The project, which proposes a mine at Bendigo and Ardgour Stations, about 20km north of Cromwell, Central Otago, is going through the final stages of the fast-track hearing.
However, the company is questioning some of the witnesses and specialists appearing on behalf of those opposed to the project.
In a memorandum released to the public yesterday, Santana has criticised the presence of archaeologist Matt Sole, who is appearing as an expert for Sustainable Tarras.
While they do not doubt his expertise as an archaeologist, the counsel for Santana were less appreciative of his apparent ‘‘advocacy’’.
‘‘Since filing its Memorandum of Counsel dated May 7, 2026 which raised concerns about apparent advocacy by expert witnesses, counsel has been made aware of what appears to be advocacy by Mr Sole.
‘‘Mr Sole is the secretary and co-chair of the Central Otago Environmental Society. The society is actively opposed to the project and supports anti-mining campaign Ours Not Mines.’’
Although the counsel for Santana acknowledge Mr Sole had been open about his ties to the society, they said his associations and leadership role within the society ‘‘raise concerns as to his ability to exercise independence and impartiality required for expert conferencing’’ and ‘‘whether he is able to comply with the Code of Conduct’’.
The counsel referred to an ‘‘anti-mining meeting’’, at which Mr Sole presented in August last year, as one of the reasons for their concerns.
This is not the first time Santana Minerals has raised questions about witnesses’ impartiality at hearings.
In a previous memorandum, it drew attention to James Higham and Elizabeth Steven, referring to old social media posts, including sharing petitions by Sustainable Tarras.
Fast-track panel chairman Matthew Muir, KC, has given Sustainable Tarras the right of reply to the memorandum, asking the group to respond by close of business today.
Sustainable Tarras chairwoman Suze Keith said the group was aware of the applicant's memo to the panel and was preparing a formal response.
‘‘We continue to back the evidence of our expert team.
‘‘There are numerous gaps and inconsistencies in Santana’s application, and many points of disagreement between our experts and other’s experts which require addressing.
‘‘We look forward to reading the joint witness statements that will result from the conferencing.’’
Environmental Defence Society chairman Gary Taylor, who is a submitter at the hearings, said this could be a means of Santana ‘‘eliminating opposition to the project’’.
‘‘It is a tactical move to try to limit the scope of the hearing, or to try to limit the scope of the expert caucusing in its favour.’’
Mr Taylor said the fact the fast-track panel adopted rules of the Environment Court when it came to witnesses was problematic.
‘‘You'd have to question whether that's appropriate in a fast-track setting, because this process is quite different from an Environment Court one.
‘‘For example, you have time to do things like replace witnesses, for instance, if you find that one is inappropriate in the Environment Court setting, but you don't [in a fast-track setting].
‘‘This is more of an inquiry.’’
The panel was ‘‘not a court’’ and did not offer parties the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses, Mr Taylor said.
