Coal not Candles

the tipline

A correspondent suggest that tonight we should be celebrating coal not candles:

It was coal that produced clean electric power which cleared the smog produced by dirty combustion and open fires in big cities like London and Pittsburgh. Much of the third world still suffers choking fumes and smog because they do not have clean electric power and burn wood, cardboard, unwashed coal and cow dung for home heat.

It was coal that saved the forests being felled to fuel the first steam engines and produce charcoal for the first iron smelters.

It was coal that powered the light bulbs and saved the whales being slaughtered for whale oil lamps.

It was coal that produced the steel that replaced shingles on the roof, timber props in the mines, wooden fence posts on the farms and the bark on the old bark hut.

In Australia today, coal provides at least 75% of our lighting, cooking, heating, refrigeration, rail transport and steel. Without it, we would be back in the dark days of candles, wood stoves, chip heaters, open fires, smoky cities, hills bare of trees and streets knee deep in horse manure.

Coal is fossil sunshine as clean as the green plants it came from, and often less damaging to the environment than its green energy alternatives.

Earth Hour candles are green tokenism for rich status-seekers and nostalgic dreamers.

We should spend Earth Hour saluting the real people who produce the coal on which most people on earth depend.


THANK YOU for being a subscriber. Because of you Whaleoil is going from strength to strength. It is a little known fact that Whaleoil subscribers are better in bed, good looking and highly intelligent. Sometimes all at once! Please Click Here Now to subscribe to an ad-free Whaleoil.

  • ConwayCaptain

    If coal is burnt at the right temp there should not be muche residue or crap.  All Fossil fuels if burnt at the right temp will do this.

    When I was mate/master of ships in the 80’s and 90’s and we burnt Bunker Fuel, now this is the shit that come off after  the bitumen!!!  There was very little smoke.

    • Greg M

      The MANUWAI burns MGO, two grades lighter than HFO and my old girl makes black smoke better than a WW2 destroyer laying down a smoke screen.
      It settles down after a minute or two.
      In comparison, Pike River coal only produces about 7 kg of ash per tonne burnt. High quality coal burnt correctly is actually quite clean.

  • Vlad

    Fresh, informative, accurate and very well-written too.

    • ConwayCaptain

      I assume you are replying to me Vlad??

      If so Thank you

  • ConwayCaptain

    In the 1970’s the RN was still running a load of steam ships but was bringing in gas turbine vessels or vessels than ran on diesel engines and when power was needed went over to gas turbine.  In other words the engines that hang off the wings of jets!!!

    They changed from bunker oil which is thick SHIT and is thicker than the bitumen that they put on the roads.  Therefore when pumping it has to be heated so it is not as viscous.

    Imagine refuelling a vessel in the N Atlantic with this shit. 

    During the Falklands Campaign the ONLY RN vessels still using this was RY Britannia and HS Hermes.  Hermes was the only one that went south.]]

    Therefore the RN was burning cleaner fuel than anyone else.

  • Penny Bright

    Shining a light on NZ Prime Minister John Key’s coal mining ‘conflict of interest’.

    What’s your view on this one Cameron?

    Does it arguably leave Nick Smith’s ‘conflict of interest’ for dead – or what?

    Does NZ Prime Minister John Key have a serious 
    ‘conflict of interest’ as a shareholder in the Bank of America which has
    a substantial shareholding in Bathurst Resources Ltd?

    NZ  Prime
    Minister John Key ‘officiated’ at the Wellington office opening of Australian miner Bathurst

    Is it appropriate that NZ Prime Minister John Key has been seen to ‘endorse the miner’s move when Bathurst’s controversial plans for
    a West Coast opencast mine on conservation land on the Denniston
    Plateau had been appealed against to the Environment Court, and the
    Conservation Department was still considering whether to grant access
    and a concession for the activity’.

    Is this not a major ‘conflict of interest’ if Prime Minister
    John Key stands to personally profit from opencast coal mining on
    conservation land, because of his personal shareholding in the Bank of
    America, which, in turn is a significant shareholder in Bathurst
    Resources Ltd?

    Whose interests are being served by NZ Prime Minister John Key?

    His own?



    Or those of the public majority of New Zealanders?

    As of 24 February 2012, the Bank of America was a substantial holder of shares in Bathurst Resources Ltd:

    “Class of Securities (4) – Ordinary

    Present Notice “Person’s Votes 72,302,308   Voting Power (5) 10.44%

    NZ Prime Minister John Key is a shareholder in the Bank Of America.

    • Fuck off Penny…with all your mad conspiracy theory bullshit. A guy opens a freakin’ office and all of a sudden the world ends…fuck you are bat shit crazy….not a single thing you have ever said has been proved true.

      Plus you seem to have taken commenting lesson from Phil U.

      Honestly don’t come back…EVER

      • Blokeintakapuna

        Nice shootin’ Tex!

      • Penny Bright

        Oh dear – seems I was was wrong with my recent comment on Bomber’s blog.

        “It’s all good. Cameron believes in ‘freedom of expression’ and will welcome my informed and considered opinion”  :)

        So Cameron – while you’re in such a receptive and thoughtful mood – what’s your view on the same law that the Lombard Four got ‘pinged for’ – Directors signing registered prospectuses that contained untrue statements – equally applying to former and current ACT Party Leaders John Banks and Don Brash?

        For signing Huljich Kiwisaver Scheme registered prospectuses dated 22 August 2008 and 18 September 2009, that contained untrue statements?

        You believe in ‘zero tolerance’ for ‘white collar’ crime?

        Or not?

        It seems that neither the former (useless) Securities Commission, the current Finance Markets Authority (FMA), the Serious Fraud Office (SFO), nor the NZ Police believe in ‘zero tolerance’ for ‘white collar’ crime.

        None of them applied ‘one law for all’ and charged former fellow Directors of Huljich Wealth Management (NZ) Ltd, John Banks or Don Brash for signing Huljich Kiwisaver
        Scheme registered prospectuses dated 22 August 2008 and 18 September
        2009, which  contained untrue statements.You continue to have a GREAT night :)Cheers!Penny Bright’Anti-corruption campaigner’

      • Greg M

         Penny, once again DO YOUR HOMEWORK.
        In my opinion the “Lombard Four” should have been jailed.
        What they did was on a whole different level of deception and deliberately misleading information, unlike Huljich which was mostly absolute incompetence, and directors not reading documents they are signing.
        Banks and Brash need a serious boot right up the clacka but it is clear that no criminality was involved, unlike Lombard.

        “It’s all good. Cameron believes in ‘freedom of expression’ and will welcome my informed and considered opinion”
         You clearly are not well informed, and your opinion suffers because of this.
        Regards Greg.

      • Kimbo

         @ Penny Bright

        “Oh dear – seems I was was wrong with my recent comment on Bomber’s blog.

        It’s all good. Cameron believes in ‘freedom of expression’ and will welcome my informed and considered opinion”  :)”

        Half right, Penny.

        You’ll note that even though your comment is treated
        with scorn, contempt and opprobrium (look it up – it’s not a weed you
        stinking hippies who clogged up Aotea Square smoke), on THIS blog you
        still get freedom of expression – as evidenced by your whiny
        supercilious waste-of-space comeback after your deserved bitch-slap
        from WO. Which is more than any of us would have if the likes of you ran the country.

        Only a whiny radical left-winger would moan they don’t have rights of
        freedom of expression when they are exercising it. And only whinging
        Marxists would consider a rejection of their views in the open market
        place of free opinions and ideas as persecution.

    • Greg M

       Looks like Mr Key has made a very good investment choice.

      Do your homework better Penny, BOA has 10.5% share in BR Ltd, how many shareholders does BOA have ? Millions. What percentage of that is held by J K ?
      It would be about 0.0000000000001%.

      !4 million tonnes of coal has already been taken from Denniston using old fashioned methods. Google “Denniston Incline”.  Using more environmentally friendly methods a whole lot more could be extracted and in 20 years time you wouldn’t even know a mine had been there.

      There’s black gold in them thar hills, we need to mine it to help pay for bat shit crazy people like you.

      Hugs, Greg.

    • Liberty

      Meanwhile in the real world
      40 jobs have gone

      Because Green/Labour
      luddites are more concerned

      About slugs and snails than



      Engineering is looking at cutting up to 40 jobs due to delays to work starting
      on a proposed new West Coast coal mine.

  • Myque86

    Bunch of Navy tossers and Gay as like you Whaleoil,bet you are all standing behind each other having a reach around


      Who the fuck are you.Some tosser who hides behind myque86.Fuck off and bother the people on your home planet

  • Penny Bright

    Try doing some homework yourself ‘Greg M’?How about starting by reading the LAW which applies in this case?
    58  Criminal liability for misstatement in advertisement or registered prospectus

    Subject to subsection (4) of this section, where a registered
    prospectus that includes an untrue statement is distributed, every
    who signed the prospectus, or on whose behalf the registered prospectus
    was signed for the purposes of section 41(1)(b) of this Act, commits an offence.

    No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (3) of this
    section if the person proves either that the statement was immaterial
    or that he or she had reasonable grounds to believe, and did, up to the
    time of the distribution of the prospectus, believe that the statement
    was true.

    (5) Every person who commits an offence against this section is liable—

    (a) on conviction on indictment to—

    (i) imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years; or

    a fine not exceeding $300,000 and, if the offence is a continuing one,
    to a further fine not exceeding $10,000 for every day or part
    of a day during which the offence is continued; or

    (b) on summary conviction to—

    (i) imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 months; or

    a fine not exceeding $300,000 and, if the offence is a continuing one,
    to a further fine not exceeding $10,000 for every day or part
    of a day during which the offence is continued.


    Penny Bright
    ‘Anti-corruption campaigner’
    (Who can debate the issues without getting abusive. 
    You might want to try it sometime? Even for the ‘novelty’ factor?

    Kind regards :)

    • Greg M

       Penny , you have missed the point again. Read the whole thing.
      The key is “intent’ and that is a very hard thing to prove in court.

      “If a person **knowingly** signed a misleading document an offense has occurred.”

      Unfortunately, there is no legal remedy for Incompetent directors ( who in ignorance sign documents they don’t understand ) and in my opinion there should be. But I do see where you coming from.

      I agree with you that the SFO and the FMA are useless and a whole new governing body needs to be set up. How the hell was the FMA allowed to operate before the legislation was even signed off to allow its formation?
      I don’t blame police or the courts because they can only work within the framework of the law.

      I apologize if you found my tone abusive,( point taken), that was not “my intent”, I
      tend to write the way I speak and that can be miss interpreted by those
      that don’t know me

      Best regards, Greg.

  • Mully

    Why does ‘Anti-corruption campaigner’ need to be in quote marks?

    Quite appropriate given the date, I suppose.

  • Mully

    BTW, the Police clearly don’t believe in punishing electoral law breaches, either…

    • Penny Bright

       errr…. normal procedure is that before Police act – first a complaint is made?

      Are you referring to the photos on where I ‘piggy-backed’ my (duly authorised) messages on to the election hoardings of John Banks and John Key?

       If so – why don’t you ask John Banks himself why HE didn’t make a complaint?

      He was there – he witnessed what I did – and the photos were openly posted – so why didn’t John Banks make a complaint to the Police or Electoral Commission himself? I was quite prepared to defend any allegation of ‘damage’ under s.11A of the Summary Offences Act in Court.

      I have had a bit of practice in defending myself in Court, and actually quite enjoy it :)

      Penny Bright
      ‘Anti-corruption campaigner’

      • Greg M

         We have noticed because we are paying for it.

  • Penny Bright

    Paying for what?

    The costs of Police prosecuting the WRONG person?

    Perhaps the Police should have considered  ‘sennsible arresting’?

    With 22 arrests arising from my defending the public’s right to ‘open, transparent and democratically accountable’ local government – the score ended up  21 – 1 to me.

    I defended myself.

    Or are you suggesting that I shouldn’t fight violations of my (OUR) democratic rights and plead quilty when I’m not?

    Sorry – wrong woman.

    Perhaps you should consider a bit more carefully whom exactly  wasted public monies in these court cases?

    PS: With ‘strict liability’ offences, such as those arising from s.58 of the Securities Act 1978  – ‘intent’ doesn’t enter into it.

    If Banks and Brash wanted to plead that they didn’t know what they were doing, and thought that the information to which as Directors they signed their names was true – they should have argued that in Court – in my considered opinion.

    It is surely not up to the ‘Regulatory Bodies to effectively act as ‘gamekeepers’ and pre-empt decisions which should be made by a Court?

    Smells like corrupt political protection to me.

    Penny Bright

    • Liberty

      What a silly bitch.

  • kehua

    Go to bed Penny you old sheilas need your sleep.