caz holders are dreaming, page-87

I'm not saying there is no argument for RIO to make - I'm just saying that CAZ has the stronger arguments.

On the public interest point under s111A - of course you can argue either way. I'm thinking from the angle that once RIO's exploration license lapsed they would have to re-apply presumably to have it re-instated (?) That being the case CAZ will be trying to argue that its in the public interest that RIO's application be declined -why - well very simply, on the arguments presented (IMO) the benefit to the public of WA stand s to be far greater and more immediate if CAZ getas it (for reasons already stated many times before). In a sense RIO's lack of public interest is defined by exclusion - ie by the greater benefit to the public of granting the lease to CAZ.

Doesn't take a legal genius to figure that out.