FID, page-26

As TMT are learning it can be a very long process..
Just from my experience over there, I suspect that quite a few requirements have been 'added on' as the process has gone along, extending the length of time and requiring additional submissions... Not saying TMT covered everything perfectly first up and ONLY needed to address new requirements as they became requirements,,, but I really do suspect at least the most recent ERD submission required new information that wasn't a requirement on day one.. So from that respect it really is 'how long is a piece of string' if the EPA are moving the goal posts when you think you are close to approval...

From AVL's perspective, submitting later they may have been able to include some of these add-on requirements, and limit a need to do as many updated ERDs as TMT.

I think the mine site and processing plant are two totally separate EPA submissions am I correct?

I believe the processing plant part isn't subject to all of the same approvals as TMT, as part of the submission is not required to be assessed by the EPA.... So you would suspect a shorter time for approval than how long TMT takes.
Appologies for constant TMT comparison as it is the only company I have followed closely through EPA approval, but is probably the best comparison anyway given same EPA deparment, same resource etc...

Basically EPA seems to be out of control at the moment so maybe double or triple the length of time you hope it takes and this might be a way to avoid dissapointment..


As mentioned in announcements though, lots going on behind the scenes so EPA is not holding anything specific up at this point...