sharetrader
Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 43
  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Christchurch
    Posts
    1,985

    Default TTR - Trans Tasman Resources

    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/indu...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_tas...s/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_tas...s/default.aspx

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Christchurch
    Posts
    1,985

    Default

    And, here we go, a $500M capital raising with possibly a dual listed ASX/NZX IPO mid 2014. http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/ironsan...2014-bd-149305
    Last edited by MAC; 28-11-2013 at 05:48 PM.

  3. #3
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    22

    Default

    Not so great that TTR has been refused marine consent application today.

  4. #4
    Veteran novice
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    , , .
    Posts
    7,289

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moosie_900 View Post
    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.

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Christchurch
    Posts
    1,985

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Arndale View Post
    Not so great that TTR has been refused 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.

  6. #6
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MAC View Post
    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."

  7. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    Wellington, , New Zealand.
    Posts
    425

    Default

    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.

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Christchurch
    Posts
    1,985

    Default

    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/BU140...-rejection.htm

  9. #9
    Advanced Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Wellington, , New Zealand.
    Posts
    1,701

    Default

    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.

  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    440

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by artemis View Post
    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.

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •