General comments/chat, page-37546

It was always going to be a tough ask to have that project approved imo.

This was a post from 2021 discussing ADN's mining lease application with reference to the Bird in Hand project.

https://hotcopper.com.au/threads/ann-mining-lease-application-submitted-for-great-white-project.5935894/page-64?post_id=55559202

This is a long arduous process with a lot of back and forward. You can understand why the process takes so long!

As investors, who are after a favourable result, it is very important that patience is required in the process. This allows time to listen to all stakeholder's concerns and or support, and achieve the most desirable outcomes for all involved. Naturally there will be people happy with outcomes and people upset with outcomes. I've read through all the submissions (suggest that all investor's do this to familiarise yourself with the issues) and the main issues that are at the forefront of the proposal are:

• Dust
• Road traffic/Road upgrade
• Water
• Noise/Visual Amenity

Most submissions were favourable for the project to be approved and go ahead, as the economic and social benefits and will be greatly appreciated by the local community and regional community.

The main issues are raised from the Carey's and the Inkster community group. These are stakeholders living in close proximity (closest is 800m). It appears that the narrative in their submissions are generally that they don't want the development to go ahead, but are reluctantly accepting, as long as their concerns are dealt with/responded to. They have valid concerns and should be adequately compensated for reasonable inconveniences/disturbances. Responses by ADN from what I can tell were professional and thoroughly detailed and offer solutions to move forward.

Hopefully an amicable relationship going forward will benefit all parties in the area. Unfortunately, there will always be some groups that feel oppressed when a new development goes ahead but the benefits of the development will greatly stretch to the majority, especially if local employment is prioritised.

The PEPR will give more detail with regards to some of these issues. I'm assuming ADN are working hard on the PEPR already as this sounds like a very extensive document (more so than the ML application). I'm pleased that Joe Ranford is leading this stage of the journey, as he has experience in Mining Lease applications previously, which should have a major impact in streamlining the process as much as possible. The experience of being a councillor for the South Australian Chamber of Mines and Energy for 2 years wouldn't exactly be going to waste either.

He worked for Terramin Australia on the Bird in Hand project 35km east of Adelaide. A historic underground gold mine in the late 1800's, which ceased when a water fracture was intercepted by the underground miners. Terramin picked it up in 2013 with a view to mining after revising the resource. The biggest issue for all stakeholders is the impact mining will have on groundwater and possible effect on groundwater users.

Approval for that project seems very difficult and very lengthy, especially due to a Winery next door, and houses surrounding the area:
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-08-27/miner-terramin-loses-bid-to-stop-bird-in-hand-winery-expansion/12597042


It looks favourable for ADN to be granted a Mining Lease, especially with limited impact due to a quarrying style operation, no tailings dam and relatively simple flow sheet, however it still has the potential to be denied the Mining Lease.

For comparison, this goes to show how much more difficult it would appear to be granted a ML.

Terramin had 254 public submissions compared to ADN's 16.
They were given 12 months to formally respond compared to ADN's 2 months.




TZN submitted their formal response 2.5 months later, to which DEM requested additional information.
Second response document submitted 8.5 months later, to which DEM requested additional information.
Final response submitted 23 July.

So, the original public submission response request was on 7th Feb 2020, long process to get to this point.




ADN's request was on 10th June 2021. Response submitted in July. Hopefully the response was exhaustive and sufficient, and it goes smooth from here, otherwise additional information may be required and another response document forthcoming, resulting in delays.

In the hands of the DEM at the moment, and a case of hurry up and wait for investors. It's a very real and serious risk, and once the Mining Lease is approved (cautiously optimistic), you would think institutional investment would start to pick up in a big way, especially with the release of a positive DFS.