the growth of oil eating microbes and also increases its uptake by living organisms.

So why was Corexit 9500A used at all you might wonder? Basically because it makes the oil sink to the ocean floor where it's hard to assess the exact amount that has been leaked. This means any potential fines will be less, and as we all know money is the only thing many of these companies care about.

Greece-based owner of the Rena cargo ship, Daina Shipping Company, was fined $300,000 in October this year.

Pathetic fine for Rena disaster

Today, the NZ Herald reported:

The Greece-based Daina Shipping Company was yesterday sentenced at the Tauranga District Court to pay $300,000 for discharging harmful substances into the sea after the ship's grounding on Astrolabe Reef on October 5 last year.

The charge carried a maximum fine of $600,000 but Judge Robert Wolff said while the spill had been disastrous for wildlife, the coastline and local communities, the company had not deliberately caused it.

[...]

In sentencing the owners Judge Wolff said the fault was not theirs but "the result of poor navigational skills by the captain and the first mate".

WTF! A privately owned company is not liable for the equipment it owns? This seems entirely contradictory to the current law and sets in my opinion an unacceptable precedent. What on earth was Judge Robert Wolff thinking?

The company that chartered the Rena, Mediterranean Shipping Company, is not the only company responsible for the accident through the poor navigational skills of its employees. Daina Shipping Company is also responsible because the Rena had failed numerous safety inspections and was faulty.

In other words the MV Rena was an accident waiting to happen and it's likely faulty equipment contributed to the accident occurring. The captain and his first mate were essentially fall guys.

"At no point during the course of that hearing or this has there been any suggestion that the present defendant put any pressure of time or of operational requirements on those persons responsible for the ship running aground and that needs to be borne in mind," he said.

That's like saying a person who let's somebody drive their defective car is not at fault when the person they lent it to has an accident.

In shipping, there's always a deadline, and a combination of poor navigational practice and badly maintained equipment has resulted in New Zealands worst ever environmental disaster to date. Clearly the owner and the operator are both responsible and therefor liable.

Crown prosecutor Rob Ronayne said the company had not directly caused the grounding and sought a $450,000 fine.

Now hang on just a second... Section 338(1B) of the Resource Management Act (PDF) states:

Where any harmful substance or contaminant or water is discharged in the coastal marine area in breach of section 15B, the following persons each commit an offence:
(a) if the discharge is from a ship, the master and the owner of the ship.

It doesn't matter that Daina Shipping hadn't directly caused the accident by steering the Rena into Astrolabe reef... Under the law, the owners of the MV Rena are liable. Clearly the size of the disaster should result in the full extent of the law being applied. Judge Wolf appears to have ignored what the actual law states in making his lenient and entirely unacceptable decision. Perhaps he's waiting for New Zealand to have its own Deepwater Horizon before he properly exercises his powers.

As well as the $600,000 fine that should have been fully imposed, the Act also stipulates that there's an additional fine of $10,000 per day for every day the offence continues. The Rena is still polluting the Eastern Bay of Plenty, and has done so for the last 388 days. Not including the $600 K fine, that's around $4 million dollars the taxpayer wouldn't have to pay if the responsible party was punished accordingly.

It seems totally remiss that the judge hasn't imposed the full penalties available under the law, considering the actual cost of the disaster to the taxpayer and the environment. This lack of proper punishment will send the wrong message to shipping companies... They will simply continue to use unsafe equipment and cut corners in order to maximize profits. A $300 K fine is chump-change to them.

The total cost to the Crown amounted to about $47 million but as a result of "extended and co-operative negotiations" the defendant and its insurers had agreed to compensate the Crown $27.6 million - leaving a shortfall of about $20 million.

Defence lawyer Paul Mabey, QC, said "independent of any compensation" the company had already paid $235 million and faced ongoing costs with salvors.

It's questionable whether that's a correct figure Daina Shipping Company has provided. But I guess that's the price you pay for having an unsafe vessel that cuts corners. It still pisses me off that the taxpayer will foot the bill for any of the cleanup costs. In my opinion, the general public shouldn't be liable for any of the costs associated with the Rena disaster... A disaster that's clearly the fault of privately owned businesses and the people they choose to employ.

Now there's talk of just leaving what's left of the poisonous Rena wreck in the water because of the mounting costs involved in removing it. Presumably the salvors are going to leave the shipping containers that contain highly toxic chemicals in the ocean as well. That means the pollution will continue indefinitely and the people who used to gather kaimoana from the ocean in the area will be adversely impacted for the foreseeable future. It's unlikely that these people will see any compensation for their loss.

Meanwhile the Eastern Bay of Plenty has over the last year had more Whale stranding than ever before. Like the most recent mass stranding, these events have generally gone unreported by the MSM. You've got to wonder if there's a link between the increased amount of Whale stranding and the pollution caused by the Rena? But like so much about this environmental disaster, I guess we'll never know.

50 pilot whales stranded on Whangaparaoa Beach - 16 Oct 2012

Rena's toxic legacy

Today, the NZ Herald reported:

Just over a year after the Rena struck the Astrolabe Reef in the Bay of Plenty, containers of hazardous substances still lie beneath the water.

The Minister of Transport, Gerry Brownlee, has confirmed the contents of three containers of cryolite, a byproduct of the aluminium smelting process, have been lost at sea.

The location of a further 17 containers with cryolite is not known.

Mr Brownlee said it was not possible to state with certainty how many of these containers remained within the wreck in cargo holds.

Why haven't they sent a diver down to see what containers remain in the Rena's cargo hold and then check the shipping manifest to see what is in these containers? Clearly they should have done this already and Brownlee's excuse doesn't wash.

A risk assessment provided to the Government stated cryolite posed "both an immediate and long-term pollution hazard to marine organisms and plants". But scientists had advised Maritime New Zealand that a number of factors suggested the risk could be reduced.

Cryolite was only slightly soluble in water and the rate of release was expected to be diminished because of packaging. It broke down to naturally occurring elements - mainly aluminium and fluoride - which became less harmful in seawater because of reactions with other naturally abundant elements.

The scientific evidence that the synthetic cryolite that was onboard the Rena will become less toxic in seawater is based on pure speculation. It's all dependent on how fast it dissipates in the water, and they haven't bothered to find this out.

Cryolite is sometimes used as an insecticide, and works by poisoning the stomach of any insects that eat foliage. It has been found to be highly toxic to aquatic organisms and especially shellfish.

Currently produced in Japan from sodium aluminate, ammonium fluoride and sodium hydroxide, which are known to be toxic to aquatic life and carcinogenic/neurotoxic in humans, Cryolite is not meant to be used in conjunction with other chemicals such as lime because it causes phototoxicity.

Clearly Cryolite is not as benign as they would want us to believe.

Maritime New Zealand began an investigation when it found cryolite had been loaded onto the Rena in Bluff without being classified as a dangerous substance.

The agency decided not to prosecute the manufacturer after it alerted authorities to the error and co-operated to address the gap in its processes.

The agency decided not to prosecute because it evidently doesn't give a damn about marine safety. Neither does the National government, who is not interested in compulsory shipping lanes that might ensure another Rena disaster doesn't occur again.

The contents of containers carrying ferrosilicon and one of potassium nitrate are also thought to have been lost at sea.

Another container of 5400kg of trichloroisocyanuric acid was on the seabed next to the wreck in March, but has not been recovered.

How fucked is that? They're just leaving all these dangerous chemicals in the ocean to slowly leach out and pollute the entire East coast, presumably because it would cost a lot of money to recover the hazardous shipping containers and dispose of their dangerous contents.

Meanwhile the "scientific" studies that have been conducted so far have only looked at the effects of hydrocarbons from the heavy fuel oil and none of the other substances the Rena was carrying that are known to be dangerous. Anybody would think they're trying to bloody well wreck the environment on purpose.

Maritime New Zealand is still refusing to release the Rena's full inventory (citing commercially sensitive information), which would let us know exactly what was onboard. You've got to wonder if the bad news about the Rena disaster is only going to get worse.

Cronyism is not independent

Today, Stuff reported:

The man who presided over illegal spying at the GCSB will head the independent review of Maritime New Zealand's response to the Rena grounding.

Simon Murdoch was director of the Government Security Communications Bureau for six months last year, when internet millionaire Kim Dotcom was placed under illegal surveillance.

He was named as head of the Rena inquiry by MNZ today, just a day before the one year anniversary of the cargo ship grounding on the Astrolabe Reef, off the Tauranga coast.

The review will examine the MNZ response to the Rena crash and look into whether there were factors that contributed or limited its effectiveness.

It will be overseen by Transport Ministry chief executive Martin Matthews, MNZ chairman David Ledson, and MNZ director Keith Manch.

Manch said a review of large scale incidents, carried out independently, was standard practice for emergency response organisations.

Yeah right! Maritime New Zealand's Director and Chairman are undertaking an "independent" review of Maritime New Zealand. Don't make me laugh! And a dodgy spook to boot heading up the operation... Why do I feel this will be a complete white wash?

Murdoch, who is conducting the review, was also chief executive officer of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet from 1991 to 1998, and was an advisor to former Prime Minister Robert Muldoon.

He spent most of his career at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade where he became chief executive officer in 2002.

Murdoch has held diplomatic postings in Canberra and Washington, and has undertaken other reviews in the fields of foreign affairs, security and emergency response and management.

They don't call it crony capitalism for nothing and I guess a job for one of the "good" old boys is just as acceptable now as it ever was.

Meanwhile, the Bay of Plenty community has been given $1 million as a "goodwill gesture" by the company that chartered the Rena.

$1 million dollars... Wow! That's truly pathetic! With the Western Bay of Plenty District Council and the Tauranga City Council deciding who get's a slice of that minuscule pie, be assured there will be oodles of preferential treatment going on and most of the businesses that have been impacted won't see a damned red cent.

In fact there's been a well orchestrated propaganda campaign run in order to limit the liability of the shipping company, Costamare Inc. and its subsidiary, Daina Shipping Co. Part of reducing costs is to leave the wreck where it is, much to the disgust of many locals.

Let's make this clear; leaving the toxic MV Rena half salvaged on Astrolabe reef is not an option and it needs to be fully removed along with the remaining 365 shipping containers. Anything less will be environmentally unsound, not to mention an eyesore.

National's failure to properly respond to the Rena disaster is probably the best argument against their plans for deep sea oil drilling. If they cannot properly clean up the mess left from this relatively small disaster, what hope is there if we have a Deepwater Horizon in our waters?

As usual the government is gambling with our futures when clean technology means we don't need to gamble at all. Pound for pound clean tech creates around twice as many jobs as polluting industries. But I guess it's too much to expect National to be reasonable... They are after all personally profiting from putting the environment and people's lives at risk.

Rena Report Card

Rena propaganda exposed

Back in June 2012, the NZ Herald reported:

The group's leader, Professor Chris Battershill, said early samples were promising.

"Our observations suggest we avoided the worst of the disaster, and much of that is because the salvors managed quite effectively to get most of the oil, if not all of it, that hadn't come ashore. If they hadn't, then we'd be in a very different space right now."

However today, the NZ Herald reported:

Oil is still being found at Papamoa Beach a year after the container ship Rena ran aground off the coastline and caused a major spill.

Maritime New Zealand officials will today inspect the beach at Harrison's Cut after authorities received several phone calls over the weekend about splotches of oil in the sand.

The balls of oil, about the size of 5c pieces, are thought to have been driven ashore by easterly winds over the past few days.

Professor Chris Battershill seems like a bit of an idiot! Firstly the salvors didn't clean any of the oil up that leaked from the Rena. Maritime New Zealand used CoreExit to make it sink. The problem with that is anytime the sea is rough, and the tide is in the right direction, the oil gets picked up off the bottom of the ocean floor and washed ashore.

The Bay of Plenty is going to be feeling the effects of the Rena disaster for a long time yet.

Rena disaster - who's really to blame

Today, TV3 reported:

The owners of the Rena should share the blame for the disaster that led to two Filipino seamen being jailed, says a Philippines-based seafarers group.

Captain Mauro Balomaga, 44, and navigation officer Leonil Relon, 37, were jailed for seven months each yesterday on a raft of charges laid after the 37,000-tonne Liberian-flagged cargo ship struck Astrolabe Reef off Tauranga in October last year.

In what became New Zealand's worst environmental disaster, the Rena spilled about 360 tonnes of heavy fuel oil into the sea, which washed up on local beaches and killed wildlife.

Containers were washed overboard and clean-up crews are still picking up debris from the wreck, which broke apart in January after being pounded by heavy seas.

Investigators should look into the possibility the ship owners had ordered Balomaga to alter course to save fuel, Edwin de la Cruz, president of the Manila advocacy group International Seafarers' Action Centre, told AFP.

"The captain should not be made a scapegoat... the act of the captain is the act of shipowners."

[...]

Maritime Union general secretary Joe Fleetwood agreed with the suggestion the disaster was not purely the fault of the two men.

New Zealand had deregulated its shipping industry and now relied on international lines - many using flags of convenience - for its coastal cargo system, he said.

He did not think New Zealand would return to the days of having its own ships serving its ports, and predicted there would only be a "band-aid" response to prevent a disaster like the Rena happening again.

When National deregulated the shipping industry in the 1990's with their so-called “open coast” policy changes, they effectively set New Zealand on a course of increased accidents, reduced port security and the exploitation of crews on flag of convenience ships.

It's exactly the same thing that happened with the mining industry, where greedy corporates and National's deregulation have reduced safety and oversight that's led to disasters like Pike River.

The failed free-market ideology that National blindly follows and greedy multinational's are just as much to blame as those idiots Captain Mauro Balomaga and navigational officer Leonil Relon who piloted the MV Rena into the Astrolabe reef.

While the local communities along the East coast have bore the brunt of the disaster, officials continue to blunder and the recovery mission slows as public scrutiny diminishes, leaving a poisonous shipwreck as a lasting monument to National's incompetence.

Rena disaster not studied

Last Thursday, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) reported:

Bottlenose dolphins in Barataria Bay, Louisiana, are showing signs of severe ill health, according to NOAA marine mammal biologists and their local, state, federal, and other research partners.

Barataria Bay, located in the northern Gulf of Mexico, received heavy and prolonged exposure to oil during the Deepwater Horizon/BP oil spill.

Based on comprehensive physicals of 32 live dolphins from Barataria Bay in the summer of 2011, preliminary results show that many of the dolphins in the study are underweight, anemic, have low blood sugar, and/or some symptoms of liver and lung disease.

Nearly half also have abnormally low levels of the hormones that help with stress response, metabolism, and immune function.

The problem is that effected animals are often afflicted with mouth and sinus infections, which means they cannot find, catch or eat their food properly.

Dolphins are very susceptible to starvation from pollution induced infections, so although oil is not always found in their systems during autopsy, their deaths can be attributed to the pollution, which has also badly effected the Dolphins food supplies.

The Business Insider reported:

According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), more than 675 dolphins have been stranded in the northern Gulf of Mexico since February 2010 – a much higher rate than the usual average of 74 dolphins per year — which prompted the NOAA to declare an Unusual Mortality Event and begin an investigation.

[...]

Another ongoing study by Linda Hooper-Bui at Louisiana St. University found that several populations of insects and spiders are still not recovering from the spill. She has been studying insect populations at certain sites since 2009 and collected insects at 45 sites about 25 times last year.

She has found that there was a large drop in numbers immediately after the oil spill and that some kinds of insects and spiders are still far less numerous than in 2009.

Another recent study of deep ocean corrals seven miles from the spill source found dead and dying corals coated in "brown gunk" that was attributed to the Deepwater Horizon well after a chemical analysis.

The research, jointly funded by the NOAA and BP, noted that deepwater corals are not usually affected in oil spills but the depth and temperatures in the Deepwater Horizon spill seems to have created plumes of oil particles that have caused unprecedented damage.

Yet another study confirmed that zooplankton – the microscopic organisms at the bottom of the ocean food chain – have also been contaminated with oil from the Deepwater Horizon spill.

So there are serious long term effects from the April 20, 2010 Deepwater Horizon disaster to a number of animals and organisms. The problem isn't limited to oil pollution either, as around 6,800 m³ of dispersant was applied, which has proven significant side-effects.

Unlike the the Gulf of Mexico, New Zealand's Bay of Plenty hasn't had any comprehensive study into the environmental effects from the Rena disaster.

This is outrageous considering the Rena was also carrying large amounts of dangerous chemicals, with the cumulative toxic effects likely to cause damage to the environment for many years to come.

Greenpeace wronged by ASA

Today, the NBR reported:

The Advertising Standards Authority has upheld a complaint about a Greenpeace that claimed the Rena oil spill killed 20,000 birds.

[...]

The board said the advertiser was assuming a lot of the consumer to understand that the figure purported as fact in the advertisement had been derived in such a manner.

As such, the ASA said the Greenpeace ad was likely to mislead and deceive consumers.

Most people will recall the Greenpeace adverts that appeared after the Rena disaster that occurred on Wednesday, 5 October 2011.

In my opinion, the complaint from well-known climate change denier Bryan Leyland has ulterior motives... He's a founding member of the Climate Science Coalition, New Zealand's leading climate change denial organization and has no scientific credentials at all.

Despite this fact, the Advertising Standards Authority considered (DOC) his complaint in the context it was made:

The Complaints Board was of the view that the statement “20,000 birds were killed” was expressed in a manner that denoted a strong absolute statement of fact. It said that the Advertiser had presented a best practice estimate as an absolute fact when as they had stated in their response to the complaint it had only been “reported that over 2000 birds had been identified which had died as a direct result of the accident [Rena]”. Accordingly the Complaints Board said the statements expressed in the advertisement were not clearly distinguishable as opinion (as opposed to fact) and therefore the advertisement was in breach of Rule 11 of the Code of Ethics.

Greenpeace made the statement because 20,000 bird deaths is the best estimate based on expert advise. There is no legislation that says you cannot state a widely accepted estimate as fact. Unfortunately Greenpeace fail to mention this in their response to the complaint:

As B. Leyland recognizes, the dead birds found are likely to constitute but a fraction of the actual number killed. Dr Brett Gartell, manager of the National Oiled Wildlife Response Centre based at Massey University (NOWRC), the official bird recovery, autopsy and cataloguing authority for the Rena disaster has reported that over 2,000 birds had been identified which had died as a direct result of the accident.

The estimated figure of 20,000 birds is based on UK and US research which has found that in instances of oil spills, bird carcasses recovered represent only approximately 10% of actual fatalities,

It is never possible to calculate wildlife fatalities resulting from disasters of this type with any great precision. It is accordingly reasonable to assume that any figure used in respect of total birds killed as a consequence of the Rena's stranding will be an estimate, and Greenpeace is of the view that the general member of the public will have understood the figures used in the Advertisement in this way. The 20,000 estimate is robust and is consistent with, for example, the 20,000 estimate quoted by the National Oiled Wildlife Rescue Centre figures, 2 and Greenpeace stands by it.

I certainly realised that it was an estimate because I had seen the reports that over 2000 dead birds had been recovered. Although the fact that many more birds die without being recovered wasn't as widely reported, any reasonable person would understand that the Greenpeace advertisement was concerned with total deaths, of which only an estimate can be provided.

The Complaints Board said that the statement “20,000 were killed” was a very strong statement and in its view was a long bow to draw particularly when the practice was based on UK and US research which would involve different bird breeds and populations to name just a few variables. The Complaints Board further added that the Advertiser was assuming a lot of the consumer to understand that the figure purported as fact in the advertisement had been derived in such a manner. As such the Complaints Board were of the view that the claim that the Rena oil spill had killed over 20,000 birds was likely to mislead and deceive consumers and was therefore in breach of Rule 2 of the Code of Ethics and as such the advertisement had not been prepared with a due sense of social responsibility as required by Basic Principle 4 of the Code of Ethics.

This seems like a very dubious reason to uphold the complaint. It's likely that more birds died in the Rena oil spill disaster than estimated due to a denser population because many had returned from overseas and were breeding. It's highly misleading to claim that birds in the UK or US would respond differently to oil contamination than birds in New Zealand.

In fact it's deceitful to say that birds in the UK and US respond differently, when there is no scientific evidence to uphold such a claim.

I presume the ASA will now be applying their reasoning retrospectively to National's claims that we will return to surplus by 2014/15. John Key's pre-election promises are based on estimates only as well, although he states them as fact all the time. Talk about a lack of ethical standards ASA.

In the Wake of the Rena

The East Coast of New Zealand is an isolated and rural part of the country and what it lacks in economy and population is more than made up for by the beauty of its land and sea. But this coast has a dark story, because In 2010 their lifestyle came under threat.

In the Wake of the Rena investigates the issues and concerns regarding the oil exploration permit issued to Brazilian Oil company Petrobras.

Catherine Taylor moron

Did you hear that? Catherine Taylor the new Rena recovery manager said:

The Natural organisms will deal with a lot of the oil; the Limpets climb across the rocks and munch it up.

Well that statement flies in the face of all of the major scientific studies done into the effects of oil pollution on Limpet populations. Here's an excerpt from one such major study called The Effects of Natural Oil Seepage on Intertidal Communities (PDF):

Differences in limpet populations were shown to be statistically significant. Limpets have demonstrated 100% mortality rates when subjected to high concentrations of oil (Carthy 1968). Many studies have shown that upon the release of oil into the environment, limpets and other grazers are often the hardest hit (Newey and Seed 1995, Glegg et.al. 1999). There are also no known tolerances to oil in limpets (Glegg et.al. 1999).

Limpets cannot "munch" oil and Catherine Taylor is a moron for thinking they can. She also says that it's safe to eat shellfish, when there is still a toxin warning for most of the East coast.

Clearly it's her ineptitude that needs to be monitored.

Questions about Rena need answers

Today, NZ Newswire reported:

The government is poised to announce a plan to restore the Bay of Plenty coastline to the condition it was in before the Rena disaster.

[...]

Environment Minister Nick Smith will announce the plan at 11am on Tauranga's Waikari Marae.

He told NZ Newswire it was a comprehensive plan to co-ordinate all the agencies involved in the clean up.

"We've got a very large number of agencies already involved as well as three regional councils," he said.

"There are public health authorities as well, this is going to bring it all together to restore the Bay of Plenty to its pre-Rena condition."

Meanwhile the governments idea of a cleanup response for areas that aren't important to tourism is to drop off a couple of rubbish skips and let the locals fend for themselves.

Further down the Bay of Plenty coastline, where oil and debris litters the beaches, the mainly Maori inhabitants have been forgotten... and there has been no reporting by mainstream media about the continuing environmental disaster there.

Maritime NZ is even failing to report on the amount of oiled and dead birds that continue to wash up. Yesterday, they claimed:

There have been no oiled birds found by wildlife patrols over the past week.

This is simply untrue with some news services reporting that up to 50 dead Blue penguins (likely the same penguins released from Tauranga) have been found scattered along the far Eastern Bay, along with a lot of other dead wildlife.

This article by Sunlive even contradicts the MNZ report. So it is no wonder people want answers.

Today, Radio NZ reported:

Coastal iwi in Bay of Plenty want a Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Rena disaster.

Te Moana A Toi iwi leaders group represents 16 iwi whose tribal waters and fisheries assets have been affected by tonnes of oil and debris spilled from the vessel that ran aground on a reef off Tauranga in October last year.

[...]

Mr Tawhiao says they're looking to ensure the same sort of disaster doesn't happen again anywhere to any iwi, and an assurance that if any systems in dealing with a marine disaster are deficient, they will be addressed.

At the moment, the main deficient system is the National led government.

Scott Inglis in the gray area

A rather misinformed editorial by Scott Inglis was published yesterday in the Bay of Plenty Times. It's a purely speculative rant about what other people should be thinking based on the authors diploma in pseudoscience, which is par for the course for many propagandists.

Here are the worst parts of a decidedly bad read:

But to blame the oil spill disaster for the stranding and subsequent deaths of four whales on a local beach, without any proof, may be taking it too far.

[...]

And while samples have been collected from the whale carcasses to assess if they had ingested oils or toxins, there has been no evidence to suggest the stranding was related to Rena.

That doesn't stop the conspiracy theorists though.

Since 23 October, there has been eleven-documented whale stranding in seven different locations within the Bay of Plenty, which is above the normal amount of stranding seen in the area for the same time period.

It's true that it would be speculative at this stage to associate the increased stranding with the sonor being used to salvage containers or the oil and chemical spilt from the MV Renabefore the test results are known... but it's equally speculative at this stage to say there is no association.

Inglis is admonishing people for their opinion while being factually incorrect himself. He even criticizes Project Jonah, an organization dedicated to helping marine mammals, for even suggesting the Rena could be the cause:

It was reported yesterday that Project Jonah conservationists - a charitable organisation responsible for the first aid of stranded whales - suggested there could be a link as sonar being used to salvage containers can injure nearby whales.

Inglis appears to want people not to communicate about happenings that are likely associated with New Zealand's largest ever environmental disaster... and for that he really has no place in journalism.

Stranded Gray's beaked whale - Papamoa Beach - 21 January 2012

Fairfax fears the facts

On January 12, Warwick Rasmussen wrote an opinion piece for the Manawatu Standard called Greenpeace makes meal out of the Rena:

The online and television campaign features imprints left by oil-covered birds on plain paper, then ends with a dead bird covered in oil. The words then say that offshore drilling could cause an environmental catastrophe 1000 times worse than what happened with the Rena.

This is not the first time opponents have blurred the lines between two significant, but separate, issues. If Greenpeace's latest effort was to highlight the risk of large ships carrying huge amounts of oil and other potential pollutants, that would be fine.

But it has gone further than that to push its message about something quite different. It'd be a bit like campaigning against fossil fuels because people die in car crashes. There is a link, but not enough to campaign on.

[...]

That's why their latest effort to shock people into action is so unnecessary and borderline insulting to people who do care about the environment and environmental issues

Rasmussen ignores a very simple fact; the Rena disaster clearly shows that New Zealand doesn't have the capacity to respond to a relatively small oil spill. If we don't have the resources to cope with the Rena, we have no chance of responding properly to a larger oil spill from a rig in deep waters.

So why the misleading article you might wonder? Well Fairfax Media of course.

There's a tendency with many Fairfax articles to ignore relevant issues and developments in favour of a controlled and sometimes contrived message. This is a mechanism of propaganda that has been greatly exacerbated by Fairfax's centralization regime.

Fairfax's modus operandi is to take over the competition... and according to research done by Bill Rosenberg on News media ownership in New Zealand (PDF), Fairfax uses underhanded tactics to achieve their acquisitions:

But Fairfax is by no means squeaky clean. Part of its formula for buying INL’s newspapers was for New Zealand taxpayers to help it. Using a scheme that O’Reilly used with his New Zealand newspaper operations, the plan was to sell the mastheads of the newspapers (which INL had revalued in 1997 from $228 million to $673 million) to a US bank and lease them back. Tax advantages in both New Zealand and the US would have doubled the return on Fairfax’s acquisition – using a handy $33 million of our money in tax benefits.

Unfortunately for Fairfax, the Minister of Finance Michael Cullen intervened and legislated to close the loophole in 2004. Exactly how much ANM made a year from our taxes has not been revealed, but it would have stood to lose up to $200 million by 2006 if the 2004 legislation had been backdated to 2001.

Fairfax now owns around half (48.6% in 2008) of New Zealand's print media and is closely tied to right wing politicians with a vested interest in controlling the message.

Fairfax has a long history associated with right wing politicians... most notable being former Liberal Party Treasurer, Ron Walker, who along with David Kirk managed hundreds if not thousands of redundancies.

The former All Black captain, Kirk had no newspaper experience before he became CEO of Fairfax in 2006, which he left in late 2008 amongst reports of a power struggle.

In May 2008, Kirk funded a full-page advertisement opposing a $1.5 billion wind farm in Central Otago proposed by Meridian Energy, which has only recently been cancelled. Kirk is a former National Party hope and has worked as an executive assistant and chief policy adviser to then National PM Jim Bolger.

Fairfax has been implementing planned redundancies since 1999, which has resulted in editorial sharing, sub-editing, fewer stories from smaller rural areas and something I'm sure you've all noticed; reprints across various publications. This ultimately weakens the function of journalism; to investigate and report on the facts in an unbiased way.

Please visit fairfactsexposed for further reading on how Fairfax games the system.

“If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing.” ― Malcolm X

Failed to report

Being a relatively small Island nation in the Pacific means we're somewhat isolated from what happens in the rest of the world. But that's no excuse for New Zealand's mainstream media to ignore important stories.

Clearly they're underreporting on relevant topics. So in light of this censorship... here's a small sample of recent stories that we don't get to see here in gods own:

Rena scam warning

Today, Maritime New Zealand report:

National oiled wildlife fundraising scams

There have been reports of a number of phone, online and merchandise scams for people to donate to an oiled wildlife fund for the Rena response.

There are no official fundraising activities for the National Oiled Wildlife Response Team.

Police have been notifed and the public are reminded to be cautious and never disclose personal, bank details or credit card information over the phone, online or in an email.

You can find out more about the latest hoaxes, scams and safety advice on the Ministry of Consumer Affairs Scamwatch website: www.consumeraffairs.govt.nz/scams

The only official fund in operation is the "Bay of Plenty Care for our Coast Fund". Donation information is available on the Bay of Plenty Regional Council website: www.boprc.govt.nzhttp://www.boprc.govt.nz/

Was Rena pushed?

Over three months after the MV Rena first grounded on Astrolabe reef, the stern section sunk into the sea, releasing 200 - 300 containers, debris and an undisclosed amount of oil into the ocean.

Last Tuesday, The Bay of Plenty Times reported:

The tug Go Canopus is still connected to the stern section of the Rena. This morning when it became apparent that the angle of its list was changing, salvors took the opportunity to try and use the tug to reposition the rear section on the reef, which would have enabled the container recovery barge Smit Borneo to move in closer. This proved impossible.

The barge Go Canopus was attached to the hull when it began to sink.

[...]

Svitzer spokesman Matt Watson was watching from the air when the stern section fell off the reef.

It took about 40 minutes for the aft-end to slip slowly backwards.

"The stern, the rear-section, has tilted further over to the starboard side and it has slid back. About 75 per cent of the rear-section is now submerged.

"It appears to be perched on the reef's edge," he said.

Svitzer salvors were in a helicopter over the wreck as it began to sink, and Mr Watson said it is possible the stern might have temporarily re-settled into its new position.

The barge Go Canopus was attached to the hull when it began to sink.

"The Go Canopus was attached at the time. It played a role. It powered up when it was clear there was a lot of movement," he said.

It is unclear yet what role the crane barge played and whether it was responsible for the rear-section sinking, he said.

The crane barge was nowhere near the Rena when the stern sunk... so Watsons' comment seems strange.

But what really raised the alarm bells is that in the webcam video below, it's not the Go Canopus tugboat working around the shipwreck as the stern starts to sink... so why the lies?

Two helicopters above the wreck watched as the tugboat maneuvered, and presumably filmed the work. So why hasn’t that footage been released to the public? These questions will likely to go unanswered.

Rena sinks