The regulatory challenges and subsequent appeals faced by Bathurst in getting its mine to operational status could yet become the Government's test case to fast-track the approval processes for miners - changes which will likely become the flashpoint for already enraged environmentalists.
Bathurst wants to extract up to two million tonnes of specialist hard coking coal annually, mainly from the Denniston plateau, above Westport, for export.
Environmentalists counter that the area has a unique biodiversity, hosting native lizards, weta, rare snails and plants.
Bathurst announced this week it had begun construction of a $5 million warehouse at the Westport wharf, the first part of a total $30 million port upgrade to handle coal.
The delays have cost Bathurst dearly. Its share price has slumped 70% from a year ago, from $1.39 per share to less than 40c yesterday, but it holds $150 million in cash and banking facilities to pour into the project, having already spent about $120 million.
Forest and Bird advocacy manager Kevin Hackwell said Bathurst and its investors should have done their homework before embarking on the project in an area with high conservation values.
"That is part of the commercial risk that its shareholders took on and they have to bear that risk," he told The New Zealand Herald.
On Monday, the High Court in Christchurch heard arguments by Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society of New Zealand and the West Coast Environmental Network that climate-change issues should be heard alongside their separate consent challenges, scheduled to be heard in the Environment Court over four weeks from the end of October.
The High Court has reserved its decision, which should be released in coming weeks. If the outcome is in the environmentalists' favour, it would open the floodgates to debate coal's significance in context of global climate change.
On the Government's proposal to fast-track mining projects, Mr Hackwell said in a statement it would undermine the principles of the Resource Management Act, which allow public participation in the processes.
"The odds are already stacked in favour of the developers, with their deep pockets and big resources.
"So the effect of reducing community scrutiny would mean more poorly designed projects and more damage to our environment," Mr Hackwell said.
