# CAZ - Cazaly Resources



## MalteseBull (3 January 2006)

There has been alot of hype around CAZ re: it's dispute. The company has alot of takeover potential too (especially from BHP) and is rumored already that CAZ has come out on top of RIO (re:	Shovelanna)

Does anyone else see CAZ continuing it's debut on the way to 2.40 and above?
I am considering purschasing more tommorow and would be willing to pay anything for it.

Discuss.


----------



## RichKid (3 January 2006)

MalteseBull said:
			
		

> I am considering purschasing more tommorow and would be willing to pay anything for it.
> 
> Discuss.




Good luck...the market loves people who will part readily with their hard earned.


----------



## MalteseBull (3 January 2006)

RichKid said:
			
		

> Good luck...the market loves people who will part readily with their hard earned.




Thanks mate


----------



## RichKid (3 January 2006)

MalteseBull said:
			
		

> Thanks mate




Sorry MB, thought I'd just point out that it could go the otherway too, it's easy to get emotional with a stock. Hope you do well out of it! More stuff on CAZ-BHP: https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2316&highlight=caz


----------



## yogi-in-oz (4 January 2006)

Hi folks,

Thought this may be of interest here, as well ..... 

CAZ ..... as requested on another forum, here's some 
astroanalysis for this stock, which shows some extreme 
negativity in the months ahead:

     16012006  ..... significant and negative news

23-24012006  ..... significant and negative move ???

     02022006  ..... significant news (positive ???)

     07022006  ..... spotlight on CAZ

14-16022006  ..... minor and finance-related???

From 18022006-to-29032006 there may be VERY STRONG
underlying negative sentiment for this company. During
that period, we may see some key dates, on:

      20022006  ..... minor news???

      09032006  ..... minor

      15032006  ..... minor

  24-27032006  ..... 2 positive cycles here ..... finance-related???

-----

That STRONG negative cycle should re-appear from 
29092006-to-03102006, as well.


happy trading

  yogi


----------



## chicken (4 January 2006)

RichKid said:
			
		

> Good luck...the market loves people who will part readily with their hard earned.



Rich Kid....I just read an article by Mr Tim Treadgold....its in the BRW november issue2005  24-30.....he wrote Rios costly blunder...he explained what happened...but he also warned as the Tenament has not been awarded that the legal process may get drawn out by years...I did not buy any stock as should the tenament NOT get awarded...the door will not be wide enough to stem the traders trying to sell..I am waiting I may not make as much $$$$ but no tenaments, and the stock will be worth 5 cents....so everyone must make their oqwn decisions but read what Tim wrote..I am waiting....


----------



## yogi-in-oz (2 February 2006)

Hi folks,

CAZ - as per post above on 03012006,
ticking up nicely today, on anticipated 
positive news ... on 07022006 ... ??? ...  

happy days

   yogi


----------



## tarnor (2 February 2006)

I read some of tim threadgolds stuff too and i think the guy has NFI..  I would put little value into anything he says..






extremely biased i hold hehe


----------



## BraceFace (2 February 2006)

I heard new Premier Alan Carpenter on ABC radio this morning.
He was asked how long he thought the whole RIO vs CAZ issue would go on for.
His answer.....
As long as it takes.

It is still in the hands of the state solicitors and judging by how long this is taking, I reckon it could go either way. 

Too risky for me.


----------



## stiger (16 April 2006)

HI this is my first post i have no direct interest in caz but the words being bandied around are ""trading halt ! ''' tues morning .GOOD LUCK!


----------



## spottygoose (16 April 2006)

Welcome Stiger. "Bandied around" where?


----------



## tarnor (16 April 2006)

I think the chance to get into caz has passed..   holders are either about to do very well or get completely burned...  

RIO's appeal centers around minister discretionary powers based on 'public interest' (s111)

As far as the public has been made aware RIO's arguement claims they had intent to renew the lease and it was a courier company that made the mistake and RIO should not be punished for that.. To be overly simplistic sympathy for RIO is not a 'public interest' arguement..  From my (limited) understanding to return it to RIO under s111 would be a monumentuous stretch of those powers...    

points of interest

* CAZ has demonstrated thier determination and ability to bring the resource into production...

* CAZ has signed a mou with BHP to sell the ore at the mine gate or alternatively mine the two resource together as they are adjoining.. The practically of this is staggering as it would be very unlikely that shovelanna would be mined by RIO, it would more likely be traded for with BHP for some other ground or arrangement.. its only of strategic value to RIO.... This is simply not public interest...


* RIO has let the tennent lapse before, theyv'e also had other lapses recently which  didn't result in another shovelanna situation.. If i recall a few months back RIO was advertising for a WA tennent managers position.. 


*RIO applied for exemption of required expenditure 11 out of 16 years of holding the tenement... Apparently Thier is a strong  "use it or lose" principle in regards to locking up valueable resrouces 

*It wasn't a midnight pegging as such thier was a whole 4 days the lease was vacant.. CAZ have done nothing wrong they pegged vacant land..  They legally hold the land..


People argueing for RIO continually point to the amount of revenue RIO generate for the government .. they assert that RIO's size and power will ultimately have the minister return shovelanna to RIO..  I'm hanging onto my caz over the decision and an believing the minister will have integrity in his decision making...  

A loss for RIO will be more of an embarassment and will have little or no effect on the share price.. CAZ on the other hand will plummet..  Last week RIO made an announcement about the significant cost of letting other companies use thier rail infastructure... Have no idea how that will pan out but heres a chance to at least ensure one more company can exist outside of the RIO/BHP duopoly..

I'm obviously biased here but i feel if most of the public knew all the details they would be barracking for the underdog to come out on top..

Lets see what tuesday brings...  

Disclaimer: the above is to the best of my knowledge important information was bound to of been left out.. any assertions made should be verified with ones own research.. seek professional advice


----------



## tarnor (16 April 2006)

Spotty thier was a strong rumour that thursday was the day according to the media..


12th april 



> Iron ore hopeful Cazaly Resources raced ahead 22.5c to $A2.09 on speculation a decision on its dispute with Rio Tinto could be handed down Thursday.




http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/latest/200604131818/93deb41

As no decision was released it could have been a false rumour but seemed a little to specific to have no merit...   This is pure speculation on my part but I wouldn't be surprised to see an announcement first thing on Tuesday, IF the decision has been made in favour of CAZ the company may of been given the option and requested the decision be withheld from the public untill tuesday - gaining maximum market exposure..  If the decision went against caz im sure it would have been released after market on thursday..  Probably way off but it helps me sleep over the easter break 8)


----------



## stiger (16 April 2006)

spottygoose said:
			
		

> Welcome Stiger. "Bandied around" where?



Thank you spottygoose Iam like yourself pretty new to this stuff but the info is freely available on the net.Irepeat there is no direct interest from me in caz SO have fun !


----------



## spottygoose (16 April 2006)

I hope you are right Tarnor!!

Thanks Stigor, I knew that info. was around on the net was just hoping you had heard it from a more reliable source as I am a CAZ holder.

Good luck to all that hold, let is hope Tuesday is the day that Justice is served!

Cheers.


----------



## stiger (21 April 2006)

Cazaly lost rio won the shovellanna el :swear:


----------



## pussycat2005 (21 April 2006)

Travesty of justice! 
It was a win all along for RIO who operated behind closed doors
Put a gag on the media
and made a submission that the investing public would never get a hold of.
It reeks of bs
What has Bowler got to lose he's probably made a nice deal with RIO setting him up for life whether or not his decision is scrutinized in the courts or he's forced to step down! 

And what of Carpenter - he was leaking investment advice early last year insinuating all CAZ holders were gamblers.  Seems he was in RIo's pockets a long time ago.  

Perhaps being in Rio's pockets gave him a hot seat to the top job....

I'm so disappointed for all those people who held out on law and justice prevailing.

This decision stinks! 

Perhaps being in Rio's pockets gave him a hot seat


----------



## stiger (21 April 2006)

It is not over yet .Why did the sneaks do it on a Friday night .To avoid media attention .This is going to open an amazing can of worms and heads will roll.


----------



## pussycat2005 (21 April 2006)

Carpenter and Bowler were never impartial! The reason the decision took so long is because they had to find a way to make it go Rio's way! 

If there are substantial holders I would suggest you contact the Australian Shareholders Association because everything about this govt decision stinks! They are known to conduct shareholder class actions. 

I really hope the media get onto this , and I hope its not over!   

I really had faith in Caz and to me the case was open and shut.

I had designs on seeing them through but twice I had to sell out because of Carpenter's spooking followed hot on the heels by Bowlers, ridiculing the investors of CAZ as mere gamblers, claiming it was a 50 50 decision. To all those that had followed the case it was never 50/50 it was 100/1 in favour of CAZ.


----------



## tarnor (22 April 2006)

Hi pussy.. glad your not sinking the boot in, some other boards are terrible

You've called it spot on im afraid

 thier was some serious money tied up in this people with a very strong grasp on the leaglities and principles at play in the industry.. 

i'm a little shocked..  i hope caz takes this all the way its simply scandalous.

I'v been hit pretty hard i'm afraid.. i might post more in the morning..


----------



## zoo (22 April 2006)

I feel bad for all caz holders actually, but gees, why would you take the risk and not swallow some profits at recent runup in sp? ( Assuming most didnt ).

Probably the same reason we all do...we see our nest egg growing and IMAGINE what a few more cents or dollars will do to the sp, so we sit.....and the decision goes to the other camp. This is part of market behaviour that we all go thru and will go thru again with any number of stocks. Some say its a learning experience....depends on your makeup...my 2000 debacle with ERG has helped me...and yep, I looked at caz at all diff levels but never considered it as an option for me and my investment rules. So good luck guys/gals...tax credits can sometimes make a huge diff to your trading as well.


----------



## pussycat2005 (22 April 2006)

I have read all the media reports.

In the court of public opinion RIO  would never have won.


What gets ME is that we still don't have a clear cut explanation as to why it was in the Publics Interest to terminate  Cazaly's application.


The minister has avoided giving a full explanation and has ducked for cover.

Who own WA 

Looks to me like RIO do 

A giant overseas mining co.


----------



## laurie (22 April 2006)

The worst part is this area may never get mined is that in the Publics Interest!!   :swear:
cheers laurie


----------



## pussycat2005 (22 April 2006)

Actually let me rephrase "IN ANY COURT OF LAW"  

RIO WOULD NEVER HAVE WON!


----------



## chansw (22 April 2006)

This is from The West Australian today

*Jilted junior eyes lawsuit*

MICHAEL WEIR

Cazaly Resources has threatened to take the State Government to court over the shock decision to hand the disputed Shovelanna iron ore deposit in the Pilbara back to mining giant Rio Tinto.

A shattered Cazaly boss Nathan McMahon yesterday vowed to pursue all options open to the company and would not rule out litigation.

Mr McMahon described the decision as abhorrent and said Resources Minister John Bowler had bowed to pressure from big business and dealt a potentially fatal blow to the "pro-development, transparent and fair values" that underpinned the WA Mining Act.

His comments were echoed by leading lobby group the Association of Mining and Exploration Companies, whose chief executive Justin Walawski said it was an "astonishing decision" at a time when the State's exploration levels were already at historic lows.

"This sends a strong message about how much exploration is really wanted in this State," Mr Walawski said. "There are already impediments to exploration and now we have a Minister who overturns a perfectly legal claim."

Brokers said Cazaly shares, which have raced from 30 ¢ to a peak of $2.30 last month and closed at $2.12 yesterday on speculation of winning the tenement, were likely to be severely hammered when trading re-opened on Monday.

"A lot of success has already been factored in and this will come as a big shock," one broker said. "There is likely to be a lot of punting money coming out."

Cazaly pegged the Shovelanna lease, near Newman, in August after Rio Tinto failed to renew its tenement before it expired.

Rio immediately began lobbying the State Government to have the lease returned, arguing it would not be in the public's interest to hand it to a small company lacking the financial or technical clout to develop it.

It also argued that it had clearly demonstrated its intent by paying the renewal fee well in advance and despatching the documents to a courier days before the due date.

But Cazaly argued Rio had deliberately kept the project in mothballs for more than two decades, and had not drilled a single hole in 16 years.

Cazaly also quickly stitched up a funding deal with merchant bank Investec, confirmed a resource of more than 200 million tonnes, and struck a deal to supply up to five million tonnes of ore annually to BHP Billiton, which is already mining the adjoining Orebody 18 deposit.

Cazaly claimed the public's interest is best served by awarding the lease to a company prepared to develop the lease and generate royal ties and employment for the State.

"You can interpret this as a direct win for big business," Mr McMahon said yesterday.

"This is not a plaint, we pegged vacant ground and Rio went to the Minister and said 'see that little company over there, knock them off in the public interest'."

Reflecting the sensitivities of the issue, Mr Bowler ducked for cover last night and refused to comment beyond a half-page statement that said it was "in the public interest" for the Cazaly's application to be terminated and Shovelanna to be handed back to Rio.

Rio Tinto iron ore chief Sam Walsh said in a statement the decision was welcomed and the company always intended to renew the tenement.


----------



## pussycat2005 (22 April 2006)

laurie said:
			
		

> The worst part is this area may never get mined is that in the Publics Interest!!   :swear:
> cheers laurie




My guess is that Nathan is now worried that rio will expediate exploration at their expense! 

Also take note of what Nathan said in a media article!

"Basically it's a public interest decision ... it's got nothing to
do with the balance sheet of one company versus the other."


As to the arguments about a 50 50 punt - that came out of Carpenters deceitful mouth back late last year. Prior to this comment - Everyone who bought shares in CAZ believed it was going to be a 100 to 1 positive outcome for CAZ! based on the laws and principles of the mining act. Carpenters comment gave rise to confusion and all the speculation we have seen to date.

Rio's defense and submission should have been  made transparent and laid out for investors to make an informed decision right from the start, but did you notice they always remained tight lipped and never offered any comments when questioned by the media.

The real criminals are the politicians

and their decision needs to be scrutinised

along with any kickbacks they might be receiving from RIO

Also another bone of contention is that whenever CAZ's sp would peak to $2.00 last year Carpenter would come out and warn people about speculating!

Did he warn people about speculating in Rio shares! 

Anyway I am so passionate about this issue! 

I don't know why just am I made some good money from CAZ and it will be sad to see so many lose!


----------



## ace42 (22 April 2006)

Hey everybody, read this:

Rio Tinto Iron Ore chief executive Sam Walsh welcomed the decision, saying the company had always intended to renew the Shovelana tenement lease. 

"Investors in the resource industry need confidence and security that long-term decisions can be made in a stable and certain policy and administrative environment," Mr Walsh said. 

Well thanks a lot from all of us who invested in Cazaly and did so after making proper consideration of the matter!

Investment in mining is a risky business at the best of times. I am sure that all of us carried out due diligence before deciding to put money into CAZ. This diligence included an examination of the mining act and the inaction of RIO and the actions of CAZ.

Bowler and his government have handed down a decision which has turned the WA Mining Act on its head. Obligations upon RIO to satisfy the requirements involved in holding and retaining the tenement have not been met (we all know the details) yet the minister has overturned a tenement holding which has satisfied all legal obligations.


I for one will be standing by CAZ (I have not lost a fortune) on a matter of principle. I am looking forward to the company applying pressure upon the government to justify in action. The public's interest is bound with the need for certainty in the application of mining laws. It is certainly not vested in a process which does not provide for, as RIO has put it,  "Investors in the resource industry need confidence and security that long-term decisions can be made in a stable and certain policy and administrative environment      



Now it is up to the government to come out (not run away) and state the reasons why they decided that it was in the public interest to act in the way they did.


----------



## tarnor (22 April 2006)

public interest demands a public explanation its simply not good enough to give a decision to the public with no reasoning when its intended for thier best interest..   I hope some of the liberals get hold of this if they do thier homework they would be able to at least bring some light to it.. What annoys me the most is at a surface glance one can say yeah that sounds fair they had intent... but if you take the time to look at the past precedents,  the spirit, principles and most of all the legalities of the mining act - it reeks so bad..

THiers one thing that always occcurs with these kind of fall in love with a stock stories and its confirmation bias... You only see what validates your position.. One thing that I put into the back of my mine was somewhere (i think in february) they developed a new type of holding claim .. i vaguely remember this being posted and it was to do with long term holding for strategic purposes... it twigged me then as possibly an opening being setup to validate a RIO decision .. can't remember the full details but it was a little sus at the time.. 

I honestly thought the best of carpenter thinking he was just concerned for caz holders when he hadn't got all the information yet.. BUt it clearly looks like the decision was made  along time ago and wouldn't be changed despite the submissions.. The whole process seems to of been just a running through of the motions..  It sucks that this is left all up to one man with no transperency what so ever..  shamtastic  

i'm sure there's another exciting chapter in the caz story to come...  i hope they work the media hard.


----------



## Strw23 (22 April 2006)

tarnor said:
			
		

> but if you take the time to look at the past precedents,  the spirit, principles and most of all the legalities of the mining act...




You forgot to add "THE VIBE"  

I am not happy with the outcome but surely people had to know this was always a possability and have some kind of exit strategy. To think that CAZ had this in the bag was a mistake. In CAZ and in general there should always be a plan to cover all possabilities. It will be very interesting to see what happens to the share price on Monday. If it dives big time would this make it attractive to people incase of a possable appeal? Now I dont know anything about options but could you have bought some kind of option to sell the shares at eg $2.00 if the decision was not favourable to hedge your bet?

Scott


----------



## trader (22 April 2006)

They are stuffed , share price will hit 11 cents monday and then will settle
at 30 cents, good buying opp.


----------



## $unny (23 April 2006)

ok i mite put 1000$ on it once the share is at its lowest point around 11-15cents, but caz had it coming for them. small company big ambitions, BIG COMPETITI0N. 

but i dont understand the market you see, before all this stuff with rio tinto, was the share really worth around 2.00? seriously, even with all the outcomes and good announcements? because i would have thought the stock would have been worth around 70-88cents. 

lets see what options/suggestions we can come up with about buying before monday morning 10.00am!!!!!!!


----------



## $unny (23 April 2006)

I HOPE THE PEOPLE WHO BOUGHT CAZ ARE GONNA COUNT THE PROFITS ON MONDAY MORNING.......................................SORRY I MEAN THE LOSES

I THINK THE SHARE IS GONNA B WORTH


----------



## markrmau (23 April 2006)

Please read the following so you can make an informed choice on monday.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/wa/consol_act/ma197881/s111a.html


----------



## chansw (23 April 2006)

markrmau said:
			
		

> Please read the following so you can make an informed choice on monday.
> 
> http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/wa/consol_act/ma197881/s111a.html



a very good link, markrmau.   I hope everyone be very cautious before they put their money in CAZ on Monday.


----------



## lillith (23 April 2006)

Hi there, long time observer, first time contributor. In relation to CAZ, I too hold a portion of shares, and am not looking forward to monday trading! However from a more optimistic perspective, CAZ could utilise the attention derived from this unfortunate outcome to focus on their other mineral exploration..particually the flavour of the month...Uranium.
Given their current holding(s) in both the NT and WA, they would be wise to focus attention and commitment to these options. The market is quick to reward companies that seem to be on the Uranium search vessel, and little has been said or done in relation to their current Uranium research. I would suggest people focus on their Jan 06 Research paper, highlighting some good potential. Sure state govs has long since responded negatively to a resurgence of Uranium mining...however given the sway, and world wide demand, sooner or later, those companies that have exploration within these areas will reap the benifits.
In short....sure CAZ is going to get a probable hammering t'morrow...but focus on its other commitments, and coupled with careful publicity and commitment from CAZ and it may not actually be that bad. After all, so many people failed to respond ( with share movement) when it released its news on its Uranium exploration potentional...that perhaps only judicious investors have taken note ( behind the RIO hype) that CAZs share price should also factor this above mentioned point. 
At the end of the day, sure CAZ isn't valued at $2.20...but highlight Uranium potential, and wait and see......


----------



## BraceFace (23 April 2006)

pussycat2005 said:
			
		

> As to the arguments about a 50 50 punt - that came out of Carpenters deceitful mouth back late last year. Prior to this comment - Everyone who bought shares in CAZ believed it was going to be a 100 to 1 positive outcome for CAZ! based on the laws and principles of the mining act. Carpenters comment gave rise to confusion and all the speculation we have seen to date.
> 
> The real criminals are the politicians
> 
> ...




Now now, Pussy, no need for such vitriol.
Carpenter (from what I have heard him say on numerous occassions since January) was non-committed when questioned about this issue in the past (see my post #9 on this thread from February). He doesn't make the decision anyway(or other politicians for that matter) - the State Solicitors office that do. They are meant to be impartial. Although I guess you would probably argue that there is some sort of scandal involving them as well.

Of course the Premier would caution people about speculating on CAZ, as would anyone with half a brain. This was a HIGHLY speculative play at best and anyone following the issue knew it.
If you put your money on CAZ (as I assume you did) and now stand to take a big hit on Monday, that's unfortunate, but really it's the old story - if something sounds too good to be true, it probably is. You can't blame anyone else except yourself for the (potential) loss, regardless of the merits of the decision handed down.

I feel for the people who saw this as get-rich-quick scheme, but they should be looking at the bigger picture and not be blinded by ramping and hype that often apprears on these forums.

Personally, I couldn't care less who gets the mining lease over this piece of dirt , RIO or CAZ. 
Can you point it out on a map?

There's gonna be some carnage on Monday..........


----------



## pussycat2005 (23 April 2006)

BraceFace said:
			
		

> Now now, Pussy, no need for such vitriol.
> Carpenter (from what I have heard him say on numerous occassions since January) was non-committed when questioned about this issue in the past (see my post #9 on this thread from February). He doesn't make the decision anyway(or other politicians for that matter) - the State Solicitors office that do. They are meant to be impartial. Although I guess you would probably argue that there is some sort of scandal involving them as well.
> 
> Of course the Premier would caution people about speculating on CAZ, as would anyone with half a brain. This was a HIGHLY speculative play at best and anyone following the issue knew it.
> ...




What part don't you understand!  Prior to Carpenters public 50 50 slur those who INVESTED IN CAZ saw it as 100/1  and not in Rio's FAVOUR! 

The merits of the case are simple
RIO were negligent
CAZ pegged vacant land

I am happy with the returns i made following caz up from 60 to 2.00 

Fortunately I couldn't stomach the underhanded methods the CARpenter/Bowler camp were applying so I bailed, They are crooked and bent.

This decision confirms it!

Shifty announcement late Friday evening!

No explanation as to why the govt decided to terminate caz's application

no comment from Bowler

and you call that a fair outcome

lol give me a break! 

IMho


----------



## 123enen (23 April 2006)

Taken from an article in minesite mag.
---------------------------------------
"despite what the cheer squad said, Rio Tinto had a case; it had paid for the renewal of Shovelanna, even if the paperwork was in a truck somewhere up the Great Northern Highway. Not only did Rio Tinto pay via a cheque lodged with the WA Mines Department office in Perth, but the Department’s web site even acknowledged that the payment was specifically for Shovelanna. Even the most simple minded speculator should have been able to work out that an exchange of money is a pretty definite expression of intent, even if the dog ate the paperwork, or someone left it in a van".
-------------------------------------------
Pretty clear cut to me.
If WA Mines dept. believed that physical receipt of the paperwork was mandatory they would have held the cheque until the paperwork was received.


----------



## $unny (23 April 2006)

true that, good point


----------



## Strw23 (23 April 2006)

pussycat2005 said:
			
		

> What part don't you understand!  Prior to Carpenters public 50 50 slur those who INVESTED IN CAZ saw it as 100/1  and not in Rio's FAVOUR!
> 
> The merits of the case are simple
> RIO were negligent
> CAZ pegged vacant land




Who cares what the investors thought. They dont make the decisions, they dont often know all the facts, and they dont know all the relevant laws and regulations. Did you read the mining legislation posted by markrmau?



			
				MINING ACT 1978 - SECT 111A said:
			
		

> (d) a person who in relation to the land was formerly the lessee of a mining lease the term of which has expired, or is a person deriving title through such a former lessee, has subsequently made a late renewal application and the Minister, being satisfied that the requirements of that expired mining lease and of this Act in relation to that lease had been substantially observed (other than as to the timing of an application for renewal) and that the person has continued to observe those requirements as if the term of the lease had not expired, determines that the renewal application should be approved and grants that renewal.




I dont think you are being impartial and you need to step back and look at this from all sides. From what I have read Rio paid well in advance and sent the paperwork off a couple of weeks in advance. They were assured that it would be delivered early and it wasnt. As far as they probably knew it was in. As far as the premiers 50/50 comment that is his duty of care to say that. Do you have any proof that there are underhanded methods going on or just baseless accusations. If you dont like the outcome have your say at the ballot box next election.

Scott


----------



## trader (23 April 2006)

123enen said:
			
		

> Taken from an article in minesite mag.
> ---------------------------------------
> "despite what the cheer squad said, Rio Tinto had a case; it had paid for the renewal of Shovelanna, even if the paperwork was in a truck somewhere up the Great Northern Highway. Not only did Rio Tinto pay via a cheque lodged with the WA Mines Department office in Perth, but the Department’s web site even acknowledged that the payment was specifically for Shovelanna. Even the most simple minded speculator should have been able to work out that an exchange of money is a pretty definite expression of intent, even if the dog ate the paperwork, or someone left it in a van".
> -------------------------------------------
> ...



100 % agree if you pay the money you have the intent , so if you brought the
shares at $2.00 you will have lost about 85 % off your money so learn from
this buy only into companies with real value or just put your money on the
horses.


----------



## pussycat2005 (23 April 2006)

Strw23 said:
			
		

> I dont think you are being impartial and you need to step back and look at this from all sides. From what I have read Rio paid well in advance and sent the paperwork off a couple of weeks in advance. They were assured that it would be delivered early and it wasnt. As far as they probably knew it was in. As far as the premiers 50/50 comment that is his duty of care to say that. Do you have any proof that there are underhanded methods going on or just baseless accusations. If you dont like the outcome have your say at the ballot box next election.
> 
> Scott





Scott only a court of law could lift the lid of what went on behind closed doors.

And I hope the facts of this scandalous saga become transparent.

Rio's failure to renew their lease didn't happen once it happened twice. 

And their irresponsibility will cost them dearly - if justice is to prevail!

so I hope in the end CAZ get their day in court!


----------



## tarnor (23 April 2006)

Hi as i posted else where heres a bit of the summary of what the problem is...

briefly..

Money refunded to RIO... no paperwork no lease(the paperwork is the crucial element)... .. CAZ application now first in line... RIO's paperwork now arrives after CAZ paperwork.. under legal process shovelanna legally cazalies.. 

RIO apeals under s111a to have cazaly lease terminated on grounds of public interest..

So basically you now have to determine would the lease be of best interest to the public in cazalies hands or RIO's

RIO's Intent shouldn't come into the arguement it a very very small public interest attempt at best centering on sypathy compared to whats up for grabs here...

Principles of mining act 
Use it or lose it policy.. companies can be stripped of resources if they don't meet expentiture.. Much negativity around locking up valueable resources for the state and how this would be cleaned up..

RIO only met obligatory expenditure on the lease 5 out of 11 times if i recall.. they have done nothing on the lease for something like 16 years??? and hold it for strategic value as it is very far from thier infastructure.. its main value is its adjacent to BHP orebody 18 thier main rival..

public interest would say that we shouldnt have our resources locked up.. that it is most practical to have it mined by caz and tied in with bhp.. producing revenues for the state

caz demonstrated ability to bring the resource into production

________________

Precedents

In past similar situations and decisions compaines have been told condolences for the loss but something as important as a a tennent renewal should be watched closely 

"Failure of a mining application to be received by Registrar when sent in time must not be looked at when deciding whether a competing application has been filed" 

The only one recalled example where it was returned to the previous holder involved the midnight pegging of a lease where the mining pit was being dug.. many people and thier families would of been adversly effected etc.. The public interest loop hole was brought into protect this sort of situation i presume..

Totally different to the RIO's exploration lease which they did SFA on..

why give it to a big multinational when you can keep something in an australia company which will provide revenue for the state and at least minutely erode the controlling power of two giants in the industry

shovelanna was nothing to rio wouldnt have even effected thier share price.. but cazaly and holders(gamblers ? :/) who put thier faith in the government will be slaughtered

_____________________________________________

RIO have doen this on a few occasions as far as couriers being late.. why should they be untouchable.. Even so intent is irrelevant here it means jack all..  its the company respnsibility to get thier stuff in on time.. Something so important should be delivered early, watched carefully or done in person..

 the general consensus was thier was no arguement for caz to answer 2..  bothing no public interest arguement.. thiers a sympathy for RIO arguement? but that just doesn't cut it.. 


it was trading at such a high price cause cazaly was odds on as far as the law went.. was big money in this.. many in the know are completely shocked its a total seperate set of rules for the big company for something that they wont even use.. and effects them little.. spineless 

THe thing that upsets me the most is the genral public don't understand they'll never get beyond a few newspaper articles which bearly scratch the surface..

Please consider this you may see a lot of people whinging alot and you'll think thier sore losers..  And you migth take the chance to make yourself feel superior by saying they were idiots etc but don't forget this case its a telling saga - the law means little when it comes to powerful multinationals even in australia..I'm really glad to see pussy posting he made a killing out of caz and traded it better then some. he has no vested interest in being appalled..


----------



## pussycat2005 (23 April 2006)

And I found this on HC which clearly sums up  the issue at hand!

The  rio submission was on the basis of public interest not whether caz's lease was invalid!

The caz lease has been terminated...thus for it to be terminated it had to be accepted in the first place.

get with it guys the real argument is whether the public interest is served by giving it to rio...given that caz had will, resources (both financial & technical) to develop the deposit for the first time in 20 years that the deposit had any chance of being developed

lastly the mining act is strictly adhered to (till this point) on a first in basis

if bowler was so convinced of his reason why has  he not explained it!


----------



## pussycat2005 (23 April 2006)

"Mining company wants explanation
By Jane Hammond
23-04-2006
From: AAP

THE head of mining minnow Cazaly Resources, Nathan McMahon has
called on West Australian Resources Minister John Bowler to explain
why his company has been stripped of a lucrative mining tenement.

Mr McMahon said he had been offered no explanation as to why
Cazaly's application for the tenement had been terminated in the
name of public interest.
"This fight is not over yet, not by a long shot," Mr McMahon said.

Mr Bowler announced late on Friday that he would strip Cazaly of the
valuable Pilbara iron ore tenement enabling Rio Tinto to reclaim the
ground.

Mr Bowler said at the time that he had carefully examined the case
and was satisfied that the public interest was best served by
terminating Cazaly's application to explore the Shovelanna deposit
in the Pilbara.

The move handed the resource back to mining giant Rio Tinto which
had forgotten to renew its permit for the mining tenement last
August, enabling Cazaly to peg the claim.

Mr Bowler was not available for comment today.

Mr McMahon is seeking legal advice on the issue and is demanding an
explanation as to how the decision best serves the public interest.

"In all my experience in the mining industry I have never heard of a
case where a person has got their tenement terminated or refused by
the minister in the public interest where that party has done
everything right," Mr McMahon said.

"There are more than just the handful of major mining companies that
make this state go on. This is a huge win for big business, it is
awful for everyone else."

Mr McMahon said the decision was a throwback to the dark days of WA
Inc.

"This decision is unexplained. The minister must explain this
decision to the public.

"I would like John Bowler to go to the front bar of the Exchange
Hotel in his electorate of Kalgoorlie and explain his decision to
all those people who make a living off small mining companies."

Mr McMahon said the mining industry was in shock over the decision
and he was receiving support from many different sectors of the
industry and associated businesses."


----------



## Strw23 (23 April 2006)

tarnor said:
			
		

> public interest would say that we shouldnt have our resources locked up.. that it is most practical to have it mined by caz and tied in with bhp.. producing revenues for the state
> 
> caz demonstrated ability to bring the resource into production




I dont claim to be an expert so I am just throwing this up there. But what if not deveoping this site is in the public interest. Developing this could cause an oversupply and hence effect prices negatively and possibly causing other mine closures or lay offs. Would it be a better idea to develop this mine some time in the future when supply is slowing down. I have personally worked away at mines my whole life and know what its like when mines close down because its not cost effective to remove the product until prices rise. Just a thought.

Scott


----------



## tarnor (23 April 2006)

Yep your spot on and i'm glad to see someone is actually thinking.. this could be the case but with the ironore demand at the moment and set to rise i think what we have now is the perfect time to mine it and capitalise on the high prices.. Particually when the adjacent orebody 18 is being prepared and both resources could effectively be mined as the one project (which was mentioned in LOI/BHP)

RIO being a company with many projects is not reliant on shovelanna alone but can bring them online in a timely manner... But in this case its miles away from thier infastructure it may never be mined by them and possibly would be swapped with bhp or who knows.. its of strategic value..  

from this angle i think its clearly in the publics interest to have cazaly develop it..

to use this logic you could say that it was in the public interest that we stripped every company of thier tennents and had one develop it.. RIO isn't here to protect us its the politicains who give the 'okay; to the development of new resources shovelanna is still at the exploration stage.. caz were about to launch into a serious drilling campaign and find the extent of whats thier .. what have RIO done for the tennent in how many years?


----------



## tarnor (24 April 2006)

Liberals wade into Cazaly claim row

CATIE LOW


State Opposition Leader Paul Omodei joined Cazaly Resources yesterday in demanding Resources Minister John Bowler disclose the reasons behind his controversial decision to hand back the disputed Shovelanna iron ore deposit to mining giant Rio Tinto.

With Cazaly shares expected to be savaged today, Mr Omodei said the Government had taken far too long to make a ruling and it needed to explain why returning the Pilbara resource to Rio Tinto was in the public interest. "There are a lot of people in the community that aren't happy about that decision but I want to know why, on what grounds has John Bowler made that decision," Mr Omodei said.

With Cazaly and the WA Government apparently on a collision course for legal action, the State's junior explorers have decried the decision, claiming it will do serious damage to the State's exploration sector.

Mr Bowler maintained his silence on the issue yesterday.

Cazaly pegged the Shovelanna deposit, near Newman, in August after Rio Tinto failed to meet the deadline to renew its lease. Rio lobbied the State Government to have the lease returned, arguing it would not be in the public's interest to hand it to a small company lacking the financial or technical clout to develop it.

Cazaly secured a funding deal with merchant bank Investec, confirmed a resource of more than 200 million tonnes and struck a deal to supply up to five million tonnes of ore annually to BHP Billiton, which is already mining the adjoining Orebody 18 deposit.

Cazaly's share price rocketed from 30 ¢ to a high of $2.30 last month. It closed at $2.12 on Friday.

A number of parties are already understood to have offered financial support to fund any legal action by Cazaly but managing director Nathan McMahon said it was too early to be talking about a fighting fund or whether BHP Billiton would play a role.

"Right now what we have is a three-line comment from the Government that doesn't talk about anything," Mr McMahon said. "This has got the smell of big business about it and the WA public should be able to get a reason."

Fellow iron ore junior Atlas Gold said it was difficult to see how Cazaly's plan to develop Shovelanna in partnership with BHP Billiton was not in the best interests of the State. Managing director David Flanagan said one of the key issues was the timing of the development of the Shovelanna deposit, which Rio Tinto had left virtually untouched for two decades.

"If it's going to be done in the best interests of the State it needs to be done in the current commodity boom," Mr Flanagan said.

Association of Mining and Exploration Companies chief executive Justin Walawski said the Government's decision had the capacity to undermine investment in mineral exploration in WA.

But former Portman boss George Jones said he had expected the Government would find in Rio's favour, particularly as it had paid for the lease and sent off its renewal.


----------



## ace42 (24 April 2006)

For those who have sympathy with RIO and there incompetence it would be useful to read this. 

http://www.freehills.com.au/publications/publications_1595.asp

THE USE IT OR LOSE IT PRINCIPLE


As I have said before I am sticking with CAZ and I hope that they take legal action and succeed with it


----------



## yogi-in-oz (24 April 2006)

Hi folks,

..... and for those traders, who may be looking 
for a bounce in CAZ, here's some info that
may help.

Now that the results are out against CAZ, it
will be interesting to see how far it falls and
WHEN traders will start buying back into CAZ.

Here's our take on the sentiment ahead and
some key dates to watch for news/moves,
in this stock:

24042006 ... minor

2804-01052006 ... minor and positive news?

09052006 ... negative spotlight on CAZ

15-16052006 ... 2 cycles here and negative
news expected

19-22052006 ... minor & positive - finances?

29052006 ... significant & positive news?

09062006 ... positive spotlight on CAZ

14-15062006 ... 2 cycles, negative finances?

04072006 ... significant, negative cycle

10-11072006 ... major & positive finances ?
2 cycles here.

26072006 ... minor

03082007 ... minor ... finances?

11082006 ... negative spotlight on CAZ

20-22082006 ... major and negative news?

28082006 ... major & negative finances?

01-11092006 ... 3 very significant, negative
cycles in play here.

21092006 ... minor

25092006 ... minor and positive news?

... and that STRONG negative cycle should
re-appear from 29092006-to-03102006, as well.

happy days

  yogi


----------



## ace42 (24 April 2006)

Strw23 said:
			
		

> I dont claim to be an expert so I am just throwing this up there. But what if not deveoping this site is in the public interest. Developing this could cause an oversupply and hence effect prices negatively and possibly causing other mine closures or lay offs. Would it be a better idea to develop this mine some time in the future when supply is slowing down. I have personally worked away at mines my whole life and know what its like when mines close down because its not cost effective to remove the product until prices rise. Just a thought.
> 
> Scott




Scott if this is the reason why the government decided in favour of RIO, then it would be guilty of market manipulation and the ACCC would be on to them.


----------



## MalteseBull (24 April 2006)

OUCH is all i can say for investors in CAZ!


----------



## powerkoala (24 April 2006)

Wow, nice rebound...
too fast cant follow up the bulls.....


----------



## jet-r (24 April 2006)

Damn! should've bought some at opening...

what do u think will happen tomorrow?


----------



## pussycat2005 (24 April 2006)

A case of a negative turning into a positive

buy buy buy!


----------



## powerkoala (24 April 2006)

so scared to follow this bull
can go up or down either way very fast....
jeez... now i look like a chicken.... :


----------



## markrmau (24 April 2006)

I'm a bit confused here. The link I refered to earlier stated:

"The Minister may....refuse an application for a mining tenement......a person who in relation to the land was formerly the lessee .... has subsequently made a late renewal application and the Minister,

*** being satisfied that the requirements of that expired mining lease and of this Act in relation to that lease had been substantially observed ***

(other than as to the timing of an application for renewal) and that the person has continued to observe those requirements as if the term of the lease had not expired, determines that the renewal application should be approved and grants that renewal."

The minister was doing exactly what was required from the mining act.

Rightly or wrongly, the fact that RIO doesn't intend to mine it is irrelevant. RIO showed that their action in relation to renewing the lease had been substantially observed - they paid for the renewal and gave the documents to a courier a week before the cutoff.

Public interest is a furphy. Please consult a licensed physician before trading CAZ.


----------



## pussycat2005 (24 April 2006)

markrmau said:
			
		

> I'm a bit confused here. The link I refered to earlier stated:
> 
> "The Minister may....refuse an application for a mining tenement......a person who in relation to the land was formerly the lessee .... has subsequently made a late renewal application and the Minister,
> 
> ...




Am I the only one that can't seem to find a paragraph about late renewals. 

Is this a 2006 Ammendment


----------



## markrmau (24 April 2006)

pussycat2005 said:
			
		

> Am I the only one that can't seem to find a paragraph about late renewals.



http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/wa/consol_act/ma197881/s111a.html

111A - (1) - d.

Note, I have NFI what 111A - (2) means.


----------



## pussycat2005 (24 April 2006)

markrmau said:
			
		

> http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/wa/consol_act/ma197881/s111a.html
> 
> 111A - (1) - d.
> 
> Note, I have NFI what 111A - (2) means.




Thanks markmau

ok so its stating the minister can grant a renewal if the former lessee forgot to extend! but  see this can't stand because the application was already granted to CAZ  before their late application came in.  

d) a person who in relation to the land was formerly the lessee of a mining lease the term of which has expired, or is a person deriving title through such a former lessee, has subsequently made a late renewal application and the Minister, being satisfied that the requirements of that expired mining lease and of this Act in relation to that lease had been substantially observed (other than as to the timing of an application for renewal) and that the person has continued to observe those requirements as if the term of the lease had not expired, determines that the renewal application should be approved and grants that renewal. 

Secondly we can't really come to any conclusions because the Minister hasn't really declared any "reasonable grounds" that made him terminate CAZ's EL, so you can't really speculate about cheques and  the dog ate the paperwork etc

So everyone is still holding their breaths


----------



## pussycat2005 (24 April 2006)

sorry about my limited understanding of the law!


----------



## tarnor (24 April 2006)

hmm?

heres one precedent

Decision Number
Vol 03 Folio 5 Date Delivered
13 May 1987 Court & Warden
Kalgoorlie - D. J. Reynolds 
Tenement Numbers
M26/122 Section Reg No.
Sec. 105A Parties
Jo-Ann Horbury & Western Mining Corp Limited 
Summary / Findings
Failure of a mining application to be received by Registrar when sent in time must not be looked at when deciding whether a competing application has been filed. 

In relation to Western Mining Corporation perhaps some general comments at the outset would be appropriate in this case. First of all Western mining Corporationis without question is a major produce and explorer. The contribution by Western Mining Corporation to the economy in this state and in particular the Goldfields is very significant.
   From my experience as a Warden. Western mining Corporation is very professional. its presentation of material put before me in my capacity as warden is usually both competent and comprehensive.  Any reasonable person would hold some sympathy for Western mining Corporation in this instance.  If an application is posted to the Mining Registrar that in my view having regard to the importance of an application for renewal, perhaps it would be prudent that the mining registrar be telphoned several days before the expiry day to confirm whether or not the application for renewal has been recieved, and if not then the applicant should cause an application to be delivered to the Mining registrar.  Now it may be that such instances are rare but in my view a good system assumes some failures may occur and procedures should be put in place to remedy any such failures. This sort of application is a particularly important one and in my view some system could be justified to contact the mining registrar several days before the expiry date just to confirm whether or not the letter has been recieved.



__________________________________


Cazaly to challenge lease stripping move

Monday Apr 24 18:03 AEST
Battered mining junior Cazaly Resources Ltd plans to take its fight for control of the Shovelanna iron ore deposit to the West Australian Supreme Court.

Shares in Cazaly plummeted on Monday on the back of the WA government's decision to strip the miner of a lease in the Pilbara in state's north west.

Cazaly had snapped up the lease in September last year when its previous holder, mining giant Rio Tinto Ltd accidentally let it lapse.A red-faced Rio Tinto then applied for the state government to deny Cazaly's application on the basis that it was in the public interest that it do so.

West Australian Resources Minister John Bowler announced on Friday night, after the market had closed, that Cazaly was to be stripped of the lease.
The market reaction on Monday was brutal with Cazaly closing $1.455 or 68.63 per cent lower at 66.5 cents.

On Friday night the company had a market capitalisation of more than $100 million, by the close of trade Monday that had been cut to $34 million.
Cazaly managing director Nathan McMahon said it had been a tough day, but the company was determined to keep fighting.

"It's an awful day," he said.
"It's awful for shareholders, for everybody except big business."
Cazaly has retained Queens Counsel Malcolm McCusker and Gadens Lawyers to represent it in its Supreme Court challenge of the government's decision.
The company is also lodging freedom of information applications for access to documents submitted to the minister by lawyers, the Department of Industry and Resources and Rio Tinto.

Mr McMahon called for Mr Bowler to explain the reasons for his decision and said it was farcical that the public knew nothing about a decision made in the public interest.
WA opposition leader Paul Omodei backed the company's call for an explanation from the government.
"John Bowler owes Cazaly shareholders more than a short statement saying his decision was in the public interest," Mr Omodei said.
"Cazaly pegged the deposit in August and Labor has sat on its hands for more than eight months."
A spokesman for Mr Bowler said it was "inappropriate" for the minister to comment because the matter was before the courts with Cazaly asking for a judicial review of the decision.
Rio Tinto welcomed the decision on Friday, but had no comment on the developments.

 ©AAP 2006

_________________________



"A spokesman for Mr Bowler said it was "inappropriate" for the minister to comment because the matter was before the courts with Cazaly asking for a judicial review of the decision."

I find this absolutely disgraceful ..

The details have now been effectively silenced..  wonder what all that serious buying was today .. has the minister provided an avenue for RIO to get out of this cheaply giving them time to buy out caz?  

I'm guessing the courier stuff  up is possibly 2/3 bs 2 :/


----------



## markrmau (24 April 2006)

pussycat2005 said:
			
		

> ok so its stating the minister can grant a renewal if the former lessee forgot to extend! but  see this can't stand because the application was already granted to CAZ  before their late application came in.




I was very surprised to see this too. I am only posting this so that people might be able to make an informed choice. I have no financial interest (caz or rio).


----------



## tarnor (24 April 2006)

i'm stumped 2 markmau but it really mustn't apply it seems to be pretty well known that you don't get second chances..

old article..


> Cazaly pegs Rio out to dry
> Robin Bromby
> November 26, 2005
> 
> ...


----------



## pussycat2005 (24 April 2006)

well its a bit difficult to make an informed decision when decisions are passed  with no explanation.  It also doesn't look good for the WA Govt if Bowler isn't returning calls or justifying his decision. In the short term and this is only my opinion it really will depend upon whose side the media and the public support. If the media starts a campaign to undermine the Govt's decision  people may perceive as CAZ to be a bargain at this present level. Once again the market dictates.  But thanks it was an interesting read all the same.


----------



## markrmau (24 April 2006)

tarnor said:
			
		

> Rio's paperwork and cheque, meanwhile, was apparently not moved promptly by a courier company and arrived two days later




That too is an interesting angle. RIO executives behind the scenes ask a courier company to accept partial blame? Smooth the whole thing over as an administritive oversight?

[I am not suggesting that a courier company would have an interest in keeping a global mining company on side. hehe.]


----------



## pussycat2005 (24 April 2006)

tarnor said:
			
		

> "A spokesman for Mr Bowler said it was "inappropriate" for the minister to comment because the matter was before the courts with Cazaly asking for a judicial review of the decision."
> 
> I find this absolutely disgraceful ..
> 
> ...



Hi Tarnor

I just read this and am beside myself, what a fricken nerve! 
Totally unbelievable, i am so furious. 

So 8 months  the idiots have been sitting on their bottoms twiddling their thumbs and they still can't disclose a reason for their decision. This is criminal. They have purposely economically sabotaged CAZ's ability to get on with their business, robbed the shareholders blind and are now adding further fuel to fire in such a contemptuous way. So much for impartiality...


----------



## tarnor (24 April 2006)

Well they've let it lapse before because of the courier.. even this year they were caught out making the same mistake on other leases which looked sus..

I wonder if the courier would admit thier fault in court would we get the full story(sham?)?  Mind you its really irrelevant whether its the couriers fault or not.

Can't help but feel bowlers brought RIO some time here to take out CAZ and avoid the court battle.. i mean is this feasible???  cause thats seriously f#@ked if so .. there was a ridiculous amount of buying today.. i expected more of a blood bath .. probably losing the plot..  but something very dirty has just happened i feel.


----------



## pussycat2005 (25 April 2006)

Tarnor we will see what happens tomorrow 
If the buying continues I'll be happy   

This is panning out to be one major head playing chess game


----------



## tarnor (25 April 2006)

To be honest i was handling it a bit better yesterday .. 

yesterday I accepted this as my own fault for taking a risk in the last 9 months i turned a 2k parcel into 60k all momentum day trading / ta and hype anticipation  CAZ is my first investment in this time and i got severly hammered for it.. I had done my research and i was wrong and i had accepted the lesson and ready to move on but now i'm starting to get the same feeling you get when you come home and some bastards smashed your window and stole your TV.. will come back tho and have learnt alot!  but yep furious i demand an explanation I want to know how i got it wrong


----------



## pussycat2005 (25 April 2006)

Don't blame yourself! and don't believe the stupid reports that anyone who invested in CAZ was gambling. There are many who did their research and relied on the principles and laws in the mining act to be upheld.  Why wouldn't anyone want to invest in CAZ. It landed dirt worth billions and embarrassed one of the biggest mining co's in the world. It managed to form an alliance with BHP and ECH Bhp would allow CAZ to use  their infrastructure to transport iron ore, and more .. now that rarely if ever happens, just look at FMG it has to spend billions in constructing its own infrastructure.


----------



## tarnor (25 April 2006)

yeah ill get over it.. just threw me cause it compeletely wasted my time holding when i could of been taking runs on other things..  it sh!ts because its not traders that got burnt with this its investors .. everyone knew it was coming the faithfull were holding thier shiz tight.. poor bastards check this article out

_________________________
Down there Cazaly - hit by mine loss
Email Print Normal font Large font By Jamie Freed
April 25, 2006

Advertisement
AdvertisementCAZALY Resources shares tumbled as much as 80 per cent yesterday as investors around the nation expressed outrage over the West Australian Government's decision to hand back the Shovelanna iron ore deposit to Rio Tinto.

By far the biggest complaint was that the WA Resources Minister, John Bowler, has refused to explain why it was in the "public interest" for Rio to regain control of Shovelanna.

Rio accidentally let the lease on the tenement lapse last year due to a late courier delivery and it was swiftly picked up by Cazaly.

Cazaly lined up funding from Investec and an offtake agreement from BHP Billiton and planned to develop Shovelanna within three years, giving the state government $17 million a year in royalties. Its shares had rocketed from 29c to $2.12 since September.

Rio had not drilled a hole on the deposit in 20 years and is unlikely to mine it for at least another 10 because it lies 100 kilometres from the company's nearest infrastructure.

But, after Cazaly pegged the deposit, Rio filed a rare protest to the WA Government arguing it was in the public interest for it to keep the deposit.

The David versus Goliath story had captivated the mining industry and investors from around the country.

Several callers to Liam Bartlett's radio show on Perth's 6PR defended Cazaly yesterday and implied the minister's decision harkened back to the days of the WA Inc scandal. None defended Rio Tinto.

"The law is the law, and this smells strongly of people with money being able to override the rights of the individual," said a caller named Chris.

In February WA premier Alan Carpenter said he had discussed the issue with Rio chief executive Leigh Clifford during a "courtesy call" to the miner's London office in December.

In contrast, Cazaly joint managing director Clive Jones said his company never had any face-to-face meetings with Mr Carpenter or Mr Bowler.

"We basically made our submissions as requested," he said. "What Rio said behind closed doors, we'll never find out about. But I'm sure it was all above board."

Mining heirs Gina Rinehart and Michael Wright each owned part of the Shovelanna deposit in a joint venture with Rio but let the big miner take the lead in pursuing the "public interest".

Mr Wright was understandably pleased by Mr Bowler's decision.

"It was the right decision," he said. "Rio put a hell of a lot into it."

But Jason Marocchi, a spokesman for WA Liberals leader Paul Omedei, called on Mr Bowler to explain his decision.

"He's been hiding," Mr Marocchi said. "He put out a statement late Friday and we haven't heard from him since. We weren't privy to what the arguments were on both sides but we certainly think the Government has an obligation to investors in Cazaly and to the market as to why the decision was made."

For shareholders who took a punt on Cazaly, there may be little recourse unless the decision is successfully appealed. A WA Supreme Court challenge is planned.

Investor Jim Nastovski said he lost $200,000 when the share price plummeted yesterday. "I had faith in the legal system and that after all the corruption scandals happening, I thought this time the Government would have had no choice but to go strictly by the letter of the law," he said.

Cazaly shares closed down $1.455 at 65.5c after hitting 41c yesterday. Shares in Echelon, which had 14 per cent of Shovelanna, fell 51c to 44c.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/business...it-by-mine-loss/2006/04/24/1145861284904.html


----------



## Buda (25 April 2006)

with something like the caz story you couldnt have a stop loss... unless you have deep pockets... stick to stocks where you can apply stop loss by the way how the f**K you turned 2k to 60K


----------



## pussycat2005 (25 April 2006)

I am so glad they brought this shifty business up!  

In February WA premier Alan Carpenter said he had discussed the issue with Rio chief executive Leigh Clifford during a "courtesy call" to the miner's London office in December.

In contrast, Cazaly joint managing director Clive Jones said his company never had any face-to-face meetings with Mr Carpenter or Mr Bowler.

"We basically made our submissions as requested," he said. "What Rio said behind closed doors, we'll never find out about. But I'm sure it was all above board."

and I hope people keep hounding the press and ringing talk back programs...

enough is enough


----------



## tarnor (25 April 2006)

just kept working what i had to where ever the action was... often big all ins, little diversifying... once i cracked the 15k mark i had something decent to trade with... forces you to not tolerate losses for very long and be ready to bail quick and get on the next thing.. little bit of luck early on with bta also.. qualifying for a share purchase plan of 5000k of shares with a 3k trading parcel which i increased in the time i had to pay for the SPP.. then sent off the cheque for the shares.. sold that and i was over 10k.. then lots of varies stuff from thier.. i honestly couldn't do it again lot of luck early.. had come back a bit trading UNX on the way down poorly and dodging up caz but peaked at around 60k then got hammered in the caz decision.. It was a risk not worth taking in hindsight but i had a target of 80k to setup with cfds and would have diversified majorly and gone more controlled ..   i've got reserves tied up helping a desperate family member so im not out of the game forever but would have been nice to come from nothing.. still got money left tho!! theres always something else just ready to announce tommorow    sometimes theres a fine line between making and breaking it i was so close to selling caz in high 2's and buying unx 30k+ of unx at 30c on a strong feeling but we've all got those stories.. you eventually get caught out 

but yep your definitely right risk reward in hind sight was plain stupid was obvious the massacre potential but i was backing a fair system..not gunna whinge about it forever tho.. buy and hold sucks unless its in an uptrend 


Miners up with Cazaly
From:  By Kevin Andrusiak
April 25, 2006  
JUNIOR explorer Cazaly Resources claims it has financial support from the West Australian mining industry for a legal challenge to Friday's decision by the West Australian Government to strip it of the lucrative Shovelanna iron ore deposit.

Investors wiped nearly 70 per cent from Cazaly's market value yesterday - turning over more than 120 per cent of its issued paper - and sent shares in its partner Echelon Resources down by more than half in a savage reaction to the decision, released after the market closed on Friday. 
The Government has since refused to comment on its decision, leaving market watchers and mining industry insiders speculating about the reason for handing the lease back to Pilbara heavyweight Rio Tinto. 

State Resources Minister John Bowler maintained his silence over the matter before the legal challenge was launched. Government advisers said it was Mr Bowler's decision not to expand on the "public interest" grounds given for his decision. 

Rio had argued it lost the deposit, which it has not worked for nearly two decades, only because a courier failed to deliver the reapplication for the tenement lease in August last year. 

Cazaly managing director Nathan McMahon yesterday stepped up his attack on the Government, saying Mr Bowler did not have the "guts" to explain the decision to the public. "This is a Government which prides itself on transparency and as we have seen there is no transparency when big business is involved," Mr McMahon said. "The board feels deeply that this is worth fighting for. 


Advertisement:
"We are adequately funded and have had a huge response, including financially, from the WA mining industry in response to this decision." 
Despite Cazaly's market capitalisation falling to $34 million from well over $100 million yesterday, Mr McMahon said the company was "adequately funded" to mount the legal challenge. "The funding will not diminish shareholder value," he said. 

Cazaly has called upon the services of top West Australian Queens Counsel Malcom McCusker to spearhead the challenge and has also lodged Freedom of Information applications for all legal advice from the State Solicitors Office to Mr Bowler and the state's Department of Industry and Resources. It has also written to Mr Bowler asking for a "full written explanation" of the reasons for his decision. 

Nearly 65 million Cazaly shares swapped hands yesterday, well over the 51 million on issue, as day traders played havoc with the share price. After beginning the day at 45.5c, down from Friday's close of $2.12, the share price found some market support to close at 66.5 cents. 

Australian Shareholder Association chairman Stephen Matthews said the Government's failure to explain publicly had undermined its decision. "These kinds of things can come back to bite the Government if they do not act promptly and with transparency," Mr Matthews said. 

The decision has also raised concerns in Mr Bowler's home town of Kalgoorlie-Boulder, with mining insiders saying privately it would be hard for him to hold his head up in the mining city. 

Amalgamated Prospectors and Leaseholders Association secretary Scott Wilson said supporting a bigger player in the mining industry over a smaller player set a dangerous precedent. 

"We were of the impression that if you follow the Mining Act you will be protected by law."


----------



## pussycat2005 (25 April 2006)

i think you will like this 
Bowler bats for Rio but refuses to reveal why
OPINION
Matthew Stevens 
April 25, 2006
LET'S be blunt. If the West Australian Government's decision to punt Cazaly Resources's claim on Shovelanna looks loopy and unfair, that's because it is.
Resources Minister John Bowler cited public interest in returning the disputed iron ore deposit to its accident-prone but influential owner, Rio Tinto. 

But just what that public interest might be is known only to the minister. And it is likely to stay that way with Bowler's people yesterday saying "at this stage" there are no plans to publish the reasons for "terminating Cazaly's application to explore the Shovelana (sic) prospect". 

This is then the public interest test that the public has no right to know about. One thing you can be sure about though is that the final decision was very much Bowler's. It is understood that a departmental review of the collection of Cazaly's and Rio's submissions on Shovelanna was handed to the minister without a recommendation on what action he should take. 

Let's recall what the Shovelanna fuss is all about. Rio's Australian antecedent, CRA, acquired title over exploration licence 46/678 in 1981 with the Han**** family as a joint venture partner. It has been more than 15 years since prospecting revealed a large, relatively high-grade but, at least at that time, technically difficult iron ore deposit. The discovery was put on CRA's production schedule shelf where it has remained ever since. 

On July 28 last year, Rio Iron Ore's tenement management team sent its annual rental cheque for EL46/678 to the Marble Bar mining registrar. It was due for payment on August 26. Rio then sent the formal paperwork for the licence renewal, due on the same date, by overnight courier on August 19. That dispatch never arrived. 

Three days later, EL46/678 was pegged by Nathan McMahon - a professional tenement manager for 15 years and now the founding chief executive of Cazaly Resources. Within 12 weeks, McMahon had formed a joint venture with Echelon Resources to develop Shovelanna, secured Anglo-South African investment bank Investec to finance the proposal and lined up BHP in a mine-gate production off-take agreement which would have resulted in the Global Australian taking a minimum 5 million tonnes a year from Shovelanna. 

Cazaly stood to make about $85 million a year for paying a contract miner to deliver ore to BHP, which is mining at Ore Body 18, just over the hill from Shovelanna. Given government approvals, all was looking sweet. 

That the midnight peggers appeared to do everything by the book is reinforced by the fact that, with no other avenue for challenge open to it, Rio turned to the minister claiming public interest. Which seemed a bit rich given that the find had remained fallow since its discovery and evaluation and that Rio had so patently stuffed up. 

Rio's case rested on three pillars: it always intended to renew the licence; the rental payment was sent and accepted ahead of the due date; and good resource citizens such as Rio rely on solid resource security to maintain big-ticket investment. 

Fine points, three. The most important legally was that Rio's bill was paid and accepted. But the minister was not being asked to make a decision on the legality of Cazaly's claim, only whether the national interest was being served by the process the junior miner had pursued.

And really, the idea that Shovelanna was of some crucial strategic importance to Rio seems slightly over-cooked. It is hard to see how the loss of a geographically stranded deposit was likely to result in Rio reshaping its Pilbara investment profile. 

Shovelanna's distance from any supporting Rio infrastructure would appear to be why the company has no plan, short of long-term, to transform the discovery into a mine. 

The minister's decision has left Cazaly understandably livid; some of its newer shareholders painfully out of the money (the stock hit a peak of $2.38 earlier this year); BHP puzzled and open to criticism for fuelling speculative enthusiasm; and Western Australia's community of junior miners more than a little stunned. 

The market properly thumped Cazaly yesterday, hacking $85 million, or 75 per cent, from its market capitalisation. Joint venture partner Echelon was hit just about as hard. 

BHP has no public regrets about its involvement with Cazaly even though the mine-gate deal provided fuel to Cazaly's and Echelon's rocketing share prices. 

Remember, though, BHP is currently fighting a rearguard action to defend the integrity of its rail system from trains driven by other companies. Considerable momentum for that challenge comes from a theory that the Pilbara is run by a duopoly. 

The Cazaly mine-gate model sets a shape for negotiations with new Pilbara producers and suggests BHP is prepared to fulfil its obligations under state mining agreements, which require toll carriage for third party freight. As well, it reinforces that BHP is prepared to act against the interests of Rio. 

But what now for Cazaly? Not surprisingly, McMahon is bitterly reviewing legal options. But the West Australian Mining Act actually makes it quite difficult to overturn a ministerial decree on national interest. 

How the minister might define that interest is not, for example, an issue open for appeal. Cazaly can go to the Supreme Court but only for a review of the process of the minister's review. 

And, should the court find fault, the matter would only be returned to the minister to restart the review process. At best, Cazaly would only be back where it started. Which is pretty much where its share price ended yesterday.


----------



## tarnor (25 April 2006)

Awesome finally a newspaper article that actually knows wtf it is talking about!!  why didnt we get that a few months ago.. hope they're crucified for this decision..

thanks for posting that hehe


----------



## pussycat2005 (25 April 2006)

no probs hope you can sleep better....  :  ok thats enough caz for a week... unless we have new developments


----------



## BraceFace (25 April 2006)

markrmau said:
			
		

> Public interest is a furphy. Please consult a licensed physician before trading CAZ.




I agree 100%.
I am a member of the public.
I fail to see how it is in my interest, or my family's, that Cazaly be awarded this tenement over Rio or vice versa. 
Now if I were a shareholder of Cazaly, that would be another story altogether........


----------



## tarnor (25 April 2006)

i don't follow,,

As an australian the natural resources of australia collectively belong to the australian public which you are apart of.. As a citizen you democratically elect a political party whose responsibility is to be a caretaker of those precious resources..

The care takers enforce a mining act to ensure stability and equity amongst varies contenders who would seek to profit financially from the use of our resources...  erratic and incosistent decisions put risk concerns into investers investing in companies chzrged with utilising our resources.. Sort of helpos to be conistent and fair  

From thier we could decide whether we want to flog off all our land to big multinationalset or we want to protect australian companies and keeping more of the profits from our resources onshore etc

we migth have principles like "use it or lose it" where we don't particually want a company locking up a resource when it could best serve all australians by being with a more suitable party..

As a member of the public you migth not want certain parties  to be above the law or calling the shots above your democratically elected caretakers...

your right though obviously what constitues 'public interest' is a fairly subjective term but their is a lot to work with as a legal defintion(one of which is transparency of decision making by the way).. In practicality though it seems like a bs clause which gives the minister complete control to make any decision he decides with little accountability and no trasparency. as a memeber of the austrlian public that could concern you whether you held CAZ or not,,,


little look at what public interest might mean

http://www.pco-bcp.gc.ca/smartreg-regint/en/06/01/su-10.html
Assessing the Public Interest in the 21st Century: A Framework

The literature shows five distinctive approaches to understanding the public interest.

Process: The public interest arises from, and is served by, fair, inclusive, and transparent decision-making procedures.

Majority Opinion: The public interest is defined by what a reasonably significant majority of the population thinks about an issue.

Utilitarian: The public interest is a balance or compromise of different interests involved in an issue.

Common Interest: The public interest is a set of pragmatic interests we all have in common such as clean air, water, defence and security, public safety, a strong economy.

Shared Value: The public interest is a set of shared values or normative principles.

Regulatory practice and recent reform efforts touch on five broad, related themes:

Ensuring more flexible and participatory regulatory processes.

Assessing both the costs and benefits of regulation.

Highlighting the growing demand for strong regulation in areas that touch directly on health, safety, and the environment.

Emphasizing the importance of stewardship (particularly in the environmental field) and mutual responsibility of all citizens for good regulatory outcomes.

Taking a balanced approach to regulatory outcomes in terms of the various interests involved, but also in terms of an equilibrium among individual consumer and citizen interests, commercial interests, and broad Canadian social values.


----------



## tarnor (25 April 2006)

Up youre, Cazaly
The political umpire has robbed an upstart WA miner 

GIANT resource company fails to renew lease on iron mine, which is picked up by upstart larrikins who proceed to make a mint: it sounds like the plot of a great Australian film. Except it almost happened in real life. When mining giant Rio Tinto accidentally let their exploration lease over 40sq km of rocky earth in the Pilbara lapse last year, a small concern called Cazaly Resources cut a cheque for $1779 to take over mining rights to the plot – which includes an unexplored iron ore deposit thought to be worth as much as $300 million a year. They got the lease and Cazaly's founders, who named their company after South Melbourne Australian rules legend Roy "Up There" Cazaly, worked fast. They arranged financing with investors and inked an offtake deal with BHP Billiton to allow the upstart company to fully exploit the reserve, known as Shovelanna. Cazaly's stock price jumped from 45c to $2.38. It was a fair mark.

But the dream came crashing down late Friday when West Australian Resources Minister John Bowler, snatched the Shovelanna ball away from Cazaly and handed it back to Rio Tinto – yesterday causing Cazaly's stock price to plummet back down to 66c. The political umpire agreed with an appeal by Rio Tinto under Section 111A of the WA Mines Act. Rio Tinto claimed it had intended to renew the lease and that its previous investment in Shovelanna warranted maintaining its claim – all in the public interest, of course. But don't ask what that is, because, ironically, Mr Bowler refuses to release his reasoning to the public. In any case, Rio Tinto's was a disingenuous argument at best. The company has invested relatively little money into Shovelanna and hasn't drilled there since 1985. It has simply kept the deposit out of others' hands. 

Mr Bowler's decision not only appears grossly unfair, it sets a dangerous precedent in Western Australia. On a practical level, it reinforces the already entrenched duopoly of Rio Tinto and BHP in the Pilbara, sending the message that small players are not welcome in the state and that investors shouldn't bother with them. While Cazaly shareholders might have thought the law was the law, Mr Bowler has cavalierly abrogated their legitimately acquired property rights to the Shovelanna lease, making Western Australia appear frankly Third World. It is not a good look in a state where politicians have come to grief for being to cosy with big business (remember the WA Inc days). Good public policy would have seen Mr Bowler leave it to the private companies to work it out, rather than award an undeserved free kick to the big guy. If Rio Tinto wanted the Shovelanna lease, it could have made Cazaly a commercial offer and paid the price for its sloppy paperwork. Cazaly plans to appeal against the ruling, and with good cause. Whether that appeal will succeed is another question: West Australian law makes it very difficult to overturn a ministerial decision on public interest grounds. And a court win would just send the case back to Mr Bowler's desk.


----------



## Broadside (25 April 2006)

BraceFace said:
			
		

> I agree 100%.
> I am a member of the public.
> I fail to see how it is in my interest, or my family's, that Cazaly be awarded this tenement over Rio or vice versa.
> Now if I were a shareholder of Cazaly, that would be another story altogether........





It is in the public interest to have resources developed, more revenue for govt coffers.  RIO had no intent to develop in the forseeable future, they have had this tenemant since about 1981 and have not drilled a hole for 16 years.

It is also in the public interest that laws be upheld and ministerial discretion be transparent.  I had a 1000 share holding so my loss is immaterial compared to most, but I still think it is an absolute travesty.


----------



## BraceFace (25 April 2006)

Broadside said:
			
		

> It is in the public interest to have resources developed, more revenue for govt coffers.  RIO had no intent to develop in the forseeable future, they have had this tenemant since about 1981 and have not drilled a hole for 16 years.





If it is in the "public interest" to have resources developed so there is more revenue for the country, then please explain to me why it is in the "public interest" not to mine, export and utilize our country's massive Uranium deposits.
Does the pubic interest only extend to resources that are considered safe in the hands of overseas governments with questionable ethics and ideals?

Public interest - what a crock.
Our resource industry is thriving and is driving the WA and national economy as a whole along at an astounding rate. To imply that awarding the tenement to Cazaly would open up this resource and add more $$ to our economy is probably true but the magnitude of this change to our GDP wouldn't even register on the radar. A piss in the ocean if you like.

Theoretically and idealistically, yes maybe you guys are right and perhaps the state could handle their PR a bit better. But when you look at the big picture, who is really going to give a proverbial in a few months when this all blows over? Our economy will continue to power along nicely thank you very much, even if RIO decide to sit on this one for another 16 years.


----------



## 123enen (25 April 2006)

Why do we assume that the public interest argument revolved exclusively around the development and exploitation of the resource.

Perhaps the public interest also revolves around the way in which CAZ pulled the rug out from underneath RIO.

Is the public interest served by upholding a weakness in the renewal process that allowed one company to strip a tenament from another company that intended to renew the licence and made the payment?


----------



## Broadside (25 April 2006)

123enen that is a fair question, it could be argued that public interest is served by not rewarding the opportunistic CAZ.  My view is that the mining laws are clear and RIO knew the law.  You snooze you (should) lose.

Braveface - if you think the state's best interests are served by maintaining a cosy duopoly I guess we agree to disagree.  Developing the resource may be a mere drop in the ocean but it is still in the public interest in terms of royalties for the government and taxation revenue.  I agree in a few months no one will care, but perhaps they should, we do have a right to expect good government who explain their decisions, to remove the possibility or stigma of corruption and uncertainty.


----------



## pussycat2005 (25 April 2006)

123enen said:
			
		

> Why do we assume that the public interest argument revolved exclusively around the development and exploitation of the resource.
> 
> Perhaps the public interest also revolves around the way in which CAZ pulled the rug out from underneath RIO.
> 
> Is the public interest served by upholding a weakness in the renewal process that allowed one company to strip a tenament from another company that intended to renew the licence and made the payment?



The payment was refunded! ended of story!
They also failed to renew the tenement back in 1989 
and there is another tenement they failed to renew on another deposit !


----------



## tarnor (25 April 2006)

fair and equitable administration of the act is in the publics best interest this is an extremely important in a legal sense...   Otherwise you will see costly court cases at the publics expense as well as undermining any security of clear and equitable procedure and process..

PAst precedents as i've mentioned all have the clumsy party who failed to renew missing out(accept for 1 -genuine public interest involved)... read back over the thread..


but if you want to go for a sympathy arguement which is bearly remotely public interest you migth want to conider RIo's failure to learn from their mistakes and wasting our money while we cover thier behinds... 

"
The latest bungle surrounds the L47/13 lease, which forms part of Dampier Salt's big evaporative salt operations near Karratha. According to Department of Industry and Resources records, Rio had been required to renew the licence by August 16. 

Though it paid the required $11.88 fee on July 28, it failed to lodge the necessary documents in time and the licence was declared dead on August 16.

Realising its error, the company applied for a new tenement, L47/162, over the same ground on September 14. Luckily for Rio, the error was not spotted by a rival, as it was at Shovelanna."



RIo are simply above the act and it would appear also that the ministers can't challenge them.. If you want to be fair you now have to go back and reverse previous decision over the last how many years to all adversly effected parties who did not recieve the special priveleges that have just been applied to RIO..  A company thats public interest arguement is so flimbsy from use it or lose it principle that they could of potentially been stripped of the tennement for not meeting expenditure anyway...   grr :/


----------



## Odduna (25 April 2006)

It will be interesting to see what the courts decide in this case.

Only problem with the judicial review is that they will only consider the arguments presented before it.

If it was a merit review by a tribunal, we would find out the whole story.


----------



## pussycat2005 (25 April 2006)

Perhaps the minister acted under duress! Perhaps his decision becomes void! Perhaps BHP comes charging into the arena!  
CAZ has won in the court of public opinion, to DATE
Lets see if they can win in the court of law!

Excellent time for the Liberals in WA to rally behind CAZ  and perhaps  see a liberal victory at the next election. Win Win for the small mining co's and more importantly a win for u mining.

Alan Carpenter is a shifty is as shifty does b**tard! of a premier!

I used to refer to him as a rio licker!

Lets see this saga really unfold  :swear: 

sorry if I'm getting ahead of myself  :


----------



## pussycat2005 (26 April 2006)

Cazaly on it's own, BHP washes their hands. What a horrible blow. 
What now???  

Cazaly on its own: BHP
From: By Andrew Trounson and Kevin Andrusiak
April 26, 2006 


BHP Billiton is to eschew the lure of booming iron ore demand and leave junior miner Cazaly Resources to battle alone against Rio Tinto in its dispute over the Shovelanna iron ore tenement, despite further evidence Rio has no immediate plans to develop the lucrative deposit.

BHP's deal with Cazaly to buy planned production from Shovelanna would have given Cazaly a big slice of some $300 million a year of revenue, but was conditional on the junior being awarded the tenement. Now that Western Australia's resources Minister John Bowler has rejected Cazaly's application in favour of Rio, the deal is set to fall through and has virtually killed off any chance of BHP and Rio slugging it out in court. 
While BHP and Rio are racing each other to expand production to meet rising demand in China and secure market share in the face of competition from Brazil and each other, it appears the rivalry does not extend to BHP taking on Rio and the West Australian Government. 

"It is up to Cazaly to pursue options as they see fit," a BHP Billiton spokeswoman told The Australian yesterday. 

The BHP spokeswoman declined to comment on whether BHP would now make the same offer over Shovelanna to Rio. But it is unlikely Rio would be interested, preferring to hold Shovelanna as a long-term opportunity. 

That means the ground could lie untouched until at least 2025. Industry insiders have told The Australian that Rio did not include the Shovelanna tenement in its July negotiations with the West Australian Government for royalty relief on future iron ore developments over the next two decades. 

The negotiations were held just weeks before Cazaly pounced on Shovelanna - estimated to be worth up to $6 billion - after a courier failed to lodge vital documents from Rio with the West Australian mining registrar. 
If the report from the industry insiders is true, it could mean the ground will lie virtually untouched by Rio for 46 years despite Mr Bowler's proclamation that it was in the "public interest" to hand the ground back to Rio. 

A Rio spokesman couldn't comment yesterday on whether Shovelanna had been included in the negotiations on royalty relief. 

But Cazaly managing director Nathan McMahon, still seething over the state Government's silence since it stripped Cazaly of the ground, said his company could have been adding $17 million a year to government coffers within three years through royalty payments if Shovelanna stayed in Cazaly's portfolio. 

He added that Cazaly had tried to negotiate a deal with Rio after legally pegging the ground in August, but its invitation to pay Rio 150 per cent of all money it had spent on Shovelanna plus a royalty fee on all iron ore mined was rejected. "We knew Rio had a history of being litigious," Mr McMahon said. "To me, being snubbed meant they were going to rely on being part of the big business machinery and go straight to the Government to get relief." 

Rio is believed to have spent about $500,000 on Shovelanna, meaning Cazaly was offering $750,000 for an asset that it expected to generate about $300 million in revenue annually from for 20 years. 

Cazaly's deal with BHP was the key to developing Shovelanna, which lies near BHP's existing iron ore and rail operations. The deal with Cazaly would have resulted in Cazaly handing over its ore at the mine gate, allowing BHP to feed it into it rail network that carries ore to Port Hedland for export. 

The deal would have also solved the problem posed by the high phosphorous levels in Shovelanna ore that are a turn-off for steels mills, since BHP would have blended it with its other ores. 

Cazaly expected to generate a margin of up to $85 million a year on the deal after the cost of mining and initial ore crushing. 

The deal was also dependent on Cazaly proving up a reserve of 100 million tonnes of ore. The current inferred resource amounts to 216 million tonnes.


----------



## tarnor (26 April 2006)

http://www.crikey.com.au/articles/2006/04/26-1551-6360.html




> WA Inc going hard for Rio
> 
> Michael Pascoe
> 
> ...




Hi for anyone who is interested in this make sure to tune in to the 7:30 report tommorow.. They're doing a feature on the RIO/bowler shanadigans..

I sent of a very detailed email  today and someone rang called ros childs? I didn't know who she was at the time and had a bit of a rant lol.. She was interested in talking to holders who had lost a substantial amount. The report will be aired tommorow as far as i can tell.. could be very interesting!

I'm out of caz at 63.5 today a very dissapointing investment a complete waste of time researching and money...will probably be  my last long termer i'm going to stick to the short term stuff and trend trading!  

Still hoping bowler will be washed up on the beach and popped by some kid with a stick  

cheers


----------



## RichKid (26 April 2006)

tarnor said:
			
		

> I'm out of caz at 63.5 today a very dissapointing investment a complete waste of time researching and money...will probably be  my last long termer i'm going to stick to the short term stuff and trend trading!
> 
> 
> Still hoping bowler will be washed up on the beach and popped by some kid with a stick
> ...




Tarnor,

Thanks for the info on the TV prog.

Sorry to hear about the mishap but one thing I've learnt (via losing money in small speccies) is that if the sp hinges on one deal or one well or one report or something very high risk like that then it may be too risky to play longterm, especially in the speccies field. That's why diversified or well backed (asset and cash wise) juniors can go on long runs.  CAZ was always a speccie as we were speculating about an unknown outcome, guess you could say that for most things in shares, coin tossing and all that.

btw, I agree completely about the confirmation bias comments raised earlier, Van Tharp puts it nicely in his book (Trade Your Way to FF...).

The other issue is volatility, if it rises as CAZ has it must be expected to have a very high probability of going down as fast so that's not the type of stock you'd want to hold long term unless you really mean looong term and you can afford to lose all that money. But considering that CAZ may be back to nothing it may be a long wait, as opposed to a co well on it's way to a long production life. Check out some of the stocks that the major brokers are covering, that would give some indication that the co is expected to be around for awhile (hence generating brokerage fees into the future). Those stocks aren't always 'speccies'.

btw, if RIO isn't going to develop the deposit then it's a waste of resources to see a co who could have done it sit idle, certainly not in the public interest imo in that sense. But there are other arguments to consider too like the fact that RIO owned it and had every intention to continue that ownership.


----------



## pussycat2005 (26 April 2006)

If your in Sydney please email Jim BALL and express your questions doubts and disgust at what happened to cazaly.

He was discussing it last night on the midnight to dawn program  on 2GB and he's absolutely livid. I hope we can get Nathan McMahon doing some interviews on Sydney Radio.

Anyway Jim's email is Jimball@optusnet.com.au

I want an answer, everyone does.

ps TARNOR if BHP weren't so tactical with their comments about washing their hands from the whole saga then I'm sure CAZ would have gone up another 10c today. Such is life and the Chess games big business play.


----------



## 123enen (26 April 2006)

pussycat2005 said:
			
		

> If your in Sydney please email Jim BALL and express your questions doubts and disgust at what happened to cazaly.




Can we email Jim and express that the desicion was right and a job well done?


----------



## tarnor (26 April 2006)

i'm sure you can .. but while you're at it you should shoot yourself in the head and improve the gene pool ..

sorry mate but take the time to seriously look at this :/


----------



## 123enen (26 April 2006)

I didn't squander my money on a gamble like Caz - you did.
And you think my gene pool needs eradicating


----------



## pussycat2005 (26 April 2006)

123enen said:
			
		

> I didn't squander my money on a gamble like Caz - you did.
> And you think my gene pool needs eradicating



Alan Carpenter has entered the house!


----------



## 123enen (26 April 2006)

Hello Pussycat,
This is for you


----------



## pussycat2005 (26 April 2006)

Actually can we all play a little game and see what sort of wierd and wonderful concotations we can come up with using those two piccy's I'm sure there must be some photoshop wizards


----------



## pussycat2005 (26 April 2006)

i don't have photoshop but here's an idea for someone to play with!  :


----------



## tarnor (27 April 2006)

HEHE nice..

Don't forget 7:30 report tonight....

also for those still confused about whether intent means anything this courtesy of doughboy HC
__________________________

all those claiming the cheque was enough read this clearly.....a response to my question from Bob Stevens of DoIR

My Question....

Dear Bob

I have been through the compliance flowcharts on the DoIR website but could not find a flowchart to match the following situation and was hoping you could shed some light of how situation could be resolved.

This is a hypothetic situation.

Let's say an exploration company after complying with minimum exploration expenditure but still yet to find commercial reserves is negligent in submitting paperwork for the renewal of the exploration lease on time but the payment of rent is submitted on time.

Is the assumption then that EL is considered lapsed? If so and the exploration company takes the opposing view that the lease was renewed on time, due to payment of rents on time, what avenues of appeal are open to the exploration company to have the lease re-instated?

Also is it possible to peg immediately as a Mining Lease to stop others from pegging and appeal to have the Exploration Lease reinstated if appeal process is availabe and successful.

Looking forward to your response.

His response....

I seem to be a little time poor these days, so my response is, of necessity, quite brief.

Payment of the rent in advance would not of itself keep an exploration licence (not "lease", as you referred to it) alive if the actual document of application for renewal of term was not lodged before close of business on the due day. If this document is not received by my Department before that deadline the licence "automatically" expires at midnight on that day.

The Mining Act 1978 contains no provision under which an "appeal" could be made to have the licence "re-instated" ...ie, it has expired and cannot be restored, even by the Minister. This is different from the case of a licence being forfeited and, subsequently, the former licensee applying to have it restored on grounds that the Minister may consider reasonable.Unlike an expired licence, a forfeited licence can later be "restored" (the word used in the Act).

The former licensee of an expired licence may apply for a mining lease over the ground, but such an application must then be treated like any other application and in the priority in which it was made if it competes with other applications over the same ground. The former licensee cannot apply for a new exploration licence over that ground within a period of three months from the date the former licence expired (known as the "cooling off" period). Such a mining lease application would not "stop others from pegging" the same ground.

As in the Shovelanna case, of which I'm sure you're aware, it is open for a former licensee who was second in time in making their mining lease application (as outlined above) to "appeal" to the Minister to consider terminating (pursuant to section 111A of the Act) any application made earlier in priority over the same ground....the motive being that the termination of that earlier application would then make the former licensee's application next in priority for consideration. 

Regards,
Bob.
___________________


----------



## 123enen (27 April 2006)

I don't think that changes the "intent" argument at all.
The people processing the applications are not allowed to consider "intent" , but when an appeal is made then the minister can consider intent as a reasonable ground


----------



## skymatrix (28 April 2006)

"WA had to treat Rio leniently because …" - Sydney Morning Herald...

http://www.smh.com.au/news/business...ly-because-8230/2006/04/27/1145861487945.html


----------



## Broadside (28 April 2006)

123enen said:
			
		

> I don't think that changes the "intent" argument at all.
> The people processing the applications are not allowed to consider "intent" , but when an appeal is made then the minister can consider intent as a reasonable ground




does RIO's lack of intent to exploit this resource not count for anything 123enen?  Nor have they met their expenditure obligations.  There has been a use it or lose it principle until now, I guess RIO is different.  For public interest reasons.  Public interest would best be served by consistent application of the law regardless of the relative size and financial clout of the parties.

123enen did you see the Crikey post when the warden's court stripped WMC of its lease.  RIO knew the law, intent is not enough.


----------



## Sodapop (28 April 2006)

It `aint the first and it won`t be the last time shareholders get screwed... CAZ shareholders - whether you are philosophical about it or not (which means get so quicktime), get up off the mat and forget about it... Whether through shonky management (GTM - burned me last year... all the while CBA were mysteriously bailing out - hmmmmm - i got an idea why but it`s a secret - can you guess why???), or (what some consider) bad decision-making on a minster`s part - mining investors can lose big time on the flip of a coin...  - i ask you this - as many people who bought in to the feeding frenzy that was CAZ sat on the sidelines for the precise reason that became a reality - as the court case was always going to go one of two ways - it`s done... get over it and focus on stocks that will get back the money lost - thats what i did after GTM - besides - you guys have got nice CGT losses now (i have a beauty from GTM - as soon as the administrators get their ###t together and i can crystallize  )...


----------



## ace42 (28 April 2006)

I am astonished by Bowlers decision and find his explaination(s) unacceptable.
You can do something about this by lodging a letter of complaint to the Premier. See my letter below and make an attempt to ensure that that the decision is overturned and that they never pull this trick again. Bowler's electorate is Kalgoorlie and this will cost him dearly.
                 ----------------------------------------
Letter to Mr. A. Carpenter, Premier WA.

his address: acarpent@mp.wa.gov.au

Dear Sir,

I have read Minister Bowler's statement outlining why he decided to terminate Cazaly's application for the Shovelanna tenement. I find it disturbing. This is a brilliant example of a minister bending in favour of a multi-national company and twisting his brain to get around his obligation to operate within a legal framework so as to remove a legal entitlement.

I made my decision to invest in Cazaly Resources after proper consideration. This consideration included a judgement as to whether Cazaly Resource's application had met the requirements of the WA Mining Act. To my mind Cazaly Resources had met all of the requirements. And Rio Tinto had not. Now, after having made an investment, I am being told that there is more to matter than the law. 

I have never heard of the "Iron Ore Policy". At first glance it seems to be a (secret) anti competitive device aimed at maintaining the duopoly which has existed in iron ore industry in the past. The minister mentions that the policy is to be reviewed. Is this because it may be in conflict with national anti-competition laws?

I am unsure of the prospects of Cazaly's intended legal action. However it is my intention to hold my shares in Cazaly and show support for the company.

I wish Cazaly resources well in their endeavours to overcome the injustice dealt out by the minister, be it through the political or legal process.

My signature.

As I and others have said before. If we want a positive turnaround in this injustice we can get it by putting political pressure on the government. Send a letter of protest.


----------



## TjamesX (28 April 2006)

Just read through this thread..... simply amazing story!!

I'm sorry to hear anyone who lost out on the ministers decision. However - I hope you haven't sold everything yet.... I reckon there's something in this

CAZ was always going to be a gamble - but I reckon those who relied on WA Law to place their bets should feel very cheated. The way I see it is;

a) CAZ were legally awarded the Shovelanna tenements according to the WA mining act, largly due to RIO's incompetence and CAZ's opportunism

b) personally from what I've read through - the fact that RIO paid for the tenements is of no consequence, as the WA mining act had a defined procedure that needed to be followed in order to re-aquire tenements, RIO did not follow this procedure

c) as CAZ released yesterday, partial compliance with the mining act is not FULL compliance

d) there is precendent for tenements to lapse due to big miners being sloppy. It seems that in these cases the tenements were not returned back to original owners

e) a quote from yesterdays release from CAZ that I think is VERY relevant "The question of how Rio Tinto lost the tenement is irrelevant. Under the Mining Act, all that Mr Bowler was required to consider was whether there was any reason in the public interest why Cazaly should not be granted the tenement"


Below is the "public interest" clause that RIO's case entirely relies on;



> 111A . Minister may terminate or summarily refuse certain applications
> 
> (1) The Minister may ””
> 
> ...




It seems to me that CAZ's licence was terminated under (c)(ii). So he has determined that it's in the public interest NOT to award CAZ the mining lease.

Given that this part of the legislation is up to the ministers discretion, he has to determine whats in the public interest. I assume that while taking into consideration whats in the public interest he should not consider how the lease was lost - as in doing this he is saying that its in the publics interest to go against the mining act.

So the issue of public interest is purely saying 'we prefer not to have CAZ develping the lease', and the minister makes this decision ON BEHALF OF THE PUBLIC.

As far as I can see the court of law has not determined CAZ's fate with regards to shovelanna, the minister in his discretion has. The minister has acted on behalf of every resident in WA in this decision.

This part of the mining act is very subjective and if CAZ want to make it one - could become purely a public relations game. The minister has to be made accountable for his decision - every shareholder could make this guy's life uncomfortable if they want to. If you get enough public support from voters in WA, this guy will fold. I really think he hoped that he could make the decision and nothing would come of it. I think he's purely standing on the hope that CAZ won't get enough public support, his 'public interest' reasoning so far seems extremely weak at best.

Good luck to all shareholders... and DON'T GIVE UP. Every resident in WA should be made aware of the ministers decision and how he has made it in 'their interest'.


Cheers TJ

PS I don't hold any interest in RIO, ECH or CAZ - but I am considering my position


----------



## TjamesX (28 April 2006)

For anyone interested the media release relating to the decision can be reached;

Here 

There are three main points that the minister has used to defend his decision;

1) State's Iron Ore Policy



> Among the materials provided to me by the Department of Industry and Resources (DoIR) was the following advice:
> '…Parliament intended that iron is a mineral for which special treatment be accorded under the Act…Parliament wanted the Minister to be in a position to exercise a much broader discretion in relation to iron tenements…this would have the effect of encouraging exploration for iron ore, …and the life of these mining operations can last for decades, and in fact may need to last for decades to make the capital investment economically feasible…there is logical support for a special provision that allows an exploration licence for iron to be held on less onerous terms than licences for other minerals…'
> 
> The policy recognises the need for long-term tenure to underpin long-term contracts. Iron ore mining in the volumes developed in the Pilbara can only be carried out with extensive infrastructure such as rail and ports. In order to invest in such extensive capital infrastructure, companies need the security of long-term contracts, supported by secure tenement holdings.
> ...




Now I'm no mining expert, but to me it seems the intent of this policy was to provide a longer more secure tenure for companies looking for iron ore to compensate for the fact that there is large capital and infrastructure required to make investments worthwhile. Whether you agree with the policy or not he has used it as defence and said regardless of when the policy was formed (and the environment it was formed in) he is stating that it is in the publics interest to follow the policy NOW in today's commodity environment. Years ago it may have been true that large projects were the only ones that could economically get Iron Ore out because of the price of iron ore. Small players in iron ore wouldn't have survived in years past.

Regardless of this, the policy was designed to facilitate Iron Ore development and extraction. RIO had spent a tiny $500k in exploration over 30 years and had no intentions to develop in the near future, Cazaly have a development plan/ financing and MOU's with BHP. So is he blindly following some 'iron ore policy' that was written when?? to imply that Cazaly's development plan wouldn't work - iron ore can only be extracted with huge upfront investment by huge players and so they need security of their assets - even if they neglect to renew their leases under the Mining Act?

He is also drawing out that the Iron ore policy implies there could be lengthy time period from discovery to development. I assume this is to compensate for the large infrastructure investments that need to be built. Surely the policy doesn't imply lengthy delays in development is a must! What would MGX have to say about these implications???

He also states the policy 'in his view' has lead to the Pilbara region being the most significant producers of Iron Ore. "I" would take the view that its because the region has one of the largest economically recoverable Iron Ore deposits in the world...


This will be a fascinating court case if CAZ go through with it....


Is this a coincidence? this was released yesterday as well....

Media Release 

The same day the minister releases his explanation for terminating CAZ's lease, and 6 days after releasing his decision - RIO has made a commitment to developing Hopes Downs Iron Ore project

mmmmmm.....   

TJ


----------



## tarnor (28 April 2006)

Good posts TJ.. 

the magical secret ironore policy sounds like calvin ball to me..  - if you havent read much calvin hobbes comics its a game where you constantly make up imaginary rules as you go along 



http://www.abc.net.au/news/items/200604/1625615.htm?northwestwa



> Mine group questions Govt's Shovelanna claim
> Friday, 28 April 2006. 07:40 (AEDT)Friday, 28 April 2006. 06:40 (ACST)Friday, 28 April 2006. 06:40 (AEST)Friday, 28 April 2006. 07:40 (ACDT)Friday, 28 April 2006. 04:40 (AWST)
> A major mining body his criticised the Western Australian Government's claim that it was in the public interest to strip Cazaly Resources of a valuable Pilbara iron ore tenement in favour of Rio Tinto.
> 
> ...


----------



## tarnor (28 April 2006)

Cazaly claims discrimination in iron ore decision



> Cazaly Resources says it does not accept the reasoning behind the Western Australian Government's decision to award a rich iron ore deposit it had legally pegged to Rio Tinto.
> 
> Cazaly pegged the Shovelanna deposit, in the state's north-west, when the previous lessee, Rio Tinto, failed to renew its lease.
> 
> ...




http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200604/s1626100.htm

___________________________________

How could anyone ever be stripped on the basis of the lose it or use it principle now after that nonsense .. way to bend up the application of the mining act... Can't help but imagine a few parties who've lost out because of use it or lose it would be slightly livid at that reasoning..

No honestly where not locking up land its integral to our long term plans... trust us, we will build a rail all the way out just to mine shovelanna when it becomes feasible .. perhaps sometime when every last piece of ironore has been extracted from everywhere else on earth in the year 3000


----------



## 3 veiws of a secret (28 April 2006)

Actually it would be interesting to see how much money was donated to what party in the last election....oooooh there's a thought!
Personally.... I don't hold CAZ  & /or RIO shares !


----------



## ace42 (30 April 2006)

Demands that the West Australian government overturn the Cazaly ruling are gathering pace. The extraordinary decision by the minister has been given wide media coverage. Without exception the coverage has been critical of the decision. You can hep Cazaly Resources overcome the injustice meted out to it's shareholders by emailing each of the members of the West Australian parliament.

Go to the site below and compile a letter expressing your disapproval. It will only take you a few minutes.

http://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/web...ebpages/Legislative+Council+-+Current+Members


----------



## tarnor (1 May 2006)

crikey.com.au

Rio promises to keep going nowhere on Shovelanna


Michael Pascoe writes:

Now that Rio Tinto has been given back the Shovelanna iron ore deposit, the company's chairman has assured the West Australian's John Phaceas that his company has no particular plans to develop it, or words to that effect. 

Your social studies assignment is to compare and contrast the Queensland Labor Government's treatment of the Aurukun bauxite deposit and the WA Labor Government's treatment of Shovelanna. 

Peter Beattie took the Aurukun deposit away from Alcan in 2004 because nothing had happened there for 30 years. (There's a common “use it or lose it” clause in leases that is uncommonly invoked.) In March, Aluminium Corp of China – Chalco – defeated a field of ten companies for the right to develop a $2.9 billion mine and refinery for the Aurukun resource.

In his rather randomly argued reasoning for taking Shovelanna away from Cazaly, WA's Minister for Rio, Paul Bowler noted:

Rio, via the Rhodes Ridge Joint Venture, held the subject ground for over 30 years under various tenures, most recently under Exploration Licence 46/209. Over this period, Rio's reported expenditure in exploring this ground totalled $587,063.

On the scale of WA mineral exploration, that's pretty much SFA. It wouldn't keep your Land Cruiser in diesel. It works out at less than $20,000 a year to leave a couple of hundred million tonnes of iron ore sitting idle. Over the last 16 years, “Rhodes Ridge JV applied for and was granted partial exemption from (the bulk of) the required annual expenditure in 10 of these years; was granted exemption from the compulsory 50 per cent surrender 'drop off' on two occasions; and the term was extended for one year on 11 occasions”. 

No, they're not into “use it or lose it”. Cazaly's pegging of the ground – Bowler agrees it was legitimate – provided WA with an easy avenue of achieving use, but instead Bowler effectively re-wrote the common understanding of the administration of his state's mining law:

Investment in the resources industry is promoted when explorers can be confident that their ownership of resources they have discovered is not jeopardised, with consequences disproportionate to minor oversights or actions.

In other words, near enough is now good enough when it comes to licence or lease renewals. Noel Crichton-Browne's defence of Bowler's performance on Friday supports that concept. It also overlooks the benefit that was on offer to WA. 

But when has Rio not received pretty much what it wanted from WA governments?


----------



## Strw23 (1 May 2006)

Are we still going on about this? Cant we look at a more important senario of someone being robbed by poor decision making by the people in charge like Sundays AFL game between Freo and the Saints.

Scott


----------



## tarnor (1 May 2006)

Scott..

*It's your choice whether you click on the cazaly thread. you don't have to read it if your concerned you migth see something that resembles a whinge

* Its not a normal loss people are p!ssed because a serious injustice has been done and will continue to follow the cazaly saga regardless of whether they hold or not

* yes this will go on for a long time... judicial reviews, media coverage etc

* I don't currently hold but thier will be some exceptional trading oportunities in the future because of media attention, legal sparring etc.  hence I will post things that are relevant.


----------



## Strw23 (1 May 2006)

Tanor, Sorry if I upset you but my post was meant to be tongue in cheek. I did try puting a smile face at the end but the computer kept freezing.

Scott


----------



## tarnor (1 May 2006)

ahh no worries..


----------



## tarnor (2 May 2006)

Link to some online Video of a segment on cazaly and bowler... 

http://www.abc.net.au/insidebusiness/content/2006/s1626864.htm


Transcript if you can't be bothered downloading
______________________
JOHN BOWLER, WA RESOURCES MINISTER: Better late than never and I'm here today to answer your questions. 

STEPHEN LETTS: On Thursday, six days after he sent Cazaly's share price plummeting, West Australian Resources Minister John Bowler finally put some flesh on his previously skeletal reasoning. Basically the law of the West Australian parliament and its Mining Act can be trumped by statute-free policy. 

JOHN BOWLER: Sure we've got a Mining Act to be adhered to, but at the same time, we have a long-standing iron ore policy that treats iron ore differently to all other minerals. 

CLIVE JONES: What State iron ore policy? It's a mystery to me. The Mining Act has complete jurisdiction over what is happening and the tenement-granting in procedure in Western Australia, not some hidden State iron ore policy. 

JOHN BOWLER: Virtually all of Western Australia is pegged. All the good ground is pegged anyway. Those people who have tenements want some surety that because of some technicality or some minor oversight, they don't lose long-term assets. 

CLIVE JONES: I hope Mr Bowler has a lot of ink because thing needs rewriting. 

________________________


----------



## ace42 (5 May 2006)

Rio gets into the act again. Why should this company's interest overide that of other companies and the law?

The article following pasted from the West Australian Newspaper:

We want more time on WA bauxite: Rio
JOHN PHACEAS

More than a year after Rio Tinto was ordered to open its books on the big Mitchell Plateau bauxite project in the Kimberley to potential rival developers, the State Government is mulling yet another extension of the mining giant's rights to the project.

Rio, which manages the project with a 65 per cent stake, yesterday confirmed it had sought an extension after a deadline for development submissions expired in January.

"We have (sought an extension)," a company spokesman told WestBusiness. "The last deadline was January 31 of this year, and the Government is yet to respond to us about whether there is a new deadline or not."

News of the request comes just two weeks after State Resources Minister John Bowler controversially returned the Shovelanna iron ore project to Rio, despite its failure to renew its tenement on time in August after keeping it in mothballs for two decades. Mr Bowler returned the lease by terminating a rival application from explorer Cazaly Resources, which planned to develop the deposit within three years.

Rio manages the Mitchell Plateau venture, while global alumina giant Alcoa recently boosted its stake to 35 per cent after buying out a 12.5 per cent interest from AngloGold Ashanti.

Mitchell Plateau is WA's biggest bauxite resource outside the Darling Range, and is estimated to contain about 350 million tonnes of bauxite grading 44 per cent alumina.

A State Agreement to develop the deposit was signed in late 1971, but the project has lain idle ever since mostly due to its tough terrain and remote location, 115km south-west of Kalumburu.

It burst back into prominence in early 2004, when little-known aluminium group Aldoga Aluminium began lobbying to have the partners stripped of their leases according to the "use it or lose it" tenet of WA mining laws.

Under pressure, the Government then asked for interested parties to record their interest and gave Rio until April 30 last year to submit a new study on the project. 

When Rio's study said the project was still not viable, the Government ordered it to provide access to all of its data on the project to a select list of prospective developers.

The list included Aldoga, Russian group Rusal, India's Hindalco, China Aluminium Corp (Chalco), and Andrew Forrest's Fortescue Metals Group. Rio was also ordered to allow site visits by any of the interested parties.

Rio's spokesman said he believed only Rusal and Aldoga had opted to visit the site, while Hindalco and Chalco had accessed the data room. 

Rio had formally advised the Government in January that it still believed the project was currently uneconomic but was worth retaining, he said.

Aldoga is now primarily focused on its Weipa bauxite project in Queensland, while Rusal Australia chief Duncan Heditch said last year the group was evaluating more attractive opportunities elsewhere.

A spokeswoman for Premier Alan Carpenter, who remains Minister for State Development, yesterday confirmed the deadline for development submissions, including from Rio, had expired at the end of January.

The Government was "still considering its position" in relation to the future of the project, she said.

However, the Government is thought to be nearing a decision. State Opposition Leader Paul Omodei said he would be watching the Government's handling of Mitchell Plateau closely and that mechanisms were needed to ensure development of the State's resources "in a timely way".


----------



## chansw (10 May 2006)

Cazaly to sell its uranium assets (from SMH)
May 10, 2006

http://www.smh.com.au/news/business/cazaly-to-sell-its-uranium-assets/2006/05/09/1146940549747.html

BELEAGUERED iron ore hopeful Cazaly Resources is to sell off its uranium assets to Southern Cross Uranium, a new company which plans to list.

Southern Cross will initially take up an option to acquire a 35 per cent interest in the uranium projects in Western Australia and the Northern Territory and will then have the right to boost its stake to 80 per cent.

The new company would have to complete at least $1 million worth of expenditure on each of the projects over five years to win its 80 per cent stake.

Southern Cross plans to raise $3 million in an initial public offer and apply for a public listing.

The deal would see Cazaly paid in both cash and 10 million Southern Cross shares, which it then plans to distribute to its shareholders six months after the new company lists.

Cazaly would retain a 20 per cent stake in the uranium projects.

The full details of the deal will not be available until Southern Cross releases its prospectus. This is expected in about a week.

Cazaly had been seeking expressions of interest in its uranium projects as it focused its attention on the potential development of the Shovelanna iron ore deposit in the Pilbara in WA's northwest.

The junior explorer made an application for the tenement after Rio Tinto failed to renew its lease. But Cazaly shares were gutted last month after the WA Government handed the lease back to Rio Tinto, on what it said were public interest grounds.

Cazaly rose 7.5c to 48.5c.


----------



## lbaz9 (11 May 2006)

I'm surprised at the lack of interest in CAZ.  GIR had a big run after they announced U308 and it was consitant up until the float.  Do think CAZ has any legs in it?


----------



## Porper (31 July 2006)

This stock came up on a scan today, has had a big sell off  3 months ago and a huge gap down, and has consolidated since then.Good volume today and 11% increase.

Interesting though is the divergence that has been going on.Seems to me a breakout is possible, also has a good solid base now so a low risk trade.


----------



## Freeballinginawetsuit (31 July 2006)

CAZ hasn't recovered since its AUM like Rio debacle, heaps of punters got burnt.


----------



## dubiousinfo (31 July 2006)

CAZ announced last week that they were seeking judicial review in the WA Supreme Court of the Minister's decision to take the exploration block off them & give it back to RIO.

Punters are speculating on this in the hope they are sucessful.


----------



## ALFguy (1 August 2006)

dubiousinfo said:
			
		

> CAZ announced last week that they were seeking judicial review in the WA Supreme Court of the Minister's decision to take the exploration block off them & give it back to RIO.
> 
> Punters are speculating on this in the hope they are sucessful.




Seems there are a LOT of punters out there following the release of a legal opinion that seems to sway in favour of CAZ.
Very dangerous but the upside could be very lucrative I guess.

Up 60%


----------



## Porper (1 August 2006)

ALFguy said:
			
		

> Seems there are a LOT of punters out there following the release of a legal opinion that seems to sway in favour of CAZ.
> Very dangerous but the upside could be very lucrative I guess.
> 
> Up 60%




Very nice rise today.About time I had a decent winner as well.I think CAZ will be very volatile now, so I shall just keep a very short moving average as a stop and see where we end up.I certainly wouldn't be a buyer now.The low risk entry has been and gone.


----------



## chansw (1 August 2006)

From The Age
Cazaly shares jump after legal opinion
August 1, 2006 - 1:39PM

http://www.theage.com.au/news/Business/Cazaly-shares-jump-after-legal-opinion/2006/08/01/1154198119768.html

Shares in junior explorer Cazaly Resources Ltd soared after one of Western Australia's top legal minds said the state government did not have the authority to grant Rio Tinto Ltd the contested Shovelanna iron ore prospect.

Wayne Martin QC, who has recently become WA chief justice, said that in his opinion state resources minister John Bowler was not authorised under the Mining Act 1978 to award Rio Tinto the WA prospect while arguing it was in public interest.

Cazaly, using its subsidiary Cyril Resources Pty Ltd, applied for the prospect late last August, days after Rio Tinto's exploration licence for Shovelanna had expired.

Mr Bowler awarded the prospect to Rio Tinto in April.

But in Cazaly's submission to Mr Bowler last year, which was tendered before Mr Martin became chief justice, Mr Martin's legal opinion was that under the Mining Act Cazaly had priority over any other application for the prospect.

"In my opinion Cyril (Cazaly) could obtain either declaratory or prerogative relief from the Supreme Court, declaring the purported exercise of the powers to be invalid, or quashing the purported exercise of those powers," Mr Martin wrote.

In his decision Mr Bowler said if Rio Tinto's application had been received on time it would have probably had the licence renewed.

Cazaly's release of its legal documents relating to the issue sent its shares soaring 22.5 cents, or 55 per cent, to 63 cents.

Almost 60 million shares worth $39 million were traded.

Cazaly is preparing to lodge an appeal against Mr Bowler's decision in the Supreme Court of Western Australia within the next two days and hopes to expedite a hearing before Christmas.

Rio Tinto iron ore chief executive Sam Walsh told reporters in Perth he could appear as a witness in any appeal.

"There are lots of aspects that actually haven't been commented on and I'd welcome the opportunity to actually put that on the record if I need to," he said.

"I suspect that Cazaly has actually misread what is the process they are actually appealing ... it's not the broader issue, but it's specifically the process used to guide the minister and the basis on which he made the decision rather than what I think or may not think about the whole thing."

Cazaly managing director Nathan McMahon, who attended an industry presentation by Mr Walsh, said he was looking forward to the appeal.

"If we get Sam on the box that will be a wonderful thing because we'll get to talk about all the discussions they had with the government," Mr McMahon said.

"It will be great fun, we may even be able to sell seats."

Mr Walsh said Rio Tinto would not be releasing the documents it submitted to the resources minister.

Rio Tinto shares were up 39 cents to $74.75 despite a weaker broader market.


----------



## stockmaster (2 August 2006)

There has been so much legal matter going on between RIO and CAZ regarding to the license matter. Why dun RIO js bid for CAZ? Wat is the market cap for CAZ and how much can that license generate?


----------



## chansw (8 August 2006)

http://www.news.com.au/business/story/0,23636,20051132-462,00.html

*Cazaly wants judicial reviews into mining law*
August 08, 2006 12:00am
Article from Herald Sun

CAZALY Resources wants a judicial review of a ministerial decision to deny the junior explorer the right to explore the contested Shovelanna iron ore prospect in Western Australia's north.

Cazaly yesterday said it had lodged an application in the Supreme Court of WA for a review of the government decision that terminated its claim on the prospect.

Cazaly had lodged an exploration licence for the Shovelanna project late last August, after Rio Tinto accidentally let its licence expire. 

But WA resources minister John Bowler granted the prospect to Rio Tinto in April. 

Cazaly's application to the court yesterday, made through its subsidiary Cazaly Iron Pty Ltd, names Mr Bowler and Rio Tinto subsidiary Hammersley Resources among the respondents. 

Cazaly is seeking a ruling setting aside Mr Bowler's decision on the grounds the WA Government's iron ore policy is contrary to state mining legislation and is anti-competitive. The news sent investors piling into Cazaly shares, pushing the stock up by 8.5, or more than 16 per cent, to 60.5. 

Cazaly is alleging that it has uncovered a "secret" state government policy allowing iron ore tenements to be held on less onerous terms and for a greater time because of the long period between discovery and the commencement of mining. 

Cazaly also alleges that government policy considers exploration licences for iron ore tenements on the same terms as holding titles. 

"Cazaly believes that this policy is clearly inconsistent with the Mining Act 1978 (WA) and therefore invalid," said Cazaly managing director Nathan McMahon. 

"It also believes that the policy is anti-competitive in that it allows the traditional iron ore duopoly to retain land and therefore makes it more difficult for new entrants into the iron ore industry." 

The parties will appear in court on Friday for a preliminary hearing. 

Mr Bowler in April refused Cazaly's application to explore the Shovelanna project, using powers given by the state's mining legislation to act in the public interest.


----------



## Casual_Investor (27 August 2006)

G'day fellow investors

Hey fellas.. Im a commerce uni student and have got a presentation due in a week or so where we have to choose a current australian 'ethical' issue in society. Seeing as though I invested in this company and made a quick profit (hehe) and know a but about it, I thought doing one on Cazaly would be a great idea. However I was wondering if anyone could help me out. The task is to:
1) Name all Accounting, Commercial and Ethical issues associated with topic.
2) Talk about the different ethical perspectives that have been put forward by the opposing parties.
3) Identify all Stakeholders involved

So far, with ethical issues ive come up with
- The process of how and why tenemants for mining resources are granted to companies. Should the minister be allowed to terminate a tenemant without giving a valid reason? Should he be allowed to at all?
Commercial Issues
- Is it the Australian resource economy a top priority (in which case the tenement would be given to Cazaly because RIO had no intention to  mine the land) or are making sure the big companies like RIO have plenty of future resources to mine more of a priority.

Itd be great to hear of any more issues and other comments you may have.

Cheers


----------



## NettAssets (27 August 2006)

Casual_Investor said:
			
		

> - The process of how and why tenemants for mining resources are granted to companies. Should the minister be allowed to terminate a tenemant without giving a valid reason? Should he be allowed to at all?



I wonder on your use of "valid reason" here. surely "reason" should suffice as validity is always open to question and will when contested be decided by a court.


----------



## NettAssets (27 August 2006)

Just tried to edit my post and had it chopped off will try to write it again


----------



## Casual_Investor (27 August 2006)

Ive thought of a couple of more things. Feel free to comment.

Commercial Issues
-	How much emphasis should we put on keeping australias mining economy and exploration sector healthy? Its currently an economic boom. The decision by the minister is claimed to do serious damage to the exploration sector. And undermine investment in mineral exploration
-	Should investors some who lost a lot of money be punished by a decision given by the minister that is considered ethically unfair?

Ethical
-	How much power should the government be given in deciding mining leases? Should the government be allowed to make a decision based on its own personal benefit (government had a stake in RIO)
-	What laws are in place to ensure that junior mining companies like Cazaly have a fair go at the Australian Mining Sector? Should the minister be allowed to makea  decision that is anti competitive?

In the governments perspective
-the government paid for RIOs lease an therefore has a personal stake in it.
- RIO needs the land as a backup for a future exploration.
- A small company like CAZ wont be able to mine such a lucrative area. It doesn’t have the experience that RIO has.

Cazalies perspective
- CAZ applied for the lease on time and as per the WA Mining Act
-RIO has no interest in mining the land even if it obtained the lease. Cazaly plans to devlop the land within three years. Will be a benefit to the exploration sector
- The minister has given no explanation as to why it is in the publics best interest for RIO to be awarded the lease


----------



## NettAssets (27 August 2006)

Casual_Investor said:
			
		

> (in which case the tenement would be given to Cazaly because RIO had no intention to mine the land)




I feel like I'm having a go at you here - I guestion your use of a descriptive term in the first instance an now recon you should add one to this "no intention" to maybe "no immediate intention"

If your phrase was correct then they where likely in contravention to the terms of the tenement anyway.

The reason for Cazaly being granted the tenement in the first instance maybe interesting from an ethical and financial perspective. If my understanding is correct Rio's application was only held up a couple of days due to a courier mixup so the ministerial committee had them side by side for a couple of months to come to a correct decision and obtain legal council.
John


----------



## ace42 (27 August 2006)

Here is a poser ( though I am not sure if it fits into your needs): If the minister did not thave the legal jurisdiction to terminate CAZ it's application he has action was illegal. Has he thus created a ground for legal action to be taken against the government by those investors who lost money subsequent to his decision?

ace


----------



## Casual_Investor (27 August 2006)

Thanks for your input John. Im just presenting ideas... I havent thought of them in any great detail and at this stage do not intend them to perfectly make sense or be 100% correct. If you have any other ethical issues that could help me with the assignment that would be great.

Cheers


----------



## NettAssets (27 August 2006)

I think Ace is right 

If the Minister is found to be wrong can the shareholders mount a challenge and is there an ethical issue here - I don't know.


----------



## radio-active man (28 August 2006)

Stuff the legal action to retrieve my profits / losses. I want to see the unlawful pr*ck publically beheaded.

Now that would be justice.


----------



## ace42 (28 August 2006)

I have just received ( you probably would have also if you are a CAZ shareholder) advice within a CAZ -  ASX notice that CAZ is going to appeal on the grounds that RIO has not done a thing with the tenement for years and plans to do nothing in the near future.

Now this raises some troublesome questions to my mind. If CAZ has had sound legal advice to the effect that the minister's action is illegal then why would they be pleading the relative argument, that is that relative to RIO, CAZ's plans will be of greater benefit to the public? This will only throw the decision back to the minister and we know which way he will go.

I am concerned about this.

I will be away from the desk for app 4 weeks so this will be my last posting for awhile. Hopefully things will calrify by the time I get back


regards ace


----------



## toc_bat (14 September 2006)

Hi all

I have just noticed, on the ASX website, that CAZ is trading as or with a cum bonus issue.

I have not been able to find what the record date and the ex bonus dates are with respect to this. I have read a lot of CAZ announcements.

Can anyone help enlighten me?

bye - j

ps i am a very new newbie to the sharemarket


----------



## ace42 (14 September 2006)

Re My previous psoting. News has unfolded and the "twin legal action" and the concern I expressed in my previous posting has been eased through the legal action being put into perspective.

I cannot see anything but a win for CAZ. As they old saying goes "the law is the law" and CAZ's legal action should result in the minister being brought to heel and justice being preserved. The old WA is indeed a funny place (remember WA Inc) but when things are put under the legal microscope (as the Bowler action is about to be) the law will be found not to be an ass after all. Good luck to all of you who held onto CAZ shares on a matter of principle. Surely these shares should go to at least 7 on the announcement that justice has been restored.

regards ace


----------



## toc_bat (14 September 2006)

Ace

Which "News" are you refering to?

I remeber reading in one of the CAZ announcements that they would be very happy if the appeal in the supreme court were to be concluded before christmas. So in my pesimmistic view I read this as the fastest outcome, therefore a slower outcome is most likely after christmas. So some months to go now, either way befroe a judgement is handed down.

Also the wardens hearing business, that is seperate to the supreme court appeal. The wardens hearing is to hold back Rios application whilst the supreme court appeal is to review the ministers decision, I personally dont understand why the wardens hearing is necessary as it all rests on the judicial review of the ministers decision, even if the wardens hearing peals back rios claim, if the judicial review upholds the ministers decision then Rio can claim again.

Anyway Im keen to see the News you write of,

bye and thanks for the optimism, although ive just lost 25% on Cazaly, silly me I bought in at 75c a few days ago, only to see it fall to 62c. Arg.

j


----------



## SevenFX (2 October 2006)

Anyone watchin CAZ, tis up 60pts (11%) b4 market opens with no real good news they're all waiting 4, and no volume by comparison 2 what it used to be...????

Will it pull right back soon after it opens, and trend down...

Any thoughts on where it will go, 2day.

Thanks

EDIT: 9.55am UP by 110pts (20.18%) which I sure it cant maintain...???


----------



## ace42 (2 October 2006)

CAZ   had a good legal outcome on Friday.


----------



## toc_bat (2 October 2006)

hey

i wanna watch caz so i can try to sell, but cant !!!!!!

is ANZs Etrade down???? just isnt responding at all, loading or anything!!!!


bloody hell, aaaargh

cyas


----------



## ALFguy (17 October 2006)

Anyone watching this? up 12% already....possibly some news?


----------



## daaussie (23 October 2006)

CAZ just went up 8.5 cents in 2 mins with 800,000 volume at 11ish this morning. From 58cents to 66.5cents. There were about 30 purchases or trades.


----------



## daaussie (25 October 2006)

has anyone read any legal information about the hearing due to start on 15 november? 
I have and I analysed one QC opinion, and made my opinion on it. 
I am not sure whether I should share it here though 
unless someone asks for it.


----------



## SevenFX (25 October 2006)

daaussie said:
			
		

> has anyone read any legal information about the hearing due to start on 15 november?
> I have and I analysed one QC opinion, and made my opinion on it.
> I am not sure whether I should share it here though
> unless someone asks for it.




Sure, lets hear your (QC's) take on it.


----------



## daaussie (25 October 2006)

ok So I researched and found a legal opinion by a QC on CAZ's standing, analysed it and present my opinion (not a legal opinion) - if you want a legal opinion go see your lawyer) 
Here is the QC's opinion in full.
http://www.cazalyresources.com.au/files/grabdoc.php?type=doc&id=141&cid=44

I read it from beginning to end and checked out the relevant Acts to verify what the QC was saying. The QC's advice was supported and it seems like the arguments have quite a lot of strength for CAZ and that the minster should not have granted RIO the tenement based on late renewal. See below for the reasons for my belief:

CAZ applied for the tenement 3 days after RIO's holding expired. The QC rightly argues (in my opinion) that the minister "may" withdraw CAZ's application with the main consideration being whether there is public interest and if CAZ's application is not in order. Both of these two considerations are satisfied and hence neither are relied upon by RIO's case put forward.

The second and hence statutory interpreted (Act Intrepretation 1984 WA) way of construing s111A of the MIning Act 1978 defines RIO's late renewal as secondary in importance to public interest or CAZ's application not being right. 
Therefore the minister should have not really considered the lesser important late renewal section dealt with by S111A(1) (d) because the former S111A (1)(c) matters of public interest and CAZ's application are met. 
Hence CAZ already has a strong argument which may reverse the minister's decision.

Yet another important factor which wasn't addressed by the QC (as far as I recall) and is secondary to the above, is that s111A(1)(d) allows a minister to grant RIO's late renewal ONLY if requirements of the RIO's mining lease have been met.
This part is a little hard for me to intrepret because i do not have a copy of the lease agreement between the minister and RIO. 

However, I would presume that the important part of this lease agreement is that there is ongoing exploration and money put in to locate, develop and mine the source of minerals, otherwise you have land which is not being developed and this is against the interests of the public because it does not promote growth and prosperity. 
As far as I aware and from what I have read, RIO have not done any exploration in the last few years, hence it may be considered legally that RIO have not met the requirements of the act as far as allowing the minister to allow RIOs late renewal application.

To me this is why RIO has offered to pay CAZ's legal costs if they stop the case.

This is my opinion only, it may be right, it may be wrong, we will see what the judges say on 15 November 2006.


----------



## toc_bat (9 November 2006)

> To me this is why RIO has offered to pay CAZ's legal costs if they stop the case.




daaussie

i do not doubt you at all but could you tell me where you read the bit about rios offer to pay cazs legal costs?

thanks

j


----------



## daaussie (13 November 2006)

ok, so the hearings start this week on 15th Nov.. cant wait for it as I like cazalys chances of being $2.40 again!

i couldnt remember where i had seen the part about Rio, but after some researching on the www.cazalyresources.com.au website, i think I found it:   - u should research it and read it carefully before investing though as its only in my humble opinion...

location: 
http://www.cazalyresources.com.au/files/grabdoc.php?type=doc&id=141&cid=44

See Page 2, the last paragraph of Item 5 (dot point) - as a gesture of goodwill Rio would be prepared to reimburse .. for costs to date in its application for the relevant tenement...


----------



## Beethoven (14 November 2006)

daaussie said:
			
		

> ok, so the hearings start this week on 15th Nov.. cant wait for it as I like cazalys chances of being $2.40 again!
> 
> i couldnt remember where i had seen the part about Rio, but after some researching on the www.cazalyresources.com.au website, i think I found it:   - u should research it and read it carefully before investing though as its only in my humble opinion...
> 
> ...





Hmm its going to be an interesting week.  A flag and pennant is forming and might see some upward action with news this week.


----------



## daaussie (15 November 2006)

Well, today is the first big day. the discovery.   
In my opinion this is when some answers and a picture will form.
Does anyone know where u can find the court hearing summaries?


----------



## toc_bat (15 November 2006)

do a search on google for supreme court of western australia,

the court will not have up to the minute info on the proceedings posted on their website however,

they will post the judgement, although i bet it will take a good many more days to get round to posting the judgement than it will take caz to post an announcement with the asx, caz have been very fast in putting out announcements, proboly the best thing to do is to get a perth guy to attend the hearing and to send an sms asap when the judgement is read out, 

any ideas how long such a discovery will take? a couple of days at least? then a couple more for the judgement to be handed down?


----------



## ts2000 (15 November 2006)

The outcome will be interesting.  I wonder if the discovery matter will have an impact on CAZ price, or will we have to wait for the appeal next year.


----------



## Ken (15 November 2006)

when is the final decision on the court case to be made?

i believe the share price will head further north approaching the decision.

theres not many stocks out there that guarantee a return of 400% or a loss of 50%.

i think $2.40 or 25 cents is the equation put simply...


----------



## toc_bat (16 November 2006)

the final appeal is due mid may 2007 from memory, 

if the discovery case is positive they will certainly shoot up at least 50% as soon as it is announced, have a look at their track record, 

when they announce their intention to challenge the decision they almost double,

the legal opinion is announced they spike up over 100% just on the strength of an opinion alone,

when they announce that the appeal has been lodged with court they spike up again in the order of 50% - nothing else just lodged the appeal the with the court, i ignored this ann cos i thought it was so trivial and obvious, and yet

when they ann that the judge beleives the appeal is valid and sets a hearing date they again go up by 50%

another 50% odd when the mining warden supports their case

so far in all of these ann nothing is yet even close to being seriously established, so if the discovery goes well you can expect same or similar market reaction 

i think so anyway

all my above figures are purely from memory, dont knitpick em, lol


----------



## ts2000 (16 November 2006)

I don't know if CAZ will get a bounce out of this.  I am a bit fond of Cazaly.  You know, the underdog thing.  I have full confidence in the company.  Their hit on the Rio lease shows they are on the ball.  However, since I've owned my shares for months now I've only seen them go sideways.  If the appeal isn't until March 2007 then I think of better places to park my money in the meantime.  Compared to DYL, TRS, STX, and skimming SDL and others (have people seen Qantas lately?)   Unless someone can bolster my sentiment.... ?


----------



## Ken (16 November 2006)

Qantas are on there way to $5 

If oil prices rise though.  Watch everyone jump off the wagon real quick....

Toll transport are another one benefiting at the moment.


----------



## ts2000 (18 November 2006)

Has anyone heard the outcome of the discovery application on Wednesday?


----------



## ts2000 (22 November 2006)

There was an announcement posted by CAZ today.  It looks like the minister and RIO have to represent themselves in court.


----------



## toc_bat (24 November 2006)

im a little confused,

i was under the impression this lates hearing was a discovery mission to get acces to some documents they have so far been denied, confidential documents detailing RIOs and the ministries discussions,

hence i was expecting some sort of announcement along the lines of we got the docs or we didnt,

oh well


----------



## ts2000 (25 November 2006)

That is what i thought.  I wonder if the subpoena's included documents or just people.

The new ASX announcement is exciting about the distribution of shares.


----------



## toc_bat (25 November 2006)

hey ts, 

at the last minute i almost sold my TRO shares to buy CAZ due to that ann, then decided against it, 

so have i made a blunder, will it fly? or will it soar)? or will it rocket? on monday.

j


----------



## ts2000 (25 November 2006)

i have no idea but i have been told that DYL did a similar thing and it sparked its latest breakout.  I haven't researched the truth to this.

I came within inches of selling CAZ last week because of it has been going sideways too long and I've seen other shares rising at 45 degree angles.  I got itchy feet. I actually had put the sell order in but I retracted it because I wasn't keeping with my trading plan (2 year hold.)  Why a 2 year hold? Because it is almost inevitable that CAZ will return to his $2.plus value within this time.  They are strategic and savvy enough to do that and the Shovelanna event is more than enough evidence of this.

I don't have a lot of money invested and I don't have a significant portfolio, in fact I've dumped other shares and rolled most of my investment into CAZ.  So if it dives my wife will never let me buy shares again.  I am bidding on CAZ becoming my startup.  Sure I am missing opportunities now but I think it will be worth it.  I'm not experienced and brave enough to get margin loans and stuff.


----------



## Caliente (25 November 2006)

man - i hope carpenter comes off clean on whatever happens. he's my most favoured WA premier in a while.


----------



## pacer (25 November 2006)

It seems to me that all you here might aswell go to the local casino....not a single trader amongst you all.......go back to hot copper guys.....that's where all the gamblers are.....


----------



## ts2000 (25 November 2006)

Oh there is some wisdom from some unknown.  I also do alright on CDF currency indexes, so does that make me a gambler or a trader in your view?  The recent AUS dollar rise has paid for my next holiday.


----------



## toc_bat (27 November 2006)

ts, how do you make a decent amount on currency fluctuations? i ask cos currencies generaly move in fractions of precentage points so either you need to invest massive amounts or is it leveraged like futures?

yeh i kinda agree CAZ is a gamble at the moment, it is all hinged on the court case, but then again court cases are pretty structured events, a legal expert would no doubt be much less of a gambler here, and i am not a legal expert, i reckon it will become clearer during the case, if the minister and premier both appear in court then this will be a very high profile case that will attract media coverage, i BET that the price will slowly edge up regardless towards the court case and during, the thing to do is go and watch it oneself, maybe even in bring in your lapotop abd trade from the courtroom, ha


----------



## daaussie (27 November 2006)

all investors just got free shares in NRU , 1 for every 5 CAZ shares held, what a sweetner, NRU is currently 35 cents!

i think that during the discovery, which includes both provision of the documentation, and also cross-examination of the ministers etc. 

This should reveal the reasons why RIO was the favorite despite the mining act. CAZ has been kept in the dark when the decision was made by the minister for the reasons why. Presumably someone only keeps a decision secret when they have something to hide.

Therefore on this fact alone, i believe there is a good chance for overturning the minister's decision by the court once if it is discovered that the minister's reasons are eroneous.

Let's not also forget that CAZ has developed some other projeects which are looking good too! Hence its price isnt just determined by this court case.


----------



## chops_a_must (27 November 2006)

toc_bat said:
			
		

> i BET that the price will slowly edge up regardless towards the court case and during, the thing to do is go and watch it oneself, maybe even in bring in your lapotop abd trade from the courtroom, ha



I don't think you are actually allowed to take recording material into court.


----------



## toc_bat (27 November 2006)

ha

i think so too, which is why i added ... ha


----------



## daaussie (11 December 2006)

my punt for eden (EDE) worked out, I hope CAZ does the same 
i hold long term both EDE and CAZ!
go the risky stocks with MASSIVE potential!


----------



## daaussie (12 December 2006)

Well this makes me feel very good!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Directors of CAZ just all bought shares:-

Clive Bruce Jones - 1 million worth
Kent Michael Hunter - 25,000 worth
Nathan Bruce McMahon - 1 million worth

If directors prepared to put their money where their mouth is, and a lot of it, then that's great for CAZ investors, and makes me want to buy more.

Does this mean the CAZ case is good 

risky turns to $$ cmon santa bring us good news


----------



## Devil_Star (12 December 2006)

daaussie said:
			
		

> Well this makes me feel very good!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> Directors of CAZ just all bought shares:-
> 
> ...





Hi, daaussie. I can't find any anns regarding the share acquisitions you mentioned. All that I can find is the one re options (approved at the AGM) issued to directors. Is this the one you mean?


----------



## daaussie (12 December 2006)

Hi, yes sure.

See the announcements dated 11 Decemeber 2006. In particular the one called "Change of Directors Interest Notice x 3"


----------



## Devil_Star (12 December 2006)

daaussie said:
			
		

> Hi, yes sure.
> 
> See the announcements dated 11 Decemeber 2006. In particular the one called "Change of Directors Interest Notice x 3"




Well, the nature of this transaction is just re options granted to directors. They pay nothing for the options, I'm afraid.


----------



## daaussie (12 December 2006)

oh - my bad...


----------



## TjamesX (14 December 2006)

> A RESHUFFLE of the Western Australian cabinet has seen Minister John Bowler hand over his resources portfolio to Francis Logan, who will stay-on as the state's Energy Minister.
> 
> Premier Alan Carpenter was forced to reshape his cabinet after a string of scandals were uncovered by the state's Corruption and Crime Commission.
> 
> ...




Surely this is good for the CAZ cause...... shuffled out of the portfolio before he's found guilty...... I'm in for a few


----------



## toc_bat (3 January 2007)

tjamesx

thx 4 supplying this, caz is still very much in the back of my mind but i must admit to have stopped scanning the media for bits like this, just too busy with struggling in london at the moment, must focus more on this stuff.

ok bye


----------



## powerkoala (17 January 2007)

up today 32% with no news..?
anybody know why?


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (17 January 2007)

If it closed strongly and well above 70c say 75c-80c with buying depth support it would be a breakout 

Something is up $2m worth of shares traded today, 

Could they have had some sort of positive finding for their Iron court battle against RIO?


Haven't been following story so followers if you could enlighten it would be nice


----------



## Snakey (17 January 2007)

YOUNG_TRADER said:
			
		

> If it closed strongly and well above 70c say 75c-80c with buying depth support it would be a breakout
> 
> Something is up $2m worth of shares traded today,
> 
> ...




massive volume here somethings good here ...Shovelina?????


----------



## jtb (17 January 2007)

Snakey said:
			
		

> massive volume here somethings good here ...Shovelina?????



Court dates not til march.......
Rio's eagles surely not going to deal?
Their partners up too............
Was going to buy in @ 57 last week but figured I still had a couple of weeks


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (17 January 2007)

Article, was on the Nine Msn Homepage http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=66843



> *Cazaly at a loss over share price surge*
> Wednesday Jan 17 19:52 AEDT
> Cazaly Resources Ltd, which is battling Rio Tinto Ltd for a prized iron ore tenement, says it is at a loss to explain a 30 per cent gain in its share price.
> 
> ...




I reckon we'll see a retrace tomorrow.


----------



## toc_bat (18 January 2007)

i have been following CAZ relatively closely and have noticed that recently it has become a very thinly traded stock or is that tightly held stock? anyway, in the last few weeks it has had a number of small increases in sp with very few trades, sometimes less than ten, maybe a combination of this and some wealthy player deciding they want a decent chunk prior to the court case chased the price up so dramatically, of course i dunno anything, just my musings


----------



## Snakey (18 January 2007)

YOUNG_TRADER said:
			
		

> Article, was on the Nine Msn Homepage http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=66843
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I lost $30k on this last year and it was only in my porfolio for 4 days!!!
Once bitten twice shy but it would be nice to get some of that back...
think ill let this go through to the keeper 

Is this speculators buying hoping for a win in the courts in march????(gamblers)????


If the odds are 1.2:1 that shovelenna will be returned to caz. and the share price would go back to $2 then the shares should be worth .80?????
(figures given are guesses only)


----------



## Snakey (18 January 2007)

Snakey said:
			
		

> I lost $30k on this last year and it was only in my porfolio for 4 days!!!
> Once bitten twice shy but it would be nice to get some of that back...
> think ill let this go through to the keeper
> 
> ...




Ok im not the best gambler ,...let me put it another way
If there is an 80% chance that caz wins and shares go to two bucks then the shares should be trading at $1.60 does this make sense??
These figures are examples only 

I am not a gambler and I will not buy or hold at this time CAZ my


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (18 January 2007)

YOUNG_TRADER said:
			
		

> I reckon we'll see a retrace tomorrow




I knew it, was all a bunch of hot air! 

It good education to watch these things when they happen though IMO.


----------



## toc_bat (18 January 2007)

pretty good ann just out, they got most of the docs they were after


----------



## Sean K (18 January 2007)

Didn't CAZ, just yesterday, come out with a statement in regard to the speeding ticket saying there was NO NEWS. 

Now, today, they come out with an ann to update proceedings which is price sensitive.......

 

Brilliant.


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (18 January 2007)

kennas said:
			
		

> Didn't CAZ, just yesterday, come out with a statement in regard to the speeding ticket saying there was NO NEWS.
> 
> Now, today, they come out with an ann to update proceedings which is price sensitive.......
> 
> ...




LOL, picture this, ASX calling company to enquire whats going on,

I know nothing I know nothing (in a heavy Russian Mafia type accent)

I am legitimate businessman ( also in a heavy Russian Mafia type accent)


:


----------



## Snakey (18 January 2007)

YOUNG_TRADER said:
			
		

> LOL, picture this, ASX calling company to enquire whats going on,
> 
> I know nothing I know nothing (in a heavy Russian Mafia type accent)
> 
> ...




hasnt helped their price much...there goes the gambling theory


----------



## Bush Trader (19 January 2007)

Up 11%

The solicitors are obviously happy with the RIO documents


----------



## jtb (19 January 2007)

Bush Trader said:
			
		

> Up 11%
> 
> The solicitors are obviously happy with the RIO documents




This would be their neighbours, dentist and milkman wouldn't it?


----------



## Bush Trader (19 January 2007)

jtb said:
			
		

> This would be their neighbours, dentist and milkman wouldn't it?




Very True!  ...and then it perpetuates


----------



## Gurgler (27 February 2007)

Up 11.58% in the first 10 minutes, after weeks of flatlining - low volumes though.

Ann today re East Kalgoolie Project (25% JV with NMI)


----------



## stiger (28 February 2007)

Refer previous post page 1 post no 18 caz thread ''ITS OFFICIAL CAN OF WORMS OPEN <HEADS ABOUT TO ROLL"" I hate to gloat but I told you on 21st April 2006. .cheers


----------



## bigdog (16 March 2007)

CAZ SP -- down by how much today?

Todays papers

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21390622-643,00.html
*Judge rules against Cazaly*
Elizabeth Gosch 
March 16, 2007 

THE Supreme Court has dealt another blow to mining minnow Cazaly Resources in its battle to win ownership of the Shovelanna iron ore resource.
The court has ruled there was no evidence West Australian Premier Alan Carpenter and Rio Tinto boss Leigh Clifford had discussed the lucrative tenement. 

A key plank in Cazaly's legal protest against the West Australian Government's decision to strip Shovelanna from it and hand it back to Rio Tinto was the examination of a December 2005 meeting in London between then resources minister Mr Carpenter and Mr Clifford and a discussion between the pair and incoming resources minister John Bowler. 

Cazaly subpoenaed Mr Carpenter, Mr Clifford, Mr Bowler and Rio Tinto's iron ore head, Sam Walsh, late last year to appear in the Supreme Court but Justice Michael Buss terminated the subpoenas earlier this month. 

Announcing the reasons for his decision, Justice Buss said yesterday that there was no evidence the two had discussed the disputed iron ore tenement at their London meeting. 

Cazaly wanted to quiz the four men over the Government's decision to hand Shovelanna back to Rio Tinto. 

But Justice Buss said he was not satisfied there was any reason to call Mr Carpenter and Mr Clifford to the witness box. 

"It is not appropriate that Mr Carpenter or Mr Clifford be required to give oral evidence, or swear an affidavit, as to any communications or dealings they may have made with Mr Bowler in relation to the relevant matters, and which may have been the source of any knowledge Mr Bowler may have had of those matters," he said. 

"It is Mr Bowler's knowledge, if any, and not the source of his knowledge, that is relevant." 

Mr Bowler, who took over as resources minister when Mr Carpenter became premier in January 2006, has been ordered to file an affidavit on the issue. 

The former minister was sacked last month after the West Australian Corruption and Crime Commission revealed he had leaked confidential cabinet information to lobbyists Julian Grill and Brian Burke. 

Cazaly pounced on Shovelanna in August 2005 when Rio Tinto let its lease on the Pilbara tenement lapse. 

Rio Tinto called on the state Government to intervene and in April, Mr Bowler overturned Cazaly's lease and handed back Shovelanna using a little-known state iron ore policy.


----------



## daaussie (16 April 2007)

ok well today caz surged up 11 cents from 53 to 64 cents with a mountain of shares being bought. so im guessing they were victorious about something..


----------



## Ken (7 May 2007)

Who is placing their bets on the court case....

If it gets approved, the share is going to go bananas..  if it is refused the share price will most likely half but then with other projects a recovery is very possible.


----------



## toc_bat (20 May 2007)

Does anyone live in perth? Attended the case? been to the cazaly office to have a look at the transcript?

i have tried looking for the transcript or any mention of cazaly on the wa supreme court website and come up with zero search results, am i looking at the wrong court? I think they only post their judgments on the site anyway not transcripts of hearings,

ok bye all

ps if the finding is against cazaly, more likely it will be oversold, so if i don't take the punt and buy in before the judgment is out im gonna paper trade the spike down - assuming there is one, gonna try to pick the dead cat bounce, perhaps this is not the place for stream of consciousness, ok bye again


----------



## Impala (22 May 2007)

I'm no lawyer,but here's my pick:

1.  Rio's courier was late with the documents necessary to peg the ground. People are late with tenders all the time and miss out all the time.  That's the way the cookie crumbles, and the principle is well-established in the law of most countries, including Australia.
2.  The WA law refers to "public interest".  Rio hadn't drilled a hole in the area for 20 years.  Conversely, Cazaly immediately commenced technical work and entered into some progressive commercial relationships with some big players (eg Echelon, BHP Billiton), with prospects of the WA government receiving some significant mining royalties. So where's the public interest?
3.  Therefore the Court is likely to hand the ground over to Cazaly.

I have ignored the point that Mr Bowler, the relevant WA Minister, was sacked for inappropriate behaviour.  I am not sure if this included corruption.  However, I guess the Court could conceivably take that into account too.


----------



## Gurgler (4 June 2007)

Why the sudden spike in share price today - up to 0.81 early on?

Anyone have any insight? No announcements past last weeks JV with Carbine.


----------



## toc_bat (8 June 2007)

impala 

youre a better lawyer than me,

any ideas, knowledge, etc on when the judgment is expected?

bye


----------



## Gurgler (16 July 2007)

NML's announcement on Thurs 12 July about the Blair North project (25% CAZ) appears to have been rewarded by a mere 4% rise on 12/7 followed by a 2.3& retrace on Friday. Opened even lower at 0.61 today.

Still not much interest being shown here!


----------



## INORE (27 August 2007)

mmmmm CAZ shovelana decision tomorrow....i dont hold but wish i did as i think CAZ will get the tenement...they are in trading halt at the mo and i think i will try to go for a bit of a ride when/if they re-open on a positive announcement....

anyone care to evaluate what 216ish million tonnes at 61.5ish% with an allmost instant offtake agreement with BHP is worth????


----------



## toc_bat (27 August 2007)

Man the amount of times i have thought this month to get some CAZ, i guess this way will be safer tho if it is good news, i too am thinking 70%/30% in favour of CAZ


----------



## GOSAFAS (28 August 2007)

*Cazaly Resources loses court battle*

Junior explorer Cazaly Resources Ltd has lost its Supreme Court battle to wrest back control of the prized Shovelanna iron ore tenement from resources giant Rio Tinto Ltd.

Three Supreme Court judges rejected Cazaly's appeal to overturn a state decision to terminate the junior's claim to the lucrative iron ore tenement in the Pilbara region of Western Australia.

Cazaly snared Shovelanna in 2005 after Rio Tinto's license over the tenement expired, when a courier failed to deliver renewal documents on time.

Shovelanna has sat in the portfolio of Rio Tinto and its partners - Gina Rinehart's Hancock Prospecting and Michael Wright's Wright Prospecting - since 1981, with little work conducted on the tenement after a 130 million tonne resource was defined early on.

Cazaly quickly arranged financial backing and inked an agreement with BHP Billiton Ltd, which is mining the adjoining Orebody 18 deposit, to process the Shovelanna ore.

However, Rio Tinto appealed to the Western Australia government to invoke its power to refuse certain tenement applications, as allowed under the state's Mining Act, on the grounds of public interest.

The tenement was handed back to Rio Tinto in April 2006 after then WA resources minister John Bowler used his discretion under the act.


----------



## INORE (28 August 2007)

GOSAFAS said:


> *Cazaly Resources loses court battle*
> 
> Junior explorer Cazaly Resources Ltd has lost its Supreme Court battle to wrest back control of the prized Shovelanna iron ore tenement from resources giant Rio Tinto Ltd.
> 
> ...




cheers for that...i heard the same thing from another source....pitty for CAZ...wouldve made a for a happy ending.....will they appeal the appeal...???


----------



## GOSAFAS (28 August 2007)

My opinion - no way. Too costly to go further - ongoing court costs an arm and a leg with no guarantees.

Unfortunately one word for them - GONE!


----------



## toc_bat (29 August 2007)

Well I was wrong yet again, actually I am usually wrong, I read as many legal opinions as I could find and really thought they had a good chance, wonder if RIO will sit on it for another 15 years.

bye all


----------



## prawn_86 (29 August 2007)

I have never been a close follower of CAZ, but from the information I do know, it disgusts me that huge companies can just flex their muscle and make something that was perfectly legal not so.

Yet another example of dollars over justice.


----------



## Broadside (29 August 2007)

toc_bat said:


> Well I was wrong yet again, actually I am usually wrong, I read as many legal opinions as I could find and really thought they had a good chance, wonder if RIO will sit on it for another 15 years.
> 
> bye all




Sorry to hear of this decision, I held last time CAZ got dudded (last year) and it seems the legalities were black and white in favour of CAZ, but nothing is black and white in W.A. when you're fighting Rio Tinto.


----------



## toc_bat (30 August 2007)

hi all

I must admit I know little about Cazaly except its legal battle, turned out i knew bugger all about that too but I am no legal guy at all, but being at 32c this is not much higher than the pre shoveleana price, what do you all think, has CAZ been oversold, could it be worth more on its other projects? When it initally dumped from $2 to 20c odd 60M shares were traded, when the legal opinion was published nother 60M were traded, yesterday 7M, 7M is about the highest for CAZ apart from the other two occassions. It would seem to my novice mind that keeps getting it wrong, that 1. not as many people sold out and 2. more importantly a lot saw 32c mark as good value. I would say that given that just about every owner was aware of the trading halt, that yesterday saw those that wanted to sell out, given that its been a fairly low vol share in general, apart from the huge events associated with the court case, it may not be so long before it makes some decent gains.


----------



## Bush Trader (24 October 2007)

Looks Like CAZ has just become an Iron Ore play without Shovelena.

Significant insider ttrading prior to the close stock up 25% to 45c.

Announcement out after the close.

Change in directors interest notice yesterday

It will be interesting to see if the breakout is maintained.



Cheers



BT


----------



## pilots (21 April 2008)

MalteseBull said:


> There has been alot of hype around CAZ re: it's dispute. The company has alot of takeover potential too (especially from BHP) and is rumored already that CAZ has come out on top of RIO (re:	Shovelanna)
> 
> Does anyone else see CAZ continuing it's debut on the way to 2.40 and above?
> I am considering purschasing more tommorow and would be willing to pay anything for it.
> ...




It looks to me that CAZ is all over now?? the cost of RIOs legal team will wipe CAZ out, CAZ should have known that you don't try to up set the top end of town.


----------



## diliff (21 April 2008)

pilots said:


> It looks to me that CAZ is all over now?? the cost of RIOs legal team will wipe CAZ out, CAZ should have known that you don't try to up set the top end of town.




But is it over? I suppose it is concerning that they haven't traded since. Their website is worryingly devoid of any news. Its almost like they've abandoned it since last week... Any other insights?


----------



## pilots (21 April 2008)

Lets see what they come up with tomorrow after the TH is over. I don't like the look of it at all. Far to many people was burnt last time when it run up on hopes, dreams, and a good ramp team, I can still remember all the legal team's that had this case all wrapped up for CAZ, they could not miss out, no way, but no one could see that it was all ways going to be RIO that would win.


----------



## diliff (22 April 2008)

Well, some might say a 15% drop is pretty bad, but under the circumstances, to be expected. Better than collapsing completely. But I suppose that remains to be seen. At least they're still trading.


----------



## LeeTV (18 June 2008)

On the news of Cazaly Resources(CAZ) and Fortescue Metals Group(FMG) reaching an agreement in relation to the proposed Rhodes Ridge Iron Ore Project their sp has subsequently jumped 80% in morning trade.



> The Rhodes Ridge Project is situated in the Pilbara region of Western Australia, approximately 40km northwest of the Newman township, on the south-eastern edge of the Hamersley Iron Province. The Great Northern Highway passes through the Rhodes Ridge Project. The land the subject of the Rhodes Ridge Project is recognised as containing one of the largest undeveloped iron ore resources in Western Australia.


----------



## nq6 (18 June 2008)

Does Cazaly own the lease a this point in time?  OR do they hope to own it in the future.??

 Happy Investing ,  NQ6


----------



## sleeper88 (18 June 2008)

nq6 said:


> Does Cazaly own the lease a this point in time?  OR do they hope to own it in the future.??
> 
> Happy Investing ,  NQ6




reading the announcment, they dont own it, the RIO JV does, with RIO holding a 50% stake, they're simply "hoping" the rights given to the RIO JV are invalid and therefore allowing them to make an application for the tenaments


----------



## nq6 (18 June 2008)

I have been lead to beleive  for Cazaly to secure ownership , decision will need to be made in  court.................?  There fore  owner ship of tenement MAY be very speculative but not impossible. :  cheers NQ6


----------



## sleeper88 (18 June 2008)

nq6 said:


> I have been lead to beleive  for Cazaly to secure ownership , decision will need to be made in  court.................?  There fore  owner ship of tenement MAY be very speculative but not impossible. :  cheers NQ6




http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,24897,23882540-643,00.html

from what i can tell, ownership of tenementi is:
Rio: 50% 
Hancock: 25%
Wright: 25% 
(ownership of Hancock and Wright has always been disputed, but i believe they settled it with a 50:50 split on their 50% stake)

going by the article, seems like CAZ is trying to take Rio's 50% of Rhodes Ridge..this is imo highly highly speculative, and if i were to hedge my bets, i'd go with FMG as opposed to CAZ since FMG is less materially affect by any adverse decisions made by the courts...i personally dont have much confidence they would succeed.. just my 2c worth, always DYOR


----------



## Datsun Disguise (18 June 2008)

Cazaly are making a habit of trying to pinch the roast from under the noses of those at the dining table - this from the Australian;



> Cazaly is best remembered for pegging the lucrative Shovelanna deposit after Rio Tinto missed the deadline to renew its exploration licence for the deposit in September 2005.
> 
> Despite it having legitimate claims for ownership to the tenement, the West Australian Government stripped Cazaly of Shovelanna about eight months later, when then resources minister John Bowler ruled that it was in the public's interest that the ground be held by Rio Tinto.
> 
> Rio Tinto had paid the fees associated with the licence renewal and blamed a tardy courier for failing to deliver the required documents to an outlying regional office of the WA Department of Industry and Resources on time.




Second paragraph is interesting and I wonder if it will play out the same way this time. ie even though CAZ (&FMG) have a legitimate claim the WA gov will side with te big boys...


----------



## LeeTV (21 June 2008)

It looks like the Cazaly's(CAZ) trading halt on Friday is in regards to its East Kalgoorlie project, a joint venture with Northern Mining Limited(NMI). The fact that NMI is also in a trading halt is surely a sign. The release to the ASX states they have _significant drilling results_. The companies commenced a drilling project on the site on Monday.

Here's hoping they have struck the motherload as I took a punt on CAZ this week :

http://mine4jobs.com.au/default.aspx?MenuID=32&ContentID=80034


----------



## LeeTV (26 September 2009)

*REQUEST FOR TRADING HALT*
Cazaly Resources Limited (ASX Code: CAZ) requests a trading halt over the Companies securities. The trading halt is requested until an announcement is made regarding the Warden’s decision on the hearing conducted in January 2009 on the Rhodes Ridge Iron Ore Project applications.

The Directors are not aware of any reason why a trading halt should not be granted.

Yours faithfully

CAZALY RESOURCES LIMITED

The details of the case can be found here:

Decision Number Date Delivered Court & Warden 
[2009] WAMW 9 Friday, 25 September 2009 GN Calder M - Perth 
Tenement Numbers Section Reg No. Parties 
EXPLORATION LICENCES 47/1791 TO 47/1794  CAZALY IRON PTY LTD and HAMERSLEY RESOURCES LIMITED,HAMERSLEY EXPLORATION PTY LIMITED, HAMERSLEY WA PTY LTD, HOPE DOWNS IRON ORE PTY LTD, WRIGHT PROSPECTING PTY LTD 

http://www.dmp.wa.gov.au/wardens_court/2009_WAMW9.doc


----------



## LeeTV (17 January 2010)

*Cazaly, The 'Forgotten' Iron Ore Junior*
_15/01/2010 3:15:02 PM
By Chris Shaw_
http://money.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=1000191

Much of the media attention junior iron ore play Cazaly Resources has received over the past year or so has been in relation to attempts to gain control of large iron ore deposits from the likes of Rio Tinto ((RIO)), but as broker DJ Carmichael points out, this has meant little attention overall has been paid to the company's Parker Range project in southern Western Australia.

Parker Range is at Marvel Loch, near the Southern Cross project and 100% owned by Cazaly. The company has just released details of a feasibility study into the project that DJ Carmichael suggests stacks up quite well. The expected net present value of the project is $216 million, which DJC notes represents a pre-tax internal rate of return of 78% based on independent price forecasts rather than current spot prices.

Cazaly has indicated upfront capital expenditure costs of around $78 million based on a contractor operated basis, while there would also be a deferred capex payment of $26 million in the third year. Such expenditure would see the project producing four million tonnes per year of ultra-low phosphorous content ore at a projected operating cost of $45 per tonne of shipped product, with an initial mine life of 5.5 years and first shipments expected in the third quarter of 2011.

Payback is estimated at nine months and the upside comes from better than expected prices, DJ Carmichael anticipating a fines price this year of around US116c/dmtu, which is 41% higher than the long-term price Cazaly has assumed in its model. Other positives for the project in the stockbroker's view is there is access to water, grid power and a rail head are relatively close by, there is a road through the project and port facilities at Kwinana are already in place. 

This means Cazaly doesn't have to worry about third party access talks or give away part of the project to gain access to port and rail handling facilities, giving the company a major advantage over other small projects. Value is also apparent as on DJ Carmichael's numbers the current market capitaliisation of around $29 million represents an enterprice value to resource tonne of $0.63, which is at the lower end of the range for smaller iron ore plays in Australia.

As DJ Carmicahel points out, this doesn't include any value for any of Cazaly's other projects. The stockbroker is thus comfortable setting its price target at $0.63 per share. It attaches a Speculative Buy rating to reflect this, suggesting this is justified given upside potential from further drilling of the project and from the potential of a joint venture partner being found to assist in funding the project.

Given Cazaly's modest market capitalisation, the stock receives little coverage in the broader market, the FNArena database showing none of the major brokers research the company. The stock has traded in a range of 13.5c to 41.5c over the past year and today as at 12.40pm is up 1c at 37c.


----------



## LeeTV (10 February 2010)

Perth junior Cazaly back in fight for Rio deposit
_Matt Chambers From: The Australian February 10, 2010 12:00AM _

ANDREW Forrest's Fortescue Metals Group and Perth junior Cazaly Resources are renewing an audacious attempt to wrest control of one of the country's biggest iron ore deposits from owners Rio Tinto and Gina Rinehart. 
In September last year, the Perth mining warden's court ruled Cazaly did not have the right to peg Rhodes Ridge, a deposit that could contain about three billion tonnes of iron ore.

Yesterday, Cazaly said it would continue to try to wrest control of the deposit from the iron ore giant. "The Supreme Court today held that Cazaly has an arguable case and that the matter should proceed to a substantive hearing before the Court of Appeal," Cazaly said.

Under a 2008 agreement with Fortescue, Cazaly's legal costs will be covered by the iron ore miner. In return, Cazaly has agreed to hand the land to Fortescue for between $20 million and $120m if it can grab control. Cazaly will also receive a $1 royalty for every tonne of iron ore produced.

Yesterday, Cazaly managing director Nathan McMahon would not go into details of the appeal. "We're just contending the ground is open for us to peg," he said.

He said there was no indication of when a date for the appeal would be set.

Cazaly has previously argued that Rio and its joint venture partners, Mrs Rinehart's Hancock Prospecting and Wright Prospecting, had not done enough work on the land to keep it under the state's "use it or lose it" mining laws. A Rio spokesman said the company had not been surprised at the court's decision, but would not comment further.

Rhodes Ridge is not the first deposit Mr McMahon has tried to take off Rio. In 2006, then West Australian mining minister John Bowler knocked back Cazaly's right to peg the Shovelanna deposit after a mix-up with a courier had delayed Rio's renewal.

Cazaly shares did not move much on the announcement yesterday, ending up 1c at 39c.

Rhodes Ridge was discovered in the 1950s by Mrs Rinehart's father, Lang Hancock, and his business partner, Peter Wright.

Rio owns 50 per cent, while Hancock Prospecting and Wright Prospecting own 25 per cent. Cazaly is not the first group to contest claims over Rhodes Ridge. Hancock Prospecting and Wright Prospecting have also butted heads in court over ownership.


----------



## LeeTV (20 January 2011)

Rio terminates Kwinana HIsmelt plant

"The WA resources sector's dismal record of value-adding has claimed another victim after Rio Tinto yesterday axed its HIsmelt pig iron ore venture at Kwinana, waving off a $1 billion investment."

...
...
...

"HIsmelt's failure could prove a boon for some of the Yilgarn's smaller iron ore mining hopefuls, including Nathan McMahon's *Cazaly Resources *and Chris Ellison's Mineral Resources, which are eyeing space at the Kwinana bulk handling port dedicated to HIsmelt but now no longer required."

A boon indeed


----------



## Nicks (30 May 2012)

Just picked up some of these this morning after reading that there has been some swings in the SP lately. Tbh I haven't even done much research (other than the a quick look through news and the MTH update), just noticed there is a very thin sell side so looking for sudden movement.


----------



## greggles (30 November 2017)

Cazaly Resources up 26.19% today to 5.3c after announcing that high cobalt grades have been confirmed from first pass reconnaissance mapping and rock chip sampling on its Bungonia Cobalt project in New South Wales. 

Here's the details:


> • High grade Cobalt in rock chip samples to 1.40% Co, 8 of 34 samples above 1.0% Co with an overall average of 0.62% Co
> • Sampling undertaken over several prospects over a 15km strike extent
> • Project covers 242 sq km including historic Cobalt workings
> • Limited modern exploration to date
> ...


----------



## greggles (21 August 2019)

Cazaly Resources has sold its Parker Range Iron Ore Project to Mineral Resources Limited for $20 million cash plus a royalty of 50c for every dry metric tonne of iron ore extracted and removed from the area of the Project after the first 10,000,000 dry metric tonnes.

CAZ have around 290,000,000 shares on issue so this $20 million sale price should equate to around 7c per share. It is up 84% to 4.6c today, which means it is still trading at a significant discount to what will be its cash backing once the sale formally goes through. Presuming it goes through of course.

Not to mention that $20 million is a nice chunk of change with which to go shopping for undervalued projects or acquisitions.


----------



## barney (21 August 2019)

greggles said:


> Cazaly Resources has sold its Parker Range Iron Ore Project to Mineral Resources Limited for $20 million cash plus a royalty of 50c for every dry metric tonne of iron ore extracted and removed from the area of the Project after the first 10,000,000 dry metric tonnes.
> CAZ have around 290,000,000 shares on issue so this $20 million sale price should equate to around 7c per share. It is up 84% to 4.6c today, which means it is still trading at a significant discount to what will be its cash backing once the sale formally goes through. Presuming it goes through of course.




Wow … that's a nice earner for a minnow!! 

Their market cap was???  11-12 mill  I think, so even with todays 80% spike, they will be 1:1 cash/market cap …. enviable position for a Spec


----------



## greggles (30 April 2021)

CAZ still cashed up with $10.7 million in cash and investments at end of the March quarter.

Some recent developments

A field crew has been mobilised to initially conduct geochemical soil surveys over several target areas at the Halls Creek Copper Project
CAZ has been successful in two EIS applications for co-funding with State Government for drilling at Halls Creek for up to a total of $300,000 subject to programme approvals and clearances
Geophysical re-processing identifies several previously unknown deep-seated structures within the Ashburton Project
Tara French appointed as Chief Executive Officer/Managing Director commencing Q3 2021
Drilling to commence in early May at the Mount Venn Gold JV project
On the chart, support found at 4c and an uptrend forming. Market cap only $17 million. One to watch in 2021.


----------



## greggles (3 May 2021)

CAZ up 10% this morning to 5.5c. This is the fourth time in the last nine months that it has tried to push through this zone, and a successful move through to 6c on good volume would be very bullish.

Watching closely.


----------



## greggles (6 May 2021)

greggles said:


> CAZ up 10% this morning to 5.5c. This is the fourth time in the last nine months that it has tried to push through this zone, and a successful move through to 6c on good volume would be very bullish.
> 
> Watching closely.




CAZ has broken through 6c this morning on good volume and is being accumulated. No news, but this could be the start of a breakout. Currently at highs not seen since 2018.


----------



## barney (6 May 2021)

Shaping up well @greggles 

And still only $20 million Market Cap according to CommSec ?   Strong Cash to Market Cap ratio


----------



## greggles (6 May 2021)

barney said:


> Shaping up well @greggles
> 
> And still only $20 million Market Cap according to CommSec ?   Strong Cash to Market Cap ratio




Having $10 million in cash at the moment is a pretty good position to be in. No need to raise capital, and plenty of funds for exploration/project development or an acquisition.

I think a $20 million market cap undervalues CAZ given its potential, but as always the market will have the final word.


----------



## greggles (28 May 2021)

I'm liking the look of CAZ at the moment. Drilling and geophysical surveys will commence early next week at the Halls Creek Copper project. It looks like they are fast tracking exploration. Management being very proactive. It has hit a high of 6.2c today and is looking like it might head higher. Volume is increasing again and the chart is looking bullish.


----------



## bux2000 (29 May 2021)

Sorry Greg ,
I seem to keep doing this. I did it to @Dona Ferentes as well.
I am now officially a Stalker..... obviously am very happy for you to have any prizemoney

Trying to worm out of my now awkward situation 🚣‍♂️....... I have had this chart on my watchlist but hadn't picked (pun not intended) up on your post before announcing my Pic for the June comp. to the world .

Sooorry

bux

PS @greggles  💡 I am sure you would agree Posts, charts and commentary are better than anything I could ever put together 🚴‍♂️...........AWKWARD!!!!!!!!!!!!! 🚀🛶


----------



## greggles (23 June 2021)

CAZ has gone backwards this month like a lot of small cap miners. It's worth remembering that there is quite a bit going on at the moment, and there is a lot of news coming, as soon as early next month.

This Resources Roadhouse interview with CAZ company director Clive Jones from 3 June gives a good overview of the company's current activities.


----------



## bux2000 (1 July 2021)

Sorry Joe for not posting sooner. 

I have no wish to put my foot in it again by choosing a stock that someone else has done all the research into and me trying to claim as my own for this months competition.
However CAZ still seems to have potential with apparent support at .047c limiting the minus territory.
If it breaks .055c we may end the month in the slightly above average range, time will tell.




The video above is very interesting thanks to @greggles 

All the best
bux


----------



## greggles (31 August 2021)

Some nice looking RC drilling results from the Halls Creek Copper Project reported by CAZ this morning. It should bounce nicely today. Market cap of just $18 million.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (29 September 2021)

For my sins CAZ is my pick in the October 2021 competition. 

A Zn, Fe miner.

Lotsa interesting potential in the West with interlocking cousins marrying all the way to the top of the pile in Perth via Hammersley, EQN, new and old money.

gg


----------



## greggles (25 October 2021)

I'm a little surprised that CAZ hasn't made some share price gains recently. The company had cash and investments at end of the last quarter ≈$12m and a market cap today of approximately $16.6 million.

The following is from their Quarterly Activities Report, released today:






I can't quite grasp how all the above projects, in various stages of development and some looking very promising, can be valued at around $5 million by the market. Something has to give eventually, surely...


----------



## greggles (2 February 2022)

Cash and investments now ~$14 million and a market cap of ~$17 million. So the market is valuing CAZ's numerous projects at $3 million?

Management needs to get a move on and start pushing these projects forward a little faster. So much potential here.


----------



## greggles (31 May 2022)

CAZ up 7.5% today. In fact it's been moving up slowly for the last week and a half after bottoming out at 3.6c on 18 May. The company flagged mid-June as being the commencement of mining at the Halls Creek Project, so there will definitely be some news on that front in the next couple of weeks.

2000m of RC Drilling is planned to test the continuity of broad copper intercepts across the Bommie Prospect on a 100m x 100m grid spacing. Drilling is also planned at the Moses Rock drill target.

CAZ has been moving very slowly so far this year. It would be good if management started to get things moving at a faster pace now.


----------



## greggles (28 June 2022)

Still believe CAZ is flying under the radar. Market cap of under $15 million and a ton of potential across a number of projects, the most significant being the Halls Creek project in WA at which there is already a known resource and where an RC drilling program has recently commenced.

One to watch in the second half of 2022.









						Cazaly hunts big copper deposit in East Kimberley
					

Cazaly Resources has launched an RC drilling program at its flagship Halls Creek copper-zinc-silver project in WA’s East Kimberley region. The campaign will kick off at Cazaly’s Moses Rock prospect.




					thewest.com.au


----------



## greggles (19 July 2022)

CAZ stepping up their Twitter updates now that exploration efforts have been ramped up.






 Infill lag sampling assay results due next month from four gold targets at the Yabby Prospect. Drilling is continuing at Halls Creek.


----------



## barney (19 July 2022)

greggles said:


> Infill lag sampling assay results due next month from four gold targets at the Yabby Prospect. Drilling is continuing at Halls Creek.




Thanks for the continued "heads up" @greggles 

Could not agree more ..... This is a potential "sleeper" which could reward punters greatly (in my opinion of course)

My main and usual gauge of a Spec's potential ... Cash to Market Cap ratio .....

CAZ:    Currently around $7 mill cash I think? ... to about $14 mill market cap?

No brainer  ....if the market in general was/or turns bullish, this is a Spec to watch.

Tempted to accumulate a few , but would have to sell something to do so ... decisions, lol.


----------



## greggles (19 July 2022)

barney said:


> Thanks for the continued "heads up" @greggles
> 
> Could not agree more ..... This is a potential "sleeper" which could reward punters greatly (in my opinion of course)
> 
> ...




CAZ is a classic example of a small cap miner that was sold off heavily because management was slow in moving its projects forward and punters exited looking for better opportunities elsewhere. But as we all know, timing is everything when it comes to these kind of companies. 

Positives I see are:

Five very prospective Projects
Tara French appointed MD in October 2021 (geologist with 24 years mining and exploration experience - most recently the General Manager of Exploration for Regis Resources Limited where she had been employed for 14 years).
$7.5 million in cash at the end of the last quarter, so no capital raisings for quite some time.
Exploration finally being ramped up and at long last we will know the true potential of the Halls Creek Project. I think it could be a company maker.
Lots of news flow in the second half of 2022 as assay results are released and exploration efforts expand.
A look at the chart shows strong support at around 3.5c. I'm betting this is the bottom.


----------



## finicky (19 July 2022)

That gold sample pic is cruel.


----------



## greggles (20 July 2022)

CAZ have entered into an Earn-In agreement with Lynd Resources Pty Ltd to progress the Vanrock Project in central North Queensland.

The terms of the agreement look very favourable to CAZ. I imagine it's difficult in the current economic environment for companies like Lynd Resources to raise capital, so CAZ have swooped in and struck a deal.

The project looks very prospective. Another iron in the fire for CAZ.


----------



## greggles (21 July 2022)

OK, so looking a little deeper into the above Earn-In agreement I am a little in awe of the deal CAZ has struck. Here's the critical part of the announcement:






So the first step is a single diamond drill hole drilled to 500m to test a magnetic and airborne EM anomaly. Here's the stroke of genius, the Queensland Government’s Collaborative Exploration Initiative will be funding drilling costs to the tune of $171,370, which basically gives CAZ a free hit to see if anything is returned by that diamond drill hole. If it is they can proceed knowing they are onto something. If not, they can scale down activity and focus on other projects.

Drilling is scheduled for September, so they obviously want to get this drill hole completed ASAP.


----------



## greggles (25 July 2022)

CAZ actively moving the Ashburton and Yabby Projects forward with an AEM Survey being conducted this week at several targets across the Ashburton Project and results from the recent Infill Surface Geochemical Sampling at the Yabby Project showing well defined surface anomalies suitable for drill testing. No doubt planning for a drilling program at the Yabby project is now already underway.


----------



## greggles (5 August 2022)

Good to see CAZ were represented at Diggers & Dealers this year and were actively promoting the company's prospects.


----------



## greggles (16 August 2022)

Full steam ahead at CAZ.

This was announced today but for some reason wasn't marked as price sensitive.


----------



## greggles (25 August 2022)

That single diamond drill hole at Vanrock is coming up in September. A lot going on at the moment. News can't be far away.


----------



## greggles (6 September 2022)

Drilling about to commence at Vanrock.


----------



## barney (6 September 2022)

greggles said:


> Drilling about to commence at Vanrock.




Yeah, hold a small position so hopefully they dig up something worthwhile


----------



## greggles (20 September 2022)

CAZ continuing to be active on social media.



The link in the Tweet leads to a Mining.com.au article dated 10 August 2022 that outlines CAZ's Hall's Creek Project and its potential.


----------



## greggles (12 October 2022)

Ashburton Exploration Update announced today was shrugged off by the market. It was more of a summary than anything else.

Airborne Electromagnetic Survey. Check.
Fine Fraction Surface Sediment Sampling, Check.

Final word from MD Tara French sums up the current Ashburton position:



> Cazaly’s MD Tara French commented “While we await final drill assay results for Vanrock and our Halls Creek Copper Project, we are pleased to be progressing exploration activities across our large landholding in the Ashburton. This geochemical sampling completes our comprehensive early-stage surface geochemical programme. This dataset, used in conjunction with all available geophysical data will aid in vectoring towards discrete targets within the Ashburton tenement package. Once the final EM results are received and interpreted, we will be able to utilise all datasets to rank and prioritise areas for further work.”


----------



## barney (12 October 2022)

greggles said:


> Ashburton Exploration Update announced today was shrugged off by the market. It was more of a summary than anything else.




Yeah not sure why the news was taken so badly. Looks pretty innocuous at face value.  Probably get some other news in a couple of days and be back up 13%, lol.  Specs


----------



## greggles (12 October 2022)

barney said:


> Yeah not sure why the news was taken so badly. Looks pretty innocuous at face value.  Probably get some other news in a couple of days and be back up 13%, lol.  Specs




Only $128,000 in turnover today so just some weak hands exiting. I'm waiting for the Halls Creek assay results, which are due sometime this month.


----------



## greggles (14 October 2022)

Halls Creek Bommie Prospect assay results are in and it looks like a mix of positives and negatives. 

Positives are broad widths and mineralisation from surface which means low cost production. Negatives are the low grades. Low grades are run of the mill with Porphyry copper deposits so I suppose there is no real surprise there.

Unfortunately these assay results just weren't impressive enough to move the share price north and it's still treading waters in the mid-3s.


----------



## greggles (9 December 2022)

Vanrock mostly a duster. 6.7m of mineralisation in a 521.2m diamond drillhole isn't exactly a spectacular result. CAZ not proceeding with the JV.

Disappointing but in the end it didn't cost CAZ much after the Queensland Government’s Collaborative Exploration Initiative grant.  Share price steady at 3.3c.


----------



## greggles (12 December 2022)

Some good news for CAZ this morning on the lithium front, with infill surface sampling at the Kaoko Project in Namibia having been completed. The sampling was carried out in the north-eastern part of the project area where a recent data review highlighted the presence of a large lithium in soil anomaly stretching over 12km.

287 soil samples were collected from the area and sent for multi-element analysis. The assay results are expected to be received within eight to twelve weeks.

After some other disappointing results, CAZ management seem to be pining their hopes on the Kaoko Lithithium Project in Namibia.


----------



## greggles (21 December 2022)

CAZ and AKN sign MoU to commence a scoping study for the development of a consolidated base metal mining hub. Given the proximity of both companies projects in the area, it is a smart decision to join forces and plan project development together.


----------

