1 Introduction:
My name is Liz Palmer.
I am speaking on behalf of Oil Free Otago
I stood before this panel, in relation to the OMV consent on the same matter, last year.
I spent over 40 unpaid hours going through that application, this application is very much the same, although a little less articulate.
So I could talk about the ….
Significant use of assumptions and out-dated information resulting in uncertainty and incompleteness
I see little certainty in the dialogue used in this application, nor in the supporting reports. I see the use of assumptions and outdated and irrelevant data (sea surface temp data from 1993 -2007 (13 – 27 years old), wave statistics 1998 – 2007 (13 -22 years old). Never, in our human history, have we seen changes to the condition of the planet, both physically and socially, happening so quickly. I question the relevance of expert reports, when they are based on outdated and irrelevant data. Data for the sake of ticking boxes.
The ‘certainty’ that impacts from the activity are negligible must be questioned. Beach state that there are significant risks of bringing the toxic waste onshore (and no doubt significant costs) – they talk of the use of tankers – does this mean the cup of toxic waste is
metaphorical? So there are significant risks on land however offshore there are apparently only “negligible cumulative effects due to mixing in the receiving environment” – I find this sentence offensive, are we baking a cake? I have also heard the environment referred to as ‘sacrifice areas’ by the oil industry.
I could talk about how it is appallingly clear that there are many ‘unknowns’. How can impacts be assessed as ‘negligible’ when there are so many unknowns?
2 Unknowns include:
• frequency of an event - unknown
• current state of the ocean - unknown
• effects of fast-changing conditions - unknown
• cumulative effects - unknown
• vessels (for the duration of the consent) - unknown
• location of wells (for the duration of the consent) - unknown
• economic benefits are unsubstantiated and economic costs - unknown
• substances (for the duration of the consent) - unknown and should not be looked at in isolation
• therefore – the risks are unknown
Assumptions are evident in the prolific use of phrases such as:
• negligible consequence
• Most likely rare likelihood
• while theologically possible (to be exposed to trace concentrations of harmful substances)
• substances would be undetectable (by humans)
• temporary in nature (the impact of the toxic spill)
• are expected to be (mobile species that are not site attached).
• intermittent nature of discharge and the high mobility of fish reduces any potential (threat).
I understand these are ‘qualified’ assumptions, however they are qualified assumptions from within the oil industry ie. consultants employed by the industry. I question whether the DMC has a balanced input of information required to make a justifiable decision.
I understand that uncertainty is defined by law, and you have a report that states there are no uncertainties. I consider the report cursory.
I could talk about ….
Inconsistencies in the application around economic benefits, raising
questions of process
3 How Beach states there are no economic benefits of this activity – that of toxic spills. How Beach has made no attempt to forecast any benefits that the proposed Canterbury Basin EAD programme may contribute going forward.
Economic benefit, in the current environment, needs careful consideration. A recent report commissioned by Westpac* examining future threats to our economy, suggests a $30b benefit to GDP through to 2050 by adopting a smooth transition by NZ business to meet climate obligations. It went on to suggest growth is not projected to be evenly distributed.
While renewable electricity sources (such as wind, hydro and solar) will be among those industries to prosper, alongside fishing and non-ferrous metals, fossil fuel industries will contract. I would suggest that Beach’s failure to properly address economic benefit is a lack of understanding in the above matters. I presume Beach is still seeking investment for this operation. Perhaps the above knowledge, coupled with the industries’ loss of social license, is hindering this process.
*Westpac NZ – CC Impact Report April 2018
I could talk about …
Inadequate reporting of engagement with Stakeholders
How existing stakeholders have been sent a cover letter and information sheet. Should this be considered consultation? It puts the onus of a response on to the affected party, whereas the burden of communication should lie with Beach. Beach must consult with Iwi, but where are the resources for Iwi to properly respond. Why does this have to cost the affected party time and money. This should be a cost to the applicant
I consider the consultation undertaken by Beach to be cursory and unclear by way of
feedback. A summary of what can be teased out of the material provided, is that stakeholders (particularly iwi) found it hard to properly assess any affects this venture may have on them due to the process of separating the relevant consents (and the information that these may contain).
4 This raises the question of joint processing and decision making on related applications; I fail to see how it can be considered reasonable, that the EPA does not exercise its right to ask that the related applications be heard at the same time. Can a decision, that
safeguards the life-supporting capacity of the environment, be made when all the applications are not heard together? I ask that the decision on this application be withheld until the
following applications are heard?
I also question the timing of this application. Beach has made it clear, most likely for funding purposes, to not start the drilling until the 3rd quarter of 2021. How can an application be properly considered so far out from the intended start date? Resource consents are often granted for a two-year period for good reason.
One might argue that we are all stakeholders* when it comes to the oil industry. The facilitating of the extraction of fossil fuels affects every living thing on the planet. It should be Iwi who Beach is standing before here today with this application. The EPA, and I ask the panel to not take this personally, appears to be a mechanism to protect the interests of this powerful industry, a remnant of colonial power.
*A stakeholder is defined as “any individual, group or organisation that can affect, be affected, or perceive itself to be affected by an initiative.
I could talk about ….
Cumulative impacts assessed in a way systemic to the industry, raising questions of relevance and proper assessment
Cumulative – means ‘including all amounts that have been added before’. Within this meaning I would expect to see the cumulative impact of ‘adding more toxins to the ocean’
being assessed for the purpose of this consent. Instead we are provided with a wordy report of cumulative impact based on ‘all amounts added by other operators in the area’. And OMV being only 20km away is OK, are we assuming the Ocean stands dead still!
Nowhere have I seen proper assessment of the current state of the ocean from which to examine the impact of adding more toxins. There appears to be an assumption that we are
5 starting with a clean slate. We need no expert to tell us this is not the case. It is common knowledge that plastic, a product of fossil fuels, is a major pollutant of the ocean to the point where it is now established as part of the food chain, not only for marine life but for humans too.
The ocean has five major permanent currents that can carry pollutants all around the planet.
This being so, I would imagine that the study of cumulated impacts, of polluting one particular area, would be difficult to assess.
I believe cumulative impacts of this venture cannot be properly assessed if all activities of the EAD are not considered together. This thin edge of the wedge* approach to the consenting process is no longer relevant nor reasonable. It is well known that tons of drilling fluids, and metal cuttings (including toxic metals), are disposed of daily by off-shore rigs, into the ocean, and more so on exploratory wells. Tons - daily
*a minor change that begins a major development, especially an undesirable one.
I could talk about …..
Use of precedent in relation to the role of the EPA
Having viewed the earlier application by OMV, I question if this seeming regurgitation of information is considered adequate for the DMC to make a just and fair decision, at this time of crisis.
I ask that this application is assessed through fresh eyes with consideration of the fast- changing state of the world, and the downward spiralling social license and economic benefit of this sunset industry.
I understand the consent under consideration is for a permit that could end as late as 2029.
This is the exact time period when a just transition to renewable energy is required.
Sustainable management of our natural resources must also include ‘cessation’ if crisis is to be averted.
6
Request to decline application and provision of reasons for this decision
What I would like to say is this.
The dialogue has changed. This systemic use of language, to say very little, no longer has social license, nor the integrity needed to make decisions that sustainably manage the remaining resources on this planet. Indigenous people believe that every decision should consider 7 generations ahead. With this wisdom in mind, I ask that you exercise a duty of care in making your decision at this time.
Economic benefits are not established either for this current activity or the entire EAD programme. The EEZ Act places a focus on economic development. The ability of this industry to ensure such economic development is extremely questionable.
I do not believe the interests of New Zealander’s, either environmentally or culturally, are properly addressed in the consultation process undertaken by the applicant.
The cumulative effects of this activity are complex and hard to assess. I consider the amount of puffery and assumption in this application reinforces this observation. However, this does not make the applicant’s conclusion acceptable.
There is uncertainty around the independence of the material the DMC must decide upon. If the strength of the EPA is to remain independent, then a wider range of material would be desirable.
I para phrase Naomi Klien from her book, ON FIRE
The fossil fuel industry has historically required sacrificial people and places, it is totally reliant on these. This kind of industry recklessness would have been functionally impossible without institutional racism, without all the tools on offer for the powerful to discount the lives of the less powerful, including of course the environment. This ranking of the relative value of humans is what has allowed for the digging up of all this carbon to begin with, and I suggest this process today is just one of these tools. A well worn path…
You have a real opportunity to make a positive and material difference to the challenges facing our country. I urge you to look at the tools available to you to do the right thing. Let the word ‘cessation’ ring in your ears. The consequences of this metaphorical cup of toxins are dire.
7 If mankind is to effect the necessary change of behaviour required, to keep the planet in a
‘liveable’ condition, no government agency can be seen to be supporting such activities. This agency should be going to great lengths to do just the opposite. We are all caretakers of the environment. I ask that you favour caution and environmental protection when making your decision to decline this application.