Coromandel Watchdog of Hauraki has submitted a challenging submission with 16 expert witnesses to the Fast-track Panel on the Waihi North gold mining project.
We are one of several groups asked to submit to the Panel including tangata whenua, Forest and Bird and the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment. The Parliamentary Commissioner submission has unusually strong critique of the economic evidence of the company.
Watchdog has challenged their evidence on the environment and economics and we are shocked by the uncertainties they are willing to gamble with to access gold. There is meant to be regional and national benefit from these mines, but they have not proven this let alone addressed costs as well as benefits.
“The Application has combined a proposal for the first mine under the conservation forest in our region with expanding mining in Waihi town. These projects are nothing like each other and should not have been lumped together for Oceana’s convenience.” Catherine Delahunty, Chair
Oceana Gold’s application has shown that they are way of date with their failure to include the long-term costs of their operation which will have significant affects on the public and the Crown.
We learned during our work with experts, including two from USA, that we have all underestimated the risks from cyanide residues in the tailings dams and a new proposed dam which will add to the problem.
We learned from our international mining expert that tailing dam failure is generally unavoidable over 200 years and that Oceana Gold have no realistic plan to protect our wider region from tailings dam failure. If any of the dams break at Waihi Oceana seems to think the tailings will enter the Ohinemuri river next to the mine and then stop at Paeroa. This is ridiculous as mine tailings can travel hundreds of kilometres and there is no magic barrier for the river at Paeroa. The future of Tikapa Moana ( Hauraki Gulf) must be protected at all costs from toxic waste and they have no plan for this.
We were dismayed to see their Application include permission to “accidentally” kill, as well as relocate, frogs to access gold when they are one of the most at risk frog species in the world, the kauripeke, Archeys frog. Their plans to make up for blasting under the Wharekirauponga frog habitat which they know will effects the frogs via sustained vibration, are based on loose and debated figures as to the numbers of Archeys frogs. The proposed large scale dewatering under forest behind Whangamatā are based on an absence of baseline data ore any certainty about the impacts in the forest and sensitive species like frogs and lizards.
“There are many more issues we are challenging including risks to freshwater, the total destruction of a natural spring, subsidence risks, hydrological risk, social impact and more.”
We support the concerns of the Whangamatā community who provided quotes to our submission from people who have deep concerns about the Wharekirauponga project in particular. They have not been mentioned in the gold company’s narrow social impact assessment which talks only about jobs for some.
We are delighted to see such strong submissions from other groups and that the PCE submission supports our concerns. Their comments that a proper cost benefit analysis is missing from the project echo the concerns of our expert evidence. The PCE has criticised the models used to “prove” regional and national benefit and again this coincides with our experts critique.
We will have more to say on what we have learned about the proposal during this process, from the conversations we have had with a wide range of people – including experts in many different fields. Our concerns were absolutely reinforced by these conversations.
This is not a positive industry to have operating in Aotearoa, in Conservation land, leaving toxic waste and degraded landscapes behind.