NZ Oil, Gas Ban Could Cost $30 Bln

[Marina Schwarz + 1,576]

The Government's ban on oil and gas exploration could cost up to $30b by 2050, NZIER say. Here.

Take what you want and pay for it, no?

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

Greenpeace disagrees.  Shocking, I know...

Greenpeace climate and energy campaigner Amanda Larsson said an oil industry-commissioned report claiming to show the Government's oil and gas exploration ban will cost billions is nothing but "fake news and flatulence".

===================================

Enjoy your shrinking GDP and increased dependence on energy imports, New Zealand.

[Marina Schwarz + 1,576]

Flatulence, how charming.

[Ian Austin + 131]

7 hours ago, Marina Schwarz said:

The Government's ban on oil and gas exploration could cost up to $30b by 2050, NZIER say. Here.

Take what you want and pay for it, no?

I assume they’re speaking of the $$$$ spent on exploration.  

Realistically, you could spend big $$$ on exploration and have Zero long lasting economic effects - that’s the case where you don’t find anything. My question would be, what kind of exploration success are they assuming?

[Illurion + 894]

19 hours ago, Marina Schwarz said:

The Government's ban on oil and gas exploration could cost up to $30b by 2050, NZIER say. Here.

Take what you want and pay for it, no?

https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2019/02/17/britains-richest-businessman-does-a-john-galt/

This same thing is happening in England........

The above article mentions that among the reasons for his leaving is that  HE IS FOR FRACKING.......   AND THAT THERE ARE MASSIVE RESERVES OF SHALE OIL IN ENGLAND,  AND IT IS BEING IGNORED BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT REFUSES TO ALLOW FRACKING IN ENGLAND...

A very interesting read........

a quote:

Worse, though, from the perspective of a value-creator like Ratcliffe, is that both the British government and the EU have made it increasingly hard for him to do business. Ratcliffe’s business has been particularly hard-hit by the rising cost of energy, driven artificially high by the EU’s war on fossil fuels and embrace of costly, inefficient, unreliable renewables.

 

a quote:

Nobody but nobody in my business seriously invests in Europe.   They haven’t for a generation. Everyone in my business does however invest in the USA, Middle East or China, or indeed, all three. The USA is in the middle of a $200 billion spending spree on 333 new chemical plants. China has spent that sum annually for many years, constructing its own chemical building blocks.

Europe, not so long ago the world leader in chemicals, has seen its market share in the last decade alone collapse from 30% world market share to 15%. This is an industry that employs over 1 million people in high quality jobs in Europe and five times that in indirect jobs. Worldwide, chemicals is an immense industry, considerably bigger than the automotive sector with revenues approaching $4 trillion.

Europe is no longer competitive. It has the worlds most expensive energy and labour laws that are uninviting for employers. Worst of all, it has green taxes that, at best, can be described as foolish as they are having the opposite effect to how they were intended.

 

a quote:

This is one of the reasons why, in Britain, Ratcliffe has campaigned for an acceleration of the so-far all but non-existent fracking industry. Britain is sitting on trillions of tons of cubic feet of shale gas which, if exploited, would dramatically bring down the cost of energy. Indeed, it appears that Britain’s Bowland Shale is even more rich in gas than Texas:

 

a quote:

Ineos, Britain’s biggest private company, claims drilling results from its field in Nottinghamshire suggest “U.S. levels” of shale gas under the soil.

Tests found an average level of 60.7 standard cubic feet per tonne of gas – compared with an average 39 (scf) at a vast shale field in Texas.

Ineos Shale chief operating officer Tom Pickering claimed it was the most significant drilling result so far in the short history of Britain’s shale industry.

He told The Sun: “It’s obviously early days but these are the highest readings in the UK we have ever seen.”

Geologists believe there could be 436 trillion cubic feet of gas in this part of the Bowland Basin. This test is consistent with that.

[ronwagn + 6,290]

50 minutes ago, Illurion said:

https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2019/02/17/britains-richest-businessman-does-a-john-galt/

This same thing is happening in England........

The above article mentions that among the reasons for his leaving is that  HE IS FOR FRACKING.......   AND THAT THERE ARE MASSIVE RESERVES OF SHALE OIL IN ENGLAND,  AND IT IS BEING IGNORED BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT REFUSES TO ALLOW FRACKING IN ENGLAND...

A very interesting read........

a quote:

Worse, though, from the perspective of a value-creator like Ratcliffe, is that both the British government and the EU have made it increasingly hard for him to do business. Ratcliffe’s business has been particularly hard-hit by the rising cost of energy, driven artificially high by the EU’s war on fossil fuels and embrace of costly, inefficient, unreliable renewables.

 

a quote:

Nobody but nobody in my business seriously invests in Europe.   They haven’t for a generation. Everyone in my business does however invest in the USA, Middle East or China, or indeed, all three. The USA is in the middle of a $200 billion spending spree on 333 new chemical plants. China has spent that sum annually for many years, constructing its own chemical building blocks.

Europe, not so long ago the world leader in chemicals, has seen its market share in the last decade alone collapse from 30% world market share to 15%. This is an industry that employs over 1 million people in high quality jobs in Europe and five times that in indirect jobs. Worldwide, chemicals is an immense industry, considerably bigger than the automotive sector with revenues approaching $4 trillion.

Europe is no longer competitive. It has the worlds most expensive energy and labour laws that are uninviting for employers. Worst of all, it has green taxes that, at best, can be described as foolish as they are having the opposite effect to how they were intended.

 

a quote:

This is one of the reasons why, in Britain, Ratcliffe has campaigned for an acceleration of the so-far all but non-existent fracking industry. Britain is sitting on trillions of tons of cubic feet of shale gas which, if exploited, would dramatically bring down the cost of energy. Indeed, it appears that Britain’s Bowland Shale is even more rich in gas than Texas:

 

a quote:

Ineos, Britain’s biggest private company, claims drilling results from its field in Nottinghamshire suggest “U.S. levels” of shale gas under the soil.

Tests found an average level of 60.7 standard cubic feet per tonne of gas – compared with an average 39 (scf) at a vast shale field in Texas.

Ineos Shale chief operating officer Tom Pickering claimed it was the most significant drilling result so far in the short history of Britain’s shale industry.

He told The Sun: “It’s obviously early days but these are the highest readings in the UK we have ever seen.”

Geologists believe there could be 436 trillion cubic feet of gas in this part of the Bowland Basin. This test is consistent with that.

The worst thing for New Zealand would be too ruin their beautiful country with wind turbines. Possibly far offshore would work though. Make them blue to fit in with the sky color. Just inform the sea birds. There is a great fast current of water between the North and South Islands perhaps the sea current could be harnessed. I am for the fracking of course. 

[Marina Schwarz + 1,576]

England doesn't have the land for fracking, and neither does the rest of the UK, so that's a smart decision. Although they did allow it somewhere in central England or thereabouts. Let's not forget fracking needs a lot of space not just for the wells themselves but for the wastewater dumps as well.