Environmental cost and economics of mine under fire

Press, 8 March 1984, Page 2

Environmental cost and economics of mine under fire

PA Wellington The economics and environmental “devastation” of the planned Ohinewai opencast coalmine near Huntly were attacked by Opposition political parties yesterday. Social Credit said that millions of dollars in compensation would be paid out for the loss of some of New Zealand’s most productive farmland.

The Labour Party said that the $421 million Waikato mine proposal, given initial approval this week by the Government, would have dramatically reduced benefits because of the greatly increased coal cost.

Coal produced by the mine for the expanded New Zealand Steel mill at Glenbrook is expected to cost up to $69 a tonne, compared with an estimate of $45 a tonne given last year by the Mines Division of the Ministry of Energy. Labour’s associate spokesman on energy, Mr D. J. Butcher, and the energy and development committee convener, Dr M. J. Cullen, asked whether Ohinewai coal would be cheaper than Australian coal.

Social Credit’s spokesman on public works, Mr Neil Morrison, said that the cost increases on Otago irrigation schemes “paled into insignificance against the devastation” of the Waikato farmland.

The preliminary feasibility assessment of the Ohinewai project has upset some farmers and resulted in two watchdog organisa-

tions querying costs. The Minister of Energy, Mr Birch, announced on Tuesday that a consultant’s study had found the Ohinewai project as the only viable source of coal to meet the needs of the nearby New Zealand Steel mill at Glenbrook.

He released the pre-feasi-bility study, which sets 1988 as the target year for coal production. An Ohinewai farmer, Mr John Hill, said he learnt for the first time that he might have to sell his property when he went to hear Mr Birch talk about the coalmine plans for his district on Tuesday. He discovered that the Ministry of Energy’s Mines Division had marked his property, in his family for about 100 years, as the site of settling ponds for water pumped out of the proposed huge opencast mine.

Mr Hill said that he had always thought the development would not directly affect his farm, although he knew there was a possibility his land would dry out as a result of dewatering at the mine site.

“It means we are going to think hard about the future,” he said. “But until we get that final decision (on whether the mine is to go ahead), it is not much use making decisions.” For his neighbours, Mr Howard and Mrs Gaylene Falconer, the meeting provided little cheer — they still do not know if they are likely to have to sell up and move.

The Coalition for Open

Government, said the proposed mine would be uneconomic and environmentally damaging, and yesterday the Waikato Watchdog co-ordinator, Mr Brian Dixon, said that Mr Birch would go down in history as the politician who sacrificed Waikato’s most significant natural, cultural, and agricultural assets to “think big.”

Mr Dixon said that Waikato Watchdog responded to the cost estimates by repeating a call for an immediate reduction in Waikato coal supply commitments. It also wanted an urgent public inquiry into Waikato’s development options.

He said the plans were “ridiculously expensive and difficult.”

The Waikato people needed to decide whether the public could keep for ever pouring money and resources into the bottomless “think big” pit.

Mr Birch admitted that he himself was not happy with consultants’ costings. The study said the price of the coal could go as high as just under $B5 a tonne if a different production option was used, but Mr Birch told reporters before a meeting with the Ohinewai landowners that “one of the things we must do now is look at how we can get the costings down.” Mr Birch also said he and the Mines Division were aiming for a compromise between long public debate on plans for the mine and rushing the proposal through.