Barney,Thanks for the info. I think i remember your post many...

Barney,

Thanks for the info. I think i remember your post many months ago about your chat with brad. About the forestry lobbying process 'restarting': I think that is exactly what has happened with the new company sec appointed mid feb. The ann notes that Vanessa is staying with IAU as General Counsel - but that most of her role is Jakarta based now.

Reading between the lines, i think they have moved Vanessa into a full time lobbying role to try and bring through the permit change. It also implies that whatever they were doing pre feb either:

a) wasnt working (start process again for whatever reason; but including key personnel changing in a govt office - which is terribly disruptive but also creates greater reg uncertainty than it would in a more developed country) or;

b) is hotting up (need to senior team in negotiations - i believe unlikely, unforntunately, but just MHO) or;

c) the exec felt they needed to 'walk the talk' with respect to their long term intentions for the area. We often overlook in Aus the value of using senior team member to countenance the genuine intent of the project to the local government there. One of their biggest considerations for these kind of changes is whether the team (IAU) has the long term appetite to be in indo, making good on all of the promises and respresentations they will have made to advance the permit to where they are now. You'll find a lot throughout SE asia for these kind of changes if the government thinks you are only in the permit to 'flip it' then they will not go through the hassle of a zoning change - as at the end of the day they have a lot of work to do to get it through, and all of the long term benefits to indo for doing so could be jeopardised if IAU sold TB a month after getting the approval (ie IAU make money and no long term benefit goes to indo from the txn). The central thrust of any govt approval will be longer term benefit to the indo community and economy - so if they dont feel like the team have a genuine desire to take project through to completion or will sell it on the valutaion uplift the permit will deliver they are less likely to do it - as this entire process on negotiating the longer term benefits for the local groups needs to restart with whoever took out TB. May sound a bit stretched; but there is an enourmous difference in a 'fly in fly out' interface with the government, or an 'on the ground' relationship in the way your longer term intent is percieved by the govt, and that in turn affects how they approach you request for regulatory changes.

Now of course IAU have been in indo for ages, but I think that this is a positive gesture to the government about LT intent; a positive for IAU holders in that there is someone senior on the ground running specifically with the regulatory process and/or a new relationship is being built close to full time if someone has left a key govt position for permit zone change (and we are re-starting using our senior team to ensure its effective and gets the focus it needs).

IMHO I think the worst thing that could have happened (sadly i believe most likely) is the process restarted because of key personnel change in the govt office - if this is the case then i belive IAU have done exactly the right thing to react. If there is no restarting of the process, then i belive this move will deliver the result we want with more certaintly in a shorter amount of time. In my mind - right move either way.
_____________________________
IMHO only