Tarkine

[Nuts]

The statements pertain to facts, the assumptions are made that these are known before they have even been measured.. or have they.. ?
Anyhow, no need to feel insecure about the questions.

Hey how about someone thanking maddog? (rather than perpetuate your feeble 'sides')

[Nuts]

I see a couple of new points in your post sbs. Thanks. I'll try to find some available supporting fact (unless you would like to share)
(ps, it's not really important what my attitude is, who I support or apologise for. I know some like their boxes.. at that risk, I'm not going to keep apologising for myself either .. so.. )

[Nuts]

The question was asked and your response was one that suggested there was an adequate bond... but, you didn't know if it was. That was a hollow response, and arguably faith based.

If you have no more than questions, why are you offering answers?

It may be seen that way. I honestly don't know what to say... no?, I asked the question :?

Otoh your questions equally may indicate that you are more interested in attacking me than learning anything.
That's the way these things roll on here though isn't it, anything environmental demands a healthy 'tolerance of lofty attitude', so why should i bother finding answers (or likely more questions) for you? (finding questions that anyone with an interest could have had months ago..).

It's hard to tell if you're trying to just get a response or if you are genuine. Nuts!

Pre-pardon me but I don't really care whether there is a response or not. I have a healthy undercurrent of cynicism & humour so realise it makes things hard to judge.. dont?
Concentrate on your personal contribution or knowledge base, respond relevant and on topic.. the topic isn't 'nuts', my responses can only get less wordy

Last edited by Nuts on Sat 06 Sep, 2014 12:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.

[stepbystep]

I see a couple of new points in your post sbs. Thanks. I'll try to find some available supporting fact (unless you would like to share)
(ps, it's not really important what my attitude is, who I support or apologise for. I know some like their boxes.. at that risk, I'm not going to keep apologising for myself either .. so.. )

Unfortunately it was the simplistic anti-green, pro-jobs attitude articulated by yourself and others in the original thread, when extrapolated, creates this toxic political culture of fear that allows obviously dodgy operators to cause lasting damage. So yes, it is important nuts, and if you are so interested in the 'facts' you would have known all about Shree prior to the first sod being turned. All the facts were out there, and yet...

I'm far to busy to do the necessary research but have faith in good(smart) people with what I see as the correct motivation(for the future of Tasmania and it's people) to collate the correct science. That is happening, with diligence presently, and on a shoestring budget with an eye to creating a Tarkine National Park, my hope is the likes of Shree, Venture and FT can't corrupt the area too much while that work is being done.

Tomorrow is national Threatened Species Day, hopefully yourself and others will get along to an event and learn why an orchid species or an invertebrate in a stream is so important to the health of our rivers and plains and coasts and mountains. I'll be at Salamanca today, with a special banquet on public display with all this in mind, come along

http://www.threatenedspecieslink.tas.go ... dplans2014

PS you will note that TSD gets zero promotion from our government, one wonders why.....

[photohiker]

It's hard to tell if you're trying to just get a response or if you are genuine. Nuts!

Pre-pardon me but I don't really care whether there is a response or not. I have a healthy undercurrent of cynicism & humour so realise it makes things hard to judge.. dont?

That's not how it works if we want a civil communication. If I think you're just trying to get a response rather than discuss the topic then I won't bother to respond. I have been sucked in before with that technique by Ent and I'm over responding to that kind of headbanging.

Its not easy to tell from your posts what you are on about other than being disagreeable to anyone who expresses support for environmental causes or action, and your veiled (to me) and direct (to froggy, Hallu?) personal attacks just cloud your posts. So you could try to be clear enough so that the line can be drawn and remove the personal stuff out of your posts, for one thing they show that you are doing exactly what you suggest I dont: "judge.. dont?"

[Grindelwalddave]

Scant coverage of the Shree mine revelations in the mainstream media. The online article in the Mercury (which didn't allow for comment) translated into a few paragraphs tucked away on Page 9 of the print edition. The rest of the mainstream media have largely ignored it. I doubt whether the majority of Tasmanians even know the mine is not operating let alone the potential for environmental damage.

[photohiker]

Hey how about someone thanking maddog?

Happy to thank Maddog. Good find and thanks.

Given that Shree looks like it has exceeded it's permit, how does that stack up with the bond it may have paid?

The system will have the following characteristics.

* The bond will be sufficient to meet the full costs of closure and aftercare, and will protect the government and the community from closure liabilities.

* The bond system will encourage progressive rehabilitation.

* The financial surety will reflect current liabilities and will be regularly reviewed, and may be reduced based on progressive rehabilitation.

* The bond system will be financially efficient. A range of options for surety purposes will be recognised. The cost of locking away working capital as a surety will be recognised.

* Existing operations will not be disadvantaged and forced to close prematurely by the bond system.

* The system will be risk based and the quantum of the bond will be levied taking into account an operation’s track record, past performance, financial strength and investment rating.

The bond system will be consistent with those in other Australian jurisdictions.

If Shree's past record was genuinely taken into account, the bond may have been large enough to cover it's excesses, but then "Existing operations will not be disadvantaged and forced to close prematurely by the bond system." sounds like a free get out of jail card. As soon as the cleanup costs exceed the reserves of the mining company, the bond system is basically toast. So the bond system probably works best when rose coloured spectacles are worn.

Was Shree also required to pay an additional bond to cover the potential cleanup costs of 20 times it's permit for storing acid producing rock?

[Nuts]

{lines removed by admin -- off topic}
Yes, my posts are clouded in some irritated frustration.

Scant coverage of the Shree mine revelations in the mainstream media. The online article in the Mercury (which didn't allow for comment) translated into a few paragraphs tucked away on Page 9 of the print edition. The rest of the mainstream media have largely ignored it. I doubt whether the majority of Tasmanians even know the mine is not operating let alone the potential for environmental damage.

What coverage there is is woeful, press releases in the mainstream media with the alternative being evangelistic straw grabbing by the minority mobs.
I'd agree that its likely many people don't even know the mine is on hold ( which kind of discounts sbs's 'hysteria'). To me, those that do, or care, deserve any truth that can be gleaned from media.

[Nuts]

If Shree's past record was genuinely taken into account, the bond may have been large enough to cover it's excesses, but then "Existing operations will not be disadvantaged and forced to close prematurely by the bond system." sounds like a free get out of jail card. As soon as the cleanup costs exceed the reserves of the mining company, the bond system is basically toast. So the bond system probably works best when rose coloured spectacles are worn.

Was Shree also required to pay an additional bond to cover the potential cleanup costs of 20 times it's permit for storing acid producing rock?

I agree, the bond should be enough to cover excesses and we should imagine that the amendments amount was set to mitigate anything left at the end. These are things we should take as a given?

Is there evidence that we should be concerned though? Has the money already been paid, what does that clause mean (iv'e actually asked here before, another good question imo)? Was it a token amount? (what is a token amount?) will the company be given money back? If more is needed, what is the provision for a company in administration? We all need to live with industry (and each other), should be able to expect that these matters are overseen responsibly.

[photohiker]

We all need to live with industry (and each other), should be able to expect that these matters are overseen responsibly.

Yep. And the way that is done with the least hassle is for the machinations of the process to be open and transparent. Anyone who is interested should be easily able to see the analysis of the future site reconstruction and resulting bond requirements, the calculated amount, the subsequent variations and whether it has been paid.

My google-fu isn't good enough to find any of that... So maybe it is hidden in plain view, or maybe it is in fact hidden. Anyone know?

I did find this from 2012:

http://www.throughthetreesandtheforest. ... ehab-plan/

Minister for Energy and Resources Bryan Green has today granted Shree Minerals’ Nelson Bay River mine lease in the Tarkine despite EPA permits not actually requiring a rehabilitation plan until 12 months after mine commencement.

“The Mineral Resources Development Act requires that a mine lease must be subject to a rehabilitation bond, but it is impossible to determine what the bond should be as the plan hasn’t yet been produced,” said Tarkine National Coalition Campaign Coordinator, Scott Jordan.

“Again Minister Green has thrown the rules out the window to push ahead with mining at any cost.”

“Mine lease rehabilitation deposits are far too low and there is a long history of the taxpayer being forced to wear clean up costs when inevitably the bond fails to cover the rehabilitation where mines cease to be profitable”.

Minister Green is quoted on The Advocate online as saying “The project must comply with environmental conditions that are among the most rigorous in the world together with stringent rehabilitation measures”.

“This statement is utterly deluded. How on earth can you say that the project will comply with stringent rehabilitation measures when you in fact have failed to set any.”

Shows that the requirements were not being applied according to the guidelines at the start... Any wonder that people are distrustful of the process?

[maddog]

Some links on mining bonds and mine site rehabilitation. The real question (in many cases) is why rehabilitate at all? As the money pile grows larger it is fair to ask if there are better uses for the money than filling in holes.

http://theconversation.com/restoration- ... ines-21236
http://www.ecologicalprocesses.com/content/2/1/22
http://data.daff.gov.au/data/warehouse/ ... C12214.pdf

More generally:

http://www.cmlr.uq.edu.au
http://www.ecologicalprocesses.com/series/NEERR

[photohiker]

I'm not totally against the idea of not rehabilitating back to the exact landscape and ecology that was removed if it is not practical to do so. Not keen on introducing a totally different ecosystem into an existing area though. Probably depends on the site.

Not rehabilitating at all is a bridge too far, and it is clear that the bond system shows most people and the government agree...

[Nuts]

From what I can gather, I think the hole needs to be filled, burying the potentially harmful rock waste (interesting thoughts though, so long as what remains is benign).
The permit amendment allows this waste (230.000 cubic meters) to be stored above ground on a drainage bed for 30months.
From page 11 of last year's financial report, covering those first two years, the bond payments appear to have been around $250, 000.

110314hy.pdf

(614.37 KiB) Downloaded 691 times

(report)

[photohiker]

From what I can gather, I think the hole needs to be filled, burying the potentially harmful rock waste (interesting thoughts though, so long as what remains is benign).
The permit amendment allows this waste (230.000 cubic meters) to be stored above ground on a drainage bed for 30months.
From page 11 of last year's financial report, covering those first two years, the bond payments appear to have been around $250, 000.

110314hy.pdf

(report)

Good find Nuts.

Also found on page 8 is a non-current liability of $1,455,534 being 'Rehabilitation Provision' If the company's investigation into the costs of rehabilitating the site run to $1.4M then it seems the bond is rather light weight and under researched, does this result in a poorly rehabilitated site, or does this mean that the state has to pick up the balance?

A $250k bond isn't going to replace a $1.4M rehab provision in the case of the company folding, is it?

[maddog]

Without speculating on the value of the bond as against the value of the liability in the current case, it would appear that in most jurisdictions the overall value of the bonds is about 40-50% of the estimated liability. In dollar terms the aggregated value of Tasmania's rehabilitation bonds looks modest, but this may just reflect a lack of economic activity. What is clear is that, overall, the amount of money held in these bonds, at A$ 2,035,000,000, is now quite significant, and it is growing quickly (in 2001 their value was estimated by ABARE at around A$ 1,400,000,000). We can expect squabbles in the future as to how this money gets spent.

After taking care to contain toxic substances, spreading topsoil, grass, wattle and other seed, then applying herbicide to weeds for a couple of years, is it really better to go further and try to restore a landscape to its original condition? Spending large amounts of money on (relatively) small areas where the 'original' condition in many instances was unremarkable. Or would the money be better spent on other, more imaginative, things? A case by case assessment perhaps. In Tasmania's case, money could be well spent on researching the facial tumour disease of the Devil (unless of course it is concluded the limited genetic variation in the gene pool is the cause and the species is doomed).

http://www.aares.org.au/aares/documents ... SWhite.pdf

[north-north-west]

Some links on mining bonds and mine site rehabilitation. The real question (in many cases) is why rehabilitate at all? As the money pile grows larger it is fair to ask if there are better uses for the money than filling in holes.

Because there's more to rehabilitation than just filling in the holes? Just a suggestion . . .

[doogs]

Some links on mining bonds and mine site rehabilitation. The real question (in many cases) is why rehabilitate at all? As the money pile grows larger it is fair to ask if there are better uses for the money than filling in holes.

Because there's more to rehabilitation than just filling in the holes? Just a suggestion . . .

I would suggest the filling of holes reduces the chance of ongoing pollution significantly but that isn't really rehabilitation. That's just refilling a hole you dug. Rehabilitation is returning the vegetation to something similar as to what was found prior to mining. The money IS set aside for rehabilitation right??

[photohiker]

Without speculating on the value of the bond as against the value of the liability in the current case, it would appear that in most jurisdictions the overall value of the bonds is about 40-50% of the estimated liability. In dollar terms the aggregated value of Tasmania's rehabilitation bonds looks modest, but this may just reflect a lack of economic activity. What is clear is that, overall, the amount of money held in these bonds, at A$ 2,035,000,000, is now quite significant, and it is growing quickly (in 2001 their value was estimated by ABARE at around A$ 1,400,000,000). We can expect squabbles in the future as to how this money gets spent.

AFAIK bond is not money to be spent unless the company fails to carry out the work. If the company does the rehab, they get their bond back, right? Same as a rental bond in operation.

There will be few squabbles about how the money gets spent if the mining companies carry out the agreed rehab because there will be no money to spend. In the case of a mining company failing to carry out the rehab, then it would seem that there will be insufficient funds to carry out the rehab from the bond.

Spending bond money on third party failed rehab projects before it has been determined that it will not be returned to the original mining company is orchestrating a massive future government liability. I'm hoping that these funds are being set aside for the projects they were originally earmarked for, can you show otherwise?

[wildwalks]

A quick note from the administrator
Hi All

This is an important topic regardless of were you sit politically. The majority of people here are doing a great job sticking to the topic and avoiding making this personal -- Thankyou so much.

For the couple of people who choose to make things personal I suggest we remember these words.

Great minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, and little minds discuss people

(there is some debate of the actual words - but you get the idea)


And no -- I am not call you small minded - I am just saying lets be a community of people who are focused on things bigger then ourselves.

Until this week it had been 6 months since the last notable reported personal attacks on this forum. We do know how to behave.

I don't want to get into the he said / she said debate. We are all adults here.

Please re-read your posts and remove anything that is designed to be negative towards another member.
If you are reading this thinking - 'great Matt is finally telling "them" to leave "Me" alone' - please also go back and re-read and edit your posts as needed.
We need to stop things escalating. We are all busy and have better things todo then talk basic playground rules here.

(Thanks to those who have already been back and fixed up their posts.)

Thanks all -- now back to the the tarkine.

Matt

[Nuts]

Ever the diplomatt

Ok, i'll go- for my part, apologies commiserations empathy! to readers from the we-own-conservation clique. Even if largely a hindrance at least their intentions, we'd hope, are sincere.
.. hold on though.. that's a 'group attack'.. does that count?

{line removed by admin}

Spending bond money on third party failed rehab projects before it has been determined that it will not be returned to the original mining company is orchestrating a massive future government liability. I'm hoping that these funds are being set aside for the projects they were originally earmarked for, can you show otherwise?

Would be interesting to understand these payments on a broader scale.. furthermore, taxation, royalties.. what actually does flow through to the public purse.

Generally, I'd imagine the expectation would be to get a site at least looking rehabilitated (whether it is 'healthy'or not). (me) i'd agree that it should be spent there, rather than frittered away being administered elsewhere.. open/ transparent.

It's an interesting concept, and discussion from that convo article md linked though. (The visual is important but) At some stage rehab becomes a numbers game of diminishing returns. The concept is sound to consider the best use of funding.. (with a broad view).

I'm not sure those bond amounts are the entire liability? or are they installments p/h, part of their rehab amount... 'Security deposits for mining bond'..
Also, think I maybe lost time somewhere in trying to read this explanation of impairment charges.., you may grasp the understanding?, very vague to me- have a look (lol):

http://www.investopedia.com/articles/analyst/110502.asp ..

I mean if the relative impairment expense is so much higher than return, the general agreement (from that and other sources) seems to be that a company is 9 parts cactus! Someone better able to understand accounting terms/ mining practice may shed some light? (maybe when they've stopped cheering )

But no, haven't yet got to understanding what has occurred with past payments, what the terms actually mean or what has occurred since that report..
Even if just doing so for the exercise (rather than skipping to the blame)- I imagine the latest one is revealing. Hopefully revealing further facts that were not there other than by assumption or faith..

If it really is just 250k that has actually changed hands, i'd agree, that doesn't seem very impressive?

[Nuts]

{line removed by admin}

Anyhow, yes, many questions remain, knowledge gives empowerment.
There appears to have been a rehabilitation plan in place since the start?
In the words of Bruce Pascoe- don't believe me, google it yourself!

[photohiker]

I wonder if the 'Security deposit' is not actually a bond payment, but a security deposit to a third party who funds the bond for the company? Too hard to tell from what we have.

Regarding impairment, this appears to be a charge against goodwill of the company. In any case, a mining enterprise has a lot of setup and infrastructure costs. It's no surprise that profits are low in the early stages, I wouldn't read anything at all into a comparison between impairment and profits.

Rehab is something that should be done, and done as well as possible. Here we have a mining company wanting to rip up the landscape to extract part of our nation's mineral asset so that they can profit from the exercise. Of course they should leave the landscape in good, stable and hopefully useable condition when they have finished making profit from the nation's mineral assets. Speaking of which, one wonders why we didn't follow the lead of Norway and stuff our mining revenues into a fund that is preserved against the fiscal budget (and charge a higher revenue rate). Norway's fund is expected to reach US$717 BILLION by the end of 2014. Australia does have the 'Future Fund' with A$107 BILLION invested but it is not the same kind of fund, and the cash does not come from resource royalties.

[Nuts]

The impairment expense is listed for exploration, I considered it may be the liability of exploring with no guaranteed outcome?
I'd like to see how much further this can go searching the public record. Not exactly difficult so far but we aren't getting too many definitive answers (and I don't have a lot of time in the short term)

Funding rehab and royalties are interesting. Maybe even these royalties shouldn't leave the immediate area? Paying for 'acceptable' industry, tourism and recreational infrastructure. The same tests of course should then apply to these other industries on public lands, impacts from tourist movements, decommissioning failed ventures, accounting for the impact of traffic movements etc. When the Tarkine (area) eventually does become reserved (as it will).

Anyhow, perhaps closer to just this topic, I'm wondering if the rehab planning included in the initial proposal was commonplace. I recall it seemed relatively comprehensive (in comparison to what is evidence of minesite rehab from the few mines iv'e been close to). Then again I can find other companies submitting separate documents called rehab/closure plans, in this case was the scope and timing legit/commonplace (or really 'fast-tracked' as opponents suggest)?

[stepbystep]

http://m.theaustralian.com.au/national- ... 76d5d9d7b8

[Nuts]

ee, that's terrible!

[photohiker]

ee, that's terrible!

Yes it is.

[Nuts]

And an entirely appropriate place for that advertising.

[photohiker]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-10-29/a ... ps/5850566

Anti-protest bill cannot be saved, former Supreme Court judge tells MPs

A former Tasmanian Supreme Court judge has told legislative councillors the State Government's anti-protest bill was drafted in a hurry and would have unintended consequences.

Pierre Slicer addressed Upper House members ahead of the Workplace Protest Bill being debated in the Legislative Council this week.

Groups including Unions Tasmania, the Law Society, Civil Liberties Australia and the Community Legal Centres Tasmania also briefed legislative councillors this morning.

Mr Slicer said he told MPs the bill had been badly drafted and could not be saved.

"One of the unintended consequences was mandatory sentencing of people caught up in, I guess, political activity, without being able to allow the courts to give a measured response to the particular conduct, as distinct from a blanket response which says, second time in, three months jail, and that was the thrust, the central thrust of what I had to say," he said.

[gayet]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-10-30/tasmania27s-anti-protest-laws-pass-upper-house-hurdle/5852722

And its been passed anyway

[photohiker]

And a little reminder of how these little mining projects can get out of hand and leave a huge bill for society in the future:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-10-31/m ... ne/5858764

The Department of Mines and Energy is seeking $200 million from the Federal Government to rehabilitate the former Rum Jungle mine site.

Attempts to rehabilitate the site, Australia's first uranium mine, stem back to the 1970s.

Scientists from the Department of Mines and Energy (DoE) have been drilling at the site over the past three weeks and analysing rock samples.

It is estimated that five million cubic metres of rock will need to be relocated or re-buried in two of the mine's deepest pits.

The process is likely to take three years and cost millions, scientists say.