Archive | Proposed mine at Mangatawhiri RSS feed for this section

Labour Day Protest at Mangatawhiri

30 Oct

5. Fonterra Could use Wood Waste 4. Coal Cooks The Climate 3 2 Keep The Coal In The Hole 1. CoalCooksTheClimate-CatherineDelahunty


Auckland Coal Action’s Labour Day protest against Fonterra’s proposed new mine at Mangatawhiri was well attended, with almost 30 protestors seen by thousands of cars.

Aucklanders returning home from the long weekend got the message loud and clear: no new coal mines!

Fonterra must switch to wood waste ASAP !




Labour Day (28 October) protest against new coal mine at Mangatawhiri

23 Oct


Labour Day (28 October) Protest against coal mining at Mangatawhiri

22 Oct

Looking for something fun, worthwhile, altruistic, artistically creative, and political, to do on the last day of Labour Weekend? Undecided what to do? Sad at the damage climate change is doing to our world?

Following on from our highly successful protests at Easter and Queens Birthday Weekend seen by around 2000 vehicles, we are returning to Mangatawhiri for an encore.

Why not join the fight against the number 1 preventable cause of global greenhouse gas emissions, coal?

This holiday Monday 28 October, starting at 1.30pm (set up from 1pm)

Meet for a roadside rally against Fonterra’s proposed new coal mine.


Auckland Coal Action is calling for the public to rally to protest Fonterra’s proposed new coal mine.

On the Auckland-bound side of State Highway 2 next to the site of the proposed new coal mine on the Mangatawhiri straight.

Meet after 1pm for roadside protest at the corner of Homestead Road (motorway overbridge) and Bell Road.


Coming from Auckland you will need to take the Mangatawhiri exit from State Highway 2 onto Mangatawhiri Road (incorrectly shown as Mangatangi Rd on Google Maps).

Coming from East, you will need to take the Golf Road exit.

Click here for a map of the area:

What should I bring?

Bring your own banners and signs stating your opposition to climate change, and coal mining. Warm clothing is advised.

Some suggested messages:

  • No New Coal Mines
  • Coal Cooks the Climate
  • Back Off Fonterra
  • Use Wood Waste Fonterra
  • Coal Causes Drought
  • Coal = Climate Chaos = Drought
  • Coal Dried Milk = Climate Dried Paddocks
  • Coal Free Mangatawhiri

Or, invent your very own personal climate change message to present to the public and Fonterra.

What will I do?
There will be lots of returning holiday crowds for you to interact with, Bored out of their minds sitting in the traffic and interested by anything you do, to bring attention to the danger of coal to the environment.

Can anyone come?
Yes. If you are returning from your holiday why not stop and join the rally? You will only be stuck in traffic anyway!

Support the campaign against new coal mines!
Contact Geoff 09 528 9450, 027 384 7927 or Pat 09 296 8538, 021 066 9009

our sign from state highway 2 at Mangatawhiri

Another addition to climate change approved

19 Oct

Media release from Auckland Coal Action 16 October 2013

Today’s decision to approve yet another new coal mine demonstrates again that NZ law cannot deal with climate change says Auckland Coal Action (ACA).

It is also failing to protect communities from disruptions to their way of life and threats to their health.

Consents issued by Waikato Regional and District Councils today have approved a 120,000 tonnes per year coalmine at Mangatawhiri in the north Waikato. The mine was applied for by Glencoal, a Fonterra subsidiary, to supply their three large Waikato milk drying plants.

ACA extends its sympathy and support to the residents of Mangatawhiri that the hearings panel has found their concerns about the health and quality of life effects of dust, noise, water, traffic and landscape to be “minor”. This seems to be largely because they did not call expensive expert witnesses to back up their case and Fonterra’s expensive expert witnesses carried the day.

“The panel acknowledged evidence from Coal Action Aotearoa’s expert witness Mr John Gifford, that Fonterra could use wood waste instead of coal, making the mine unnecessary” said Jeanette Fitzsimons. “However they said they would consider this only if they found the disbenefits to the local community were significant”.

“This is yet another indication that the law relating to climate change is inadequate. There is no serious central government policy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and local government is precluded from considering them when granting resource consents.”

Meanwhile renewable carbon neutral wood waste, which could substitute for the coal, rots on landing sites in forests because coal, which does not have to pay any substantial penalty for its environmental effects, is cheaper.”


Waikato Regional Council approves new Fonterra coal mine at Mangatawhiri

17 Oct
From Jeanette Fitzsimons for Coal Action Network Aotearoa (CANA):
The hearings panel has just issued its consent for Fonterra’s proposed coal mine at Mangatawhiri, south of Auckland.
It hinged on finding that the adverse effects the residents were concerned about – heath and quality of life impacts from dust, noise, water abstraction and discharge, destruction of landscape values and traffic,  would be minor. The residents, of course, disagree but Fonterra could afford lots of expensive expert witnesses to say everything could be mitigated satisfactorily, and these were given more weight than the residents’ concerns. That’s how the RMA works.
The residents living closest to the pit generally submitted in favour of the mine after reaching an “arrangement” with Fonterra. This meant the effects on them did not have to be considered, and made it possible to conclude that the effects would be minor. Too bad if those properties change hands during the life of the mine.
The panel acknowledged CANA’s expert submission from John Gifford showing that wood waste was available that could substitute for coal in their milk drying plants, making the mine unnecessary. However they decided they didn’t need to consider this further because the mine would do so little harm they didn’t need to think about alternatives.
The elephant attended throughout the first week, drawing attention to the legal prohibition on arguing what really matters – the contribution of the mine to climate change.
While we didn’t stop the consent, CANA believes the effort was well worth while as thanks to the help of John Gifford we now have a well researched piece of work that has not been challenged showing the feasibility of wood waste as an alternative to coal. Fonterra’s evidence showed that they have already done some work on alternative fuels and we are confident that faced with this evidence, they will eventually have to continue down this path.

Protest at Fonterra HQ in Auckland Wednesday

15 Oct

FonterraHQProtestAuckland Coal Action will be meeting 4.00 pm this Wednesday 16th, outside the main entrance to the Maidment Theatre, Auckland University Quad, Alfred St to deliver wood chips to Fonterra’s Headquarters in Princes St to protest the likely approval of Fonterra’s new mine at Mangatangi, 50km south of Auckland.

Coal is one of the dirtiest fossil fuels and leading climate scientists have stated that coal usage must be phased out as soon as possible in order to prevent catastrophic global warming.

Fonterra plans to open a new mine to continue supplying coal to its existing operations in the Waikato, even though wood waste is a viable alternative.

Fonterra and other companies have sat on their hands for twenty years and the need for action is now extremely urgent.

Join us to deliver the message: Fonterra must commit to wood waste now!


Can we trust Fonterra and Glencoal?

7 Oct

When Auckland Coal Action’s Geoff Mason found out about the proposed new coal mine at Mangatangi, he set off by bus and bicycle to investigate Fonterra’s mining and coal burning operations. He found that Fonterra and its mining subsidiary Glencoal were not meeting their own environmental standards and, in some cases were even breaching the conditions of their resource consents.

At the Mangatangi Mine hearings last week, he reported his findings to commissioners.

Glencoal is applying for resource consent to open a new coal mine at Mangatawhiri in the north Waikato (called the Mangatangi Mine). The mine is intended to replace the expiring Kopako 3 mine and will supply coal to Fonterra dairy factories for use in their boilers.

Coal burning dangerous for the climate, is it also dangerous for coal mining communities?

Those of us at Auckland Coal Action are keenly aware of the dangerous impacts that burning coal is already having on the climate and are determined that no new coal mines should be opened. As Geoaff stated in his submission:

Because the coal is there under the ground it is a waste to not mine it, is the train of thought. The consequence of extending this logic is that in a hundred years’ time the landscape of this area will be dotted with craters where there once was farmland. If extended globally we will have a near 4 degree Celsius temperature rise by 2100.

However, is it also harmful for the local communities living around the Waikato’s coal mines and coal-burning factories? Geoff reasoned that a look at Fonterra and Glencoal’s current practices should give us some idea of what to expect from a new mine, and what he found was far from encouraging.

Fonterra is not following its own standards

Can we trust Fonterra and its subsidiary, Glencoal? Auckland Coal Action’s observations have led us to believe we can’t.

Coal ash is a product of burning coal in Fonterra’s factories. It is returned to Kopako 3 mine for disposal.

Fonterra has said that it transports this coal ash from its factories using covered trucks.

It has also said that sprinklers above the coal delivery area at Waitoa Dairy Factory are used to wet down the coal dust when necessary.

However, this photo taken in December of last year shows an uncovered coal ash truck leaving the Waitoa factory, kicking up coal dust from the coal bunker to the left.

uncovered coal ash truck leaving Waitoa Dairy Factory

Uncovered coal ash truck leaving Waitoa Dairy Factory

Disposal of coal ash at Kopako 3

Glencoal would have us believe that the following are standard practices used at their sites to control dust and coal ash:

  • Covering trucks when transporting coal ash
  • Watering coal ash piles to avoid the ash becoming airborne

On visits Geoff made to Kopako 3 he was able to observe breaches to these standards.

4 March 2013

Geoff observed an uncovered coal ash truck arriving at the coal ash dump. It kicked up coal ash dust due to lack of consistent watering of the ash pile.

Uncovered coal ash truck at Kopako 3 mine

Uncovered coal ash truck at Kopako 3 mine

Windblown dust from a very dry coal ash pile.

Windblown dust from a very dry coal ash pile.

11 March 2013

Geoff had reported his observations to local Mangatawhiri residents at a public meeting on the 7th. When he visited the mine on the 11th, it seemed that Glencoal became aware they were being watched and attempted to prevent dust from being kicked up by an ash truck that was due to arrive later in the day.

Geoff notes:

On March the 11th after the meeting I observed two covered ash trucks arrive. I also observed this coal ash dust cloud being kicked up from the coal ash dump after a watering truck attempted to catch up on neglected watering.

Below is a sequence of photos of the dust cloud that occurred over two minutes.

watering truck only succeeds in kicking up dust from the pile of coal ash.

Watering truck only succeeds in kicking up dust from the pile of coal ash.

Dust stirred up due to inconsistent watering, Kopako 3 Mine

Dust stirred up due to inconsistent watering, Kopako 3 Mine

Rising plume of dust above coal ash pile.

Rising plume of dust above coal ash pile.

The dust plume reaches its peak.

The dust plume reaches its peak.

Why should we believe that Glencoal will water around their coal piles at the Mangatangi mine or cover their trucks as they say they will? Are the residents of Mangatawhiri and Mangatangi going to have to be constantly checking up on Glencoal to get them to follow the consent conditions for this mine?

Breaching resource consent conditions

One of the consent conditions at the existing Kopako 3 mine is to ensure that particulate emissions are not visible in the air beyond the boundary of the site. [Reference: Introduction to Section 2 of the assessment of environmental effects of discharges to air of the K3 mine]

On 4 March after the uncovered truck had gone, Geoff noted that:

The wind was picking the ash up off the dump and blowing it way up in the air. It would have been blowing horizontally for miles. The wind on that day was blowing the dust roughly in the direction of the houses on Kopuku Rd.

Map indicates the direction dust was travelling towards properties downwind.

Map showing the direction dust was travelling towards properties downwind.

On 23 March, Geoff further observed a dump truck in the backfill area kicking up a dust cloud twice the height of the one in this video. Footage was taken at the Kopako 3 restoration area.

If dust emissions do exceed allowable limits, the company is required to submit an incident report to the Waikato Regional Council within five days. Geoff was able to find no such report in Council files.

Glencoal conveniently omits boron exceedance at hearing

During Glencoal submissions in favour of the Mangatangi Mine, they consistently emphasised their standards for strict environmental controls of dust. Geoff is not confident that these will be followed. His research has also led him to be concerned for the quality of water being discharged from the mine.

He notes:

The evidence on water treatment given in the first week of the hearing stated that based on a review of the water treatment plant operational records, treated water consistently meets the required discharge standard for turbidity. What was conveniently omitted was that Council records show that in April this year the levels of boron in the discharge from the K3 water treatment plant reached 10.8g/m3, exceeding the 10.00g/m3 limit. As a result of this Glencoal were inquiring about applying to irrigate their farmland with the polluted boron rich waste water next summer.

Geoff has since found that another expert had the cheek to include a graph of boron levels between 2005 and 2012, but omitted 2013 readings.

Consent conditions were watered down

Even where a resource consent is able to impose strict conditions, there is nothing to stop a company from later applying to have the conditions weakened. As Geoff stated:

From Fonterra and Glencoal’s past record, we don’t trust that Glencoal at a later date will not apply to the council to have consent conditions relaxed. I have found three occasions where Fonterra or Glencoal have successfully applied or submitted to have air quality regulations relaxed.

Recent examples where Fonterra or Glencoal have succeeded in getting conditions relaxed:

  • Only a few years ago, Fonterra made a submission to the government to increase the permitted number of exceedances of the PM10 standard, from one to three exceedances per year, and also to extend the timeline for compliance to 2018.  (What is PM10?)
  • In 2009, Fonterra successfully applied to the council for an increase in the particulate emission limit for the coal-fired boiler at Te Awamutu from 50 mg/m3 to 100 mg/m3, due to difficulty complying with the 50 mg/m3 limit. The health of the people of Te Awamutu was compromised so that Fonterra wouldn’t have to upgrade its dust removal.
  • In 2007 Glencoal successfully applied to the council to reduce the level of reporting on air quality and to remove conditions requiring quantitative monitoring by way of despositional dust gauges at K3.

We strongly oppose this resource consent!

Auckland Coal Action strongly opposes resource consent being granted for the Mangatangi Mine at Mangatawhiri.

Our main concern is that most of the known coal reserves must stay in the ground to avoid triggering runaway climate change. However, Geoff’s observations have shown that coal mining and burning is far from safe for the neighbouring communities of such operations.

Even if strict conditions are laid out for the control of dust for this mine, locals can have little faith that conditions will be followed. There is also no guarantee that conditions will not be later relaxed.

This mine should not go ahead.