egm updates, page-169

"One moment we are chasing oil, then helium then coal!! Then back to oil.. blind freedy should have known that oil was the best option to get some sort of cash flow.."

Hi Chicken.....

Just to begin with, it wasn't me that passed those comments around this thread. Yet you replied to my post and posted all of the above, plus other hogwash as well.

The thing that I would like to point out to you, seen that it is obvious that you don't understand how an explorer company has to be run and the obligations it will have to face when it owns multiple tenements, is that there are certain rules and regulation in place that requires the explorer company to perform some work in all of those tenements in order to allow it to continue to retain ownership of those tenements, or having to run the invariable risk of loosing them if they don't do anything with them. There are time limits as well to enforce such rules.

Most importantly though, those rules are there in order to disallow/discourage any mining company to own the whole lot of the tenements available in Australia and just sit on them and doing nothing at all with them, while other mining companies are forcibly being kept out of the picture.

Now, if that was legally allowable, we could have BHP in Australia, which started mining well before any other mining company including all the new ones that came and went after that, owning and holding the whole lot of the prospective tenements in Australia and beyond, and the rest of them left sucking on a dry icy pole stick.

One thing is for sure though. And that is, that, if that was allowed to happen, we (CTP) wouldn't be here at all.

Now, taking all of those factors in consideration, could it be the case that the company (CTP) would have had to do what you are accusing them of doing, or loose the tenements?

I have now put forward my thoughts based on what I do know. What are yours??

All the best.