ramu mine injunction: injunction refused, page-5

It looks like Ramu can, although it appears likely today's decision will be appealed to the PNG High Court.

I found an interesting comment which relates to Marengo (and others looking at DSTP) from Tiffany Nonggor, the lawyer representing the landowners (sourced from the Radio Australia website):

"TIRIMAN: Tiffany Nonggor just like other big mining companies which have projects on the drawing board in PNG that are planning to use deep-sea disposal, I wonder what this decision means for them?

NONGGOR: Well the judge did say that one of the major factors in not allowing the injunction was the delay, and he said that had this court application been made earlier the result may very well have been different, because it's only that the company has expended a lot of money and completed the mine and apparently three-billion kina they've spent building the mine. Now if other mining companies have this tailings method of disposal on the drawing board, it points to the fact that look it's likely that this sort of dumping will cause a lot of damage, and if the landowners complain early enough to the courts or complain properly then they can stop it. So this decision would be saying to those mining companies that have tailings dumpings into the sea on the drawing board as part of their mine, that perhaps they shouldn't do that because there's quite clearly valid and successful legal challenges open."

This may be part of the result why Marengo's shareprice hasn't reacted positively to today's news.

Despite being a long term MGO holder, I'm not so keen on DSTP for the MGO mine. It clearly seems that DSTP is likely to be 'catastrophic' (to use the judge's language) for the sea bed environment and I wouldn't want it happening in my backyard either.