In simple terms, if possible, can someone explain to me how one values something like this?

I for one am interested to see what is actually propoased.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/3488434/Mining-in-conservation-land-proposal

Which still leaves the question of what the Government has in mind.

Indeed it does. Whatever they plan requires moving land out from under it’s existing, limited, protection.

With regard to Pike River, this is interesting.

This is why Peter Whittell is in Wellington. To try to get permission to allow a gradual slump of the surface above the mine, plus get us rights to do more mining in the area. Hence using our facilities 100%. We have to work now since the Labour lot, plus Greens, are totally opposed to mining. But once we employ staff as at Pike it is difficult for them to close us down. Pike is establising a track record with Govt which will stand us in very good stead when the contracts are issued.

Also, dont forget, National are very interested in West Coast votes. Forty million tons of coal would be helpful.

What the link is talking about is changing the conditions under which PRC can mine, allowing them to take more coal by extracting the pillars, causing much higher levels of subsidence.

Most of us agree mining is the wrong approach (lignite should be outright banned). But what we need is fresh thinking…! New ideas for a sustainable profitable economy.

At the time of the decision the following background information was provided by the Minister of Conservation:
12 MARCH, 2004 – CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL OF PIKE RIVER – WEST COAST

The Pike proposal does not include large scale mining under Paparoa National Park but it does involve the drilling of four 1.5m holes within the park boundaries to act as emergency escape passages for miners. Some subsidence is also expected along the edge of park boundary.
“The advice to me is that the impacts on the National Park are likely to be minimal. Only 150mm of subsidence is expected along the park boundary, a figure an independent expert has advised I can have reasonable confidence in,” Mr Carter said.

“The National Parks Act is subject to the Crown Minerals Act, which allows surface disturbance from mining operations of no more than 100 square metres within national parks, and the four exit holes in the Pike proposal fall within that area.”

This is not an example of mining in our national parks as some have claimed, and was well within the legislation as it currently stands.

Which still leaves the question of what the Government has in mind.