Timbarra Gold Mine  The Timbarra Gold Mine was a highly controversial gold mine located on the Timbarra Plateau, at the head waters of the Clarence River, near Tenterfield, New South Wales, Australia. The gold ore body consisted of a greisen type granite. The protracted controversy attracted national and international attention, and catalysed an anti-cyanide extraction campaign in Australia. The mine was initially developed in the late 1990s by a medium-sized mining company, Ross Mining. After six months the mine went into "care and maintenance", and never re-opened. Delta Gold acquired the mine through a take-over of Ross Mining. Eventually the mine was acquired by Placer Dome who were in turn taken over in 2006 by Barrick Gold. Placer Dome undertook an intensive rehabilitation programme at the mine site, setting new standards for mining rehabilitation in New South Wales. Precious Metal Resources ( ASX: PMR ) has applied for an exploration licence over the mine and is planning to develop the project and start job creation in the area. The senior management at PMR have continued their extensive research in the project and believe over the coming years they will be able to reopen the mine and start production. The Timbarra Gold Mine has in excess of 300MT of Resource. Timbarra Gold Mine was subject to intensive protest for several reasons:  Ross Mining countered the criticism with arguments in favour of the mine:  Anti-mine action took on different forms:  The controversy surrounding the mine was the subject of a 2002 documentary, "Demon Fault", which was commissioned by Australia's Special Broadcasting Service and featured miners, protesters, environmental and legal specialists, local farmers and landowners in a protracted battle over the mining operation. The mine is now owned by an Australian ASX company called Precious Metal Resources ( ASX:PMR)  The project was the subject of litigation in the NSW courts. Ross Mining NL had been granted a development consent by the Tenterfield Shire Council pursuant to the "Environmental Planning and Assessment Act" 1979, which required a Species Impact Statement to be submitted with an application for development consent if the development is "likely to significantly affect threatened species". The respondent did not submit a Species Impact Statement, and the Timbarra Protection Coalition sought to rely upon this to invalidate the development consent. Talbot J who heard the Class 4 proceedings in the Land and Environment Court held that the decision of the Council to accept the application without a Species Impact Statement was not reviewable as it was not an error of jurisdictional fact and, accordingly, refused to admit evidence on the issue of "likely to significantly affect threatened species".