[ROCKMAN]

Timo - Are you referring to risk management? Unfortunately folks can develop a false sense of low/no risk by focusing on technology and complex regs. In my 38 years rarely has tech failure caused a major problem. It invariably resulted from someone making a bad decision.

[Timo]

RMA is the Resource Management Act. I spent a few months studying this in a self-taught fashion, so i certainly can't claim to be any authority on the Act, but basically it requires all development in NZ to have a minimal or neutral econological impact on the greater ecosystem. That's my understanding of it, but that may not actually be correct. Graeme or Kiwichick should have a better explanation.

[John_A]

Timo - Are you referring to risk management? Unfortunately folks can develop a false sense of low/no risk by focusing on technology and complex regs. In my 38 years rarely has tech failure caused a major problem. It invariably resulted from someone making a bad decision.

Or something breaks. Drill line for example (traveling block landed on a floor hand). Broken kelly hose? Flailing end went through the window on the MWD shack before the pumps could be cut and catapulted the guy inside against the far side of the shack, crippling him. Derrick hand couldn't gather up the top of the triple being set back in the board, that drill pipe flexed and BOUNCED inside the derrick...amazing thing to watch...until it landed on the foot of a guy on the floor.

To heck with tech, heaven preserve drilling guys from stuff breaking and just what normally happens while drilling.

[Graeme]

RMA is the Resource Management Act. I spent a few months studying this in a self-taught fashion, so i certainly can't claim to be any authority on the Act, but basically it requires all development in NZ to have a minimal or neutral econological impact on the greater ecosystem. That's my understanding of it, but that may not actually be correct. Graeme or Kiwichick should have a better explanation.

This report describes in considerable detail activities and processes that must be done under the RMA in the Taranaki region of New Zealand. Basically, such oil and gas activity is carefully regulated but in the end permitted by the regional council.

[ROCKMAN]

Graeme - I would offer the advice to any Kiwi that might have influence to focus EXTREMELY on the BOP systems even to the point of requiring companies to pay for 24/7 independent monitors on the rigs that report solely to the gov't. The cost to the company will be absolutely insignificant compared to the cost of drilling any well. Even our very safety conscious Norwegian cousins don't have a great record when it comes to BOP's functioning properly. As I first said on TOD long ago: BOP's are not your option of last resort...they are your option of worst resort. A BOP activation is a response to some serious mistake being made. And there's no RMA that can prevent every such mistake from being made.

[Graeme]

Thanks ROCKMAN. BOP's are mentioned briefly in section 3.4.4.

[ROCKMAN]

Graeme - I don't mean to insult those folks but it will be difficult to not give a blunt opinion. That report might be adequate to give to a class of high school seniors to provide them some basic info about offshore exploration. Hopefully the actual regs are much more specific and detailed. If not at the least they should copy the US govt regs. Those are actually fairly good but it's on the enforcement side where they get weak. Same advice I gave to the folks in the NE US about frac'ng: make the rules tough, enforce them and get their pound of flesh. In the oil patch we'll find a way to make a profit if it's there regardless. We won't stop drilling because we can't stop drilling.

[Graeme]

My guess is that the RMA regulations are for the local bureaucrats. Industry safety regulations I'm sure are more stringent and detailed especially with regard to minimizing blowouts and testing BOP's. But as you know, blowouts can occur because someone is not paying attention or some equipment has failed at the wrong time.

[Timo]

NZ's quest for off-shore oil is really confusing to me in the sense that, as a 1st-World island nation, the habitat and ecosystem of NZ is protected at almost all costs. Visitors to NZ cannot bring tents or sleeping bags for camping because they might have residual dirt, or seeds that could propogate and introduce a new invasive species of plant-life into the islands. Shoes are thoroughly checked for the same when you go through customs. The people of NZ know that, being an island nation, their resources are limited, and must be protected to ensure a habital land for future generations. It's not at all like the US, or Europe, or Asia, or Africa, or even Australia, where resources are a plenty. Kiwis aren't perfect in this regard, hydro being just one example, and even that source of energy has run into trouble in recent years due to decreased snowfall in the South Island mountains, leading to reduced flow into the rivers and lakes, thus reducing the energy that flow would normally produce. But even the dams that were built seem to have been constructed rather small scale, with utmost regard to minimize any negative consequences for the lakes they created. The allowance of off-shore oil drilling just seems to violate the entire midset of Kiwis in protecting their limited space. About the only thing i can imagine that justifies in it their minds is #1, money, and #2, out of sight, out of mind. Is the economy in NZ really that bad that they're being pressured to do this just for money? Kiwis love their water, but if it's below the surface, they don't see the direct consequences of the damage done. Perhaps, after a disaster or two, they'll reconsider their decisions, and reassess the values of what they have, and what they stand to lose by pursuing black gold under the water.

[ROCKMAN]

“The allowance of off-shore oil drilling just seems to violate the entire mind-set of Kiwis in protecting their limited space.” Apparently not if the hypsters are presenting the current attitude of the Nz govt correctly:

“Heard about Zealandia, the eighth continent of the world? Zealandia is said to be a submerged or micro continent that sank millions of years ago. Most of this submerged continent is said to be in the Pacific Ocean. Zealandia is rich in oil and could be the answer for unlocking the oil potential of New Zealand, the largest country in the continent. In the sixties, many companies had tried to find oil in New Zealand. But by the eighties, most of them had to retire from the scene without finding any oil. Now with the advancement in technology, companies hope to change their record. Why not? Analysts are of the view that New Zealand is at the same stage that Norway was in the Pre-North sea era. Further, some say that the oil could be more than Britain's North Sea boom. Yes, the country's oil sector is at crossroads.

To put in some economic perspective: according to the Ministry of Economic Development, in 2009 Oil contributed to almost 37 % of TPES (Total Primary Energy Supply). Thus, oil is the largest source of energy in New Zealand. At present, the petroleum sector contributes around $3 billion per annum as export revenue. The government is planning to increase this to $30 billion per annum by 2025 by exploring for oil in unexplored basins. So brace yourself; you are going to hear a lot more about Zealandia soon. And, promotions are in full swing to attract investment in oil and gas exploration in the deepwater basins. The New Zealand government even initiated a seismic-acquisition program costing USD 20 million on off shore sedimentary basins. The results of the study were shared with the oil operators for free.

For decades oil exploration in New Zealand was off the radar. There was the Maui gas and oil field in the Tasman Sea, the largest oil field in New Zealand. This oil field has been in action for more than twenty five years, contributing to more than three-quarters of the hydro-carbons produced. But the reserves have since dwindled, so exploration for oil has begun in earnest. According to the country's Ministry of Economic Development's 2009 Energy Data File, the spending on oil exploration was the highest in a decade. The expenditure in petroleum exploration increased to $314 million from $136 million in 2007. Indeed, the total oil production was at the highest for any calendar year at 21 million barrels or 128 PJ. This is up by about 45% from the 2007 levels. The country's mean production rate was 58,400 barrels per day for 2008, an increase from 40, 750 barrels per day in 2007. The two oil fields of Pohokura and Tui contributed to about 86% of the production.

In recent times, the New Zealand Ministry of Economic Development's Crown Minerals Group has been promoting bids for the Reinga Basin and Northland Basins for companies in North America, Australia, Europe and Asia. Nine exploration permits were given to exporters for exploration in Offshore Taranaki Basin in 2008. As a result, 20 exploration wells are proposed to be drilled over the next five years, targeting both shallow oil and deep gas. Last year, it was confirmed that the Maari and Manaia oil fields in Taranaki basin has about 100 million barrels of recoverable oil.

Exploration are on in two offshore areas, Raukumara (East Cape) and Northland basins, the combined area of the two blocks being over 66,000 square kilometres. Seismic surveys in Raukumara basin have already identified many areas with high Direct Hydrocarbon Indicators (DHI's). The satellite radar imaging also showed the presence of significant hydrocarbon in the basin. In addition, seismic interpretations in the Northland basins show many structural and stratigraphic traps. The satellite radar imaging has identified many potential offshore oil seeps, that is, presence of hydrocarbons in the basin. The Northland basin covers 120,000 square kilometres.

What we are seeing now in New Zealand are oil prospects. The full potential of the basins are still to be ascertained-could be from anywhere between 600-1200 million barrels. Not small numbers, mind you. The oil discovery is expected to be made in four of five years’ time. So any oil or gas if found, would take at least a decade to reach the market. Still, it's true that the world is using more barrels of oil than is being discovered. In the longer term, competition for the falling oil supply would be intense. And Zealandia is one place to watch out for.

[Graeme]

ROCKMAN, Thanks for your essay on oil resources of NZ. I'm not an expert on our resources but it's not too hard to find some info starting with Wiki. You can see in the tables that our resources are not that large. The Taranaki basin has about 530 million barrels of recoverable oil and 160 million barrels in reserve. By chance I found this ref which indicates that there is only 20 million barrels in our offshore exclusive economic zone. There may be better info in published academic papers which I'll look for later.

[ROCKMAN]

Graeme - Nor did I until I found that report. Never heard about "Zealandia". Strikes me as a tad cornucopian fantasy. But seems to be more oil potential then I would have guessed even if it's mostly speculative. I've always thought mostly of NZ NG potential. But there is a loose point to make about the North Sea comparison: long ago I read a report that the first major NS oil field wasn't discovered until the 93rd well was drilled. What dreams are made of I suppose. Unfortunately sometimes the dream turns into a nightmare. Just ask BP.

[Graeme]

Just found this USGS (2013) ref which states that the Taranaki Basin contains an estimated mean volumes of 487 million barrels of oil, 9.8 trillion cubic feet of gas, and 408 million barrels of natural gas liquids.

[Graeme]

Report gives glimpse of NZ in 2100

A new report into climate change paints a picture of New Zealand with more extreme rainfalls, increased heat stress in animals and a growth in forestry production.

The Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) report Four Degrees of Global Warming posits a "what-if" scenario of what conditions will be like for the primary sector in 2100 based on two current global climate models.

One of the models, from the Canadian Climate Centre, predicts a 4.4degC increase in the national average temperature, while a German model theorises a smaller 3.1degC change.

The MPI report is based on a 4degC temperature increase.
Temperature rises are believed to be most pronounced in inland and eastern areas, with the largest seasonal temperature rises in winter and the smallest in summer.

"Summers with 20 or more days of conditions that induce heat stress are projected to become more widespread," the report says.

3news

[lasseter]

Graeme have you seen any analysis on the serious snow storms across the US last week? I have looked into the polar vortex seperation and how it has swept down carrying cold air but I wondered if an increase in water vapour from the oceans was a contributing factor. After all, snow is made from of water.

I know it's probably too early for climate scientists to come to conclusions on the event but if there is a connection it should be easy to see.

[Graeme]

Can New Zealand transition to 100% renewable electricity? (Spoiler: yes)

f renewables are going to grow their share of generation, we’ll obviously need to build new plants. So the first question is, can we build enough capacity to match current demand, and allow for future growth?

According to Mason et al:

Recent resource estimates published by… EECA indicate near-term potential for 6600 MW of new wind generation, 4680 MW of new hydro generation, 635 MW of new geothermal generation and 3090 GWh/ year of electricity from woody biomass

That compares to current capacities of 622 MW of wind, 5,254 MW of hydro, and 731 MW of geothermal. Theoretically, we could develop twice as much hydro and geothermal as we have now, or ten times as much wind. In practise, we’d run into issues with the wind, since it can’t be relied on to blow when you need it – but Mason et al refer to several studies which suggest that “penetration levels well above 20%” are possible. That’s still three or four times what we have now.

Even the woody biomass contribution could be fairly substantial. New Zealand currently uses around 43,000 GWh/ year, so biomass could account for up to 7% of that.

Overall, growth in capacity isn’t an issue – there’s plenty of room for growth, although some of those plants will cost more to build than others. The other question is:



Can an all-renewable system meet demand in peak periods, or in “dry years”?

This is the tricky part. Electricity demand fluctuates quite a lot during the day, and during the year. We use more electricity in the evening, as people get home from work, shower, flick on the TV, and start cooking dinner. We also use more power in winter, mainly for extra heating. An all-renewable system would need to cope with both these patterns, as well as any unexpected demand surges.

The other issue is that hydro generation forms the backbone of our power system. For those plants to operate at full blast, we need good rainfall, running into the rivers which fill up the hydro lakes. Every now and again, we get a “dry year” with rainfall that is well below average. This means that we can’t generate as much hydro electricity.

“Dry years” aren’t that dry – the difference between our best year for hydro generation (2004) and our worst recent year (2001) was around 20%, or 5,000 GWh – but that’s still quite a bit of slack which other plants need to take up. And the crunch comes during winter, when demand is high and supply is struggling to match it.

So, how do you design an all-renewable system? You let the wind turbines turn whenever they can, as that’s essentially free electricity. Most of the geothermal plants will also run constantly. These are your “base load” plants. Hydro is also part of the base load, but the aim is to use as little of it as possible, since that’s the easiest form of energy to store for when you might need it later.

You also need “peaker” plants, which only run during higher demand periods. Hydro plants can actually gear up and down their production pretty quickly, so they’re a good option. To do this, they need to have “stored energy” ready to go – water reservoirs or lakes.

From Mason et al: “A significant characteristic of New Zealand’s hydro generation system is the relatively low energy storage capacity. When all lakes are full this amounts to approximately 34 days reserve at peak winter demand (approximately 130 GWh/d in 2007), assuming zero inflow”.

For an all-renewable system, you’d need to build a bit more storage. You might consider a “pumped-hydro energy storage” (PHES) system for some plants. That means that when there’s plenty of electricity available – the wind is blowing, and it’s a beautiful summer day – you use some of the excess hydro energy to pump water uphill, into another reservoir. During high-demand periods, you let it flow down again, delivering more energy to the power plant.

transportblog

[Timo]

NZ = 100% renewable energy? Not likely. 70%-80%? Definately.
First choice would be growing the status quo, which is hydro, and that's totally dependant on snowfall in the southern alps. That's been decreasing steadily over the past decade or so. The decline is likely to continue.
Second choice would be solar, and here it's hit and miss. Far north, easy. Far south, Very intermittant. Plus, the land mass required for a region-wide array would be extremely hard to assemble. Maybe if you replaced all the vinyards in Marlborough with solar panels, but that's not going to happen.
Third is wind. Again, hard to assemble the land required, especially without causing detrimental aesthetics to NZs beautiful landscapes. Maybe offshore, but the southern seas might be too rough. Dunno.
I think the best bet would be tidal energy. Tides rising and falling are 24/7. And then there's also geothermal. Lots of lava flowing underground in NZ.
I guess it all comes down to investment vs return. NZ is very limited in their domestic natural resources. How much of those resources would be worth the sacrifice to be totally energy independent? If NZ can figure that out, the islands woule make an excellent model for the rest of the world to follow. If we reduce our global resource demands from 1.5 earths per annum to .2 or .3, that's a very good place to start.

[ROCKMAN]

Whatever New Zealand can add to its mix of electrical energy sources would be a plus. But it still doesn’t change the fact that the NZ exports about $1.5 -$2 billion in oil every year and has plans to becoming a much larger NG exporter. Part of that potential will be realized by a $25 billion LNG train being built in Queensland right now. The big hope for future oil and NG production revolves around the new Deep Water drilling projects authorized by the govt:

Australian-listed Origin Energy is bullish on the potential of exporting LNG from the Caraval prospect off the coast of Oamaru, which is being test-drilled by Houston oil giant Anadarko. Anadarko is 45 per cent joint venture partner and operator at the Caraval prospect. Anadarko began drilling at Caraval prospect last month, using the drill ship Noble Bob Douglas, in a month-long single-hole test-drilling programme, estimated to be costing up to US$100 million. Origin Energy is reported by newspaper the Australian to have said this week it was looking at opportunities to build its LNG exposure, once the US$24.7 billion Australia Pacific LNG plant it is building with ConocoPhillips at Gladstone, in Queensland, begins delivering cash after 2016.

Last weekend more than 600 anti-oil protesters took to Otago's numerous beaches to criticize deep-sea drilling, calling on the Government to invest in clean and green energy. The Greenpeace protest was one of many around the South Island, part of its Banners on the Beach campaign.

[lasseter]

Can New Zealand transition to 100% renewable electricity?
I believe they can. As long as the rest of the world keeps burning coal and oil to produce the solar panels, turbines, generators or whatever else they need to do it.

[Graeme]

As long as we have a conservative government, NZ will have an o/g industry. But I doubt that any oil will now be discovered offshore in deep water.

Oil industry threat to New Zealand's environment may be over

With the American oil giant Anadarko looking like heading home after a second unsuccessful exploratory well, there is renewed hope that the threat to New Zealand’s coasts and climate will now be over.

Both Anadarko and the Government argued that the discovery of oil would bring economic benefit to New Zealand, but their claims have backfired as it now appears that there is no oil to drill for. Leaked information shows that the company found hardrock granite and schist, but little, if any, oil.

"Now is the time to celebrate the good news of this situation," says 350.org organiser John Adams. He says that there is the benefit of avoiding the risk of an oil spill, which would have destroyed an important marine ecosystem.

A 100% renewable electricity infrastructure for NZ is within reach next decade according to a Greenpeace study referred to in the op.

Greenpeace commissioned a study from the Institute of Technical Thermodynamics of the German Aerospace Centre, which found that “New Zealand can have 100% renewable electricity by 2025”.