about that delivery

Anyone know if RIO "could have" renewed the Shovelanna exploration lease prior to the date of expiry? If they wanted to.

And I read in the Act that RIO could have renewed any time during in the last year of the then current lease. But I'm not sure what I read means what I assume it does. Which is that the answer to the above question is, YES, RIO could renew any time within the last year of the exploration lease.

And if RIO could have renewed earlier, why didn't RIO renew the lease say a month earlier than they attempted to?

And did RIO actually intend the documents arrive at DoIR in Perth exactly on the very last day available to RIO? If so, then why?

Or did RIO intend the application reach Perth what, a few days earlier than that fateful Friday?

And was RIO's attempt to renew Shovelanna conducted in a panic at RIO's office, or the office of its agents trusted with the renewal?

Has the person responsible for renewing the lease been publically identified? And has he said anything publically? Offered any explanation or insight into what was going on? And why did he, or RIO entrust delivery to a courier when I read the application didn't arrive at DoIR Perth until the following Thursday!

So, when did RIO find out that the documents had not arrived in Perth on the Friday? Did they find out before the deadline that Friday? If so, what did they do or try to do subsequently and chronologically?

Or, did RIO find out the following Monday or later, in which case, when did RIO try to monitor the delivery?

If RIO let its guard down by not constantly (actively) monitoring the delivery of the documents, then surely that means they really "didn't care" enough.

But if RIO can prove they were in constant communication with the courier and constantly actively pestering them to DELIVER, then does that give them a case to argue? If yes, then would it make sense from RIO's point of view to first go for a Ministerial dismissal of Cazaly's application on grounds of Public Interest because that would cost less? Or because after the Public Interest test, they can still go to court and prove they did everything they could, constantly.

I still expect that if RIO did everything they could without lapsing in their diligence, they still lose the lease. Especially because that's what I want. A Cazaly win.

And did the Wardens Court make any decision regarding Cazaly's application before RIO applied under s.111 - Public Interest.

Someone said DoIR refunded RIO's cheque. DOes that mean a decision was made at some level about Cazaly's application?

s111 allows the Minister to dismiss an application before the wardens court (I think) had already made a decision. Or afterwards, judged on the Public Interest test.

A bit long. Sorry.