Santana Minerals against the Otago Daily Times
Case Number: 3883
Council Meeting: 8 June 2026
Decision: Not Upheld
Publication: Otago Daily Times
Principle:
Accuracy, Fairness and Balance
Comment and Fact
Corrections
Ruling Categories:
Accuracy
Balance, Lack Of
Comment and Fact
Errors
Unfair Coverage
Overview
1. Santana Minerals Ltd (Santana) complains about an article New anti-mine group takes aim at tailings dam failure risk published by the Otago Daily Times (ODT) on 7 April 2026. The complaint raises Media Council Principle (1) Accuracy Fairness and Balance, Principle (4) Comment and Fact and Principle (12) Corrections. The complaint is not upheld.
The Article
2. The article reports on the launch of Natural Capital Central Otago, a group opposed to Santana’s fast-track application to establish a gold mine in Central Otago. It summarises the group’s view that the economic benefits that might flow from a mine do not outweigh the costs of “a likely environmental disaster.”
3. Relevantly, the article notes that in the group’s view the big risk was the mine’s use of a tailings dam. The groups notes that over the past century, just over one in 100 tailings dams have failed with disastrous results. In 2019 the collapse of a tailings dam in Brazil killed 270 people. Natural Capital Central Otago considers that the high probability of a strong earthquake on the Alpine Fault is an increased risk factor. The group also pointed to the work of “tailings dam expert Prof Steven Vick, who said the eventual failure rate was 100%.”
The Complaint
4. Santana complains that the article makes serious allegations regarding environmental risk and economic impact without reference to, citation of, or engagement with the body of publicly available evidence. It states that the article presents claims in a manner that is materially incomplete and liable to mislead.
5. In its complaint Santana has provided the Media Council with a large amount of material that it suggests shows a pattern of conduct by the ODT in which commitments have been broken, inaccurate coverage has gone uncorrected, and formal objections to structural bias have been met with an inadequate response. It considers that the article complained of is the most serious example, but that it did not arise in isolation. However, it also states that the article itself is, in itself, sufficient to found a complaint.
6. In this regard Santana complains that the article breaches Principle (1) Accuracy, Fairness and Balance in several respects. Its first complaint is that it should have been given an opportunity to comment before publication. The article did more than simply report on formation of a new group. Rather, it makes claims about the economic structure of the project, the risk profile of the proposed tailings storage facility, expert assessments of that facility, and the credibility of the community support for the project. As it was the subject of those claims it should have been contacted for comment.
7. Santana also complains that it was inaccurate to refer to the expert mentioned in the article as “Prof Steven Vick” as he is not a professor. He is a geotechnical engineer and consultant with no university affiliation. The incorrect title comes from Natural Capital Central Otago’s website and the ODT published this without verification. Readers will have thought that the “100%” failure claim came from a professor when it did not. The incorrect title inflated the apparent authority of the claim and misdirected readers.
8. Santana also complains that the article’s claims about tailings dams were inaccurate and also a breach of Principle (4) Comment and Fact. It notes that the claims appear to have come from a research paper by Mr Vick in which he said that the “structural failure probability of tailings dams “approaches 1.0 after several hundred years” [when constructed using 20th-century technology]”. As a result, it was a probabilistic statement about a class of legacy engineering design over multi-century timeframes. It is an argument for better engineering standards and not a statement about a specific dam, or about modern design standards. Moreover, the article suggests that Mr Vick was consulted in relation to the specific dam to be used for Santana’s project, but it appears the quote may actually be derived from evidence given (by someone else) in relation to a dam for a different project. Overall, the article reported a claim by Natural Capital, which compressed a probabilistic position into a blunt “100%” with no qualification, no timeframe, and no caveat — and applied it implicitly to the proposed dam. This was inaccurate as it conflated a statistical argument about old technology and a prediction of certain failure of the proposed dam. Reference to Santana’s own research on the likelihood of failure of the proposed dam (available on the public record) was not made. Santana was not asked to comment on the Vick claim. Readers had no basis to assess the claim against the competing evidence.
9. Santana also complains that the claim that “Around 78% of the value of the gold will go to an Australian mining company” is presented as a direct quote and left to stand without challenge, qualification, or attribution to any identified source. It contradicts Santana’s own calculations that suggests over 60% of gross profits are expected to remain in New Zealand. The ODT had no basis on which to report it as though it were an established fact, rather it was the reproduction of unsourced advocacy material.
10. Finally, Santana complains that the ODT has breached Principle (12) Corrections. After the complaint was made the ODT advised that a “a corrective follow up story” would be published in the ODT the following day. However, this offered no comment about the claims made in the original article, nor a printed apology for the failure to seek comment or commitment to a front-page correction. Santana responded requesting publication of an article it supplied to be given the same front-page prominence as the original story. What was actually published was a page 5 story under the headline "New anti-mine group's claims misleading: Santana" that Santana consider re-platformed Natural Capital's claims, allowed them to respond again, and was buried inside the paper. This was not an appropriate right of reply and did not satisfy Principles (1) and (12).
The Response
11. In its response, the ODT disputes Santana’s claims about a pattern of bias. As noted below, here we focus on the response to the specific claims about this article.
12. It notes that the article was written late on Easter Monday, which it considers is a factor when attempting to contact anyone else for comment. It was based on information already in the public domain. Natural Capital Central Otago had been formally launched that weekend and its website, a primary source for the article, was available for all to see. Its formation was newsworthy. It was decided that given the existence of the group was already public, its statements were in the public domain, and that its antimine status was unambiguous and would be plainly understood by a reader, that the article could run without Santana comment, and that if Santana sought to respond the article that it would be given that opportunity. It suggests, to place the situation in reverse, that if a pro-mining group was established, it is unlikely there would be an expectation that an anti-mine group would be contacted for comment. However, care was taken to ensure that any reader would be aware that the article concerned a group opposed to the mine, that its statements and opinions should be assessed on that basis, and that they may be contestable. In its view the framing of the article clearly signals to the reader that a partisan voice is speaking.
13. The reference to ‘professor’ Vick came from Natural Capital Central Otago’s public statement and was reported in good faith. However, it accepts that it was incorrect to refer to Mr Vick as a professor. That error has been corrected in the on-line version of the article. Nonetheless, he is a recognised expert in his field. The matter was also addressed, and clarified, in the follow-up article.
14. In relation to Mr Vick’s statement, the ODT notes that it was a quote and that Natural Capital Central Otago had sourced it from evidence given by the Coromandel Watchdog Group in a fast-track proceeding regarding a Waihi mine. The OTD was entitled to reproduce this quote. Although Santana disputes Mr Vick’s opinion, it was given ample room to do so in the follow-up article. Ultimately, the fast-track panel will decide on this issue.
15. Although Santana disputes the 78% figure used by Natural Capital Central Otago for how much of the value of the gold from the proposed mine would go to Australia, Natural Capital Central Otago’s figure came from its own analysis of a 2025 report commissioned by Santana. It was clearly introduced as being the group’s view. That Santana disputes this fact, and its response to it, was contained in the follow-up article.
16. In relation to the follow-up article the OTD notes that the article complained of, ran on the bottom of page one. The headline clearly signalled the viewpoint of the group covered in the article by calling it a ‘‘new anti-mine group’’. Santana does not have the ability to demand the nature, and placement of, any correction that the ODT or any other media organisation might accept is warranted. It can request a correction, which is then considered by the editor taking into account all relevant factors.
17. In this case, once Santana had contacted the ODT and conveyed its concerns the reporter was directed to prepare a follow-up article and instructed that Santana was to be given ample room in that follow-up article to reply to the claims made by Natural Capital Central Otago. That article ran on 11 April 2026. It appeared at the top of page 5 — which would have been page 3, but for that day’s newspaper having a Harvey Norman wrap-around advertisement. Its placement there was determined by other news factors, but it was given due prominence. Its content was predominantly comment from Santana chief executive Damian Spring, and included a quote from him, and two other references within the article, which explained how Mr Vick had been given the title of professor in the initial article, and corrected that misidentification. It also contained a quote from Natural Capital Central Otago which acknowledged that the misidentification was a mistake.
18. The article further quoted Mr Spring disputing the 78% figure used by Natural Capital Central Otago for how much of the value of the gold from the proposed mine would go to Australia. Natural Capital Central Otago was asked this question and responded — and was quoted as saying — that the figure came from its own analysis of a 2025 report commissioned by Santana. Santana was given the majority of space in this article. Natural Capital Central Otago was only quoted twice; once to acknowledge the error over Mr Vick’s proper title, the other was an explanation of how it reached the 78% figure. It was not an opportunity for the opposing party to have another chance to assert its opinions. The article afforded Santana a genuine right of reply, in which the company’s voice was the predominant one.
The Discussion
19. As noted above, Santana provided a wide range of material relating to its general complaint about the conduct of the ODT. The Media Council has considered all of this material and notes that the ODT disputes Santana’s claims in this respect. Santana has invited the Council to consider this broader context in determining whether any breach was systemic or isolated. However, the Council notes that it is in no position to comment on the competing claims in relation to the ODT’s coverage over time, or to resolve a general claim of bias in respect of the ODT’s behaviour and coverage of the mine. Rather, the Council considers that this complaint can be resolved by focusing on the alleged breaches in relation to the article itself and it is those aspects of the complaint that we focus on.
20. The complainant primarily raises Media Council Principle (1) Accuracy, Fairness and Balance, which states:
Publications should be bound at all times by accuracy, fairness and balance and should not deliberately mislead or misinform readers by commission or omission. In articles of controversy or disagreement, a fair voice must be given to the opposition view. Exceptions may apply for long-running issues where every side of an issue or argument cannot reasonably be repeated on every occasion and in reportage of proceedings where balance is to be judged on a number of stories, rather than a single report.
21. While the article was angled as a simple report on the formation of a new group with a clear anti-mine agenda, it did go further and make specific criticisms of the mine and its practices. If specific criticisms are made about a party, that party should typically have a right of reply. However, the ODT did address that lack of balance by giving Santana a right of reply in a new story a few days later. Santana Minerals was able to comment on those aspects of the group’s platform that it disagreed with. The three matters of specific complaint being the effect of the tailing dams, the incorrect salutation and the profits going offshore, were all addressed by Santana. We do note that Natural Capital was given the last word, but overall, we think that in the context of a long-running issue such as the establishment of this mine, there was balance over time and that is sufficient for the complaint to not be upheld under Principle (1) on this occasion.
22. The statements about tailings dams were clearly presented as claims being made by a group with a specific agenda that is clearly anti-mine. They are supported by the group’s interpretation of the evidence including Mr Vicks’ statements in relation to a different mine. Santana disagrees with this interpretation but that does not necessarily make the group’s view inaccurate or wrong. In any event, Santana had an opportunity in the second article to question the statements about tailings dams and did.
23. Everyone agrees that it was inaccurate to refer to Mr Vick as a professor. Clearly, this was an error that had the potential to mislead the public. However, it is not disputed that Mr Vick is knowledgeable in the area and once it was aware of the mistake the ODT corrected the error in the online version of the article. Nevertheless, while the original article has been corrected online that change has not been noted on the article itself. Although this was not a major error, we would still expect the change and the reasons for it to be noted on the online article as well. While it is not sufficient to uphold the complaint, we would expect the ODT to rectify that omission.
24. The claim that 78% of the value of the gold would go to an Australian company engages both Principle (1) and Principle (4) Comment and Fact. The statement was clearly presented in the article as quote from the spokesperson for Natural Capital Central Otago. The group is entitled to have formed its own view of the economic benefits of the mine and the ODT to report on it. Santana has not demonstrated that the figure is clearly inaccurate or that material facts on which it is based were wrong. We do not uphold under Principle (1) or (4).
25. Overall, we conclude that the article complained of did not breach any of our Principles. To the extent it contained an inaccuracy about Mr Vick’s salutation this was corrected. Once made aware of Santana’s concerns, the ODT’s response of publishing a follow-up article was an appropriate one. This gave a fair voice to an opposition view in the context of a very long running issue. We note that Santana could have no expectation that the ODT would publish a further article either written by Santana or only on terms that it agreed to.
Decision: The complaint is not upheld
Council members considering the complaint were Hon Raynor Asher (Chair), Hank Schouten, Bernadette Courtney, Tim Watkin, Guy MacGibbon, Scott Inglis, Ben France-Hudson, Judi Jones, Alison Thom, Jo Cribb
Jo Cribb declared a conflict of interest and did not vote
To ensure a majority of public member votes, Hank Shouten did not vote