Gold miner promises 600 new Otago jobs

**mashman** · 25th September 2011, 17:12

"The expansion of New Zealand's largest gold mine will create nearly 600 jobs in east Otago, says international mining company Oceana Gold.

The company has done a $100,000 deal with the Department of Conservation to look after a threatened native fish in return for the department not opposing the expansion it needs to operate for another 10 years."

Fair enough I guess

... but why are the DoC relying on Oceana Gold to protect a native fish? Isn't that the job of the DoC? Something fishy going on there...

**BMWST?** · 25th September 2011, 17:41

Originally Posted by mashman

"The expansion of New Zealand's largest gold mine will create nearly 600 jobs in east Otago, says international mining company Oceana Gold.

The company has done a $100,000 deal with the Department of Conservation to look after a threatened native fish in return for the department not opposing the expansion it needs to operate for another 10 years."

Fair enough I guess

... but why are the DoC relying on Oceana Gold to protect a native fish? Isn't that the job of the DoC? Something fishy going on there...

the said fish would prolly be threatened in some way by the mining operation unless mitigating steps were taken at the cost of 100 000 to the miner?

**FJRider** · 25th September 2011, 17:55

Originally Posted by mashman

... but why are the DoC relying on Oceana Gold to protect a native fish? Isn't that the job of the DoC? Something fishy going on there...

Doc may have some power ... but NO money ...

In THIS case everybody wins ... with NO court case pending ... whats your problem ... ???

**mashman** · 25th September 2011, 19:29

Originally Posted by FJRider

whats your problem ... ???

ooo can o worms

... My problem, in this case, is that there are native fish that would suffer as a result of human activity. We seem to want to save the fish, but not enough to not go after the gold. So money has to change hands so that the mining can continue. I wonder why. Is it to relocate the fish because they're in the way? Is it a "land sale"/bribe/licence fee for mining rights? Is the waterway containing the fish at risk of pollution or run off? Money doesn't change hands without "good" reason... and for a few ounces of gold and a handsome profit? Why not just tell the mining operation to fuck off? (as you say, as the linky alludes to, the DoC has the power to do it). Why not sod the fish and plough through them? Why has money changed hands? and for a poultry 100k (I say poultry as they're talking about employing 600 people and still making a profit). Why are the fish in danger?

**FJRider** · 25th September 2011, 19:37

Originally Posted by mashman

ooo can o worms

...

Why are the fish in danger?

Who say's they're in danger ... ??? Mining companies already have a bad rep ... I think this is a PR exercise as the fish concerned are some way to the north ...

**blackdog** · 25th September 2011, 19:38

Originally Posted by mashman

and for a poultry 100k (I say poultry as they're talking about employing 600 people and still making a profit). Why are the fish in danger?

saving the fish by paying with chickens!

**Road kill** · 25th September 2011, 19:44

Sounds like the 7000 that got jobs from the cycle way

**FJRider** · 25th September 2011, 19:51

Originally Posted by Road kill

Sounds like the 7000 that got jobs from the cycle way

Sounds MORE like you dont know what you're talking about ...

Already this is one of the larger gold mines in the country ... if they say 600 ... then 600 ... as least ... it will be ...

**mashman** · 25th September 2011, 20:02

Originally Posted by FJRider

Who say's they're in danger ... ??? Mining companies already have a bad rep ... I think this is a PR exercise as the fish concerned are some way to the north ...

In the article they say threatened... to me that means in danger. How do you know the fish are further north?

Originally Posted by blackdog

saving the fish by paying with chickens!

ha ha haaaaaaa... kentucky fried?

I'll leave the paltry in there

**FJRider** · 25th September 2011, 20:07

Originally Posted by mashman

In the article they say threatened... to me that means in danger. How do you know the fish are further north?

I live in Central OTAGO ...

... and WHO says it's the MINING COMPANY that is threatening them ... ???

**mashman** · 25th September 2011, 20:15

Originally Posted by FJRider

I live in Central OTAGO ...

... and WHO says it's the MINING COMPANY that is threatening them ... ???

That just about guarantees that you know that the native fish are further north

... So it's just a donation then?

**imdying** · 25th September 2011, 20:16

If the damage they'll do (I guess you can't mine without some irrepearable damage) is a negative but relatively negligible, and the fish aren't related to the mining activity but could do with a leg up, then if seems like a deal worth doing. Who decides the figure though? Seems like a deal that would be hard to do all above board.

I'd like to think that some cunning hippy at DOC has conjured up what he thinks is a win win situation for NZ as a whole rather than a mining company proposing a figure in a shady deal.

**FJRider** · 25th September 2011, 20:23

Originally Posted by mashman

That just about guarantees that you know that the native fish are further north

... So it's just a donation then?

It's a "you scatch my back and I'll ..."

**FJRider** · 25th September 2011, 20:26

Originally Posted by imdying

If the damage they'll do (I guess you can't mine without some irrepearable damage) is a negative but relatively negligible, and the fish aren't related to the mining activity but could do with a leg up, then if seems like a deal worth doing. Who decides the figure though? Seems like a deal that would be hard to do all above board.

But dont ask about the native local Skink population that IS in the mine area ...