Mining continues to gather criticism

16 comments on “Mining continues to gather criticism ”

• Comments are now closed

1. lprent 1

   24 May 2010 at 1:15 pm

   Brownlee? Too vain to back-off. Too disorganised to figure out an alternate plan that may fly.

   It will keep pottering on causing the government damage until they have a reshuffle and his peers push him off to something that he can’t screw up quite so badly.
2. ianmac 2

   24 May 2010 at 1:29 pm

   “the submission pointed out that estimate of value needed to take into account both the environmental and the economic costs of mining water extraction including the costs of extraction, environmental damage costs, and the losses of market and non-market benefits”
   Water extraction in Canterbury could use the same words?
   • Draco T Bastard 2.1

     24 May 2010 at 2:05 pm

     Anything that causes environmental degradation (which is pretty much any economic activity – 75% of all wealth comes from the environment) could, and should, use the same words.
3. Fisiani 3

   24 May 2010 at 3:55 pm

   The usual NIMBY suspects cry foul. They oppose all mining and all economic progress. National wants limited environmental surgical mining and a healthy economy.
   captcha usual
   • Bright Red 3.1

     24 May 2010 at 3:58 pm

     there’s plenty of minerals that aren’t on schedule 4 land that can be mined.
   • Clipbox 3.2

     24 May 2010 at 5:07 pm

     ‘Limited surgical mining’ is a total load of BS
   • Fisiani 3.3

     24 May 2010 at 5:26 pm

     Yet The Standard always uses pictures in the heading of mining diatribes of open cast mines which have been specifically and emphatically ruled out by Gerry Brownlie. This is a non-issue.
     • Maynard J 3.3.1

       24 May 2010 at 5:36 pm

       Gerry Brownlie – Spelling error, or does even that most fawning of puppets, fisiani, realise that he’s being fed porkies?

       Maybe your psyche is trying to escape this pathetic National Party subservience you’re sadisticly inflicting upon yourself.
     • mickysavage 3.3.2

       24 May 2010 at 5:37 pm

       All together now,

       “National wants limited environmental surgical mining ”

       Fisi you keep saying that mantra. You seem to think that if you say it enought times it will become true.
       • Fisiani 3.3.2.1

         24 May 2010 at 5:40 pm

         Well I invented the term and it has rapidly become part of the lexicon.
         • mickysavage 3.3.2.1.1

           24 May 2010 at 6:25 pm

           But it has not become part of reality. What use are words if what they represent is not true?
     • lprent 3.3.3

       24 May 2010 at 7:01 pm

       Wrong – it is an issue because Brownlee isn’t credible.

       No-one who knows anything about the technology of mining for most of the particular ores and minerals under question believes that Brownlee’s bullshit on the subject is possible. It is feasible for some of the coal deposits because of the concentrations and the lack of on-site processing, however even those have considerable impacts into the schedule 4 land that they’re mining under.

       But many of the sites that Brownlee had on his list weren’t coal. It is impossible to do ‘surgical mining’ economically for ores like gold, silver, or the rare minerals because of the low concentrations, the volume of material that has to be processed, and the areas required for the contaminated tailings.

       Essentially Brownlee is lying knowingly or unknowingly, and you appear to be a fool.
       • Draco T Bastard 3.3.3.1

         24 May 2010 at 7:25 pm

         Fisiani doesn’t appear to be a fool – he’s proved it quite conclusively.
4. pepeketua 4

   24 May 2010 at 4:02 pm

   ‘surgical’ mining is a term coined by politicians.
   it means a hole in the ground, roads to the hole, tailings (the rock that comes out of the hole) put somewhere (cos they won’t fit back in).

   and its called underground mining. and its expensive, and risky for the mining industry. Pike River Coal is yet to make a profit (last i heard).

   underground mining is also unlikely for most places in NZ, as our minerals tend to be scattered through the strata – much more suited for open cast mining (you dig everything up).
5. Bill 5

   24 May 2010 at 4:29 pm

   “…and the ethic of New Zealanders..”

   Can somebody explain to me what the fuck that little gem of a snippet means? Does it pre-suppose that people living here who are not New Zealanders have different ethics or something? And these ethics that NZIUCN assumes to have knowledge enough of to speak of in this fashion and confidently ascribe to ‘New Zealanders’, what are they?

   I know it may seem like a detail, but I’m noticing more and more a tendency of self appointed spokespeople to assume some specialist ( and presumably ‘not to be questioned’) knowledge with regards the inner workings of everyone else’s grey matter.

   And I doubt if I am alone in being drawn first and foremost to smacking the arrogant bastards one and then, and only then maybe supporting them on the issue they draw attention to…if at all. Which is not to say ‘not supporting the issue’, but not supporting them and their paternal and arrogant contribution.

   Glad to have that off my chest on this shitty overcast Monday.
6. Kate Sutton 6

   25 May 2010 at 10:53 am

   This is one last push for submissions against Mining our precious conservation land. Submissions are due 5pm tomorrow (Wednesday 26th May). Submissions take 2 minutes via this online form. Our natural landscape is surely worth a couple of moments of your time?

   Online form here
   http://submissions.watchdog.org.nz/

   for more information see this great website.

   http://www.2precious2mine.org.nz/

   Be the change you want to see in the world make a submission and pass this message on.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS