ASIC Response, page-4

If ASIC don't have the basic competence to get the dates right in a letter addressing a complaint, then it raises the question of of whether they have the competence to investigate any simple complaints, or even if they have looked at any of the ASX releases or other relevant information.

I don't know if the complainant has to be personally affected or not to make a complaint but heres the timeline:

25th June 2014 - Annual Report info that ABU are going to use the on site gravity plant at Old Pirate and mine Old Pirate
07th July 2014 - ASX announcement that ABU had signed an agreement with TAM to use the Coyote plant to treap OP ore
17th July 2014 - Quarterly Activity Report detailing advantages of using the Coyote plant with the following text on page 4:

As previously presented, the Company had been designing and planning to expand the small scale gravity gold plant used during trial mining and located on site at the Old Pirate High-Grade Gold Deposit. The upgrade of this plant at Old Pirate remains a viable option, and will be reverted to if conditions precedent are not met (or waived) or the Coyote plant is not satisfactorily commissioned.
   
*A
I think one of the the questions implicit in that timeframe - is 2 weeks sufficient time to have done the due diligence on changing the plan from using the on-site plant to entering the binding agreement with TAM to use the Coyote plant. Even if a technical experts panel recomended using the on-site gravity plant as a preferred option over the Coyote plant (from a technical basis)? Really need to present the technical panels report (that was possibly ignored) directly to ASIC to address this issue.

The rest of the ASIC document is a generic standard template "go away and bother someone else/move along nothing to see here" response, pretty much a worthless response in my opinion.