Indigenous Voice Yes or No?

[tigersnake]

I’m pretty new to it - on your first point I’d generally agree.

I was more looking forwards.

When it goes offshore I don’t think you understand the magnitude of capital involved and the cost a delay involves - especially once you start to mobilise the resources required. This will 100% make investment not happen in some places for a more medium sized resource.

If you’ve sat in the boardroom and seen the decision making and know differently then I’m all ears.

My views are based on intricate knowledge of the industry. I have been in boardrooms, not as a board member but in roles that influence outcomes, which requires strategic knowledge of what influences outcomes and how they are influenced.

This will NOT make investment not happen. You're wrong, 100% wrong. Its an incorrect statement for many reasons. Barossa will happen, unless a carbon price and cheap alternatives beat them to it. Santos, and NOPSEMA, were slack, it should never have happened, but now its happened all it means is that santos turn their attention to another project, or its delayed for a while. These projects, as you know, are big. Massive lead times, and they often get shelved BY THE COMPANY, for market reasons or changes in priorities. The Woodside Browse Basin Gas project, hundreds of millions spent on development, one of the biggest in the world, shelved at the last minute, still shelved.

No project, especially a big project, will live or die on the basis of 1.5 or 2%. And as I said, even it it happened for the first time in history, the royalty could and would be renegotiated. Thats business.

Ok now lets look at the international angle. EVEN IF expenses due to Indigenous agreements and environmental matters were concerningly high, and a company said to itself, 'what are the alternatives'? Africa? no roads, no ports, unstable government, war? No thanks. China? good luck with that. Canada or any other first world nation? same as Aus.

These mining industry hacks, there was one who wrote an article in the AFR recently, compaining about Australia's restrictive native title and environmental laws, said "it takes 15 years to get a copper mine working in Aus", said it as if it was a disgrace, needed fixing. IT TAKES 15 YEARS TO DEVELOP A LARGE COPPER MINE ANYWHERE ON THE PLANET, ALWAYS HAS ALWAYS WILL! sorry for shouting but it drives me mental. This guy gave no comparisons, no context, just '15 YEARS'. If he had given some comparisons, Canada, Brazil, Chile, US (A big one there has been 25 years and counting), it would show the fastest development of a copper mine in history has been 12 years, 15 years is normal, 20-25 is not unusual. The reasons for that are obvious I would have thought, complex geology, engineering, hydrology, access, access to markets, negotiating buyer contracts, permits, all of these things are massive, massive if all runs smoothly, and then there is market fluctautions which mean the company will stall for significant periods and focus on other projects or commodities.

The idea that Indigenous land or sea rights, OR environmental approvals, stops mineral or petroleum development happening is ludicrous when you stop and think about it, and the record shows it has never happened, has never come close to happening, and to my mind will never happen and could never happen.

ps. re your 'medium sized' point, wrong again, if that did happen it would be because the project is marginal. They might try and pin it on blackfellas but for reasons outlined above, it wouldn't wash, and I'm not aware of it ever happening. I'm aware of one medium/ smaller project that fell over, because it was marginal, a few years later price of ore went up, negotiations re-opened, deal done, big profits, everybodys happy. Projects live and die on profitability and the market, full stop.

There is this racist myth that blacks stop development. Thats all it is, a myth. Aboriginal landowners might want to protect their sacred sites and protect the environment, they might want to get some benefits from a big mine on their land, don't we all? and they do, but that has never stopped a development.

As for the Santos "logjam fears" its one-sided bulldust AFAIC, and I could back it up with hard facts and data, some of which are alluded to above. All Santos has to do is lift their game on community consultation, thats it! That is al they have to do to get rid of this "logjam". They were slack, as the Fed court found. Just get fair dinkum. Its not rocket science. But they are sooking and whinging and carrying on. And with a 60% no vote in their minds, they will, sadly, continue to.

 

[K3]

My views are based on intricate knowledge of the industry. I have been in boardrooms, not as a board member but in roles that influence outcomes, which requires strategic knowledge of what influences outcomes and how they are influenced.

This will NOT make investment not happen. You're wrong, 100% wrong. Its an incorrect statement for many reasons. Barossa will happen, unless a carbon price and cheap alternatives beat them to it. Santos, and NOPSEMA, were slack, it should never have happened, but now its happened all it means is that santos turn their attention to another project, or its delayed for a while. These projects, as you know, are big. Massive lead times, and they often get shelved BY THE COMPANY, for market reasons or changes in priorities. The Woodside Browse Basin Gas project, hundreds of millions spent on development, one of the biggest in the world, shelved at the last minute, still shelved.

No project, especially a big project, will live or die on the basis of 1.5 or 2%. And as I said, even it it happened for the first time in history, the royalty could and would be renegotiated. Thats business.

Ok now lets look at the international angle. EVEN IF expenses due to Indigenous agreements and environmental matters were concerningly high, and a company said to itself, 'what are the alternatives'? Africa? no roads, no ports, unstable government, war? No thanks. China? good luck with that. Canada or any other first world nation? same as Aus.

These mining industry hacks, there was one who wrote an article in the AFR recently, compaining about Australia's restrictive native title and environmental laws, said "it takes 15 years to get a copper mine working in Aus", said it as if it was a disgrace, needed fixing. IT TAKES 15 YEARS TO DEVELOP A LARGE COPPER MINE ANYWHERE ON THE PLANET, ALWAYS HAS ALWAYS WILL! sorry for shouting but it drives me mental. This guy gave no comparisons, no context, just '15 YEARS'. If he had given some comparisons, Canada, Brazil, Chile, US (A big one there has been 25 years and counting), it would show the fastest development of a copper mine in history has been 12 years, 15 years is normal, 20-25 is not unusual. The reasons for that are obvious I would have thought, complex geology, engineering, hydrology, access, access to markets, negotiating buyer contracts, permits, all of these things are massive, massive if all runs smoothly, and then there is market fluctautions which mean the company will stall for significant periods and focus on other projects or commodities.

The idea that Indigenous land or sea rights, OR environmental approvals, stops mineral or petroleum development happening is ludicrous when you stop and think about it, and the record shows it has never happened, has never come close to happening, and to my mind will never happen and could never happen.

ps. re your 'medium sized' point, wrong again, if that did happen it would be because the project is marginal. They might try and pin it on blackfellas but for reasons outlined above, it wouldn't wash, and I'm not aware of it ever happening. I'm aware of one medium/ smaller project that fell over, because it was marginal, a few years later price of ore went up, negotiations re-opened, deal done, big profits, everybodys happy. Projects live and die on profitability and the market, full stop.

There is this racist myth that blacks stop development. Thats all it is, a myth. Aboriginal landowners might want to protect their sacred sites and protect the environment, they might want to get some benefits from a big mine on their land, don't we all? and they do, but that has never stopped a development.

As for the Santos "logjam fears" its one-sided bulldust AFAIC, and I could back it up with hard facts and data, some of which are alluded to above. All Santos has to do is lift their game on community consultation, thats it! That is al they have to do to get rid of this "logjam". They were slack, as the Fed court found. Just get fair dinkum. Its not rocket science. But they are sooking and whinging and carrying on. And with a 60% no vote in their minds, they will, sadly, continue to.

 

[Tigaman]

Was not about to be laid, total *smile*. Santos did not meet their statutory obigations, which are not onerous by any stretch, that is what the court found. And another you say? Which one was the first? Or any previous? just out of interest.

Seriously, this statement is racist by any measure. Exagerations, half truths, falsehoods. The question you have to ask is why are so many people so quick to swallow this stuff? And also, Lets say for arguments sake it was all true, would these people react in the same way if the headline was 'Richmond supporters stop gas pipeline being laid across Punt Road Oval?'

The Pipe laying vessel had left Darwin to start laying the Pipe so is that " NOT TO BE LAID OR BEING LAID ". The Drovers Dog says BEING LAID. RACIST BY ANY MEASURE THE OLDE CHESTNUT again.

 

[RoarEmotion]

My views are based on intricate knowledge of the industry. I have been in boardrooms, not as a board member but in roles that influence outcomes, which requires strategic knowledge of what influences outcomes and how they are influenced.

This will NOT make investment not happen. You're wrong, 100% wrong. Its an incorrect statement for many reasons. Barossa will happen, unless a carbon price and cheap alternatives beat them to it. Santos, and NOPSEMA, were slack, it should never have happened, but now its happened all it means is that santos turn their attention to another project, or its delayed for a while. These projects, as you know, are big. Massive lead times, and they often get shelved BY THE COMPANY, for market reasons or changes in priorities. The Woodside Browse Basin Gas project, hundreds of millions spent on development, one of the biggest in the world, shelved at the last minute, still shelved.

No project, especially a big project, will live or die on the basis of 1.5 or 2%. And as I said, even it it happened for the first time in history, the royalty could and would be renegotiated. Thats business.

Ok now lets look at the international angle. EVEN IF expenses due to Indigenous agreements and environmental matters were concerningly high, and a company said to itself, 'what are the alternatives'? Africa? no roads, no ports, unstable government, war? No thanks. China? good luck with that. Canada or any other first world nation? same as Aus.

These mining industry hacks, there was one who wrote an article in the AFR recently, compaining about Australia's restrictive native title and environmental laws, said "it takes 15 years to get a copper mine working in Aus", said it as if it was a disgrace, needed fixing. IT TAKES 15 YEARS TO DEVELOP A LARGE COPPER MINE ANYWHERE ON THE PLANET, ALWAYS HAS ALWAYS WILL! sorry for shouting but it drives me mental. This guy gave no comparisons, no context, just '15 YEARS'. If he had given some comparisons, Canada, Brazil, Chile, US (A big one there has been 25 years and counting), it would show the fastest development of a copper mine in history has been 12 years, 15 years is normal, 20-25 is not unusual. The reasons for that are obvious I would have thought, complex geology, engineering, hydrology, access, access to markets, negotiating buyer contracts, permits, all of these things are massive, massive if all runs smoothly, and then there is market fluctautions which mean the company will stall for significant periods and focus on other projects or commodities.

The idea that Indigenous land or sea rights, OR environmental approvals, stops mineral or petroleum development happening is ludicrous when you stop and think about it, and the record shows it has never happened, has never come close to happening, and to my mind will never happen and could never happen.

ps. re your 'medium sized' point, wrong again, if that did happen it would be because the project is marginal. They might try and pin it on blackfellas but for reasons outlined above, it wouldn't wash, and I'm not aware of it ever happening. I'm aware of one medium/ smaller project that fell over, because it was marginal, a few years later price of ore went up, negotiations re-opened, deal done, big profits, everybodys happy. Projects live and die on profitability and the market, full stop.

There is this racist myth that blacks stop development. Thats all it is, a myth. Aboriginal landowners might want to protect their sacred sites and protect the environment, they might want to get some benefits from a big mine on their land, don't we all? and they do, but that has never stopped a development.

As for the Santos "logjam fears" its one-sided bulldust AFAIC, and I could back it up with hard facts and data, some of which are alluded to above. All Santos has to do is lift their game on community consultation, thats it! That is al they have to do to get rid of this "logjam". They were slack, as the Fed court found. Just get fair dinkum. Its not rocket science. But they are sooking and whinging and carrying on. And with a 60% no vote in their minds, they will, sadly, continue to.

Be good to have a beer. I’m always happy to learn and be wrong. You are clearly pretty passionate and knowledgeable about the topic and I’m pretty new to it.

I’d still think that “what else” may be nothing on medium sized stuff and we will see how that plays out over the next few years.

I do find it both believable but also a little unbelievable (if that makes sense) that the big companies are screwing it up and it’s as straightforward as you make it sound.

 

[tigersnake]

Be good to have a beer. I’m always happy to learn and be wrong. You are clearly pretty passionate and knowledgeable about the topic and I’m pretty new to it.

I’d still think that “what else” may be nothing on medium sized stuff and we will see how that plays out over the next few years.

I do find it both believable but also a little unbelievable (if that makes sense) that the big companies are screwing it up and it’s as straightforward as you make it sound.

Happy to have a beer sometime. Believe it. But a key point it is not "the" big companies, its SOME big companies, but it is not a small minority. The legislation says companies have to do 'adequate consultation'. What is adequate? There is huge variation. Some companies do a great job, some are disgraceful.

Some companies have genuine goodwill and spend the money required. = best outcomes
Some companies don't have the goodwill but will spend the money to tick the box = mixed outcomes
Some companies don't have the goodwill and won't spend the money = bad outcomes, = Santos

Then there are some medium to small cap explorers and small projects who have goodwill but not much dough, but if the deposit is viable they will sell to a large company that does have the money.

Santos bar is low, and rather than abide by the umpires, the fed court decision, that found that their bar was too low and just lift their game, they are carrying on and whingeing and lobbying government. To me its pretty simple, its the cost of doing business, sooking and whinging about haveing to do too much work on consultations and having good relationships with the TOs is just the same as sooking and whingeing that the drilling rig costs too much to maintain.

 

[Baloo]

Some companies have genuine goodwill and spend the money required. = best outcomes
Some companies don't have the goodwill but will spend the money to tick the box = mixed outcomes
Some companies don't have the goodwill and won't spend the money = bad outcomes, = Santos

So you're saying the best outcomes come from those that listen? Who would have thought...

 

[Tigaman]

Of course ones cares about Indigenous health etc etc but the Voice no. Tommy the way forward for our Indigenous Australians is for people like you to get voted into Parliament eg Senate then get the ear of whoever is in charge.

Voice architect reveals what he REALLY thinks about No voters

Thomas Mayo has called on No voters to demand an end to 'political games' that entrench Aboriginal disadvantage following the crushing referendum defeat of the Indigenous Voice to Parliament .

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[RoarEmotion]

Happy to have a beer sometime. Believe it. But a key point it is not "the" big companies, its SOME big companies, but it is not a small minority. The legislation says companies have to do 'adequate consultation'. What is adequate? There is huge variation. Some companies do a great job, some are disgraceful.

Some companies have genuine goodwill and spend the money required. = best outcomes
Some companies don't have the goodwill but will spend the money to tick the box = mixed outcomes
Some companies don't have the goodwill and won't spend the money = bad outcomes, = Santos

Then there are some medium to small cap explorers and small projects who have goodwill but not much dough, but if the deposit is viable they will sell to a large company that does have the money.

Santos bar is low, and rather than abide by the umpires, the fed court decision, that found that their bar was too low and just lift their game, they are carrying on and whingeing and lobbying government. To me its pretty simple, its the cost of doing business, sooking and whinging about haveing to do too much work on consultations and having good relationships with the TOs is just the same as sooking and whingeing that the drilling rig costs too much to maintain.

What's the take on how this has developed?

Santos has scored a legal victory in the battle over its $5.8bn Barossa pipeline. But how significant is it?

Court ruling is challenging for the Tiwi Islanders who fought the case and likely to prompt a rethink about how Indigenous cultural heritage matters are run

www.theguardian.com

Judge basically said the EDO fabricated the evidence.

"The most critical part of her judgment focused on a cultural mapping exercise that she found involved some “confection or construction” by EDO lawyers and a consultant. She found the opinions expressed as a result of it were “so lacking in integrity that no weight can be placed on them”.

My take is that if you are trying to block development as your ideological viewpoint, then a Machiavellian approach is part of the game plan (for the EDO).

 

[tigersnake]

What's the take on how this has developed?

Santos has scored a legal victory in the battle over its $5.8bn Barossa pipeline. But how significant is it?

Court ruling is challenging for the Tiwi Islanders who fought the case and likely to prompt a rethink about how Indigenous cultural heritage matters are run

www.theguardian.com

Judge basically said the EDO fabricated the evidence.

"The most critical part of her judgment focused on a cultural mapping exercise that she found involved some “confection or construction” by EDO lawyers and a consultant. She found the opinions expressed as a result of it were “so lacking in integrity that no weight can be placed on them”.

My take is that if you are trying to block development as your ideological viewpoint, then a Machiavellian approach is part of the game plan (for the EDO).

Its very complex. I'll have a stab at nutshelling it, Without reading the arguments and the judgement, but with more knowledge than most on the legal history in this area, I'm not surprised they lost, but the construction call is a step too far. Aboriginal people generally think differently about history and their ancestors than we do. If some paddock in Ireland where my great grandmother x10 lived hundreds of years ago was getting a petrol station built on it, firstly I wouldn't know about it because the link is gone, but even if I did I might think it was a bit sad for 5 minutes, but I wouldn't really care, I wouldn't take legal action or blockade. A lot of blackfellas would, Which is largely because they have much longer links to land than we do.

But having said that, in any given community, there would be those opposed, those in favour, and a bunch in between, just like in any community. And while if money wasn't a factor, the community would probably oppose the development, the reality is people have to eat, there are jobs and compo that come with development. You often hear blackfellas say they prefer a development not to happen, but the can't stop it so they provide support in exchange for benefits. Remembering that until the 1990s, they couldn't stop it but would get nothing.

Which brings me to your take. I pretty much agree. The EDO didn't make the rules. They have to play by the rules to get an outcome, just like Santos. Its a brutal adversarial game, no quarter is given. But even this is complex. Greenies, especially the EDO, often form political alliances with Indigenous landowners to get an outcome, stopping a development. In some cases they will form an alliance with a big majority of the community that oppose a development, sometimes its a small majority or large minority, sometimes its a very small minority. And to add another layer of complexity, sometimes any of these factions are culturally in the right, sometimes they aren't. Putting all this together, and adding more complexity, sometimes the EDO is supporting the community to achieve what both the EDO and the community want, sometimes they are exploiting a section of the community to achieve what the EDO wants.

But of a confused post, but you could literally write a book.

 

[RoarEmotion]

Its very complex. I'll have a stab at nutshelling it, Without reading the arguments and the judgement, but with more knowledge than most on the legal history in this area, I'm not surprised they lost, but the construction call is a step too far. Aboriginal people generally think differently about history and their ancestors than we do. If some paddock in Ireland where my great grandmother x10 lived hundreds of years ago was getting a petrol station built on it, firstly I wouldn't know about it because the link is gone, but even if I did I might think it was a bit sad for 5 minutes, but I wouldn't really care, I wouldn't take legal action or blockade. A lot of blackfellas would, Which is largely because they have much longer links to land than we do.

But having said that, in any given community, there would be those opposed, those in favour, and a bunch in between, just like in any community. And while if money wasn't a factor, the community would probably oppose the development, the reality is people have to eat, there are jobs and compo that come with development. You often hear blackfellas say they prefer a development not to happen, but the can't stop it so they provide support in exchange for benefits. Remembering that until the 1990s, they couldn't stop it but would get nothing.

Which brings me to your take. I pretty much agree. The EDO didn't make the rules. They have to play by the rules to get an outcome, just like Santos. Its a brutal adversarial game, no quarter is given. But even this is complex. Greenies, especially the EDO, often form political alliances with Indigenous landowners to get an outcome, stopping a development. In some cases they will form an alliance with a big majority of the community that oppose a development, sometimes its a small majority or large minority, sometimes its a very small minority. And to add another layer of complexity, sometimes any of these factions are culturally in the right, sometimes they aren't. Putting all this together, and adding more complexity, sometimes the EDO is supporting the community to achieve what both the EDO and the community want, sometimes they are exploiting a section of the community to achieve what the EDO wants.

But of a confused post, but you could literally write a book.

Or

It depends

But thanks - that is pretty helpful.

 

[Tigaman]

Jacinta's last hurrah !!

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...omantic-myth-Aboriginal-Australia-Voice-Peter Fitzsimons.html