Ann: Formal Responses to Government on Muga Project Submitted, page-9

It could be that there are not new concerns about, it can be that the same are still present, but I was suspicious because the same sentence has been in many of the reports
“does not identify any new items or areas of concern for the company…” (see for example announce from 2016 December the 19th).

However, just to remember, in 2015 the 19^th October the ASX report indicate “positive environment declaration expected by February 2016” but also “considered submission received from infrastructure bodies required lenghty technical responses to ensure the requests for additional information were answered with appropriate detail. Importantly the company believes that nothing detrimental to the Project´s success has been identified…”

In this sense, if in 2015 these questions were answered in a “lengthy” manner, and there have not been new items, why systematic administration requests for new reports that, in theory, were systematically answered previously? I hope that really there were new items and the reports are answering them, the contrary should be that the new items are not considered.
Sorry for my criticism about, but some doubts arise in it, and as some of the colleagues from the forum have recognized relation with HFR, they could give more information to all… at least to be more confident about, information is information…

Always the best, jc.