∕ Moonraker's objective was 'to define a commercially viable resource while providing for a comprehensive environmental management strategy that addressed the impact of their proposed project'. ∕ The State's objective was that 'the project complements and is consistent with the State's rehabilitation strategy for the Mount Morgan mine site which aims to mitigate existing environmental problems'. ∕ Indemnities in the agreement meant Moonraker would not be held liable for 'existing environmental problems or ongoing impact that past activities on the mining leases may have upon the environment whether the result of pollution to the environment or otherwise'. ∕ Moonraker's responsibilities were limited to managing environmental impacts from its own activities and to meet statutory and policy requirements regarding environmental management of the site, and did not extend to rehabilitating historical impacts (to the extent Moonraker's activities did not interfere with these areas). ∕ Ownership of the mining leases was transferred to Moonraker. Moonraker advised the State that it was willing to progress the feasibility of a tailings re-treatment operation to utilise modern technology to extract additional gold from the tailings. On 12 December 2005, the State and Moonraker then entered into the Phase 3 Agreement, which defined the obligations and responsibilities of each party for the operation of the tailings project, again stating that environmental rehabilitation obligations were limited to only those areas of the site in which Moonraker operated. From there: ∕ In 2003, the State developed a Rehabilitation Plan (Unger et al, 2003) for the Mine which emphasised private investment for reprocessing of tailings and waste rock dumps to improve overall environmental outcomes; ∕ In 2007, Norton Gold Fields Ltd (Norton) acquired the project from Moonraker (including by taking over the Phase 3 Agreement) and completed a tailings reprocessing project feasibility study with a positive outcome. However, due in part to the impacts of the 2008 financial crisis, Norton was unable to fund the project; ∕ The site returned to the State and sat dormant for several years; ∕ In 2014, a private company, Raging Bull Pty Ltd (Raging Bull), signed an agreement with Norton to continue evaluating tailings reprocessing. Raging Bull then signed an 'Agreement for Retrofit and Operation of Infrastructure' for a water treatment plant to treat the contaminated water in the open cut pit so it could be released to the Dee River; ∕ In 2016, Raging Bull entered an agreement with another entity, Carbine Resources Pty Ltd (Carbine), giving Carbine the right to acquire Raging Bull's interest in the mining leases still held by Norton. In 2018, Carbine withdrew from the project because it did not consider the project to be economically feasible. Full ownership of the mining leases remained with Norton; and ∕ After negotiations with the State, Heritage Minerals acquired Norton's interest in the project. The Phase 3 Agreement was assigned to Heritage Minerals in May 2020. The mining leases were transferred to Heritage Minerals in September 2020. Phase 3 Agreement As stated above, the Phase 3 Agreement sets out a framework for Heritage Minerals’ use of the site and the co-existence of its reprocessing activities and the State's site management and remediation activities. The key function of the Phase 3 Agreement is to apportion rehabilitation liability between the State (in its capacity as manager of the legacy impacts under the Abandoned Mines Land Program and as landholder) and Heritage (in its capacity as the mining operator 3.1.4
undertaking new tailings reprocessing activities). The Phase 3 Agreement has the following effect:
Project number: 25B061
Page 44
Powered by FlippingBook