high court case

Ok i need a quick brief on this issue.
So far i have learnt that a wholly owned sub. of CAZ and its partner have made an agreement with BHP over a mine.
However they only applied for the right to explore the land NOT mine it.
RIO is contesting the right to explore the land because it was late in re registering for the land rights to "explore??" or mine??
the Minister at the time intervened and gave the rights back to RIO.

my question:
Legally what are they arguing about? the right to mine or explore? How is RIO using the argument of "in the public interest"
How is CAZ going to up hold its agreement with BHP if it doesnt have the rights to mine, but only explore?