July 29, 2025 • 65 mins
Imagine a company that has been pursuing its goal for fifteen years, with mixed progress, if you could call it that.
The company, Trans Tasman Resources (TTR) has invested over $85 million toward a deep sea mining project off the South Taranaki Coast.
It’s Executive Chairman Alan Eggers is a qualified geologist who gained his degree at Victoria University, Wellington.
But it’s not all been plain sailing...
Eggers lays it out in a most interesting interview which covers matters political, racial, social and financial, and helps to understand why New Zealand is poorly served in its search for the success it deserves.
It just might share some of the reasons the country comes up short in other areas, like infrastructure and health.
File your comments and complaints at Leighton@newstalkzb.co.nz
Haven't listened to a podcast before? Check out our simple how-to guide.
Listen here on iHeartRadio
Leighton Smith's podcast also available on iTunes:
To subscribe via iTunes click here
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:09):
You're listening to a podcast from news talks it B.
Follow this and our wide range of podcasts now on iHeartRadio.
It's time for all the attitude, all the opinion, all
the information, all the debates of the US, now the
Leyton Smith Podcast powered by news talks it B.
Speaker 2 (00:28):
Welcome to podcasts two hundred and ninety five for July thirty,
twenty twenty five. Let me start with a headline from
the New Zealand Herald fifteen August twenty twenty two, seabed
mining could deny unparalleled economic opportunity. Now In the interview
to follow, there is a lot of detail. That detail
covers a lot of territory, financial, social, racial, political, as
(00:51):
you'll hear, and there is much detail in the following discussion.
The company involved describes the situation as an outstanding opportunity
for New Zealand. There's been over eighty five million dollars
invested in the project over fifteen years, with much more
to come. The problems that have been confronting the company
to this point could be over and that's thanks to
(01:14):
fast Track, the new system of getting things going. But
as you'll hear, there are you might say, speed bumps
and chicanery to deal with. The author of that article
in the Herald from twenty twenty two is Alan Eggers.
He is the executive chairman of Trans Tasman Resources Limited.
This is what he said at the very end of
(01:34):
that piece. New Zealand is well placed to develop a new,
long term, one billion dollar plus export industry producing one
of the lowest carbon intensity iron ore concentrates in the world.
Naiwa Packer's Bill, if enacted, would deny New Zealand access
to this unparalleled economic opportunity. Now, I might suggest that
(01:57):
what you're about to hear provides some reason, some explanation,
some rationale for why New Zealand is not the successful
country that it could be, and certainly that it should be.
The chairman of trans Tasman Resources Allen Eggers after the break.
(02:22):
Buccolan is a natural oral vaccine in a tablet form
called bacterial licate. It'll boost your natural protection against bacterial
infections in your chest and throat. A three day course
of seven Buckland tablets will help your body build up
to three months of immunity against bugs which cause bacterial
cold symptoms. So who can take buccolan well, the whole
(02:43):
family from two years of age and upwards. A course
of Bucckelan tablets offers cost effective and safe protection from
colds and chills. Protection becomes effective a few days after
you take buccolan and lasts for up to three months
following the three day course. Buccolan can be taken throughout
the cold season, over winter, or all the year round.
And remember Buckelan is not intended as an alternative to
(03:06):
influenza vaccination, but may be used along with the flu
vaccination for added protection. And keep in mind that millions
of doses have been taken by Kiwis for over fifty years.
Only available from your pharmacist. Always read the label and
users directed, and see your doctor if systems persist. Farmer
Broker Auckland.
Speaker 3 (03:36):
Layton Smith.
Speaker 2 (03:38):
Now here's a question, what is the Fast Track Approvals Act? Well,
that depends on who's asking the question and more importantly,
who's providing the answer. Here is one, for instance, the
Fast Track Approvals Act of twenty twenty four is a
new law that creates an accelerated consent path for major
development projects in a tiroa that's New Zealand. It allows
(04:04):
certain projects to bypass key steps of the standard Resort
Horse Management Act the RMA, including no public notification, no
right to lodge, formal submissions, no automatic hearings, and limited
appeal rights and then only on points of law. Instead,
selected projects go straight to an expert consenting panel, which
(04:25):
decides whether they proceed. The panel must give greater weight
to a project's benefits like economic development or energy supply,
than to its environmental or recreational impacts. This process is
much faster and harder to challenge than the standard RMA route.
Once a project is listed or referred, legal experts say
(04:48):
it is very difficult to stop, especially for individuals or
community groups. Now if you sensed a cynicism in that,
then I think you'd be quite right. And that came
from Whitewater Recreation. Let's turn to a release from two
Ministers Bishop and Shane Jones. Since the fast track approval
(05:12):
system opened for business, these statistics show strong progress toward
making it quicker and easier to build the project's New
Zealand needs for economic growth. By New Zealand they mean
paved to rower of course. RMA Reform and Infrastructure Minister
Chris Bishop and Regional Developed Minister Shane Jones say The
Fast Track Approvals Act, part of the Coalition agreement between
(05:33):
National and New Zealand, first, was signed into law just
before Christmas last year and opened for project applications on
seven February this year. The Act helps cut through the
tangle of red and green tape and the jumble of
approvals processes that has until now held New Zealand back
from much needed economic growth. According to Mister Bishop, the
(05:55):
Fast Track Approvals Act contains a list of one hundred
and forty nine projects which from seven February have been
able to apply to the Environmental Protection Authority the EPA
for consideration by an expert panel. The expert panels consider
each application, decide whether or not each project receives approval,
(06:16):
and attach any necessary conditions to those approvals. Now, in
the four months since the fast Track World was when
this was written, in the four months since the fast
Track one stop shop approvals regime officially opened for project applications,
we've seen good progress on a range of applications for
projects that, if approved, will grow New Zealand's economy and
(06:37):
sort out our infrastructure deficit, our housing crisis and the
energy shortage. Instead of tying essential projects up in knots
for years at a time. Now I'm about to introduce
you to a case that has been not just a
few months, not just a few years, but a hell
(06:57):
of a long time. The application comes from Trans Tasman
Resources TTR. So by way of background, TTR is seeking
fast track approval to seabed minor iron sands in the
South Taranaki Byte to extract iron ore and the critical
minerals of vanadium and titanium. In brief, TTR is seeking
(07:20):
approval to harvest up to fifty million tons of the
black iron sands located in the exclusive economic Zone at
least twenty two kilometers and up to thirty six kilometers
off the coast of Taranaki in the South Taranaki Byte.
The critical minerals are in demand as countries transition to
renewable energy sources. Anyhow, TTR has been seeking approvals for
(07:44):
seabed mining since twenty thirteen, when its first application to
the Environmental Protection author It was declined. It did further
work and applied again, and in twenty seventeen the EPA
approved its application, with TTR agreeing to one hundred and
nine operating conditions and management plans. Alan Eggers is the
(08:05):
executive chairman of Trans Tasman Resources TTR and he's a
man with a very interesting story to tell. Very good
to have you on the podcast. Welcome, Thank you, Laden,
Thanks for they Why why don't you start with a
brief because I've covered it off myself briefly, but with
a brief of how you started applications in twenty thirteen,
(08:30):
and just like I said, briefly, what happened between then
and now.
Speaker 3 (08:35):
Well it's hard to be brief about that, Laden, but
I'll give it a shot. We applied for our first
environmental consents. We've got a mining license or mining permit
to operate and extract heavy mineral sands from the South
Taranake Byte and once we have that, we need environmental
consents and out in the EZ where we are in
(08:58):
New Zealand's Exclusive Economic Zone, we need a down a
marine consent, which is really an environmental consent to operate
and the EBA grant those who are the administrator for
the EZ. So we applied in two thousand and thirty
and our application we thought was reasonably comprehensible enough, but
(09:21):
we failed to test and we were declined in twenty
and fourteen, so we stepped back, we looked at where
the short falls were, and we spent the next two
years going back to our experts, undertaking a massive amount
of consultation with local groups, councils, EWI and various interest groups.
(09:43):
But just as importantly we got Niwer and our international
experts to update the marine science and any shortfalls we
had in there. And a lot of the controversy was
around the plume and the effects of the plume. And
we did that work and re submitted in twenty and
sixteen and were granted our marine and by then we
(10:04):
also need the marine discharged consent. I'd added to the
list of things we needed and we were granted those
in twenty seventeen. And what they well, our opponents decided
that perhaps there were points of law that they challenged
us time, so they took us to the High Court
and challenged the DMC or the Decision Making Committee's decision.
(10:29):
So they took us to the High Court on twenty
nine points of law. It's a bit of if you
throw enough of it at some of ittle stick. And
this was funded really by Greenpeace, but the e we
were there and there were some fishing interests there, even
(10:50):
though we got agreements out there with the major fisher
in the area, sandfits and in the High Court the
decision came down. We won twenty eight of those points.
We lost on one, which was adaptive management day said Churchmen.
Justice Churchmen ruled that we had adaptive management and that
(11:13):
wasn't permitted for a marine consent.
Speaker 2 (11:15):
Now what does that mean.
Speaker 3 (11:17):
Well, that means that you can kind of suck it
and see or you can get going and then work
out what sort of if you are creating adverse effects
what they are, and then start setting limits. We didn't.
We had hard limits set and we were confident of that.
So it was us that went to the Court of
Appeal and appealed to the fact that we had adaptive management.
(11:42):
The Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court subsequently confirmed
that we didn't and overturned that decision. So effectively we
won all twenty nine points of law. However, the Court
of Appeal came out with a whole lot of left
wing issues about international law and unclass which is the
(12:03):
United Nations law of the sea and how that effect
may affects, and a few other issues about six of them,
and ruled against us on those which weren't even things
that were appealed, issues that were appealed. But again, our
opponent's Greenpeace are very skilledness and by the way, they
undertake this kind of lawfare around the world and it's
(12:26):
the same legalty internationally that are setting at the desk
against us. So we then looked at that and our
advice was that they've got it wrong. So we took
that to the Supreme Court. We largely got all of
those overturned in the Supreme Court. And what the Supreme
Court said, the highest court in this land said, the
(12:48):
ultimate Court is that these consents should be sent back
to the DMC to reconsider because and they made a
number of points about how the DMC hadn't applied the
Act correctly. Our consent conditions and our effects were never challenged.
What was was the application of the law and the
(13:11):
purpose of the Act. And they also said that TTR
should have the opportunity to have its application reconsidered and
supply any information deficits if there are any. That was
in legal terms. But that pimply what the Supreme Court said.
No court in this land has banned or closed down
(13:36):
seabd mining that has not happened. So with that, we
went back to the EBI and asked them to reconvene
their DMC and reconsider our consents, taking into account the
six shortfalls that the Supreme Court had identified, and they
were around information on marine mammals, seabirds, why we hadn't
(14:03):
posted a bond and taking I got introduced of course
by this and Tea tanger and cultural guardianship issues if
you like, and we're not on the radar when we
put in our application in twenty and sixteen. That's all
developed since as I'm sure your listeners are away.
Speaker 2 (14:20):
So this particular period that you're talking was what year.
Speaker 3 (14:25):
Well, this got us to twenty and twenty one. That's
how long that took for the Supreme Court in September
twenty and twenty one to deliver a judgment. It then
took it then took the EPA two and a half
years to get somebody to sit down in hardware in
twenty twenty four, believe it or not, just to start rehearing.
That's how long it took our bureaucrats to get us
(14:48):
back to the table. This is a major commercial project
where we haven't invested over ninety minute. I sorry, over
eighty five million, nearly ninety million dollars and we are
now being frustrated by a bunch of bureaucrats. Now, let
me just say something about bureaucrats later if you must, Yes, well,
(15:08):
I think it's worth be my guest. Okay. I think
bureaucrats and the bureaucracy here and particularly the civil service
around Wellington, are like road canes. When you come across them,
there's a hell of a lot of them. They're not
doing anything, and you could remove four out of five
and still have the same effect without any any danger
(15:32):
to anybody or the environment. And if you look behind them,
there's generally no work happening at all, and it's just
burning consuming money and delaying progress and productive enterprises from
getting on with what they need to do.
Speaker 2 (15:51):
Do you have any idea, any sort on what drives them.
I'm not talking about the green pieces or the EWI
I'm talking about the bureaucrats.
Speaker 3 (16:01):
Yes, I think it's obvious they have very comfortable lifestyles,
are assured if they're pay check next week. They don't
know what risk means. They just sit there and invent
committees to talk to each other, if you got rid
of four out of five bureaucrats, you'd have a more
efficient system because they have less committee meetings that it
(16:23):
might get on and do something, and the four that
have been dispensed with could actually have shovels and be
working behind those road gones filling podoles.
Speaker 2 (16:31):
Do you think that Wellington having a lot of a
lot of problems, a lot of issues with the city
of the council, the debt, the water system, everything that's
everything that's gone to miss it's not a pleasant place
to be. Do you think maybe that they are picking
up payment for what they've done in the past and
(16:52):
continue to do well.
Speaker 3 (16:55):
I'm not quite sure about that. And I quite like
Wellington and I went to university there and I support
I continue to support research at Victoria University of Wellington.
They've allowed everything to slide, and I think the emphasis
on the environment and cycling pathways and on we go
(17:18):
is throe to the direct detriment of progress and enterprise,
and it certainly doesn't encourage an investment by risk capital
to get in and do some of these things. As
for the public infrastructure, well that simply can't be fixed
up because we don't have the funds and the taxpayer
(17:38):
funds to pay for it.
Speaker 2 (17:39):
But they do have funds for all sorts of things
like very expensive welcome welcome parties for new bureaucrats.
Speaker 3 (17:47):
Exactly in cycle ways, that's right, and those bureaucrats also
travel extensively. We have problems at the moment where a
lot of them seem to be in Europe. I haven't
looked hard, but I think if you have a look
at the Wimbledon finals, who probably see a few of
them pop they're eating strawberries and ice cream, that the
(18:07):
point is that they're paid well, they've got extensive leave,
and they want more. They want a four day working week.
I understand what this country needs to do is drag
itself up from where it is and encourage enterprise investment
and industries and projects that generate wealth. You can have
(18:28):
your infrastructure only if you generate wealth, and we're not
doing that. The Infrastructure Commission here suggested to the Fast
Track Committee during the hearing stages of the bill going
through Parliament last year that in fact it should only
be for infrastructure because that would cause less challenges and
(18:51):
we could get on and build the infrastructure new Zealand
needs well, I would ask the Infrastructure Commission, how is
that infrastructure going to be paid for? Because I would
like to remind our politicians and bureaucrats that governments don't
create any wealth really consumer and what we need to
do is create jobs, paying taxes more in comfort treasury.
(19:16):
I'm sure Nichola Willis would like this and massively cut
the owner of his burden on government places and businesses.
It's all got the wrong emphasis.
Speaker 2 (19:30):
Later, Yes it does. I spent five years in Wellington
and it wasn't in the condition that it is now. Nevertheless,
let's look at it. Let's just look look at a
bit of your background. You mentioned that you studied there.
Is that where you did geology?
Speaker 3 (19:51):
Yes, I did. I did three degrees in geology and
economics at Victoria University and completed a master's there in
nineteen seventy eight, I think. And I'd been out in
the binning industry before I went. I went as a
mature age student and Bob Clark, a professor of geology
there at Victoria University, gave me an opportunity and said, well,
(20:14):
because I came in from a mining company, I was
a surveyor with a mining company, but I said, I
like geology and I wanted to do a degree, and
I was over twenty one, and he said, well, we'll
give you a shot. And I really enjoyed it. And
you know that department and the university were great to me.
They supported me. I got a scholarship after the first year.
(20:36):
I never failed a subject, and yet I'd only gone
to third year secondary school and I did maths and chemistry, geology, economics,
physics at university.
Speaker 2 (20:49):
What was it about you that only getting the third
year you went on and succeeded in university fields, in
realistic fields, shall we say, qualifications that can make great contribution.
What is it about you that you achieved that?
Speaker 3 (21:07):
Ah? I think it comes from I had a good
family upbringing and Mote Wacre on a hop farm and
forestry industry. But my father and my grandfather were very
much hard working entrepreneurial rural sorts. I'm the first in
our entire family in New Zealand, fifth generation German IMMI
(21:30):
rents from the eighteen fifties that went to university, the
first one ever out of quite an extended family by then.
Of course, nowadays, just about everybody's got a degrees you
know later, but in those days they did mostly in nothing,
and that's right, and I was I had a good
work ethic. And what I did at university is I
(21:52):
went there at eight o'clock on Monday morning and worked
basically an eight hour day until Friday evening, and then
I headed to the Grand Hotel on Friday evening. And
let's just say I had a few jugs of beer
and enjoyed my weekends a great time. But I was
back on there and worked during the week at the university,
(22:14):
and yet and I was amazed. I looked at most
of students and they were all, you know, cramming towards
the end of each semester and looking for notes. And
I used to be able to sell my notes for
a slab of beer. So I really had a good time.
But I think I was determined, and I didn't go
to university to get a degree. I went to university
(22:38):
to learn how to learn and get a career.
Speaker 2 (22:42):
And you succeeded. So let me let me proceed on
this path from a little longer. So what would you
if you were in as, if you were a member
of parliament, if you were a minister in the government
and you had the opportunity to do it, What would
be the first steps that you'd take with regard to education.
Speaker 3 (23:06):
Oh, that's a big question. I'll ask it at in
around about fashion laden to say that I'm so disappointed
that the hard sciences and maths and physics and geology
have been downgraded for arts degrees and social sciences shall
we call them, and even climate science. You know, there's
(23:28):
no such thing as climate science. It doesn't exist. That's
not a discipline. It's a bunch of people that have
made it up. Yes, we do need a social conscience
and we do need the other end of the spectrum
at all times, and I'm quite happy with that, but
I think the emphasis has gone too far in that direction,
and we're not generating engineers and geologists and economists and
(23:55):
people that get out there and build enterprises and get
things moving. We're getting people coming out of the universities
that have a sense of entitlement. And getting back to
your question about Wellington, they just want great welcome parties
and a nice time without being bothered about how it's
(24:17):
all paid for. They don't want to know.
Speaker 2 (24:20):
It's been suggested to me and I've pondered this myself anyway,
that one of the biggest problems in New Zealand is
the population. Now, that doesn't mean the people who are
listening to us, because they've got more brains than a
lot of others. I'm just talking about people who don't
people who don't care, people who utilize the system.
Speaker 3 (24:43):
Yes, there is quite right, and it comes back to
the sense of entitlement, but they're gaining the system later
and I can give you a real example of that.
In our case. We're in the fast track system as
everybody knows, and this process is ongoing, was just starting really,
(25:05):
But part of it is that we have consulted with
EWE and his three main EWI groups in South Taranaki.
We've consulted with and engaged with, albeit we've been rebuffed
the days. Beside the point going through the fast track process.
We locked a brand new application twenty twenty five with
(25:25):
everything updated, and we wrote to twelve ev groups, including
the EWE Fishing Forum in South Taranaki and asked them,
told them what we were doing, gave them the information
and asked them what at what it is that if
they have any concerns, what are they so that we
can address them. We had no response. However, the bureaucrats
(25:49):
invited thirty six EWE and HARFU groups to our conference
the other day with the conference panel conveners to decide
on the panel membership makeup and a time frame for
a decision. Plus EM groups were invited. Their regulations in
(26:11):
the Act says that we've got to pay each one
of those for showing up ten thousand dollars. That's three
hundred and sixty thousand dollars of non productive money that
I have got to find and pay for these people
to turn up to oppose us in a process of
(26:33):
approving a mining project of which they don't care about
or know little about and won't read about it. It's appalling.
Speaker 2 (26:41):
Now who's responsible for that?
Speaker 3 (26:44):
The bureaucrats, because it's so deeply ingrained in one that
they can't help themselves but go there. And I don't
think the government's very pleased with some of this that's
going on.
Speaker 2 (26:55):
I was going to ask you about Shane Jones in particular.
You have you communicated with him?
Speaker 3 (27:00):
Yes, Shane and I have. How do I say that
being warned off each other in a way, because only
because I think the message in cabinet is for Shane. Yeah,
but you're not to promote TDR, and I think that's fair, okay,
But he is promoting the Fast Tracked Act. He's very
(27:22):
supportive of the offshore iron Sand's being being developed, and
he's very supportive freely of TDR and has made that plane.
But we don't communicate on a daily basis at all,
but I do get this information through to him. But
they are aware of it all. They are aware of
what's going on, and I don't think they like what's
(27:43):
going on.
Speaker 4 (27:45):
When you say they, well, I think it's the Minister
for Our Resources and his team and perhaps some in
cabinet and the fast Track.
Speaker 3 (27:59):
The relevant ministers that are really taking the fast Track
build through or the fast Track process through, which is
of course the key ministers are Simeon Brown and Chris
Bishop and Shane Jones, but any minister of course that's
relevant is also consulted, depending on what the project is.
(28:22):
And they called it fast track. Well, it's taking a
long time here. Laden they brought the fast Track legislation
and in March twenty twenty four. I think we're now
in July twenty twenty five and we've got seven committees
expert panels appointed. We might be the eighth one, but
(28:44):
none of them are anywhere never making the decision before
September October this year, and ours is likely to be
next year.
Speaker 2 (28:51):
All right, So let me just check on something. These
thirty six ewis were invited along is to influence the
selection of the panel exper panel. Correct, So it's a
pub meeting then.
Speaker 3 (29:10):
No, it was by invitation, but it is public. It's
all you could attend, but you couldn't participate. The participants
and there were a lot of them. We all got
an opportunity to present like as was the applicant, and
then they all followed with their various submissions, and then
we got the opportunity for a few minutes at the
end of summer, but no, and the public you could
(29:34):
watch it on live stream, but you couldn't participate or interrupt.
Speaker 2 (29:40):
Okay, So from here, having had that first panel meeting
or establishing it, what's the procedure.
Speaker 3 (29:50):
Well, now the panel convenor goes away, and she said
she's going to issue a couple of minutes relating to
those proceedings, and I think she gave a fairly strong
indication that she'll announce our panel makeup by the end
of this month, around about three weeks time, and then
(30:11):
the expert panel takes over and they actually start to
assess our project.
Speaker 2 (30:16):
How many on the panel we don't know.
Speaker 3 (30:19):
The panels, some of three, some are four, and some
of five. The only mining one that's gone through so
far is Yhi North Oceanic Golds, and they've got a
five member panel, and they had the same panel convenor
as us, and the same language he was using with
us is in her decision for them, and so I
(30:40):
suspect we'll get five. We don't need five. I think
three experts could easily deal with our application.
Speaker 2 (30:49):
Where will they come from? We don't know what sort
of background history.
Speaker 3 (30:57):
Okay, they always appear to want somebody such as a
retired judge to chair these things. I am not sure
that that's always best, but anyway, they have a retired judge,
and then we would like somebody with some mining expertise.
This time, we've never had anybody with mining expertise on
any panel, and there's a lot of them around, including
(31:19):
very senior and knowledgeable people in the mining industry. Have
dealt with epas here and a news and in Australia
on large mining projects that are familiar with these processes.
We would like somebody like that. The EE. We wanted
two EE panel members on and they must be local,
they said, because they are the only ones that understand
about t ganger locally. It couldn't be from anywhere else.
(31:43):
So and then you'll need a planner and on it goes.
So it makes it very difficult. And what we would
say is the E we want their representatives on there.
Well we say it's not about representation. TTR doesn't have
representative on the panel. It's about experts and they should
(32:04):
be knowledgeable experts in Ta Cager and preferably from out
side the district, so they are independent.
Speaker 2 (32:11):
Yes, So the headline I'm looking at full speed ahead
for fast track projects is a bit misleading.
Speaker 3 (32:19):
Well, I could certainly do, to use Shane Jones's phraseology
turbo charging in its own right that the wheels need
to be greased. But this is where the bureaucracy can't
help themselves. The EWI groups wanted us within about a
six month time frame to add a six month time
(32:39):
frame to have workshops to assess cultural matters and ticking.
They wanted six months.
Speaker 2 (32:50):
I've got to ask I've got to ask you a
personal question. Yes, we haven't discussed all of your background,
but you are a key we Yes, you have property here,
you spend time here. Yes, so you help fight wildfires here. Yes,
but you are also domiciled in Perth, which is which
(33:13):
is as you said to me before we before we
began recording as the mining capital.
Speaker 3 (33:19):
To the world.
Speaker 2 (33:21):
Why are you persisting with this for as long as
you are, going back to twenty thirteen and then being
where you I've looked, I mean, let me digress momentarily,
but it's attached. I looked at how much you've spent
as best I could in on this on this project.
I looked at we haven't even we haven't even mentioned
(33:44):
the word vanadium yet. But I looked at the value
of that, and I couldn't quite work it out. I
was trying to trying to use a system that I
found online to convert the value of the current rate
of value of vanadium in terms of gold and I
(34:06):
and I couldn't do it. So why don't you? As
I progress here is what's the current price or value
of vanadium?
Speaker 3 (34:15):
It's around about five or six dollars US a pound,
and we've got about eleven pounds and each ton of concentrate,
so that would be about fifty or sixty dollars or
about one hundred dollars KIWI worth in each ton of concentrate.
We have one hundred dollars US of iron ore to
(34:37):
start with, and then that's added, but we won't recover
all that late and so we get about seventy seven
percent of that recovered in our metallurgical process. So we
wind up with around about seven or eight pounds of it.
And what we've done is we've said that we will
only get paid for half of that. The other half
(35:00):
it would cost to get us get it out on
the metallurgical process. So it comes it comes down to
adding thirty or forty dollars to a ton of concentrate,
which is very valuable of course, fifty five million tons
of concentrated year, and you add thirty dollars US to that,
(35:20):
let's say considerable contribution.
Speaker 2 (35:24):
Indeed, I saw somewhere in this, in this maneuvering of mine,
I saw a venue of fourteen, eight hundred and sixty
seven dollars and sixteen cents that was of me a
couple of months back that's probably a ton or well
that's what I thought, but there was no indication, so
that questions now answered, right.
Speaker 3 (35:43):
Yeah, well that's we also have about one hundred and
fifty five dollars worth of titanium and each ton of
concentrate over and above iron ore in vanadium. We're not
counting any of that at the moment because we need
to ensure and we report to the Australian Stock Exchange,
and I'm allowed to report the iron ore and the
(36:04):
vanadium because we know we can sell that and it's
currently exports that from New Zealand but also from Africa
and Australia that are exporting and getting credits for those,
so we know we can do that. Titanium is a
bit different and we're not sure that we can get
credits for it yet, so on the edge of being conservative,
we're not considering that. But you may have seen a
(36:26):
headline in the papers yesterday where it's potentially the titanium
credits could double the value of this project, and the
project already exports nearly a billion dollars worth a concentrated year.
It will be New Zealand's eleventh largest export income earner
foreign exchange earner in its own right by itself.
Speaker 2 (36:50):
Okay, so after the diversion, let me go back to
what my question was was going to be all with
all the millions that you have spent on this project?
Is millions?
Speaker 3 (37:03):
Yes?
Speaker 2 (37:03):
And more millions yes? Do you want to throw us
a number?
Speaker 3 (37:06):
I'm responsible for over thirty million personally.
Speaker 2 (37:10):
Okay, why are you persisting?
Speaker 3 (37:14):
Because it's a long story and I make it as
brief as possible. I was asked to invest in this
project in two thousand and eight by the individuals that
started the project from Rio Tinto and I Luca Mineral
Sands in Australia that was Zia Pedigree, and they came
(37:35):
to me and I'd made quite a lot. I was
very fortunate and lucky, if you like. But I made
my own luck out of Summit, which was originally the
New Zealand company, and I said that I wouldn't invest
in it because I said, the approvals regime in New
Zealand is appalling and it's too high risk. They said no, no, no,
(38:00):
everything's changed and the government is very supportive and they
want the offshore iron stands to be looked at in
New Zealand and In fact, in twenty twenty three, Ministry
Business and Innovation and Employment Mimbe briefed the incoming Minister's
Resource minister here when they came into government and suggested
(38:21):
that there's nearly at least four hundred billion, four hundred
billion dollars worth of Ironstein's off the west coast of Taranaki.
It should be developed. But going back, I came to
New Zealand and then met with all the senior ministers
in the John Key government and Mimby I did my
(38:42):
own due diligence and I said, I've made a bit
of money and I'd like to see New Zealand develop
its natural resources and its mining industry. And what's going
on in the past it doesn't help, and it said
he doesn't encourage foreign investment and New Zealand short of
expertise such as mine in taking major projects and major
(39:06):
mining companies forward. I said, I would like to make
a contribution if I'm assured that things are okay here
and that we can get through this. I was assured
by the Key government and ministers who I can name
them if you want, but we'll just move on, they
assured me. That we would love to see those iron
sands explored and developed. So we pegged the first tenements
(39:29):
and we were closely followed by the giants Rio, Tintome,
Sino Steel and FMG, and we had to hold coast
peaked from manic Our Harbor to Cavity and TTR was
in there with about a quarter of it, but we reckon.
We got them first and we got the best. And
the government assured me that not only that they would
(39:51):
bring in the e Z legislation so that if you
find something in the zen, we will have resource consenting
regime out there that's permissive and avoids crema, and that
we know the ray needs fixing up and it's all
too difficult, but we're going to fix up the urma.
(40:13):
But we'll have this clean, fresh legislation out And you said,
which you're able to go for. So I invested. We
had major private equity funds from the US invest and
we spent about sixty million doing over and beyond what
(40:33):
we were required to do out there, because I said,
we've got to do more. We not just going to
turn up at the doorstep of the approvers with the
bare minimum and the best available information. I said, let's
do this right and show what New Zealand can do
and what the mining industry can do in terms of
protecting the environment, researching the environment, putting a good economic
(40:58):
case together, putting the whole project engineeringly in good shape
so that it's not an experiment or a ten. We
bought in sea bed mining expertise, over thirty years of it,
from Deba's Marine in Southwest Africa. We bought an IFC
(41:19):
ROYALFC from Rotterdam who have been drenching offshore for three
hundred and forty two forty four years or something. We
bought in the experts. We then invested all these all
this money and then we got into the Shenanigans of
the court process, which I explained earlier. So why do
(41:40):
I keep going? I'll tell you why I keep going.
I have investors who are relying on me to take
this forward and give them a return on their investment,
and they deserve it. We were encouraged by the government
at all stages to do this, so we got on
with it. We didn't come in and half asked. We
(42:00):
did what we needed to do to deliver a successful
project and at the same time protect the environment and
take account of local cultures, custodianship and existing interests. At
all times. We consulted with all the councils. We consulted
with all the recreational fishes, we commercial fishing, the oil
(42:23):
and gas industry. We went to everybody, and we have
a great project. It's a great project for New Zealand. Now,
why would I walk away from that and disappoint my
investors just because some militant international eco terrorists come along
(42:43):
and say we don't like you and we don't want you.
They also don't want They don't want oil and gas,
they don't want coal, they don't want mining of any sort,
and they particularly don't want seabed mining. Well, I say
to them, what are you using? You guys are in
living in the medals age and you want you're elitist
(43:08):
and you're basically run by a bunch of lawyers who
are taking all the funds and with their snouts in
the trough, going nowhere, And it's economic vandalism, you're preaching
and economic self harm for the South Taranaki region because
it's a depressed area and we're offering an alternative and
(43:33):
at the same time that will develop their culture. And
expand their knowledge of the marine environment and how it
is really out there.
Speaker 2 (43:43):
Then I want to quote you from an article that
you wrote published in The Herald in twenty two. I
have to admire Debbie and Nariwa Packer's passion and emotion already.
I think you're being bold, as evidence in her recent
commentary on her Private Members bill calling for seabed mining
in New Zealand to be banned. Unfortunately, her passionate claims
(44:07):
are not by the science and engineering. Her retric is
alarmist and flies on the face of the extensive expert evidence,
scientific engineering, marine research and observational data presented to the
Environmental Protection Authority to have trans Tasman Resources TTR marine
consents considered and granted in twenty seventeen. It's not just
(44:32):
the I know that the green mob are behind and backing,
but there is EWE objection to it too. Is there
any support from anybody in EWE land in Taranaki?
Speaker 3 (44:51):
Well, thanks for that. I stand by every word of
that quote. That's the first thing. The second thing is
that ms Naware Packer and a cohorts are bullies and
what they do is they insist did all EWI take
the stand that she promotes in a rhetoric which she promotes.
(45:16):
We have endeavored to engage with all EWI and our
feedback is that a lot of them in fact do
support what we're doing. We engaged an EWE earlder from
Taranaki to do our engagement, to undertake our engagement, and
I would also say that her stand flies in the
(45:39):
face of her own far now half of which a
fly and fly out in mining in Australia stand. There's
just been some disquiet from some of them about her stand,
but she won't allow any other statements, and the other
EWE will not come out against miss Packer publicly. Recently
(46:03):
we have had meetings with EWE groups and we've had
some very positive feedback and one in particular which I
refer from naming but I can off air, but came
back and one of the major EE groups and so
called against has said that in light of what you
have just presented to me, Allen, we have never been
told us before, we have never been told the truth
(46:24):
about the project, and we should be reconsidering our position.
Speaker 2 (46:29):
Is that likely to be in progress, yes, but it'll.
Speaker 3 (46:32):
Get hammered down. You do you understand how two party
mara works and what goes on here and you know, look,
let's look at it like this. Last year we had
two bills in Parliament, one from the Mary Party wanting
to ban seabed mining and one from Eugenie Sage wanting
to basically banned mining everywhere but particularly in the conservation
(46:57):
of state. I mean. And then she Eugenie Sage, as
a tokenism was given an inquiry into seabed mining which
he chaired, and wouldn't let me present my information. Refused
point blank to accept the information I gave her on
seabed mining and TTRS project off short South Taranaki. She
(47:18):
refused to accept that information and said we're not a EPA, Allen,
take your information away, We're an inquiry and to see
bed mining and went on with her own rhetoric.
Speaker 2 (47:30):
Is that lack of intelligence? I'll give you an alternative here,
lack of intelligence? Or is it something else like power
and greed? On a personal basis?
Speaker 3 (47:44):
Never ever think that these people, our opponents, have a
lack of intelligence. They're very well resourced, they're very intelligent people,
but they have a religious zeal about where they're at.
And Eugenie Sage of course comes from Greenpeace and Forest
(48:04):
and Bird and Forest and Bird of course where it
used to be Royal Forest and Burbert have become so
left wing activists that they lost the royal monika. It
was taken off them. And think about that for a moment,
and when you want, you hear King Charles and state
about the environment and his position. They've got to be
pretty bad to lose their monica. But no, that's that's
(48:29):
their mantra. That's where they're coming from, and they're not
going to have their heads turned by common sense facts.
It's ideology. It's the ideology.
Speaker 2 (48:41):
Can ideology in this well? Can ideologies vary? But can
ideology be brought? Yes, it is how much are you
prepared to offer?
Speaker 3 (48:53):
We're not prepared to offer them anything upfront for nothing.
That's just bribery and corruption, and I stay a long
way away from that. What we are prepared to offer
them is open and full partici patient, and we've actually
put in our conditions that they get preferential opportunities and
contracting and employment. We would like them to undertake the
(49:16):
marine monitoring which reports and checking on our project, and
that reports all to the EBA, not the TTR. It
reports to the EPA, and if we're exceeding any of
our consent requirements or are causing damage to reefs or
the marine environment or fish or Colimaana or the beaches,
(49:38):
we've got to stop. And we can only recommence when
we can demonstrate them we won't cause that damage. By
the way, we won't be causing any damage, and that's
well presented in our application material. But we want to
work with them. And how you change that, how you
buy them if you lie, is by experience and participation
(50:00):
and working together, not by division and racial division particularly
and privilege, but working together, and that's how I would
want to progress. They did come to us originally and
showed quite a strong interest in investing in the project
back in about twenty ten to the twenty twelve. We're
(50:24):
not sure what happened, but something snapped, and I've been
strong strident opponents innocence.
Speaker 2 (50:34):
Well, I think that was a brilliant answer and it
was nihon perfect as far as most people will be concerned,
working with people are far better than fighting with.
Speaker 3 (50:44):
Them, far better. And we're one nation, are we really still?
I think you headed into a political debate, which I'd
love to have, but perhaps for another time later. But
I have my misgivings, and particularly living overseas a bit.
(51:05):
I come back, I'm dismayed and horrified. What's going on here?
Speaker 2 (51:09):
Well, I was heading in this direction a little earlier
and something happened technically or something, and I never got
I never got through with it. But what I was
going to say to you, in the form of a
question at the time, was referring to the number of
people fleeing the country, and I'm talking specifically about I
(51:32):
think I think you may have mentioned qualified people, et cetera,
who can actually achieve things, something along those lines. Those
people have almost on mass, decided that there's no future here,
that they can't they can't achieve what they want, They
can't get where they'd like to be. Be it, be
(51:52):
it something that you would accept or I would accept
or not. They just want out because they want But
I saw this morning, if I can divert I saw
this morning something that I'm looking on looking for it.
There's something to do with Australia having no.
Speaker 3 (52:12):
Future Australia or New Zealand Australia.
Speaker 2 (52:17):
And it was by somebody I know. Well, you want
to give me a quick comment on that.
Speaker 3 (52:22):
Yeah, what I see is a demographic. Let's leaving New
Zealand is twenty five to forty young families or singles.
They've got their skills, their trade or their university degrees.
They've started out and they see they're getting nowhere and
(52:42):
they see better opportunities. Perth is now New Zealand's third
or fourth largest city, with about one hundred and fifty
thousand Kiwis in it. They're doing well. They get over
there and they say, look, we're achieved here in six months,
which were taken us six years in New Zealand to achieve.
And of course, when you're thirty two with a young family,
(53:03):
if you can if you can chop six years off,
getting new home and your lifestyle together and a couple
of cars and the garage and the kids in a
good school and good healthcare around the corner, and you're
not spat on because you're in the mining industry, you
feel pretty good and you're getting ahead. They can fly
(53:27):
back on Air New Zealand anytime their life for a
few holidays and in fact mom and dad just love
to go to Berth and say we're off to see
the rankins and birth and they do. And what I
would say is that from what I've seen is that
there's places all around. And I'll go back to a
(53:49):
famous old quote which is not mine. It's attributable to
one Sir Robert Muldoon, who said that every Kiwi that
leaves New Zealand and goes to Australia raises the average
IQ of both nations.
Speaker 2 (54:08):
You think there's enough of us well enough left? Should
I say?
Speaker 3 (54:12):
I was getting back your original point.
Speaker 2 (54:17):
I've found it. By the way, here's how it goes.
The economic outlook for Australia is bleak under a government
bereft of ideas and courage. It's been a while since
an Australian Prime minister remained upright long enough to take
off the training wheels, so we can be forgiven for
expecting something more substantial than the flim flam. The Prime
Minister offered the nation on Friday in what was billed
(54:40):
as a keynote speech his second term. Agender gray haired
readers will remember John Howard confidently striding back into office
in nineteen ninety eight and striking a tax reform agreement
with the premiers as a prelude to introducing the gst YEP.
Some might recall Bob Hawk's Gleaming Eyes in nineteen eighty four,
(55:01):
eliminated with the zeal of a reformer pledging to reduce
government spending at lower labor costs to allow our businesses
the chance to make a profit. History will record Anthony
Alberonizi returned with an ill defined commitment to do something
to improve productivity. When pressed on what that something might be,
(55:21):
the PM didn't seem to know. The policies would emerge
from a two day summit in August. Yeah, I won't
go any further. That's that's a nick Cator and I'm
sure you know of nick Cata. That's a nic Cator
substanti speech. Today.
Speaker 3 (55:39):
What's going on here, Laden is following on from my
answer to your previous question, is that Australia has its
division as well. There's East Australia in the Southeast Australia
and the states of Tasmania, particularly Victoria and New South
Wales are large. Most of the population is there and
(56:04):
they are not producing anything except grandiose plans to put
expensive offshore wind farms and clean green energy at the
cost of coal and get rid of coal to save
the planet, and it's the driving force in the economy
is WA and a little bit of Queensland coming from
(56:27):
mining and oil and gas. And he's got a problem,
but he's got a lot of voters there on welfare
who just love him. And so the thing is that
we've got a government there that really doesn't have a
clue or a mandate to go forward on how to
fix that. And so they reduce themselves to having power
(56:53):
oils and summits, bringing an industry for ideas and then
scrapping behind the scenes over the tax take and the
GST and you know, all states, so Southeast Australian states
get back over all of each bit of GST they collect,
and WA gets about thirty or forty cents because we
(57:15):
just produce so much. WA has massive surpluses. The rest
of the nation's in deficit because they're not working, they're
not productive, and that's where labor thrives on that in
its own way because it keeps traveling. More welfare and
more green energy and with green energy, just think with
green energy. Yes I'm for wind energy as well, but
(57:39):
remember it's the most expensive form of energy in reality
because it's intimatetent, and you need exactly the same capacity
in some other form of generation to cover for it
when it's not working. Now, don't go oh yet, but
they've got batteries. Those batteries are very expensive and also
are only very short, short time frame, even the best
(58:03):
for neading ones. The thing is that if you've got
a thousand megawats wind, you need a thousand megawts of
something else installed to back it up when it's not going. Hello,
this is the most expensive energy you've ever had. And
let me tell you that a wind tower all by
itself never pays back its carbon footprint in its entire lifetime,
(58:26):
from the mining, the manufacturing, fabrication and assembly of the towers,
and the electronics and the alternators and generators and a
transmission cabling an infrastructure that supports wind energy. If you
want lower emissions, the best way you can do it
is to announce you're not installing several wind farms and
(58:49):
you'll have lower emissions.
Speaker 2 (58:50):
Well, you mentioned fabrication in that statement. It reminded me
of net zero. But let's say it's ridiculous. It needs
zero as a concept that can never be achieved. But
going back also to exporting of the population to Australia,
well by part of the population to Australia mining here
(59:13):
in New Zealand. In New Zealand, the average income and
mining in New Zealand is one hundred and one thousand,
one hundred dollars per annum. The high value jobs, the
average income in New Zealand at the moment average wages
is sixty six thou So you said you said New
Zealand in both cases I did.
Speaker 3 (59:35):
And in Australia it's a similar ratio that in New Zealand.
I'm saying in New Zealand, if you had more mining,
you'd have more taxes being paid high value jobs. We're
a very high tech industry where you produced an enormous
amount of wealth. It's the most productive industry in the
world bar none, under wealth generated per participant.
Speaker 2 (59:58):
Is there still room for New Zealand hard workers to
go to West Australia.
Speaker 3 (01:00:04):
Yes, and they do in their droves, but we would
like some them to come back and work in Taranaki.
We would also like to employ and train people, which
we intend to do in Taranaki and it particularly South Taranaki.
We're happy and what's in our conditions to build a
training institute and a logistics hub in hardware, and we'll
(01:00:27):
give preferential access to all of that to the locals.
And that's just not tokenism, that's actually fact written into
our proposed conditions, which have been approved previously, of course
by the EBA.
Speaker 2 (01:00:42):
I've got to say, I have read through a summary
of your efforts and what you're offering the people of
Taranaki is mind boggling. There's money for this, there's money
for that, fifty thousand for this and fifty thousand for
something else. Yes, and I congratulate you on it because
(01:01:03):
you're approaching this in a very inclusive way and you're
being confronted by very exclusive, revolting attitude.
Speaker 3 (01:01:12):
Yes, I think it's been challenging, and it's not exactly
the reaction I would have thought. When you bring the
expertise and you do the work that we've done to
a region and say here's what we're offering. I wouldn't
mind it if they assessed it and said, but we've
found some fatal flaws in this. You better either fix
(01:01:33):
them up or we're going to oppose you. They haven't
found those fatal flaws. They don't exist. We've covered off
the best we possibly can can. I say there's no
such thing as zero risk, as there's no such things
as net zero. Of course this risk with everything we do.
But those risks need to be balanced against the benefits.
(01:01:55):
And if the benefits well and truly offset those risks,
and it's been done professionally and it's independently peer reviewed
and checked, then it should should be permitted. And that's
where that's where we're coming unstuck because our opponents won't
(01:02:17):
accept that.
Speaker 2 (01:02:18):
Ellen Eggers, it's been a pleasure talking with you. I
can only recommend that anybody who has the vaguest interest
follow up, is there anywhere online that they can go
and find out the detail?
Speaker 3 (01:02:38):
Yes, yes there is. The two places to go online.
The first is that you can go to the Monuca website,
which I think is Manuka Resources dot com. It's easy
to find and we're on the Australians Stock Exchange. And
if you go to projects and you go to taranak
VTM project, there it all is. There's all the information,
(01:03:02):
the pre feasibility studies or the environmental work and a
lot of application document. The second place you can go
now and it's all public. Is to the fast Track
website in New Zealand from the fast Track team and
click on projects in progress and near is the Taranaki
VTM project. Click on substantive application and all of our
(01:03:27):
information is there. The entire suite of application material, including
all the marine science, the economic evaluation done by the
New Zealand Institute of Economic Research, our prefeasibility studies, and
all the supporting information is there.
Speaker 2 (01:03:49):
All right, so farst fast Track project.
Speaker 3 (01:03:52):
Yeah, if you go to correct and if you go
to the fast Track website, which I haven't got here
it is. It's if you go to the usual www
dot FastTrack dot com, dot NZ, slash projects slash Taranaki VDM.
It's all there, right, very good, all right, I'll turn
(01:04:16):
you loose, okay, Well, thank you, Laden.
Speaker 2 (01:04:20):
Thank you, Allen.
Speaker 3 (01:04:22):
Cheers.
Speaker 2 (01:04:35):
Now, this is one of those occasions when after listening
to that discussion, I would very much like to hear
your opinions, whatever they might be. And I'm sure that
there will be a little disagreement, but I think it's
a very important matter and it has a and the
result has a very large part to play in the
future of this country. I think so. Whatever it is
(01:04:57):
you do, think latent at newstalksb dot co dot nz. Now,
as the saying goes, that takes us away for podcasts
number two hundred and ninety five, and we shall return
next week, of course. In the meantime, as always, thank
you for listening and we'll talk soon.
Speaker 1 (01:05:23):
Thank you for more from News Talks at B Listen
live on air or online, and keep our shows with
you wherever you go with our podcasts on iHeartRadio
You're listening to a podcast from news talks it B.
Follow this and our wide range of podcasts now on iHeartRadio.
It's time for all the attitude, all the opinion, all
the information, all the debates of the US, now the
Leyton Smith Podcast powered by news talks it B.
Speaker 2 (00:28):
Welcome to podcasts two hundred and ninety five for July thirty,
twenty twenty five. Let me start with a headline from
the New Zealand Herald fifteen August twenty twenty two, seabed
mining could deny unparalleled economic opportunity. Now In the interview
to follow, there is a lot of detail. That detail
covers a lot of territory, financial, social, racial, political, as
(00:51):
you'll hear, and there is much detail in the following discussion.
The company involved describes the situation as an outstanding opportunity
for New Zealand. There's been over eighty five million dollars
invested in the project over fifteen years, with much more
to come. The problems that have been confronting the company
to this point could be over and that's thanks to
(01:14):
fast Track, the new system of getting things going. But
as you'll hear, there are you might say, speed bumps
and chicanery to deal with. The author of that article
in the Herald from twenty twenty two is Alan Eggers.
He is the executive chairman of Trans Tasman Resources Limited.
This is what he said at the very end of
(01:34):
that piece. New Zealand is well placed to develop a new,
long term, one billion dollar plus export industry producing one
of the lowest carbon intensity iron ore concentrates in the world.
Naiwa Packer's Bill, if enacted, would deny New Zealand access
to this unparalleled economic opportunity. Now, I might suggest that
(01:57):
what you're about to hear provides some reason, some explanation,
some rationale for why New Zealand is not the successful
country that it could be, and certainly that it should be.
The chairman of trans Tasman Resources Allen Eggers after the break.
(02:22):
Buccolan is a natural oral vaccine in a tablet form
called bacterial licate. It'll boost your natural protection against bacterial
infections in your chest and throat. A three day course
of seven Buckland tablets will help your body build up
to three months of immunity against bugs which cause bacterial
cold symptoms. So who can take buccolan well, the whole
(02:43):
family from two years of age and upwards. A course
of Bucckelan tablets offers cost effective and safe protection from
colds and chills. Protection becomes effective a few days after
you take buccolan and lasts for up to three months
following the three day course. Buccolan can be taken throughout
the cold season, over winter, or all the year round.
And remember Buckelan is not intended as an alternative to
(03:06):
influenza vaccination, but may be used along with the flu
vaccination for added protection. And keep in mind that millions
of doses have been taken by Kiwis for over fifty years.
Only available from your pharmacist. Always read the label and
users directed, and see your doctor if systems persist. Farmer
Broker Auckland.
Speaker 3 (03:36):
Layton Smith.
Speaker 2 (03:38):
Now here's a question, what is the Fast Track Approvals Act? Well,
that depends on who's asking the question and more importantly,
who's providing the answer. Here is one, for instance, the
Fast Track Approvals Act of twenty twenty four is a
new law that creates an accelerated consent path for major
development projects in a tiroa that's New Zealand. It allows
(04:04):
certain projects to bypass key steps of the standard Resort
Horse Management Act the RMA, including no public notification, no
right to lodge, formal submissions, no automatic hearings, and limited
appeal rights and then only on points of law. Instead,
selected projects go straight to an expert consenting panel, which
(04:25):
decides whether they proceed. The panel must give greater weight
to a project's benefits like economic development or energy supply,
than to its environmental or recreational impacts. This process is
much faster and harder to challenge than the standard RMA route.
Once a project is listed or referred, legal experts say
(04:48):
it is very difficult to stop, especially for individuals or
community groups. Now if you sensed a cynicism in that,
then I think you'd be quite right. And that came
from Whitewater Recreation. Let's turn to a release from two
Ministers Bishop and Shane Jones. Since the fast track approval
(05:12):
system opened for business, these statistics show strong progress toward
making it quicker and easier to build the project's New
Zealand needs for economic growth. By New Zealand they mean
paved to rower of course. RMA Reform and Infrastructure Minister
Chris Bishop and Regional Developed Minister Shane Jones say The
Fast Track Approvals Act, part of the Coalition agreement between
(05:33):
National and New Zealand, first, was signed into law just
before Christmas last year and opened for project applications on
seven February this year. The Act helps cut through the
tangle of red and green tape and the jumble of
approvals processes that has until now held New Zealand back
from much needed economic growth. According to Mister Bishop, the
(05:55):
Fast Track Approvals Act contains a list of one hundred
and forty nine projects which from seven February have been
able to apply to the Environmental Protection Authority the EPA
for consideration by an expert panel. The expert panels consider
each application, decide whether or not each project receives approval,
(06:16):
and attach any necessary conditions to those approvals. Now, in
the four months since the fast Track World was when
this was written, in the four months since the fast
Track one stop shop approvals regime officially opened for project applications,
we've seen good progress on a range of applications for
projects that, if approved, will grow New Zealand's economy and
(06:37):
sort out our infrastructure deficit, our housing crisis and the
energy shortage. Instead of tying essential projects up in knots
for years at a time. Now I'm about to introduce
you to a case that has been not just a
few months, not just a few years, but a hell
(06:57):
of a long time. The application comes from Trans Tasman
Resources TTR. So by way of background, TTR is seeking
fast track approval to seabed minor iron sands in the
South Taranaki Byte to extract iron ore and the critical
minerals of vanadium and titanium. In brief, TTR is seeking
(07:20):
approval to harvest up to fifty million tons of the
black iron sands located in the exclusive economic Zone at
least twenty two kilometers and up to thirty six kilometers
off the coast of Taranaki in the South Taranaki Byte.
The critical minerals are in demand as countries transition to
renewable energy sources. Anyhow, TTR has been seeking approvals for
(07:44):
seabed mining since twenty thirteen, when its first application to
the Environmental Protection author It was declined. It did further
work and applied again, and in twenty seventeen the EPA
approved its application, with TTR agreeing to one hundred and
nine operating conditions and management plans. Alan Eggers is the
(08:05):
executive chairman of Trans Tasman Resources TTR and he's a
man with a very interesting story to tell. Very good
to have you on the podcast. Welcome, Thank you, Laden,
Thanks for they Why why don't you start with a
brief because I've covered it off myself briefly, but with
a brief of how you started applications in twenty thirteen,
(08:30):
and just like I said, briefly, what happened between then
and now.
Speaker 3 (08:35):
Well it's hard to be brief about that, Laden, but
I'll give it a shot. We applied for our first
environmental consents. We've got a mining license or mining permit
to operate and extract heavy mineral sands from the South
Taranake Byte and once we have that, we need environmental
consents and out in the EZ where we are in
(08:58):
New Zealand's Exclusive Economic Zone, we need a down a
marine consent, which is really an environmental consent to operate
and the EBA grant those who are the administrator for
the EZ. So we applied in two thousand and thirty
and our application we thought was reasonably comprehensible enough, but
(09:21):
we failed to test and we were declined in twenty
and fourteen, so we stepped back, we looked at where
the short falls were, and we spent the next two
years going back to our experts, undertaking a massive amount
of consultation with local groups, councils, EWI and various interest groups.
(09:43):
But just as importantly we got Niwer and our international
experts to update the marine science and any shortfalls we
had in there. And a lot of the controversy was
around the plume and the effects of the plume. And
we did that work and re submitted in twenty and
sixteen and were granted our marine and by then we
(10:04):
also need the marine discharged consent. I'd added to the
list of things we needed and we were granted those
in twenty seventeen. And what they well, our opponents decided
that perhaps there were points of law that they challenged
us time, so they took us to the High Court
and challenged the DMC or the Decision Making Committee's decision.
(10:29):
So they took us to the High Court on twenty
nine points of law. It's a bit of if you
throw enough of it at some of ittle stick. And
this was funded really by Greenpeace, but the e we
were there and there were some fishing interests there, even
(10:50):
though we got agreements out there with the major fisher
in the area, sandfits and in the High Court the
decision came down. We won twenty eight of those points.
We lost on one, which was adaptive management day said Churchmen.
Justice Churchmen ruled that we had adaptive management and that
(11:13):
wasn't permitted for a marine consent.
Speaker 2 (11:15):
Now what does that mean.
Speaker 3 (11:17):
Well, that means that you can kind of suck it
and see or you can get going and then work
out what sort of if you are creating adverse effects
what they are, and then start setting limits. We didn't.
We had hard limits set and we were confident of that.
So it was us that went to the Court of
Appeal and appealed to the fact that we had adaptive management.
(11:42):
The Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court subsequently confirmed
that we didn't and overturned that decision. So effectively we
won all twenty nine points of law. However, the Court
of Appeal came out with a whole lot of left
wing issues about international law and unclass which is the
(12:03):
United Nations law of the sea and how that effect
may affects, and a few other issues about six of them,
and ruled against us on those which weren't even things
that were appealed, issues that were appealed. But again, our
opponent's Greenpeace are very skilledness and by the way, they
undertake this kind of lawfare around the world and it's
(12:26):
the same legalty internationally that are setting at the desk
against us. So we then looked at that and our
advice was that they've got it wrong. So we took
that to the Supreme Court. We largely got all of
those overturned in the Supreme Court. And what the Supreme
Court said, the highest court in this land said, the
(12:48):
ultimate Court is that these consents should be sent back
to the DMC to reconsider because and they made a
number of points about how the DMC hadn't applied the
Act correctly. Our consent conditions and our effects were never challenged.
What was was the application of the law and the
(13:11):
purpose of the Act. And they also said that TTR
should have the opportunity to have its application reconsidered and
supply any information deficits if there are any. That was
in legal terms. But that pimply what the Supreme Court said.
No court in this land has banned or closed down
(13:36):
seabd mining that has not happened. So with that, we
went back to the EBI and asked them to reconvene
their DMC and reconsider our consents, taking into account the
six shortfalls that the Supreme Court had identified, and they
were around information on marine mammals, seabirds, why we hadn't
(14:03):
posted a bond and taking I got introduced of course
by this and Tea tanger and cultural guardianship issues if
you like, and we're not on the radar when we
put in our application in twenty and sixteen. That's all
developed since as I'm sure your listeners are away.
Speaker 2 (14:20):
So this particular period that you're talking was what year.
Speaker 3 (14:25):
Well, this got us to twenty and twenty one. That's
how long that took for the Supreme Court in September
twenty and twenty one to deliver a judgment. It then
took it then took the EPA two and a half
years to get somebody to sit down in hardware in
twenty twenty four, believe it or not, just to start rehearing.
That's how long it took our bureaucrats to get us
(14:48):
back to the table. This is a major commercial project
where we haven't invested over ninety minute. I sorry, over
eighty five million, nearly ninety million dollars and we are
now being frustrated by a bunch of bureaucrats. Now, let
me just say something about bureaucrats later if you must, Yes, well,
(15:08):
I think it's worth be my guest. Okay. I think
bureaucrats and the bureaucracy here and particularly the civil service
around Wellington, are like road canes. When you come across them,
there's a hell of a lot of them. They're not
doing anything, and you could remove four out of five
and still have the same effect without any any danger
(15:32):
to anybody or the environment. And if you look behind them,
there's generally no work happening at all, and it's just
burning consuming money and delaying progress and productive enterprises from
getting on with what they need to do.
Speaker 2 (15:51):
Do you have any idea, any sort on what drives them.
I'm not talking about the green pieces or the EWI
I'm talking about the bureaucrats.
Speaker 3 (16:01):
Yes, I think it's obvious they have very comfortable lifestyles,
are assured if they're pay check next week. They don't
know what risk means. They just sit there and invent
committees to talk to each other, if you got rid
of four out of five bureaucrats, you'd have a more
efficient system because they have less committee meetings that it
(16:23):
might get on and do something, and the four that
have been dispensed with could actually have shovels and be
working behind those road gones filling podoles.
Speaker 2 (16:31):
Do you think that Wellington having a lot of a
lot of problems, a lot of issues with the city
of the council, the debt, the water system, everything that's
everything that's gone to miss it's not a pleasant place
to be. Do you think maybe that they are picking
up payment for what they've done in the past and
(16:52):
continue to do well.
Speaker 3 (16:55):
I'm not quite sure about that. And I quite like
Wellington and I went to university there and I support
I continue to support research at Victoria University of Wellington.
They've allowed everything to slide, and I think the emphasis
on the environment and cycling pathways and on we go
(17:18):
is throe to the direct detriment of progress and enterprise,
and it certainly doesn't encourage an investment by risk capital
to get in and do some of these things. As
for the public infrastructure, well that simply can't be fixed
up because we don't have the funds and the taxpayer
(17:38):
funds to pay for it.
Speaker 2 (17:39):
But they do have funds for all sorts of things
like very expensive welcome welcome parties for new bureaucrats.
Speaker 3 (17:47):
Exactly in cycle ways, that's right, and those bureaucrats also
travel extensively. We have problems at the moment where a
lot of them seem to be in Europe. I haven't
looked hard, but I think if you have a look
at the Wimbledon finals, who probably see a few of
them pop they're eating strawberries and ice cream, that the
(18:07):
point is that they're paid well, they've got extensive leave,
and they want more. They want a four day working week.
I understand what this country needs to do is drag
itself up from where it is and encourage enterprise investment
and industries and projects that generate wealth. You can have
(18:28):
your infrastructure only if you generate wealth, and we're not
doing that. The Infrastructure Commission here suggested to the Fast
Track Committee during the hearing stages of the bill going
through Parliament last year that in fact it should only
be for infrastructure because that would cause less challenges and
(18:51):
we could get on and build the infrastructure new Zealand
needs well, I would ask the Infrastructure Commission, how is
that infrastructure going to be paid for? Because I would
like to remind our politicians and bureaucrats that governments don't
create any wealth really consumer and what we need to
do is create jobs, paying taxes more in comfort treasury.
(19:16):
I'm sure Nichola Willis would like this and massively cut
the owner of his burden on government places and businesses.
It's all got the wrong emphasis.
Speaker 2 (19:30):
Later, Yes it does. I spent five years in Wellington
and it wasn't in the condition that it is now. Nevertheless,
let's look at it. Let's just look look at a
bit of your background. You mentioned that you studied there.
Is that where you did geology?
Speaker 3 (19:51):
Yes, I did. I did three degrees in geology and
economics at Victoria University and completed a master's there in
nineteen seventy eight, I think. And I'd been out in
the binning industry before I went. I went as a
mature age student and Bob Clark, a professor of geology
there at Victoria University, gave me an opportunity and said, well,
(20:14):
because I came in from a mining company, I was
a surveyor with a mining company, but I said, I
like geology and I wanted to do a degree, and
I was over twenty one, and he said, well, we'll
give you a shot. And I really enjoyed it. And
you know that department and the university were great to me.
They supported me. I got a scholarship after the first year.
(20:36):
I never failed a subject, and yet I'd only gone
to third year secondary school and I did maths and chemistry, geology, economics,
physics at university.
Speaker 2 (20:49):
What was it about you that only getting the third
year you went on and succeeded in university fields, in
realistic fields, shall we say, qualifications that can make great contribution.
What is it about you that you achieved that?
Speaker 3 (21:07):
Ah? I think it comes from I had a good
family upbringing and Mote Wacre on a hop farm and
forestry industry. But my father and my grandfather were very
much hard working entrepreneurial rural sorts. I'm the first in
our entire family in New Zealand, fifth generation German IMMI
(21:30):
rents from the eighteen fifties that went to university, the
first one ever out of quite an extended family by then.
Of course, nowadays, just about everybody's got a degrees you
know later, but in those days they did mostly in nothing,
and that's right, and I was I had a good
work ethic. And what I did at university is I
(21:52):
went there at eight o'clock on Monday morning and worked
basically an eight hour day until Friday evening, and then
I headed to the Grand Hotel on Friday evening. And
let's just say I had a few jugs of beer
and enjoyed my weekends a great time. But I was
back on there and worked during the week at the university,
(22:14):
and yet and I was amazed. I looked at most
of students and they were all, you know, cramming towards
the end of each semester and looking for notes. And
I used to be able to sell my notes for
a slab of beer. So I really had a good time.
But I think I was determined, and I didn't go
to university to get a degree. I went to university
(22:38):
to learn how to learn and get a career.
Speaker 2 (22:42):
And you succeeded. So let me let me proceed on
this path from a little longer. So what would you
if you were in as, if you were a member
of parliament, if you were a minister in the government
and you had the opportunity to do it, What would
be the first steps that you'd take with regard to education.
Speaker 3 (23:06):
Oh, that's a big question. I'll ask it at in
around about fashion laden to say that I'm so disappointed
that the hard sciences and maths and physics and geology
have been downgraded for arts degrees and social sciences shall
we call them, and even climate science. You know, there's
(23:28):
no such thing as climate science. It doesn't exist. That's
not a discipline. It's a bunch of people that have
made it up. Yes, we do need a social conscience
and we do need the other end of the spectrum
at all times, and I'm quite happy with that, but
I think the emphasis has gone too far in that direction,
and we're not generating engineers and geologists and economists and
(23:55):
people that get out there and build enterprises and get
things moving. We're getting people coming out of the universities
that have a sense of entitlement. And getting back to
your question about Wellington, they just want great welcome parties
and a nice time without being bothered about how it's
(24:17):
all paid for. They don't want to know.
Speaker 2 (24:20):
It's been suggested to me and I've pondered this myself anyway,
that one of the biggest problems in New Zealand is
the population. Now, that doesn't mean the people who are
listening to us, because they've got more brains than a
lot of others. I'm just talking about people who don't
people who don't care, people who utilize the system.
Speaker 3 (24:43):
Yes, there is quite right, and it comes back to
the sense of entitlement, but they're gaining the system later
and I can give you a real example of that.
In our case. We're in the fast track system as
everybody knows, and this process is ongoing, was just starting really,
(25:05):
But part of it is that we have consulted with
EWE and his three main EWI groups in South Taranaki.
We've consulted with and engaged with, albeit we've been rebuffed
the days. Beside the point going through the fast track process.
We locked a brand new application twenty twenty five with
(25:25):
everything updated, and we wrote to twelve ev groups, including
the EWE Fishing Forum in South Taranaki and asked them,
told them what we were doing, gave them the information
and asked them what at what it is that if
they have any concerns, what are they so that we
can address them. We had no response. However, the bureaucrats
(25:49):
invited thirty six EWE and HARFU groups to our conference
the other day with the conference panel conveners to decide
on the panel membership makeup and a time frame for
a decision. Plus EM groups were invited. Their regulations in
(26:11):
the Act says that we've got to pay each one
of those for showing up ten thousand dollars. That's three
hundred and sixty thousand dollars of non productive money that
I have got to find and pay for these people
to turn up to oppose us in a process of
(26:33):
approving a mining project of which they don't care about
or know little about and won't read about it. It's appalling.
Speaker 2 (26:41):
Now who's responsible for that?
Speaker 3 (26:44):
The bureaucrats, because it's so deeply ingrained in one that
they can't help themselves but go there. And I don't
think the government's very pleased with some of this that's
going on.
Speaker 2 (26:55):
I was going to ask you about Shane Jones in particular.
You have you communicated with him?
Speaker 3 (27:00):
Yes, Shane and I have. How do I say that
being warned off each other in a way, because only
because I think the message in cabinet is for Shane. Yeah,
but you're not to promote TDR, and I think that's fair, okay,
But he is promoting the Fast Tracked Act. He's very
(27:22):
supportive of the offshore iron Sand's being being developed, and
he's very supportive freely of TDR and has made that plane.
But we don't communicate on a daily basis at all,
but I do get this information through to him. But
they are aware of it all. They are aware of
what's going on, and I don't think they like what's
(27:43):
going on.
Speaker 4 (27:45):
When you say they, well, I think it's the Minister
for Our Resources and his team and perhaps some in
cabinet and the fast Track.
Speaker 3 (27:59):
The relevant ministers that are really taking the fast Track
build through or the fast Track process through, which is
of course the key ministers are Simeon Brown and Chris
Bishop and Shane Jones, but any minister of course that's
relevant is also consulted, depending on what the project is.
(28:22):
And they called it fast track. Well, it's taking a
long time here. Laden they brought the fast Track legislation
and in March twenty twenty four. I think we're now
in July twenty twenty five and we've got seven committees
expert panels appointed. We might be the eighth one, but
(28:44):
none of them are anywhere never making the decision before
September October this year, and ours is likely to be
next year.
Speaker 2 (28:51):
All right, So let me just check on something. These
thirty six ewis were invited along is to influence the
selection of the panel exper panel. Correct, So it's a
pub meeting then.
Speaker 3 (29:10):
No, it was by invitation, but it is public. It's
all you could attend, but you couldn't participate. The participants
and there were a lot of them. We all got
an opportunity to present like as was the applicant, and
then they all followed with their various submissions, and then
we got the opportunity for a few minutes at the
end of summer, but no, and the public you could
(29:34):
watch it on live stream, but you couldn't participate or interrupt.
Speaker 2 (29:40):
Okay, So from here, having had that first panel meeting
or establishing it, what's the procedure.
Speaker 3 (29:50):
Well, now the panel convenor goes away, and she said
she's going to issue a couple of minutes relating to
those proceedings, and I think she gave a fairly strong
indication that she'll announce our panel makeup by the end
of this month, around about three weeks time, and then
(30:11):
the expert panel takes over and they actually start to
assess our project.
Speaker 2 (30:16):
How many on the panel we don't know.
Speaker 3 (30:19):
The panels, some of three, some are four, and some
of five. The only mining one that's gone through so
far is Yhi North Oceanic Golds, and they've got a
five member panel, and they had the same panel convenor
as us, and the same language he was using with
us is in her decision for them, and so I
(30:40):
suspect we'll get five. We don't need five. I think
three experts could easily deal with our application.
Speaker 2 (30:49):
Where will they come from? We don't know what sort
of background history.
Speaker 3 (30:57):
Okay, they always appear to want somebody such as a
retired judge to chair these things. I am not sure
that that's always best, but anyway, they have a retired judge,
and then we would like somebody with some mining expertise.
This time, we've never had anybody with mining expertise on
any panel, and there's a lot of them around, including
(31:19):
very senior and knowledgeable people in the mining industry. Have
dealt with epas here and a news and in Australia
on large mining projects that are familiar with these processes.
We would like somebody like that. The EE. We wanted
two EE panel members on and they must be local,
they said, because they are the only ones that understand
about t ganger locally. It couldn't be from anywhere else.
(31:43):
So and then you'll need a planner and on it goes.
So it makes it very difficult. And what we would
say is the E we want their representatives on there.
Well we say it's not about representation. TTR doesn't have
representative on the panel. It's about experts and they should
(32:04):
be knowledgeable experts in Ta Cager and preferably from out
side the district, so they are independent.
Speaker 2 (32:11):
Yes, So the headline I'm looking at full speed ahead
for fast track projects is a bit misleading.
Speaker 3 (32:19):
Well, I could certainly do, to use Shane Jones's phraseology
turbo charging in its own right that the wheels need
to be greased. But this is where the bureaucracy can't
help themselves. The EWI groups wanted us within about a
six month time frame to add a six month time
(32:39):
frame to have workshops to assess cultural matters and ticking.
They wanted six months.
Speaker 2 (32:50):
I've got to ask I've got to ask you a
personal question. Yes, we haven't discussed all of your background,
but you are a key we Yes, you have property here,
you spend time here. Yes, so you help fight wildfires here. Yes,
but you are also domiciled in Perth, which is which
(33:13):
is as you said to me before we before we
began recording as the mining capital.
Speaker 3 (33:19):
To the world.
Speaker 2 (33:21):
Why are you persisting with this for as long as
you are, going back to twenty thirteen and then being
where you I've looked, I mean, let me digress momentarily,
but it's attached. I looked at how much you've spent
as best I could in on this on this project.
I looked at we haven't even we haven't even mentioned
(33:44):
the word vanadium yet. But I looked at the value
of that, and I couldn't quite work it out. I
was trying to trying to use a system that I
found online to convert the value of the current rate
of value of vanadium in terms of gold and I
(34:06):
and I couldn't do it. So why don't you? As
I progress here is what's the current price or value
of vanadium?
Speaker 3 (34:15):
It's around about five or six dollars US a pound,
and we've got about eleven pounds and each ton of concentrate,
so that would be about fifty or sixty dollars or
about one hundred dollars KIWI worth in each ton of concentrate.
We have one hundred dollars US of iron ore to
(34:37):
start with, and then that's added, but we won't recover
all that late and so we get about seventy seven
percent of that recovered in our metallurgical process. So we
wind up with around about seven or eight pounds of it.
And what we've done is we've said that we will
only get paid for half of that. The other half
(35:00):
it would cost to get us get it out on
the metallurgical process. So it comes it comes down to
adding thirty or forty dollars to a ton of concentrate,
which is very valuable of course, fifty five million tons
of concentrated year, and you add thirty dollars US to that,
(35:20):
let's say considerable contribution.
Speaker 2 (35:24):
Indeed, I saw somewhere in this, in this maneuvering of mine,
I saw a venue of fourteen, eight hundred and sixty
seven dollars and sixteen cents that was of me a
couple of months back that's probably a ton or well
that's what I thought, but there was no indication, so
that questions now answered, right.
Speaker 3 (35:43):
Yeah, well that's we also have about one hundred and
fifty five dollars worth of titanium and each ton of
concentrate over and above iron ore in vanadium. We're not
counting any of that at the moment because we need
to ensure and we report to the Australian Stock Exchange,
and I'm allowed to report the iron ore and the
(36:04):
vanadium because we know we can sell that and it's
currently exports that from New Zealand but also from Africa
and Australia that are exporting and getting credits for those,
so we know we can do that. Titanium is a
bit different and we're not sure that we can get
credits for it yet, so on the edge of being conservative,
we're not considering that. But you may have seen a
(36:26):
headline in the papers yesterday where it's potentially the titanium
credits could double the value of this project, and the
project already exports nearly a billion dollars worth a concentrated year.
It will be New Zealand's eleventh largest export income earner
foreign exchange earner in its own right by itself.
Speaker 2 (36:50):
Okay, so after the diversion, let me go back to
what my question was was going to be all with
all the millions that you have spent on this project?
Is millions?
Speaker 3 (37:03):
Yes?
Speaker 2 (37:03):
And more millions yes? Do you want to throw us
a number?
Speaker 3 (37:06):
I'm responsible for over thirty million personally.
Speaker 2 (37:10):
Okay, why are you persisting?
Speaker 3 (37:14):
Because it's a long story and I make it as
brief as possible. I was asked to invest in this
project in two thousand and eight by the individuals that
started the project from Rio Tinto and I Luca Mineral
Sands in Australia that was Zia Pedigree, and they came
(37:35):
to me and I'd made quite a lot. I was
very fortunate and lucky, if you like. But I made
my own luck out of Summit, which was originally the
New Zealand company, and I said that I wouldn't invest
in it because I said, the approvals regime in New
Zealand is appalling and it's too high risk. They said no, no, no,
(38:00):
everything's changed and the government is very supportive and they
want the offshore iron stands to be looked at in
New Zealand and In fact, in twenty twenty three, Ministry
Business and Innovation and Employment Mimbe briefed the incoming Minister's
Resource minister here when they came into government and suggested
(38:21):
that there's nearly at least four hundred billion, four hundred
billion dollars worth of Ironstein's off the west coast of Taranaki.
It should be developed. But going back, I came to
New Zealand and then met with all the senior ministers
in the John Key government and Mimby I did my
(38:42):
own due diligence and I said, I've made a bit
of money and I'd like to see New Zealand develop
its natural resources and its mining industry. And what's going
on in the past it doesn't help, and it said
he doesn't encourage foreign investment and New Zealand short of
expertise such as mine in taking major projects and major
(39:06):
mining companies forward. I said, I would like to make
a contribution if I'm assured that things are okay here
and that we can get through this. I was assured
by the Key government and ministers who I can name
them if you want, but we'll just move on, they
assured me. That we would love to see those iron
sands explored and developed. So we pegged the first tenements
(39:29):
and we were closely followed by the giants Rio, Tintome,
Sino Steel and FMG, and we had to hold coast
peaked from manic Our Harbor to Cavity and TTR was
in there with about a quarter of it, but we reckon.
We got them first and we got the best. And
the government assured me that not only that they would
(39:51):
bring in the e Z legislation so that if you
find something in the zen, we will have resource consenting
regime out there that's permissive and avoids crema, and that
we know the ray needs fixing up and it's all
too difficult, but we're going to fix up the urma.
(40:13):
But we'll have this clean, fresh legislation out And you said,
which you're able to go for. So I invested. We
had major private equity funds from the US invest and
we spent about sixty million doing over and beyond what
(40:33):
we were required to do out there, because I said,
we've got to do more. We not just going to
turn up at the doorstep of the approvers with the
bare minimum and the best available information. I said, let's
do this right and show what New Zealand can do
and what the mining industry can do in terms of
protecting the environment, researching the environment, putting a good economic
(40:58):
case together, putting the whole project engineeringly in good shape
so that it's not an experiment or a ten. We
bought in sea bed mining expertise, over thirty years of it,
from Deba's Marine in Southwest Africa. We bought an IFC
(41:19):
ROYALFC from Rotterdam who have been drenching offshore for three
hundred and forty two forty four years or something. We
bought in the experts. We then invested all these all
this money and then we got into the Shenanigans of
the court process, which I explained earlier. So why do
(41:40):
I keep going? I'll tell you why I keep going.
I have investors who are relying on me to take
this forward and give them a return on their investment,
and they deserve it. We were encouraged by the government
at all stages to do this, so we got on
with it. We didn't come in and half asked. We
(42:00):
did what we needed to do to deliver a successful
project and at the same time protect the environment and
take account of local cultures, custodianship and existing interests. At
all times. We consulted with all the councils. We consulted
with all the recreational fishes, we commercial fishing, the oil
(42:23):
and gas industry. We went to everybody, and we have
a great project. It's a great project for New Zealand. Now,
why would I walk away from that and disappoint my
investors just because some militant international eco terrorists come along
(42:43):
and say we don't like you and we don't want you.
They also don't want They don't want oil and gas,
they don't want coal, they don't want mining of any sort,
and they particularly don't want seabed mining. Well, I say
to them, what are you using? You guys are in
living in the medals age and you want you're elitist
(43:08):
and you're basically run by a bunch of lawyers who
are taking all the funds and with their snouts in
the trough, going nowhere, And it's economic vandalism, you're preaching
and economic self harm for the South Taranaki region because
it's a depressed area and we're offering an alternative and
(43:33):
at the same time that will develop their culture. And
expand their knowledge of the marine environment and how it
is really out there.
Speaker 2 (43:43):
Then I want to quote you from an article that
you wrote published in The Herald in twenty two. I
have to admire Debbie and Nariwa Packer's passion and emotion already.
I think you're being bold, as evidence in her recent
commentary on her Private Members bill calling for seabed mining
in New Zealand to be banned. Unfortunately, her passionate claims
(44:07):
are not by the science and engineering. Her retric is
alarmist and flies on the face of the extensive expert evidence,
scientific engineering, marine research and observational data presented to the
Environmental Protection Authority to have trans Tasman Resources TTR marine
consents considered and granted in twenty seventeen. It's not just
(44:32):
the I know that the green mob are behind and backing,
but there is EWE objection to it too. Is there
any support from anybody in EWE land in Taranaki?
Speaker 3 (44:51):
Well, thanks for that. I stand by every word of
that quote. That's the first thing. The second thing is
that ms Naware Packer and a cohorts are bullies and
what they do is they insist did all EWI take
the stand that she promotes in a rhetoric which she promotes.
(45:16):
We have endeavored to engage with all EWI and our
feedback is that a lot of them in fact do
support what we're doing. We engaged an EWE earlder from
Taranaki to do our engagement, to undertake our engagement, and
I would also say that her stand flies in the
(45:39):
face of her own far now half of which a
fly and fly out in mining in Australia stand. There's
just been some disquiet from some of them about her stand,
but she won't allow any other statements, and the other
EWE will not come out against miss Packer publicly. Recently
(46:03):
we have had meetings with EWE groups and we've had
some very positive feedback and one in particular which I
refer from naming but I can off air, but came
back and one of the major EE groups and so
called against has said that in light of what you
have just presented to me, Allen, we have never been
told us before, we have never been told the truth
(46:24):
about the project, and we should be reconsidering our position.
Speaker 2 (46:29):
Is that likely to be in progress, yes, but it'll.
Speaker 3 (46:32):
Get hammered down. You do you understand how two party
mara works and what goes on here and you know, look,
let's look at it like this. Last year we had
two bills in Parliament, one from the Mary Party wanting
to ban seabed mining and one from Eugenie Sage wanting
to basically banned mining everywhere but particularly in the conservation
(46:57):
of state. I mean. And then she Eugenie Sage, as
a tokenism was given an inquiry into seabed mining which
he chaired, and wouldn't let me present my information. Refused
point blank to accept the information I gave her on
seabed mining and TTRS project off short South Taranaki. She
(47:18):
refused to accept that information and said we're not a EPA, Allen,
take your information away, We're an inquiry and to see
bed mining and went on with her own rhetoric.
Speaker 2 (47:30):
Is that lack of intelligence? I'll give you an alternative here,
lack of intelligence? Or is it something else like power
and greed? On a personal basis?
Speaker 3 (47:44):
Never ever think that these people, our opponents, have a
lack of intelligence. They're very well resourced, they're very intelligent people,
but they have a religious zeal about where they're at.
And Eugenie Sage of course comes from Greenpeace and Forest
(48:04):
and Bird and Forest and Bird of course where it
used to be Royal Forest and Burbert have become so
left wing activists that they lost the royal monika. It
was taken off them. And think about that for a moment,
and when you want, you hear King Charles and state
about the environment and his position. They've got to be
pretty bad to lose their monica. But no, that's that's
(48:29):
their mantra. That's where they're coming from, and they're not
going to have their heads turned by common sense facts.
It's ideology. It's the ideology.
Speaker 2 (48:41):
Can ideology in this well? Can ideologies vary? But can
ideology be brought? Yes, it is how much are you
prepared to offer?
Speaker 3 (48:53):
We're not prepared to offer them anything upfront for nothing.
That's just bribery and corruption, and I stay a long
way away from that. What we are prepared to offer
them is open and full partici patient, and we've actually
put in our conditions that they get preferential opportunities and
contracting and employment. We would like them to undertake the
(49:16):
marine monitoring which reports and checking on our project, and
that reports all to the EBA, not the TTR. It
reports to the EPA, and if we're exceeding any of
our consent requirements or are causing damage to reefs or
the marine environment or fish or Colimaana or the beaches,
(49:38):
we've got to stop. And we can only recommence when
we can demonstrate them we won't cause that damage. By
the way, we won't be causing any damage, and that's
well presented in our application material. But we want to
work with them. And how you change that, how you
buy them if you lie, is by experience and participation
(50:00):
and working together, not by division and racial division particularly
and privilege, but working together, and that's how I would
want to progress. They did come to us originally and
showed quite a strong interest in investing in the project
back in about twenty ten to the twenty twelve. We're
(50:24):
not sure what happened, but something snapped, and I've been
strong strident opponents innocence.
Speaker 2 (50:34):
Well, I think that was a brilliant answer and it
was nihon perfect as far as most people will be concerned,
working with people are far better than fighting with.
Speaker 3 (50:44):
Them, far better. And we're one nation, are we really still?
I think you headed into a political debate, which I'd
love to have, but perhaps for another time later. But
I have my misgivings, and particularly living overseas a bit.
(51:05):
I come back, I'm dismayed and horrified. What's going on here?
Speaker 2 (51:09):
Well, I was heading in this direction a little earlier
and something happened technically or something, and I never got
I never got through with it. But what I was
going to say to you, in the form of a
question at the time, was referring to the number of
people fleeing the country, and I'm talking specifically about I
(51:32):
think I think you may have mentioned qualified people, et cetera,
who can actually achieve things, something along those lines. Those
people have almost on mass, decided that there's no future here,
that they can't they can't achieve what they want, They
can't get where they'd like to be. Be it, be
(51:52):
it something that you would accept or I would accept
or not. They just want out because they want But
I saw this morning, if I can divert I saw
this morning something that I'm looking on looking for it.
There's something to do with Australia having no.
Speaker 3 (52:12):
Future Australia or New Zealand Australia.
Speaker 2 (52:17):
And it was by somebody I know. Well, you want
to give me a quick comment on that.
Speaker 3 (52:22):
Yeah, what I see is a demographic. Let's leaving New
Zealand is twenty five to forty young families or singles.
They've got their skills, their trade or their university degrees.
They've started out and they see they're getting nowhere and
(52:42):
they see better opportunities. Perth is now New Zealand's third
or fourth largest city, with about one hundred and fifty
thousand Kiwis in it. They're doing well. They get over
there and they say, look, we're achieved here in six months,
which were taken us six years in New Zealand to achieve.
And of course, when you're thirty two with a young family,
(53:03):
if you can if you can chop six years off,
getting new home and your lifestyle together and a couple
of cars and the garage and the kids in a
good school and good healthcare around the corner, and you're
not spat on because you're in the mining industry, you
feel pretty good and you're getting ahead. They can fly
(53:27):
back on Air New Zealand anytime their life for a
few holidays and in fact mom and dad just love
to go to Berth and say we're off to see
the rankins and birth and they do. And what I
would say is that from what I've seen is that
there's places all around. And I'll go back to a
(53:49):
famous old quote which is not mine. It's attributable to
one Sir Robert Muldoon, who said that every Kiwi that
leaves New Zealand and goes to Australia raises the average
IQ of both nations.
Speaker 2 (54:08):
You think there's enough of us well enough left? Should
I say?
Speaker 3 (54:12):
I was getting back your original point.
Speaker 2 (54:17):
I've found it. By the way, here's how it goes.
The economic outlook for Australia is bleak under a government
bereft of ideas and courage. It's been a while since
an Australian Prime minister remained upright long enough to take
off the training wheels, so we can be forgiven for
expecting something more substantial than the flim flam. The Prime
Minister offered the nation on Friday in what was billed
(54:40):
as a keynote speech his second term. Agender gray haired
readers will remember John Howard confidently striding back into office
in nineteen ninety eight and striking a tax reform agreement
with the premiers as a prelude to introducing the gst YEP.
Some might recall Bob Hawk's Gleaming Eyes in nineteen eighty four,
(55:01):
eliminated with the zeal of a reformer pledging to reduce
government spending at lower labor costs to allow our businesses
the chance to make a profit. History will record Anthony
Alberonizi returned with an ill defined commitment to do something
to improve productivity. When pressed on what that something might be,
(55:21):
the PM didn't seem to know. The policies would emerge
from a two day summit in August. Yeah, I won't
go any further. That's that's a nick Cator and I'm
sure you know of nick Cata. That's a nic Cator
substanti speech. Today.
Speaker 3 (55:39):
What's going on here, Laden is following on from my
answer to your previous question, is that Australia has its
division as well. There's East Australia in the Southeast Australia
and the states of Tasmania, particularly Victoria and New South
Wales are large. Most of the population is there and
(56:04):
they are not producing anything except grandiose plans to put
expensive offshore wind farms and clean green energy at the
cost of coal and get rid of coal to save
the planet, and it's the driving force in the economy
is WA and a little bit of Queensland coming from
(56:27):
mining and oil and gas. And he's got a problem,
but he's got a lot of voters there on welfare
who just love him. And so the thing is that
we've got a government there that really doesn't have a
clue or a mandate to go forward on how to
fix that. And so they reduce themselves to having power
(56:53):
oils and summits, bringing an industry for ideas and then
scrapping behind the scenes over the tax take and the
GST and you know, all states, so Southeast Australian states
get back over all of each bit of GST they collect,
and WA gets about thirty or forty cents because we
(57:15):
just produce so much. WA has massive surpluses. The rest
of the nation's in deficit because they're not working, they're
not productive, and that's where labor thrives on that in
its own way because it keeps traveling. More welfare and
more green energy and with green energy, just think with
green energy. Yes I'm for wind energy as well, but
(57:39):
remember it's the most expensive form of energy in reality
because it's intimatetent, and you need exactly the same capacity
in some other form of generation to cover for it
when it's not working. Now, don't go oh yet, but
they've got batteries. Those batteries are very expensive and also
are only very short, short time frame, even the best
(58:03):
for neading ones. The thing is that if you've got
a thousand megawats wind, you need a thousand megawts of
something else installed to back it up when it's not going. Hello,
this is the most expensive energy you've ever had. And
let me tell you that a wind tower all by
itself never pays back its carbon footprint in its entire lifetime,
(58:26):
from the mining, the manufacturing, fabrication and assembly of the towers,
and the electronics and the alternators and generators and a
transmission cabling an infrastructure that supports wind energy. If you
want lower emissions, the best way you can do it
is to announce you're not installing several wind farms and
(58:49):
you'll have lower emissions.
Speaker 2 (58:50):
Well, you mentioned fabrication in that statement. It reminded me
of net zero. But let's say it's ridiculous. It needs
zero as a concept that can never be achieved. But
going back also to exporting of the population to Australia,
well by part of the population to Australia mining here
(59:13):
in New Zealand. In New Zealand, the average income and
mining in New Zealand is one hundred and one thousand,
one hundred dollars per annum. The high value jobs, the
average income in New Zealand at the moment average wages
is sixty six thou So you said you said New
Zealand in both cases I did.
Speaker 3 (59:35):
And in Australia it's a similar ratio that in New Zealand.
I'm saying in New Zealand, if you had more mining,
you'd have more taxes being paid high value jobs. We're
a very high tech industry where you produced an enormous
amount of wealth. It's the most productive industry in the
world bar none, under wealth generated per participant.
Speaker 2 (59:58):
Is there still room for New Zealand hard workers to
go to West Australia.
Speaker 3 (01:00:04):
Yes, and they do in their droves, but we would
like some them to come back and work in Taranaki.
We would also like to employ and train people, which
we intend to do in Taranaki and it particularly South Taranaki.
We're happy and what's in our conditions to build a
training institute and a logistics hub in hardware, and we'll
(01:00:27):
give preferential access to all of that to the locals.
And that's just not tokenism, that's actually fact written into
our proposed conditions, which have been approved previously, of course
by the EBA.
Speaker 2 (01:00:42):
I've got to say, I have read through a summary
of your efforts and what you're offering the people of
Taranaki is mind boggling. There's money for this, there's money
for that, fifty thousand for this and fifty thousand for
something else. Yes, and I congratulate you on it because
(01:01:03):
you're approaching this in a very inclusive way and you're
being confronted by very exclusive, revolting attitude.
Speaker 3 (01:01:12):
Yes, I think it's been challenging, and it's not exactly
the reaction I would have thought. When you bring the
expertise and you do the work that we've done to
a region and say here's what we're offering. I wouldn't
mind it if they assessed it and said, but we've
found some fatal flaws in this. You better either fix
(01:01:33):
them up or we're going to oppose you. They haven't
found those fatal flaws. They don't exist. We've covered off
the best we possibly can can. I say there's no
such thing as zero risk, as there's no such things
as net zero. Of course this risk with everything we do.
But those risks need to be balanced against the benefits.
(01:01:55):
And if the benefits well and truly offset those risks,
and it's been done professionally and it's independently peer reviewed
and checked, then it should should be permitted. And that's
where that's where we're coming unstuck because our opponents won't
(01:02:17):
accept that.
Speaker 2 (01:02:18):
Ellen Eggers, it's been a pleasure talking with you. I
can only recommend that anybody who has the vaguest interest
follow up, is there anywhere online that they can go
and find out the detail?
Speaker 3 (01:02:38):
Yes, yes there is. The two places to go online.
The first is that you can go to the Monuca website,
which I think is Manuka Resources dot com. It's easy
to find and we're on the Australians Stock Exchange. And
if you go to projects and you go to taranak
VTM project, there it all is. There's all the information,
(01:03:02):
the pre feasibility studies or the environmental work and a
lot of application document. The second place you can go
now and it's all public. Is to the fast Track
website in New Zealand from the fast Track team and
click on projects in progress and near is the Taranaki
VTM project. Click on substantive application and all of our
(01:03:27):
information is there. The entire suite of application material, including
all the marine science, the economic evaluation done by the
New Zealand Institute of Economic Research, our prefeasibility studies, and
all the supporting information is there.
Speaker 2 (01:03:49):
All right, so farst fast Track project.
Speaker 3 (01:03:52):
Yeah, if you go to correct and if you go
to the fast Track website, which I haven't got here
it is. It's if you go to the usual www
dot FastTrack dot com, dot NZ, slash projects slash Taranaki VDM.
It's all there, right, very good, all right, I'll turn
(01:04:16):
you loose, okay, Well, thank you, Laden.
Speaker 2 (01:04:20):
Thank you, Allen.
Speaker 3 (01:04:22):
Cheers.
Speaker 2 (01:04:35):
Now, this is one of those occasions when after listening
to that discussion, I would very much like to hear
your opinions, whatever they might be. And I'm sure that
there will be a little disagreement, but I think it's
a very important matter and it has a and the
result has a very large part to play in the
future of this country. I think so. Whatever it is
(01:04:57):
you do, think latent at newstalksb dot co dot nz. Now,
as the saying goes, that takes us away for podcasts
number two hundred and ninety five, and we shall return
next week, of course. In the meantime, as always, thank
you for listening and we'll talk soon.
Speaker 1 (01:05:23):
Thank you for more from News Talks at B Listen
live on air or online, and keep our shows with
you wherever you go with our podcasts on iHeartRadio
Popular Podcasts
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Special Summer Offer: Exclusively on Apple Podcasts, try our Dateline Premium subscription completely free for one month! With Dateline Premium, you get every episode ad-free plus exclusive bonus content.
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy, Jess Hilarious, And Charlamagne Tha God!
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.