The announcement by the proponent was premature at best, and or possibly worse. The timing of the release of the announcement would seem to be more in the interests of the SPP than the advancement of the project.
If I offended anyone, or seemed to be making derogatory statements about the calibre or integrity of the directors of CXO, for that I apologise. My command of the nuances of the English language, and the strict interpretation of Australian law is minimal at best.
As of earlier this afternoon, the EPA assessment has not been released to the public, the people who commented on the EIS, nor the Referring Minister.
There is a view of those above, and in many threads here, that somehow the EPA assessment is a green light for the project.
It is nothing of the kind. This stage merely means that the assessment has been conducted, and (or will be) forwarded to the Referring Minister. This EPA assessment will in all likelihood contain numerous recommended conditions.
The fact is that I don't have this assessment, you don't have this assessment, the people who took the time to make comments on EIS don't have this assessment, the public don't have this assessment. No doubt CXO has a draft, but have chosen not to release that. Maybe they can't release that.
Then after all of this, the Referring Minister has to accept that assessment report and its conditions. Thats called a Ministerial Decision. He might even reject that referral.
Then after that, the Draft EIS will need to get rewritten into mining management plan which will also require Ministerial consent.
Then you all need to raise a truckload of money before you ever ship your first tonne of Li2O.
While you are all screeching "lawyer up" about the sole heretic on this board, don't forget this a public forum. I myself ended up here from a simple google search and so would many others looking for information about CXO and their proposed project.
I suspect that a clinical analysis of the thousands of other posts on this board would no doubt show a much larger level of untruths which are nearly always in the positive for CXO. Somehow it seems to me that if you're talking about market manipulation through "blatant unsubstantiated lies" please be the one to cast the first stone. And FWIW, I would think CXO probably have better things to spend to spend their meagre legal budget than harassing a local who had the temerity to speak in the negative. Such a course of action would likely erode whatever social license CXO thinks it has currently and also attract a bit of media attention.
I say what I say as commentary or opinion. Unlike everyone else here, I don't have a vested interest in CXO, its SP or its future. I do have an interest in CXO though as a resident of the Bynoe region, as an NT tax payer, as a voter, and as a concerned citizen about the environmental protections that exist for good reason.
Cheers in good faith
Expand
(20min delay)
