EGL Ref: 9215 23 June 2022 Page 63 This report shall only be read in its entirety. File: WAI-985-000-REP-LC-0002_Rev0.docx. Landscape and visual Landscape and visual effects Visual amenity (change in character and quality of view) both in the short-term and long-term are minimal: score=5, Visual amenity is affected in the short-term but long-term effects are minimal: score=3, Visual amenity (short-term and long-term) are significantly impacted: score =0 TABLE 9. PROJECT ECONOMICS SCORING CRITERIA Subcategory Description Criteria for Scoring Land ownership Status of land ownership Land is owned by OGNZL: score=5, Land is not owned by OGNZL and potentially can be purchased with OIO approval likely: score=3, Land is not owned by OGNZL and not available for purchase or OIO approval unlikely: score=0 Capital cost Cost ranking based on $/t Cost ranking is in top one third of options considered: score =5, Cost ranking is in middle one third of options considered: score =3, Cost ranking is in bottom one third of options considered: score =0 Operating cost Cost ranking based on $/t Cost ranking is in top one third of options considered: score =5, Cost ranking is in middle one third of options considered: score =3, Cost ranking is in bottom one third of options considered: score =0 Closure and post-closure cost Cost ranking based on $/t Cost ranking is in top one third of options considered: score =5, Cost ranking is in middle one third of options considered: score =3, Cost ranking is in bottom one third of options considered: score =0 10.2. Potential project options Six potential project options have been considered for scoring. They comprise combinations of different TSFs and mine overburden disposal options, and different tailings disposal technologies (e.g., tailings slurry, dry stack, and paste). Embankments constructed to form TSFs are considered as mine overburden disposal options. Some options are unlikely to meet project scheduling requirements but have been scored for comparison purposes. The six options considered are summarised in Table 10 and they are shown in Figures A4 to A9. Some options considered but that did not meet project scheduling and land ownership requirements are summarised in Table 11.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjE2NDg3