mpjv, page-21

Hi FRAMIE,

I'm not sure that it was a matter of who favoured the State, as much as the "underlying" threat (IMO) of one of the largest mining companies in the world...and the perceived increase in soverign risk of this company losing a lease due to a "courier error".

In other States a company cannot lose a lease like they can in WA, different rules for different States...I'm sure the Gov't took into consideration that Rio were going to lose a prime piece of real estate over an error.....if the State thinks this is unfair...then change the bloody rules...the same rules that CAZ used to their advantage.

I just can't see how the State were right...the law, IMHO, said that CAZ was in the right....

Anyway, this is a UMC thread..although it is important what happened to CAZ. I personally cannot see why Rio and UMC plus their partners can't sit down and work out what is best for their shareholders, the State, the native title holders, the environment etc....and get this up and running.....

Cheers, Tony.

Cheers, Tony.