Benefits of proposed new oil and gas project don’t outweigh risks say opponents

Opponents of a proposed new oil and gas project off the Taranaki coast say the economic benefits do not outweigh the potential environmental harm.

Australian-owned oil and gas company Beach Energy which operates the Kupe field 30km offshore south of the Taranaki coast has applied to drill up two new wells in the basin starting in 2023, claiming the new rig could provide full-time employment for 164 people for one or two years.

The company applied to have the restrictions on the discharge of harmful substances lifted by the Environmental Protection Authority, with an independent panel assessing the case the past two days.

Tuesday, the first day of the preceding, saw Beach Energy presenting evidence to the board members appointed by the Ministry for the Environment, and Wednesday saw seven people provide representation against the application and one expert witness.

READ MORE:
* Consent opens door for oil exploration off Canterbury’s coast
* EPA grants drilling and discharge consent for Otago coast to oil and gas company OMV
* Teen tells government conference: ‘You’ve failed to protect me’

The panel heard numerous reasons from speakers on why the application should be refused with some people who work for environmental groups, speaking in a personal capacity.

Greenpeace’s agriculture and climate communications specialist Adam Currie spoke in a personal capacity about why the application should be refused, using 30 seconds of his presentation slot for a moment of silence “for all the species that will die” if the application goes through.

Farmer and activist Urs Signer said it was a “ludicrous” for Beach Energy to say in the submission they will conduct operations in an environmentally responsible and sustainable manner.

“It is a ludicrous proposition we can sustainably drill fossil fuels, to make millions for the shareholders of the applicant,” he said.

“We are going to stop these companies, with your help or not.”

Researcher for Climate Justice Taranaki, Catherine Cheung, was the only speaker to mention Beach Energy’s statement about the economic benefits.

She referred to a statement made the previous day by the economic consultant for Beach Energy Fraser Colegrave after he said the rig could provide 164 people with full time employment.

Cheung referred to information from the World Resources Institute on a job creation of sustainable industries versus the fossil fuels industry.

“A lot of these greener jobs would produce more jobs … are [Beach Energy] actually there to help people?”

She said fossil fuel companies have a history of misleading the public and not being transparent.

“There have been some lucky escapes with ships that we know about, but there is a lot of information not in the public domain,” she said.

“Fossil fuel has taken us a long way in our civilisation, but we must stop.”

Dr Linn Hoffmann, an Associate Professor of Marine Botany at the University of Otago,

spoke at the hearing about ocean acidification, telling the panel thatallowing any change to the ecosystem could be “catastrophic”.

“Any additional exposure to chemical pollution or physical disruption through spills or destruction, damage or disturbance of the seabed can have detrimental effects on already stressed marine organisms and need to be avoided under all circumstance,” she said.

Later in the hearing Beach Energy lawyer James Winchester said Hoffmann had made a “sweeping generalisation” and that she may be talking “beyond her true expertise”.

The panel also heard from Ngāti Manuhiakai Hapū, the Nga Motu Marine Reserve Society, and the Environment and Conservation Organisations of New Zealand, before talking the Winchester and the hearing was adjourned

The Environment Protection Authority has reserved its decision.