by frog
Ministers have described modern mining techniques as “surgical”. The Prime Minister himself said:
Under modern mining techniques it’s not these big open cast wounds on the landscape that results, it’s a surgical incision in the land.
Colin Espiner noted in his blog:
Then [the PM] started going on about “surgical mining techniques” which sounded a little like military generals talking about surgical strikes, which generally are anything but.
Well, lets have a look at the collatoral damage of modern gold mining in Victoria Forest Park, near Reefton in the South Island.
A tailings pipe spewing 'toothpaste'. Credit: Forest and Bird
You see, coal aside, minerals like gold are no longer found in handy little seams – where they were, they were mined long ago. The amount of gold in the ore mined these days is measured in parts per million, which means a hell of a lot of rock has to be dug up and processed to extract the gold.
The process involves a hell of a lot of water too. And the process ends with a hell of a lot of waste rock (tailings) and water.
To extract gold at OceaniaGold’s Victoria Forest Park mine, the ore is mushed into what one monitor calls “the consistency of toothpaste”.
Then there’s the small problem of what to do with the tailings and polluted water. According to a community monitor, the stream draining the Victoria Forest Park mine is polluted. I’m told that since OceanaGold doesn’t have consent for that, they get fined by the Regional Council – but the fines are less than $1000, which makes continuing to pollute much more cost-effective for the company than building a proper water treatment plant to remove the pollution.
The 'trench warfare' tailings dam. Credit: Forest and Bird
So, “surgical incision mining” is more “trench warfare carnage” in reality.
Published in Environment & Resource Management by frog on Wed, October 7th, 2009
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
Like or Dislike:
7 
2 (+5)
Key has learned that money can be made from casts, open, used, whadeva!
Like or Dislike:
3 
2 (+1)
He could even just have a quick dekko at it on Google Earth (it’s at 41 degrees 40 minutes North 171 degrees 52 minutes East).
If this is modern “surgical” mining techniques, God help the conservation estate.
Like or Dislike:
10 
2 (+8)
…
You say ‘if’ – is it or not?
Like or Dislike:
2 
2 (0)
Anyone know what is able to be done in NZ in response to such actions?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Direct action. For me, our national parks are the ‘line in the sand’ where I give up signing petitions, writing letters and emails and talking, and just go out there and do whatever it takes to stop the bastards. I don’t give a crap if I end up the only one out there in the bush either, and I rule nothing out. Yeah, I’m pissed off.
Like or Dislike:
13 
0 (+13)
I should rephrase as ‘what penalties are applicable’
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
South of the Equator you say 41 40 S…. North would be – somewhere not in New Zealand.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
http://mars2earth.blogspot.com/2009/10/re-sisters-worldwide-group-of-women.html
and their you-tube group
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=mining+re-sisters&search_type=&aq=f
I would like to see a coordinated effort to pull the stories from here together. Time to get lots and lots of pictures, stories and testamony out to the public. The only way to stop this is to make it unpopular – unfortunately many are just greedy and blinded by their short-term moneyhungry maddness.
Like or Dislike:
6 
0 (+6)
On the assumption that gardeners enjoy a nosy over the fence into broader
fields on matters relating to plant growth and soil health, ROSEMARIE SMITH
probes some questions around a proposed urea plant for Southland.
The proposal to build a large-scale urea plant in Mataura powered by
Southland lignite deposits has certainly fired local imaginations.
Economic development through providing (maybe) cheaper fertiliser for
farmers, saving foreign currency on imports, generating export earnings and
employment opportunities is hailed as a very desirable outcome.
But what is this magic plant-growth-inducing product, and what are the pros
and cons (if any) of its use?
First and foremost, it¹s a bounteous source of nitrogen, naturally found in
mammalian urine, but able to be synthesised in industrial strength and
quantity.
A Œsynthetic organic¹, if that¹s not a contradiction in terms, or simply, if
crudely, described in the fertiliser industry as, Œwhite granular piss¹.
Besides having important industrial uses in glue and resins, urea has played
a critical role as the cheapest, most soluble, plant-accessible form of
nitrogen to push up feed production and support ever-higher livestock
numbers or crop production (including year-round commercial vegetable
production.)
Where small-scale producers like home gardeners can balance nitrogen inputs
and outputs through mulching and composting, especially through use of
nitrogen-fixers like legume crops or animal manures, modern agricultural
production has evolved through using synthetic fertilisers.
While a certain amount of nitrogen is returned to farm soils through urine
and dung, or through decay of vegetative matter, the majority goes off the
farm in milk, meat and crops, and potentially in ground water.
The bi-products eventually generated by the human consumer at the top of the
food chain do not get returned to the system.
New Zealand farming practices have relied on clover to return nitrogen to
the soil, but modern pasture grasses need more nitrogen than clover can
release, especially at times of high need like early spring.
Urea does it better, and conventional soil science sees only pros, and
virtually no cons from its use.
Plants don¹t care whether a molecule of nitrogen has been produced purely
organically or synthesised, so long as it¹s available.
Fertiliser budgeting has been scientifically refined, so that applications
can be finely targeted according to a whole mass of variables there¹s even
very clever software to assist in the calculation.
Admittedly urea¹s easy solubility poses a risk that over-use will result in
run-off and contamination of ground water or streams, with consequent
reduction in aquatic life and toxic algal blooms.
Damp Southland soils, especially those with tile drainage, pose a greater
risk, and nitrogen levels in Southland waterways are an issue.
But Environment Southland land sustainability officer Jim Risk says that
when urea is used properly there¹s not a problem.
³If it¹s is used in a responsible way, according to best management
practices, there should be minimal problems.²
Anything, if used inappropriately, has potential negative effects, but the
majority of people know how to use it and get good advice, he says.
Talk to those involved in a more holistic approach to soil health
(including, organic producers), and there¹s a whole different picture.
Here urea is seen as a harsh, Œquick fix¹ fertiliser with long-term costs in
terms of soil degradation through destabilising microbial life, reducing
organic content, increasing retention of residues and even physical erosion.
That urea-induced growth flush fosters fungal growth, which then needs
chemical treatment, and of course there¹s the long-term nitrate-leaching
Œtimebomb¹.
Both perspectives claim to be scientifically informed, but are looking at
the world through different lens which is not an uncommon state of affairs
in science.
Scientific method will eventually establish who has got it right, though it
will arguably take longer where funding for public good research is not
completely separated from industry interests.
Urea has only been used in quantity in New Zealand since the 1980s, so given
that impacts can be very long-term, concepts of Œbest practice¹ are still
evolving.
High costs encourage experimentation, with some farmers finding they can use
less urea (but gain similar results) though more targeted application,
including direct foliar spray rather than ground application.
Meantime those interested in wider issues of resource management should be
aware that there is a debate, and the sharp end is focused on long-settled
parts of the world where are dense populations and a long history of
intensive agriculture.
Biotechnologies have delivered higher yields, at least initially, but the
longer term is raising alarms about environmental costs, including the
carbon footprint of high-energy inputs.
What everyone does agree on though is that it¹s a complex issue, and that
farming practices are continually changing in the light of experience.
New Zealand has been farmed for a relatively short period of time, but our
soil and water are clearly our major resources, and to be watched over
carefully.
Even from over the fence.
Note: most of those interviewed for this story were very reluctant to be
named, explaining the fertiliser industry is a cut-throat world where
personal, scientific and business reputations can be put at risk by taking a
controversial stance. That seems a great pity in the interests of public
debate. This story is no doubt over-simplified, maybe misinterpreted, but if
it encourages debate, so much the better.
Like or Dislike:
5 
0 (+5)
Eric Roy is using his column in your newspaper to pimp for one of the
dirtiest of all industries, open cast coal mining.
He says, ” No company nowadays wants to do something that is
environmentally unfriendly or takes away from our natural environment’ -
Eric, if you know of any huge open cast coal mines, like the one you are
touting, that doesn’t ‘take away from the natural environment’, please
tell us where in the world that is!
Open cast coal mines are enormous holes in the ground. In this case, that
hole will be in beautiful Southland farmland. Not taking away from our
natural environment? That’s complete nonsense!
There are few industries that are more environmentally unfriendly than one
that processes low-grade brown coal into diesel and urea.
Converting productive Southland farmland into ‘New Zealand’s biggest
industrial park’ is an insult to the Southland farmers who have cared for
that land for generations and it is an insult to all Southlanders who love
their green and unspoiled landscapes.
Eric, cut the spin and the green-wash and get on with representing
Southland’s real interests, not those of big industries that would take us
for fools.
Like or Dislike:
9 
1 (+8)
Eric, cut the spin and the green-wash and get on with representing
Southland’s real interests, not those of big industries that would take us
for fools
Isn’t ‘big dairy’ a lot bigger industry than ‘big coal’?
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
Oh that’s right we still have sheep – still?
Thanks for the article greenfly.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Stephen – ‘Big Dairy’ is the driver for ‘Big Coal’. It’s the dairy industry that are pushing the production of urea from lignite – ‘gold from straw’ scenario that has Southland farmers all gleeful. They are blinkering themselves from the reality of an open cast coal mine and the loss of excellent farmland that entails. If it had been a proposal for lifestyle blocks, the Fed’s would’ve been all over it. The valley the ‘industrial complex’ and the open cast mine is to be created in, is also the home of Fonterra’s hideous Milk Powder factory, by curious coincidence.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
“South of the Equator you say 41 40 S…. North would be – somewhere not in New Zealand.”
It sure doesn’t look like New Zealand – at least not anymore. Actually I never got the hang of latitude and longitude – I’m just used to working in northings and eastings as in the simple, yet brilliant, NZ Map Grid.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Oh, *CLICK* Hope you enjoy the smell of dumbarse in the morning!
Like or Dislike:
0 
1 (-1)
Yeah Got that right. Doesn’t look line NZ
Looks sort of like – one of the places we used AVIRIS to monitor. Ought to ask for a visit. I know the team would be keen to come.
http://speclab.cr.usgs.gov/PAPERS/leadville99/ldv99.html
http://speclab.cr.usgs.gov/PAPERS.summitv/summitv.html
It isn’t good to be one of the places that AVIRIS needs to fly over. One of the others was the World Trade Center…
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Well there is already proof that the “Precision Surgery” is not working! The Pike River Coal mine situated in the Paparoa National Park has recently been issued with two infringement notices one of which involved a serious oil spill. They have not even produced any coal thus far and yet we already have environmental mayhem. So much for precision! Worse all this is happening behind locked gates – pass only entry — well away from prying eyes – “precision” military style.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Google Maps
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)