god help australia, page-5

Sgoni,

I think most of us considered the odds to be in RWDs favor. What we and the company underestimated was the heritage value of LD. The Martu played this card well. The expert evidence may read like something from Harry Potter but it was paramount.

The NTT site lists 236 FA determinations that can be done. There has never been a FA can not be done determination. The balance of probability was in RWDs favor. The company was confident as witnessed by the directors buying and exercising. Even up to the recent AGM they were confident. Phil's research wasn't unreasonable imo.

This thread should probably be titled "god help small miners". Going forward how do companies compensate NT? In this instance a share of the profits is reasonable but how much? Why should the Martu receive equity in the WHOLE company. LD may currently define the company but this may change if for example Mackay is prospective. If every NT group is given part of the whole company before we know it there will nothing left for investors. Perhaps a NT exploration model (backed by the likes of Proctor) is the future.

If Sumner had of been able to use a framework to compensate the Martu this would have been settled.

The Martu have seemingly portrayed themselves in a naive light when giving evidence with modest requests which include respect.
If this is the case and then a settlement should be possible. If it is not the case then imo Sumner has been suckered and RWD has been stitched up.
I only hope that RWDs future negotiations are water tight.