5 ms·

A common trick in mining is to send surveyors to an area they don’t want so the various interests just so happen to decide that the area being surveyed is the o

A common trick in mining is to send surveyors to an area they don’t want so the various interests just so happen to decide that the area being surveyed is the one with historical / ecological significance. After that has been established they send surveyors for the area they do want.

kmoser 1mo ago
Why wouldn't those various interests just complain about the next area being surveyed? Why would they stop after the first?
- cjbgkagh 1mo ago
  The ecological studies also cover the surrounding areas. They can’t say that absolutely everything is significant so to make the stronger case they pile the significance into the area they think is the likely site to be developed. Then the miners are ‘responding’ to the feedback by relocating to a less significant location that already has been ecologically studied and deemed insignificant.
  - gamblor956 1mo ago
    That's not how environmental surveys work, or the process for challenging them. They absolutely must include detailed information about the actual site and the activity proposed to occur at that site. Subsequent developments can take advantage of the initial survey but must still provide an environmental study about how their own activity will impact their specific site. The #1 reason for environmental surveys being deemed invalid in court is the course of action you discussed: developers trying to avoid scrutiny by not being sufficiently specific about what they are actually planning to do or where.
    - cjbgkagh 1mo ago
      The miners were doing mining surveys for internal use only, the environmentalist were submitting the cultural / environmental surveys as complaints which they’re allowed to do as part of the law the local government made for itself since it was government land that was being leased. It was more of a public consultation process, if no one complained then that’s fine too. The miners already have strict environmental regulations they have to follow regardless of where they build. Having seen these submissions it’s often stuff like, there is a river and since rivers are where people tend to congregate if we were to look we might find some ancient stone age human artifact despite no such thing ever being found within 100s of kms. Also rivers move, especially small ones.
- bronson 1mo ago
  If you say no 100% of the time, your work product won't be worth much.
- HPsquared 1mo ago
  It costs political capital to do so.

kmoser 1mo ago

Why wouldn't those various interests just complain about the next area being surveyed? Why would they stop after the first?

cjbgkagh 1mo ago
The ecological studies also cover the surrounding areas. They can’t say that absolutely everything is significant so to make the stronger case they pile the significance into the area they think is the likely site to be developed. Then the miners are ‘responding’ to the feedback by relocating to a less significant location that already has been ecologically studied and deemed insignificant.
- gamblor956 1mo ago
  That's not how environmental surveys work, or the process for challenging them. They absolutely must include detailed information about the actual site and the activity proposed to occur at that site. Subsequent developments can take advantage of the initial survey but must still provide an environmental study about how their own activity will impact their specific site. The #1 reason for environmental surveys being deemed invalid in court is the course of action you discussed: developers trying to avoid scrutiny by not being sufficiently specific about what they are actually planning to do or where.
  - cjbgkagh 1mo ago
    The miners were doing mining surveys for internal use only, the environmentalist were submitting the cultural / environmental surveys as complaints which they’re allowed to do as part of the law the local government made for itself since it was government land that was being leased. It was more of a public consultation process, if no one complained then that’s fine too. The miners already have strict environmental regulations they have to follow regardless of where they build. Having seen these submissions it’s often stuff like, there is a river and since rivers are where people tend to congregate if we were to look we might find some ancient stone age human artifact despite no such thing ever being found within 100s of kms. Also rivers move, especially small ones.
bronson 1mo ago
If you say no 100% of the time, your work product won't be worth much.
HPsquared 1mo ago
It costs political capital to do so.