5 Dec 2012
Jan Wright's fracking publicity stunt
Today, the NZ Herald tweeted:
That's excellent I thought, because there are a number of questions I have been meaning to ask the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, Jan Wright, about her interim report (PDF) into the environmental impacts of fracking in New Zealand.
So I clicked on the NZ Herald link and was happy to see that the live chat session had only just started.
After 29 minutes, lizziemfitzgerald asked:
Jan Wright replied:
To which I asked:
Clearly the report is misleading if lizziemfitzgerald comment is anything to go by, as there are numerous instances of environmental damage in Taranaki from various fracking incidents.
Unfortunately these problems are often not reported by the largely self-regulated fracking industry or by the complicit Taranaki Regional Council. Even when they are, they are hidden within screeds of other information and worded in a way that makes them seem less serious. Unbelievably most of the various fracking problems that have been reported were not even mentioned in Jan Wrights interim report.
How can the public have faith that Jan Wright is undertaking an unbiased investigation if she doesn't even mention all the fracking problems in Taranaki that have already occurred? Some of these problems are of major concern such as the irreparable damage to aquifers around the region.
After a while without getting a response or indeed having my comment appear on the site at all, I repeated it at 12:55 PM.
The NZ Herald then wrote:
Unfortunately I now have little faith in Jan Wright to properly investigate and make the appropriate recommendations concerning the highly dangerous fracking industry. This was nothing more than a publicity stunt, and a failure of one at that.
That's excellent I thought, because there are a number of questions I have been meaning to ask the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, Jan Wright, about her interim report (PDF) into the environmental impacts of fracking in New Zealand.
So I clicked on the NZ Herald link and was happy to see that the live chat session had only just started.
After 29 minutes, lizziemfitzgerald asked:
Based on your interim finding it seems that fracking hasn't caused any problems in Taranaki so why do you think that there needs to be better regs?
Jan Wright replied:
I haven't reached a firm conclusion that there have been no problems in Taranaki. While I haven't found any big red flags, I will be having a closer look at the monitoring that has been done. That said, I don't think it's possible to take the Taranaki experience and extrapolate it to other parts of the country, other kinds of fracking, and greater scale.
To which I asked:
Saying that you haven't reached a firm conclusion that there hasn't been any problems in Taranaki because of fracking is a roundabout way of saying you know of fracking related problems. In my opinion, you should acknowledge these various problems in your reports. I am aware of four major environmental problems as a result of fracking in Taranaki. Although I understand your need to be diplomatic, these need more than the once over lightly.
Clearly the report is misleading if lizziemfitzgerald comment is anything to go by, as there are numerous instances of environmental damage in Taranaki from various fracking incidents.
Unfortunately these problems are often not reported by the largely self-regulated fracking industry or by the complicit Taranaki Regional Council. Even when they are, they are hidden within screeds of other information and worded in a way that makes them seem less serious. Unbelievably most of the various fracking problems that have been reported were not even mentioned in Jan Wrights interim report.
How can the public have faith that Jan Wright is undertaking an unbiased investigation if she doesn't even mention all the fracking problems in Taranaki that have already occurred? Some of these problems are of major concern such as the irreparable damage to aquifers around the region.
After a while without getting a response or indeed having my comment appear on the site at all, I repeated it at 12:55 PM.
The NZ Herald then wrote:
Thanks everyone for all your great questions so far. This live chat will end in a few minutes....
Unfortunately I now have little faith in Jan Wright to properly investigate and make the appropriate recommendations concerning the highly dangerous fracking industry. This was nothing more than a publicity stunt, and a failure of one at that.
Brendan Horan should go
Speculation is rife about the expelling of Brendan Horan from NZ First yesterday by Winston Peters. The shocking move in parliament was preceded by a lot of procedural mumbo jumbo whereby Gerry Brownlee had to propose a way for Winston to even raise the issue because of the Speakers anal retention to the rules.
The idiot John Banks even jumped in to try and move things along, which made the house look like a complete circus.
Anyway Winston Peters was finally given the chance to speak and succinctly expelled Horan from NZ First. Despite this, many people have started to question the decision, not so much to come to Horans aid, but to damage Winston Peters' credibility.
Today, David Farrar at Kiwibog wrote:
Farrar is copying a post by Scott Yorke, who yesterday wrote:
Clearly it's incorrect to say no opportunity was given to Horan to present his side of the story prior to the decision to expel him from the NZF caucus. Peters gave Horan every opportunity to provide information to him to base a decision on. Peters and the NZ First caucus also had to make a decision about this, and it turned out that the information provided was compelling enough for Horan to be expelled.
Scott York and others assuming NZ First never had a meeting to discuss Horans future involvement in the party is a bit unwarranted, and clearly Horan is no longer a member of NZ First. Whether he stays on as an independent will largely depend on Horans belief at his innocence, and just how much of that evidence against him is made public.
The bit I'm feeling uneasy about though is the fact that Mana Ormsby, Horans half brother, made this a public matter in the first place. Their mothers request was that money be recovered from Horan making this a family matter... Clearly there's a level of vindictiveness in making a private matter public that therefore makes me question the motive behind ruining Horans political career, which I might add has nothing to do with recovering any supposed money Horan stole from his mother.
We cannot know at this stage if the accusations are true or false, and such family squabbles can go on for years and years. Despite the question of Horans innocence or guilt being largely unanswered for the public, Winston had no choice but to limit the damage a scandal like this would do to his party, being that his supporters would naturally identify with Horans accusers.
Personally I think Winston Peters did have compelling evidence to base his decision upon, and despite Horan being a likable guy, he fits well into the usual mode of a conman who's unable to accept he's done anything wrong. Even if he doesn't accept he has done anything wrong, his continued presence in the house of representatives is questionable... Mainly because there is always a presumption of guilt with politicians.
Either way, this scandal has been detrimental to NZ First. It has also been detrimental to the publics perception of politicians and clearly a better system of vetting potential MP's is required.
The idiot John Banks even jumped in to try and move things along, which made the house look like a complete circus.
Anyway Winston Peters was finally given the chance to speak and succinctly expelled Horan from NZ First. Despite this, many people have started to question the decision, not so much to come to Horans aid, but to damage Winston Peters' credibility.
Today, David Farrar at Kiwibog wrote:
But Horan is still a member of the party. Now you can argue that these rues don’t stop the caucus suspending an MP, or even expelling him. But it seems the caucus has not made any such decision on Horan. It is unclear if they have even had a discussion on the issue.
Farrar is copying a post by Scott Yorke, who yesterday wrote:
I’m going to assume there hasn’t been a hearing by NZ First’s board, because I’m sure someone would have mentioned a hearing if one had taken place, and I’m also going to assume from Horan’s defiant statements that he hasn’t resigned as a member. And while his future plans are unclear, he hasn’t to my knowledge joined another party.
Clearly it's incorrect to say no opportunity was given to Horan to present his side of the story prior to the decision to expel him from the NZF caucus. Peters gave Horan every opportunity to provide information to him to base a decision on. Peters and the NZ First caucus also had to make a decision about this, and it turned out that the information provided was compelling enough for Horan to be expelled.
Scott York and others assuming NZ First never had a meeting to discuss Horans future involvement in the party is a bit unwarranted, and clearly Horan is no longer a member of NZ First. Whether he stays on as an independent will largely depend on Horans belief at his innocence, and just how much of that evidence against him is made public.
The bit I'm feeling uneasy about though is the fact that Mana Ormsby, Horans half brother, made this a public matter in the first place. Their mothers request was that money be recovered from Horan making this a family matter... Clearly there's a level of vindictiveness in making a private matter public that therefore makes me question the motive behind ruining Horans political career, which I might add has nothing to do with recovering any supposed money Horan stole from his mother.
We cannot know at this stage if the accusations are true or false, and such family squabbles can go on for years and years. Despite the question of Horans innocence or guilt being largely unanswered for the public, Winston had no choice but to limit the damage a scandal like this would do to his party, being that his supporters would naturally identify with Horans accusers.
Personally I think Winston Peters did have compelling evidence to base his decision upon, and despite Horan being a likable guy, he fits well into the usual mode of a conman who's unable to accept he's done anything wrong. Even if he doesn't accept he has done anything wrong, his continued presence in the house of representatives is questionable... Mainly because there is always a presumption of guilt with politicians.
Either way, this scandal has been detrimental to NZ First. It has also been detrimental to the publics perception of politicians and clearly a better system of vetting potential MP's is required.
4 Dec 2012
Petrobras sent packing
Today, One News reported:
When Bill English says the government tried to make exploration look attractive, what he actually means is that National has wasted thousands if not millions of taxpayer dollars in trying to promote oil and gas exploration in an area that was never going to accept it.
There was no proper consultation process, meaning that the level of resentment felt by Iwi on the East Coast of the North Island was palpable.
It appears that Petrobras has recognized that it has no mandate to drill for oil in the area, and would have been further obstructed from undertaking their destructive enterprise by concerned citizens. It's in my opinion a reasonable assessment of the situation, and Petrobras has been made to withdraw through a concerted effort by peaceful activists.
It's likely that other oil and gas companies will also have considered these aspects and it's doubtful that they're lining up to exploit the East Coast for its mineral wealth. So a victory for the environment, Te Whānau-ā-Apanui and Greenpeace... Excellent!
Petrobras has decided not to proceed with permits it holds for deepwater prospecting off the North Island's east coast.
The Brazilian company was awarded a permit in 2010 to explore 12,000 square kilometres in the Raukumara Basin for gas and oil.
Asked today if he was disappointed Petrobras was not proceeding, Finance Minister Bill English said other companies were interested and committed to oil and gas exploration.
"The Government has invested a bit of time and money in making sure it's attractive, exploration is attractive, the companies are always making their decision in the context of now some quite big shifts in world energy markets with the extensive shale gas finds in the US for instance," English said.
When Bill English says the government tried to make exploration look attractive, what he actually means is that National has wasted thousands if not millions of taxpayer dollars in trying to promote oil and gas exploration in an area that was never going to accept it.
There was no proper consultation process, meaning that the level of resentment felt by Iwi on the East Coast of the North Island was palpable.
It appears that Petrobras has recognized that it has no mandate to drill for oil in the area, and would have been further obstructed from undertaking their destructive enterprise by concerned citizens. It's in my opinion a reasonable assessment of the situation, and Petrobras has been made to withdraw through a concerted effort by peaceful activists.
It's likely that other oil and gas companies will also have considered these aspects and it's doubtful that they're lining up to exploit the East Coast for its mineral wealth. So a victory for the environment, Te Whānau-ā-Apanui and Greenpeace... Excellent!
Corexit makes oil 52 times more toxic
Yesterday, Global Research reported:
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 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.
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.