re: 40 billion , page-9

re: 40 billion Hmmm!

As with a number of people posting about this topic, facts are often overlooked to present an argument which justify's involvement.

The facts, which must be considered when presiding on this debacle, very well contain matters of intent upon submission.

The fact, which you so willingly exclude is thus:

CAZ legally aquired a tenement as a result of a 3rd party stuff up within a system that does not have the appropriate dilegent warning and notification requirements needed to uphold the acquisition by CAZ.

No conspiracy theory here. Public sentiment will always latch onto a conspiracy theory, but as I have stated. If the shoe was on the other foot and CAZ been the orignal tenement holder the result would have been the same, the claim dismissed. I suggest to you the "In the publics best interest" statement goes a long way into not pointing the blame at the inadequacy's in the system, nor passing a liability judgement on those involved. (ie) courier company, directors, DOIR procedures

PS,
Who cares if this deposit is not mined for another 20 years. People do care that big company's like RIO and BHP are still here employing people though. Small companys find the deposit in the hope RIO or BHP will take them over. My money would have been on CAZ directors doing the same thing SELL SELL SELL. WA supports the nation, has done for over a hundred years and will do for ever more.

Anyway there is no doubt I will get another Judge Dread response.