JaebNo I didn't lodge the MMP, that was a typo. Re Sea Rights- I...

Jaeb

No I didn't lodge the MMP, that was a typo.

Re Sea Rights- I don't think anyone will just let it happen, Gemco will no doubt behave like Lord Vesty during the Wave Hill walk out that ultimately paved the way for and then secured Land Rights. Paul Kelly and Kev Carmody wrote a song about that, as you probably know- "From Little Things Big Things Grow". And in the current political climate, with this mighty contemporary lurtch to the right, acheiving sea rights will be very difficult indeed. But we're gonna give it a go.

The only say TO's have re what occurs at this point in time is that they must be consulted in terms of whatever Gemco undertake in their current mining operations...MMP's, although maybe in regard to some discreet activities it might in fact, sometimes, not be an MMP but something with a different monicker, like an EIS (Environmental Impact Study) that must be lodged with DOR. After which the ALC is brought into the picture. Activity is so regulated that to cut down a small strand of on their lease Gemco must secure a "Clearance Permit" from the ALC, for example.

Also be aware that once a Native Title application (and Native Title is not Sea Rights) whether it be over sea or land is accepted, not granted but accepted, the TO's then MUST be be consulted and negotiated with by any company seeking access to the area under claim. However after acceptance, and even if granted, Native Title does not bestow the power of veto.

The move towards Native Title has already commenced, acceptance of the claim might take about six months to a yeear after it is lodged. The granting could take up to five to ten years. It is a legal process where the applicant must establish its bona fides according to prescribed criteria. Sea Rights would be pursued after that and the result would be akin to inaliable free hold title on land.

Water management is a real sticking point. It is only after forty years that Gemco now have a functional water management plan. The fact is that the ALC has only been a functional body in the real sense of the word since 2006. Gemco are finding it especially difficult in implementing the agreed upon Water Management Plan (overseen by DOR), particularly during the wet season when their pits are full of water and the water must be dispersed in some fashion for mining to continue, Previous practice, although as early as 2001-2001 they did begin to install some filters and screens, water was simply pumped into the river or released into the bush.

The ALC has formally notified Gemco that the past wet season was the last in which they would agree to an accomodation of water management practices that were not in line with the strict application of the WMP. Last wet the ALC agreed to some controlled releases into the bush so that mining could continue.

At a cost of around $40m dollars the Gemco must construct a system wherebye water leaves the pits via pipelines and is released into the ocean beyond the low water line, at a standard scientifically measured, with that standard met through filtering etc. The outfall will be at a place called Mud Cod Bay. Gemco are scrambling to meet the deadline of the next wet. The resolve of the ALC is that if they're not ready, then, basically, stiff shit; even if it means Gemco must cease mining.

In terms of the Angurugu river, it's current degradation, and its rejuvination comes under the WMP.

Seabed mining hasn't happened in the area before. That needs to made very clear in response to your post. The dredging of the Port to recover mn spilt over the years in the shipping process did not interfere with the original seabed. Although of course this could not be achieved to the exact millimetre, that was the requirement of that particular dredging operation. And Gemco didn't like that too much either. It was much, much different to mining mn from the seabed, where to get at the ore, the equivalent of what is "overburden" in the land process would need to be removed, the ore itself would have to be blown up to be dredged. Mn , as an ore body in its unprocessed state does not occur as "fines"- it occurs in massive solid seams of hard rock.

If somebody could satisfy DOR that the environmnet would't be shot to pieces and that cultural values wouldn't be devastated they could sanction, say GOT's Groote Project. But that's a mighty ask. But, GOT would also have to satisfy the Commonwealth EPBC process...and the Commonwealth could simply veto the Project for any number of reasons, just as they did with proposed damming of the Franklin River.

Of course I agree that the TO's don't have control over the seascape...that's the whole point of pursuing Native Title and ultimately Sea Rights.

Where's the cop out, where's the hyporacy? The ALC do all they can to call Gemco to account under the legislation and process. We go after Gemco like mongrel dogs after a bone to salvage and maintain what we can of the cultural and environmental core values of the place. We try and knock them for six too, but the reality is we hit the odd boundary, get a few through the covers, hoik the odd one over the in field and snick a few threw slips as well. We do all we damn well can.

GOT aren't a perceived threat. They've articulated the steps constituting their Project, they've once already applied to the EPBC to map. It's since been withdrawn but I imagine they'll re-apply. I notice you're not a SH, but I'd imagine that you'd be mightily pissed off if they didn't- the SP would fall through the floor. The threat is right here and right now. Gemco are a fait accompli, GOT wish they were a fait accompli and are striving to be a fait accompli. There's no hypocracy involved in the battle to ensure that they don't become one.