before you all cry corruption

... has anyone considered RIO's argument?

Personally I can see the merit in RIO's statements. If the decision went CAZ's way suddenly mining bosses cannot make decisions to invest in projects with as much certainty because they know something beyond their control can, at any one moment take the entire project away. IMHO the decision would create an unnecessary layer of risk which would be present where it didn't exist before, and hence reduce investments in mining projects in general and end up costing the industry and wider economy.

I think the fact that RIO was the tenement owner may have clouded the situation a bit for some. Think of it this way, if Shovelanna was instead owned by a junior mining company, and it was the sole asset of the company, how fair would it be to the shareholders of that mining company, to see it go up in smokes because a third party stuff up? It would definitely not help with attracting mining investment dollars, that's for sure.

All just my opinion.

---
Rio Tinto Iron Ore today welcomed the decision by the Western Australian Government to
enable it to pursue the Shovelanna resource.
Rio Tinto Iron Ore Chief Executive Sam Walsh said, “The Iron Ore group had always
intended to renew the Shovelanna tenement and as evidence of this intention had paid the
annual rental well ahead of the due date and despatched its renewal application by first
class overnight courier one week ahead of the due date for renewal.”
“Rio Tinto Iron Ore has conducted extensive exploration and evaluation programmes at
Shovelanna.”
“Investors in the resource industry need confidence and security that long term decisions
can be made in a stable and certain policy and administrative environment.”
“We appreciate the recognition of this and look forward to working with the Western
Australian Government to ensure the continued development of the State’s resources.”