The headwaters of a river system remains intact and I think fresh water will be more valuable than gold in the future. Can't eat gold.
The effect will be the investors are spewing as they wasted all that money bribing politicians for nothing. The effect will be these resources may be exploited by future generations rather than the current one which is only interested in short term gains.
A major flaw of our democracies is their foresight/ planning goes about 3-4 years aka the election cycle. Whereas places like China form 20-50 year plans.
Foreign investors don't get to exploit Australian resources. Boo Hoo. We will do it ourselves one day, or maybe we won't. Up to us, not foreign investors.

@puff sadly too many have swallowed the propaganda of the benefit of #stupid decisions that result in immediate gains rather than intelligent decisions that benefit everyone. . . . Take the example of mobile phones: how essential is it that people own one? Humanity has existed for thousands of years without mobile phones. Nearly all of them are simply used for entertainment and theft & corruption of thought\ belief. Very few are for intelligent communication like emergency services.

@FrayedBear I've often thought that a Monarchy is the best form of governance but the spanner in the works is, how do you ensure you get a good one.
I say this as a Monarchy is the nation eg the Kings forest in Robin Hood days. The Monarchy is there not for just this generation but for all generations to come. So they have an oppourtunity to think/ plan long term and protect the resources of that nation from both politics and business with future generations foremost in their mind. Any degrading of the environment is seen as an attack on the Monarchy and therefore the nation. A good Monarch would be the best protection for the environment.
But as I said, how do you ensure the Monarch is good? And what I think is good others may not.
Cultures are alive and thus evolve. Some embrace change and we call them progressives. Others resist change and we call them conservatives.
Mobile phones are hand held computers and have gone way past mere communication. Always pro's and con's with everything but agree they are a bane on society. So that view point is termed conservative. But on the other hand, it has really exposed the workings of our public officials, a good thing, whose response has been censorship/ cancel culture, which I hope all would agree is bad

@puff Your analysis is worthy, wise and world wide but can we have some help in checking your sources? A little now and then would do?

@Mcfluwster When I use a firm source I try. Think of most of what I say/ claim as analysis though with no real definite source but a combination of my experience in analysis. It has been an unintentional theme of my career so I strongly suspect that's how my brain is wired.
I was formally trained by the Army, my title intelligence analyst
Environmental degree which is all about monitoring for changes ie analysis again.
Then as a data engineer/ mudlogging on oil rigs where I analysed data, identifying trends and on to wellsite geologist, which is also analytical.
Just the way I think eg every action has a reaction, but what that reaction will be is the question. Usually have options so you may grade them for probability etc etc.
I do have a habit of thinking the worse, which is why I am always happy because when the worse happens (and it very rarely does), I am already mentally prepared for that scenario so don't get caught by surprise as eternal optimists do (the best case scenario very rarely happens as well).
My sources? As many as I can find. Duckduckgo is far superior to google as a search engine but even there, have to scroll a coupla pages to glean the good stuff. I don't even bother with Australian media, but India is quite good. Ironically Israeli press is quite good to. Some good African news services. Europe, USA, Russia, China, Sth America etc.
Reports usually report off of others but they disclose that, so I go back to the original source, like Congressional hearings or UN sessions etc.
I enjoy Scott Ritters analysis, he is very animated in his marine 'I'll rip off your head and shit down your neck' way. Prof Geoffery Sacks is a brilliant diplomat and a very concise speaker, ex CIA spooks have good analysis too. Some really good podcasts by Europeans with these type of people, in English. I find Russian officials are very plain speakers and do not say shit for domestic political purposes like ours do. No doubt a bit misinformative at times when talking international issues which is normal and if aware it happens, you look out for it.
The Russian UN rep/ foreign minister Lavrov is very no bullshit. You may take him at his word, but still be skeptical ie any news, it's better to assume it's bullshit and check/ confirm than assume it's true.