Back in January I reported on how NZPAM had apparently sneakily extended one of OMV's exploration permits to eliminate a "drill or drop" provision, effectively keeping the permit alive for two more years. I was curious about when and how this happened, so I filed an OIA request seeking advice and communications relating to the change. I got the response back today. Key points:
- The extension was granted in July 2021, but NZPAM's interactive permit map wasn't updated until January 2022 (when it became unavoidable). Which isn't very transparent of them, almost as if they want to make it difficult for people to track what is happening in this sector.
- The climate change analysis is laughably shallow, basicly "This change will have no effect on net carbon emissions" as it is only exploration. Any fool out here in the real world can see the clear and direct pipeline from exploration to mining to emissions, and how the earlier we close that pipeline off and keep the gas in the ground, the more emissions we avoid. But apparently that's too hard for NZPAM. Their jobs depend on there being a gas industry to "regulate", so it seems to be an example of it being difficult to get something to understand something, when their salary depends upon them not understanding it.
- The justification for the extension is based on a clause in the 2013 Petroleum Programme which, from context, does not apply. While the wording is not the clearest, it is clear from context that the extension reasons are for when a permit-holder has encountered unavoidable delays in meeting their conditions (the wording does suggest this near the end, where it talks about the need to have identified and notified the Minister of "the problem" at the earliest opportunity). As is very clear from the documents, OMV haven't encountered a problem. Instead, they've discovered an opportunity: the exploration wells they drilled earlier suggest there might be gas, and they want more time to figure out where to drill next. But insofar as this opportunity was identified by required permit activity, that analysis and identification of opportunities should be regarded as normal permit activity, rather than exceptional circumstances, let alone a "problem".
The last point especially seems to give good grounds for judicial review. And such a review might encourage NZPAM to take a more robust approach to changes, rather than desperately trying to keep this toxic and polluting industry alive.
