Freefall You should check your facts before promoting baseless...

Freefall

You should check your facts before promoting baseless propaganda.
BCL unwisely backed Daveona to sign the MOA.
The problem with that was that Daveona was no longer chairman of the SMLOLA.
Miriori had successfully worked with the National Court for at least a year prior to that, to have a Court ordered SMLOLA meeting, the Notice for which was issued by the ABG Mining Minister, and was duly appointed Chairman.
It was the National Court injunction that stopped the MOA from being signed and Daveona from continuing to hold himself out as Chairman of SMLOLA.
Daveona himself agrees Miriori is the Chairman of SMLOLA.
So BCL picked the wrong horse and that is why the MOA was blocked by the injunction. It was also grossly unfair to the SMLOLA members.
SMLOLA is the only Landowner Association relevant to the renewal of EL 1, because its members own all the land and the minerals within the pit area which is EL1. No one else.
Other Associations may or may not be required once a BFS is completed and identified what land is required to place infrastructure, but none of those own the minerals of the Panguna mine.
BCL first claimed a) unanimous Landowner consent, then b) an overwhelming majority of Customary Owner support and then most recently c) a majority of the BCL’s List of Title Holders List. Three very different and ever weakening positions over time.
Then SMLOLA released the results this week of a comprehensive Petition to show 90% of the available titleholders, a) support Miriori as Chairman and the SMLOLA leadership group, b) oppose the return of BCL and c) support the Landowner Consortium including RTG to develop Panguna.
What was BCL’s response?
BCL’s response to the 90% (in excess of 428 titleholders) was to say, oh but we have four or so, that support BCL (don’t support Miriori and Daveona).
Come on, it is genuinely pathetic:
4 in favour of BCL versus 428 and growing, opposed to BCL.