ramu mine injunction: injunction refused, page-10

from a legal point of view, the Ramu decision is a little unclear from the info available - but looking towards MGO, can anyone post if they know when the current law suit was brought against MGO - was it first initiated when MGO first proposed a DSTP solution, or were the proceedings started well after the company had first proposed a DSTP solution?

The timing appears to have been critical in the Ramu case namely, the Ramu injunction was denied despite a finding of likely significant harm using DSTP, because the locals should have brought their claim seeking to deny a DSTP solution when the Ramu mining company first suggested it.

I can only assume that the Ramu company publicly aired its desire for the solution a long long time before the locals sought to object to it - by that time the mine had expended considerable monies, a great part of which was directed towards the DSTP solution - having told the world that it was going to spend the money developing in that direction, receiving no objections from locals, then actually expending the money, only to then see afterwards locals objecting, sets-up at law a strong estoppel argument denying the locals their claims, because they simply sat on their hands for far too long...

So, I'm wondering if a similar scenario is what MGO is dealing with - delay in bring objections by the locals.

But keep in mind - the Ramu mine appears to have built a lot of infrastructure before the locals brought their court action - MGO on the otherhand hasn't expended any monies yet on tailings solutions, so even if the MGO claim was brought rather late, MGO can't seek to counter that they're already spent vast sums on tailings infrastructure yet, which could be a crucial distinction in the MGO case.

I'm not currently in MGO, though they have been a delay watch on my list, where I am waiting to enter at many leels below 50 cents.

appreciate any feedback from those who may have been in long enough to know.

good luck