Wanganui: Small town thinking for big town problem

Share |

NZ residents of Wanganui are being asked whether they ought to approve a $141 million flood mitigation plan - a huge cost burden for a depopulating town, when there is a far more prudent and lucrative opportunity - build a hydro-electric scheme. My thoughts posted at Wanganui Chronicle letters below:

How about a flood mitigation scheme upriver to avoid the prospect of a flood and generate hydro-electricity for a century for free. Maybe the city could get free electricity, to offset the extortion by the power companies after stage 2 of the privatisation/self-regulation. Perhaps the council could finance the scheme through its EnergyDirect investment (50% owned by the council)....though maybe self-regulation precludes such vertical integration. I forget.

I might add - a few greenies might be flooded out of the valley at the same time. Seriously, though, why spend $141.4 million on remedial work when you can create something of value or productive, that ultimately serves 2 purposes, perhaps 3 (water supply in times of drought).

This of course is too abstract for councils accustomed to reactionary solutions. Why spend on costs when you can create assets. Of course Annette Main, whose property lies in this vicinity could be expected to have a vested interest, so maybe no progress will be made. Perhaps she needs to keep a back seat in our extortion-based political system.

Think about the following figures - electricity prices in NZ - page 148 of the Ministry of Development website. Comparing the ratio of residential electricity prices / industrial electricity prices - suggests a 2.5x premium for residential consumers over bulk electricity consumers. Its the worst ratio in the world...then look at the same ratio for gas...its even worse 4.8x - so consumers are being ripped off by producers and distributors of gas and electricity despite the capital cost of these assets being fully sunk by govt by the 1980s, and no fuel cost for the 70% of generating capacity which is hydro.

Perhaps rate payers ought to convince the council to 'invest' in new generating capacity rather than spending on 'damage prevention'....that's a rather expensive contingency planning 'cost' for an event that may not occur; protection which might not work; and work that offers no improvement. Perhaps council could even protect ratepayers from the extortionate prices of the national powerco's by offering ratepayers a cost+ROI electricity price; or better still adopt market pricing, and retain the power asset revenue to alleviate future rates. Concessional electricity prices could also be used to attract new industries. You wanted jobs didn't you. Cheap electricity is known to attract jobs. But will you allow a dam on the Wanganui River?? If it protects your homes?

Am I missing something?

NZ Property Guide Philippine Real Estate Guide Japan Foreclosed Guide

Author Andrew Sheldon| Applied Critical Thinking | www.SheldonThinks.com

Offshore oil development blessing for NZ

Share |

The protest against offshore drilling does not “highlight the dangers of oil spills”, it represents complete ignorance of oil exploration and discovery, with no consideration of the benefits. Firstly, oil is an indispensible ‘global commodity’. If there is to be exploration, the best place for it is in the remotest part of the world, such as north-west of NZ. Suggests that fracking chemicals present a toxic threat is absurd given the volumes involved. Of course such campaigning is compelling news for those whose contempt for mankind extends back to biblical times.

Notwithstanding the (still uncertain) consequences of the Gulf of Mexico spill, the solution is a better legal framework, not misinformation intended to extort political appeasement under the existing system. In this respect, the protesters will be part of the problem, and will have no impact upon government policy.

I presume the protesters will ride bikes to Castlecliff Beach and plant trees to achieve offsetting carbon abatement credits for the senseless burning of trees on the beach. Most oil spills result from tanker transportation, whether collisions or groundings during storms. The worst spill was caused by the Iraqis in the Gulf War. Well blow-outs are a relatively rare event, and any comparison between development in the Gulf of Mexico (I estimate 50,000 drill holes) compared to around 300 all over NZ is stark. We would be so lucky to have a ‘gusher’. Perhaps they ought to lobby car manufacturers for more fuel-efficient engines. Why don’t they finance engine technology enthusiasts? The potential wealth flowing from a NZ oil discovery would actually allow the government to finance more tangible conservative values.

NZ Property Guide Philippine Real Estate Guide Japan Foreclosed Guide

Author Andrew Sheldon| Applied Critical Thinking | www.SheldonThinks.com

The future of the NZ Pike River mine

Share |

During the Pike River mine disaster I have raised some questions for journalists to ask, and raised some suspicions. As news becomes available, it is apparent that the mining company has done a good job in undertaking the rescue. The latest reports are available here. The next step will be to restore ventilation to the mine in order that the bodies may be recovered. It also seems likely that the mine will be sealed up and become their tomb. The reality is that this decision may depend upon a decision to re-open the mine.

I have previously argued that the mine should not be reopened without coal methane extraction. These coal seams need to be degassed. The reason is not simply that the coal is gassy, but that I suggest its because the coal is relatively deformed, resulting in strong hydrostatic pressures within the rocks. I would not be surprised if the mine was subject to sudden inflows of water and release of methane inside the mine.

It would be an expensive effort to extract the gas from the development headings. It would be even harder since you would have to get access to existing development headings. Any efforts to re-open the mine will be opposed by 'greenies' because it is a fairly pristine mountain forest environment. I really think it was poor judgement which allowed this mine to proceed. It is superior quality coal. It is the premium 'metallurgical' coal. The seams are not great, the port facilities pretty poor, the distance to market is not appealing, but the coal prices are high, and are likely to stay high. The commercial aspects tend to support mining, however I am inclined to say that its too hard. It would be far more constructive for NZ Oil & Gas to invest in offshore oil & gas exploration. Oil & gas has far more upside, NZ has considerable potential, and probably at far less environmental cost (depending on location & recovery practices) than coal mining. Coal mining is not the future of Greymouth, its the past. The town without this resource probably only had 10 years of resources left. There are far more readily available and appealing coal resources in Australia, Russia and China.

On this one, I agree with the greenies. Really the future of NZ likes in high values services, niche exports, oil & gas, farm products and tourism. Yes, coal will remain a niche export. It just didn't make sense at Pike River. Solid Energy is developing a very appealing and large lignite coal resource in Southland which will have a 100+ year life span. It will convert low grade, hydrated lignite into high energy briquettes made by compression I believe. That resource will make Southland's Gore the coal mining capital of NZ. Greymouth will lose its title in the next 10 years.

NZ Property Guide Philippine Real Estate Guide Japan Foreclosed Guide

Author Andrew Sheldon| Applied Critical Thinking | www.SheldonThinks.com