Ministers set to accept the inevitable after Trans Tasman Resources seabed mine rejected
Tuesday, 10 February 2026
ANALYSIS: “Is this really the end of it?”
That was the response of one weary environmental campaigner after The Post broke the news on Thursday night that a fast-track expert panel had made a draft decision to reject Trans Tasman Resources’ (TTR) proposal to dredge iron sands from the South Taranaki Bight.
The doubt is understandable. The mining scheme has been on-again and off-again over the past 13 years as the Environmental Protection Authority has wavered over whether to approve the seabed mining scheme and the courts have weighed in.
But the answer is almost certainly “yes”. Thursday’s ruling was not just another twist or turn in the long-running saga.
Read more:
Fast-track expert panel declines Taranaki seabed mining scheme in draft decision
NZIER overstated case for Taranaki seabed mining scheme, submitters claim
The fast-track panel’s decision to refuse consent had been fairly well signposted over the past few months and wouldn’t have surprised anyone closely following its deliberations.
It’s not realistic to think the panel could reverse the arguments it set out in its 436-page draft decision by the time it needs to finalise its ruling on March 18.
It probably wouldn’t have the time even if it had the inclination.
In the words of TTR’s executive chairperson, Alan Eggers, the panel turned down the project’s environmental approvals in the draft decision “with concerns on almost every aspect”.
TTR could appeal the panel’s now-inevitable final ruling to the High Court, and then potentially to the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeal, setting the scene for another few years of legal argument.
But it could only do so on a point of law.
It would be fair to say that the views of experts on the merits of the seabed mining scheme have been quite mixed over the years, with the overriding sentiment being one of genuine uncertainty over its potential environmental impacts.
But, under the Fast-track Approvals Act, the courts can’t re-litigate the judgment calls the expert panel has made — only consider whether it reached its decision lawfully.
Put that together with the fact that the Supreme Court upheld a decision rejecting permission for the mining scheme to go ahead in 2021, and the chances of a successful appeal appear slim.
Eggers has indicated TTR is considering its options, but it would seem plausible it might not bother going to court.
Tellingly perhaps, he slipped into the past tense when describing the project’s benefits to the Australian stock exchange on Thursday, saying it “would have created significant economic growth and regional employment”.
The Government appears to be putting a brave face on the draft fast-track decision.
While ministers are waiting for the final ruling before making material comment, they appear prepared to write this one off.
A joint statement by Infrastructure Minister Chris Bishop and Minister for Regional Development Shane Jones on Friday stressed the fact that nine other projects had been approved under the fast-track regime and that decisions on another 17 are in the pipeline.
The political consolation prize of the TTR ruling for both ministers is they can rubbish opponents of the fast-track regime itself by saying they have been proved wrong in their assertions it was a rubber stamp for applicants.
“Fast-track is not a rubber stamp. It is about applying the same environmental rigour more efficiently, so good projects can get on with delivering,” Bishop said.
Jones said the “successful implementation of the legislation” showed criticism of fast-track was unfounded and the guardrails put in place worked.
So, all up, it really does seem to be over; there will be no seabed mining for the foreseeable future off the coast of New Zealand.
It may be academic now, but it is highly questionable whether the seabed mining scheme would ever have gone ahead even if the fast-track panel had approved it.
No-one has attempted to mine iron or vanadium from the seabed at scale before. The recent discovery of huge new sources of iron ore that can be cheaply mined in Australia may mean the odds are now very much against anyone else trying.
Time to look ahead.
Perhaps the next-most-controversial fast-track application, after the seabed mining scheme, has been Santana Minerals’ bid to get consent for a huge open cast and underground gold mine in Central Otago.
Opponents of that scheme may take heart from TTR’s rejection and a statement from fast-track panel convenor Jane Borthwick, that an expert panel would need 140 working days to assess what she described as Santana’s “extremely complex application”.
But it would probably be wrong to suggest the ruling on the seabed mining scheme has any obvious implications for Santana’s chances of success. The former was a novel and, arguably, highly speculative venture steeped in environmental uncertainties.
The latter is an old-school mining project with much more obvious pros and cons. A different kettle of fish.
Suze Keith, a spokesperson for Sustainable Tarras, which opposes the gold mine, said she was encouraged expert panels were “really taking a very considered look at these projects before making a determination”.
“But in our mind, that’s a very different mine in a very different setting with a very different history, so we don’t see it as precedent-setting for the Santana proposal.”
The rejection of the seabed mining scheme removes one obstacle for the development of offshore wind farms in the same area.
Some companies interested in building wind farms off the Taranaki Coast decided to exit New Zealand soon after ministers agreed to refer TTR’s mining application for possible fast-tracking.
Giacomo Caleffi, director of wind developer Taranaki Offshore Partnership, which has stuck around, says he is glad about the draft fast-track ruling, which he predicts would be hard to overturn.
“We had voiced our concerns about how difficult the two activities would be, in terms of incompatibilities.
“We’re also very glad, in general, for our partners in Taranaki. I know there are lots of people there who have been fighting seabed mining for very long, and know that they’re elated with the decision,” he says.
But the biggest question mark hanging over offshore wind remains whether a future government might agree to, in effect, subsidise one or more multi-billion-dollar wind farms by guaranteeing a minimum price for at least some of their electricity.
If the answer to that proves to be “no”, it may be more likely Taranaki will end up with neither the turbines nor the seabed mine.
Caleffi says Taranaki Offshore Partnership is still in the same position it was in the past.
Offshore wind farms are long term projects with long development times that need a lot of capital, he says.
“Traditionally, that has always involved some form of partnership with governments to de-risk projects.
“What that ‘de-risking’ looks like will be different in every country. But that is still a cornerstone of what would allow offshore wind to happen in New Zealand. So we keep the conversation open with government and hopefully we will get to a good point there.”
CORRECTION: An earlier version of this story incorrectly made reference to the Environmental Protection Agency. The body is called the Environmental Protection Authority. Amended 9.23am, February 10, 2026.