Did anyone else actually read the environmental assessment report?
Basically Cores mine closure plan wasnt deemed adequate. The NT EPA wants core to completely backfill the pit at grants and Core doesnt want to due to the cost. Also there are issues with the revegetation plan being inadequate.
The report states that the rehabilitation issues need to be addressed in the mining plan before approval would be granted. Below are some snippets from the report relating to this. I highly reccomend that you and other holders have a read of the report in its entirety. I imagine this has something to do with the hold up.
"Given the short life of mine proposed, the NT EPA is of the view that the plan submitted in the EIS lacks the detail that would typically be required in a closure plan near completion of mining. A number of deficiencies were identified in the plan including the consideration for closure of the pit void, suitability of raw materials for rehabilitation, inadequacy of the revegetation strategy, and lack of evidence of quality assurance and quality control procedures for closure of the mine including construction of mine landform components."
...
"The Proponent’s principal argument for not backfilling the pit, in both the Draft EIS and Supplement, was that the development of a future underground mine targeting the already defined ore resource beneath the pit would be unviable if the pit was backfilled.
While the costs of backfilling would significantly reduce profit margins, the Proponent’s calculations appeared to indicate that the Proposal would remain viable. However, in additional information to the NT EPA, the Proponent argued that the Proposal was unlikely to be considered financially viable if the pit void required backfilling as a condition of approval (Additional Information Section 7). The justification for this claim was given as the prohibitive cost of importing fill from off-site to complete the backfill."
...
The Proponent estimated that the backfill option would take approximately 10 years to complete at a cost of $53 million (net present value).
...
The NT EPA is not satisfied that the Proponent has adequately evaluated all closure options in the EIS for the following reasons:
• the residual environmental and social risks, costs and benefits of the proposed pit lake were not included in the evaluation
• the evaluation did not reflect changes to the Proposal (made after the Draft EIS was published)
• information on the methods, assumptions and limitations used in the Proponent’s time, cost and material calculations was not provided
Therefore the NT EPA considers that the Proponent should be required to undertake further evaluation of all mine closure options as part of Mine Closure Plan development to demonstrate to the relevant regulator and the NT EPA that any residual risks and liabilities have been reduced to an acceptable level. The NT EPA makes Recommendations 16 and 17 in this Report to ensure the Closure Objectives can be met.
...
Unless the Proponent can demonstrate to the relevant regulator and the NT EPA that retaining the final pit void would allow the above Closure Objectives to be achieved, the pit must be backfilled before relinquishment of the mineral lease.
Should expansion of mining in the region, by this or other proponents, be approved in the future then backfilling pits with suitable mine waste materials should be mandated by government.
(20min delay)