anti-information campaign...

I can’t understand how so many "expert" opinions keep finding their way to the CAZ thread from individuals clearly uninformed about the details of the case...

What is going on here…and how many of you are being paid for your services?

All relevant information has been posted here at HC, many, many times before...unfortunately however, there has been a concerted effort to flood the threads with so much "filler" that people find reading back through all of them far too tedious...so perhaps, we should forgive new posters for not being fully informed?

These "filler" posters have obviously done a "job" on CAZ…and by extension, the entire HC community.

There are so many misleading or just plain wrong statements/assumptions here it is not funny...for example, this business of how RIO could equate unrelated expenditure to Shovelanna…what a red herring!

Are you aware that RIO failed to meet minimum expenditure requirements for some 10 out of 16 years (by memory)...this is factually recorded on the tenement register. As a result, many of RIO's tenement renewals could not go through the normal process, instead requiring special dispensation.

Please…if you are going to partake in some kind of “negative ramp campaign”…at least try to do it with factual information…like how RIO might try to link Shovelanna to a local minerals development strategy?

lol…we know one doesn’t actually exist, but at least such an argument might seem plausible!

The uninspiring history at Shovelanna is a nice fall-back argument for CAZ and may help in a split decision scenario...but really, in context with the wider terms of the current application, it should have very little bearing on the final outcome.

Anyway…regardless of RIO’s previous transgressions on the tenement...up to a few days prior to CAZ actually pegging the ground, RIO were still in full and rightful legal possession.

There is no question on this issue.

What then followed however, was a rightful transfer of that legal possession under the terms and conditions of the WA mining act...as a result, CAZ are now legally in possession of the tenement.

Under the act however, anyone has the right to object for any number of reasons...these must be considered prior to the tenement being formally granted.

This is where were are now at…the minister is considering these objections.

Talk of couriers to blame, or RIO’s intentions to renew, or anything else of a prior nature are completely irrelevant...all that matters now are the pro's and con's of RIO's objection on the grounds of "public interest".

Do not forget, RIO are simply another objector here...and not because CAZ have encroached on their boundary in the pegging process...not because CAZ have broken the law in any way or not followed due process...not because “the dog ate my homework”…and certainly not because there is an existing operational mine at the site and that people will lose their jobs…no…RIO have objected because they believe the “public” would be better-off if they were to get it back!

Simple!

Initially, this was a pretty good case for RIO…CAZ are simply too small, with minimal cash backing and no track record suggesting they might be able to get a mine up and running…however, the minute BHP threw their hat into the ring, all that changed and RIO were effectively in checkmate!

It would be near impossible in my opinion, to decide in favour of RIO given the current parameters…well not purely on the “Shovelanna equation” anyway.

As we know however, when politicians get involved, anything can happen, so the impossible is always a possibility, but short of any corruption, in my mind the public will be far better served if CAZ should win.

Not only is the CAZ/BHP production route far more economically viable than anything RIO could come up with for Shovelanna, the fact also remains that the tenement is simply not pivotal to any wider strategy RIO might have for the area.

End os story!

The minister is not a dill…even if he wanted to award to RIO for whatever reason, he knows it would be a very dificult argument to uphold!

Cheers!