WAN profit dips but says outlook strong - 02 Aug, 10:07am Rudd commits to national infrastructure priority list - 02 Aug, 10:04am Mt Gibson appeal leaves Mid West future uclear - 02 Aug, 09:59am Rio Tinto to spend $409m on Hope Downs expansion - 02 Aug, 09:59am Downer shares plunge after MD quits, profit downgrade - 02 Aug, 09:27am Labor on attack over latest Work Choices ads - 02 Aug, 07:44am Woodside sweetens offer for gas project off California - 02 Aug, 07:34am WSJ editorials defend Murdoch as new boss - 02 Aug, 07:31am GRD declines Transfield takeover offer - 02 Aug, 07:22am Today's headlines - 02 Aug, 07:10am
View all of today's news on our homepage
Mt Gibson Iron Ltd has overcome environmental objections to the development of its Extension Hill iron ore mine in the Mid West but the decision by Environment Minister David Templeman has left the future of iron ore mining in the region unclear.
In a report released by the Office of the Appeals Convenor, Mr Templeman rejected the advice of the Environmental Protection Authority which said the mine should not proceed.
However the Minister failed to address wider concerns which the industry believes could threaten a large number of future mining projects.
A Ministerial strategic review is addressing the future of the region, particularly the impact of mining on its flora and fauna.
Extracts from the Appeal Decision Report are pasted below:
Executive Summary
The EPA released its report and recommendations on the Mt Gibson Mining and Infrastructure proposal in November 2006, and a total of thirty two (32) appeals were received against that report. The grounds of appeal are: 1. Reservation of other areas of the Mt Gibson range, in particular significant flora species; 2. Floristic communities; 3. The adequacy of the proponent's offsets; 4. Performance bond; 5. The significance of Gastrolobium laytonii; 6. Procedural fairness; 7. EPA assessment of the Darwinia masonii and Lepidosperma sp. at Mt Gibson; 8. Conflict of interest; 9. The transport of hematite; 10. Dust and surface hydrology; 11. Translocation of rare plants; 12. Impacts on surrounding properties; and 13. Compliance Reporting Condition.
On the first ground of appeal, taking into account the advice from the Appeals Convenor, and that this proposal would lead to a loss of 14-15% of the known population of D. masonii and around 46% of the Lepidosperma sp. Mt Gibson population, the Minister concluded that at least most of the remainder of the Mt Gibson Range has significant conservation value and that this value is worthy of protection in the long-term. The Minister dismissed this ground of appeal on the issue of the conservation significance of the remainder of the Mt Gibson range. However, the Minister also decided to allow this ground of appeal to the extent that the proposal can proceed independent of the process to protect the remainder of the Mt Gibson Ranges subject to conditions. In allowing this appeal in part the Minister noted that the conditions recommended by the EPA on the proposal, the initial commitments made by the proponent and the additional commitment made by the proponent to provide resources to the DEC to manage the remainder of the Mt Gibson Range whilst the proposal is operational, subject to conditions, should give adequate protection to that area from the impacts of the proposal.
It should be noted that in allowing these appeals to this extent this should not be seen as a downgrading of the significant conservation values of the remainder of the Mt Gibson Range.
On the second ground of appeal, the Minister found that the EPA assessment of this factor is neither flawed nor unreasonable as it referred to both the advice of the proponent's consultants and the DEC to arrive at its conclusion. To this extent, the Minister dismissed this ground of appeal, but with regard to the matter of the class 'A' nature reserve, the Minister had previously allowed this appeal ground to the extent as set out in appeal ground 1. The Minister noted, however, that the use of floristic communities in determining ecological and biodiversity values is a matter of some debate within the scientific community, as indicated by the differences expressed through this assessment and the appeals process. The Minister has written to the DEC seeking appropriate advice on how best to progress the science of defining and applying floristic communities in WA.
On the third ground of appeal, the Minister accepted the proponent's offsets as reasonable for the direct impacts of the proposal, and allowed this ground of appeal accordingly.
On the forth ground of appeal, the Minister considered that to cover the likelihood that some or all of the pipelines will need to be removed following mine closure, a bond should be required to cover post-closure works in the corridor, and that the amount recommended by the EPA is reasonable. However, in acknowledgement of the possibility that the size of the bond may need to change once the EPA has completed its work on bonds for service corridors, the Minister has allowed this appeal only to the extent that the date that the bond needs to be lodged to the DEC be put back from 'prior to ground-disturbing activity' to 'prior to commencement of operations of the mine'. This will allow time for the EPA policy position to further develop. If the amount being asked in this case is excessive, then it is open to the proponent to suggest that the Minister initiate a Section 46 change to conditions process to have the amount of the bond bought into line with that policy position. The Minister also supported the EPA recommended changes to Condition 15 so as to better clarify the intent and meaning of this condition.
The Minister concluded with the matter of the class 'A' Nature Reserve.
Whilst the Minister has allowed appeals to the extent that the proposal can proceed at this time without the approval being linked to the question of a class 'A' Nature Reserve for the remainder of the Mt Gibson Range, the Minister agreed with the EPA that the remaining areas need some high level of protection in the long term. As a result, he wrote to his colleague, the Minister for Resources, seeking his agreement to a process that will guarantee a high level of protection to a significant portion of the area
. In deciding on the level of protection that should be offered to the remainder of the Mt Gibson Range, the two Ministers took into account the following advice from both the EPA and the DEC: - it is highly unlikely that the two DRF species will be found anywhere else other than at Mt Gibson Range; - the long-term re-establishment of these rare species in rehabilitation, or in other than their normal habitat, is a high risk strategy that is unlikely to be successful; and - the floristic communities associated with the DRF must also be protected in order to preserve ecological processes and habitat that may be critical to the long-term survival of these species in the natural environment.
Both Ministers were of the view that the southern ridges of Mt Gibson and Mt Gibson South require immediate long term protection and should be reserved as a class 'A' Nature Reserve. The central ridges of Iron Hill East, Iron Hill South, Iron Hill North and Extension Hill South will continue to be protected through the provisions of the Environmental Protection Act 1986, notably the EPA formal assessment provisions under Part IV and the clearing provisions under Part V. Any proposal for exploration or mining in this area would need to demonstrate compatibility with the established conservation values.
In arriving at this decision both Ministers were both mindful that this is a decision specific to this particular BIF and not the other BIF's in the Mid West region. The Strategic Review being conducted by DEC and DOIR will address the broader issues of environmental and socioeconomic values of the remaining BIF's.
Background Mount Gibson Mining Limited proposes to mine and process iron ore (hematite and magnetite) from the northern portion of the Mt Gibson Range, involving Extension Hill and Extension Hill North, approximately 350km north east of Perth and some 80km east of Perenjori. The proposal also includes the construction of infrastructure, being a pipeline to transport the magnetite slurry to Geraldton Port, and infrastructure at the port to remove the ore from the slurry for export. The operation will yield approximately 13 million tonnes of hematite over 8 years and 230 million tonnes of magnetite over 20 years. The transport of the hematite is not part of this proposal, and will be stored at the site in the interim.
Consideration The Minister noted that the primary reason for many appeals is concern that he would adopt the EPA recommendations relating to the remainder of the Mt Gibson Range not impacted by this proposal being included in a class 'A' nature reserve, and that the proposal not proceed unless and until this is. This matter was covered after he considered all of the appeal grounds. The Minister noted that many of the appeal grounds were in support of this concern, and that many appellants also raised a number of issues that are either more strategic in nature or are largely socioeconomic, which the Appeals Convenor advised go beyond the scope of the environmental appeals process. These matters are reported in the Appeals Convenor report but were not taken into account in his recommendations to the Minister.
MGX Price at posting:
0.0¢ Sentiment: Buy Disclosure: Held
(20min delay)