Kiwiblog

Nick Smith has announced:

Conservation Minister Dr Nick Smith today announced his approval under the Crown Minerals Act for an access agreement for Bathurst Resources for its Escarpment Mining Project on the Denniston Plateau, near Westport.

“This approval is for an open-cast mine on 106 hectares of the 2026 hectares that comprise the Denniston Plateau. This area is not National Park, nor Conservation Park nor does it have any particular reserve status. It is general stewardship land, which is the lowest legal status of protection of land managed by the Department of Conservation. The area does have conservation values although there has been some disturbance from previous mining including roads, bulldozer tracks and an artificial reservoir. The area also has some infestation from weeds like gorse and broom,” Dr Smith said.

“The loss of conservation values is compensated by a $22 million package by Bathurst Resources. This will fund pest and predator control over 25,000 hectares of the Heaphy River catchment in the Kahurangi National Park, 4,500 hectares on and around the Denniston Plateau, as well as for historic projects on the Plateau itself. This is the largest ever compensation package negotiated by DOC for a mine or other commercial venture.

The Greens say they are not against all mining, just some mining. But what is the bet they condemn this decision despite $22 million for conservation.

It will be interesting to see what Labour says on this decision, and especially Damien O’Connor.

Stuff reports:

The West Coast has been dealt another “devastating blow” and hundreds of jobs throughout the country are set to be slashed after state coal miner Solid Energy announced plans to move away from underground mining.

Three hundred and seventy miners and contractors at the Spring Creek Mine are in limbo after the state-owned energy company announced the suspension of operations at the mine yesterday.

The Huntly East underground mine in the Waikato will cut 63 staff and 60 contractors because the company is stopping further development. Another 65 staff at the Christchurch head office and 17 staff from other parts of the business are also in the firing line.

What an awful blow. Hopefully it may reopen, but far from certain.

NZ Herald reports:

Labour’s finance spokesman, David Parker, says his party’s policies on oil, gas and mineral extraction are close to those of the Government.

“I don’t think we are much different from National,” Parker said. “They’ve continued on with the programme that we started in respect to oil and gas,” he said yesterday after a breakfast for the Mood of the Boardroom survey in which chief executives expressed strong support for mining.

“We think that mining outside the Schedule 4 areas is appropriate.

“There need to be appropriate environmental controls around risk minimisation.”

That is interesting positioning from Labour. I think they are worried that National has been striking a chord with its lines that you can’t complain about the gap with Australia and also oppose the very activities that are fueling their growth.

Whether this is an actual change of policy for Labour is unclear. They did vote against the EEZ legislation.

The other issue is that there is no way Labour can form a Government without the Greens, and it is inevitable the Greens would veto pretty much any new mining or drilling activity.

Grant Robertson has put out this pamphlet, which really needs a response. It is hard to know where to start, so let us take them in order.

Climate Change

Labour is great on rhetoric, but crap on results. In 1999 NZ’s gross emissions were 67,395 CO₂e. Under nine years of Labour gross emissions went up 10% to  74,198  (and net emissions went up 13.4%). In the first two years under National gross emissions dropped 3.4% to 71,657.  There was a failure to deal with climate change -Labour’s. Under National we are set to come in under our Kyoto Protocol target.

Labour’s policy blunders saw 30,000 hectares of deforestation in their fianl three years.

Maritime Disasters

This is a reference to the fact that National did not pass a law to give effect to the International Convention on Civil Liability for Bunker Oil Pollution Damage that would have doubled the liability of the Rena’s owners from $12m to $24m.

What Grant omits to mention is the convention was adopted in 2001, and Labour didn’t legislate for seven years on it, and the Labour Cabinet gave the legislation the lowest priority rating. Sure with perfect hindsight would have been good for National to have passed it, but for Grant and Labour to claim not passing the law has dented our clean green image is stupid. The impact of not having changed the law is potentially fiscal, not environmental.

EEZ environment

National has in fact passed a law to give give environment protection to the EEZ. Previously there was no protection at all. One can dispute the balance in the legislation, but again ironic and rich for the party that did nothing to protect the EEZ to be saying that actually passing a law to protect the EEZ damages NZ’s clean green reputation while having no law at all, bolstered it!

46 wells were drilled in the EEZ under Labour – all without any legislation at all to protect the environment.

Mining conservation land

Oh my God, National put out a discussion document on mining. Oh yeah, I am sure that really undermined NZ’s clean green image – a discussion document.

And do I even have to mention that Labour approved 218 permits for mining on conservation land – all done without harming NZ’s clean green image. You see in Labour world, it is only bad if National talks about it. It is good when Labour does it.

MFE Funding

Now this is just getting silly. No funding has been cut for environmental activities. The $1.75m budget cut was for 12 admin staff, after a review found their admin/non-admin staff ratio was 1:10 and in most agencies it was 1:20 to 1:40.

In Labourland, I guess there are hordes of foreign tourists thinking about coming to New Zealand because of its clean green reputation, and they decide not to come because 12 admin staff were got rid of in the Ministry for the Environment!  Really, what planet do they think people live on.

I guess it is easy to stick five nonsensical bullet points on a postcard with a lovely picture as a backdrop. Far harder to actually have a track record that comes anywhere close to matching your rhetoric. I’ll take substance over rhetoric any day.

Nelson Mail reports:

Gold at Sams Creek in Golden Bay is now estimated at more than one million ounces, and worth about $2 billion – and that is just a start.

An announcement to the Australian Stock Exchange from the company exploring the area, MOD Resources, has revealed the gold resource at Sams Creek has been increased by 33 per cent to 1.024 million ounces.

With the price of gold in New Zealand dollars about $2000 an ounce, that is worth around $2b.

Significantly the company noted that gold was all contained within an 800-metre strike length of the main zone prospect, which represented less than 15 per cent of the known 6km strike length of the Sams Creek dyke.

That means there is potential for the gold resource to increase markedly.

Excellent.

She said Forest and Bird did not want the company there but it would woo local people with jobs which were hard to come by in Golden Bay.

Evil jobs. How dare they “woo” people with jobs.

“Hopefully the price of gold will come down so it will not be economic for them to mine

Praying for poverty I call this.

The Greens have said they are not against all mining, just all coal mining. Will there ever be an actual mine though the Greens do not oppose? Is their view that of Forest & Bird on this mine?

Russel Norman said:

 Mr Norman said that though the party would not support any new coal mines it did not oppose any new mines for other minerals.

The BOP Times reports:

 Green Party members worried about gold mining in Te Puke are to meet locals to discuss what they see as potential risks to the community.

Not against all mining – yeah right!

Note that the Greens are meeting locals. So this is a bunch of people who do not live in Te Puke heading down there to interfere.

Diamond drilling and exploration mining for gold and silver was already under way at Muir’s Reef mine on No.4 Rd, 15 minutes drive from Te Puke township. …

Glass Earth is the company involved in the operations in No.4 Rd. Chief operating officer Simon Henderson said the area involved was farmland and nobody would be displaced by mining and no areas of significant natural value would be destroyed.

Mr Henderson said the company had no plans to expand to a large gold mining operation but had received “encouraging results”, allowing for mining to continue until at least the end of this year.

The only community feedback on the set up of a potential goldmine had been positive, despite concerns raised by the Green Party, he said.

“Te Puke is struggling with the devastating effects of Psa which has left a large hole economically and socially with many people leaving the area.

“Gold mining is a golden opportunity for Te Puke to have a new stream of development which does not rely on kiwifruit and will inject jobs and money into the local economy,” Mr Henderson said.

I suspect not many people who actually live in Te Puke will want to say no to jobs and income.

The HoS reports:

Meanwhile, Greens co-leader Russel Norman said at the party’s national conference yesterday that the party would not scrap all mining if elected because it was an “inescapable” part of the New Zealand economy. Norman said Greens wanted each new mining operation to be considered on a case-by-case basis under a strengthened Resource Management Act.

On the surface, this is a welcome move. It is good they don’t want to turn Taranaki and the West Coast into barren jobless locales. However I do wonder if this is a change of rhetoric, not substance.

Let’s take the last ten years as an example. Can any Green MP point to a significant mining permit granted in the last ten years that the Greens would have allowed?

The Herald reports:

The Green Party is being accused of politicking and hijacking compensation negotiations between Newmont Waihi Gold and the local community.

But local MP Catherine Delahunty says there is widespread disapproval of the multinational company prospecting throughout the Coromandel Peninsula and people see Waihi as “an object-lesson”.

There may be disapproval from some people in the wider Coromandel, but how much from Waihi locals? I seem to recall a story a while back about how many people there are dependent on mining for their jobs, and in fact would like more jobs.

Placard-waving protesters who had arrived from Tauranga to Colville marched on Newmont Waihi Gold’s office yesterday to raise concerns about the company’s expansion plans for its operations on the peninsula.

So these protesters came from cities such as Tauranga, to speak on behalf of the people of Waihi?

Ms Delahunty said there were concerns that Newmont had permits to explore for gold in over 40,000ha of land in the Coromandel – including in areas of Schedule 4 conservation land.

You can’t apply for a mine, unless you have done some initial exploration. The impact from exploration is quite minor, as I understand it.

Ms Delahunty said mining was an unsustainable “finite industry” and would affect the peninsula’s $360 million-a-year tourism industry.

Nonsense. Sure there are some places you would not stick a gold mine, but I doubt a single tourist would choose not to come to the Coromandel because of some mining. Hell, on the West Coast the mines are actual tourist attractions.

And yes it is a finite industry, but probably will be around for the next 100+ years and during that time it will feed a lot of families who need jobs. Mining jobs tend to be higher paid jobs too.

Radio NZ reports:

The Labour Party says it might come as a revelation to some that not all Maori are opposed to mining and oil drilling.

Maori Economic Development spokesperson Shane Jones says there is a fossilised view that Maori aren’t interested or capable of making pragmatic decisions.

While he acknowledges there are been pockets of resistance, Mr Jones says there’s a variety of views – not a monolithic one.

He says oil is the country’s most costly import – a resource within Aotearoa.

What refreshing views from a Labour spokesperson. It would be great to see Labour come out with a policy supporting more use of our natural resources.

Stuff reports:

State-owned Solid Energy, if successful with a bid, would probably look to develop the mine in a joint opencast/underground approach. It would need to get part of the surrounding land removed from schedule 4 protected conservation land for opencast mining. Access would be difficult and so would resource conditions.

If Solid Energy do buy Pike River, I hope the Government does make it possible for them to carry on mining there, in the safest way possible. If that means moving a couple of hectares out of Schedule 4, then so be it.

Rodney Hide at the weekend seemed to have ESP with his call:

ACT leader Rodney Hide is calling for open-cast mining at Pike River and on protected conservation land.

State-owned Solid Energy should be allowed to open-cast mine Pike River, to access an estimated $10 billion of resources, he said. “It seems to me it will require a great deal of care and sensitivity. But I can’t see how not continuing their [the miner's] work respects them.” …

Grey District Mayor Tony Kokshoorn backed Mr Hide’s call for open-cast mining at Pike River.

“Yeah, Rodney Hide is correct. We need to get on with it and we need to do it in a way that will safeguard the environment and at the same time get economic development.”

It looks like it might happen, which is good.

All the 29 dead or trapped miners have been named, and all of them will have family and friends in grief over what has happened.

The story of Joseph Dunbar is arguably the saddest of all the miners. The day of the explosion was his first day in the mine, being the day after his 17th birthday. In fact he was not meant to start until Monday but was so excited, he was allowed to start on Friday. What a cruel irony.

NZPA report:

Prime Minister John Key says he is praying that the 29 men trapped at Pike River are safe.

“I just pray to God that they are alive,” he said.

“Obviously we need to begin a rescue as soon as we practically can, and we just pray that they have managed to secure an oxygen source.”

I think many NZers have also been praying for a good outcome. The news is not promising sadly, based on a blast survivor:

“Because I wasn’t as far up … the explosion wasn’t as bad for me. It just bowled me over and knocked me unconscious and someone dragged me about 300 metres, brought me around and then two of us held each other to get out of the mine.”

Mr Smith described the explosion as quick and without heat or smell.

“I just remember seeing a flash of something in front of me and then the concussion hit me. It wasn’t just a bang. It just kept coming, kept coming, kept coming.

“So I crouched down as low as I could in the seat to try to get behind this metal door [on the loader he was driving] to stop being pelted with all this debris …

I just couldn’t breathe and that’s the last I could remember and then someone found me about 15 minutes or so later.”

Mr Smith said the next thing he remembers is looking out of the ambulance as it was driving into Greymouth.

The concussion must have been very severe for those further in.

It must be awful for the families who are hoping for the best, but also getting prepared for the worst. Hopefully today there may be a resolution.

I think most people felt their hearts get a little heavier, as the news filtered out that the testing in the mine indicates that there is probably a fire down there.

I’m not sure anyone will be entering that mine today. If they did, it seems it would probably just be increasing the death toll.

2115: The earlier report of one fatality remains unconfirmed. Gerry Brownlee has just said there are no confirmed or official fatalities at this stage.

1950: Five out, 24 thought to be still in there

1934: TVNZ reports three other miners are making their way up.

1932: Two more fo reund injured, but alive. Injuries are moderate.

Like many I am glued to Twitter waiting for news from the Pike River mine. We are all hoping there are no deaths but sadly there have been some reports that there is one confirmed casualty at this stage.

The number of miners unaccounted for ranges from 27 to 36.

My thoughts are with all those down on the West Coast awaiting news. It must be awful not knowing anything solid yet.

Please keep this thread free of politics.

Hopefully we will have more news shortly.

All 33 miners have been rescued after 70 odd days trapped in a mine. It has been gripping viewing.  Damn insects got into my eyes a couple of times.

Amazing viewing of the rescue of the Chilean miners. The emotions are so strong you can feel them half a world away. It’s a nice reminder of our shared humanity.

Stuff reports:

* No areas will be removed from Schedule 4 of the Crown Minerals Act.

* The Government will continue with a proposal to add 14 areas, totalling 12,400 hectares of land, to Schedule 4.

* All areas given classifications equivalent to current Schedule 4 areas, such as national parks and marine reserves, will now automatically become part of Schedule 4.

* An aeromagnetic survey will be taken of Northland and the West Coast of the South Island to assess mineral wealth.

* Land holding Ministers (eg the Minister of Conservation in the case of in the case of public conservation land) and the Minister of Energy and Resources must now sign off on applications for access arrangements to Crown land for mineral developments.

This can only be seen as a total backdown. In fact envir0nmental protection of national parks has been increased, by having them automatically added to Section 4 in future.

Greenpeace Senior Climate Campaigner Simon Boxer said the decision was “a heartening example of people power in action”.

“This is a historic victory for the record number of New Zealanders who stood up to protect our most treasured places and for a vision of a truly sustainable and progressive 21st century economy for New Zealand,” Mr Boxer said.

It is a great victory for those who marched, signed petitions and put in submissions. I think it was the sheer number of individual submissions that probably had the biggest impact.

While The Government solves one problem with the decision, they now face the problem of whether they are serious about catching up with Australia, in light of the back down. They are fortunate that they have just announced employment law changes, as these will go some way towards mollifying sentiment that the Government is not doing enough.

There are some lessons for the Government in this, in my opinion. What were they?

1. The proposal was over-hyped. Even the PM himself did this, by stating there would definitely be change.
2. The discussion document was rather woeful. It didn’t make a good case for why the Government wanted to mine. It relied on merely the potential value of the minerals. I wanted to see projected jobs created, royalty increases, and tax take changes.
3. The inclusion of Great Barrier Island was a tactical mistake. It galvanised opposition in Auckland especially. And mining on the island would be impossible anyway under current regional and district plans.
4. This was one of those issues where it was not just about winning majority support from the public. It is about intensity of support. Even if 60% support mining, few supporters would have it decide their vote. However for many opponents of mining, this is an issue which would decide their vote – especially women (in my opinion)

The only real upside for the Government is that they can genuinely say, they do listen to the public, and that it is not a waste of time to response to discussion documents. But that is some minor face saving for what is an embarrassing u-turn.

This is a response by David Farrar to the Schedule 4 discussion paper issued in March 2010.

Decisions on whether to allow mining on conservation land require careful consideration of the potential economic benefit from such mining, and balanced up against any environmental impact, including impact on biodiversity, and tourism to iconic areas.

Mining creates jobs (often higher than average paying jobs), increases exports, grows the economy, and through both taxation and royalties provides income to the Government, which allows the Government to reduce debt, or spend more on social services, or both.

This balancing act is highly complex and subjects to the Resource Management Act. It is not something one can assign a blanket rule to. Decisions are best made, on the science and the facts, on individual mining applications. Not all conservation land is of equal value, and not all areas have equal mineral wealth. New Zealand has a robust process for deciding on individual applications, and I believe largely gets it right.

Land under Schedule 4 is removed from the normal process of deciding on a case by case basis whether mining can be permitted. It is a blanket ban on mining of any sort.

I believe only a relatively small amount of land should be in Section 4 – the truly iconic areas such as Milford Sound for example. The normal weighing up of economic benefits vs environmental impact should apply to the vast majority of land. Not being in Schedule 4 does not mean a mining license would automatically be granted – it just means it can be considered.

A huge 3.48 million hectares of land is currently in Section 4. I believe that this amount of land is probably a magnitude too large. Only the most iconic areas should be in Schedule 4, as this rules out even considering mining, regardless of the economic benefits or value.

So generally I support the Government dramatically reducing the quantity of land in Schedule 4. Not as a signal that such land will automatically be mined, but to allow any applications to be considered on their merits on a case by case basis.

In the discussion document, the Government has proposed just five specific removals from Section 4. I support four of those areas being removed, but do not support the removal of the Te Ahumata Plateau on Great Barrier Island for two major reasons, being:

1. The island would be very significantly impacted by any commercial mining, due to its unique characteristics.
2. Even with removal of Section 4 classification, mining would still be prohibited on the island, so removal of the classification would not produce any possible benefits.

Turning to the first issue concerning the impact on Great Barrier Island, I write with some first hand knowledge having been a semi-regular visitor in recent years.

While one could certainly have a mine in a remote area of a national or forest park with minimal impact, the same does not apply on a small island with less than a dozen main roads.

GBI is unique in having no central electricity supply. Every home and business is powered by solar power and/or generators. In the Te Ahumata Plateau area, there is only one small road that goes past it, and a commercial mining operation would need massive infrastructure investment to operate.

GBI is mainly accessed by air, and most flights fly over the Te Ahumata Plateau. Mining on the Plateau would significant detract from the island’s tourism potential, which is the major source of employment on the island. Commercial mining, along with whaling, should remain activities of the past on the island.

Great Barrier Island is in fact one of those few iconic areas that should be in Schedule 4.Is is that rare exception to considering on a case by case basis.

Regardless of one’s views on whether commercial mining would ever be viable on the island, I also wish to point out that mining would remain prohibited even if Schedule 4 protection is removed, so there are no benefits from removing it.

The Auckland City Council District Plan states:

The following are prohibited activities throughout the islands:
(2) Mining of any mineral irrespective of whether the activity is authorised under the Crown Minerals Act 1991, other than any quarrying, prospecting, or exploration activity (as defined in part 14 – Definitions) authorised in accordance with the Plan.

Not only does the Auckland City District Plan prohibit mining on Great Barrier Island, so the does the Auckland Regional Plan:

13.2.1 In the Hauraki Gulf Islands and in particular on Great Barrier Island, mining, other than quarrying, is not considered to be an appropriate activity in terms of the wider environmental outcomes sought through this policy statement.

Both the District and Regional plans prohibit mining on Great Barrier Island. Some might suggest that a future Auckland Council could change these. This is highly unlikely for two reasons. First I note that both leading Mayoral candidates have said they are strongly opposed to mining on Great Barrier Island.

Just as significantly, any change to these plans would face a legislative hurdle with the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act 2000:

The Act says that:

(9) Relationship of Act with Resource Management Act 1991
(2) A regional council must ensure that any part of a regional policy statement or a regional plan that applies to the Hauraki Gulf, its islands, and catchments, does not conflict with sections 7 and 8.
(3) A territorial authority must ensure that any part of a district plan that applies to the Hauraki Gulf, its islands, and catchments, does not conflict with sections 7 and 8.

Section 7 and 8 say

(7) Recognition of national significance of Hauraki Gulf
• (1) The interrelationship between the Hauraki Gulf, its islands, and catchments and the ability of that interrelationship to sustain the life-supporting capacity of the environment of the Hauraki Gulf and its islands are matters of national significance.
(2)(c) to maintain the soil, air, water, and ecosystems of the Gulf.

(8) Management of Hauraki Gulf
• To recognise the national significance of the Hauraki Gulf, its islands, and catchments, the objectives of the management of the Hauraki Gulf, its islands, and catchments are—
(a) the protection and, where appropriate, the enhancement of the life-supporting capacity of the environment of the Hauraki Gulf, its islands, and catchments:

It seems quite clear that even of a future Auckland Council wanted to amend their regional and district plan to allow mining, it would almost certainly be found by the Environment Court to be incompatible with the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act 2000.

Further, even if the incredibly implausible scenario came to pass that a future Auckland Council did decide to and manage to change the local plans to allow for mining, any individual applications would meet Section 9(4):

(4) A consent authority must, when considering an application for a resource consent for the Hauraki Gulf, its islands, and catchments, have regard to sections 7 and 8 in addition to the matters contained in the Resource Management Act 1991.

This effectively would force any consent authority to decline any mining application.

So bearing in mind the current Auckland City District Plan, Auckland Region Regional Plan and the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act 2000, I conclude mining will never be permitted on Great Barrier Island under the current laws, even if it was removed from Schedule 4 of the Crown Minerals Act.

Hence there are no benefits from removing it, so it should remain in Schedule 4.

David Farrar
26 May 2010

Far North Mayor Wayne Brown injects some common sense into the mining debate:

As mayor of the 42 towns and 7500sq km of the Far North District it is my job to lift the economic performance of our region and its people.

Only one-third of our vast sprawl contributes rates with the other two-thirds being Maori land and Department of Conservation land. Much of these areas are vast tracks of scrub and gorse, with some high-value pockets such as Manginangina and Waipoua, that can be left alone.

And some of that scrub land is in Section 4, I am told.

But the single policy that offers most opportunity to our district is Minister of Energy Gerry Brownlee’s moves to prospect and mine rural tracts such as ours, so I am writing to balance the recent widely reported, but rather shallow and negative, press coverage of this policy.

Thousands of ill-informed urban dwellers recently marched against mining with the encouragement of the well intentioned but misguided celebrity actress, Lucy Lawless. What next? Master Chef winners to decide the Official Cash Rate?

Heh, exactly.

Now to that ridiculous urban myth that mining cannot co-exist with tourism. Hello! Mining central, being Australia, has more tourists than we do and I would encourage you to send a reporter up here for a look. Travel along Matauri Bay Rd, then turn right up the little known loose metal road at Tepene Tablelands, like many others do each day.

For over 30 years, scores of locals have driven up there daily to well paid and satisfying jobs at the open cast mine, processing plant and rehabilitated areas of Imerys’ china clay holicite mine.

Lots of others drive up there daily to the other address on this road which is the internationally acclaimed, uber-expensive but very beautiful Kauri Cliffs Golf Resort.

Being next door to an existing mine didn’t stop billionaire owner Julian Robertson from investing in this golf course, nor has it stopped his wealthy guests from coming in good numbers to support the local jobs that this created.

As I said, a very good article that restores some balance to the debate.

At Backbenches last night, Wallace Chapman asked Green MP Catherine Delahunty what she would do if there was $100 million of gold buried underneath her private property.

Catherine’s response was that she would not mine it, but instead would plant a garden as they are sustainable.

Now I am sure Catherine was speaking truthfully. She would refuse to mine on even private land, no matter how much wealth there is underneath. This was not hyperbole, but her honest beliefs.

Some people are opposed to mining in areas with high conservation values. I’m even one of those – there are some areas which I think should never be mined. And most NZers fit somewhere on that scale – we may differ about how much land we would put into this protected category, but it is a scale. Some would advocate all DOC land be exempt. Some advocate all Section 4 land (even the parts with gorse) should be protected. Some advocate only parts of Section 4.

But the point I want to make is that some, like Catherine, are against all mining everywhere. It doesn’t matter how many jobs are created. It doesn’t matter how much wealth might be underground. It doesn’t matter that the ground may have zero conservation value. Their view is that mining is bad full stop.

David Garrett asked the following written question:

Is any mining or mining related activity currently taking place in areas listed in Schedule 4 of the Crown Minerals Act, if so, where, when were the permits granted, and what is the nature of the activity?

And the answer is:

Mining activity of a modest nature is currently taking place in three areas listed in Schedule 4 of the Crown Minerals Act. The details of the permits are as follows:

Mining Permit 41870:  Granted to Peter Fielding on 17 March 2005 to undertake small scale alluvial gold and gemstone mining in the Hart Creek catchment within the Paparoa National Park.Special Purpose

Mining Permit 42024: Granted to the Broken Hills Gold Company Limited on 2 August 2000 to undertake underground mining for gold, silver, quartz and clay by traditional mining methods at Broken Hills within the Coromandel Forest Park.Waiho River Gold Fossicking Area:

Gazetted by the Crown on 19 September 1996, under section 98 of the Crown Minerals Act 1991, to allow for public recreational gold mining (using hand held non motorised equipment) without the need for a permit in the Waiho River within the Westland Tai Poutini National Park.  Gold fossicking areas are administered by the Department of Conservation.

So Labour granted two permits for mining on Section 4 land.  So mining is now okay on Section 4 land, so long as it is small scale? Is that what Phil Goff told the marchers?

And when Labour says they will cancel all mining permits for Section 4 land, does that include the permits they granted?

The turnout for the anti-mining march was impressive, and is one of the largest held in Auckland. I wonder how many knew what they were marching against or for.

Central Auckland was brought to a standstill as a coalition of politicians, celebrities, environmentalists and the public demanded National halt proposals to mine Department of Conservation areas.

Do they mean all DOC areas? Where were they when Labour approved over 100 permits for mining on DOC lands?

She was particularly concerned about the effects of coal-mining: “To take carbon out of the ground and burn it, when we know about climate change, is immoral.”

I’m not sure coal features strongly in any of the Section 4 land proposed for reclassification.

Labour Leader Phil Goff, accompanied by eight caucus members, said the size of the protest indicated the strength of public feeling on the issue: “They don’t want pristine areas desecrated by international mining companies,” he said.

Does Goff not consider all DOC land to be pristine? And does he think it is okay if it is a local mining company?

Meanwhile, Roxanne, a graphic designer who refused to give her last name, carried a placard featuring John Key with a Hitler-esque moustache and a single word in gothic script: “Mein!”

Oh, so witty. If I was Roxanne, I wouldn’t give out my last name either.

While I don’t agree with their stance, I do have to say the Greenpeace video above is very well done. Humour can be a powerful weapon.

Gerry Brownlee has an op ed in the Herald on mining. Good to see the Government front footing this to put thiings in context:

Try going a day without any goods or services that don’t require or depend on a product that has been mined.

From your inner-spring mattress to your car (or even your bike), computer, cellphone and medical equipment; the activities that make up our day and enhance our lives are in most cases only possible because someone, somewhere, has mined something.

A good point.

Many New Zealanders will not know that mining already makes a sizeable contribution to our economy. Mining in 2008 was a $2 billion industry and contributed $1.1 billion to exports.

Including oil and gas, the mining industry employs around 6000 people – and those jobs are highly productive and highly paid, relative to other sectors of the economy.

Mining is an important part of regional economies such as the West Coast and the Coromandel.

The Government is currently borrowing around $240 million a week and we have more than 100,000 people unemployed. The tradables sector of the economy has been in recession for the past five years.

That is unsustainable and the Government accepts the challenge of improving our economy and living standards.

Labour have already pledged to lower our living standards by cancelling any mining permits on reclassified land if they get elected.

We are therefore proposing to open up to possible mining just 7058ha of land that is currently protected in Schedule Four of the Crown Minerals Act.

That is only 0.2 per cent of all the land that is protected in Schedule Four, and it is a tiny amount compared with our total land area.

If prospecting that land showed potential for mining, it’s likely no more than 500ha of the 7058ha would actually be mined. That’s less than the size of the average sheep or beef farm in New Zealand.

But the economic return on that land is many times greater than any sheep, beef or dairy farm.

What I would like to see is an economic analysis for each site proposed in the consultation. I don’t think one can generalise over all sites.

Some people argue that New Zealand would not see any benefit from increased mining and that all the profits go overseas.

Yet the largest mining company in the country, Solid Energy, is 100 per cent state-owned. All its profits go straight towards spending on government services. There are also many New Zealand-owned mining companies active on New Zealand land.

The average ownership structure of resources companies listed on the NZX is 57 per cent New Zealand and 43 per cent overseas ownership. Others that are fully overseas-owned pay both company tax and royalties in New Zealand.

Some argue that the royalties from mineral mining are small, meaning it’s not worth it for New Zealand. But royalties are just an added bonus from mining.

The real benefits from mining are the jobs created and economic activity generated inside the country. That activity generates company tax revenue for the Government as well as economic growth.

This is the data I want to see though, to make a sensible decision. Not just an estimate of mineral wealth, but a range of projections for what mining in a specific area will do for job creation, royalty revenue, tax revenue, increased local consumption, and impacts on the trade deficit, the current account deficit and the level of crown debt.

Now of course it will be ballpark figures as such an early stage, but even that would be good.

Many New Zealanders are rightly concerned about protecting our natural environment and some say mining is inconsistent with that goal. The Government shares this concern and we will make sure any mining on conservation land in New Zealand is done responsibly and carefully.

Mines in New Zealand are subject to strict environmental tests. The higher the conservation value of the land concerned, the stricter the test. That fact will rule out open-cast mines on Schedule Four land.

Modern mining is totally different from its image in the past. Companies are required to rehabilitate the land after they leave and mitigate the effects of their activities as much as possible.

It is worth stressing that point – removing Schedule 4 protection is not an automatic licence to mine. It merely allows an application to be made that goes through the normal RMA process.

The Government believes a small increase in responsible mining could contribute to our goal of improving the economy’s performance and providing high-value jobs.

We want to hear what Kiwis are thinking. I encourage people to have their say by making submissions on the discussion document that you can find at www.med.govt.nz/schedule4.

Don’t complain about a decision, if you don’t take advantage of the opportunity to have your say. If you support greater mining – say so. If you are opposed to any change to Schedule 4, also say so. If you are in favour for some areas, but not others again have your say.

The 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.