anti-information campaign..., page-15

hardrock...

By "transgression" I was referring to lack of performance and failure to meet required expenditure...I was not suggesting for one minute it was wrong, unusual or in any way in breach of the act.

Yes...it is common unfortunately...but not usually on a priority tenement, which was the inference here.

I guess the point I am trying to make is that by not adhering to the expenditure requirements, a company is not automatically gauranteed to get a renewal...although I accept it is common place to get one in such circumstances.

This is perhaps an important issue in relation to RIO's attitude towards Shovelanna and the WA governement's renewed push for a "use it or lose it" culture...which began with the tabling of various amendments to the Mining Act (2004) with this specific idea in mind.

There has yet to be an example made of anyone...what better opportunity than to make one of RIO?

Anyway...as I said, in the current hearing, previous expenditure might gain a short reference, but the real arguments will be based on current and future capacity to develop Shovelanna and meet the publics interest's.

Cheers!