Yesterday the Community Board out on Great Barrier Island hosted a public meeting on mining, the largest in decades.
Most of the meeting was dedicated to letting the locals have their say- but the Community Board also brought in a representative of the mining industry to answer a few questions. I’m not sure anyone necessarily came away better informed – except perhaps about cyanide.
People who raised concerns about the use of cyanide to extract gold and silver from ore were told that “it’s the most easily handled poison” and although it could still kill people, at least its “biodegradable.” I’m not really sure the best way to defend mining on Great Barrier is to try and defend the role of cyanide.
Sure a discussion about process and the reality of mining is important, but what really sits at the core of the debate is one really simple question. Do you think there parts of New Zealand that are too precious to mine? After 90 minutes or so of listening to a mining rep talk about process and potential wealth, I decided to ask him that question. The answer I got? “Yes, but I just don’t know if this is one of them.”
The boos seemed to suggest the residents of Great Barrier disagree. And so do I.
Boo indeed!!!!!
Thats the absurdity of so called surgical mining. For Gold and Silver you take away an tiny amount , and leave behind all the rest, of which say 20% is is contaminated with cyanide ( one advantage of Coal is that tunnel mining takes away the end product completely).
@ghostwhowalksnz I do take your point about coal, but lets not forget that it gets combusted with oxygen to create roughly 3 times it’s original weight in climate-damaging CO2…
Is the Labour Government prepared to acknowledge that there are benefits to mining – and that there have been massive advances in the technologies associated with mining over the past several decades? Or is the Labour Party just anti-National for any and every initiative because Labour are the opposition?
There is a lot of scare-mongering going on by Labour and I am not sure any of it is hitting the target.
I thought this country already had an ample supply of toxic waste sites, destroyed natural habitats, decaying equipment and dangerous holes in the ground from the last round of gold mining and other extractive industries.
Business is always one step ahead of legislation and always seems to be able to saunter off, whistling, profits pocketed, leaving the mess for our children to clean up.
Have we learned nothing from the heritage of pollution and destruction that past extractive industries have already willed us?
Is this the National Government’s only answer to their failed job creation programmes – to dig holes and hope to find some money down them?
I heard Chris Laidlaw interviewed this morning on RadioNZ with Gary Taylor of the Environmental Defence Society and Chris Baker the acting CEO of mining lobby group Straterra.
Not sure, but it sounded as if Chris Baker was the guy talking about cynanide at the meeting on Great Barrier yesterday Jacinda?
Chris Baker said that each proposal for high value conservation land being opened up for for mineral exploration would be considered on a case by case basis.
Crikey. What was the point of placing that land under protection in schedule four of the Crown Minerals Act in the first place? Becasue it’s high value conservation land???? Surely that hasn’t changed.
You can listen to the interview here (hasn’t been posted yet, but sure it will be later today)
http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/ideas/20100411
@monty I think Clare pretty much covered this one in her post. If you’ve been following the general mining debate on red alert you’ll see that we’ve always been clear on this one.
We are not anti mining, but we are against mining on land that has been deemed of such high conservation value that the National Party gave it legal protection in 1997 by placing it in Schedule 4 of the Crown Minerals Act. Nice and simple.
Really enjoyed what you had to say at the meeting at Claris Club. A very emotive meeting. Mining on Grt Barrier? Over my dead body!
“We are not anti mining, but we are against mining on land that has been deemed of such high conservation value that the National Party gave it legal protection in 1997 by placing it in Schedule 4 of the Crown Minerals Act. Nice and simple.”
Does this now mean that we cannot have a rational debate to review this? You asked a good question and got an honest answer. If the room was filled with people that share his view, there may have been less boos. By the way I like your new catch phrase…nice and simple.
Just a factual issue. Some of the land in the consultation document was not placed there by National in Schedule 4 in the 1990s. It was placed there by Labour in 2008.
I also heard the interview by Chris Laidlaw and one thing struck me;
Chris Baker was asked several times why the need to even bother with Schedule 4 land when there is so much more land available outside that. I did not hear the entire interview but I listened for at least 15 minutes when he was twice asked this. It’s possible I misunderstood BUT I didnt actually hear him answer this question.
Also he said that what was being proposed was high mineral potential on low conservation land, he later described Great Barrier as being listed as medium conservation… so why is it even being discussed.
@toni k Thanks Toni. It was a really good meeting- pretty clear outcome too I thought.