blk and caz, page-3

ignoring the ballot at the end for the one EL the similarities are:

both RIO/WES failed to renew their Exploration Licences on time

CAZ/BLK upon confirming with DOIR that ground was vacant pegged their claims

in both instances of scurry of second in line lodgment of EL's where pegged

RIO/WES pegged mining leases as holders of expired EL's cannot reapply for EL's, but can apply for Mining Leases

It appears that WES had held EL's for some time (possibily 20 years) and no work with regard developing into a mine - RIO had sat on Shovelanna for decades


differences:

RIO had paid a cheque and sent paperwork but as advised by DOIR partial lodgement is as good as no lodgement (RIO to date do not dispute that their EL's had expired)
it appears from early statements from WES that they simply forgot (but yet to hear full story from WES)

RIO had no plans to develop Shovelanna for next 20 years - in fact the Shovelanna deposit being held by Rio was more a strategic asset vis a viv annoying BHP, WES with other EL's for coal in the area would have looked to develop at some time

unsure as to whether a small p policy exists for coal (as referenced by Bowler in reasons for terminating CAZ's EL over Shovelanna)

Unknowns.

The judical intrepretation of S.111A which is now the only avenue for WES to get the deposit back - there is no section in the Mining Act for appealing the expiry of a lease and WES in fact would have to argue that in the "public interest" to terminate the BLK EL (i.e not argue that they should get back because they are 2nd in line)

BLK holders will now join CAZ in watching the court proceeding commencing on Monday 19th March