Mining and incomes
March 30th, 2010 at 12:00 pm by David FarrarThe Dom Post reports:
More mining on conservation land could add about $2.3 billion a year to national income, or more than $550 a person, a study by the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research (NZIER) says.
The increased mining would mean economic benefits lifting gross domestic product about 1.3 per cent or more, NZIER says, based on figures from a 2002 study.
It’s good to have some figures around the potential benefits, because this has been lacking from the debate. All we have had so far is the estimate of mineral wealth, but I want to know figures for impact on GDP, balance of trade, current account deficit, crown revenue and debt, employment etc.
Ideally, one could have that data for each of teh areas proposed to be removed from Section 4.
The debate was not about a choice between mining and conservation, but getting maximum sustainable value from a limited resource, NZIER said. New Zealand was relatively well provided with protected areas, with 19.5 per cent of the total land in “large protected areas”, first equal with the United States. It was well ahead of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) average of 12.4 per cent.
Opponents of the plans to open up schedule 4 land to mining argued that any encroachment on conservation land would damage New Zealand’s international reputation, to the detriment of tourism and other exports.
“There is little evidence to support this claim, aside from a limited survey commissioned by the Environment Ministry almost a decade ago,” NZIER said.
It would be a good time to survey tourists and consumers about how mining affected their views of New Zealand’s “clean green image”.
Indeed. We already have 84 mines on conservation land incidentally.
Among English-speaking OECD countries New Zealand has the highest proportion of its land in “major protected areas”, the NZIER report shows.
There is also a high level of protected land for each person, at about 1.24 square kilometres.
But New Zealand also has the lowest per capita income, which is below the OECD average.
While comparisons were fraught with definitional differences, the comparison showed New Zealand to be “relatively well provided with protected areas, but relatively poorly endowed with the income to maintain them”, NZIER said.
A very good point.
Related posts:
- Mining under Labour
- Mining and the Conservation Estate
- Gerry on mining
- Open cast mining at Pike River
March 30th, 2010 at 12:07 pm
Only if the figures aren’t complete bollocks. Don’t the economic benefits depend a great deal on if the mining operation is locally owned or foreign owned?
Vote:March 30th, 2010 at 12:11 pm
The danger of damage to New Zealand’s reputation is a self-fulfilling prophecy – and since the actual impact of mining in the 7000-odd hectares in question is tiny, the blame for such damage would have to fall squarely on those who are running around grossly exaggerating it.
Vote:March 30th, 2010 at 12:17 pm
A postcard on Eden Park…
Vote:March 30th, 2010 at 12:20 pm
campit said:
“Only if the figures aren’t complete bollocks. Don’t the economic benefits depend a great deal on if the mining operation is locally owned or foreign owned?”
No campit, you tool. Because only the profits and HQ costs are repatriated, which would only be in the order of 30% of revenue. If you want to invest in the mining companies to also share some of the profits then, either buy shares in one or select a Kiwisaver providor that invests in one. The remainder (70%) of revenue would stay in the local economy – government royalties, wages, infrastructure development, services etc.
Vote:March 30th, 2010 at 12:35 pm
Having some guy called armpit saying the figures are bollocks doesn’t mean the figures are bollocks either.
Why can’t the mines be government owned since they’re such an asset. It would also give them somewhere to employ all those on benefits who have down their allocated tens years of ass sitting.
Just a thought.
I’m even willing to give phool a hardhart myself.
Vote:March 30th, 2010 at 12:38 pm
In any case I would have thought that there is greater economic benefit in leaving finite resources in the ground and exploiting them later 50 years from now. Why mine it right now? Save it for future generations I say.
Vote:March 30th, 2010 at 12:40 pm
OMG…. someone else deal with this buffoon, its too stupid for me to bother with it.
Vote:March 30th, 2010 at 12:41 pm
“In any case I would have thought that there is greater economic benefit in leaving finite resources in the ground and exploiting them later 50 years from now. Why mine it right now? Save it for future generations I say.”
What, so you and your comrades can drive us further along the road of Fabian Socialism in the meantime?
Vote:March 30th, 2010 at 12:45 pm
Just saying if you are looking for the best long run economic return, the best option could be to leave it in the ground. What’s wrong with that?
Vote:March 30th, 2010 at 1:05 pm
“There is also a high level of protected land for each person, at about 1.24 square kilometres.”
Per person? That would mean we cover 5,200,000 square kilometres. Perhaps we do, but only 5% of that would be above sea level.
Vote:March 30th, 2010 at 1:05 pm
$8 Bill in tourism annually. Surely some of that income can be used towards protecting our assets.
Vote:March 30th, 2010 at 1:11 pm
Only if the figures aren’t complete bollocks. Don’t the economic benefits depend a great deal on if the mining operation is locally owned or foreign owned?
If you think that every red cent earned from the sale of the mined mineral will be going off shore – then I have a lovely bridge to for sale you may be interested in….
Vote:March 30th, 2010 at 1:19 pm
In any case I would have thought that there is greater economic benefit in leaving finite resources in the ground and exploiting them later 50 years from now. Why mine it right now? Save it for future generations I say.
What makes it more sustainable in 50 years?
Plus, I guarentee people like you will be bleating “Why mine it now? Save it for future generations I say.”
Vote:March 30th, 2010 at 1:25 pm
While I am ambivalent towards the mining issue: there’s still not enough information for me – importantly the word used above is “could” which implies maximum potential and I’d rather know the potential range and other flow-on impacts it may have, but I do feel aggrieved with these statements, Campit: “In any case I would have thought that there is greater economic benefit in leaving finite resources in the ground and exploiting them later 50 years from now. Why mine it right now? Save it for future generations I say.” and “Just saying if you are looking for the best long run economic return, the best option could be to leave it in the ground. What’s wrong with that?”
Justify why the future benefit will be greater than foregone present benefit as implied by this statement: “I would have thought that there is greater economic benefit in leaving finite resources in the ground and exploiting them later 50 years from now”. Why would it give the “best long run economic return”?
The best long-run economic return will be determined by a number of factors. If you were suggesting mining technology is expected to have significantly, possibly exponentially improved, in 50 years time and thus one could extract more profit more efficiently, then yes, maybe your point has validity. Or perhaps you could be suggesting that the minerals will be much more highly prized in 50 years time with their value increasing well above inflation. And that either of these factors will outweigh mining earlier and the flow-on benefits it could create. But it doesn’t seem like you are suggesting that. What it seems like you are suggesting is that pretty much the same benefits now should not be had because it would be nice if in 50 years time they could be had instead. This theory does nothing to change the long-term profitability, it just transfers when the profit will be received. I hope I am wrong, so please, justify your statements.
Vote:March 30th, 2010 at 1:42 pm
Why not get the NZ Super fund / Solid Energy to mine it. You would wipe out 90 % of the objectors in one hit and all that would be left is a couple of soap dodgers with beards moaning.
Vote:March 30th, 2010 at 1:43 pm
Well, yes exactly. Apologies for not spelling it out. And your point about mining technology is a good one that I hadn’t thought of.
I’m just mindful of the fact that there are examples overseas where a country has expoited its finite resources and sold at the prevailing cheap commodity price at the time. UK North Sea oil is a good example, where oil production peaked in 1999 and was sold at relatively cheap prices at the time. UK is now a net importer of oil and paying relatively high market rates. They’ve lost out on billions of pounds worth of revenue. In the long term I would guess that prices for finite minerals can only increase, but I would need to see some kind of analysis around long term price assumptions before concluding that right now is the ideal time to mine resources. That’s why I said “could”.
The premise of this blog post is that we need to have more information before we can make an informed decision, and I support that.
Vote:March 30th, 2010 at 2:11 pm
There is also a high level of protected land for each person, at about 1.24 square kilometres.
It was my understanding that New Zealand in its entirety is 268,021 km2, somebody needs to get there facts straight aye? A chain is only as strong as its weakest link right??
Vote:March 30th, 2010 at 2:33 pm
hey toad – was that image meant to shock people?!?! cause seriously.. the mine aint that big
Vote:March 30th, 2010 at 2:37 pm
Its a decent sized hole dime, we could back fill with greenies and AGW hysteria drones.
Win win.
Vote:March 30th, 2010 at 2:46 pm
just not on schedule 4 land that’s all, what’s wrong with mining other land and not schedule 4 land?
Vote:March 30th, 2010 at 2:48 pm
It doesn’t have the mineral resources would be my first guess. “Dig where the gold is” does seem to be a key aspect of prospecting.
Vote:March 30th, 2010 at 3:07 pm
Toad that is just stupid stuff. If you are going to missrepresent the issue at least try to do it in a half way smart way
Vote:March 30th, 2010 at 3:26 pm
Ah Toad, glad you’ve decided to rejoin-us. Your absence has been noted with great interest.
To finally pose a question I originally asked of you on 26 March 2010, and for which a lot of us are still awaiting a reply:
Toad: Can you please explain why the Greens kept extremely silent about Labour’s mining in Schedule 4 Conservation land yet now yell and scream when National indicate that they are ‘Considering’ the possibility of doing a small amount iof underground mining in a Schedule 4 area – and please don’t duck behind the ‘I’m not a leader so I woudn’t know’ excuse – you have been presenting yourself as being exthwemely well-informed about your party’s policies.
Over to you Toad, and please, a serious, considered, coherent reply.
The floor is yours.
Thanks
Vote:March 30th, 2010 at 3:44 pm
Because they are communists Komata.
Duh.
Vote:March 30th, 2010 at 4:46 pm
@Komata, can you please point to the info saying that all mining proposals for schedule 4 land is to be underground please, this is an important detail, do they mine gold by tunnels?
Vote:March 30th, 2010 at 6:17 pm
Can you link to the actual report, DPF?
When the press say “could add about $2.3b” I find myself thinking that maybe the NZIER came up with a range and the dom post just grabbed the upper end. What’s likely? (rather than simply possible)
Vote:March 30th, 2010 at 6:30 pm
This issue will be the down fall of this government if they allow the relics of the past (currently chomping at the bit) access to our conservation estate.
Vote:Miners don’t give a rats rectum about ANY of our natural heritage, it is just the shit in they way as far as they are concerned.
It is lazy economic policy and it is simply awakening aspects of the National party that many of us had hoped were dead.
March 30th, 2010 at 10:09 pm
Menace
Thank you for your question: ‘Komata, can you please point to the info saying that all mining proposals for schedule 4 land is to be underground please, this is an important detail, do they mine gold by tunnels?’
No, I cannot point to where it says that all mining is to be underground, but what I can do is say that, based on my own local knowledge and experience it is not physically possible to use the sort of open-cast mining techniques such as currently in use at Waihi, at The Thames – the local geology simply will not allow it. Please let me explain (and this will, necessarily be a somewhat long reply).
Waihi is essentially a flat area of land through which the reefs (gold-bearing quartz rock) have outcropped (come to the surface) as a series of low-level hills. Because of this fact, the early miners were able to essentially able to ‘start at teh top 9of teh original Martha outcrop) and go downwards.. The original Martha gold mining Co (later Waihi Gold Mining Co, which closed in 1952) eventually followed the reefs underground and opened up some 120 miles of tunnels under teh town. The ‘open cast’ operation you currently see is actually quite new, starting in the late 1980′s. This method of extraction (open casting0 was chosen as the best and most efficient means available to retrieve the gold-bearing ore, and as such must be considered successful, as it is able to obtain a reasonable return on a low-grade ore and extract it without having to deal with such issues as falls of roofs and such which tend to happen in underground workings. The catch is however that open cast operations such as at Waihi can only go down to a maximum depth of 600ft, before the sides start to cave in (think of an inverted cone to get a better idea about what I am talking. Below that depth, any mining has to go underground and obtain the gold by tunnelling (of which more anon).
Thames, is however a very different proposition. If you have ever visited the area is, you will know that it is composed of a flat area (the township) which is at the foot of a series of steeply rising hills – the Coromandel Ranges. The ‘flat is at most not much more than 20 ft above sea level (and, in some areas such as the Moanataiari area to the North of the town, only 6-8 ft above sea level. This is of course a problem and although mining operations were carried-out literally under the main streets of the town (they could hear wagon wheels passing overhead in some cases) the ‘flat has always been treated with caution because of its height above sea level – especially during ‘Spring’ tides. As an indication of this, the town still uses a shaft put in by the Saxon Gold Mining Co in the 1870′s to drain the Northern end of the town – the pumps operate 24/7!!
This is not however the only difficulty – there is also a geological aberration which runs under the town and has been the cause of much controversy amongst miners and geologists over the years – the so-called ‘Beach Fault’. The ‘Beach Fault’ cuts diagonally down from the hills immediately behind the town and eventually goes under teh ‘flat and out into the Firth of Thames. It is however very much ‘unknown territory’ geologically, even though its existence has been known-about since about 1870. Mining companies, when prospecting and working the hills behind the town and onto the ‘flat discovered that in certain areas things stared to go wrong geologically – rock falls, clay, mud – things which should not be logically expected to occur. The NZ geological service were called in and eventually hypothesised (note that word carefully) that there was some sort of unusual earth-formation in existence between the hills and the ‘flat and that it went down (dipped) below the township. Note I said hypothesised. They really didn’t know (and still don’t! The ‘Beach Fault is still largely conjectural What we know to teh myers was however that the gold bearing reefs in the Thames all went down further than they could reach and that they held good values (gold) as they went. They followed them downwards but always came-up against the ‘Fault – an area where things could get very nasty and dangerous for the miners and companies.. Eventually, in 1912, an attempt was made go around the ‘Fault and,at a depth hitherto unexplored (1000ft below sea level) in the Thames goldfield, where 450ft below sea-level had been the deepest reefs to be located.. Logica and carefully-considered mining expertise indicated that by pushing a tunnel from point A to Point B the ‘Fault would be avoided. it wasn’t and a tunnel hit an underground stream at 1000ft below sea level, from which water was issung at 600 lbs psi! This closed the operation-down forthwith and despite several attempts to restart the project, mining on the ‘flat at The Thames died in 1914 – a ‘victim’ of the ‘Beach Fault’.
On this basis – the very uncertain geology of the area (the ‘Fault’ is still largely theoretical in nature – even after 100 years) and teh low height above sea level, open cast-type mining such as is practised at Waihi is never going to happen at The Thames. Additionally, teh area behind the town is composed of a series of narrow gullies, down which the various creeks (the Moanataiari, Waiotahi, Karaka) have made their way and these are simply not amenable to open cast mining – it ain’t possible, remembering of course that the Thames area was very intensively ‘picked-over’ during the years 1864-1920 and if ‘open casting’ had been an option it certainly would have been tried.
It is worthwhile to be aware of these ‘minor’ details when confronted by hysterical anti-mining protests, since they certainly won’t ‘fill you in’ about the facts as they do of course have their own agendas to push.
‘Underground tunnelling’:
This is the traditional (centuries-old) means of obtaining ores of all types and is the one most used in the precious-metals extractive industry. Speaking specifically about gold and silver mining, these metals, in their ‘unprocessed’ raw state are invariably held in bands of rock called ‘Reefs’ or ‘Lodes’, bands which wander-around below the ground surface. Sometimes, due to erosion, these reefs appear above the land-surface, forming ‘outcrops’ which indicate the reef’s existence to the geologist or prospector. Since it costs money to get at the gold that the reefs contain, it is usual to put in short tunnels to ‘check-out’ (explore’) what is around, and, if the reef wanders around, so will the tunnel. If there is something worthwhile and the reef has more gold or branches-off in other directions, other tunnels follow the ‘branches, and so on and so on. Because of their relative size (starting at around 5ft tall by 7ft wide and increasing to a size which can accommodate 4-wheeled rubber-tyre-equipped vehicles) Tunnels leave a small footprint compared to Open-cast mining operations and, as their workings are all underground are of course out of public view. (For an analogy, think of a 14 story building placed inside a hillside – underground mining (tunnelling) has great similarities with such a structure, complete with ‘rooms’ and ‘Floors’ and ‘Elevators’ (although these items have their own ‘industry-specific names, which I haven’t used here to avoid confusion). Of course there is a small downside to all this tunnelling, and that is that it inevitably generated rock ‘waste’ which has to go ‘somewhere’. In the old days it was simply ‘thrown out the door’ into the nearest gully, or creek-bed, resulting in the creation of ‘mullock heaps’ which could frequently contain several thousand tons of rock. This is not allowed to happen now – the regulations are very strict , and it is now frequent-practice to return any waste rock back into underground workings when these have been finished-with. Doing-so fills-in the excavated space from which the ore has been taken and shores-up the roof and floor of the working area, negating the possibility of cave-in. Safety is all and the environmental-impact is minimised.
My apologies for the length of my reply – I hope that it has clarified the issue, and, again, thank you for asking. (and, if anyone asks, a disclaimer: I am not in any way associated with a mining company or mini Menace
Thank you for your question: ‘Komata, can you please point to the info saying that all mining proposals for schedule 4 land is to be underground please, this is an important detail, do they mine gold by tunnels?’
No, I cannot point to where it says that all mining is to be underground, but what I can do is say that, based on my own local knowledge and experience it is not physically possible to use the sort of open-cast mining techniques such as currently in use at Waihi, at The Thames – the local geology simply will not allow it. Please let me explain (and this will, necessarily be a somewhat long reply).
Waihi is essentially a flat area of land through which the reefs (gold-bearing quartz rock) have outcropped (come to the surface) as a series of low-level hills. Because of this fact, the early miners were able to essentially able to ‘start at teh top 9of teh original Martha outcrop) and go downwards.. The original Martha gold mining Co (later Waihi Gold Mining Co, which closed in 1952) eventually followed the reefs underground and opened up some 120 miles of tunnels under teh town. The ‘open cast’ operation you currently see is actually quite new, starting in the late 1980′s. This method of extraction (open casting0 was chosen as the best and most efficient means available to retrieve the gold-bearing ore, and as such must be considered successful, as it is able to obtain a reasonable return on a low-grade ore and extract it without having to deal with such issues as falls of roofs and such which tend to happen in underground workings. The catch is however that open cast operations such as at Waihi can only go down to a maximum depth of 600ft, before the sides start to cave in (think of an inverted cone to get a better idea about what I am talking. Below that depth, any mining has to go underground and obtain the gold by tunnelling (of which more anon).
Thames, is however a very different proposition. If you have ever visited the area is, you will know that it is composed of a flat area (the township) which is at the foot of a series of steeply rising hills – the Coromandel Ranges. The ‘flat is at most not much more than 20 ft above sea level (and, in some areas such as the Moanataiari area to the North of the town, only 6-8 ft above sea level. This is of course a problem and although mining operations were carried-out literally under the main streets of the town (they could hear wagon wheels passing overhead in some cases) the ‘flat has always been treated with caution because of its height above sea level – especially during ‘Spring’ tides. As an indication of this, the town still uses a shaft put in by the Saxon Gold Mining Co in the 1870′s to drain the Northern end of the town – the pumps operate 24/7!!
This is not however the only difficulty – there is also a geological aberration which runs under the town and has been the cause of much controversy amongst miners and geologists over the years – the so-called ‘Beach Fault’. The ‘Beach Fault’ cuts diagonally down from the hills immediately behind the town and eventually goes under teh ‘flat and out into the Firth of Thames. It is however very much ‘unknown territory’ geologically, even though its existence has been known-about since about 1870. Mining companies, when prospecting and working the hills behind the town and onto the ‘flat discovered that in certain areas things stared to go wrong geologically – rock falls, clay, mud – things which should not be logically expected to occur. The NZ geological service were called in and eventually hypothesised (note that word carefully) that there was some sort of unusual earth-formation in existence between the hills and the ‘flat and that it went down (dipped) below the township. Note I said hypothesised. They really didn’t know (and still don’t! The ‘Beach Fault is still largely conjectural What we know to teh myers was however that the gold bearing reefs in the Thames all went down further than they could reach and that they held good values (gold) as they went. They followed them downwards but always came-up against the ‘Fault – an area where things could get very nasty and dangerous for the miners and companies.. Eventually, in 1912, an attempt was made go around the ‘Fault and,at a depth hitherto unexplored (1000ft below sea level) in the Thames goldfield, where 450ft below sea-level had been the deepest reefs to be located.. Logica and carefully-considered mining expertise indicated that by pushing a tunnel from point A to Point B the ‘Fault would be avoided. it wasn’t and a tunnel hit an underground stream at 1000ft below sea level, from which water was issung at 600 lbs psi! This closed the operation-down forthwith and despite several attempts to restart the project, mining on the ‘flat at The Thames died in 1914 – a ‘victim’ of the ‘Beach Fault’.
On this basis – the very uncertain geology of the area (the ‘Fault’ is still largely theoretical in nature – even after 100 years) and teh low height above sea level, open cast-type mining such as is practised at Waihi is never going to happen at The Thames. Additionally, teh area behind the town is composed of a series of narrow gullies, down which the various creeks (the Moanataiari, Waiotahi, Karaka) have made their way and these are simply not amenable to open cast mining – it aint possible, remembering of course that the Thames area was very intensively ‘picked-over’ during the years 1864-1920 and if ‘open casting’ had been an option it certainly would have been tried.
‘Underground tunnelling’ This is the traditional (centuries-old) means of obtaining ores of all types and is the one most used in the precious-metals extractive industry. Speaking specifically about gold and silver mining, these metals, in their ‘unprocessed’ raw state are invariably held in bands of rock called ‘Reefs’ or ‘Lodes’, bands which wander-around below the ground surface. Sometimes, due to erosion, these reefs appear above the land-surface, forming ‘outcrops’ which indicate the reef’s existence to the geologist or prospector. Since it costs money to get at the gold that the reefs contain, it is usual to put in short tunnels to ‘check-out’ (explore’) what is around, and, if the reef wanders around, so will the tunnel. If there is something worthwhile and the reef has more gold or branches-off in other directions, other tunnels follow the ‘branches, and so on and so on. Because of their relative size (starting at around 5ft tall by 7ft wide and increasing to a size which can accommodate 4-wheeled rubber-tyre-equipped vehicles) Tunnels leave a small footprint compared to Open-cast mining operations and, as their workings are all underground are of course out of public view. (For an analogy, think of a 14 story building placed inside a hillside – underground mining (tunnelling) has great similarities with such a structure, complete with ‘rooms’ and ‘Floors’ and ‘Elevators’ (although these items have their own ‘industry-specific names, which I haven’t used here to avoid confusion). Of course there is a small downside to all this tunnelling, and that is that it inevitably generated rock ‘waste’ which has to go ‘somewhere’. In the old days it was simply ‘thrown out the door’ into the nearest gully, or creek-bed, resulting in the creation of ‘mullock heaps’ which could frequently contain several thousand tons of rock. This is not allowed to happen now – the regulations are very strict , and it is now frequent-practice to return any waste rock back into underground workings when these have been finished-with. Doing-so fills-in the excavated space from which the ore has been taken and shores-up the roof and floor of the working area, negating the possibility of cave-in. Safety is allmand the environmental impact is minimised.
My apologies for the length of my reply – I hope that it has clarified the issue, and, again, thank you for asking.
Finally, FWIW, I am not employed by or associated with any mining company or mining operations, although I have been around the industry for many years. What is presented here is, to quote Stan Freberg’ ‘The facts ma’am, just the facts’, which is, after all, what you asked for.)
Vote:March 30th, 2010 at 10:15 pm
Mmmm – darn!. My computer has duplicated some of my posting and I can’t edit it. Sorry about that folks – situation outside my control —– Computer!!
Vote:March 30th, 2010 at 10:27 pm
As Paul Henry and Menace say, it should be 1.24 Hectares, not square kilometers, unless that 19.5% figure is supposed to be 1950%
Vote:March 31st, 2010 at 12:02 am
1.24 hectares ain’t actually that much.
Komata, thanks for making so much effort, very in depth reply, do you know all that of the top of your head? Very informative, think ill have to start doing some wikipedia(not accusation intended at all) reading and get a bit more knowledge on the subject my self I think. Still doesn’t really make me feel any better about the subject though, and still nothing to say that there wont be open cast mining. Still I can’t be convinced on the mining issue, certainly not on the schedule 4 land anyway, in saying that there’s so much info required to have a truely informed opinion,. I’m a tramper you see, and i cant get the feeling that nature gives from any other place etc etc bla bla blub blub, you know the drill. I’m also a human which in turn means i understand a thing or two about humans, one thing I know is that when it come to money a good percentage of people will sell there own mothers or one step ata time erode a whole three island of true beauty and nature etc etc. But, lets say for a sec that there wont be open cast mines, and that if it was on schedule 4 land that it was came at from the very outside of zones etc, and, it is what the public want. Surely there should be another debate as well? Should we just let some big subsidiary come in and take most of the profits away? What is the public opinion on this one?
Vote:March 31st, 2010 at 6:54 am
Menace
Thanks for your reply – glad that it made sense (Darned computer. . . ). ‘Top-of-the-head stuff’ I’m afraid, since you wanted answers to a reasonable question and I didn’t have time to do in-depth research and to find papers which could have been of interest to you – hope this doesn’t diminish the effect of what I’ve written. I’m glad you’ve started searching for more info about the issue – remeberiong of course that Wikipedia can be ‘hijacked’ by special interest (anti) groups. What the anti-mining people tell you is not necessarily correct, but having had more than 20 years to spin their line to teh unthinking general public, and at least nine years to put their anti-mining ‘propaganda’ into schools, the anti’s are well practiced at selling their message and have an entire generation of ‘young minds’ captive to their line. That what has been told to the public at large is not necessarily correct, or even true, does not of course occur to such a well-indoctrinated generation as are currently emerging from our schools and universities
Open-pit mining: I would reiterate that this is a rarely-used option, and depends on local geology. It does however make for a wonderful ‘bogey’ for the anti to trot-out, complete with photo’s when they want to generate hysteria (just as Coromandel Mine Watch are doing on RNZ National News at 0600 as I type this). It makes great newspaper and TV copy.
I can empathise with your sentiments about tramping, having done a fair bit of it myself, but would suggest that in the areas where mining is proposed (and please note that word carefully – the government is only ‘proposing’ – not giving permission) the land is already severely altered by previous operations and what is seen is largely regrowth. It should also be noted that a condition of any license id that, essentially, the land must be returned to ‘better than new’ condition after operations have ceased, reinforced by a very large bond – this latter being a huge disincentive to any small party of miners ho may want to undertake operations. It is also known that regrowth occurs in specific stages and that it can be assisted’ by careful plantings and management. things covered very clearly under the RMA in relation to mining operations.
And to answer your question about a debate over any mining application. The RMA and other Acts as applied to mining in NZ demand consultation between interested parties – and this before permission is given just to prospect (look) for anything of interest. Observation indicates that when the Greenies’ discover that they are not going to get their way and pander to their own selfish agenda’s, (and yes, Greens have agenda’s as well) they go public and get the sort of hysteria we are currently seeing. Normally consultations between interested parties land owners, miners, local councils, iwi, etc) go along quietly and eventually reach certain conclusions, which will either result in mining occurring, or it won’t. Fee’s are charged of course and (and the Greens won’t mention this) royalties are paid to land-owners for the use of their property; all well-controlled and orderly – and perfectly legal. Interestingly, the ‘Greens are the ones who operate extra-legally, and cause problems by destroying equipment etc. Make of that what you will.
Finally, to answer your question ‘Should we just let some big subsidiary come in and take most of the profits away? ‘
No, because it cannot happen. Mining company’s pay big fees (bonds) to just look – before deciding whether to even start mining, and this is a huge dis-incentive, especially when they can go to a third-world state and be welcomed with open arms. There are in addition various taxes which must be paid on anything extracted as well as the usual GST’s etc which we all have to pay as Kiwi’s. The amazing thing, ultimately, is that mining companies even bother. When mining does occur, you can be sure that NZ-inc does get a cut.
And public opinion? I cannot say. It is fickle and will depend on how it is manipulated. Unfortunately, at present the anti’s,who have as I said before, their own agenda’s (which are self rather than NZ-centred), seem to be winning, aided and abetted by the MSM and certain uninformed celebrity ‘clowns’ who have simply reacted emotionally and without thought.
Sadly, the Greens seem to be able to follow their own agenda’s with impunity (and the enthusiastic assistance from the MSM) and, of course, the ‘miner’s cannot for fear of accusations of ‘self-interest’ from ‘Guess-who’? Heads the miner’s loose, tails they also loose, it is an interesting situation.
Hope that this answers you questions and that it helps. Again, thanks for asking.
Vote: