Ann: Change in substantial holding, page-29

"The legal team of PEN disagrees with you"

That's quite amusing HS!

Legal teams, in any dispute, are biased by definition. They are there to represent their client's interests, irrespective of whether or not they agree with them. They are advocates, not judges.

When I say "It's really impossible to take an educated guess on this ", I'm thinking of the ASLB 's task in arriving at a decision - not the merits of the case.

BOTH legal teams think they are right (or publicly state that at least), but of course, one of them will be wrong OR perhaps both will be partly wrong (if there are mixed results for the 3 contentions).

In my view, both legal teams were strong and both put up a vigorous case. I don't believe the ASLB's job is easy and there were clues about that in the transcripts.

HS - you say "I am "educated" as I am sure you are, however I am certain I am not in a position to make any call over this other than take in the legal teams view"

Why just one team's view? A more prudent approach would be to consider both sides and weigh the issues and arguments - just as ASLB is doing at the moment.

But I can see the pattern. Gus says mining will commence by Dec 2012, so it must be right. PEN's legal time says just "expect at worse minor ammendments to the permit", so they must be right.

They might be this time, but they might not be. Always better to do your own research.