There's a photograph of Rosemarie (I can't post it or the article as it isn't on-line), showing her holding a handful of the soil she presently cultivates, and the caption reads:
"Unknown: What's in this soil?
The Moanataiari case has made me think about the history of the soils in my own garden beds and about long-term air and water quality issues that might arise from Think Big lignite developments upwind."
Curiously and coincidentally, I had a letter published in the same newspaper this morning, on the theme of gardens and lignite.
Mining ruins farms
I struggle to believe Greg Visser's assurances that the Mataura farms destroyed by mining for lignite will be put back better than before once the mining is finished.
Solid Energy plans to remove millions of tonnes of lignite from beneath some of the best farmland in the world.
To do that, they'll have to bulldoze that excellent soil off to one side, dig up the layers of subsoil and pile it somewhere, then with their huge machines grind the mass of lignite out and carry it away.
If I imagine this happening on the scale of my garden, I have no confidence whatsoever that what I've developed during the years could be "put back better than before"., especially given that so much of my garden would become a deep-pit lake, as is promised for Mataura.
Mr Visser might believe that the wonders of diggers and bulldozers, urea and propaganda can care for the farmland of Mataura, but I don't."
Robert Guyton
Serendipitous, eh!
14 comments:
Robert I totally agree with your letter, I shook my head reading Visers very PC letter last week about how SE would rejuvenate the land back to better than what is was ....
Total BS as you correctly stated in your letter once the soil is disturbed it looses it previous nutrients and vitality .... The one honesty he did say is the open cast mine will be flooded when finished .. But what he didn't add because it will be littered with lignite residue it will most likely become a toxic lake and will be for some years...........
Thanks, Pauline.
I'd like to think gardeners would think about the lignite proposals in the same terms I describe. Bringing it home to people can be a good way to get them to identify with the reality of an issue.
Rosemary did that very well in her article.
Perhaps the way to ensure the mine doesn't open is, instead of opposing it, rather insist that they do return it to it's original state. This will involve bringing back sub soil of the same volume as the lignite they remove, tests on the sub soil they remove to ensure it doesn't contain iron sulphide which would lead to acidification of ground water. If FeS is in the sub soil, adding enough lime to neutralize it, mixing it thoroughly, return of top soil, planting of whatever was there before and if the planting doesn't succeed, doing the whole thing over again. Of course they would have to post a bond ahead of time to ensure the money was available for such mitigation.
They can't plead that because they are an SOE, their guarantee is backed by the government. We are seeing what is happening to SOE's.
http://mtkass.blogspot.co.nz/2009/10/wood-waste-and-urea.html
I like your idea of a bond, William.
Any suggestions for a figure :-)
I have no faith that anyone could repatriate the ground in question. Even thinking of the hydrology and the changes that would occur during the mining is enough to despair over that plan. All this is not taking into account the greater harm: the release of huge volumes of green house gas into the atmosphere, at digging and all along the processing chain til it's 'burned up' in what ever way it's used.
Irresponsible and future-harming.
paulinem. not sure about Mataura Lignite but I know Newvale lignite is not toxic to plants. Years ago we used Newvale Lignite. The lignite was shoveled into the coalshed through a removable window. A snall area of lawn immediately below that window would be covered with small lignite chips and dust that fell between the trailer and the shed each time we shoveled off a load. Of course we cleaned up what we could but inevitably the dust and finer chips remained. After a time,close to that shed wall, below the window grew an extremely vigorous very healthy patch of clover. In the opinion of this aging farmer those lignite fines certainly were not toxic to the clover. With hindsight i regret not digging it up to see how well nodulated the roots were. If the clover topgrowth was any indication the rhyzobia bacteria were not hindered by the lignite either.
By the way, RG and paulinem. I did eventually get around to posting a response to you two bloggers on the "Bernie Napp - funny fellow thread". That post was way back on or about 27th Jan.Was rather busy at the time, so retired to catch up and consider my response. I eventually responded on or about the 4th Feb. So my thoughts are there for you to read or ignore. Your call.
...and you will be in a position to require a bond, presumably, via ES.
FWIW I found that when a bond is imposed the person/company who provides it will, if things go wrong, do a simple calculation to determine whether it is worth while limiting their liability to the value of the bond. When it is, they hand the problem and the bond money over and leave it in the bond-holder's hands. And thus we end up with problems like Mapua and the Tui Mine.
FBB - re lignite dust and fines being 'good for the soil' - yes, I believe it would be useful as a top-dressing in the proportions you describe - after all, it's not far from being wood, however, at deeper levels and combined with other impurities that are found in it, you'd need to be very sure before going ahead with a mass 'churn'.
In any case, I won't be as good as what was there. Quality biological agriculture avoids the application of bulk materials from elsewhere and instead encourages the growth of plants to capture God-given energy from the sun and substance from the air to make soil. The old 'we'll grind up this island and spread it across our own' should never be repeated again in the course of human history, imo.
Armchair Critic - good point re the value of bonds. I know from experience that industry fights tooth and nail to avoid paying them, for starters. Extracting a bond from a publicly owned company would be a little self defeating also - it would be we tax-payers who would be stumping up either way.
I'll ask questions of ES around liability for soil reparation etc.
(FBB - I've moved your comment to here and into the moment, as it's very interesting and others might wish to comment)
Farmer Baby Boomer said...
well I'm back RG. You have certainly been busy writing and posting in my absence.{i have had the odd brief look but had no time to post}
To deal with the points you raised -
Our home heating is mainly done with home grown wood.AS well as a large wood burner we do have a range with a large fire box that can burn wood or coal. Don't like using coal because of the carbon particles that end up up in the spouting.
Diesel. I am not naive enough to think that diesel produced at Mataura would be any cheaper for us. {Price will continue to be to be based on distance from port.)
RG,you (and paulinem) seem to think that my mind is closed on this subject. I assure you my questions (refer to post Jan.27 5.17pm) were asked with an open mind. I like you want the right decision to be made. We all have different knowledge and experience to bring to this debate.
I am open to any possibility of alternative fuels for our diesel vehicles, but they have to be practical and (in the long run) economic. In the 1980's Oilseed Rape grown on Southland farms was processed in a plant set up at the Awarua phosphate works by a Farmers Coop known as Southoil.It was was known that using vegetable oils (in diesels} had been experimented with in Europe. Experiments were run at Telford Farm Training Institute in South Otago with a Leyland tractor running on a 50/50 blend of rapeseed oil and diesel. Some Southland farmers tried various blends in their own diesels. I tried a little in one of my tractors. I was more adventureous with an my old Datsun Diesel Ute.(Not to much to lose if it had turned to custard!) At one stage I had it running on pure rapeseed oil. (It smelt like a Fish and Chip shop)It ran quite well but was a little hard to start when cold. On the practical side I think the use of Rape oil on farm as fuel could have been made to work (At least as a blend}. The reason it didn't continue was one of economics. Even though fuel prices were extremely high at the time the yield of oil per acre was not enough to compete with diesel.
Of course for anyone with access to used cooking oil the economics are more positive and if you have supplies handy it is reasonably practical. Not a large scale answer though.
I know that vegetable oils are grown and processed in Canterbury. {I know the old "Southoil" expeller went to Ashburton. Though I think i heard some where that they had updated to a more modern machine.) But again economcs are playing a part with the Biodiesel side of the operation because the Govt is subsidising it. And whle that may be acceptable during the early stages of development, it is not affordable in the long term.
Well i've got a bit carried awy words.And as this is an older thread it probably won't be read by many! Better stop. Have a good day RG
In reply, FBB, I'd like to say that if we were to combine vegetable-based diesel fuels with fossil-fuel diesel and a re-think about land management and tractor-use (minimal ploughing, tilling etc.) we might be getting onto the right track. When I'm talking with farmers, I hear the gates come down on discussions on leaving the lignite in the ground as soon as the word diesel comes up and farm vehicles come into the picture. I never hear though, talk of re-designing farm practice to minimize tractor use, for example. Seems New Zealand farmers are welded to their big machines and can't bear to rethink their value. There are other farming systems that seek to become less reliant of fossil fuels and machinery and it's my belief that those systems will prevail in future. Why not develop them to a high degree now, while we have the leisure to do so. On a small scale and by way of example, the home owner can be far better served by a scythe than by a ride-on mower.
I thought the main point of my Southland Times story was the need to ask the dumb (actually smart) questions -- those that get beyond the taken-for-granted reality or the apparent charm of the $$$$$$mega promises. You've extrapolated a bit more than that. I reckon I could learn to love lignite if all my concerns were met. I'm very familar with the stuff from a childhood of using it as a major home heat source. Cheers
Hi Rosemarie - yes, I'm the extrapolater alright! I see the garden (your garden) as a metaphor for Southland and any concerns you expressed, applicable to our whole region, great farm/garden that it is.
For all that, my real concern lies with the lignite itself and the gas it is bound to become. The more gas there is in the air, the rougher the weather. The rougher the weather, the more difficult it will be to grow food reliably. That's the peril I see. Save the soil, leave the lignite, that's what the protesters are saying. I agree with that. Digging up Southland's lignite only prolongs bad practice and threatens our future.
Well you can have minimum tillage now RG if you use Glyphosate! :-) Of course I'm sure that's not in your plan. Not in mine either. For breakfast I use Harraways Organic Whole Rolled Oats because I don't like Glyphosate on my Porridge.
By the way thanks for moving my comment and for your comment that you found it interesting.
Post a Comment