This bit is concerning:
Environmental Permitting
During the quarter, an updated Environmental Review Document (ERD) was submitted to the WA Environmental
Protection Authority (EPA) addressing the EPA’s queries and feedback from government and non-government
stakeholders on the previous versions of the ERD.
Matters addressed in the ERD are important for minimising impacts on environmental and heritage values, while
delivering the long-term success of the Project and the resultant benefits to all stakeholders, and most
importantly are consistent with Technology Metals’ environmental, social and governance (ESG) philosophy.
The Company continues to engage proactively with the relevant assessing officers at the EPA on the progress of
the ERD through the various stages leading to the
expected EPA Board review and consideration.
I looked at various EPA applications - Bindoon Bypass for example, and it took 13 months from ERD submission to landing on the ministers desk.
Woodsides NWS project took 12 months from ERD sub to expected 'Ministers approval'
I'm struggling to find many that took a shorter time - there are some for sure, but as this is an 'amended' ERD (responding to concerns - as the first wasn't very good), I'd have expected a shorter passage.
This was from a
July 19th TMT Quarterly:
https://www.listcorp.com/asx/tmt/te...-report-and-appendix-5b-jun-2023-2899340.html
An updated Environmental Review Document (ERD), addressing the EPA’s queries and feedback from all government and non-government stakeholders on the previous versions of the ERD, has been provided to stakeholders for review prior to submission to the EPA.
Yet according to the
30th June 'Annual Report'
the updated ERD was already submitted to the EPA.
That seems very confusing. Both documents were published by TMT - on 19th July it wasn't submitted, yet then they say it was submitted prior to 30th June.
I'm loath to believe anything coming from the mouth of Ian Prentice, so is the bloody thing in or not?
I can't find anything on the EPA portal - and it certainly should be up for public review by now (there is very little chance an amended submission doesn't get a public viewing) - but all I can find is conflicting is / is it not submitted.
Can anyone provide CONCRETE dates of submission, as this belief it has been submitted seems to be placed on the word of TMT management, which as we have discovered, isn't worth much at all.
I don't get how the ERD was in on 30th June, but had not been submitted according to Prentice on July 19th.
If anyone has the answer, I'm all ears. More than happy to be corrected.
