I am concerned about the use…

I am concerned about the use of the word "extension" in this application. 50 hectares is not an insignificant portion of land. Would this wording not delay the rehabilitation on the original portion of land? As the 750,000 limit extends to the extension, does this not ultimately delay the lifespan of both sites? Why not apply for two separate licenses and plan to operate the site as one pit? That way there is no question on the rehabilitation requirements. Have the technical studies prepared by the applicants: - Assessed cumulative impacts from the original site as well as the proposed extension; - Assessed cumulative impacts from both the original and proposed extension in addition to any surrounding land uses; and - Been independently peer-reviewed? Has an air quality assessment been completed? This is not required by the ARA but would be necessary for a full understanding of the adverse effects on the surrounding land uses.