Seabed mining saga far from over in South Taranaki
Last week Trans-Tasman Resources dropped a bombshell, pulling out of the decision-making process for their seabed mining application. GlennMcLean looks at what could happen next.
Backers of Trans-Tasman Resources could be looking to Norway in hopes of establishing the company’s controversial seabed mining operation in the South Taranaki Bight.
The Scandinavian country, already hugely rich in mineral resources, has taken a step closer to becoming the first country in the world to open its seabed for commercial sea mining.
Earlier this year, the Norwegian Parliament voted overwhelmingly to approve an area of up to 280,000km² in the Arctic Sea to potential mining by companies. Just like in New Zealand, where Trans-Tasman Resources hopes to launch a four-decade project annually mining 50 million tonnes of seabed from a 66km² area in the South Taranaki Bight, Norway’s decision has drawn considerable criticism.
Greenpeace described the decision as shameful, while it also drew strong criticism across the European Union and from the United Kingdom.
Despite Norway’s first step, the future of seabed mining there remains far from certain. Miners would still need to make lengthy applications that would then need to go before parliament for approval.
Uncertainty remains very much the case in Taranaki, where Trans-Tasman Resources muddied the waters further just before Easter when it announced it was pulling out of the Environmental Protection Authority’s reconsideration of its application.
The withdrawal could have signalled a desire to give up on the project; however, financial backer Philip Brown of New Plymouth made it clear that was definitely not the case.
Brown echoed the brief press release sent advising of the withdrawal, saying the company would “update the regional community and all stakeholders once the next steps on this nationally significant project are finalised”. However, there is no hint of when that will happen, which adds another layer of uncertainty to the decade-long saga that defies simple explanation.
What seems clear to all parties is that, despite officially denying it was the case, Trans-Tasman Resources was pinning the future of the project on the Government making it part of fast-track legislation for “significant” projects that would benefit the country.
Big numbers, few feet
In many respects, the industry, which would mine critical minerals such as iron, titanium and vanadium, stacks up – at least in terms of dollars and cents.
The numbers associated with such a burgeoning industry make it look like just the thing a government scratching around to pay for promised tax cuts would be after.
Trans-Tasman Resources estimates there will be more than $1 billion in annualised export receipts, $250 million annually in royalties and corporate taxes, and an overall wealth boost in excess of $150b to the New Zealand economy over the life of the project.
Given the scale of the returns, it seems somewhat surprising the company has had so few feet on the ground in a region that supposedly stands to benefit the most.
Without Brown’s relatively recent presence, and without trawling through the piles of reports presented to the Environmental Protection Authority (as well as documents filed in the High Court, Court of Appeal and Supreme Court), finding out how Trans-Tasman Resources would operate in the region is unclear to the casual observer.
Its own website remains limited to a three-minute video illustrating how it would mine the seabed, a phone number and email address along with a promise that a new site would be coming soon.
Contrast that with the ongoing work being done publicly from backers of multiple proposed wind farms off the same area of coastline.
The difference remains stark: already this year a major study has been released after it was funded by the likes of BlueFloat Energy and Elemental Group,
Transpower, Te Puna Umanga Venture Taranaki, Port Taranaki, PowerCo, the New Zealand Wind Energy Association, Sumitomo Corporation and Transpower.
It found an offshore wind energy industry could have a critical role in helping New Zealand meet net zero targets while contributing nearly $50b to gross domestic product and also creating 10,000 jobs.
While support for the wind farm projects remains almost universal, finding those willing to publicly back Trans-Tasman Resources and its operation is significantly more difficult.
Te Puna Umanga Venture Taranaki did not want to provide an official comment in regards to its support for the mining project.
However, a spokesperson confirmed the economic agency had not undertaken any cost-benefit analysis for the region.
The spokesperson also said the agency had not engaged with any representatives from Trans-Tasman Resources for several years. “VT meet with TTR as we would with any significant industry representatives visiting the region.”
Port Taranaki chief executive Simon Craddock said his company did not hold a view for or against the mining project.
He did, however, confirm it had held no formal discussions with any representatives from Trans-Tasman Resources.
Craddock also took a neutral stance when questioned on the compatibility of Trans-Tasman Resources operating in the same area as the proposed wind farms – a problem put forward by Justine Gilliland, a partnerships director for Bluefloat Energy and Elemental Group, during an industry forum held in New Plymouth.
“There still remains a lot to work through for offshore wind, such as a regulatory framework being put in place and permits being issued,” Craddock said.
“It will be up to the offshore wind developers and TTR to discuss and to work through any issues of compatibility.”
Meanwhile, critics of the Trans-Tasman Resources project remain staunch and unwavering in their opposition.
Included in that group is the South Taranaki District Council and its mayor, Phil Nixon, who publicly denounced the proposal last year and reiterated that stance again when questioned this week.
Nixon acknowledged that councillors were not experts in this field, but said: “Given the uncertainty or conflicting information being presented about the impact of seabed mining, we aren’t satisfied that any conditions imposed on TTR would be enough to protect the environment.
“We believe it’s simply not worth the risk.
“TTR have no track record in seabed mining, the potential economic benefits to South Taranaki appear limited, the community on the whole are not supportive, and mana whenua are opposed.
“We would much prefer to see the effort and focus go into the development of offshore wind projects which have been well tested, have less environmental impact, and provide greater benefit to the country.” Nixon, like the rest of the region, must now sit back and wait to find out whether the Government views the seabed mining project as nationally significant.
Greenpeace seabed mining campaigner Juressa Lee believes it does, based on Trans-Tasman Resources’ withdrawal from the environment protection process.
“It’s highly likely that TTR is now banking on the Luxon Government's fast-track approvals process,” she told RNZ.
“Actually we know that they are, but I think it’s even possible they’ve been given a heads-up somehow that they might be on the list of projects tipped to be fast-tracked.
“There’s still a fight ahead. It just looks different. When you’ve invested $85m into pursuing a project over the course of a decade, you don't just quit mid-hearing. You've changed tack. And something has given them the confidence to withdraw from one process and change tack.”
Police are trying to find and arrest 25-yearold Ralph Park who may have been shot during his alleged involvement in an Auckland kidnapping.
A woman was allegedly kidnapped from a property in Beach Haven on Tuesday night.
She was found bloodied and bruised about two hours later in Greenhithe.
Two arrests have already been made following the incident, including a 28-yearold man who has been charged with kidnapping and wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm.
In a statement yesterday, police detective inspector Callum McNeill said forensic examination of the vehicle involved in the alleged kidnapping revealed Park likely sustained an injury during the incident.
“We believe Park was shot – either by his own achievements or accidentally by his accomplice.”
Park may be trying to seek medical attention after the incident and may be using a false name, McNeill said.