Chatham Rock Phosphate - CRP

[NT001]

... Why would you appeal unless there was significant law change?

Well I doubt there will be an appeal, which has to be on a point of law, and CC has basically ruled this out. But Nick Smith made it pretty clear in parliament today that there will be significant changes to the EPA Act, which could open the way for a fresh application. The key passages of his reply to questions were:

"Both the Environmental Protection Authority and my ministry, in their briefings to me as the incoming Minister, raised a number of implementation issues with the Act and flowing from this we will be progressing amendments to make the new regime more practical and workable ... We will be doing some sensible finessing of that law."

That's pretty definite, going much further than just saying the government will look at possible changes to the law. It also belies the view expressed by some that John Key wouldn't be brave enough to risk criticism from the environmental lobby. And a few days ago CC indicated he had received a good hearing from ministers when he expressed concerns about the DMC's decision.

I think a lot of the general public would say that a NZ company should not be debarred from exploiting an economically and environmentally useful resource within our EEZ (subject to certain restrictions and careful monitoring) on account of the possibility that there may be a unique but invisible thicket of rock corals on the site and a few whales may pass through the area. IMO.

[easy money]

Following on from yesterday's announcement..more details should emerge from today's meeting about how the company intends to keep it's self afloat over the next year or two...When CC said he was talking to the politicians..he wasn't joking..the wheels are indeed turning..maybe faster than we think... It should be an interesting day ..

[Daytr]

Well on previous form of the National government I would agree with you.
However Key has taken a n umber of political hits recently & there is a by-election looming as well.
The amendments may also mean that it knocks back irresponsible & under cooked applications before they get to the EPA & waste a lot of share holders money.

If they do indeed make the changes you are suggesting they will also need to change the name from the Environmental Protection Agency to something like Development at all costs & stuff the environment. I set the standard at a minimum of what would be allowed in the likes of Australia, obviously a very pro mining country & imo after working for 15 years in the mining industry in Australia this sort of application would also have been rejected.


"Both the Environmental Protection Authority and my ministry, in their briefings to me as the incoming Minister, raised a number of implementation issues with the Act and flowing from this we will be progressing amendments to make the new regime more practical and workable ... We will be doing some sensible finessing of that law."

That's pretty definite, going much further than just saying the government will look at possible changes to the law. It also belies the view expressed by some that John Key wouldn't be brave enough to risk criticism from the environmental lobby. And a few days ago CC indicated he had received a good hearing from ministers when he expressed concerns about the DMC's decision.

I think a lot of the general public would say that a NZ company should not be debarred from exploiting an economically and environmentally useful resource within our EEZ (subject to certain restrictions and careful monitoring) on account of the possibility that there may be a unique but invisible thicket of rock corals on the site and a few whales may pass through the area. IMO.[/QUOTE]

[Xerof]

Following on from yesterday's announcement..more details should emerge from today's meeting about how the company intends to keep it's self afloat over the next year or two...When CC said he was talking to the politicians..he wasn't joking..the wheels are indeed turning..maybe faster than we think... It should be an interesting day ..

Nick Smith is his electorate MP...........

[Daytr]

Sorry just on your last point.
"I think a lot of the general public would say that a NZ company should not be debarred from exploiting an economically and environmentally useful resource within our EEZ (subject to certain restrictions and careful monitoring) on account of the possibility that there may be a unique but invisible thicket of rock corals on the site and a few whales may pass through the area. IMO. "

What does environmentally useful mean? How is mining useful to the environment?
Also the point I would like to make as did the EPA is that the impact & the environment is pretty much unknown.
Do you go & rip something up before you understand it or the impact? As its too late if you already have & then you find that the damage was devastating & it being a very important environmentally sensitive site. The point is we just don't know, so more understanding is required before any application like this is considered.

NZ relies heavily on a 'clean green' image for tourism & its place in the world. Something this government seems to be very keen on dismantling in a few short years. They have heavily backed dairy & oil exploration & both those are coming unstuck. Wouldn't the intelligent move been to instead of backing industries that are already heavily supported or 20th century ambitions, invest in technology, tourism, conservation & green energy which ar far more sustainable and diversifies NZs economy.

[easy money]

Well on previous form of the National government I would agree with you.
However Key has taken a n umber of political hits recently & there is a by-election looming as well.
The amendments may also mean that it knocks back irresponsible & under cooked applications before they get to the EPA & waste a lot of share holders money.

If they do indeed make the changes you are suggesting they will also need to change the name from the Environmental Protection Agency to something like Development at all costs & stuff the environment. I set the standard at a minimum of what would be allowed in the likes of Australia, obviously a very pro mining country & imo after working for 15 years in the mining industry in Australia this sort of application would also have been rejected.


"Both the Environmental Protection Authority and my ministry, in their briefings to me as the incoming Minister, raised a number of implementation issues with the Act and flowing from this we will be progressing amendments to make the new regime more practical and workable ... We will be doing some sensible finessing of that law."

That's pretty definite, going much further than just saying the government will look at possible changes to the law. It also belies the view expressed by some that John Key wouldn't be brave enough to risk criticism from the environmental lobby. And a few days ago CC indicated he had received a good hearing from ministers when he expressed concerns about the DMC's decision.

I think a lot of the general public would say that a NZ company should not be debarred from exploiting an economically and environmentally useful resource within our EEZ (subject to certain restrictions and careful monitoring) on account of the possibility that there may be a unique but invisible thicket of rock corals on the site and a few whales may pass through the area. IMO.

[/QUOTE]

Yes Daytr...I am sure you right amongst other things there could well be a shake up at the EPA...

[NT001]

Sorry just on your last point.
"I think a lot of the general public would say that a NZ company should not be debarred from exploiting an economically and environmentally useful resource within our EEZ (subject to certain restrictions and careful monitoring) on account of the possibility that there may be a unique but invisible thicket of rock corals on the site and a few whales may pass through the area. IMO. "

What does environmentally useful mean? How is mining useful to the environment?
Also the point I would like to make as did the EPA is that the impact & the environment is pretty much unknown.

I don't think there was much dispute that phosphate from the Chatham Rise would be environmentally far preferable to continuing to import it from Morocco, for several reasons: (1) the carbon footprint for transport; (2) the fact that leakage into waterways from CR phosphate would be far less; (3) less cadmium.

Mining and the environment almost always involve some degree of tradeoff. People who disagree should stop buying anything made of steel, for example. The fact it's made in China or Australia, not in NZ, is a moral copout. We live in one world.

The fact that the EPA rejected the phosphate project on the basis of reasons that were largely unknown reinforces my view that the EPA process has problems.

[easy money]

I don't think there was much dispute that phosphate from the Chatham Rise would be environmentally far preferable to continuing to import it from Morocco, for several reasons: (1) the carbon footprint for transport; (2) the fact that leakage into waterways from CR phosphate would be far less; (3) less cadmium.

Mining and the environment almost always involve some degree of tradeoff. People who disagree should stop buying anything made of steel, for example. The fact it's made in China or Australia, not in NZ, is a moral copout. We live in one world.

The fact that the EPA rejected the phosphate project on the basis of reasons that were largely unknown reinforces my view that the EPA process has problems.

Amen to that.

[MAC]

I don't think there was much dispute that phosphate from the Chatham Rise would be environmentally far preferable to continuing to import it from Morocco, for several reasons: (1) the carbon footprint for transport; (2) the fact that leakage into waterways from CR phosphate would be far less; (3) less cadmium.

Mining and the environment almost always involve some degree of tradeoff. People who disagree should stop buying anything made of steel, for example. The fact it's made in China or Australia, not in NZ, is a moral copout. We live in one world.

The fact that the EPA rejected the phosphate project on the basis of reasons that were largely unknown reinforces my view that the EPA process has problems.

Yep agree with that NT001, the EPA did seem to look for reasons not to grant in the end, and they didn’t really IMO announce anything that stacked up as a credible underlying reason which outweighed the environmental benefits and economics.

They were just too scared to pick up the pen and sign off. What I would like to see going forward is two of the five DMC seats allocated to a mining engineer and an economist.

At the end of the day a billion people in the world starve to death if phosphate could not be mined, it’s too late for humans to go back to living in caves, it has to come from somewhere.

The hypocrisy is that those whom genuinely have an environmental interest should be supporting the mining of New Zealand’s phosphate within New Zealand where we have minimum environmental standards, unlike in places like Morocco where we presently source our phosphate from.

And, if New Zealand can export some phosphate mined under minimum environmental standards to SE Asia where perhaps those standards are lower, then they benefit also knowing that is so.

[jonu]

The fact that the EPA rejected the phosphate project on the basis of reasons that were largely unknown reinforces my view that the EPA process has problems.

Let me extrapolate this logic.

(Applicant) I want to fire a bunch of nuclear missiles into the moon for target practice. It will be environmentally more friendly than bombing the crap out of Utah or Bikini Atoll.

(EPA) What are the impacts of you doing this?

(Applicant) Can't be sure

(EPA) Neither are we. We don't have the science available to us from you or anyone else. Oh what the hell, go ahead and see what happens.

One day after first firings massive irreversible tidal changes occur due to the moon's orbit being altered. Oh well, guess we know now!