They say it’s not until you leave New Zealand that you truly come to appreciate its natural beauty – but it’s hard to forget, even if you live here, when you’re reminded of it all the time. In a country that relies so heavily on its pristine image overseas, suggestion it’s anything other than clean and green is often rejected out of hand. But is this marketing or reality?
Christians call it stewardship (Genesis 2:15), Maori call it kaitiakitanga, and Vivienne Westwood propounds it as part of her Gaia philosophy – the notion of an individual and a community taking responsibility for their resources transcends camps and affiliations.
Trading on our clean green image internationally as we do, the buy-in is easy for New Zealanders: we don’t support nuclear power, we don’t support whaling, and, if your income allows, you can buy pretty much everything fair trade. It’s rare to see picketers brandishing slogans that advocate for climate change, oil spills and death to the Maui dolphin.
But there’s an ideological brick wall between the behaviour of New Zealand consumers and the country’s treasured environmental brand, evident in the debate over oil and gas exploration that was ongoing in the lead-up to the election. To quote government body New Zealand Petroleum & Minerals, “the demand for, and exploration of, petroleum has never been greater”. Our prospects, it would seem, are in prospecting – and now that a National government has been elected for a third term, there will only be more exploration on the horizon.
New Zealand produces premium oil – the “light, sweet” crude – which is highly desirable, and as a result our fourth-largest exported good [pdf pages 93 and 97]. We import the “medium, sour” crude to use ourselves, while Australia, Singapore and Thailand get our sweet stuff. The economic carrot dangled over us is $400 million in annual royalties and around $300 million in annual company tax revenue for the government. It wagers that if current exploration rates were to increase by 50 per cent over the next 10 years, New Zealand could earn $12.7 billion in royalties.
And, remarkably, we are still a net importer of oil. Statistics NZ records that since 2006 mineral fuels and oil have been our largest imported good; the sour stuff that is. Crude oil goes to Marsden Point where it is refined into petroleum, and by-products like sulphur and carbon dioxide go to fertiliser and beverages.
It’s easy to reduce the arguments for and against oil and gas exploration to a binary: More oil = more money, the catch being: more oil = greater risk of oil spill. The wreck of the Rena remains on the Astrolabe reef where it ran aground nearly three years ago, a reminder of the risks we run, as well as how ill-equipped we are to deal with and pay for the clean-up.
But regardless of how conflicted we feel about the practice, the International Energy Agency has indicated oil demand is still climbing, irrespective of how unsustainable this demand is. In his 2005 paper New Zealand physics professor Bob Lloyd suggested that even if there are as many as 3000 billion barrels left in reserve around the world, “the amount remaining is less than the amount we have already used”. And while demand climbs, so will supply.
As is the case with any industry, there’s only so much that can be done to control for human error and unforeseeable circumstances – but to a certain extent oil and gas exploration hasn’t managed to shake its bad rap. The fact remains: oil exploration in New Zealand is designed to be low-risk. There has never been a drilling-related spill, and the industry’s been active for 40 years, says Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment spokesman Britton Broun. He points to International Association of Oil and Gas Producers figures that, prior to the Montara and Deepwater Horizon incidents, there had been 14,000 deep sea wells drilled around the world without major incident.
The industry is subject to rigorous protocols and regulation, of which preventing a spill is only one strand. As part of “Health & Safety and Environment” procedure, several organisations have to oversee and sign off each stage of the exploration, including the decommissioning of rigs. The involvement of NZPM, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Conservation, Maritime New Zealand, Worksafe New Zealand and even regional councils in the process add up to create a network of shared responsibility.
A Worksafe NZ spokesperson insists they’re not complacent: “We have recruited extensively both within New Zealand and internationally to bring in people who can provide a robust challenge to industry performance, encourage continuous improvement in safety and take enforcement action when necessary.”
Internal assurance strategy now goes far beyond the New Zealand government’s regulatory requirements (which are likely to be strengthened following a Ministry of Economic Development review). An Environment Reporting Bill, which was introduced in February and demands a higher level of independent environmental reporting, will also no doubt impact on oil exploration activities.
Thus far, over 400 wells have been drilled in Taranaki, New Zealand’s largest oil-producing basin. There are 171 million barrels’ worth left in the basin based on “probable” estimates (the 50 per cent certainty that these reserves will be produced). Attention has turned to areas of interest further south. Earlier this year, US oil giant Anadarko pulled out of the Canterbury Basin after finding only a small amount of natural gas. The test set them back $150 million – loose change, if it had paid off.
Southland leaders said to be enthusiastic about opening up the Great South Basin to exploration. “We have noticed that areas where petroleum and minerals activity has been occurring for some time are generally more supportive of the industries,” says Britton Broun of MBIE. “For example in Taranaki, where the petroleum industry has been in operation for more than 40 years, people are familiar with the industry, aware of the reality of risks and can see the economic benefits.”
But Dunedin City Cuncillor Jinty MacTavish believes she’s part of the growing majority who believe in ending further exploration of fossil fuels.
Dunedin City councillor Jinty MacTavish. Photo: Supplied
As a local who wants to promote “diverse local economies supplied with renewable energy, investing in accessible low-carbon infrastructure, reframing city planning around low-carbon principles, and measuring 'success' more holistically” she has received some “baffling” feedback. This is broadly from the split in the community that believe oil exploration is the “silver bullet” for Dunedin’s local economy in an economy where “people are hurting”. Despite this criticism she takes the view that “the radical position is that we should continue to fundamentally alter the composition of the atmosphere and just hope for the best”.
Mischa Davis, 25, also believe there’s overwhelming support for abandoning fossil fuels altogether. She is currently interning for Greenpeace at their Amsterdam headquarters, but is a Piha local (and a national surfing champion) who has been involved in the KiwiBid, GetFree and Kiwis Against Seabed Mining campaigns.
She draws parallels between the Russian bid to drill next to a national park and world heritage site, and New Zealand’s opening up the market to deep-sea drilling. “It’s always risky,” she says. “They [Arctic Drilling] don’t have a relief rig, they haven’t released their oil spill response plan, if they find oil they’ll be drilling all year round and in winter it’s thick with ice and it’s dark all the time – if there’s an oil spill it will be impossible to clean up.”
That “we’re addicted to oil” is an entirely political issue, Davis says. “We can make our own personal decisions and sacrifice things we desire, but at the same time we’re trapped citizens because an organic sustainable lifestyle is too expensive in New Zealand.”
To reduce the issue to ‘to drill or not to drill’, then, is somewhat simplistic. Both camps want to improve the lifestyles and living conditions of New Zealanders, and behind the demand are people going about their daily lives.
But one way we measure living conditions is, ironically, by the amount of stuff we consume, much of which is dependent on oil. Expenditure per household has been increasing consistently over the past couple of decades, and income is rising proportionally faster in high income houses, not so much in low income houses. The adage “much taste, much waste” springs to mind.
You may catch the bus, carpool and even switch off those small appliances, but energy is not the only thing to be concerned about when thinking about the downstream effects of our oil consumption. Equating oil with energy deflects responsibility for the other pervasive habits that we need to crack down on (something to think about before uploading that “climate voter” cover photo).
For example, plastic is made from oil, and New Zealand produces more than 242,000 tonnes of the stuff every year. Plastics New Zealand estimates that we’ll be importing 300,000 tonnes of raw plastic material by 2030. Almost 60 per cent of it is packaging, and almost 80 per cent of it we’re putting into landfills. That’s the life cycle of oil: we dig it up and put it back in the ground.
Well, some of it goes back in the ground. There are thought to be five major “gyres” in the world’s oceans where giant slews of plastic collect, accounting for billions of tonnes of waste. Greenpeace and scientists have both suggested that the only way of reducing the gyres is preventing the plastic getting to the ocean in the first place, as the practical impossibilities of removing it once it gets in there (despite best efforts) are insurmountable.
The Pacific Institute estimates that [pdf] 17 million barrels of oil equivalent are necessary to product the one million tonnes of plastic for bottle water consumed by Americans annually. All of a sudden, Riche McCaw’s Water for Everyone campaign seems a bit counterproductive.
It’s frustrating that some consumers litter or do not support the collection and recycling infrastructure provided in their communities ...
Plastics NZ is involved in a range of programmes to try to reduce the industry’s environmental impact, which include Operation Clean Sweep and Waste-to-Energy. It’s also spearheading bio-plastics, recycling and energy efficiency initiatives and also funded its own “Boatie Bag” campaign to reduce marine litter.
Its Environmental Committee Chairperson Dennise Chapman says they are aware of at least two companies setting up pyrolysis facilities in New Zealand, which would convert waste plastics to fuel oil – in a sense, perpetuating the life cycle of oil. But she says consumers also have a responsibility to do their bit. “It’s frustrating that some consumers litter or do not support the collection and recycling infrastructure provided in their communities,” she says. “We have encouraged our own industry members to reduce the amount of waste going to landfill and they now recycle well over 95 per cent of the waste plastic they produce.”
Whether because they’re firming up regulation or investing in environmentally-friendly initiatives, it’s difficult to tar government and industry with blame without accepting a bit ourselves. These stakeholders respond to and are representative of the public, but more frequently the public in their capacity as consumers – and it’s pretty difficult to reconcile “clean and green” with the ever-increasing demand for oil, plastic and stuff to consume.
This content is brought to you with funding assistance from New Zealand On Air.
