CAZ - Cazaly Resources
- Thread starter MalteseBull
- Start date
-
- Tags
- caz cazaly resources
Porper
Ralph Nelson Elliott
- Joined
- 11 August 2004
- Posts
- 1,413
- Reactions
- 274
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.
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.
Attachments
- Joined
- 25 July 2006
- Posts
- 987
- Reactions
- 0
CAZ hasn't recovered since its AUM like Rio debacle, heaps of punters got burnt. 
- Joined
- 9 May 2006
- Posts
- 421
- Reactions
- 0
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.
Punters are speculating on this in the hope they are sucessful.
ALFguy
Trading gives me a headache
- Joined
- 20 April 2006
- Posts
- 457
- Reactions
- 0
dubiousinfo 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%
Porper
Ralph Nelson Elliott
- Joined
- 11 August 2004
- Posts
- 1,413
- Reactions
- 274
ALFguy said:
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.
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.
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.
- Joined
- 26 June 2006
- Posts
- 168
- Reactions
- 0
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?
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.
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.
- Joined
- 21 August 2006
- Posts
- 61
- Reactions
- 0
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
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
- Joined
- 8 March 2006
- Posts
- 333
- Reactions
- 0
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.Casual_Investor said:
- Joined
- 8 March 2006
- Posts
- 333
- Reactions
- 0
Just tried to edit my post and had it chopped off will try to write it again
- Joined
- 21 August 2006
- Posts
- 61
- Reactions
- 0
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
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
- Joined
- 8 March 2006
- Posts
- 333
- Reactions
- 0
Casual_Investor said:
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
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
ace
- Joined
- 21 August 2006
- Posts
- 61
- Reactions
- 0
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
Cheers
- Joined
- 8 March 2006
- Posts
- 333
- Reactions
- 0
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.
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.
- Joined
- 19 August 2006
- Posts
- 36
- Reactions
- 0
Stuff the legal action to retrieve my profits / losses. I want to see the unlawful pr*ck publically beheaded.
Now that would be justice.
Now that would be justice.
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
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
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
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
