I think the post by SenseiB should actually be retitled...

I think the post by SenseiB should actually be retitled NonsenseiB. I understand why you would not be considering responding to replies on your posts if they are similarly fictional in content as this one, it would require an extraordinary amount of time.

Is your suggestion here that Mr Banks in his wisdom and with his many years of "previous experience" in the mining and exploration sector in WA, considered applying for, but deliberately did not apply for the area now forming the tenement area of the CRB project as it was a better idea to apply for the area now forming the basis of VRX Muchea project and leave open the southern portion of the same geological feature for competators even thouigh the continuation of this deposit south may contain a larger and better quality resource, than the area (excluding the now CRB area) "he had identified" as the best investment decision going forward.? Should you prescribe to this view, if nothing else it should probably also provide you with some insight into Mr Banks experience and understanding of the mining and exploration sector prior to this tenement application.

Let me propose another scenario for you. Could it possibly be that when considering both areas comprising the VRX and CRB project areas at Muchea (as they are adjacent) that original ownership of the VRX area has never been formally contested for Mr Banks on the northern portion by the party who identified it for him for the exact reason you suggest was Mr Banks reasoning for leaving open the southern portion of his stroke of genius, it was problematic and had too many assocaited environmental issues, a fact which has now been established over this northern area and which forms the basis of the department of mines decision to reduce the now approved area for the VRX ML to ONE THIRD of the application area for this reason.

With regard to the fictional suggestions of "unexploded ordinates", AHS and "large trees" etc etc in the CRB area, factually there was a RAAF training range south of the tenement area, however the tenement area itself is actually noted as "buffer zone" on the information I have and allows RAAF driver training within its borders so unless the RAAF are training their cadettes in 'Russian Roulette" I wouldnt worry to much about it. And I doubt any local or federal governement would consider including AHS and Eco sensitive areas within its boundaries for training. The AHS sites are in fact on the right hand side of the tenement area and are not within the proposed exploration areas from what I can see.

So your one and only post to do what you dislike so much, and down ramp someone elses project which you do not own appears to be a self-fulfilling prophecy and probably concur with your decision to remain without comment should your wish simply be to provide fictional commentary on someone elses project in an attempt to gain respect for your own project as a competator. You cant argue with the numbers and when dealing with the non numerical items I usually subsribe to the view that as minimum makes sense.