new ann , page-6

Jacobbabyface

To begin may I suggest that your references to "noises of traditional hymns and psalms" is sailing very close to the wind. It demeans the Cultural beliefs (and practices for that matter) of the TO's. And I might add, you are a shareholder in a company that will likely, in five years time, be seeking permission to explore on Winchelses and Connection Islands, to which they hold inaliable freehold title. A group of traditional owners see all these posts. May I suggest that demeaning their beliefs in this manner only hardens their position. And I further suggest that you owe them an apology.

Having said that,and am in the company of a number of TO's as I write, I'll attempt to answer your query, which is bound up in this sentence- "Can someone reassure me that what I call the traditional objectors are not buying the shares for peanuts while preaching their spiritualism as most spiritualists do".

First some comment on the statement itself. It's a broad ranging generalisation par exellence that verges on pure nonsense. Can you provide some examples? In regard to the question it poses re TO's buying GOT stock. The answer is simply NO.

Callback- Native Title can exist over the sea, and in fact does exist in some places. The ALC is quite advanced in it's application over the seascape encompassing GR's tenements. However, Native Title, while recognising TO's cultural and economic links, does not give the right of veto. The ALC is also pursuing World Heritage Listing and Sea Rights. After GOT's recent announcement re the Blue Mud Bay Area, the ALC and the Northern Land Council are jointly embarking in this process in regard to NW Gulf Waters...with the ALC having a legitimate interest in the seascape around Blue Mud Bay because of the presence of a song line emenating from that area tracing to Groote [see Turner, 1968]. The Groote TO's have intimate ancestral connections to that area.

Re your point 13) I think you'll find that its more than just having the right expertise...the decision will be based on the environmental and cultural values in play.
So I would suggest that it does remain a case of "if"; particularly if it ever comes to mining.

The mapping question is quite interesting. It seems to me that GR, in the first instance, saw that it was just a matter of going through the motions to gain approval. Their original application to the EPBC, which is still publicly available, would seem to support this...I posted on another thread that their application seeemed to support the argument not to map. Have you read those documents, if so what do you think? I have posted before that my hunch is that mapping will proceed but certainly not in the form originally posed by GR.

In regard to GR"s new acquistion...the tenements have not been granted yet. The likelihood of Mn in that area is also "moot". It seems a near certainty that mn is present in massive quantities in the tenements they now hold. We don't operate in a vacuum here on Groote; yesterday evening I had a long conversation with a GEMCO geologist who is quite certain that mn constitutes a mighty seam that re-emerges north of Numbulwar on the mainland. In fact GEMCO are in the process of negotiating with the Nunnggubuyyu people exploration rights to where they believe that seam makes landfall. I also asked him re the possibility of mn being under the sea in the Blue Mud Bay area...he thought that it was much less likely.

I think that an interesting exercise is to look at a map of all EL's in the NT (maybe I can get one up on here)...on land there's hardly a square inch left that is not subject to an EL, and that's beginning to be mirrored on the sea. The NT Gov and DOR had awareness that EL's were just being showered around like confetti. It's one of the reasons why now there has to be activity on an EL for a company to maintain it. This wasn't always the case.

I am also aware that the processes of granting EL's is under review...it was botched process that saw the ALC not object to the granting of GOT's tenements. This unleashed a chain of events wherebye, and publicly stated by GR, they assumed that the TO's weren't against their Groote Project...therefor unleashing unrealistic expectations of that company re exploratory and drilling time frames. With these faulty expectations relayed to SH's via ASX announcements and their web-site.

Let's hope that the process re the Blue Mud Bay [region] tenements aren't similarly botched and that everybody from the get go knows the score.

From perspective of the TO's, with their consent, any information that is not deemed confidential, or they feel should not be made public for tactical reasons, I'll post here.