re: no fall back position, page-16

re: no fall back position Sorry ZZZ
Obviously the wrong annalogy for you zzz. On your "cliff ahead" road, you expect the sign BEFORE you get to the cliff, not on the way down. There are certain protercols which we expect in a complex functioning society like Australia so that we all know how to interact (called culture). As I have stated it’s not the loss to RIO (I gamble what I can afford to lose). It’s the injustice of not knowing what the “public interest” reasoning was, and the resultant legality of it (as opposed to the social, which is what “public interest” is about). If the “public interest” is purely ‘snail mail’, then the Minister has acted outside of the bounds of his responsibility. There have been too many cases of snail mail in the past 200 years that have all lost. That is why there are numerous companies in all mining regions around the world that purely look for lease lapses. It is part of the mining game, and those in the game know the rules. You can’t have a minister intervening when those rules have been enforced for 200 years. That’s why RIO went “public interest” route not “the mail didn’t get thru”. So what ever Mr Bowlers reasoning is it can’t be ANYTHING to do with the legitimacy of the lease. Because all in the industry will again that up until Friday, what CAZ had done was by the BOOK (law).
So the big question is…what’s the public interest issue that affects the PUBLIC.
Is CAZ a CIA dope front?, or is CAZ a Taliban operation?…then yes good call Mr Bowler. If “the mail didn’t get thru”….then f%&k Mr Bowler, you have step well outside your area of responsibility.