Whaingaroa locals have their say about sand mining and oil drilling

Over 70 people (including visitors affected by the east coast drilling and 2 police staff from Hamilton) went to Whaingaroa Kite Whenua on Sunday 8th December to have their say about mining, many of them taking the opportunity to put in submissions about the sand mining. Submissions on sand mining close in 10 days’ time. While the event was going on a message was being painted on the theatre which stands on the edge of Wainamu Beach to make clear to visitors at the beach and boats coming into the harbour that deep-sea oil drilling is not wanted.

After much doubt about whether the advertised haka would be performed, a large crowd gathered round to conclude the day with a loud and active performance to send a message that tangaroa should be protected from the oil.

On Monday 10th in the Wellington High Court on Monday Greenpeace launched a legal challenge, claiming the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) illegally allowed the Texan oil company to begin deep-sea drilling in the Taranaki Basin.

Greenpeace claims the drilling is illegal because the EPA was missing several documents it needed to make a full assessment of the risks of an oil spill, including an emergency response plan and a well control contingency plan. The plans outline what Anadarko would do if an oil spill was to occur.

But the EPA says it didn’t need to see every document because Maritime New Zealand is responsible for signing off on issues regarding the management of a possible oil spill. Those missing documents were provided to Maritime NZ, the court was told.

Justice Alan MacKenzie reserved his findings but told the court he is mindful of the urgency of the matter.

Anadarko says it has spent $US190 million ($NZ229m) on oil permits to drill at various sites off the New Zealand coast and an unfavourable decision might force the company to reconsider future investment. Anadarko’s lawyer Mike Colson told the court commercial certainty was at risk if the drilling approval was overturned over what the company, and the EPA, believe is a technical issue.