From what I understand FNA 12174 refers to the department of...

From what I understand FNA 12174 refers to the department of defence having a lease over the designated area for training purposes, however a new new lease agreement may yet to be registered as the former leasing agreement expired some years ago. Legislation does allow the former lessee to continue occupancy irrespective of anew agreement being registered although the tenure of the land is currently described as vacant crown land.

As far as mining and exploration goes there is scope for the two to coexist and there are several examples of this currently within Australia on ground far more strategically important than this site, for example Woomera . It fundamentally boils down to access to the ground which needs to be coordinated with the leesee , which makes sense I suppose.

an interesting read on this is Legal Briefing 47 29 June 1999 Application of State laws to the Commonwealth, if your into that sort of thing.

all that aside I believe the DoD would prefer to deal with one party rather than many with regard to all this now that an exploration licence has been granted and in addition to this I believe that when the DoD understand the size (or insignificance) of any proposed economically viable mining operation within this area as far as an identifiable footprint would manifest in the scheme of things , I would think any anxiety created by a vision of a 100 km squared open pit encompassing the entire area would make way for a realistic and greater understanding at what is being proposed here on an annual basis , should results be obtained to support such an operation . Which I am hopeful and quietly confident will eventually be the case.