Australia's largest stock trading and investment forum Australia's #1 stock forum

TVN

Click for more information

2.04%

5.0¢ tivan limited

Ann: Detailed Assessment of Alternative Sites Completed, page-49

First 49 Last

Share
Profile

Follow
reddeer

1,166 Posts.

573

01/09/21

19:17

Post #: 55760345
Share

Originally posted by maxter: ↑

Lets look at the EIS progress from the beginning. Its inciteful.

On 18 January 2013 TNG announced it had engaged GHD to commence EIS for the Mt Peake Project. At this juncture no consideration was given to a separate refinery as the whole project was being reviewed, TIVAN was yet to be commercially proved up and there were a number of "balls in the air".

On 18 March 2014 following a PFS ( July 2012) and ongoing progress in respect of its first DFS TNG announced that it was assessing the merits of locating the TIVAN downstream processing plant in Malaysia. A number of benefits had been identified and transport costings of the magnetite concentrate were provisionally calculated.

On 2 November 2015 TNG announced that it had considered a number of options since 18 March 2014 and had elected to progress the Darwin Refinery option. TNG observed that "based on the Northern Territory Government being able to provide suitable land and TNG's desire to maximize the positive economic benefits flowing from the projects development for the Northern Territory's economy"Progression of the Darwin Refinery EIS took a back seat while the Mine Site EIS was progressed and I skip to more recent events.

30 October 2019: TNG Submits The EIS for the Darwin Processing Facility. The proposal is stated to address the "Terms of Reference" ("TOR") received from The NT EIA. In addition the announcement of 30 October 2019 states "....and has worked closely with the NT EIA to ensurecompliance with the new EIS guideline structure." Of note of the headings listed as covered off there is no mention of the requirement to undertake an alternative site evaluation.

Remember that there were significant legislative changes that came into force during the preparation of the EIS and TNG was stuck with transitional provisions and a beefed up, NT EIA.

On 2 December 2019: TNG announced that public viewing and comment for the EIS commenced 30 November and rolled to 21 February 2020.

On 16 April 2020: TNG announced it had "now received a "Direction to Prepare a Supplement to the Companies Draft EIS""

On 11 May 2020: TNG announced the NT EIA had "received three submissions from the public and 52 Comments from NT Govt agencies. Key matters raised related to wastewater discharge, water use and marine flora and fauna. Additionally detail was also requested in respect of air quality and greenhouse gases and noise, traffic impact the approvals framework relating to the new NT Environmental Protection Act 2019".

ON 18 December 2020 TNG adv13 and 23 July 2020: TNG updated progress on preparation of the supplement due to COVID issues. The stated expectation was that final waste water reports would be available in December 2020 enabling filing if the EIS Supplement.

On 9 December 2020: TNG confirmed the technical viability of the wastewater plant.

On 18 December 2020: TNG announced all additional works required for the EIS Supplement were "nearing completion" and the Supplement was on track for submission early 2021.
On 1February 2021: TNG announced it has submitted the EIS Supplement. The announcement includes the headings which have been "expanded andincluded" in the Supplements.

On24 March 2021: TNG announces that the Draft EIS Supplement will be available for public comment between 26 March 2021 and 19 April 2021. The Company confirmed that whist the DPF required assessment under the Northern Territory Environmental Protection Act 1982 they were also subject to the transitional provisions of The Environmental Protection Act 2019. It should be noted that here that the new legislation was passed by the Legislative Assembly in September 2019 but not enacted or Gazette until 28 June 2020.

The NT EPA announced at the time of enactment that " This is an enormous achievement for the Territory that will seethe NT EPA deliver regulatory responsibility for new environmental impact assessment processes that include the consideration of the impacts of a changing climate in the assessment process, and improving engagement with stakeholders and the community".

TNG was there for right in the middle of change. Supplements previously were not subject to the same public comment process as the Draft EIS. In effect the public were granted two bites of the cherry. This is not a common feature of any regulatory process in my experience.

ON 20 May 2021 TNG announced that as a result of the public consultation process it had just received a "Direction to Provide Additional Information".
On 27 May 2021 TNG announce the detail of the direction being 23 separate headings. some ludicrous like " Potential impact on Aircraft operations at Darwin International Airport/Royal Australian Air Force Base Darwin". Also and the subject of this forum was " Site selection and justification process" Interesting is the response by TNG " Unexpected new request as the site location was offered to TNG and reserved by the NT Government in 2015". The reason the Mine Site EIS was split from the Darwin Refinery EIS way back then was because of the different considerations that applied and the fact TNG was assured that the proposed site was and activity matched as evidenced by neighboring usage and supported by NT Govt.

On 31 August 2021 TNG announces that " it has completed a comprehensive assessment of alternative sites". Further that as part of the process of initial site selection it completed a site selection study which considered alternative sites and further that a further study was undertaken and provided to NT EPA as an addendum to the EIS Supplement filed 1 February 2021. Clearly then the public consultation process has grabbed hold of the addendum to the Supplement and asked for more information. That has now been completed but as yet it appears not filed or submitted to NT EPA as the announcement does not say its submitted just completed.

In My view the fact that TNG also state that it has established a Steering committee to undertake a strategic assessment and quantification of the operational , regulatory and commercial feasibility of having a consolidated Mine Site operation as distinct from a stand alone TPF in Darwin doesn't mean they are abandoning the Darwin Refinery proposal just that they are reviewing it against the current or changed climate.

Clearly TNG in selecting its preferred Refinery site has been influenced by the NT Govt of to provider same. In addition there were delays in progressing the Refinery EIS as the Mine EIS took inordinately long to get through some aspects. Then along came COVID but importantly the new legislative frame work and as we can see the effects of ongoing piecemeal public consultation. Its a long ride that we have endured. I do not believe it is fair to blame management about these delays. Just look at what they have endured and the changing tacks they have had to make due to matters outside of there control. Should they now consider other alternatives. I'm ok with that so long is we don't enter another chapter of protracted applications and the like.

Below i Include the Stated purpose of the environmental impact process. Somewhere alternate site assessment fits in there.

ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION ACT 2019 (NO 31 OF 2019) - SECT 42
Purpose of environmental impact assessment process

The purpose of the environmental impact assessment process is to ensure that:
(a) actions do not have an unacceptable impact on the environment, now or in the future; and
(b) all actions that may have a significant impact on the environment are assessed, planned and carried out taking into account:
(i) the principles of ecologically sustainable development; and
(ii) the environmental decision-making hierarchy; and
(iii) the waste management hierarchy; and
(iv) ecosystem-based management; and
(v) the impacts of a changing climate; and
(c) the potential for less environmentally damaging alternative approaches, methodologies or technologies for actions is considered; and
(d) the community is provided with an opportunity to participate, and have its views considered, in decisions on proposed actions; and
(e) the potential for actions to enhance or restore environmental quality through restoration or rehabilitation is identified and provided for to the extent practicable.

Blame COVID Level 4 lockdown for this post. I was getting bored and wanted to review some matters.

Expand

Well done Maxter. Let's hope there is light at the end of the tunnel.

TNG Price at posting: 7.8¢ Sentiment: Buy Disclosure: Held
5 Upvote

0 Great analysis

Reply

Top Stories

TBN

Tamboran kicks off Shenandoah South pilot project with SS-2H well spud

CYM

WA Nifty copper project steps closer to restart with Cyprium Metals inking $40M loan from Glencore

VYS

Vysarn acquires Waste Water Services Pty Ltd for $7.5M; WWS to become subsidiary as expansion continues

HVN

Consumers cautious according to Harvey Norman, as profit slumps 35% in FY24

LLC

Lendlease sells off US east coast construction operations in latest global divestment push

There are more pages in this discussion • 25 more messages in this thread...

First 49 Last

Add TVN (ASX) to my watchlist

(20min delay)
Last 5.0¢		Change 0.001(2.04%)		Mkt cap ! $84.64M

Open	High	Low	Value	Volume
4.9¢	5.0¢	4.9¢	$63.91K	1.293M

Buyers (Bids)

No.	Vol.	Price($)
4	200091	4.9¢

Sellers (Offers)

Price($)	Vol.	No.
5.0¢	975599	3

View Market Depth

No.	Vol.	Price($)
4	200091	0.049
1	200000	0.048
8	633270	0.046
15	1129060	0.045
1	20000	0.044

Price($)	Vol.	No.
0.050	980088	3
0.055	82510	1
0.057	25000	1
0.059	423800	1
0.069	362400	1

Last trade - 12.27pm 30/08/2024 (20 minute delay)

TVN (ASX) Chart

SPONSORED BY