-
@canefan said in Pike river:
Over a decade and countless millions later, a camera has revealed the bodies. But Labour says the mine is too dangerous to re-enter.....
The Herald in May this year said minimum $50M of direct costs, plus $10M fo police costs so far
Retreat from Pike River starting next week
The families of the 29 victims of the 2010 disaster were notified of the move on Friday.
-
@canefan said in Pike river:
So let me get this straight.....
National got expert advice, and based on that advice they decided re-entry into the mine was not possible
Labour made it an election promise to get into the mine and get the bodies out
Over a decade and countless millions later, a camera has revealed the bodies. But Labour says the mine is too dangerous to re-enter.....
Am I missing something here?
Current activities are part of police investigations which are independent of cabinet, and are not being undertaken for the purpose of recovery of the bodies.
-
@canefan said in Pike river:
So let me get this straight.....
National got expert advice, and based on that advice they decided re-entry into the mine was not possible
Labour made it an election promise to get
into the mine and get the bodies outremove current director liability as a reason to stop re-entry an have experts explore possibilities.Over a decade and countless millions later, a camera has revealed the bodies. But Labour says the mine is too dangerous to re-enter.....
Am I missing something here?
Still a load of money and still politicising it but different story.
-
While we can collectively be saddened and outraged that this happened and that so many people died while working, society and the politicians who are pushing this should also remember than mining even in the most regulated societies is inherently dangerous work, often involving enclosed spaces, heavy machinery, dangerous goods and exposure other health and safety risks.
All of those 29 men would have turned their minds to the danger when signing up for the job or while doing it, but did so anyway. The risks involved with mining is one of the reason why miners are paid significantly better than an above-ground equivalent labourer. Some jobs attract an element of "danger pay", and mining certainly seems to be one of them.
I'm not saying we shouldn't be sympathetic of the plight of the families, because we should. But the reality is, sometimes dangerous things happen in dangerous jobs.
-
@aucklandwarlord said in Pike river:
While we can collectively be saddened and outraged that this happened and that so many people died while working, society and the politicians who are pushing this should also remember than mining even in the most regulated societies is inherently dangerous work, often involving enclosed spaces, heavy machinery, dangerous goods and exposure other health and safety risks.
All of those 29 men would have turned their minds to the danger when signing up for the job or while doing it, but did so anyway. The risks involved with mining is one of the reason why miners are paid significantly better than an above-ground equivalent labourer. Some jobs attract an element of "danger pay", and mining certainly seems to be one of them.
I'm not saying we shouldn't be sympathetic of the plight of the families, because we should. But the reality is, sometimes dangerous things happen in dangerous jobs.
While I agree with this overall, it is the responsibility of the company to mitigate all those risks as largely as possible.
I don't believe that happened here and that is why we see such higher overarching reasonability of MHF's etc
It's an outcome of the Pike River failures
-
@hooroo said in Pike river:
@aucklandwarlord said in Pike river:
While we can collectively be saddened and outraged that this happened and that so many people died while working, society and the politicians who are pushing this should also remember than mining even in the most regulated societies is inherently dangerous work, often involving enclosed spaces, heavy machinery, dangerous goods and exposure other health and safety risks.
All of those 29 men would have turned their minds to the danger when signing up for the job or while doing it, but did so anyway. The risks involved with mining is one of the reason why miners are paid significantly better than an above-ground equivalent labourer. Some jobs attract an element of "danger pay", and mining certainly seems to be one of them.
I'm not saying we shouldn't be sympathetic of the plight of the families, because we should. But the reality is, sometimes dangerous things happen in dangerous jobs.
While I agree with this overall, it is the responsibility of the company to mitigate all those risks as largely as possible.
I don't believe that happened here and that is why we see such higher overarching reasonability of MHF's etc
It's an outcome of the Pike River failures
and why there is specific mining regulation, and mines inspectors. I mean, Pike River had an 'award winning' H+S plan, inspections, etc ... but still didn't tackle the main risk present that couldn't be mitigated.
Here it was gassy mines with inadequate venting. Arguably controllable, but damn hard.
At White Island, it was the increasing risk tolerance of running tours on a live volcano, and not really understanding how good our ability to predict eruptions is. Again - award winning H+S systems there too.
-
@nzzp said in Pike river:
@hooroo said in Pike river:
@aucklandwarlord said in Pike river:
While we can collectively be saddened and outraged that this happened and that so many people died while working, society and the politicians who are pushing this should also remember than mining even in the most regulated societies is inherently dangerous work, often involving enclosed spaces, heavy machinery, dangerous goods and exposure other health and safety risks.
All of those 29 men would have turned their minds to the danger when signing up for the job or while doing it, but did so anyway. The risks involved with mining is one of the reason why miners are paid significantly better than an above-ground equivalent labourer. Some jobs attract an element of "danger pay", and mining certainly seems to be one of them.
I'm not saying we shouldn't be sympathetic of the plight of the families, because we should. But the reality is, sometimes dangerous things happen in dangerous jobs.
While I agree with this overall, it is the responsibility of the company to mitigate all those risks as largely as possible.
I don't believe that happened here and that is why we see such higher overarching reasonability of MHF's etc
It's an outcome of the Pike River failures
and why there is specific mining regulation, and mines inspectors. I mean, Pike River had an 'award winning' H+S plan, inspections, etc ... but still didn't tackle the main risk present that couldn't be mitigated.
Here it was gassy mines with inadequate venting. Arguably controllable, but damn hard.
At White Island, it was the increasing risk tolerance of running tours on a live volcano, and not really understanding how good our ability to predict eruptions is. Again - award winning H+S systems there too.
Those Pike H&S systems are laughing stock now in comparison of current regulated requirement.
-
@nzzp said in Pike river:
@hooroo said in Pike river:
@aucklandwarlord said in Pike river:
While we can collectively be saddened and outraged that this happened and that so many people died while working, society and the politicians who are pushing this should also remember than mining even in the most regulated societies is inherently dangerous work, often involving enclosed spaces, heavy machinery, dangerous goods and exposure other health and safety risks.
All of those 29 men would have turned their minds to the danger when signing up for the job or while doing it, but did so anyway. The risks involved with mining is one of the reason why miners are paid significantly better than an above-ground equivalent labourer. Some jobs attract an element of "danger pay", and mining certainly seems to be one of them.
I'm not saying we shouldn't be sympathetic of the plight of the families, because we should. But the reality is, sometimes dangerous things happen in dangerous jobs.
While I agree with this overall, it is the responsibility of the company to mitigate all those risks as largely as possible.
I don't believe that happened here and that is why we see such higher overarching reasonability of MHF's etc
It's an outcome of the Pike River failures
and why there is specific mining regulation, and mines inspectors. I mean, Pike River had an 'award winning' H+S plan, inspections, etc ... but still didn't tackle the main risk present that couldn't be mitigated.
Here it was gassy mines with inadequate venting. Arguably controllable, but damn hard.
At White Island, it was the increasing risk tolerance of running tours on a live volcano, and not really understanding how good our ability to predict eruptions is. Again - award winning H+S systems there too.
One risk control was not having a fan inside the mine (as is illegal under best practice in other countries die to the ignition risk).
They decided to go with the easier and cheaper option and IF that was a cause of the explosion then our regulators need to be aware AND that decision requires scrutiny. -
@hooroo said in Pike river:
@nzzp said in Pike river:
@hooroo said in Pike river:
@aucklandwarlord said in Pike river:
While we can collectively be saddened and outraged that this happened and that so many people died while working, society and the politicians who are pushing this should also remember than mining even in the most regulated societies is inherently dangerous work, often involving enclosed spaces, heavy machinery, dangerous goods and exposure other health and safety risks.
All of those 29 men would have turned their minds to the danger when signing up for the job or while doing it, but did so anyway. The risks involved with mining is one of the reason why miners are paid significantly better than an above-ground equivalent labourer. Some jobs attract an element of "danger pay", and mining certainly seems to be one of them.
I'm not saying we shouldn't be sympathetic of the plight of the families, because we should. But the reality is, sometimes dangerous things happen in dangerous jobs.
While I agree with this overall, it is the responsibility of the company to mitigate all those risks as largely as possible.
I don't believe that happened here and that is why we see such higher overarching reasonability of MHF's etc
It's an outcome of the Pike River failures
and why there is specific mining regulation, and mines inspectors. I mean, Pike River had an 'award winning' H+S plan, inspections, etc ... but still didn't tackle the main risk present that couldn't be mitigated.
Here it was gassy mines with inadequate venting. Arguably controllable, but damn hard.
At White Island, it was the increasing risk tolerance of running tours on a live volcano, and not really understanding how good our ability to predict eruptions is. Again - award winning H+S systems there too.
Those Pike H&S systems are laughing stock now in comparison of current regulated requirement.
absolutely.
But remember, you have to assess it 'for the time'. The whole change in HSE legislation was triggered by Pike.
-
@crucial said in Pike river:
@nzzp said in Pike river:
@hooroo said in Pike river:
@aucklandwarlord said in Pike river:
While we can collectively be saddened and outraged that this happened and that so many people died while working, society and the politicians who are pushing this should also remember than mining even in the most regulated societies is inherently dangerous work, often involving enclosed spaces, heavy machinery, dangerous goods and exposure other health and safety risks.
All of those 29 men would have turned their minds to the danger when signing up for the job or while doing it, but did so anyway. The risks involved with mining is one of the reason why miners are paid significantly better than an above-ground equivalent labourer. Some jobs attract an element of "danger pay", and mining certainly seems to be one of them.
I'm not saying we shouldn't be sympathetic of the plight of the families, because we should. But the reality is, sometimes dangerous things happen in dangerous jobs.
While I agree with this overall, it is the responsibility of the company to mitigate all those risks as largely as possible.
I don't believe that happened here and that is why we see such higher overarching reasonability of MHF's etc
It's an outcome of the Pike River failures
and why there is specific mining regulation, and mines inspectors. I mean, Pike River had an 'award winning' H+S plan, inspections, etc ... but still didn't tackle the main risk present that couldn't be mitigated.
Here it was gassy mines with inadequate venting. Arguably controllable, but damn hard.
At White Island, it was the increasing risk tolerance of running tours on a live volcano, and not really understanding how good our ability to predict eruptions is. Again - award winning H+S systems there too.
One risk control was not having a fan inside the mine (as is illegal under best practice in other countries die to the ignition risk).
They decided to go with the easier and cheaper option and IF that was a cause of the explosion then our regulators need to be aware AND that decision requires scrutiny.The regulators approved it. Seriously, read the book by Macfie - it's really accessible, and she presents what appears to be a very balanced view of the outcome.
The key guy who's popularly to blame (Whittall) had been out of the mine for a year or so before it ignited.
-
@nzzp said in Pike river:
@crucial said in Pike river:
@nzzp said in Pike river:
@hooroo said in Pike river:
@aucklandwarlord said in Pike river:
While we can collectively be saddened and outraged that this happened and that so many people died while working, society and the politicians who are pushing this should also remember than mining even in the most regulated societies is inherently dangerous work, often involving enclosed spaces, heavy machinery, dangerous goods and exposure other health and safety risks.
All of those 29 men would have turned their minds to the danger when signing up for the job or while doing it, but did so anyway. The risks involved with mining is one of the reason why miners are paid significantly better than an above-ground equivalent labourer. Some jobs attract an element of "danger pay", and mining certainly seems to be one of them.
I'm not saying we shouldn't be sympathetic of the plight of the families, because we should. But the reality is, sometimes dangerous things happen in dangerous jobs.
While I agree with this overall, it is the responsibility of the company to mitigate all those risks as largely as possible.
I don't believe that happened here and that is why we see such higher overarching reasonability of MHF's etc
It's an outcome of the Pike River failures
and why there is specific mining regulation, and mines inspectors. I mean, Pike River had an 'award winning' H+S plan, inspections, etc ... but still didn't tackle the main risk present that couldn't be mitigated.
Here it was gassy mines with inadequate venting. Arguably controllable, but damn hard.
At White Island, it was the increasing risk tolerance of running tours on a live volcano, and not really understanding how good our ability to predict eruptions is. Again - award winning H+S systems there too.
One risk control was not having a fan inside the mine (as is illegal under best practice in other countries die to the ignition risk).
They decided to go with the easier and cheaper option and IF that was a cause of the explosion then our regulators need to be aware AND that decision requires scrutiny.The regulators approved it. Seriously, read the book by Macfie - it's really accessible, and she presents what appears to be a very balanced view of the outcome.
The key guy who's popularly to blame (Whittall) had been out of the mine for a year or so before it ignited.
Is the practice illegal now? If it is and we haven't learned the lesson then surely it's important to know.
-
@crucial said in Pike river:
@nzzp said in Pike river:
@crucial said in Pike river:
@nzzp said in Pike river:
@hooroo said in Pike river:
@aucklandwarlord said in Pike river:
While we can collectively be saddened and outraged that this happened and that so many people died while working, society and the politicians who are pushing this should also remember than mining even in the most regulated societies is inherently dangerous work, often involving enclosed spaces, heavy machinery, dangerous goods and exposure other health and safety risks.
All of those 29 men would have turned their minds to the danger when signing up for the job or while doing it, but did so anyway. The risks involved with mining is one of the reason why miners are paid significantly better than an above-ground equivalent labourer. Some jobs attract an element of "danger pay", and mining certainly seems to be one of them.
I'm not saying we shouldn't be sympathetic of the plight of the families, because we should. But the reality is, sometimes dangerous things happen in dangerous jobs.
While I agree with this overall, it is the responsibility of the company to mitigate all those risks as largely as possible.
I don't believe that happened here and that is why we see such higher overarching reasonability of MHF's etc
It's an outcome of the Pike River failures
and why there is specific mining regulation, and mines inspectors. I mean, Pike River had an 'award winning' H+S plan, inspections, etc ... but still didn't tackle the main risk present that couldn't be mitigated.
Here it was gassy mines with inadequate venting. Arguably controllable, but damn hard.
At White Island, it was the increasing risk tolerance of running tours on a live volcano, and not really understanding how good our ability to predict eruptions is. Again - award winning H+S systems there too.
One risk control was not having a fan inside the mine (as is illegal under best practice in other countries die to the ignition risk).
They decided to go with the easier and cheaper option and IF that was a cause of the explosion then our regulators need to be aware AND that decision requires scrutiny.The regulators approved it. Seriously, read the book by Macfie - it's really accessible, and she presents what appears to be a very balanced view of the outcome.
The key guy who's popularly to blame (Whittall) had been out of the mine for a year or so before it ignited.
Is the practice illegal now? If it is and we haven't learned the lesson then surely it's important to know.
safety regulations are written in blood.
There's a vast grey area between 'not best practice' and 'not acceptable'. The risk is all cumulative; at some stage, having a fan inside a gassy mine without the venting tunnel is just unacceptable. Getting that into numbers though, is hard.
What is heartbreaking is the mine was a few months away from the second drive daylighting, which (as I understand it) provided both ventilation and a meaningful emergency escape route. The escape route up ladders to the surface isn't so credible an option
-
@nzzp said in Pike river:
@hooroo said in Pike river:
@nzzp said in Pike river:
@hooroo said in Pike river:
@aucklandwarlord said in Pike river:
While we can collectively be saddened and outraged that this happened and that so many people died while working, society and the politicians who are pushing this should also remember than mining even in the most regulated societies is inherently dangerous work, often involving enclosed spaces, heavy machinery, dangerous goods and exposure other health and safety risks.
All of those 29 men would have turned their minds to the danger when signing up for the job or while doing it, but did so anyway. The risks involved with mining is one of the reason why miners are paid significantly better than an above-ground equivalent labourer. Some jobs attract an element of "danger pay", and mining certainly seems to be one of them.
I'm not saying we shouldn't be sympathetic of the plight of the families, because we should. But the reality is, sometimes dangerous things happen in dangerous jobs.
While I agree with this overall, it is the responsibility of the company to mitigate all those risks as largely as possible.
I don't believe that happened here and that is why we see such higher overarching reasonability of MHF's etc
It's an outcome of the Pike River failures
and why there is specific mining regulation, and mines inspectors. I mean, Pike River had an 'award winning' H+S plan, inspections, etc ... but still didn't tackle the main risk present that couldn't be mitigated.
Here it was gassy mines with inadequate venting. Arguably controllable, but damn hard.
At White Island, it was the increasing risk tolerance of running tours on a live volcano, and not really understanding how good our ability to predict eruptions is. Again - award winning H+S systems there too.
Those Pike H&S systems are laughing stock now in comparison of current regulated requirement.
absolutely.
But remember, you have to assess it 'for the time'. The whole change in HSE legislation was triggered by Pike.
YEah fully agree this
Pike river
