This has been taken from an announcement released by Ironbark on 25.09.15 regarding their public consultation process.
That may be half the problem. Check the amendments in departmental flow sheets and divisions since 3-4 years ago you quoted.
The period required to complete the "whitepaper" will obviously depend on the amount of comments they receive.
Why and by how much? Its a reply. Why is this going to extend into anything close to the 6 years you formally felt was appropriate when the EIA is asking all the questions and has already been answered to? How long do you feel a reply to questions is really going to take if it requires nothing but offering primarily information previously collated for the EIA amd SIA? Its not a submission for approval. Theres no processing. Not even remotely close in demand as an EIA or SIA evaluation. Its a feedback paper right? So why would you have focussed on this as even being a concern in time lapse and how much do you feel it would logically incur in any, worst case senario, to simply then reply to? Do you think maybe they will pull the EIA back out and start again on aspects or something? Did they do that with Ironbark? How long did Ironbark take? Keep in mind its simply a public consult period merely answering questions the public may raise so they can better understand whats been approved and to be conducted before they offer their feedback. Otherwise I cant spot a cause for any concern?
GGG Price at posting:
5.8¢ Sentiment: Buy Disclosure: Held
