The possibility of gas (or oil) off our coast presents an economic opportunity.
Coincidentally, it highlights the urgent worldwide global challenge of climate change.
These align with two distinct questions our community is grappling with. First: should new drilling and extraction take place at all? That relates to the climate change challenge.
Secondly: should Dunedin act as a support base?
There lies the potential opportunity.
The scale of potential economic benefit depends on what is found, and what it takes to extract and ship it.
Unless the finds were enormous, the gas would be shipped directly from sea-based platforms.
Shell has been commendably cautious about predicting job numbers.
A Berl study concludes up to 1000 jobs during a three-year development phase with 200 sustained jobs thereafter. Added on could be valuable servicing/support work for local businesses and workers. A find of any magnitude would undoubtedly provide economic medium-term stimulus to our region.
The climate change challenge is to deploy low-carbon alternatives to fossil fuels before the amount of CO2 they emit into the atmosphere creates runaway climate change.
That would have enormously destructive economic, population, agricultural and political effects everywhere on Earth.
That challenge confronts us at local, regional, national and international levels.
Resilience in the face of scarcer, more expensive or ultimately too-dangerous-to-use fossil fuels, the benefits of energy self-sufficiency and efficiency, innovative renewables: all will be relevant in different measures in different communities.
The world economy and indeed our very lifestyle right now, is dependent on, indeed addicted to, fossil fuels.
Low-carbon technologies have either not yet been exploited to the full, or they have not been developed to the stage where they can viably replace fossil fuels.
That's the challenge.
When you're addicted to something that will eventually kill you, finding alternatives becomes THE priority.
Since the world has already discovered far more fossil fuel reserves than can safely be burned, exploiting new finds could obviously exacerbate the problem.
The exploration companies, Shell and Anadarko, are confident of gas off Otago's coast, rather than oil.
Gas has less severe climate change effects than oil and, more particularly, coal.
So gas, it is argued, is a valuable transitional energy source, giving the world more time to move to a low-carbon energy future.
For that to work, coal that would otherwise be burned must be left in the ground in favour of gas.
A recent study by BP shows while both coal and gas burning are increasing, coal use may be increasing at a slower rate than previously.
That's a positive, but most importantly, the emphasis must be on ''transitional''.
Switching to gas is not an end in itself.
The overwhelmingly urgent objective is transitioning to viable low-carbon alternatives.
So on the question of new drilling or not, those focused on climate change dangers say ''No''.
Those focused on economic benefit and with faith in transitional gas say ''Yes''.
However, the decision on whether to drill, is not in this community's hands and the drilling, being off the coast, is outside the jurisdictional area of any local authority.
If economically viable gas (or oil) is found, under present Government policy it will be exploited.
Should Dunedin act as support base?
What are the criteria and what effects would that have?
Shell and Anadarko have said they would site any base where their economic, efficiency and logistical needs are best met.
Certainly, Dunedin has the best port facilities and access in the South, a capable cluster of innovative engineering businesses, 24-hour helicopter capability and top-notch medical and educational infrastructure.
So the city is an obvious choice, the more so if Dunedin is closest to any emergency at sea.
Indeed, if there are environmental risks (and costs) to our region, we should arguably compensate with a share of the benefits as well.
Many in our community would struggle with the idea of public investment in fossil fuel extraction support.
Interestingly, the drilling companies also warn against jumping to hasty investment conclusions before production is certain.
However, in terms of effects, Dunedin hosting a support base, rather than say Invercargill, will not affect the climate change consequences of drilling at all.
Overseas experience suggests the best way to ensure economic benefits for oil or gas producing regions that extend beyond the short-term, is to secure regional royalties.
Central government refuses to contemplate that at present.
Finally however, by far the most important question: in the event of a find, will Dunedin accept both the opportunity AND the challenge?
As a community, would we take any short-term benefits and close our eyes to the urgent need to wean ourselves off fossil energy?
Or would we use some of the expertise and profit gained and utilise the wonderful engineering, research, design and academic resources within Dunedin, to build our low-carbon future?
Overseas examples show this can initiate economic development which creates sustainable jobs.
If we don't embrace that challenge, any shorter-term returns will turn to ashes in our mouths.
