Would-be seabed miner Trans Tasman Resources is fast becoming...

Would-be seabed miner Trans Tasman Resources is fast becoming the poster child for the worst aspects of the government’s otherwise laudable desire to speed up resource consents for nationally and economically significant projects. Having tried and repeatedly failed since the early 2010s to gain a resource consent to suck ironsand off the seafloor in the Taranaki Bight, the company is coming off as way too cocky by half about its prospects under the fast-track scheme. The proof is as simple as infrastructure minister Chris Bishop’s blunt reaction to TTR’s parent company, ASX-listed Manuka Resources’ “disclosure” this week that Bishop had “invited” it to apply for fast-track consent. Bishop told Radio New Zealand that characterising a form letter sent to some 200 potential applicants as an invitation was “misleading”. Ministers only say that sort of thing when they’re annoyed, meaning TTR’s chief executive Alan Eggers has scored an early own goal in his quest to get this contentious project ticked through. Over-reach The point is, while this is undoubtedly a mining-friendly government, it is not so mining-friendly that it will willingly look like a patsy for TTR. Eggers’ blunderbuss communications style may be unremarkable in minerals-rich Western Australia, where the expatriate Kiwi has lived for many years, but NZ is not WA, and the TTR plan is far from a slam-dunk. If it were, it would have sailed through its initial resource consent applications when Simon Bridges, the last really mining-friendly energy and resources minister since the current one, Shane Jones, was in office. TTR’s plans first emerged as Bridges was shepherding legislation into being to allow resource consents to be granted for activity in NZ’s vast exclusive economic zone (EEZ) more than a decade ago. TTR was the first serious attempt at seabed mining in NZ and the first to test the new EEZ regime, and the results have been discouraging. For better or worse, the harder the company has tried, and the more money it has spent trying to prove it can mine ironsand without undue adverse environmental impact, the more those charged with deciding that question have asked for more evidence. Depending on which side of the fence you sit, this is either proof that no amount of science will ever be enough to permit a seabed mining proposal or that seabed mining is so novel a lot more science will be required. At the very least, it is fair to say TTR’s initial claim the area was more or less a marine wasteland, with little seabed life and not much in the way of fish and marine mammals, has been found to be highly contestable. As a result, TTR’s attempts at legal challenges have all failed, all the way up to the Supreme Court. Would it ever happen? There is also a large and legitimate question about the market for the titanomagnetite sands that TTR proposes to mine and export to Asia for steel-making. Titanomagnetate - with an "a" not an "i" - iron ore is the most commonly used source material for steel mills. The TTR sand, with its slightly different composition and name, is not a straight substitute. In the volatile world of iron ore prices, the only thing TTR really has on its side is that its seabed mining operation would almost certainly be lower cost than digging a big hole in the ground for a traditional iron ore mine. However, it is far from clear TTR would gain anything more than the “option value” of being allowed at some unknown time in the future to start mining if granted a fast-track consent. It could as easily sell that option to another miner as do the job itself or sit on it for years. That is not the political or economic outcome the government is seeking. To be fair, TTR has been applying for this consent for too long to describe its enthusiasm for fast-track project status as opportunistic. But it is far from clear that TTR, even with a consent, has a current, viable business case. And when Manuka tells the ASX it was granted a consent in 2017 and fails to mention that it was overturned in the NZ courts not once, but twice, it is being wilfully incomplete in its disclosure. Likewise, the claim to have been “invited” to bid is no more than technically true. In theory, this journalist has been invited to bid on school construction projects on the basis of my log-in to the government tender site, GETS. Never a group to let an opportunity to give TTR a kicking go by, the Kiwis Against Seabed Mining (KASM) lobby group is filing complaints about TTR’s statements to the Australian Securities and Investment Commission (ASIC). KASM may find those complaints go to the bottom of a very deep in-tray. After all, anyone can write a complaint just as anyone might receive an “invitation” from a government minister to participate in a new initiative. Eggers is not the only one “over-egging” here. TTR’s own-goal potential However, the risk is all on TTR. The government is all too aware the politics of fast-track is finely balanced. When the prime minister, Christopher Luxon, talks about it, he invariably cites the green economy and decarbonisation. New renewable electricity generation is the politically acceptable face of moving fast. Seabed mining is at the opposite end of the spectrum, even without the fact mine-happy Jones has recused himself from considering the TTR project. That’s because he is also the fisheries minister and the fishing industry is a vocal opponent of TTR’s plans. Getting runs on the board The New Zealand economy is stalled in neutral post-covid, and pre-covid impediments to swifter and more decisive action on critical infrastructure and high-value resource extraction were already a problem. The new government needs runs on the board for its "turnaround" narrative and TTR scents a chance to “cut through” under the current administration. But in pursuing cut-through by bluster, TTR appears not to appreciate the size of the risk it is taking with the remaining fast-track ministers: Bishop and Simeon Brown. The fast-track process places unprecedented power to decide the fate of such projects in those two ministers’ hands. That gives politics the potential to be as much a factor as economics or the environment in whether a fast-track proposal gets green-lit. Refusing the application of a tin-eared, unpopular project that not only resource consent panels but the courts have also rejected may be just what ministers need to smooth the path for other, less contentious big-bang projects to proceed.

From business desk NZ LOL