CAZ - Cazaly Resources

[tarnor]

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]

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]

"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]

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]

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]

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]

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 ””

(a) by notice served on the mining registrar or the warden, as the case requires, terminate an application for a mining tenement before the mining registrar or the warden has determined, or made a recommendation in respect of, the application; or
(b) refuse an application for a mining tenement,
if in respect of the whole or any part of the land to which the application relates ””

(c) the Minister is satisfied on reasonable grounds in the public interest that ””
(i) the land should not be disturbed; or
(ii) the application should not be granted;
or
(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

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]

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.

Implicit in this long-standing policy is the certainty that some tenements containing iron ore deposits will not be mined for a lengthy period from the time of discovery.
This policy has been maintained by successive governments for many decades and it is my view that it has been a significant reason for the Pilbara region being the world's most prolific exporter of iron ore.

Any company mining iron ore in WA needs to have access to long-term reserves in order to secure their future viability. For example, a company that has access to known reserves can more quickly respond to increases in demand.

Whilst this policy is under review, I am of the view that to arbitrarily deviate from its objectives and present method of implementation would be detrimental to the state's sovereign risk profile and therefore contrary to the public interest.

On reviewing the material I concluded that the objectives of the State's iron ore policy and therefore the public interest were best achieved by terminating the Cazaly Resources application.

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]

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.

Cazaly applied to explore the Shovelanna deposit, in the state's north-west, last year after Rio Tinto failed to renew its 16-year lease because a courier did not deliver the necessary documents on time.

However Resources Minister John Bowler has returned the ground to Rio Tinto.

He says his decision was based on the state's iron ore policy, the need to promote investment in the industry and fairness.

The explanation has puzzled Justin Walawski from the Association of Mining and Exploration Companies.

"The initial reactions from the industry are what policy is that?" he said.

Mr Walawski says the public interest would be better served if a junior explorer like Cazaly looked after the ground rather than a larger company which seemed to have no intention of developing it.

Mr Walawski disagrees with Mr Bowler's definition of the "public interest".

"It should have been a decision to remain with Cazaly if all we're talking about is the public's interest," he said.

 

[tarnor]

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.

Assistant State Development Minister John Bowler returned the lease to Rio Tinto, saying it was in the public interest.

Mr Bowler said if the companies' roles were reversed he still would have ruled in favour of the original owners.

Cazaly managing director Nathan McMahon says it is discrimination against new entrants to the industry.

Mr McMahon says Mr Bowler's references to the "state's iron ore policy" are surprising as he has never heard of such a policy.

He says the process has not been transparent.

"We are seeking a judicial review and we have sought freedom of information access, we look very much forward to that," he said.

"There are several documents that we don't believe that we've received that we should have that we have previously asked for - we believe that we'll be going very strongly forward."

Rio Tinto

Rio Tinto's chairman Paul Skinner has applauded an explanation from the Western Australian Government about why it returned a rich Pilbara iron ore tenement to the company.

Mr Skinner says Mr Bowler has recognised the long-term nature of the iron ore business.

He denies Rio now has a moral obligation to progress work on the tenement.

"I don't see it as a moral issue, I see it as an economic issue to maximise the interest of the resource owner," he said.

"What is important for us, as major investors in this industry in Western Australia is to find the best development sequence which will provide the highest value of these resources to the state."

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

ahh no worries..

 

[tarnor]

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]

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]

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.