CAZ - Cazaly Resources

[pussycat2005]

sorry about my limited understanding of the law!

 

[tarnor]

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]

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]

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

IF Rio Tinto thinks it has a chance of getting the Shovelanna iron ore tenement back, it's just whistling Dixie.

The global miner has been embarrassed by a small mining tenement management firm in Perth that, like others in the business, watches every tenement in Western Australia, waiting to see what is surrendered voluntarily, but also ready to pounce on someone's carelessness - in this case, Rio's.

Industry figures can recall only one case in Western Australia in which a company that let a tenement lapse ended up getting it back. That was in 1979, when a prospector named Bill Beiberg from Kalgoorlie realised that Pancontinental Mining had unknowingly let lapse a licence that covered the spot where the company was planning to dig the pit for what became the Paddington gold mine. He was out the next day putting in his pegs.

Even under mining law at the time, the general opinion was that the tenement was fair game once the licence had expired. Somehow, political pressure was brought to bear and the late Mr Beiberg was stripped of the licence, allowing Pancontinental to develop its mine.

That was then. This is now. No West Australian minister today is going to do anything other than what the Mining Act says.

The issue was in the news this week when Cazaly Resources - the company that pegged a Pilbara tenement after Rio's application for renewal was delayed in transit - said it was forging a deal with BHP Billiton to explore and develop the prospect.

If the industry types are right, then State Development Minister Alan Carpenter will have little choice but to award Cazaly Resources the Pilbara tenement it picked up because Rio failed to get its renewal paperwork and cheque in on time - even though Rio has lobbied him to use discretionary powers to dislodge Cazaly. Rio should have known that every tenement expiry is watched by dozens of eyes - and those watchers are ready to pounce. Within minutes, someone will have an application lodged for the land and a pegging contractor on the way to knock pegs into the tenement.

That is just what happened with Rio and Cazaly on August 26 - and it was the brother of Cazaly Resources managing director Nathan McMahon who spotted Rio's failure.

By the opening of the next business day, Cazaly had lodged its application for E46/678, a 40sqkm block next to BHP's huge Ore Body 18 and located over what the geology maps show to be Brockman-type iron ore.

Shannon McMahon, who runs McMahon Mining Title Services, is in the business of looking after his client's tenements so they don't end up making the same mistake as Rio - but also looking for clients of others who do let matters slip.

"It's the most exciting time in a mining tenement manager's life when a tenement expires," he said.

Six expired in August, but the one containing what Cazaly has named Shovelanna was the only one he thought worth grabbing.

Shannon saw the Rio title lapse on the Friday afternoon, consulted his brother over the weekend and was ready to pounce first thing on Monday with a cheque for $2729 and a filled-in application form. Rio's paperwork and cheque, meanwhile, was apparently not moved promptly by a courier company and arrived two days later.

Mr McMahon said letting a licence expire accidentally was a tenement manager's worst nightmare.

Much of his business involves finding land next to or close by clients' projects.

According to Mr McMahon, holding on to land requires constant vigilance. After the third year of an exploration licence, the holder must surrender 50 per cent of the area; in the fourth year, 50 per cent of what remains (all intended to stop people sitting on tenements forever). Companies can apply for exemptions.

He said forgetting to apply for these exemptions, allowing licences to expire and failing to pay the rent to the government were equally common.

The McMahons should know their business: their father and mother, Terry and Gail, have been in the mining title management business since the 1970s. s

One of their coups was to acquire the ground on which the 2 million ounce Thunderbox gold discovery was later made.

No one knew for sure what was there, but Dalrymple Resources wanted the land.

The tenement was released by the Department of Minerals and Energy at 8.30am on February 1, 1994. Twenty-one seconds later Mining Titles, the McMahon parents' company, lodged the application for E36/256.

Mining Titles, aware that the release was pending, was monitoring the Leonora office of the department where the release was to occur. The senior McMahons also pegged the Yeelirrie resource for former WMC Resources. It is one of the larger unmined uranium deposits in Australia.

It's usually carelessness that leads to the loss of titles.

Forty years ago, a geologist who knew that the paperwork at the then North Broken Hill was sloppy was waiting for a licence to expire on one of that company's tenements at Silver City. He pegged it at midnight on the day of expiry and was waiting the next morning when NBH geologists came to tap in their renewal pegs. Barrier Exploration was floated on the coup.

Legendary mining figure Ron Manners recalls when he and business partner John Elkington were pegging in the Forrestania region during the 1970s nickel boom. This area is now the home of the Emily Ann, Maggie Hays and Flying Fox nickel mines.

In those days you had to put in pegs, then attach mining application papers covered in plastic to state your claim.

Just to their south, geologists for Belgium's Union Miniere were also pegging land. But that crew knocked off at 5.30pm without attaching the papers to the pegs. That evening, Manners and Elkington put their paperwork on the Belgian's pegs - and the prospect was theirs.

"We thought it was Christmas," Manners recalled yesterday.

Another Perth-based tenement manager, Shane Nicholson of Mineral Tenement Services, said he learned his lesson 10 years ago when a courier lost a renewal application.

That case, and Rio's more recent predicament, taught him to track every application and make sure it arrived at the mining office.

"If it doesn't arrive on time, the title dies."

And Mr Nicholson's view on Nathan McMahon's chances of fighting off Rio at Shovelanna?

"I think he's got them done like a dinner."

 

[pussycat2005]

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]

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]

"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 :/

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[BraceFace]

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]

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.