Investigation, the latest, page-10

Naja may have done this thinking inncently [with a sole focus on Uranium in general] and not appreciate [or just didn't want to know] the full impact. None of us can speculate really and by what Ttroy is saying that is the case and that is fine. However, she is denying she has singled out ETM and that opinion needs to be respected [right or wrong] and whether she is maintaining that line and hedging bets/save face is really irrelevant. We shouldn't be mocking her [and although that comes with being a politician] we should be respectful.

In a county of 57,000 people, newspapers that have specific "Themes" that include Kvanefjield and correspoindence and discussions with various groups that such a ban would have had to have ETM in mind.

Any relevant decision or policy should consider the benefits and the impacts. If this wasn't done then that is a misuse of the people's expectation on the Government.

Many questions will then arise, as to how or who advised on the 100ppm limit and was she/others aware of the consequence or quantum that such a limit would impose on ETM and/or other companies for that matter. Was there other companies or persons within Government/advising Government/lobbying Government that didn't want ETM to mine and knew that such a limit would hurt ETM. This mind you is also being looked at!
Then further review as to:

• what is an acceptible limit on the world stage and best practice and if say 300ppm or 500ppm was that figure then what reasons were given to impose a 100ppm specifically here and which the parlimament accepted.
• Was the parliament advised what best practice and world standards are.
• In what context was the 100ppm limit imposed and the reasons for such

Time will tell.