Joyce’s desperate shill for Bathurst mining

17 comments on “Joyce’s desperate shill for Bathurst mining ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Draco T Bastard 1

   28 September 2012 at 1:08 pm

   If it’s uneconomical to keep an already working mine open then starting a new one is even more uneconomical. The logic does not compute but this is NACT and logic has very little to do with their actions except insofar as they benefit themselves and their rich mates. Dropping another few hundred people on to the trash heap will lower wages even more – just as John Key promised he would do.
   • insider 1.1

     28 September 2012 at 1:25 pm

     One’s an underground mine the other open cast. Economics will be vastly different. \Ultimately it’s up to Bathurst to decide the wisdom of spending their money, not us.
     • Draco T Bastard 1.1.1

       28 September 2012 at 2:20 pm

       It’s up to us if we allow them to destroy the ecosystem and the economics would indicate that doing so wouldn’t bring much, if any, benefit.
       • marty mars 1.1.1.1

         28 September 2012 at 4:32 pm

         The Crown Minerals Group in their submission say that the mine will generate $2.3 billion.

         Bathurst says, “Its coking coal will be used in the steel industry, which is facing a demand slump because of slower growth in China.

         “It [coal] has come off the highs of the last 18 months quite considerably but you have to run your business so that in the bad times you’re holding your nose above water and in the good times you’re making good money for investors and the nation.”

         http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10833623

         There you go – the projected numbers are made up, based on another high demand period coming along.. Amazing that they can get away with fictional figures. but what isn’t fictional is the information in Forest and Bird’s submission

         4 inconsistancies with the West Coast Regional Policy Statement, 4 inconsistancies with the West Coast Regional Plan, and 3 inconsistancies with the Buller District Plan. They also assessed the RMA and they outlined 16 specific areas where the Escarpment Mine Project on Denniston Plateau, “does not promote the sustainable management of natural and physical resources and is inconsistent with the principles of the RMA” (Forest and Bird, 2012, p 15). That is just the legal, legislative aspects. As you can imagine the information on the unique ecosystem, flora and fauna covers a few pages too.

         On one hand we have made up figures to sugarcoat the whole deal and on the other specific information on real potential conflicts with the declared plans and statements from the various local authorities and central government. I trust Forest and Bird and wish them well on their continued opposition to this pathetic mining plan.
2. Dv 2

   28 September 2012 at 1:22 pm

   Who owns Bathhurst?
   • prism 2.1

     28 September 2012 at 3:19 pm

     insider
     What do you know about Bathhurst? You seem complacent about the mine – perhaps you know something that you can pass on to us.
   • David H 2.2

     28 September 2012 at 9:42 pm

     http://www.bathurstresources.com/

     I dunno but here’s a start.
3. ianmac 3

   28 September 2012 at 3:52 pm

   Do those miners who extract coal from underground have/use the same skills as those who work in open-caste mines? I would have thought that the open-caste skills are those of digger drivers and truck drivers.
   • BloodyOrphan 3.1

     28 September 2012 at 3:56 pm

     I think open-caste is the better option from every perspective, it may even help their water table problems if they think it through.
     And those peoples lives are worth more than some grassland.
     Of course that’s a statement only the Cantabrians can truly answer, but in the name of Jobs it’s worthy of thought.
4. Jokerman 4

   28 September 2012 at 4:42 pm

   ol’ chrome-dome’s a shoe-shine boy alright; Winnie still chasing him about Radio Indulgences
   • BloodyOrphan 4.1

     28 September 2012 at 4:47 pm

     Onya Winston, civilised ground helps aye M8!
5. blue leopard 5

   28 September 2012 at 5:49 pm

   Great post Jenny

   Another reason for the closure of the Springs Creek mine was discussed in Parliament on Wed 25 September 2012

   “Hon Damien O’Connor: Can the Minister give an unequivocal assurance to the House that there are no links whatsoever between the job losses and the restructure of Solid Energy, and the Government’s plans to float the company on the stock market?

   Hon BILL ENGLISH: Yes, I can give that assurance. The primary driver of the decisions, as has been pointed out by the board, has been the drop in the coal price. I sympathise with the member, who has a problem that he wants to see more jobs on the Coast, as we do, but his political colleagues stand in the way of those new jobs.

   Hon Damien O’Connor: How can the Minister and the chief executive of Solid Energy continue to deny that the sale of Solid Energy was not part of these job cuts, when on page 8 of the Solid Energy review document the priorities were to “maximise medium-term cash generation and value uplift consistent with our potential listing objectives [from] our shareholder …” and “preparing Solid Energy for a potential listing at some stage in one to three years”?

   Hon BILL ENGLISH: Close scrutiny of Solid Energy, which began last year, has shown that that company needed to have very high coal prices in order to continue with its strategy, regardless of any future sale. The coal price dropped by 60 percent. That particular mine has been losing millions of dollars per month. The answer for the workforce is for the objections to the Bathurst Resources application to be withdrawn so that that mine can get up and going, providing 400 jobs. We hope the Opposition parties will join with us in calling on those objectors to withdraw, in the interests of the people who lost their jobs yesterday.”
   • Dv 5.1

     28 September 2012 at 5:56 pm

     Hang on close one mine and make another, and that will be better!

     DUH
     • Jenny 5.1.1

       29 September 2012 at 3:25 am

       Dv, in this government’s opinion a private mine is “better” than a publicly owned mine. Millionaire investors can make a return from owning private owned coal mines denied to them if they were publicly owned. Scotch any idea of dividends to the taxpayer, or government accounts to pay for hospitals, schools etc. Better that this dividend goes into the pockets of the elite to pay for mansions and flash estates in Monaco, or Hawaii.

       Bugger the unemployed underground miners of Greymouth. They can go on the dole and if that is too good for them, they can bugger off to Australia.

       The closure of publicly owned Spring Creek and the fast tracking of the opening of privately owned Denniston is a showcase of the Government’s true motive for their privatisation agenda.

       The usual excuse for privatisation, that it will create more jobs has been exposed as a lie in Greymouth.

       It is not about creating jobs and making a stronger economy at all.

       It is all about looking after the rich and dumping on everyone and everything else.

       If it is jobs in the public sector – get rid of them. If it is the environment – bulldoze it.

       The political representatives of the venal and greedy are occupying the treasury benches and John Key’s oft repeated mantra that “we must consider the needs of all New Zealanders” is getting more and more tiresome and irritating and less believable each time he repeats it.

       Everything is to be sacrificed on the alter of private profits to the benefit of the few like himself.
       • blue leopard 5.1.1.1

         29 September 2012 at 12:11 pm

         In the event that someone has more knowledge than I about such matters, I continue to ask the question: How accountable are our politicians to the needs of all New Zealanders? Like how accountable really?

         Is there anything, anywhere in our constitutional rules, or in any legal papers or definitions of what is required of our politicians, that stipulates that they work for the greater good of New Zealand and its inhabitants?

         I am aware that there is some type of limited liability clause to protect our politicians because they are working on such a vast array of matters.

         Yet a requirement that they work for the benefit of NZ’s inhabitants?

         Perhaps this is simply a quaint notion which many of us hold, that this is what their role is, yet is incorrect?
6. captain hook 6

   29 September 2012 at 11:22 am

   joyce also shilled for faster downloading, “nudge nudge, wink ,wink” and then look what happened!
7. Jenny 7

   1 October 2012 at 7:14 am

   “Those the Gods wish to destroy, they first make insane.”

   Denniston vs. Spring Creek

   National: Closing a small coal mine, to make it easier to open an even bigger one.

   Labour: Not as bad/mad as National, argues for the retention of Spring Creek.

   But where are the Greens in this debate?

   Why has there voice been missing?

   They should be jumping all over this.

   Why are they letting Joyce and the right have a clear field of attack?

   Are the Greens continuing the policy they followed during the last election of playing down the threat of climate change in the hope of winning more seats?

   By the projected time frame for the Green Party to become the majority party in the house of representatives it will be to late.

   In my opinion their best strategy is from their minority position try and win the the whole of parliament to take action. This can only be done by mobilising and changing public opinion.

   This means instead of being quiet about the threat of continuing with coal mining. Speak out.

   Speak out loudly.

   Speak out often.

   Speak out strongly.

   http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/09/25-0

   The National Renewable Energy Laboratory found that we could provide 80% of our power needs using renewable energy by 2050, using today’s technologies.

   And there are a variety of policies that would not only make that affordable, it would make it one of our best opportunities for creating jobs.

   Why are the Greens not arguing for this?

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS