-{These are sent by email after signing-up to take the questionnaires at:
http://www.nzbcsd.org.nz/shapenz/
- which has:
"Have your say on shaping New Zealand's future.
ShapeNZ is run by: http://www.nzbcsd.org.nz/
- the New Zealand Business Council for Sustainable Development."}-
"ShapeNZ" Mining Survey, May 2010:
{My check-box picks start with:
" # "
- while their "Why do you say that?" I answer starting:
"# · " .}
A large proportion of New Zealand’s land area is in the conservation estate, where some mining occurs. Some of this land is in Schedule 4 areas where mining is not currently allowed.
Page 1 of 13
Conserving more land:
The NZ Government is considering whether or not to remove the highest level of conservation protection (called Schedule 4) from 70 square kilometers of land in five areas, so that applications for exploration and mining activity can be considered on a case-by-case basis.
It is also considering adding 14 areas, covering 124 square kilometres to Schedule 4.
Schedule 4 restricts mineral-related activity in specified public conservation areas.
Schedule 4 land makes up about 40% of public conservation land or 13% of New Zealand’s total land area.
Do you support or oppose proposals to add another 124 square kilometres of land to Schedule 4 of the Crown Minerals Act?
Strongly support
# Support
Neutral
Oppose
Strongly oppose
Don't know
Why is that?
# · I don't agree with NZ governments' view that their main job is to grow the economy, the National-led govt. being stronger on this.
· I am proud to be a NZer, partly because of the big fraction of the country which has not been despoiled by human activity (farming, mining, roads and buildings).
· So naturally I "support proposals to add another 124 square kilometres of land to Schedule 4 of the Crown Minerals Act."
Some exploration and mining already occurs in conservation areas, but not on Schedule 4 land.
Generally speaking, do you support or oppose mining on conservation land which is not Schedule 4?
Strongly support
Support
# Neutral
Oppose
Strongly oppose
Don't know
Why is that?
# · Neutral since the outlines of conservation land are usually straight lines (when not coast or rivers) so some pockets of land currently in, could just as well be out -- they don't have the same reason to be labelled "Conservation" as the main block.
Generally speaking, do you support or oppose _exploration_ of Schedule 4 land to access the mineral resource that could be mined, subject to the normal planning and environmental protection procedures under the Resource Management Act?
Strongly support
Support
Neutral
# Oppose
Strongly oppose
Don't know
Page 2 of 13
Removing areas from Schedule 4
Firstly, some background for you…
The Government is considering removing these areas from Schedule 4 so that applications for exploration and mining activity can be considered on a case-by-case basis:
* Parts of the Coromandel Peninsula Forest Park, and the Otahu and Parakawai geological areas to the south of the peninsula
* Part of Great Barrier Island in Auckland’s Hauraki Gulf
* Much of the Rakiura National Park, which covers about 85% of Stewart Island, and
* The Inangahua Sector of Paparoa National Park on the South Island’s West Coast
These areas are protected because they have earlier been added to Schedule 4 of the Crown Minerals Act.
Schedule 4 restricts mineral-related activity in specified public conservation areas. These have outstanding conservation or environmental values. These include unique scenic beauty, rare plant and animal life and recreational, tourism, cultural and historical values.
The Government says these are areas with “known and significant mineral potential”.
It estimates the potential value of the minerals in the 73 square kilometres of Schedule 4 areas under consideration is about $19 to $20 billion. Of this $13.7 billion is in the Coromandel and $4.3 billion on Great Barrier Island, a total of $18 billion.
The Government earns royalties from mining companies for the minerals they extract, ranging between 1.5% and 2% for high value minerals, like gold and silver. Workers in the mining sector (including oil and gas) earn an average income of $60,000 per employee, over double the national average. In 2000-2005 the sector returned an average $360,000 of gross domestic product per full time employee, nearly six times the national average.
We’ll ask you about your views on removing Schedule 4 protection from individual areas shortly, but firstly:
Generally speaking, do you support or oppose mining on Schedule 4 conservation land?
Strongly support
Support
Neutral
Oppose
# Strongly oppose
Don't know
Why is that?
# · Mainly my previous objection to the view that increasing the NZ GDP is always good.
· In this case, there were excellent, documented reasons for naming these Schedule 4 areas: "mining forbidden", and nothing has changed.
- If we were significantly below US$10,000 per person, perhaps NZ$2,000 per person, adding to GDP by such means as mining small parts of Schedule 4 areas might possibly be justified.
· But the "average" NZer is actually too rich already, for sustainable living, so the government getting 1.5% and 2% from an activity which, with its support areas, clearly degrades Schedule 4 places, _cannot_ be justified.
The Government says mineral wealth in Schedule 4 areas is estimated to be worth $19 to $20 billion if all were extracted. If it were, the Government would be paid royalties by the mining companies over the long term. New Zealand also benefits from tax paid by mining companies and from payment for services bought locally, including wages and salaries of employees and contractors.
In your view, is this sufficient reward for extracting the minerals from Schedule 4 land?
Yes
# No
Don't know
Why do you say that?
# · See above -- we don't need more money, it's as simple as that.
Page 3 of 13
Schedule 4 areas
Now we’ll give you brief descriptions of the minerals and conservation values of each area a Government stock take has recommended removing from Schedule 4.
We’d then appreciate your views on whether or not each area should be removed from Schedule 4.
_Inangahua-Paparoa National Park_
The Inangahua Sector of Paparoa National Park, on the South Island’s West Coast, is proposed for removal from Schedule 4.
The Inangahua Sector covers four areas to the west of the Inangahua River between Te Wharau (Stony) River and the Buller River.
The Paparoa National Park, established in 1987, comprises a number of areas covering about 30,000 hectares in northern Westland. Several parcels of land have been added over time to the park, and in 2008 most of these were also added to Schedule 4.
Mineral potential:
Mainly coal mining has potential in this area and some mining occurs now. The four separate areas of the Inangahua Sector have medium to high mineral prospectivity for coal. There are several mining and exploration permits covering the Inangahua Coalfield. The field currently produces 120,000 tonnes of coal a year, mainly supplying industry in the top half of the South Island.
The potential of the coalfield has not yet been fully explored and evaluation of the importance of individual areas will require drilling and more detailed assessment. There may also be coal seam gas potential.
Conservation issues:
The four areas of the Inangahua Sector contain substantial areas of unlogged forest (almost 80 percent), with a significant proportion on limestone substrates. They include areas of previously logged lowland terrace beech forest in good condition and are important for wildlife, including threatened bird species (great spotted kiwi, kâkâ, kererû).
All four areas adjoin and complement more extensive areas of protected forest. Areas within Paparoa National Park are of significant cultural importance to Ngâi Tahu as well as containing pounamu resource which is owned by Ngâi Tahu. The glacial karst areas of the Inangahua Sector contain places of cultural value to iwi, including archaeological sites.
Do you support or oppose areas of the Inangahua Sector of Paparoa National Park being removed from Schedule 4 and therefore being made available for exploration and possible mining?
Strongly support
Support
Neutral
Oppose
# Strongly oppose
Don't know
Why do you say that?
# · Coal should not be burnt but saved underground (same for petroleum) for possible future use as very-long-life plastics. Long-chain hydrocarbons (not the shortest, CH4 and C2H6) have reduced-entropy already -- the longer the chain of Cs the less entropy -- so for humans to _increase_ entropy by burning them is a thermodynamic mistake; it speeds-up the tendency to break-up-and-dissipate (i.e. increase entropy) that is the fundamental law of the universe.
_Stewart Island_
Further investigation and analysis are being undertaken of parts of Rakiura National Park (not including the Hananui/Mount Anglem area) as part of the Government’s mineral investigation programme in 2010.
Rakiura National Park was formed in 2002 and at 139,960 hectares it covers about 85 percent of Stewart Island. It was added to Schedule 4 in 2008.
Mineral potential:
The potential value of these resources is estimated to be $7 billion at today’s prices, with most ($5.4 billion) being in rare earth elements.
Within the national park, the most documented mineral occurrences, particularly gold, copper, tin and tungsten are associated with granites of the Median Batholith, which cover more than half of the island.
Conservation issues:
Rakiura National Park has high conservation values. The area is recognised as having outstanding scenery and contains features of international, national and regional importance. It is an oceanic island with a distinctive climate, species and ecosystems.
Stewart Island has developed a substantial tourism industry for its small population base, and it is increasingly seen as a niche eco-tourism destination by domestic and international visitors. Visitors are attracted to its pristine environment, its relative isolation and lack of urban development, and a growing range of outdoor activities based on the island’s conservation attributes. Tourism is the main source of income on the island, overtaking fishing as the historical source of income and population growth.
Feedback to DOC on the Rakiura Conservation Management Strategy highlighted the potential for Rakiura to become New Zealand’s eco-tourism jewel and the opportunity it offers for New Zealand to position itself as a world-class eco-tourism destination.
Do you support or oppose areas of the Rakiura National Park being removed from Schedule 4 and therefore being made available for exploration and possible mining?
Strongly support
Support
Neutral
Oppose
# Strongly oppose
Don't know
Why do you say that?
# · Added to all I've said: the reasons are insufficient, since gold, copper, tin and tungsten are dispersed widely requiring _huge_ amounts of tailings to be dumped.
· Within 50 years the human race will have completely over-run the Northern hemisphere and New Zealand (Aotearoa) will be one of a handful of places in the world where eco-tourism is still possible (given suitable means of getting here; I suspect it'll be by biofuelled air transport).
Page 4 of 13
Coromandel Forest Park – Otahu and Parakawai
Two main areas of the Coromandel are proposed for removal from Schedule 4 – part of the Coromandel peninsula to the north, and two ecological areas to the south.
Firstly, the two ecological areas:
The 396 hectare Otahu Ecological Area is part of the Coromandel Forest Park, located south-west of Whangamata. The 68 hectare Parakawai Geological Area is located nearby and is also part of the Coromandel Forest Park.
These two areas are located within the formations that confine several significant gold deposits, including Te Aroha, Karangahake, Golden Cross, Wharekiraponga and Ohui.
Mineral potential:
They are likely to have excellent potential for medium grade and medium tonnage, gold-silver vein deposits. It is estimated there is potential within the two areas for a million-ounce ore body, which would be worth approximately $1.5 billion at today’s prices.
Conservation issues:
The Otahu Ecological Area comprises lowland to montane forest, including kauri, and is part of the largely forested Otahu River catchment. This catchment drains to the Otahu Estuary.
The Otahu Estuary and catchment is one of few areas remaining in the Coromandel that provides a reasonably intact natural sequence of habitat from the upper reaches of stream tributaries in the mountains to the marine habitats of the ocean. The area provides valuable habitat for North Island brown kiwi, Hochstetter's and Archey's frogs, as well as native fisheries.
The conservation values of the Parakawai Geological Area are similar to those of the surrounding conservation park land, which is not covered by Schedule 4. Distinctive geological features exposed by past quarrying are considered worthy of protection. The streams of this part of the park have high habitat values for threatened native freshwater species.
Do you support or oppose the Coromandel Forest Park Otahu and Parakawai ecological areas being removed from Schedule 4 and therefore being made available for exploration and possible mining?
Strongly support
Support
Neutral
# Oppose
Strongly oppose
Don't know
Why do you say that?
# · I strongly oppose Otau being removed from Schedule 4, and am neutral about the Parakawai ecological area -- Mining could possibly be justified there -- but since they are lumped together (probably for economic reasons) I choose to oppose both.
Coromandel Peninsula
Currently, all public conservation land north and north-west of State Highway 25A (Kôpû- Hikuai road) and the road from Hikuai to Pauanui Beach known as the Hikuai Settlement Road, and the internal waters of the Coromandel Peninsula (such as harbours and enclosed bays), are listed in Schedule 4.
Mineral potential:
The Coromandel Peninsula is one of the most mineral-rich regions of New Zealand. It includes most of the Hauraki Goldfield, which comprises a large number of mineral deposits.
The peninsula is one of the foremost epithermal gold provinces in the world and is said to be extremely under-explored. The value of potential resources for 12 metallic and six non-metallic minerals for the wider Coromandel area (including the Otahu Ecological Area and the Parakawai Geological Areas) is conservatively estimated to be $54 billion (mostly in gold, silver and peat).
Conservation issues:
About 30 percent is managed by DOC, and sections of that land have high conservation values, including populations of threatened endemic frogs, skinks and geckos. The Coromandel Peninsula has a variety of ecosystem and habitat types, including significant remnant kauri, tawa and podocarp forest. It is home to a number of threatened species, including pâteke, North Island kâkâ, North Island brown kiwi and invertebrates such as Moehau wçtâ and Moehau stag beetle, the highly threatened Archey’s frog and several threatened species of skink and gecko species and frogs. Streams provide habitat for a diverse native fish fauna, including threatened species such as the shortjaw kôkopu and longfin eel.
A range of threatened and endemic plant species such as the nationally critical dwarf greenhood orchid and the endemic mountain daisy are in its forests. The peninsula includes areas of outstanding natural landscape.
Do you support or oppose public conservation land in the Coromandel Peninsula being removed from Schedule 4 and therefore being made available for exploration and possible mining?
Strongly support
Support
Neutral
Oppose
# Strongly oppose
Don't know
Why do you say that?
# · I have been (and still am) a quarter-owner of an 87-ha property in the Kauaeranga Valley, since February 1991 (Companies No. 500799), with ranges east and west of us.
· We four have a common interest in revegetating as much as possible of our land in the original natives (farming the lowland paddocks to pay the rates).
· I am adamantly (a) opposed to anything which negatively impacts the Coromandel's ecology and scenery, and (b) opposed to giving ownership of surface or underground resources to foreigners, even when they pay NZers what they consider a lot of money for such ownership privileges.
· If NZ businesses, some decade in the future, require gold or silver for their commercial products, "keyhole mining" might be allowed in carefully selected locations, but just to sell the metal now for a few billion dollars is ludicrous, in my opinion.
Great Barrier Island
One specific area (the 705-hectare Te Ahumata Plateau on Great Barrier Island) is proposed for removal from Schedule 4. Other public conservation land on the Hauraki Gulf islands will remain protected in Schedule 4.
Mineral potential:
Te Ahumata Plateau on Great Barrier Island is considered to have significant mineral potential. This includes excellent potential for a number of medium-scale, high-grade gold and silver deposits at depth with a potential value of $4.3 billion at today’s prices.
Conservation issues:
Te Ahumata Plateau is largely under regenerating shrublands, with some patches of remnant broadleaf forest. The plateau forms part of the regenerating forested areas along the spine of the island, which is one of the largest possum- free areas in New Zealand.
Biodiversity values are not well known, but the native shrub daisy, which is in serious decline, is found in the area. Great Barrier endemic species such as Chevron skink and the shrub daisy Olearia allomii may be present.
Do you support or oppose public conservation land on the Te Ahumata Plateau at Great Barrier Island being removed from Schedule 4 and therefore being made available for exploration and possible mining?
Strongly support
Support
Neutral
Oppose
# Strongly oppose
Don't know
Why do you say that?
# · Within 25-to-50 years Auckland will be a Mecca for eco-tourism (see my earlier comments), and a few hundred million dollars (1.5% to 2% of a handful of billion dollars) will be seen as peanuts in comparison.
Page 5 of 13
Effects of mining
Thinking about mining on Schedule 4 conservation land how do you rate its effect on the following?
Very good Good Neutral Bad Very bad Don't know
Temporary new jobs _
Permanent new jobs _
Tourism jobs _
Regional economic growth _
National economic growth _
New Zealand’s wealth _
Royalties paid to Government _
Tax paid to Government _
Native birds and plants _
Tourism _
Very good Good Neutral Bad Very bad Don't know
Scenery _
Recreation _
Public access _
Nearby communities _
New Zealand’s reputation overseas
Page 6 of 13
Conservation fund
The Government is proposing to put 50% of minerals royalty revenue from public conservation areas into a new Conservation Fund.
At least $2 million a year will be put in the fund for the first four years and a maximum of $10 million a year. The fund won’t be used to deal with the effects of modern mining. Bids to use the funds for conservation projects will be chosen by an independent panel.
Do you support or oppose a new conservation fund being set up using royalties from minerals mined from public conservation land?
Strongly support
Support
# Neutral
Oppose
Strongly oppose
Don't know
Why do you say that?
# · While such a fund, even as small as this, is an acknowledgement that mining is very detrimental to conservation land, there are far better choices, like forgetting about mining on all schedule 4 conservation land (and consequently not having the fund).
The mining industry
Generally, how responsible do you believe the mining industry in New Zealand has been in managing the effects of mining on the environment and local communities?
Very irresponsible
# Irresponsible
Responsible
Very responsible
Don’t know
Why do you say that?
# · I know about the few places where e.g. an access road has gone around a tree instead of cutting it down, but spoil heaps and settling-pond dams are what's left in NZ when the valuable stuff goes to the overseas owners -- it would be more responsible not to mine in the first place.
Do you trust or distrust the mining industry to fully restore Schedule 4 areas after mining is complete?
Fully trust
Trust slightly
Neither trust nor distrust
# Distrust
Completely distrust
Don't know
Why is that?
# · There's no way you can "restore" an ecology to the level where skinks and Powelliphant (giant snails) thrive when put back -- the micro-scale, at the level such plants and animals live, may look very similar to humans but would be quite foreign to those small things.
· To do it well enough would take all the profit out of the mining venture, so it's never done properly.
Page 7 of 13
Royalties
Currently mining companies pay the Government a royalty of 1.5 % of net revenue from the first $1.5 million from selling gold, silver and platinum group minerals. On net revenue of more than $1.5 million the royalty rises to 2%.
The royalty paid for extracting other high volume, lower value, minerals – like rocks for roads, coal, limestone and peat – ranges from 10c to $1.50 per tonne sold.
Are these royalty payments to the Government an adequate or inadequate reward to New Zealand for extracting these mineral resources?
Very adequate
Adequate
Not adequate
# Very inadequate
Don't know
Why do you say that?
# · The risky part, exploration and proving, is already done, so such mining isn't comparable with petroleum exploration. and this is a tiny fraction of _net_revenue_. i.e. the costs have already been paid-for.
· The phrase "an adequate or inadequate reward to New Zealand" just emphasises that the main benefit goes overseas.
· There's no justification for NZ government or businesses to try to attract foreign investment; we need only enough overseas earnings (mainly from selling products and services) to pay for the few essential things we cannot make or supply ourselves.
Would these royalty payments be an adequate reward to New Zealand for extracting these mineral resources from an area currently covered by Schedule 4?
Very adequate
Adequate
Not adequate
# Very inadequate
Don't know
Why do you say that?
# · As above, but there's _no_ justification for mining high-conservation-value (Schedule 4) land.
To achieve a balance between economic benefit and the environment, what level of royalty should the Government receive from those mining Schedule 4 conservation land?
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
6%
7-10%
11-20%
21-30%
31-40%
41-50%
More than 50%
# Other (please specify):
More than 50%, and mining only in the Parakawai ecological area.
Why do you say that?
# · John Key, a business-oriented banker, wants to run New Zealand as a business, with his eye on the "bottom line" i.e. bringing in as much money as possible.
· He and his Cabinet are wrong -- New Zealand can be (and should be) a nearly-self-sufficient nation, not trying to entice overseas companies with low royalties.
In Australia the Government has announced it will tax what it calls super profits by mining companies at 40%, while lowering the standard company tax rate over time to 28%.
Should New Zealand have a 40% super tax on mining company profits in addition to royalties?
# Yes
No
Don't know
Why do you say that?
# · All governments should tax super profits, at what will be seen as punitive rates.
Should New Zealand have a 40% super tax on any profits made from mining schedule 4 conservation land?
Yes
No
# Don't know
Why do you say that?
# · With the possible exception of the Parakawai ecological area, _no_ profits should be made from mining schedule 4 conservation land.
Page 8 of 13
Consultation process
Which of the following most closely reflects your view on the Government’s consideration of mining Schedule 4 land?
The Government has already made up its mind
The Government is genuinely listening to the public before making up its mind
# Don’t know
Why do you say that?
# · The government is consulting because it is required to; this National-Act coalition would prefer to ignore the public, especially when it suspects most people disagree with its decisions.
What do you expect the Government will do, after hearing public submissions?
The Government will remove all five proposed areas from Schedule 4 to allow mineral exploration and possibly mining
# Government will keep some of the five proposed areas in Schedule 4 but proceed to remove others
No areas will be removed from Schedule 4
Don't know
Why do you say that?
# · Saving face is intrinsic to governments, so its Bill _will_ proceed, hopefully with only one (or perhaps 2) Schedule 4 protected areas still in it.
Page 9 of 13
Which areas do you think will be kept in Schedule 4 (protecting them from mineral exploration and mining)?
Tick all that apply
# Coromandel Peninsula
Otahu ecological Parakawai geological areas in the Coromandel Forest Park
Great Barrier Island
# Rakiura National Park, Stewart Island
# Inangahua Sector, Paparoa National Park, South Island West Coast
I really don't know
Page 10 of 13
Would a Government decision to remove areas of conservation land from schedule 4 make you more or less likely to vote for the following parties at the next general election?
(Refers to party vote)
* More likely to vote - Less likely to vote - Will not alter my party vote - Don't know
Act _ Less likely
Green _ Will not alter my party vote
Progressive _ Will not alter my party vote
Labour _ Will not alter my party vote
Maori _ Will not alter my party vote
National _ Less likely
NZ First _ Will not alter my party vote
United Future _ Will not alter my party vote
Another party _ Will not alter my party vote
Page 11 of 13
Finally some questions for our statistics
Which party did you vote for at New Zealand’s last general election in 2008?
ACT New Zealand
# Green Party
Jim Anderton's Progressive Party
Labour Party
Maori Party
National Party
New Zealand First Party
United Future
Other party
Chose not to vote
Was not eligible to vote
Don't know or can't remember
If a general election were held tomorrow, which party would you vote for?
ACT New Zealand
# Green Party
Jim Anderton's Progressive Party
Labour Party
Maori Party
National Party
New Zealand First Party
United Future
Other party
Choose not to vote
Not eligible to vote
Don't know
Page 13 of 13
Finally which of the following best describes your intention for the next general election?
I definitely won’t vote
I probably won’t vote
I probably will vote
# I definitely will vote
I will not be eligible to vote
We appreciate your help and thank you for the time you have taken to fill out this survey. Please take this opportunity to add anything further that you want to say in the space below:
# · I have been most impressed with the extent and detail in the descriptions/background you give ("Mineral potential", "Conservation issues") before asking your questions -- someone put a lot of time into it and I respond by giving the questions my full attention.
· Thank you.
Would you like us to e-mail you a link to this survey’s results when they’re available?
# Yes
No
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
--
David MacClement, http://davd.i8.com/EFquiz_DsResponses-080515.html#up
https://davd.tripod.com/#new1 ZL1ASX http://davd.pip.verisignlabs.com
http://reocities.com/davd.geo/#earths I am at http://bit.ly/D-BGnhthNZ
^arkiv davdATihug.co.nz RePosts http://davd.i8.com/R/index-all.html#up
earth our home: http://www.abc.net.au/reslib/200710/r194556_737903.jpg
