hancock digging the hole deeper...

Posted this over at ss...

It was in reply to the Hancock article posted by Nicwix.

---

Nicwix...

What a lot of emotive rubbish...Hancock have not raised one single point of law...the entire story is suggesting, "it's unfair" as their only argument.

Do we have a Mining Act or not?

I also notice they have not pursued the "public interest" argument...could this be because they know it doesn’t stack up?

I like this bit the best...

"The fundamentals should not change by speculative over-pegging," Hancock said. "If the State now has a view that Shovelanna should be developed earlier than previously contemplated, it can of course raise this with the tenement holders.""

Yes, perhaps the "state" should raise this issue with the tenement holders...which of course are CAZ!

"Hancock said. ... There are fundamental principles here. First, the party that has proved up the resource, and having done so, held it with the State's blessing for optimal long-term development should not be deprived of it through such speculative activity.""...lol..."optimal long term development"...optimal for whom?...the sate; NO...jobs; NO...RIO and co; YES? Also, are they seriously suggesting that because they first "proved up" the resource they should therefore have first rights over it for ever and a day, regardless of due legal process? If so, I suspect they may suddenly find themselves the centre of a googleplex of claims for many of their own tenements.

Can't help but feel Hancock believe the State Government and the Mining Act applies to everyone else except them...""unfair if the WA Government now awarded the tenement to Cazaly after supporting the joint venture's ownership for so long""...lol...the only reason the state government had to "support" Shovelanna for so long was because RIO had the tenement effectively "locked up"...the bane of all resource authorities and something the WA Government in particular is trying to clean up through recent amendments to the WA Mining Act. (2004?)

"Hancock said governments could not expect resources to be developed "as and when" they were first identified, because they required time and "security of title" to properly assess."" ...is he kidding? They have held this ground for 16 years...how long do they want? As for "security of title", this DOES exist; you just have to conduct your business according to the act...not really a lot to ask of a professional organisation?

If you can't even manage the renewal of your own tenement...how on earth can you be expected to manage the development of such a major resource?

As mentioned earleir, RIO and Co. have had Shovelanna locked up from development for over 16 years, in which time they have not managed to meet their annual funding requirements for all but 5 years; that’s 11 years of under funded inactivity…what’s more, the 5 years they did spend some money, it was barely enough to meet the required expenditure requirements.

All this “inactivity” we are lead to believe, is due mainly to the “high Phosphorus levels” at Shovelanna, which apparently doubles once the resource crosses the arbitrary tenement line from the neighbouring and economically viable BHP resource...perhaps an interesting argument in light of recent events?

Shovelanna has a very shabby history under RIO’s control. Given the proximity to BHP’s Orebody-18, one can’t help but feel RIO and Co. have viewed this tenement in more of a strategic light, rather than as a resource to be developed.

Cheers!