Roundtable Discussion; The Future of Mineral Sands. Watch the video here.
Mmm yes. A deep, mature and comprehensive response to the issues raised. I see why they listen to you on this BB. Done with you. Good luck guys... As I said before, if you want an actual reading of the situation on the ground here, I am happy to offer that - provided Harry asks me politely. :)
Based on today's decision, BG may not be allowed by the court to allow it. BPC really should have done better due diligence.
Errr.... but the court ruling was today.
Bring it buddy. In whatever forum or on whatever subject you choose. Personally, I find your behavior today reprehensible. Telling these people that court went well for BPC and its shareholders when you know better. If you have even half the connection to the Bahamas you claim, you certainly know better. Trying to keep shareholders interested so your own investment doesn't suffer. That were low indeed.
Of course, this is good news for shareholders. Exactly the outcome they were looking for.
http://www.tribune242.com/news/2021/jan/05/breaking-news-environmentalists-granted-leave-oil-/?c=245459
And yet I persist... Could I be the administrator of the LSE service? Who knows? Really pathetic that you can't actually engage, but must take the coward's way out.
http://www.tribune242.com/news/2016/mar/04/pm-may-face-commital-over-blackbeards-cay/?news
Irene he has me trembling...
Irene he has me trembling...
Well he can't show you. Because there isn't. And even if there what, so what? Who precisely does he think he is trying to intimidate. I tell you, with the hijacking of the Tribune poll and so on, this has not been a good week for BPC shareholders, as far as local public opinion goes. Thanks for that Harry.
There is no such rule Irene, he is just trying to be a low bully. Trying to shoot the messenger because he don't like the message. Reporting me to the principal and such as well. Quite pathetic really. My temporary ban could be made permanent - oooo the shock and the horror. Grow up ShareScare and stop misleading these people about what today's court decision means. They will find out in any case in the next few weeks.
How has the legal "nonsense" been cleared up? JR permission has been granted. That is huge. This has halted several projects in their tracks in the past. All the details of BPC's licensing process, until now jealously guarded for SOME reason, will be made public. The circus has just begun! Stop misleading people ShareScare - you know better.
NASSAU, BAHAMAS — Supreme Court Justice Petra Hanna-Weekes today granted applicants leave to seek judicial review of the government’s approvals for Bahamas Petroleum Company (BPC) to drill an exploratory well in Bahamian waters, ruling that Save The Bays and Waterkeepers Bahamas Limited have “an arguable case”.
However, Weekes denied the applicant’s application for a stay of the ongoing drilling exercise — a process that began on December 20.
The drilling exercise is expected to be completed within 45 to 60 days and does not involve extracting any oil if found.
In court, Weekes said while the court has the discretion to order a stay, it is tantamount to an injunction and such an order should be to stay the “decision-making process and its implementation”.
She said: “…The decision-making process has been completed; the decisions have been implemented, and subsequently the joint exercise to which those decisions that were made has commenced. Therefore, to my mind, under the circumstances, there is no decision-making process to be stayed.
“I, therefore, accept the submission of Mr [Aiden] Casey, QC, is this regard. Further, as all parties have agreed this exercise is of great public importance, albeit for different reasons, I do not accept counsel for the applicant’s submission that the respondents at BPC would suffer no [ ] if such a stay was granted.”
The applicants are seeking to have quashed the respondents’, namely the government, decisions to grant environmental approvals for BPC last year.
In court documents, the applicants made the case that the approvals granted to BPC for drilling an exploratory well in southwestern waters of The Bahamas was procedurally wrong, unfair and unlawful.
Fred Smith, QC, represents the applicants.
BPC applied to the court to become a part of the proceedings, though the company was not named as a respondent in the judicial review application.
The company has argued that the judicial review application was without merit, and relies on the affidavit of BPC CEO Simon Potter.
I can't help it! I just love Harry and crave his attention ??
Love and miss you Harry! I thought you filtered me. Why are you still responding? How can you even see my posts? Amazing that...
In the meantime, if you want to see the ships schedule submitted to government in the Bahamas, you will have to get Harry to ask me politely, as I said yesterday! But I have it right here
Both sides are posturing, none of it means anything, a judge will decide.
And this - https://ewnews.com/oil-drilling-opponents-excited-and-surprised-by-pms-stance
I also saw this - http://www.tribune242.com/news/2020/dec/14/pms-anti-oil-stance-music-our-ears-declaration-aga/
Morning ShareScare! I did read that one. Unfortunately, though the AG may assert what he likes (and kind of has to say this in any case)he is the potential respondent in a court case. A judge will decide whether he is correct on that point or not.