Hi Prime, yep read it a couple of times, and admit it can be interpreted a number of ways in print. In conversation and with context, it was less ambiguos than it seems in my post, however here is some further clarification.
Unfortunate, because the EPA:
1. Doesn't want to restrict development of company's that are trying hard to be responsible environmental managers, if they can avoid it.
2. Has no reservations what so ever, about making it hard for cowboy companies, who pay lip service to Env Mge and have no genuine green intentions.
(The difference between the two types of company, quickly becomes apparent....don't know personally any other EPA members,...but this ones a smart cookie, sharp as a tack)
However, they (the EPA) are duty and statutorily bound to recommend protection of elements of our environment that are unique, scheduled protected in law, or providing essential ecosystem & environmental services.
So, the EPA exec was regretful that the recommendations to the Minister, that they would be making regarding restrictions on developments in certain BIF area's, would affect not the cowboys, who's tenements are not terribily significant (from an EPA point of view), but the good guys.
I hope that makes it clearer.
I course they could have said it this way instead and meant the same thing,
"Its a good thing the conservation areas we will be recommending to the Minister be preserved are in the areas operated by company's that are obviously good with their environmental systems, we have confidence in them achieving their environmental commitments", "we would have no confidence if the areas had been in the cowboys tenements".
I suppose the way they phrased it reflects the fact that they (the EPA) are aware and mindful, that what they recommend may well be burdensome on a company's time, resources, operational flexibilty and ultimately perhaps profit! Thats the way I read it anyway.
onepot
GBG Price at posting:
0.0¢ Sentiment: LT Buy Disclosure: Held
