Mining national parks

**scorpious** · 20th July 2010, 19:05

Seems that the government has decided not to mine the national parks.

Good decision I think

**Milts** · 20th July 2010, 19:11

Yes, although I think there's already a thread on it somewhere.

I continually find it hilarious the way the current national party mentions something, waits for public outcry (or lack thereof) and suddenly Key is all "Oh it was Gerry Brownlee's idea, I had nothing to do with it and of course I wouldn't consider mining our national heritage".

This by Tom Scott, published in the Dom Post over a month ago:

EDIT: Wrong image attached, fixed now.

**Paul in NZ** · 20th July 2010, 19:15

Originally Posted by Milts

Yes, although I think there's already a thread on it somewhere.

I continually find it hilarious the way the current national party mentions something, waits for public outcry (or lack thereof) and suddenly Key is all "Oh it was Gerry Brownlee's idea, I had nothing to do with it and of course I wouldn't consider mining our national heritage".

This by Tom Scott, published in the Dom Post over a month ago:

Shame he didnt do that with ACC costs going up isnt it....

**shrub** · 20th July 2010, 20:02

from what I have read and based on what has happened in the past Our Beloved Leader would have sold the mining rights to overseas mining companies who would have come in, mined, made money and buggered off.

**cowpoos** · 20th July 2010, 20:14

Originally Posted by shrub

from what I have read and based on what has happened in the past Our Beloved Leader would have sold the mining rights to overseas mining companies who would have come in, mined, made money and buggered off.

I think the green movement just need to stop being hypocrites....first to moan and be up in arms...I bet they use all the mining related products and energy available in the lives.
I mean seriously....do they think there cars are made out of hemp??? or their push bikes are made out of pumpkin skins???

They are all mouth no action.........

**shrub** · 20th July 2010, 20:25

Originally Posted by cowpoos

I think the green movement just need to stop being hypocrites....first to moan and be up in arms...I bet they use all the mining related products and energy available in the lives.
I mean seriously....do they think there cars are made out of hemp??? or their push bikes are made out of pumpkin skins???

They are all mouth no action.........

Why are there so many poorly informed people out there?

There are a great many ways to mine the resources we have in NZ. My problem is less the fact that they're being mined, but how they're being mined and who profits from that mining. Call me an evil greeny on an organic hemp bicycle, but I want to see the environment sustain as little damage as possible and as much money as possible stay in NZ. Yeah, I know, that makes no sense to you.

**piston broke** · 20th July 2010, 20:33

Originally Posted by shrub

Why are there so many poorly informed people out there?

There are a great many ways to mine the resources we have in NZ. My problem is less the fact that they're being mined, but how they're being mined and who profits from that mining. Call me an evil greeny on an organic hemp bicycle, but I want to see the environment sustain as little damage as possible and as much money as possible stay in NZ. Yeah, I know, that makes no sense to you.

agreed but,
profits aside,if it employs nz'ers then great

**shrub** · 20th July 2010, 21:43

Originally Posted by piston broke

agreed but,
profits aside,if it employs nz'ers then great

Not necessarily. Government departments employ, or used to employ New Zealanders. Creating jobs is brilliant and very important, but why not help existing Kiwi businesses to grow and develop?

The sale of a majority holding in Synlait is an interesting case. The majority of money is to be made downstream, yet Synlait sold a 51% shareholding to a Chinese firm so New Zealanders produce the raw materials and the Chinese own the value-add component of the stream. Synlait tried to raise money on the NZ capital markets, but were unable to do so, so had no choice but to sell to a foreign entity.

Sadly New Zealandersseem to always end up selling future profit making opportunities like mining rights, key infrastructure and value added businesses like Synlait, and are crap at building substantial businesses. On the bright side we're good at borrowing money for houses and cars.

It's a pretty common Western thing, we import damn near everything we consume, and used borrowed money to pay for those imports, and what we do export is becoming increasingly the profits from the businesses based in NZ.

**slowpoke** · 20th July 2010, 22:38

Bugger! An opportunity gone begging, stymied by folks afraid of mining techniques that Noah used to make raw materials for his ark, and have long since been consigned to history. Instead we're left watching our best and brightest head overseas for the better standard of living they can afford on a decent wage.

I wouldn't mind if there had been an informed debate but this decision was was based on fear and ignorance.

**Milts** · 20th July 2010, 23:04

Originally Posted by slowpoke

Bugger! An opportunity gone begging, stymied by folks afraid of mining techniques that Noah used to make raw materials for his ark, and have long since been consigned to history. Instead we're left watching our best and brightest head overseas for the better standard of living they can afford on a decent wage.

I wouldn't mind if there had been an informed debate but this decision was was based on fear and ignorance.

You're not exactly participating to an 'informed debate' with "facts" such as those.
I have no issue with mining itself, but certain areas should be left if not for cultural or emotional reasons, then for economic reasons.

The tax figures the government was quoting were along the lines of one or two percent of the takings. So even if someone finds and mines 500 million dollars worth of resources, we make $5mil. Wohoo.

Our largest current 'export' is tourism, and much of that is based on our so-called clean green image. How much would that be affected, for years or more likely decades to come, by having some of our national parks and tourist attractions being mined? Our it would be more beneficial to our best and brightest to capitalise on tourism as a source of long term, good revenue as opposed to a short term and destructive revenue gatherer which wouldn't net all that much for kiwis. On top of that you have all the side effects which I believe were mentioned in the other thread along the lines of roads clogged with trucks, polluted waterways, impact on the local communities, etc. Oh and not to mention that many of the 'best and brightest' (current university students and staff) were actively protesting these developments.

Although the debate around the issue was emotionally charged, given the current state of the media and reporting methods that was always going to be the case. To be honest I thought it was relatively open minded and objective compared to some of the reporting we get.

**scissorhands** · 20th July 2010, 23:08

The locations of mineral deposits in NZ are usually in beautiful spots inhabitated by greenies, aint never going to happen there.

Farming communities or blue right leaning districts dont have the shiny stuff to mine, so its not going to happen there either

**oldrider** · 20th July 2010, 23:44

They asked to revisit the value of mining our valuable "captured" resources in the current economic climate!

Hysteria aside, I think it was worth a visit and now a decision not to proceed further has been reached.

How does that constitute a backdown? Backdown from what!

**spacemonkey** · 21st July 2010, 00:17

Economic damage Vs economic good with this mining scheme was tilted to the bad side to an obscene degree. What it would have cost our agriculture and tourisim sectors vastly outweighed the taxes, royalties and wages generated.

@slowpoke, modern mining is "Cleaner" than early industrial era methods yes, but is still pretty fucking bad by any standard other than Victorian. Hell even the NZ governments own mining company has a shitty record on this, what makes you think some American, Japanese, Australian or Chinese outfit are really going to care all that much?
Nope they have a very long history of cutting every corner they can, and if there is an environmental contamination issue 10 years after the the mine close's the tax payers will be footing the bill not the mining company which are generally subsidiary shell companies run from offshore.... great way to avoid any come back to the people behind the mining.

**davereid** · 21st July 2010, 08:32

Originally Posted by oldrider

They asked to revisit the value of mining our valuable "captured" resources in the current economic climate!

Those resources will just sit there waiting.

Government will simply mine the areas that can be accessed without causing a fuss.

Over time, as the easy low fuss mining is done, the resources locked up in parks will once again become financially viable.

It's no backdown, merely a temporary reprieve. the mining will just wait until the resource value is adequate for the greens to be ignored.

**slowpoke** · 21st July 2010, 10:22

Originally Posted by Milts

The tax figures the government was quoting were along the lines of one or two percent of the takings. So even if someone finds and mines 500 million dollars worth of resources, we make $5mil. Wohoo.

Our largest current 'export' is tourism, and much of that is based on our so-called clean green image. How much would that be affected, for years or more likely decades to come, by having some of our national parks and tourist attractions being mined? Our it would be more beneficial to our best and brightest to capitalise on tourism as a source of long term, good revenue as opposed to a short term and destructive revenue gatherer which wouldn't net all that much for kiwis. On top of that you have all the side effects which I believe were mentioned in the other thread along the lines of roads clogged with trucks, polluted waterways, impact on the local communities, etc. Oh and not to mention that many of the 'best and brightest' (current university students and staff) were actively protesting these developments.

Although the debate around the issue was emotionally charged, given the current state of the media and reporting methods that was always going to be the case. To be honest I thought it was relatively open minded and objective compared to some of the reporting we get.

Tourism? So every 7-10 years when we have the inevitable cyclic economic meltdown New Zealand grinds to halt as everyone stops going on holiday and half the population ends up out of work? Yeah good idea, lets put all our eggs in one basket.

I've worked in the resource industry (mining/oil and gas) for the last 20 years all around Australia and seen the benefits that flow on to communities. It's no fluke that Australia has a resource based economy and has weathered the current GFC (there will be more) better than virtually every other country. The secondary employment in support companies related to what ever venture occurs is just as important as the project itself. I've seen it in Mt Isa, Karratha, Perth, Townsville, Darwin, Gladstone etc etc. These towns/cities are built on the back of merely supporting mining/oil and gas projects and are wealthy as a result. Someone has to build the thing, someone has to maintain the equipment, someone has to operate it, someone has to regulate it, someone has to do the training, someone has to supply the PPE/lifting equipment/ mobile plant/light vehicles/accomodation/catering, etc etc and all that money flows to and through the community.

If there are concerns about the environment then put stringent conditions in place. If they make it unworkeable then so be it. But if it's still doable then move forward until the next obstacle is encountered and reassess. But to dismiss it out of hand without even investigating a single propasal or resource extraction method is just ignorant and short sighted. People have no idea what they are talking about or proposing yet still forced a decision , how is that even rational?