the minister is satisfied on reasonable grounds in, page-3

I assume that the Minister has to justify his decision.

In that case we can look forwards to his explaination of what he found were the "reasonable grounds" and what was "in the public interest".

I am boyd by the thought that CAZ basic sp. is much higher than middle of 2005. Along with other gold & Uranium shares.

And still, I am curious if Bowler's explanations are patently wrong or simply inadequate, and what can legally happen next. Given that the consensus of HC comment has been that there is no appeal process.

Personally, I expect a bit of a furore in WA. I look forward to Sunday morning TV & Fin Review commentary.

I told you and myself that Bowler's lips were not to be trusted.

I will not be amazed if TV & newspaper commentary omits to mention/question RIO's intentions to expedite development of Shovelanna. As alluded to by Cazaly's announcement today.

Quote: "...and it would seriously bring into question the integrity of the system if this decision expedites any fast tracking of development by them".

Implying I think, that if the Minister was made aware that if RIO regains the exploration lease, RIO will hurry up its development. Contrary to the history of Shovelanna. And because one of the core public interest criteria would surely have been the expeditious development of WA iron ore deposits.

It will be very interesting to closely follow this case. To discover if any journo can ferret out if there has been any criminal activity or corrupting influence. (Yes the sort of thing you might expect me to be thinking). Not that I am implying there has or could have been. But I am interested to know everything there is to know. Especially how the Minister justified his decision.

I wonder if this will be as bad for WA govt. as recent emotions in Solomons?