None of the comments to date...NONE...are dealing with the real issues here.
"Intent" to renew does not relate to a "public interest" argument in any way...nor does "the d0g (courier) ate my homework"!
I find it very strange that such arguments should even be mentioned at all.
Lets not forget the platform on which RIO has based their objection...that CAZ was less capable to develop the resource and that the "public interest" would be better served if RIO retained Shovelanna.
End of story!
If it turns out that any other issues have been taken into account in the handing down of this decision, then clearly due process has not been met...paving the way for the decision to be turned on it's head via due legal process.
To this end, I find some of the comments from the various ministers, even right back at the beginning of the whole process, to be somewhat concerning and clearly indicative of a decision made prior to the event.
lol...I can't even begin to imagine what sort of spin the powers-that-be will present in support of this decision...in fact, one is inclined to believe they simply will not and that heads will roll.
Is it possible that Bowler was appointed as something of a sacrificial lamb?
Lets be clear @bout this...payment of the required fees is only part of the tenement renewal process...such renewals are a complex matter of title and boundary delineation among other things and as such, supporting paperwork needs to be provided...lol...unless this information was on the back of the cheque, RIO did not met the requirements of the renewal process.
Equally, renewals are not automatic...one needs to show that pre-conditions have been met, including any required expenditure, for which paperwork is also required. Once again, RIO did not meet the requirements of the renewal process...and it was not the first time.
Finally, anybody at any time can object to a renewal of any tenement to any party...among other things, on the grounds of "public interest".
Given the obvious detrimental implications this decision will now have for the WA mining industry, I wonder what strength an objection based on this argument might have at this stage…lol…perhaps the HC community should lodge an objection?
Anyway, we have to accept the umpire’s decision for now…no amount of postulating will change things near term, so we simply have to deal with it now!
Personally, I am appalled at this decision…not only due to the many arguments in favour of a successful outcome for CAZ, but also due to personal reasons; I have lost a substantial sum of money due to this inequitable decision.
I did my homework based on all information to hand (and some that wasn’t so easy to access) and invested accordingly…knowingly taking my chances. On an even playing field, CAZ would clearly have won and I would be sitting on a significant life-changing position...but clearly the field is not even and instead of reward for my research and commitment of funds, I am out of pocket.
But life goes on!
I do however have a word for the “people” who made this decision; you need to understand that such decisions go way beyond the immediate gains for a few “mates”…the implications from this decision in particular will haunt you, your party and the WA mining industry, for decades to come.
In particular, I am afraid that on this occasion, “you” have dramatically underestimated the public’s response here, the first of which will be to vote you out of office.
Cheers!
CAZ Price at posting:
0.0¢ Sentiment: Buy Disclosure: Held
