While that opinion runs the risk of tempting fate, the sheer amount of interest and passion — from all sides — on this mining application means something fairly extraordinary would have to happen to reduce it to the status of a newsworthy also-ran.
It has already generated seven front page stories and numerous inside page leads. Letters and opinion pieces for and against the mine proposal have been deluging the Otago Daily Times inbox.
So far we have printed dozens of letters on the subject, always striving to provide a balance between the conflicting opinions for and against.
Likewise, proponents and opponents of the mine have had their say on our opinion page. Those articles have included pieces penned by the mining company’s non-executive chairman, Members of Parliament representing three different parties, environmentalists and locals.
Passions are, understandably, high. For some, the mine proposal represents future prosperity for the region and offers well-paying jobs for many residents. Others fear potential environmental damage and warn the intimation of wealthier times ahead is illusory.
One constant in all this, as is often the case in controversial issues, is that the media covering the message becomes a target if it conveys an opinion or covers an incident which is perceived to favour one side or the other.
Both the opponents of the mine and its supporters have, at various times in the past few weeks, accused the Otago Daily Times — incorrectly — of having a pro-mine or anti-mine stance.
This newspaper has neither. While some may beg to differ, we have provided a platform whereby a wide range of community views can be expressed. Within our news coverage, we have attempted to give all sides of the debate a fair say.
Editorially, we last commented on the mining proposal in early November, writing that the mining company said it was committed to showing how modern resource development could be done responsibly, but noting the concerns of environmental groups that a modern-day Otago gold rush could threaten the region’s scenic value, ecosystems, water and existing industries.
We did not come down in favour of one side or the other then, and our position is unchanged.
Whichever way the independent panel hearing the application goes, it must make its decision transparently, after a full discussion where all views about the mine are given full consideration.
Santana Minerals needs to not only convince the panel it can mine safely and in an environmentally safe way, it also needs to persuade the sceptics and neighbours that that is so.
Just as equally, groups who decry the impact a mine would have on the region need to convince those wanting the jobs that a successful mine could bring to Central that any environmental and aesthetic risk outweighs any expected economic boom.
The panel of seven specialists is due to convene on February 25, and decide who will be invited to comment on the proposal by March 11.
Those comments would be due by April 17, and we would hope the panel listens to as many voices — for and against — as possible.
As we noted in November, this is an early test of the new fast-track process. When the panel completes its anticipated 140 days of deliberation and delivers its decision — likely on October 29 — the panel process must have been rigorous enough so that whichever side has lost feels its interests have been considered and not run roughshod over.
For those not convinced either way, the process offers a chance for those committed on the issue to persuade not only the panel but the wider public of their arguments.
We want Santana-Minerals to make its case on the safety of its processes and the benefits its proposal might bring.
We want the project’s opponents to be able to make their case regarding the inherent risks of mining and its doubts about ensuing wealth for the South.
Most of all, we want a fair process where all sides are heard and whatever the final decision is feels validly made.
Much rests on the shoulders of the panel members, who we trust will do their job diligently.
