it could work, page-27

re: lets clear up a point or 2 Millways,

Rio would had sent an application to renew/extend the Exploration Licence via the courier. This arrived late.

CAZ applied for an Exploration Licence on 29th August.

RIO then applied for a Mining Lease – the Mining Act doesn’t allow RIO to apply for an Exploration Licence upon failing to renew. This is what the CAZ release refers to competing lease in section (e) – not sure why it is plural.

Section (d) of the today’s release is the interesting one. Is CAZ saying that the RIO’s application to renew was incomplete and thus would have been rejected anyway. Reasons for incomplete renewal would likely relate to RIO not supplying the correct additional info e.g. expenditure levels, exploration details

Below are the explanationary notes on Form 21 used for Exploration Licence renewal- did RIO not meet these requirements……

Note 1: EXPLORATION LICENCE
(i) Attachments 1 and 2 form part of every application for an exploration licence and must be lodged with this form in lieu of (h), (i), (j)
and (k) above.
(ii) An application for an Exploration Licence shall be accompanied by a statement specifying method of exploration, details of the
proposed work programme, estimated cost of exploration and technical and financial ability of the applicant(s).


Alternatively under s.102 (2) (e) or (f) RIO would claim an exemption from expenditure – was this request for exemption not included?

Finally it should be interesting when the judge(s) asks for a copy of the state’s Iron Ore policy from the DoIR….given that it doesn’t exist in written form, would failure to produce mean that it could not be considered