My post, to which you replied, was about the unceasing agenda of the non-holder poster to whom I replied.
Yes, of course MEL is in a bit of strife....
Not the least because management is ill equipped to deal with the BOF, and caught in the headlights of the strident, but generally ill researched locals.
The overriding factor that will see the CMB developed (imo) is the need, and the GOOD, FACTUAL and JUSTIFIED reasons why Australian society and business, (metropolitan and rural alike), won't be held to ransom for ever.
Of course the uncertainty and waiting can be unnerving.
Your 2nd last para says there is no cost to government if they take the "easy" option to defer....
I tend to think there IS a cost....to government, and they KNOW it, and are really wrestling with it.
The cost is a much larger (unhappy) community than that which opposes gas 'mining' (sic) in the NR, or wider afield.
In the thread "ian macfarlane today on nsw gas issues", started by BuddyGuy, I thought I.M. was doing well to keep MEL's name out of it altogether, focussing on AGL & STO in this discussion.
I'm sure STO for instance hasn't seen the last of opposition in the Pilliga area.
Many, many people I spoke with in NSW regions some time back based a lot of their angst agin MEL on the fact that it was profits going exclusively overseas to "these BIG multi nationals"... (MEL????).
As to the technical and enviro side of our operations they were more inclined to debate, (always scope for achieving a workable middle ground there), than the later anti everything /Josh Fox converts, who shit-can everything they haven't attempted to understand first.
There are SO many aspects to a proper proactive campaign which MEL should analyse and harness it is abysmal.
Reactive and scared they are....inconsistent and impulsive too, dangerously so it has proved. (so I disagree with you that "MEL has done nothing wrong")
You speak of the parallels with GNS Joe. I was interested that you held them.
Guess there isn't time to comment on that here, (MEL holders mightn't appreciate it...more than a couple of points anyway).
I would never have entertained GNS, but I knew some who held them, along with their WES etc, and did alright for a period.
Compared to GNS though, MEL's opposition is a fraction of the population % wise. And remember GNS had a strong (if smelly management - 'internal' issues you referred to), and a STRONGLY supportive state government.
**** However GNS plans simply did not carry the national import that a viable, provably sound, transitional alternative energy source like GAS does.
When the green light, UN-ambiguous, firm and transparent, does come to SE Australia - I think the legislation will accompany it which means protests which are not peaceful will carry jail terms, regardless of who you are....or what unit you are studying at Uni.
And a question to close with...
We've had so many links to aerial shots of gas fields amidst farmland (Tara et al) rammed on here....how about those aerial shots of farmland encroaching the forest or scrub in the first place? (for better or worse, a bit of both....it's all a matter of perspective to this one time farmer)
I know none of the above changes what you posed Joe, but you see I think we've allowed our operations to come to a standstill just a little too easily!
Back to your post lastly Joe, you say you're now less than 50% sure of MEL's resource development continuing to fruition, while I am still the right side of 50%, which is why I haven't realised large paper losses.
What am I waiting for? The JV partner, (that would allow us to remain as MEL), who understands /relates to MEL issues geographically, has a vested self interest prior JV but unfortunately won't come to the party before they are ready....unless forced; we have eleven months left max before exerting that force by shareholder action :-)
Tremendous respect for your posts here and elsewhere JW....maybe you'll be more right than I, in which case I hope we're both winners!!!
L
MEL Price at posting:
9.0¢ Sentiment: None Disclosure: Held
(20min delay)