Activists fighting another oil survey on SA coast

[Hanno Labuschagne]

Activists fighting another oil survey on SA coast

Just weeks after Royal Dutch Shell Plc was forced by a court to suspend a seismic survey seeking hydrocarbons in South African waters, activists are looking to block another such program.

The groups, which include fishing communities, have warned Searcher Seismic, a company planning to collect data off the west coast of the country, not to participate in the activity that they say is harmful to marine life such as whales and fish.

They’ve also criticized the process used to consult local communities that could be affected by the survey.

[Bloomberg]

 

[SilverCode]

What I always seem to miss in these arguments (or don't understand) is they are focussed on the survey and whether it is bad. Let's give Gwede the benefit of doubt and say that the seismic survey doesn't hurt marine life and it goes ahead. Fast forward 6 months, and lo-and-behold, they found natural gas/oil/whatever. What then? Do they just go "cool, let's go home", or do they go "sweet, let's start blasting and drilling!"

So even if the survey is harmless, the goal is to rape the planet some more, and there is no way to do that without destroying it. So why bother with the argument about the safety of the survey if the end goal is destruction regardless?

 

[Lupus]

What I always seem to miss in these arguments (or don't understand) is they are focussed on the survey and whether it is bad. Let's give Gwede the benefit of doubt and say that the seismic survey doesn't hurt marine life and it goes ahead. Fast forward 6 months, and lo-and-behold, they found natural gas/oil/whatever. What then? Do they just go "cool, let's go home", or do they go "sweet, let's start blasting and drilling!"

So even if the survey is harmless, the goal is to rape the planet some more, and there is no way to do that without destroying it. So why bother with the argument about the safety of the survey if the end goal is destruction regardless?

Currently all forms of energy we require will rape it in some way or the other, solar is rare earth metals, the steel used for wind turbines still uses coal to be made and and and.
Though wind power for carbon footprint purposes is the 2nd lowest, with nuclear being the lowest, on a carbon footprint level.

 

[Napalm2880]

It was quite funny watching protestors in Morgans Bay get in their vehicles and drive 500m to the beach to protest against an oil company.

 

[konfab]

What I always seem to miss in these arguments (or don't understand) is they are focussed on the survey and whether it is bad. Let's give Gwede the benefit of doubt and say that the seismic survey doesn't hurt marine life and it goes ahead. Fast forward 6 months, and lo-and-behold, they found natural gas/oil/whatever. What then? Do they just go "cool, let's go home", or do they go "sweet, let's start blasting and drilling!"

So even if the survey is harmless, the goal is to rape the planet some more, and there is no way to do that without destroying it. So why bother with the argument about the safety of the survey if the end goal is destruction regardless?

What do you think of offshore wind turbines instead?

 

[ToxicBunny]

What I always seem to miss in these arguments (or don't understand) is they are focussed on the survey and whether it is bad. Let's give Gwede the benefit of doubt and say that the seismic survey doesn't hurt marine life and it goes ahead. Fast forward 6 months, and lo-and-behold, they found natural gas/oil/whatever. What then? Do they just go "cool, let's go home", or do they go "sweet, let's start blasting and drilling!"

So even if the survey is harmless, the goal is to rape the planet some more, and there is no way to do that without destroying it. So why bother with the argument about the safety of the survey if the end goal is destruction regardless?

But all methods of energy/resource generation require damaging the environment in some fashion...

Its an element of the argument that is always missing from the greenies side. So we don't do the exploration, or the extraction of the resources... How do you lot plan to enjoy your flat screen TVs, and big SUVs (or hell even your flash Prius'/Teslas)... they never progress beyond the "Its going to destroy the planet" argument really.

 

[ThinkCentre]

Still, the International Energy Agency said last year that no new oil and gas fields can be tapped if the world is to meet a target of so-called net zero emission by 2050.

Are they going to stop selling peanuts too? That causes gas emissions too!