Thanks vintage. As one of those who has an "interest in and...

Thanks vintage. As one of those who has an "interest in and appetite for truth and objectivity" (even perhaps thirst for, given the glass metaphor which keeps being bandied about) I appreciate not only your information (which is impeccable) but your opinion on such (which is clearly separate in your posts and up to the reader to take or leave).

In this particular instance I'd have to agree this was a little surprising as I thought we'd put the RAIs to bed months ago however I'm not too concerned in this instance as unless there's a significant encroachment on a site of indigenous importance then it's probably just paperwork that needs to be finalised as part of the submission rather than something that will have a real impact on the license and timing. In other words whilst it needs to be submitted with all the information in place it probably isn't critical to the SEIS other than ticking a box and shouldn't have held up the rest of the evaluation while it was completed. This is my "glass half full" view of it. It could be complete nonsense by I can see a possibility that it won't effect the overall timing. Hopefully we don't find that the Berger property is sitting on an Indian burial ground or the like.