friendly bet, page-12

re: judicial review s111a previous cases Doughboy

Thanks for that. I'll keep thinking about what you're saying..

In the mean time I have a question, for any like minded nutters reading this.
=========================

S.61 of the mining act seems to say(copy reproduced below) that the Minister could (may) grant an Exploration Lease for 2 five year terms, plus any number of additional 2 year terms.

In other words, an exploration lease has to be 5, 10, 14, 14, 16, 18...years etc.

My question is, if the RIO mob wanted to keep Shovellana mothballed for even just 10 years, though they might not extend a railway line to it for 20 years, then why didn't they ask the minister to give them a 10 or 12 or 14 year lease? Or 20 years for that matter?

And how long was the term of the lease they were (presumably) attempting to
apply for when they were late renewing Shovellana? 5? or 10? or 20 years?

And what was the term of the RIO mobs lease that expired the 26th August 2005?
Was that now expired EL a 5 years lease?

I figure it relevant because Bowler says RIO should be allowed to keep Shovellana from here to eternity. SO why not give the RIO mob a 100 years lease 20 years ago? Assuming s.61 would have allowed a 100 years lease 20 years ago. AND GET IT OVER AND DONE WITH.

Save all the arguing about modernising the renewal system.

Why hasn't the Iron Ore Policy been simply adjusted to make it the policy to just grant iron 100 years leases. Ok, I'm exaggerating to make a point. But I feel I have a point.

Or, is there a hidden secrete inside the Iron policy along the lines that the government want to give the big boys TIME to get around to developing their discoveries of iron, but don't want them to feel they actually have from now to eternity do do so?

And if there is such an unwitten under current, a sort of mild imperitive, then what is it in regard to Shovellana? 10, 20 or 21 years max before the government would say, enough is enough, we'll give Shovellana to CAZ because they'll get on with developing it.

Like Peter Beattie is reported to have done in Queensland recently. I think it was regarding aluminium.

True, not quite as special as iron. Though I don't have any idea why there is a difference.

Here is s.61. Anyone able to offer an opinion that s.31 could have allowed RIO to have a 20 years Exploration lease?

And if RIO could, does it still pay fees for the 20 years lease at the same times and same amount as if it had a 5, followed by another 5, etc series of leases?

In other words, are 5 year lease taken up because RIO wants to avoid higher fees?

=========================
Extract from WA Legislation found here:
http://www.slp.wa.gov.au/statutes/swans.nsf/AllinOne?OpenForm&Seq=1
=========================
Extract

61. Term of exploration licence
(1) An exploration licence shall, subject to this Act, remain in force for a period of 5 years from and including the date on which it was granted, and shall then expire.

(2) Notwithstanding subsection (1) the Minister may, if satisfied that a prescribed ground for extension exists, extend the term of an exploration licence —

(a) by one period of 5 years; and

(b) by a further period or periods of 2 years,

as to the whole or any part of the land the subject of that exploration licence on such terms and conditions as the Minister thinks fit.

(3) An application for the extension of the term of an exploration licence under subsection (2) shall be made within the prescribed time and in the prescribed manner.

(3a) If an application for the extension of the term of an exploration licence is made under this section and the term of the licence would but for this subsection expire, the licence shall continue in force in respect of the land the subject of the application until the application is determined.

(4) If the holder of an exploration licence transfers the licence after making an application for the extension of the term of the licence under subsection (2), the application continues in the name of the transferee of the licence as if the transferee had made it.