For current (very different) situation see: http://pacrowther.staff.shef.ac.uk/gemini_update.txt As current chair of the UK telescope allocation committee (TAC) for Gemini, I was devastated to hear last night of the Gemini Board to eject the UK from the Gemini partnership, with immediate effect (1 Feb 08). This unprecedented decision was taken because STFC were unable to commit to future operating costs and Aspen instrumentation. In the short term, the considerable efforts of myself, plus colleagues on the TAC, applicants, scientific referees and UK National Gemini Office (NGO) in Oxford have been brushed aside. In the longer term, the decision of forced-removal from the state-of-the art Gemini facilities leaves the UK ground-based astronomy strategy in disarray. This will badly affect the UK astronomical community's ability to address questions such as how galaxies form or look for planets around other stars, or be able to adequately exploit space observatories such as HST. The loss of Gemini North is particularly acute, since the majority of the UK past investment has been focused upon the northern hemisphere, including the world-leading WFCAM and SCUBA-2 instruments on Hawaii. Having been thrown a lifeline by the STFC attempt at retaining access to Gemini North, the news is doubly disappointing. According to a Board member, STFC left the Gemini Board with little option but to throw out the UK from the partnership, for which access is immediately lost, together with being liable for a GBP 8m penalty fee. However, according to STFC, 2008 subscription costs have been paid, and the UK has *not* formally given notice to withdraw so the Board's action to cancel UK observations from 1 Feb may not be legal. Sadly, the result of this early (forced) withdrawal from Gemini, having invested circa GBP 35m in capital costs alone, and only 6-7 years after the telescopes became operational - means that we are now facing the prospect of being unable to reap the full benefits of our investment just at the point when this facility has reached its true potential. Significant numbers of UK PhD students and academics, myself included, are now left pondering a gaping hole in their scientific plans, which are by their very nature long-term - affecting the careers of young scientists, the very people we should be supporting. The current STFC `delivery plan' from August 2007 claimed to focus ground-based telescope investment on the development of ESO and Gemini, while the 2008/2011 Delivery Plan from Dec 2007 involving access to Gemini North is sadly already in shreds. Had we remained within the Gemini partnership, the UK instrument teams were looking forward to winning vital contracts in second-generation Gemini instrumentation, including PRVS, for which Edinburgh's ATC was about to sign the main contract, but is instead being asked by STFC to make GBP 11m savings over the next 3 years. One cannot help but feel that all these consequences could have been averted, with economies made on a similar scale, through the sale of some or all of UK Gemini South telescope time to a existing Gemini partner or third-party which could have been achieved from within the Gemini partnership. Such a solution would still have allowed the UK to retain full access to Gemini North - from which the UK could have walked away in 2012 without penalty - and avoiding the apparent breakdown in trust between STFC and our international partners. One of the key aspects of STFC is to provide access to overseas world-class facilities - such as European Southern Observatory to which the UK still has full access - but the loss of Gemini will be sorely missed by many in the UK community and leaves many feeling bitterly disappointed by the manner of our departure. In monetary terms, had we remained as a full partner until 2012, we would have achieved a nominal 100% science exploitation for a total investment of circa GBP 70m + 20m = 90m plus circa GBP 4m contribution to second generation instrumentation programme (GBP 24m referred to in STFC release). To date, with an investment of circa GBP 70m, but only 50% of the full exploitation achieved, a penalty of GBP 8m needs to be added. A `sub-let' approach for half of the available UK Gemini South time from 2009 could have achieved a 90% return for an investment of GBP 10-14m over the next 3 years, retaining the all important Gemini North access (depending on our ability to commit to the Aspen instrumentation programme). Prof Paul Crowther Paul.Crowther@sheffield.ac.uk 26 Jan 08 (slight re-edit 28 Jan 08 once blood pressure back to normal)