TTR - Trans Tasman Resources

[MAC]

Trans Tasman Resources has applied for a marine consent under the new EEZ legislation to mine iron sands just off the coast of Taranaki. TTR is privately held at present, however, you may wish to generally support investment and growth in New Zealand as I do.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/9437056/Submissions-open-on-giant-mining-project

It commonly seems to me that numerous lobby groups make submissions with a very narrow focus, often obsessing over detrimental environmental effects alone, often ignoring the benefits to regional economies, and often ignoring the positive environmental effects which may arise from the displacement of more detrimental technologies which exist within the market.

If you wish as I do to balance the view of highly funded professional environmental lobby groups you may like to make a submission. It takes around ten minutes to do and you can find the form here;

http://www.epa.govt.nz/EEZ/trans_tasman/have_your_say/Pages/default.aspx

The TTR website is here;

http://www.ttrl.co.nz/

The EEZ website and environmental information can be found here;

http://www.epa.govt.nz/EEZ/trans_tasman/Pages/default.aspx

[MAC]

And, here we go, a $500M capital raising with possibly a dual listed ASX/NZX IPO mid 2014. http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/ironsands-miner-trans-tasman-eyes-capital-raising-us500m-mid-2014-bd-149305

[Arndale]

Not so great that TTR has been refused (http://www.epa.govt.nz/EEZ/trans_tasman/decision/Pages/default.aspx) marine consent application today.

[macduffy]

Yikes! That was going to be a great boost to the region!

Yes, would have been good in that regard but I could never understand how seabed mining of an abundant mineral resource could be economic when there is so much of it around on land, eg The Pilbara! OK, not exactly the same but the ironsands steelworks still have to compete with the iron ore variety.

[MAC]

Not so great that TTR has been refused (http://www.epa.govt.nz/EEZ/trans_tasman/decision/Pages/default.aspx) marine consent application today.

It will be interesting to see if they now do some more research and appeal.

One of the difficulties they must have had in demonstrating the economic benefits to NZ may have been in their decision to IPO after a marine consent approval. One could argue, that was just as well, or one could argue, that along with the lack of research it showed a low confidence of success.

An earlier IPO along with better environmental data may have swung it the other way.

The economic benefits to NZ would have been greater if a proportion of their shareholders were actually New Zealanders at the time of assessment.

[Arndale]

It will be interesting to see if they now do some more research and appeal.

One of the difficulties they must have had in demonstrating the economic benefits to NZ may have been in their decision to IPO after a marine consent approval. One could argue, that was just as well, or one could argue, that along with the lack of research it showed a low confidence of success.

An earlier IPO along with better environmental data may have swung it the other way.

The economic benefits to NZ would have been greater if a proportion of their shareholders were actually New Zealanders at the time of assessment.

Just reading the summary and not the whole 224 page document points to the proposal being premature in the eyes of the committee. Looking at it TTP did not do their homework, did not speak enough to existing interests and other parties, and their 'risk-based tiered adaptive management approach' was poor. The overriding factor though seems to be the environment:

"In summary, on the evidence presented, we are not satisfied that the life-supporting capacity of the
environment would be safeguarded or that the adverse effects of the proposal could be avoided,
remedied or mitigated, nor do we consider that the proposed conditions (including the adaptive
management approach) are sufficiently certain or robust for this application to be approved, given the
uncertainty and inadequacy of the information presented to us about the potential adverse effects."

[Goldstein]

It's a bit of a dirty industry. Oil and gas are different, it's about mitigating risk (the exception being fracking). There's no way you can mine the sea floor in an environmentally sound way.

There would have to be a big economic win to justify the political backlash especially in election year. Maori, Labour and the Greens would be very much against it. I bet National are breathing a sigh of relief.

[MAC]

Sometimes new things come with flaws and I wonder if we will see a management re-shuffle at the EPA now. Something obviously is broken at senior levels, or rather never worked from the get go.

Clearly they have failed to manage a process which should be able to find some form of diplomatic compromise between nervous well meaning first time environmental DMC representatives and a prospective business willing to do more to move forward.

As I understand, the EPA process requires a ‘completeness’ assessment of a submission when it is first made, surely this was the big opportunity for EPA management to advise TTR that they needed to step back and do a little more work first. Especially as all must have respected it was the very first application.

I sense that some heads may rightfully roll at the EPA in response to this sort of backlash.

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/BU1406/S00669/mining-sector-in-shock-over-seabed-mining-rejection.htm

[artemis]

So 7 groups have lodged appeals against the EPA decision. I would expect some to be withdrawn, as there is no government funding for these appeals and there will be considerable cost. Appeals have to be on points of law, so will be interesting to see what those grounds are. And how much grandstanding the court will allow.

[Lola]

So 7 groups have lodged appeals against the EPA decision. I would expect some to be withdrawn, as there is no government funding for these appeals and there will be considerable cost. Appeals have to be on points of law, so will be interesting to see what those grounds are. And how much grandstanding the court will allow.

Main arguments for appeal (based on quotes from Debbie Packer anyway) seem to be around the split nature of the Decision.
Hard to see that would constitute a failure under law. Presumably the Review Panel would have been set up legally in all respects including the Chairman having a casting vote.

NZ needs to deepen its economy especially at this time when farmers are getting slammed. This titanomagnetite resource has potential to add 3% pa plus to our GDP.

Only a matter of time before tourism gets wacked too because some frantics will want to ban air travel.

[Joshuatree]

If any bottom fishers are int.
Manhattan to Acquire Trans-Tasman Resources Limited 45 pages 5.8MB (https://www.asx.com.au/asx/statistics/displayAnnouncement.do?display=pdf&idsId=01943246)

[artemis]

TTR appeal in the High Court next week.

[artemis]

TTR to take appeal against the High Court decision (that went against its EPA decision) to the Appeal Court.

[winner69]

TTR to take appeal against the High Court decision (that went against its EPA decision) to the Appeal Court.

Hope they are wasting their time and effort again

At least they’ve given up on the West Coast and Kawhia projects for the moment and let consents lapse.

[Lola]

[QUOTE=winner69;742474]Hope they are wasting their time and effort again

At least they’ve given up on the West Coast and Kawhia projects for the moment and let consents lapse.

Actually you have to admire TTRs resolve. NZInc will be the Winner (no pun) if they get to develop this resource. This latest Leave to Appeal granted by three top includes the one important matter that needs clarification viz Is Adaptive Management lawful ? The EPA voted that it was in an earlier substantive hearing. The other matters are just noise. Something the opponents of the project are quite good at.

I wonder if Winner69 has read any at all of the many hundreds of pages of scientific study that TTR has presented? Probably not. Easier to believe the marchers and just read their placards.

[artemis]

Court of Appeal hearing set down for 25/26 September. Two local iwi are part of the opposing group.

(Noted that Chatham Rise Phosphate has made good progress in getting their local iwi on board for good and valuable consideration.)

[winner69]

Court of Appeal dismisses Trans Tasman Resources’ bid to quash High Court ruling that overturned its consent to dig up 50 million tonnes of the South Taranaki Bight a year for 35 years.

That’s very good news ...insofar as I’m concerned anyway

[artemis]

TTR are considering appealing the decision. The decision refers the application back to the EPA but with constraints on EPA consideration on this and possibly some oil and gas exploration applications.

300 jobs and a lot of tax revenue lost to the region if TTR does not proceed, or succeed.

[artemis]

TTR are appealing to the Supreme Court on the basis that the EPA did follow the correct legal approach. Can't help but think the defending locals might cop some backlash from the increasing number of unemployed there. Situation is not that dissimilar to the Health v Economy current (im)balance except no government handouts required.

[artemis]

The Supreme Court yesterday granted Trans Tasman Resources leave to appeal to reverse a Court of Appeal judgement which upheld a High Court decision stopping it from mining.

[winner69]

The Supreme Court yesterday granted Trans Tasman Resources leave to appeal to reverse a Court of Appeal judgement which upheld a High Court decision stopping it from mining.

Bugger ...but I’ll gladly keep on donating to stop TTR pillaging the oceans off Taranaki

[artemis]

Seabed mining opponents outraged by Attorney-General intervention

The outrage appears to come from a belief that the Attorney-General will take a pro TTR approach, whereas it is said to be neutral and confined to points of law raised.

Looks to me like the outrage is intended to show the A-G whose in charge here. That would it seems be the Maori Party. Good luck with that.

https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/429932/seabed-mining-opponents-outraged-by-attorney-general-intervention

[winner69]

In town tomorrow so might pop into the Supreme Court to see how things are going

. Last year the Court of Appeal found that the environment was the bottom line,...that’s the way it should stay

[KJMLimited]

Duncan Priest is a TTR Director. Say no more.

[Lola]

Duncan Priest is a TTR Director. Say no more.

I dont believe that is correct; anyway whats the problem?

[KJMLimited]

According to the Companies Office website he's a Director.

[winner69]

Seems Supreme Court’s ruled against the seabed mining consent ...... hope Govt steps in and just puts a blanked ban on seabed mining in NZ waters ... forever

[peat]

I have no real interest or expectation of any other outcome with this ...

but we are just importing the stuff from a war torn African country which I understand to be an illegal national entity.

And from my understanding there really would have been little environmental impact.

And we would have supplied our own country with the phosphate so badly needed.

But it was always gonna be OOOOOH SEABED MINING OOOOOOH <spooky noises>

So is this another case of virtue signalling at the actual detriment of the country?

[Nor]

Low cadmium too.

[artemis]

TTR has formally requested the Environmental Protection Authority to reconvene the Decision Making Committee to reconsider the marine and discharge consents in accordance with the recent Supreme Court judgment.

[kiora]

Bugger ...but I’ll gladly keep on donating to stop TTR pillaging the oceans off Taranaki

Its the Chatham rise. Taranaki is safe on this one
https://www.sbma.gov.ck/news-3/cook-islander-on-niwa-seabed-survey-in-chatham-rise-nz

[Lola]

Bugger ...but I’ll gladly keep on donating to stop TTR pillaging the oceans off Taranaki

Rather interesting to read the comments from Minister David Parker today where he says balancing the ill effects of our dairy industry on the environment with the obvious economic benefits to the country , will be a very challenging balancing act indeed.
He then goes on to say we have more than enough cows now and the country needs to develop some new and significant industries to fill the gap.
TTR have just what he's looking for, and he is in the position to influence the outcome.

TTR will not be harmful to oceans, certainly not nearly as harmful as the dairy industry is to the water ways now. Its rather ironic that there exist some Maori Corporations operating proudly in the dairy industry but we never hear a bad word about that from the Hawera Maori Party MP Deborah Packer who seems to have nightmares on a regular basis whenever TTR is mentioned.

[KJMLimited]

There is a lot of work going into reducing the emissions of dairy herd without reducing production. It is entirely possible that emissions from the herd will be down 70% 10 years. In contrast, what TTR want to do is use unproven technology to produce an uncertain amount of a commodity, in an environment in which they have no experience. All the while saying that the environment won't suffer any long term damage. There is no comparison.

[Lola]

There is a lot of work going into reducing the emissions of dairy herd without reducing production. It is entirely possible that emissions from the herd will be down 70% 10 years. In contrast, what TTR want to do is use unproven technology to produce an uncertain amount of a commodity, in an environment in which they have no experience. All the while saying that the environment won't suffer any long term damage. There is no comparison.

"Entirely possible..."... prove it.
TTR are merely DREDGING the sea floor....an activity that goes on every day in NZ and around the world. Especially in harbors close to land.

The technology actually is proven...its called magnetics. You may not know it but Fe is easy to extract from its source...in this case sand...without chemicals. Unlike milk production which needs mountains of chemicals. That's called fertilizer. You need to clear your mind ; at the moment its brainwashed. Tree hugger .

[KJMLimited]

'Merely dredging the sea floor'. Good one.
Ps look up Asparagopsis and you'll see what I mean about the potential for emission reduction in the dairy herd.

[Nor]

Stirring up a bit of muck on the ocean floor could have a beneficial effect on climate change. ie fertilize the little buggers and they will utilize more CO2. Takes it out of the atmosphere, ultimately.

[Lola]

'Merely dredging the sea floor'. Good one.
Ps look up Asparagopsis and you'll see what I mean about the potential for emission reduction in the dairy herd.

Well good luck with that. Long long way to go and it doesn't address the harm from nitrogen runoffs into water courses or leaching . Even Goblin Greta will be a wee bit cynical.

We need less cows and like the planet needs birth control.

[Nor]

Isn't dredging the seafloor what the fishing industry does, calling it trawling, over a hugely greater area and no one says anything.

[Lola]

Isn't dredging the seafloor what the fishing industry does, calling it trawling, over a hugely greater area and no one says anything.

Yes exactly. The fish industry unbelievably has dispensations galore when it come to throwing muck overboard. Why else do people like Talleys pay people like Shane Jones thousands to smooze politicians and bureaucrats to enrich themselves.?

Talleys were one of the parties objecting to TTRs plans. Kind of pathetic really. A polluter and a scavenger (Talleys) trying to stop an industry that will produce a commodity that they (Fishers) need to operate. VIZ Steel to make their damn boats.

[kiora]

20-thousand square metres sounds a lot,but that is 2 hectares.

But still sounds iffy?

https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/BU2403/S00199/second-day-of-seabed-mining-hearing-concludes-as-experts-reveal-20-thousand-square-metres-of-seabed-to-be-mined-daily.htm?utm_source=ST&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=ShareTrader+AM+Update+for+Friday+15+M arch+2024

[winner69]

20-thousand square metres sounds a lot,but that is 2 hectares.

But still sounds iffy?

https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/BU2403/S00199/second-day-of-seabed-mining-hearing-concludes-as-experts-reveal-20-thousand-square-metres-of-seabed-to-be-mined-daily.htm?utm_source=ST&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=ShareTrader+AM+Update+for+Friday+15+M arch+2024

2 hectares a day

Ban seabed mining …I’m with KASM at the protest in spirit

[Nor]

2 hectares a day

Ban seabed mining …I’m with KASM at the protest in spirit
Ban trawling. It does huge damage. Would be hugely in excess of that done in a small patch of sea floor mining.

[winner69]

TTR abandons seabed mining application

Couldn’t prove they wouldn’t cause any harm so walked away

Good news

[Daytr]

TTR abandons seabed mining application

Couldn’t prove they wouldn’t cause any harm so walked away

Good news

I think you will find they are skirting process and will apply directly to the Government for fast tracking. This will be a test to see if the fast track process will be handled responsibly.
If this gets approved it will be an absolute disgrace.

There is no way that a similar process would be allowed on land, but as it's hidden underwater, nothing to see here.

It's a minefield for Shane Jones, pitting one vested interest party vs another.

[Nor]

TTR abandons seabed mining application

Couldn’t prove they wouldn’t cause any harm so walked away

Good news

Always tough to prove a negative.

[Lola]

I think you will find they are skirting process and will apply directly to the Government for fast tracking. This will be a test to see if the fast track process will be handled responsibly.
If this gets approved it will be an absolute disgrace.

There is no way that a similar process would be allowed on land, but as it's hidden underwater, nothing to see here.

It's a minefield for Shane Jones, pitting one vested interest party vs another.

Jones has recused himself. Bishop and Brown will handle this. NZ, after six years of GRANTS (pun intended), will find this $500 Billion dollar ready to go project, rather handy. The IMF would certainly agree. There is a good precedent to grant unpopular large projects. Clyde comes to mind, and I don't hear any bodies moaning about the pretty cycle ways around Lake Dunstan that became a bi product.

[Daytr]

Jones has recused himself. Bishop and Brown will handle this. NZ, after six years of GRANTS (pun intended), will find this $500 Billion dollar ready to go project, rather handy. The IMF would certainly agree. There is a good precedent to grant unpopular large projects. Clyde comes to mind, and I don't hear any bodies moaning about the pretty cycle ways around Lake Dunstan that became a bi product.

And that's because Bishop & Brown are qualified in area of the necessary expertise. 🙄
We will be an environmental outlier to approve such a disgraceful operation.

[nztx]

And that's because Bishop & Brown are qualified in area of the necessary expertise. ��
We will be an environmental outlier to approve such a disgraceful operation.



Must be some of those bl**dy precious rare & endangered snails elsewhere too then ? .. probably all distantly related and can be proven by traversing ancient myths & fables with a bit of DNA work tossed in ;)

[Daytr]

Must be some of those bl**dy precious rare & endangered snails elsewhere too then ? .. probably all distantly related and can be proven by traversing ancient myths & fables with a bit of DNA work tossed in ;)

How about instead if just posting frivolous, silly posts, admit the real problem is we don't know enough what will be being destroyed.

We know this is in an area that is a whale breeding ground & the habitat of the Maui Dolphin.
We do know that ancient corals will be destroyed.
We do know that not only is the seabed vacuumed up indiscriminately but also a plume if waste will be allowed to spread with the currents an smother a wide area of the seabed.

What we don't know is what else will be being destroyed with this activity. Ignorance is not a good basis for any decision.

Seabed mining is banned in most parts of the world for a very good reason.

[Nor]

How about instead if just posting frivolous, silly posts, admit the real problem is we don't know enough what will be being destroyed.

We know this is in an area that is a whale breeding ground & the habitat of the Maui Dolphin.
We do know that ancient corals will be destroyed.
We do know that not only is the seabed vacuumed up indiscriminately but also a plume if waste will be allowed to spread with the currents an smother a wide area of the seabed.

What we don't know is what else will be being destroyed with this activity. Ignorance is not a good basis for any decision.

Seabed mining is banned in most parts of the world for a very good reason.

But, we never will know what we don't know. Ever.

[Daytr]

But, we never will know what we don't know. Ever.

Perhaps, but until we know what the impact will be we shouldn't make blind decisions. And we know enough that it's going to impact the species outlined above, let alone fisheries.

I was involved in mine finance in Australia & I had no issue with mines in the outback where the environmental impact was minimal. Where I struggled was with mines proposed in the Kakadoo or Tasmania etc.

This will be mining a very low grade iron in a way that is banned throughout the world.

[Toddy]

Jones has recused himself. Bishop and Brown will handle this. NZ, after six years of GRANTS (pun intended), will find this $500 Billion dollar ready to go project, rather handy. The IMF would certainly agree. There is a good precedent to grant unpopular large projects. Clyde comes to mind, and I don't hear any bodies moaning about the pretty cycle ways around Lake Dunstan that became a bi product.

That Dam rescued Otago at the time.

Farmers had to deal with crippling interest rates in the 20s plus worst drought in history. I remember my uncles pouring concrete during the nights to keep the farm.

And pretty sure that the dam roading contract allowed a very small Fulton and Hogan at the time to invest in machinery and scale up the business. It made FH in my opinion.

The rest is history. From memory I think the Beaumont dam was all go aswell but nz ran out of money.

[Nor]

Perhaps, but until we know what the impact will be we shouldn't make blind decisions. And we know enough that it's going to impact the species outlined above, let alone fisheries.

I was involved in mine finance in Australia & I had no issue with mines in the outback where the environmental impact was minimal. Where I struggled was with mines proposed in the Kakadoo or Tasmania etc.

This will be mining a very low grade iron in a way that is banned throughout the world.

But when we're talking about the impact on things that we don't even know exist . . . where does it end?

[Daytr]

But when we're talking about the impact on things that we don't even know exist . . . where does it end?

Well the things I have outlined do exist in the area.

Not knowing what you are doing is not a justification for doing it.

[winner69]

From BusinessDesk -



The proof is as simple as infrastructure minister Chris Bishop’s blunt reaction to TTR’s parent company, ASX-listed Manuka Resources’ “disclosure” this week that Bishop had “invited” it to apply for fast-track consent.

Bishop told Radio New Zealand that characterising a form letter sent to some 200 potential applicants as an invitation was “misleading”.

Ministers only say that sort of thing when they’re annoyed, meaning TTR’s chief executive Alan Eggers has scored an early own goal in his quest to get this contentious project ticked through.


I hope Bishop is so annoyed he tells TTR to f*** off


How to lose a fast-track consent application: Trans Tasman Resources' Taranaki Bight project

https://businessdesk.co.nz/article/primary-sector/how-to-lose-a-fast-track-consent-application-trans-tasman-resources-taranaki-bight-project?utm_source=Digest&utm_medium=email

[Sideshow Bob]

From BusinessDesk -



The proof is as simple as infrastructure minister Chris Bishop’s blunt reaction to TTR’s parent company, ASX-listed Manuka Resources’ “disclosure” this week that Bishop had “invited” it to apply for fast-track consent.

Bishop told Radio New Zealand that characterising a form letter sent to some 200 potential applicants as an invitation was “misleading”.

Ministers only say that sort of thing when they’re annoyed, meaning TTR’s chief executive Alan Eggers has scored an early own goal in his quest to get this contentious project ticked through.


I hope Bishop is so annoyed he tells TTR to f*** off


How to lose a fast-track consent application: Trans Tasman Resources' Taranaki Bight project

https://businessdesk.co.nz/article/primary-sector/how-to-lose-a-fast-track-consent-application-trans-tasman-resources-taranaki-bight-project?utm_source=Digest&utm_medium=email

CRaP told the market they were invited toooooooo....CRP up almost 23%.

[Daytr]

And this is why we shouldn't vacuum up the seabed indiscriminately. We don't even know what is down there.
100 new species discovered!

https://allthatsinteresting.com/bounty-trough?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=atinewsletter&utm_email=supperton10@gmail.com