Empire Energy Corporation Intl. (fka EEGC)

[pitts77h]

He's making a large deal over the difference between "expected to" and "required to" without realizing that the distinction between the two works to MRT's advantage, not EEGC's.

The expectations are clearly described in the license. Spend X dollars, drill Y feet. You either do or you don't, and EEGC didn't. This means that MRT has wide latitude in choosing how to deal with the problem.

That does NOT bode well for EEGC, as evidenced by their current situation. MRT has been pretty clear that they're willing to refuse new licenses and reduce the rights on licenses already granted. It's never a good idea to make your regulator look bad by failing to meet written EXPECTATIONS.

Roger, I've provided the documentation, I really don't think everyone who disagrees with you should be required to provide the same links. In addition, you (incorrectly) asserted that EEGC could renew the license simply by paying a fee - without providing any documentation. Fair's fair.

If you need MORE documentation, here's another:

http://www.mrt.tas.gov.au/pls/portal/docs/PAGE/MRT_INTERNET_PAGE_GROUP/MRT_PUBLICATIONS/MRT_EXPLORATION_CODE_OF_PRACTICE/CODE4A.PDF

Page 8

"Mineral Resources Tasmania will carry out an annual review of performance on exploration licences. Failure to perform may result in termination of the licence."

Again, you can choose to quibble of the word "may," but the reality is they CAN, and they HAVE, terminated EEGC's licences. Are we agreed on that point at least? Isn't that why EEGC's in hearings?