who needs who with the mill, page-6

Sierra I respect your feelings in this but really wish to encourage people who think like you to focus on existing poorly designed operations as the target. Yes I am trying to influence your thought processes. I understand that we focus on these things when a "new" polluter is going to be established. However my experience is that technology has moved forward dramatically and where the government has truly got it wrong it giving 90% ETS protection to existing polluters purely based upon sensitive and existing industry criteria without first proving that they are in a band of best practice plants and thus have remained abreast of technological advancement. Its like driving a 1980 motor vehicle that has aged and allowing it to survive when a new one will materially do a better job. The old generation power stations in parts of Oz are prime examples they are always going to be phased out but never quite get there.

I have no shares directly in GNS but one of the concerns that I have is that in traveling in TAS I thought they had a reasonable job compared to some plantations on the mainland OZ. Yet they just get trashed about the mill yet there is a mill fully approved in SA that no-one complained about. Water is scarcer and more critical in SA as I understand it yet it has been approved.

I would hate to think the hardship that would be inflicted on Tasmania if GNS failed. Its not a case of someone else taking over that someone else is likely to be housed in USA or Asia and really doesn't have to live in TAS. Instead of fighting we really need to create a level playing field and that should be based upon best practice and measuring existing and new proposals side by side.

Hold GNSPA as an income product.