Mining and Labour trying to fuck it

[rainman]

the gummit could structure it so we dont get robbed by some overseas mining company

But they won't. 'Cos they're stoopid.

[Winston001]

Don’t waste your yen yuan or $US
Posted by Trevor Mallard on March 23rd, 2010
Any mines opened under changes that John Key is proposing will be closed by the next Labour led government.

There will not be compensation for mining companies.

So international (or local) mining companies – don’t waste your money.

Pure bluster. No western government could afford to treat foreign companies that way. Even the bleakest African dictatorship shies away from nationalisation where overseas businesses are involved. It would mean the instant slamming of international doors and destruction of our economy.

[Skyryder]

Pure bluster. No western government could afford to treat foreign companies that way. Even the bleakest African dictatorship shies away from nationalisation where overseas businesses are involved. It would mean the instant slamming of international doors and destruction of our economy.

That's one take. The other is to show that the emining companies need to employ some caution before investing large sums of money into a project that they know they will not be compensated for.

Mallard's statement is nothing more than a 'Your're not welcome in our National Parks and should be seen as this and nothing else.


Skyryder

[oldrider]

That's one take. The other is to show that the emining companies need to employ some caution before investing large sums of money into a project that they know they will not be compensated for.

Mallard's statement is nothing more than a 'Your're not welcome in our National Parks and should be seen as this and nothing else.


Skyryder

Mallard is typical of the no hopers the Labour party attract, a bother boy in sheeps clothing! The press only use him for stiring up shit!

[pete376403]

Government royalties on gold & silver are a little over 1%. According to Crown Minerals annual report 2008, 523,000 ounces of gold were extracted that year. Say average price of $US1000/ounce, give a return to NZ of $US5 1/4 million. Not really worth the shit the country takes in exchange.

http://www.crownminerals.govt.nz/

[Hitcher]

It often amazes me how many New Zealanders want the benefits of a first world economy but who are prepared to dismiss out of hand any initiatives that may contribute to this.

Just because the Gummint may want to "open up" parts of the conservation estate doesn't mean that that will ever happen, nor does it mean that environmental values will be compromised. Indeed the extent of the guarantees that mining companies may be required to stump up with for rehabilitation costs may deter many.

Meanwhile the desperate, gullible and headline seekers will continue to jump to conclusions. At least the trolls are being well fed.

[Winston001]

On the larger scale I'm against mining of the conservation estate. Measuring the mineral potential may be an interesting exercise but it is only of value if some mining actually goes ahead.

In the short term mining is attractive. Lots of engineering, roads, infrastructure, ports, jobs galore, taxation and royalties to the government. Simply have a look at the wealth across the Tasman and reflect upon the number of Kiwis who move to Australia. Much higher wages, lower taxes, and a great lifestyle.

I don't suggest NZ would reap an exactly equivalent bounty but there would be a significant boost to our economy - for a while.

But no - my objection is purely that New Zealand is a beautiful unspoiled country and I'd like it to stay that way. There are no minerals here which are so rare that continued human existence will fail if we don't dig them up. It's a damned nice place and I struggle to think of a better positioned land mass on the planet. Lets not wreck it for the one-off boom of minerals.

[Hitcher]

On the larger scale I'm against mining of the conservation estate.

You are presuming that such activities would do harm? What if they didn't?

If you're so keen for New Zealand to be an unspoiled wilderness, it would be best that we all fucked off to Australia. After we had exterminated all of the other mammals.

[Ixion]

Trying to rationally answer your questions, which I'm sure are rhetorical:

Thing is that mining is a bit different. Most manufacturing is sustainable , you can keep on making whatever it is. If the company is overseas owned, the profits go off shore, but if/when the company packs up and goes away we ( the country) still have pretty much what we started with. But mining, is like selling capital. The minerals that get mined are gone for good. They don't grow back like grass or timber or water .

And most manufacturing doesn't crap out the countryside like mining does.

Someone noted that the total return to the country for ALL the gold mined is about 5 million. That's SFA for the mess we get left with. 1% of the value. The other 99% goes to the corporates, and it's gone for ever.

[Conquiztador]

I am just waiting for the Maoris to come to the table...

[Winston001]

You are presuming that such activities would do harm? What if they didn't?

If you're so keen for New Zealand to be an unspoiled wilderness, it would be best that we all fucked off to Australia. After we had exterminated all of the other mammals.

In essence you are right. No more immigrants, get rid of deer, pigs, opposums, gorse, broom etc etc - if only we could. I'd love to see parts of NZ returned to wilderness. In fact its happening here and there. My father and grandfather dug miles of drains by hand and with horse-drawn drags. That land today is being returned to swamp to absorb dairy runoff. Funny how things turn out.

[Blackbird]

Thing is that mining is a bit different. Most manufacturing is sustainable , you can keep on making whatever it is. If the company is overseas owned, the profits go off shore, but if/when the company packs up and goes away we ( the country) still have pretty much what we started with. But mining, is like selling capital. The minerals that get mined are gone for good. They don't grow back like grass or timber or water .

And most manufacturing doesn't crap out the countryside like mining does.

Someone noted that the total return to the country for ALL the gold mined is about 5 million. That's SFA for the mess we get left with. 1% of the value. The other 99% goes to the corporates, and it's gone for ever.

Does the fact that it's not sustainable anywhere in the world mean that it just has to sit there unused? I think not as it doesn't make economic sense anywhere in the world. I'd agree with you wholeheartedly if mining was proven beyond doubt to irrepairably fuck up the environment but I don't think that is the case and as Old Rider said, there is also legislation in place to control it. Despite what I might sound like, I'm not anti-environmental and pro-business. All I wanted to point out is that hysteria by the press and both sides of the argument paints plack and white pictures where in reality, there are most likely shades of grey which paint an entirely different picture.

[Winston001]

Why aren't they using privately owned land? Is it because privately owned land isn't free (the owner would want a cut)? and then who gets the proceeds?

Let's be clear - there is plenty of privately owned land in NZ being mined. The owners and the miners share the profits. One of the biggest miners of course is Solid Energy - which is owned by the government.

Speaking of which, Solid Energy own a huge area of farmland in Eastern Southland under which are a few billion tonnes of lignite. This isn't conservation estate, just ordinary productive paddocks. The plan at the moment is to convert the lignite to urea which is a valuable nitrogen fertiliser. Urea can be exported with all profits going to the government.

The other idea is conversion to liquid fuel - again all profits would go to the government.

I'm cautious about carbon release but if these two processes provided for carbon sequestration then rolling paddocks aside to get the lignite seems a reasonable type of mining to me. I've seen gold dredgings rehabilitated by L&M Mining and have to concede they did an excellent job - you'd never know machines had been there.

[Woodman]

No mining please, we gotta start thinking beyond short term goals (jobs, money etc) and think of the long term survival of the planet. We as a species are just raping the environment for all its worth and it really needs to stop, its just not sustainable and I think you all know this is the case. I'm not a treehugger either but it really doesn't take a rocket scientist to realise that if we cut down all the trees, fuck with the water, and pump c02 back into the atmosphere we are fcuked.

[Ixion]

Does the fact that it's not sustainable anywhere in the world mean that it just has to sit there unused? I think not as it doesn't make economic sense anywhere in the world.

No. Like I said, I'm no greenie. But the deal has to reflect that (a) we're selling off capital - it's not like Frucor or Kinleith. Trees and apples regrow, water keeps falling. But once the minerals are mined and shipped off, they're gone for ever. In effect we're selling off the birthright of future generations. The return has to recognize that.

And unlike most businesses, this is highly destructive activity. At present those areas provide me and others with a spiritual benefit ( it's not just Maoris that can understand that stuff) . Mining buggers that, certainly while it's going on, maybe for generations, maybe for ever. The deal has to recognize that too.

Those recognitions have to provide benefit for ordinary New Zealanders, not just corporations.

Those factors have never IMHO been recognized in the past. I see no evidence that any short term future deal will adequately recognize them either.

I'd agree with you wholeheartedly if mining was proven beyond doubt to irrepairably fuck up the environment but I don't think that is the case and as Old Rider said, there is also legislation in place to control it.

whether the damage (there certainly always is damage) is irreparable, I don't know. What I am sure of is that repairing it is formidably expensive. And no mining deals ever to date have provided more the mining companies to pay more than a token amount toward it . 'Legislation' is just a gesture - if it actually provided for realistic reparation requirements, the mining companies would just evade it, using the same sort of tricks that property developers use.

I just heard on the TV that they are talking about minerals worth $60 billion dollars. Billion not million. We get $5 million .

Now, if the value is $60 billion, that's a capital value. So how about the mining companies pay us the $60 billion less actual costs of extraction ? Bet they wouldn,t be interested. What they want is a third world deal. The clear the place out, once it's stripped bare make a token gesture at hiding the scars and flick us a few million, for which we should be grateful.

Those minerals belong to all of us. The environment belongs to all of us. Any deal, we should get the full value of the minerals and the full value of the environmental damage. I can't see the corporates being interested on those terms. So the only question is how violently they rape us.