Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates

[StingrayOZ]

NZ should be definately getting into the ANZAC II and the OCV program. It will provide the best ships, with the best logistics, with the best value, with the best local content, with the best capability for NZ.

With the ANZAC II's just don't tick SM-6, BMD, etc options to keep the cost bareable. As a fitted hull with no munitions it will cost a comparible amount to any other option (other than corvettes) that NZ would concider.

I don't see how a not in production, 2 ship class, 6,600t ship built 10,000 miles away in europe would be significantly cheaper than a 6,400 t ship built 1000 miles away in Australia that will be in production of a 8 or 9 ship class but with a hull family comprising of ~20 ships.

As for the OCV's we are going to be building billions of them. It will be the cheapest ship in its class and one of the most capable and speced right for the mission NZ needs it for.

 

[MrConservative]

Not acquiring another OPV would introduce another class of vessel increasing logistics and training costs for the RNZN. I think another OPV is the best option even if the design could do with some improvement. The only exception to this should be the surface combatants - can we really afford 2-3 at one time. I think a return to the 60-70's where we purchased one frigate at a time is a better (so long as its part of a batch production) approach. Consequently joint projects with the RN / RAN make sense. NZ might take the first, 10 and last ship out of a 20 ship project in order to spread the cost and allow for progressive upgrades to the design.

I agree with your comments, the NZ habit of buying ships on a adhoc basis as the old ships need replaced as caused problems and contributed to a reduction in the size of the Naval Combat Force, especially when the other services reequippment programs have to be considered by the government. Ideally New Zealand should be buying one ship every two years on a 30 year rolling program to spread the cost and burden to the taxpayers. Shifting to such a model, besides spreading the fiscal cost, would require an intermin solution that would see some vessels replaced early and other later than currently planned.

We need to replace a Survey Ship and MCM/Dive ship. Using an underwhelming OPV design such as the Protectors to do this role is workable but not the best operationally, or most timely or most cost effective approach. The logistics and training costs of operating a Kingston Class vessel (if they do come available) for instance in the RNZN - I dont think will be so out of the ballpark to make us want to order another underwhelming Protector OPV and put it to work doing things it was not originally designed for or convert at potential risk and cost into not being able to do it adequately. By replacing the Resolution and Manwanui (each a separate class btw) with two Kingstons makes more sense. You could say it could be a reduction in training and logistic costs by doing so. That said Lucas I do agree with the general thrust of your comments per a structured and planned approach to Navy acquistitions long term.

 

[MrConservative]

NZ should be definately getting into the ANZAC II and the OCV program. It will provide the best ships, with the best logistics, with the best value, with the best local content, with the best capability for NZ.

With the ANZAC II's just don't tick SM-6, BMD, etc options to keep the cost bareable. As a fitted hull with no munitions it will cost a comparible amount to any other option (other than corvettes) that NZ would concider.

I don't see how a not in production, 2 ship class, 6,600t ship built 10,000 miles away in europe would be significantly cheaper than a 6,400 t ship built 1000 miles away in Australia that will be in production of a 8 or 9 ship class but with a hull family comprising of ~20 ships.

As for the OCV's we are going to be building billions of them. It will be the cheapest ship in its class and one of the most capable and speced right for the mission NZ needs it for.

Absolutely Mr Stingray. Could not have said it better. By the way when they tick the ANZAC II boxes I hope when they tick the 'How Many' box they tick number 3 at least. The minimum number required to get the 365 days covered is three.

 

[Todjaeger]

Not acquiring another OPV would introduce another class of vessel increasing logistics and training costs for the RNZN. I think another OPV is the best option even if the design could do with some improvement. The only exception to this should be the surface combatants - can we really afford 2-3 at one time. I think a return to the 60-70's where we purchased one frigate at a time is a better (so long as its part of a batch production) approach. Consequently joint projects with the RN / RAN make sense. NZ might take the first, 10 and last ship out of a 20 ship project in order to spread the cost and allow for progressive upgrades to the design.

As for the prior comments about operating an additional class of vessel aside from the OPV/IPVs of Protector plus the combat and support ships... I was thinking more along the lines of operating a surplus USN or Canadian MCM/patrol vessel to provide a better MCM and survey capability than an OPV could likely be kitted for. In addition, it would likely cost less to purchase such a surplus vessel and operate it for 10-15 years than it would to purchase a third OPV, have it kitted and then replace it in 10-15 years. The 10-15 year figure comes from estimates of when the OCV progamme suggested in the Australian White Paper would likely start up. If the RNZN signs up alongside the RAN, the entire OCV programme could fairly easily reach 25+ ships in clas. IMO based off the suggestions offered up for the OCV, that is more along the lines of the sort of vessel the RNZN could use instead of the OPV. A bit more modular, so that it can be re-roled depending on mission needs. Also the ability to go a bit more into 'harms way' than the OPV currently can. I figure the RNZN would be well served with a total of 5 OCV-type vessels in service. Three could provide a continuous at-sea patrol capability of one vessel, with the ability to surge to two, a fourth one could be normally fitted for survey/MCM work and a fifth could act as a training ship which could be re-roled in emergencies to non-training roles if needed.

-Cheers

 

[Renown]

As for the prior comments about operating an additional class of vessel aside from the OPV/IPVs of Protector plus the combat and support ships... I was thinking more along the lines of operating a surplus USN or Canadian MCM/patrol vessel to provide a better MCM and survey capability than an OPV could likely be kitted for. In addition, it would likely cost less to purchase such a surplus vessel and operate it for 10-15 years than it would to purchase a third OPV, have it kitted and then replace it in 10-15 years. The 10-15 year figure comes from estimates of when the OCV progamme suggested in the Australian White Paper would likely start up. If the RNZN signs up alongside the RAN, the entire OCV programme could fairly easily reach 25+ ships in clas. IMO based off the suggestions offered up for the OCV, that is more along the lines of the sort of vessel the RNZN could use instead of the OPV. A bit more modular, so that it can be re-roled depending on mission needs. Also the ability to go a bit more into 'harms way' than the OPV currently can. I figure the RNZN would be well served with a total of 5 OCV-type vessels in service. Three could provide a continuous at-sea patrol capability of one vessel, with the ability to surge to two, a fourth one could be normally fitted for survey/MCM work and a fifth could act as a training ship which could be re-roled in emergencies to non-training roles if needed.

-Cheers

Agreed, 5 OCV would make a lot of sense. While a couple of ANZAC II would be great, I really don't think it would sit that well with the politicians who have to sell the idea to the public. All the public will see is an "enormous destroyer sized" frigate that weighs twice what the current ships do and will probably not be very happy. While the public are not as anti defence as they were 20-30 years ago I think they may struggle to accept an ANZAC II.
We all know steel is cheap and air is free and a 140m vessel won't be much more expensive than a 100m one, but its all about public perception and for politicians this overides most things.

 

[Todjaeger]

Agreed, 5 OCV would make a lot of sense. While a couple of ANZAC II would be great, I really don't think it would sit that well with the politicians who have to sell the idea to the public. All the public will see is an "enormous destroyer sized" frigate that weighs twice what the current ships do and will probably not be very happy. While the public are not as anti defence as they were 20-30 years ago I think they may struggle to accept an ANZAC II.
We all know steel is cheap and air is free and a 140m vessel won't be much more expensive than a 100m one, but its all about public perception and for politicians this overides most things.

Please note, while the RNZN might be able to replace the OPVs and Anzac FFH's with 5 OCVs, that is IMO a very bad idea. The point of the OCVs in RNZN service would be to perform the same roles as the OPVs, as well as MCM, survey work, etc as well as able to operate in low-level threat environments that the OPVs cannot operate in. A case in point, the OPVs as currently fitted would IMO be at risk if they attempted an anti-piracy patrol off Somalia/the Horn of Africa. The OCVs would most likely be equipped with more gun mounts (Typhoon mounts w/EO systems fore and aft, etc) and also likely to have the option of mounting more than a 25 mm cannon. The idea of course would not to make the OCV into something which can completely take the place of a frigate, but to provide a vessel for patroling around the NZ EEZ, showing the flag around the Pacific, but also to engage in higher threat level activities than just a 'police vessel' when needed.

I do feel that when the time comes, the 2 Anzacs should be replaced by at least three (four would be better) frigates that are at least in the 4,500 ton range (including room for upgrades). Given the numbers involved, it would therefore seem like joining with the RAN on the 'Anzac II' would be a good way to go

-Cheers

 

[MrConservative]

Agreed, 5 OCV would make a lot of sense. While a couple of ANZAC II would be great, I really don't think it would sit that well with the politicians who have to sell the idea to the public. All the public will see is an "enormous destroyer sized" frigate that weighs twice what the current ships do and will probably not be very happy. While the public are not as anti defence as they were 20-30 years ago I think they may struggle to accept an ANZAC II.
We all know steel is cheap and air is free and a 140m vessel won't be much more expensive than a 100m one, but its all about public perception and for politicians this overides most things.

Yes, the public perception factor is an issue and one to be wary of. You are right that people are less anti-defence than what they were 20 years ago - even 10 years ago. That though augers well in the years ahead as many look upon that era now as rather gauche and intellectually unsophisticated. I am hopeful that when the time comes down to discuss this "frigate" issue politically in 10 years, the GSB Oil & Gas will be beginning to flow and those locked up minerals on the crown estate will have begun to be surgically removed. That will provide the reason (protection of the nations wealth & resources and export routes) and the cash to do it .

 

[StevoJH]

Agreed, 5 OCV would make a lot of sense. While a couple of ANZAC II would be great, I really don't think it would sit that well with the politicians who have to sell the idea to the public. All the public will see is an "enormous destroyer sized" frigate that weighs twice what the current ships do and will probably not be very happy. While the public are not as anti defence as they were 20-30 years ago I think they may struggle to accept an ANZAC II.
We all know steel is cheap and air is free and a 140m vessel won't be much more expensive than a 100m one, but its all about public perception and for politicians this overides most things.

And if the Australian Government put out a statement basically saying "Get stuffed, defend yourself, its not our job to do it"? :gun

 

[MrConservative]

And if the Australian Government put out a statement basically saying "Get stuffed, defend yourself, its not our job to do it"? :gun

I think Kim Beazley nearly said as much in the early 1990's and the lefty media and pollies over here crowed the usual crap about about Independence, Aussies being Tasman Yanks, Trevor Chappells bowling technique and that if we Kiwi's gave everyone a big smoochy hug then no one would ever be mean to us.

 

[Norm]

The number 3! it takes me back!

Absolutely Mr Stingray. Could not have said it better. By the way when they tick the ANZAC II boxes I hope when they tick the 'How Many' box they tick number 3 at least. The minimum number required to get the 365 days covered is three.

3 Frigates ,the number 3 , takes me back ,Its a while back at that in fact with out delving into recent history. Historians can sort out the exact time lines but here's my general recollection. of what I was told at the time Around the time Project Protector was being kicked off following the fi of deployments of a Frigate to the Gulf at various times under the then Labour Govt ,She who must be obayed [Helen Clark] admited when she was having a chat down at the base at the time that Govenment now accepted the Navy needed 3 Frigates to maintain a continuous deployment to the Gulf.But too late ! no more dosh , it was being spent on the Protector Fleet.[Ideally the Navy needed both ,the Protector Vessels and a third Frigate , Australia did its best on the third Frigate offering us one of the early ANZAC's and they would build an upgraded version to replace it in the RAN but it appears the Government was suspicious of Military Types wanting more "gear" so they felt 2 was enough and the Protector Fleet suited their view of the world].The deployment to the Gulf obviously behind the Scenes changed that view on the numbers . Later when there was plenty of dosh it was too late to build one as a one off , as well there was all sorts of vote things to be done like Working for Families that better appealed to the voting punters .

So hopefully 3 may have cross party support despite what politicans might say in Public.My understanding is that our current Minister of Defence,Norm's local MP no less ,does want some buy in from Labour on big ticket items be it behind the scenes given the long service life of Capital Equipment and the need for some broad agreement on what's best for NZ from their perspective as Politicians.

 

[MrConservative]

3 Frigates ,the number 3 , takes me back ,Its a while back at that in fact with out delving into recent history. Historians can sort out the exact time lines but here's my general recollection. of what I was told at the time Around the time Project Protector was being kicked off following the fi of deployments of a Frigate to the Gulf at various times under the then Labour Govt ,She who must be obayed [Helen Clark] admited when she was having a chat down at the base at the time that Govenment now accepted the Navy needed 3 Frigates to maintain a continuous deployment to the Gulf.But too late ! no more dosh , it was being spent on the Protector Fleet.[Ideally the Navy needed both ,the Protector Vessels and a third Frigate , Australia did its best on the third Frigate offering us one of the early ANZAC's and they would build an upgraded version to replace it in the RAN but it appears the Government was suspicious of Military Types wanting more "gear" so they felt 2 was enough and the Protector Fleet suited their view of the world].The deployment to the Gulf obviously behind the Scenes changed that view on the numbers . Later when there was plenty of dosh it was too late to build one as a one off , as well there was all sorts of vote things to be done like Working for Families that better appealed to the voting punters .

So hopefully 3 may have cross party support despite what politicans might say in Public.My understanding is that our current Minister of Defence,Norm's local MP no less ,does want some buy in from Labour on big ticket items be it behind the scenes given the long service life of Capital Equipment and the need for some broad agreement on what's best for NZ from their perspective as Politicians.

Speaking of numbers there Norm I have one very large number courtesy of Crown Minerals for you to muse over and that number is 24,000,000,000 or the latest per barrel capacity potentials of Oil Reserves contained within the NZ EEZ. With Oil at US80 a barrel it becomes a serious proposition both commercially and in the maritime security sense. This new estimate is 140% higher an estimate than just 3 years ago and oil has suddenly come from nowhere to be our 3rd biggest export earner. The GNS Dept calculate that more than 1.2 million square kilometres of New Zealand's economic zone could have hydrocarbons underneath it. Somehow a RNZN with a surface combatant focus is not going to disappear from NZ waters any time soon and that 24,000,000,000 number is determinative of it not just staying around but also more the greater focus than just fisheries protection.

 

[Twickiwi]

Speaking of numbers there Norm I have one very large number courtesy of Crown Minerals for you to muse over and that number is 24,000,000,000 or the latest per barrel capacity potentials of Oil Reserves contained within the NZ EEZ. With Oil at US80 a barrel it becomes a serious proposition both commercially and in the maritime security sense. This new estimate is 140% higher an estimate than just 3 years ago and oil has suddenly come from nowhere to be our 3rd biggest export earner. The GNS Dept calculate that more than 1.2 million square kilometres of New Zealand's economic zone could have hydrocarbons underneath it. Somehow a RNZN with a surface combatant focus is not going to disappear from NZ waters any time soon and that 24,000,000,000 number is determinative of it not just staying around but also more the greater focus than just fisheries protection.

Mind blowing number Mr C.

It speaks to not just an increased surface combatant requirement. Offshore drilling on the North Sea scale requires a big sustained investment in airborne SAR, coast guard and environmental protection/ disaster remediation resources and equipment.

Established exploitation infrastructure also tends to lead to a industry reassessment of logistical and technical possibilities (if you look at the technology development in the Gulf of Mexico). Zealandia continent is made up of lots possible oil basins all the way down to the Campbell Islands and north to the Lord Howes.

The export route of any oil found in NZ inevitably passes Australia and Singapore or through the South China Seas. Increases in oil exports would inevitably lead NZ to taking a keener interest in the stability of areas now pretty much off the radar to common consciousness.

Having something covetable and worth defending in the EEZ will demonstrate the lie that is the belief that NZ doesn't need a defence force.

One last question occurs to me. What is NZ to do if one of the tiny northern nations in free association with the NZ crown finds something equally momentous?

 

[MrConservative]

Mind blowing number Mr C.

It speaks to not just an increased surface combatant requirement. Offshore drilling on the North Sea scale requires a big sustained investment in airborne SAR, coast guard and environmental protection/ disaster remediation resources and equipment.

Established exploitation infrastructure also tends to lead to a industry reassessment of logistical and technical possibilities (if you look at the technology development in the Gulf of Mexico). Zealandia continent is made up of lots possible oil basins all the way down to the Campbell Islands and north to the Lord Howes.

The export route of any oil found in NZ inevitably passes Australia and Singapore or through the South China Seas. Increases in oil exports would inevitably lead NZ to taking a keener interest in the stability of areas now pretty much off the radar to common consciousness.

Having something covetable and worth defending in the EEZ will demonstrate the lie that is the belief that NZ doesn't need a defence force.

One last question occurs to me. What is NZ to do if one of the tiny northern nations in free association with the NZ crown finds something equally momentous?

This is an article from the Crown Minerals website relating to potential oil reserves.

Crown Minerals — NZ deepwater basins best potential for big oil discoveries, petroleum scientist says

I have to apoligise that the number should be slightly lower at "at least" 20b barrels and not 24b that I stated late last night when I wrote it.

However whatever way you slice and dice it - it is still a significantly large number.

This is still an estimated potential mind you as there is still not 100% certainty, but with the old adage of where there is smoke there is fire and the fact that Crown Minerals is one of those steady as she goes type of government departments and unlikely to talk things up - it is a real portent of the situation in the fact that Crown Minerals have endorsed the release of such details and numbers.

What it does though is represent a required paradigm shift in the rationale that should underpin New Zealands defence and security posture.

What I am looking to next and hopefully covered in the soon to be released Defence White Paper is that at least some recognition or contingency factor has be considered. The reality is - that this potentially huge resource could have major defence and security implications that the government will have to consider. At least the old chestnut of not having enough money should be less of a factor if they tie oil revenues to defence spend on a pro-rata calculation.

 

[Gibbo]

We need to replace a Survey Ship and MCM/Dive ship. Using an underwhelming OPV design such as the Protectors to do this role is workable but not the best operationally, or most timely or most cost effective approach. The logistics and training costs of operating a Kingston Class vessel (if they do come available) for instance in the RNZN - I dont think will be so out of the ballpark to make us want to order another underwhelming Protector OPV and put it to work doing things it was not originally designed for or convert at potential risk and cost into not being able to do it adequately. By replacing the Resolution and Manwanui (each a separate class btw) with two Kingstons makes more sense. You could say it could be a reduction in training and logistic costs by doing so. That said Lucas I do agree with the general thrust of your comments per a structured and planned approach to Navy acquistitions long term.

OPV may offer size & 'commonality' benefits, but would lose the exceptionally good dive support capability Manawanui provides (even if she's a little small & slow). Perhaps a modified OPV design but the key would be retaining our excellent dive-support capability with a vessel with 4 point anchoring; good slow speed manouvreability; and good stability whilst moored (esp. at sea while supporting dive ops).

In a Navy News edititon last yeat CN made an oblique reference to replacing Manawanui & Resolution with a single vessel. Let's wait till the defence review - due out publicly late March I believe.

 

[MrConservative]

OPV may offer size & 'commonality' benefits, but would lose the exceptionally good dive support capability Manawanui provides (even if she's a little small & slow). Perhaps a modified OPV design but the key would be retaining our excellent dive-support capability with a vessel with 4 point anchoring; good slow speed manouvreability; and good stability whilst moored (esp. at sea while supporting dive ops).

In a Navy News edititon last yeat CN made an oblique reference to replacing Manawanui & Resolution with a single vessel. Let's wait till the defence review - due out publicly late March I believe.

Actually Gibbo I remember reading what the CN said about a one for two replacement. But the shrinking of the number of hulls in the water makes me think of something old ex RN engineering teacher told me. That traditionally a Navy needed at least 12 ships before you could have a RADM in charge and any less it was only a CDRE. I might have it muddle up because that is about 30 odd years ago – but sort of sounds kosher. Which makes me think … How many ships do we have at present? Any less than 12 we could save a bundle by busting down poor old Tony Parr from a RADM slot to just a CDRE and all the CDRE’s down to CAPT’s.

 

[Gibbo]

Actually Gibbo I remember reading what the CN said about a one for two replacement. But the shrinking of the number of hulls in the water makes me think of something old ex RN engineering teacher told me. That traditionally a Navy needed at least 12 ships before you could have a RADM in charge and any less it was only a CDRE. I might have it muddle up because that is about 30 odd years ago – but sort of sounds kosher. Which makes me think … How many ships do we have at present? Any less than 12 we could save a bundle by busting down poor old Tony Parr from a RADM slot to just a CDRE and all the CDRE’s down to CAPT’s.

LOL - don't say that too loud - once the OPV's are here RNZN will be operating 12 ships.:jump2
You could get a job as a NZDF hatchet man! :smokie

Yeah I'd like to see a 1:1 replacement of Manawanui & Resolution with 2 identical vessels capable of dive support & littoral tasks such as MCM & survey. Fingers crossed on the defence review!

BTW the Kingston class aren't overly popular I understand - not sited to the sea-states they work in I understand - can anyone confirm / deny that?

 

[MrConservative]

New Zealand House of Representatives:

Questions for Oral Answer

Date: 25 February 2010


7. Project Protector—Progress

[Uncorrected transcript—subject to correction and further editing.]

7. TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua) to the Minister of Defence: What progress has been made with Project Protector?

Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP (Minister of Defence) : We have now taken delivery of the first of the two offshore patrol vessels, the Otago. The delivery of the second, the Wellington, will take place in April. This completes the delivery of the Project Protector fleet, and it will be a substantial addition to the Navy. I might note that the programme has been bedevilled by delay and dispute, largely because the Labour Government chose a one-off solution with the Canterbury, which has led to a very large repair bill.

Todd McClay: What progress is being made with the rectification of the defects of the Canterbury?

Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP: We have now settled the dispute over the defects of the Canterbury with BAE Systems, by way of mediation. BAE Systems has paid $84.6 million to the Crown, based on current exchange rates. I might note that Labour spent years talking about the problems but never actually got around to solving them. In contrast, we had to initiate a legal process, which has resulted in a very good outcome, and it will enable a comprehensive rectification of the defects of the Canterbury. end.]

OK - So thats $84m for the Canterbury. Next we need to know is how much for the OPV's? Or the $84m includes the rectification bill of the OPV's as well.

The thing is with commercial dispute mediations, is that the parties have entered into the process without prejudice and that the agreement normally has a confidentiality clause. Which means that key specifics of the issues will not see the light of day. Possibly not that they would want the truth to get out anyway.


Just a thought. Instead of taking the $84m off BAE the MinDef could have just said build us another OPV without the ice belt for free and call it quits. Pretty much 84mil is the cost of of a new one. At least then we would have the three OPV's that were called for in the 2001 MFR.

 

[Gibbo]

New Zealand House of Representatives:

Questions for Oral Answer

Date: 25 February 2010


7. Project Protector—Progress

[Uncorrected transcript—subject to correction and further editing.]

7. TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua) to the Minister of Defence: What progress has been made with Project Protector?

Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP (Minister of Defence) : We have now taken delivery of the first of the two offshore patrol vessels, the Otago. The delivery of the second, the Wellington, will take place in April. This completes the delivery of the Project Protector fleet, and it will be a substantial addition to the Navy. I might note that the programme has been bedevilled by delay and dispute, largely because the Labour Government chose a one-off solution with the Canterbury, which has led to a very large repair bill.

Todd McClay: What progress is being made with the rectification of the defects of the Canterbury?

Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP: We have now settled the dispute over the defects of the Canterbury with BAE Systems, by way of mediation. BAE Systems has paid $84.6 million to the Crown, based on current exchange rates. I might note that Labour spent years talking about the problems but never actually got around to solving them. In contrast, we had to initiate a legal process, which has resulted in a very good outcome, and it will enable a comprehensive rectification of the defects of the Canterbury. end.]

OK - So thats $84m for the Canterbury. Next we need to know is how much for the OPV's? Or the $84m includes the rectification bill of the OPV's as well.

The thing is with commercial dispute mediations, is that the parties have entered into the process without prejudice and that the agreement normally has a confidentiality clause. Which means that key specifics of the issues will not see the light of day. Possibly not that they would want the truth to get out anyway.


Just a thought. Instead of taking the $84m off BAE the MinDef could have just said build us another OPV without the ice belt for free and call it quits. Pretty much 84mil is the cost of of a new one. At least then we would have the three OPV's that were called for in the 2001 MFR.

$84M is a big percentage back from a project that cost just over $500M - BAE have probably taken a hit on the project, but would be glad no doubt to get it off their books - written-off as a nasty legacy of the Tenix buy-out.:daz

I'd rather see that money spent on proper resolution of the fleets problems, esp. Canterbury.

 

[Sea Toby]

I agree, spend those funds to properly fix the Canterbury. If there are any funds left over, which won't be much, use whatever is left to start funding the next round of ships to replace the Resolution and Endeavour. It would be a shame if those funds ended up paying for the arts.

 

[Norm]

NZ's mineral wealth

This is an article from the Crown Minerals website relating to potential oil reserves.

Crown Minerals — NZ deepwater basins best potential for big oil discoveries, petroleum scientist says

Thanks for that , very interesting particularly [sorry numbers again) the size of the royalties in the Crown Minerals Annual Report 08/09!.On a similar vein [excuse the pun] the NZ Herald on Saturday had a two page spread on our mineral wealth.Between the link the you supplied Mr C and the Herald article Norm is giving serious thought to diving into his shed to search out his pick and shovel !

NZ Herald: New Zealand and International environment and global warming news

It will be interesting to see the discussion in the NZ Defence White Paper now due end of September 2010 on the resources under NZ's sphere of influence and the implications on our Defence resourcing.