Not as significant as it sounds - I do not believe that the angle you have highlighted is in keeping with the tone of the report:"Questions remain around the need for external sources of backfill materials given the availability of materials in earth landforms that are proposed to be constructed on the mine site from the mine pit. The NT EPA considers that there are other options for backfilling the pit that have not been given detailed consideration by the Proponent and that efficiencies could be made and should be accounted for in ongoing refining of the Proposal and development of the mine closure plan."
What they are saying here is that they (NTEPA) believe that backfill can be completed from materials dug up from the site and that they think that CXO has not fully explored all these options - they feel that if the requirement to backfill is mandated that CXO can achieve this in a much more efficient manner than stipulated (i.e. not 53 million), but the company has not looked hard enough at how this could be achieved.
It is also worth nothing that CXO only said it would not be financially viable if backfilling was a condition of approval (i.e. a precondition that must be satisfied before mining can begin - this kind of condition leaves no room for an expanding mine life). If the mine life was to be extended (by increasing the resource) then for every year the mine life extends, the viability of the requirement to backfill increases. Therefore if the closure requirements are not dictated to be a condition for mining but a condition for closure, then this would allow for the potential for the fact that the mine may operate well beyond 3-4 years and therefore the backfill requirement will become less significant (in terms of overall cost) the longer the mine operates (i.e. just example only: if the mine is worth 125m, but backfill is 53m, then not viable, but with longer mine life, it might be worth 500m or more, 53m is less overall). Noting that the NTEPA is alluding to the fact that they don't think it will cost 53m.
I believe the intent and tone of the report appears to have a genuine interest in both protecting the environment in the NT but also appears to provide genuine feedback to assist the company to improve its submission so that approval can be gained. I have absolutely no issue with a government body ensuring that process and protections are followed and that companies are held to account for this, but in this case, in my opinion, the report is written positively. I am a big supporter of a sustainable future and do not believe that this should be done without regard for the environment along the way. I acknowledge it is impossible to have mining without some environmental impacts, but these should not be done from a "profit at all costs perspective".
I do not think there are any 'show stoppers' in the report, and believe we will get approval to the MMP, I just hope it is soon....
