Chatham Rock Phosphate - CRP

[easy money]

Phosphate is crucial to plant growth and there are no local land-based sources. For the sake of our farms and waterways, and our economy, New Zealand needs this product's strong environmental benefits.
Yet a decision-making committee of the Environmental Protection Authority last month rejected Chatham Rock Phosphate's mining application, primarily because of perceived uncertainty over environmental effects.
The misguided decision shows the law needs revising to focus on risks associated with uncertainty and how environmental effects can be monitored and managed. After all, crossing the road has uncertainty, but the risks can be managed.
Chatham Rock Phosphate (CRP), a New Zealand public company, proposes mining 30sq km a year to extract 1.5 million tonnes of phosphate nodules for use in New Zealand and Asia-Pacific. The area is on the Chatham Rise, about two-thirds of the way to the Chatham Islands, at a depth of 400m.

The committee focused on potential environmental effects, but gave no weight to what we believe are considerable environmental benefits:
On pastures, Chatham Rise phosphate minimises waterways pollution because, unlike superphosphate, it binds to the soil so very little leaches into waterways.
It needs less frequent application as the fertility effect lasts three years, not one.
The local product has almost no cadmium, a heavy metal that stores in the soil and can be a health hazard. The current Moroccan product has among the world's highest concentrations.
CRP's product has a much lower carbon footprint because it doesn't need to be shipped from overseas.
It also offers a strategic security of supply. Almost all phosphate supplies come from politically unstable areas, mainly in North Africa.
CRP would be an ethical producer of farm inputs, and New Zealand wouldn't be exporting its pollution. Importing all our phosphate requirements shows the hypocrisy of wanting the benefits of highly productive farming while exporting our environmental footprint to countries that mine phosphate on land, which involves severe social and environmental distress in communities.
The committee discounted the project's economic benefits by focusing on a World Bank nominal phosphate price, a figure with no relevance to how the phosphate market operates.
Why would CRP pursue a marginally profitable project? We advised NZX in January that based on current exchange rates our annual profit before royalties and taxation would be almost $100 million. Only a few New Zealand companies generate profits that high.
New Zealand would benefit from CRP paying $34 million in annual taxes and royalties, plus millions in port charges. Jobs - many high-value and knowledge-based - would be created in the port, on the mining ship, in environmental monitoring and broader scientific research, in the agriculture and hospitality sectors and on the Chatham Islands.
The income earned by extracting phosphate would be $9.7 million per sq km, compared with $9000 per sq km annually from bottom trawling.
The committee concluded mining would have no significant impact on fishing yields or fishing industry profitability, marine mammals or seabirds. Despite this, they worried about our mining being in a Benthic Protection Area. These are areas where bottom trawling of fish is banned under the Fisheries Act.
The committee ignored CRP's proposed no-mining areas that would maintain comparable environmental protection on the Chatham Rise until marine protected areas can be enacted.
Ninety-six per cent of New Zealand is under water and development and environmental effects already take place there, particularly commercial fishing. Why is it okay for bottom trawling to be environmentally unregulated and damage 50,000sq km of seafloor every year, yet CRP's 30sq km is a greater threat?

[Daytr]

If the bar you are setting is bottom trawling I would suggest its a wee bit low, don't ya think! Sarcasm intended.
Really $100M profit p.a. sounds almost unbelievable, perhaps it is & the EPA new it. What was CRP valued at, at its peak or before the application was rejected?
NZ could import low cadmium phosphate from SA or Russia that is not mined from the seabed, but they choose not to because they don't want to pay a higher price. Europe soon will only be using this product. More needs to be known about the enforcement that's going to be destroyed before activity like this is approved. You cannot just launch into something and figure it out later, as its too late.

[PSE]

Phosphate is crucial to plant growth and there are no local land-based sources. For the sake of our farms and waterways, and our economy, New Zealand needs this product's strong environmental benefits.
Yet a decision-making committee of the Environmental Protection Authority last month rejected Chatham Rock Phosphate's mining application, primarily because of perceived uncertainty over environmental effects.
The misguided decision shows the law needs revising to focus on risks associated with uncertainty and how environmental effects can be monitored and managed. After all, crossing the road has uncertainty, but the risks can be managed.
Chatham Rock Phosphate (CRP), a New Zealand public company, proposes mining 30sq km a year to extract 1.5 million tonnes of phosphate nodules for use in New Zealand and Asia-Pacific. The area is on the Chatham Rise, about two-thirds of the way to the Chatham Islands, at a depth of 400m.

The committee focused on potential environmental effects, but gave no weight to what we believe are considerable environmental benefits:
On pastures, Chatham Rise phosphate minimises waterways pollution because, unlike superphosphate, it binds to the soil so very little leaches into waterways.
It needs less frequent application as the fertility effect lasts three years, not one.
The local product has almost no cadmium, a heavy metal that stores in the soil and can be a health hazard. The current Moroccan product has among the world's highest concentrations.
CRP's product has a much lower carbon footprint because it doesn't need to be shipped from overseas.
It also offers a strategic security of supply. Almost all phosphate supplies come from politically unstable areas, mainly in North Africa.
CRP would be an ethical producer of farm inputs, and New Zealand wouldn't be exporting its pollution. Importing all our phosphate requirements shows the hypocrisy of wanting the benefits of highly productive farming while exporting our environmental footprint to countries that mine phosphate on land, which involves severe social and environmental distress in communities.
The committee discounted the project's economic benefits by focusing on a World Bank nominal phosphate price, a figure with no relevance to how the phosphate market operates.
Why would CRP pursue a marginally profitable project? We advised NZX in January that based on current exchange rates our annual profit before royalties and taxation would be almost $100 million. Only a few New Zealand companies generate profits that high.
New Zealand would benefit from CRP paying $34 million in annual taxes and royalties, plus millions in port charges. Jobs - many high-value and knowledge-based - would be created in the port, on the mining ship, in environmental monitoring and broader scientific research, in the agriculture and hospitality sectors and on the Chatham Islands.
The income earned by extracting phosphate would be $9.7 million per sq km, compared with $9000 per sq km annually from bottom trawling.
The committee concluded mining would have no significant impact on fishing yields or fishing industry profitability, marine mammals or seabirds. Despite this, they worried about our mining being in a Benthic Protection Area. These are areas where bottom trawling of fish is banned under the Fisheries Act.
The committee ignored CRP's proposed no-mining areas that would maintain comparable environmental protection on the Chatham Rise until marine protected areas can be enacted.
Ninety-six per cent of New Zealand is under water and development and environmental effects already take place there, particularly commercial fishing. Why is it okay for bottom trawling to be environmentally unregulated and damage 50,000sq km of seafloor every year, yet CRP's 30sq km is a greater threat?

I assume this came from someone within the company.
Farming is the backbone of our economy but has to happen in an environmentally friendly way.
Most of this is off topic and doesn't address my points, how can the company ensure any future proposals will not just be a waste of money and if this is such a good investment why aren't the directors picking up the tab.
Other things live in the sea besides mammals, fish for example.
Modelling is not enough.
Sounds like your proposal was pretty weak and deserved to be rejected. Rather than just whinging and bludging the company needs to give up or come up with something way more plausible.

[janner]

are you using a nom de plume or are you actually THE Croesus? If you are, I hope I become as rich as you, Croesus!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Croesus

Good response ..

I notice .. None .. to your reasonable Question..

[croesus]

Good response ..

I notice .. None .. to your reasonable Question..

No Janner, it was not reasonable, it was a silly question that didn't deserve a response.

obviously it is a " non de plume "

How about adding something usefull.. ?

[artemis]

This evening in Wellington the NZ Initiative is launching its report From Red Tape to Green Gold. Registration at this link.

http://www.eventbrite.co.nz/e/public...ts-15837310823

From the press release it looks like one of the key recommendations is to move from a (potential) hazards approach to a risk based approach - that is, taking into account probabilities. Although referring to the RMA that will be useful input to the EPA reviews.

In the Herald today re the above report's release, CRP and TTR get a brief mention.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/indu...ng-back-mining

[MAC]

This evening in Wellington the NZ Initiative is launching its report From Red Tape to Green Gold. Registration at this link.

http://www.eventbrite.co.nz/e/public...ts-15837310823

From the press release it looks like one of the key recommendations is to move from a (potential) hazards approach to a risk based approach - that is, taking into account probabilities. Although referring to the RMA that will be useful input to the EPA reviews.

In the Herald today re the above report's release, CRP and TTR get a brief mention.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/indu...ng-back-mining

A quite pertinent article Artemis.

It’s easy at times to forget within this world of vocal fringe minority groups, that the majority of hard working New Zealanders, just going about their respective day to day business, are on that same page, in seeing the benefits of economic diversity in mining as being in the national interest (mining outside of the national parks).

There should be no reason at all for bureaucracy to hold back fair and reasonable mining ventures provided their environmental planning is in keeping with accepted industry practices and reclamation methods.

The proposed changes to the EEZ for the offshore mining proposals are announced in just a couple of weeks also, perhaps we will see some relief in bureaucracy there too, well let’s see.

[Wallace D]

Hi Mac, you are another poster I have followed the last couple of years, and have enjoyed your comments, we are newbies but look forward to many years on ST.

We have of late taken a small position in CRP, a position the would have been a lot larger in previous times, as we believe sensibility must prevail ultimately?

I have read Daytraders comments regarding the recent application and acknowledge some of what he say's.

But what I haven't got my head around is that a mining permit was granted under the 'Crown Minerals Act' on the 6/12/13, the entity then spends or continues to spend millions of dollars, only to be shot down by this "Marine consent" process, and people talk about it after the fact, like it was a foregone conclusion????

What sort of Governmental Business Development process allows this to happen? surely once the permit was issued, the roadmap that ensues is such that there is a logical endpoint? Surely any unresolved processes, monitoring activities are only at worst an ongoing requirement to negotiate an outcome that is for the betterment of our industry, economy and environment, that we actual experience.

I see far more relevance in the benefit's to our rivers and lakes, our security of supply, our increased valued added opportunity and diversity of end-use products, that this entity could create, than the maybe affect on a seabed that is hundreds of miles of the Coast of NZ, hundreds of metres below sea level, in an area, we are fortunate enough to claim as our EEZ, which is another conversation all together?

So, I am willing to see how this plays out and will continue to support this enterprise.

Wallace D (Holding)

[artemis]

You mean vocal fringe minority groups like shareholders in CRP and the NZ institute, which lobbies on behalf of business owners?

Might pay to wait till the report is released later today. Then you will be able to make an informed assessment on the report, and whether it is biased or even handed.

[MAC]

Yes, all lobby groups, although I don't believe the shareholders of any company ever act together as a lobby group, if there is one for CRP I'm not aware of it.

Thanks Wallace, I agree with you that the system is broken.

It is an application process that should take no longer than it does in Australia and other countries, and if it is not delivering similar outcomes and rulings then clearly there is room to explore legislatively why that is so and to address deficiencies.

In my view the RMA and EEZ processes are too open to consultation from unaffected parties.

Anyone who is directly affected should have a right to a say and to influence any hearing process, whether they may be potentially affected by noise, pollution, light spill, vibration, overt visual impact or some other effect.

However, the RMA and EEZ application processes often become hijacked by non directly affected minority lobby groups who are motivated to delay proceedings and to make them as costly as possible. Costs borne by the applicant, rate payers and tax payers.

There is a place for lobby groups within national politics in creating and amending legislation, but in my view they should not be permitted to contribute at a resource consent or marine consent evaluation level where they are not an affected party.