Chatham Rock Phosphate - CRP

[Daytr]

Apparently it is low in cadmium, but how else will it better for the environment in regards leaching? It is still laden with nitrates.
I think you are buying into hype there, but happy to be proven otherwise.
Ripping up the seabed with little oversight, i.e. you can't actually see the damage I would suggest would offset any emissions caused by shipping by some margin. Then there is also the emissions created by producing the product itself. Do you know if they are more or less than alternative suppliers?

The ocean creates something like 75% of the world's oxygen, perhaps something we should consider before we start ripping up the seabed around the world. Or should we just keep pumping out carbon & reduce carbon filters and oxygen production?

[bmrm]

Apparently it is low in cadmium, but how else will it better for the environment in regards leaching? It is still laden with nitrates.
I think you are buying into hype there, but happy to be proven otherwise.
Ripping up the seabed with little oversight, i.e. you can't actually see the damage I would suggest would offset any emissions caused by shipping by some margin. Then there is also the emissions created by producing the product itself. Do you know if they are more or less than alternative suppliers?

The ocean creates something like 75% of the world's oxygen, perhaps something we should consider before we start ripping up the seabed around the world. Or should we just keep pumping out carbon & reduce carbon filters and oxygen production?

That would maybe be a compelling point if we didn't already allow the fisheries industry to do this on a massive scale, and all to produce a comparably low value product (fish vs mined minerals). The fact that fisheries got in ex ante our current environmental regulations is nice for them, but seems both unjust and dumb when viewed in the context of other productive uses of the sea floor.

[cammo]

Unsure where you get the nitrates from?

The Rock phosphate is exactly that....a sedimentary rock that consists of the end stage of the phosphate cycle( lowest energy) deposited on the ocean floor.

I havent looked at the chemical composition but most likely it will be (metal)x phosphate(y) hydroxy (z) and maybe a fluorine or two chucked in for good measure. All adding up to insoluble. This phosphate is only liberated by enzymatic action, bacteria and roots infiltrating the phosphate ore- i.e its for the plants use not opportunistic organisms.

Compare with the calcium based acid phosphates with solubility of 10-20 g/l at least and very ionic so easily changed and taken up in biological systems

[NT001]

Apparently it is low in cadmium, but how else will it better for the environment in regards leaching? It is still laden with nitrates....

Then there is also the emissions created by producing the product itself. Do you know if they are more or less than alternative suppliers?

I seem to recall that one of the strong points of CRP's submission was that Chatham Rise phosphate would not require the emissions-creating processing that the product from Morocco needs.

[Daytr]

BMRM, two wrongs don't make a right. There are many things very wrong with the global fishing industry as well and in the NZ industry, don't get me started. You are setting the bar pretty low by the assertion that other industries are already doing damage to te ecology so its find to do more.

Cammo, yes you are right what is being extracted is rock phosphate, I was referring to the end product being a mixed or combination of fertilizer which generally is heavy in nitrates that then leech into the water ways.

What I am against in the main is that CRP has not given enough evidence in my view of the potential impact / damage it will do to the seabed and what impact it will have on organisms that live and migrate through the area. I don't think we should be charging in without full knowledge & that is what is lacking here & that was also the EPA's view. If a concrete case can be made that the impact is minimal & this needs to be proven with far more knowledge of the actual environment being disturbed it may well make sense. However to date CRP imo are a long way from that.
And this argument of give it a go & see what happens or Adaptive Management is just BS and would never be allowed on land.

[Daytr]

As mentioned on multiple occasions, Morocco isn't the only producer, they are just one of the cheapest.
But again if the case can be proven over sourcing from the likes of Russia & South Africa and that included with knowledge of the actual seabed that will be disturbed and the damage to it can be knowledgeably displayed then perhaps there is an argument to proceed. However CRP are a long way from that position imo & that of the EPA.

I seem to recall that one of the strong points of CRP's submission was that Chatham Rise phosphate would not require the emissions-creating processing that the product from Morocco needs.

[Food4Thought]

Phosphate, when put into a situation with algae... allows it to grow for a longer time period. The food as such for algae. Algae bloom material. I wonder what the fall out effect would be from phosphate mining under water with a sub tropical climate... Bacteria and algae growth at an exponential rate within the right circumstances (summer temperature increases).

To remove phosphate from water, you can use lanthanum, to bind it together, filter it out. This is not cheap.

[cammo]

The phosphate is bound in a mineral complex not a discrete ionic compound so lanthanum wouldn't work. Also it's sea water so unlikely to function in that way as too many other anions in solution.

[NeverQuestion]

Does anyone know who the new head of the EPA is now?

Seems like this stock is pretty much a write off now... Which is odd because I thought the government were serious about cleaning up the waterways in rural New Zealand

Clearly Less super phosphate on farmland would be better for the environment (CRP phosphate has much lower runoff and only needs to be applied once every 3 years not every year)

[Antipodean]

Dr Allan Freeth took over in September 2015 as CE (http://www.epa.govt.nz/about-us/who-...ment-team.aspx)

At present the stock is a virtual write off until/unless 'something' changes. Something could be a re-submit of the application (with or without governmental changes prior), or something of note from the reverse takeover recently completed. However the government alone cannot get this moving even if they wanted to.