lets settle this!, page-42

Jaeb

In that Gemco are a fait accompli on their current and the Eastern Leases and in that they hold a Special Purpose Lease lasting until 2065 on which they have built a public highway and a mining town and port facilities I guess they do have the TO's over a barrel. The ALC, acting on behalf of the TO's must be eternally vigilant in policing the letter of those lease arrangements.

The purpose of dredging the port was to recover manganese spilt during their forty odd years of shipping, with the intent of recycling and selling it.

Beacause the area dredged was beyond the low water mark, down to which the TO's have inailiable free hold title the TO's under the legislation could not prevent that activity.

Gemco informed the ALC of their intention to dredge and I lodged an MMP with NT DOR for that purpose, and the ALC viewed that MMP. On my previous post I indicated that Gemco had , I guess, rather crude plans in regard to the dredging process.

Utilising legislation as it applies to actions that might impact on the environment and its right to have input with the DOR the ALC protested in regard to the original MMP. As a result, with environmental considerations taken into account the pipeline and the settling ponds were constructed.

The spill referred to in that news article had nothing to do with the planned dredging but was a spill that occured in Gemco's day to day operations. Pretty typical I would suggest- and although reasonably small impact- of the environmental risks involved in the mining process.

The dredging impacted on a Song Line, however as I am constantly reminded on this forum the TO's have no control, under the legislation, of the sea scape. However environmental considerations are part of that legislation and Government Procedure.

Mining poses a dire threat to cultural maintenaince and that fact obviously drives the TO's aggressive stance in regard to GOT's ambitions. However, as I said, Gemco are a fait accompli.

To maintain their sea based Els' Gemco must do something on those tenements soon or lose them.

Callback

While your unfounded comment regarding my relationship with Gemco is distasteful the question itself deserves an answer; but just as you have the right to post I have the right to reply in the manner I see fit.

Gemco did not notify the ALC of it's intentions to stake out their EL's. That has generated anger among the TO's, and me personally, and during discussions I have been involved in, with Gemco, over the their sea based EL's, both I and others in our team, including TO's, remind the company of that fact, usually at the outset. Our implication being..."If that's the way you staked the EL's why should we trust anything you say?"

What the ALC is seeking at all times is having, in writing, from Gemco, anything that concerns their intentions re those tenements. And in writing, they have given that undertaking. However, discussions in themselves, continue.

This is an example of why, as I have posted previously, the relationship between the ALC and Gemco is probably accurately described as "professionally abrasive."