The claim is made in Santana-generated documents the firm has bundled into a submission to the fast-track panel considering its plan.
One of the documents is a letter from Santana chairman Peter Cook to the four Ngāi Tahu Rūnanga — collectively known as Kā Rūnaka — who have already made a submission objecting to the mine for various reasons, including environmental concerns.
Mr Cook’s letter frames the $180m figure as a Kā Rūnaka demand for financial compensation and claims the request is the "main disagreement" with Kā Rūnaka.
He states such an amount cannot be paid, his firm "cannot be seen to be paying for a non-objection" and he warned the iwi against "oppressive negotiating tactics".
Kā Rūnaka rebutted the allegations, saying it was "shocked and deeply disappointed by the way our engagement has been characterised".
The Santana claims did not reflect the "reality of our engagement", Kā Rūnaka said.
"Genuine engagement — complex, considered, and often difficult kōrero — has been reframed [by Santana] in a way that suggests alignment where it is limited, and financial intent where that has not been our focus. That is extremely disappointing."
Kā Rūnaka said the $180m figure was "the framing that Santana have elevated, not ours" and the allegation that monetary compensation was the "main disagreement" was "not an accurate reflection of Kā Rūnaka’s position".
Kā Rūnaka’s engagement with Santana had been about "ensuring environmental and cultural impacts are understood, managed and protected — asking hard questions, seeking long-term outcomes and ensuring decisions made today do not create burdens for our mokopuna and the wider community in the future".
Santana’s misrepresentations of Kā Rūnaka had seriously damaged trust, Kā Rūnaka said.
The letter from Mr Cook to Kā Rūnaka, dated April 2, refers to a meeting with Kā Rūnaka at Dunedin Airport on March 26.
A Santana document, purporting to be minutes of that meeting, but not evidenced to have been cross-checked by Kā Rūnaka, is also contained in the Santana documents given to the fast-track panel.
Santana had offered to set up an "annual iwi capability and participation fund" of $500,000 for every year of sustainable gold production, but Kā Rūnaka had referred Santana to a larger amount paid out as compensation for the reconsenting of the Waitaki hydropower scheme.
"You [Kā Rūnaka] indicated that you expect a payment [from Santana] of similar magnitude, that is in the order of $180m, as monetary compensation".
Santana’s mine proposal and the Waitaki scheme were "extremely different" and it was "not commercially feasible" for his firm to consider offering more money, Mr Cook wrote.
"Further, we cannot be seen to be paying for a non-objection, and consider that to do so would cause serious governance and compliance concerns."
He claimed Kā Rūnaka had expressed a "preference" for "participation at direct ownership level in the project itself on a paid basis".
"This was very pleasing given your previous demands to be gifted a substantial stake and then option to buy further".
He asked Kā Rūnaka to specify the "quantum of direct ownership you desire" and the basis for payment of it.
He ended the letter warning it would be "grossly disappointing if a project that offers so many socioeconomic and fiscal benefits to so many, is denied due to oppressive negotiating tactics".
Kā Rūnaka said neither Mr Cook’s letter nor the meeting minutes represented Kā Rūnaka’s position and it had not responded to Mr Cook’s question about a stake in mine ownership.
"Kā Rūnaka have not offered support, nor agreed to any position, in exchange for payment. Our engagement has been about understanding impacts, and whether an acceptable outcome is possible ...
"Our responsibilities as kaitiaki are to our whenua, our wai, our whānau and our mokopuna. To suggest those responsibilities can be bought misunderstands who we are and why we are at the table."
