forward looking, page-11

stumpytrunks asserts: Libelous statement there.

Where?

SP getting hammered

fact - look at a chart!

pie in the sky development proposal/s

Newcastle was, if anything, a more believable prospect than a floating LNG factory offshore from Ballina or Yamba

the same "supplying local markets" mantra.

fact - ESG had their little power station and grandiose pipelines to Wellington etc, MEL has an ever-shrinking power station and not much else

I wonder if it has the same concealed environmental disasters ESG had?

ESG's environmental catastropies are NOW a matter of public record which STO is supposedly rehabilitating - a task I believe will be harder than it appears

I suspect so, based on a few aereal photos I've seen

Take the time to look at some of MEL's evaporation ponds/ temporary holding ponds (or whatever they're called these days!) on Google earth or Google maps - not the best images but sufficient. You're looking for unseasonal green patches downslope from them and associated scalding on the downslope side of the ponds. Images pre-MEL are available if you look so you have something to compare with. As they like to say here, DYOR! To me, it looks like a salt scald - that is only my opinion, but it seems to be supported by publicly available data.

What MEL has, and ESG didn't, is a high population with a record of successful action against impending environmental disasters, 87%+ of which is opposed to CSG mining in their communities.

History would suggest that from the logging disputes of the 70s through to Timbarra, this region has an impressive record for stopping "developments" which threaten the environment - perhaps this could be argued, but I'd call it a demonstrated fact

That's where the similarities end - MEL has less hope than ESG!

Opinion, but with a solid basis in the previous point.

TR