precedent must be relevant, page-3

Can someone tell me the significance of Shovelanna to RIO...???

Shovelanna is not critical to any development plans, it is neither next door to, nor part of any wider mining strategy...lol...there certainly isn't any mine there...it is nothing more than an isolated resource, at the margin of economic viability given the supposed high phosphorus levels and obvious difficulties for RIO to get at it.

It is clear that RIO has been sitting on Shovelanna just in case..oh yeah...did I also mention, it creates a major thorn in the side for BHP's plans for the immediate area.

This sort of thing is not in the spirit of the mining act...the Minister will see this!

RIO don't want to lose Shovelanna, but if they do, they will hardly blink, nor will their shareholders.

On the other hand, if CAZ should lose, jobs will be lost, shareholders will lose money, competition will be dealt a sever blow, the mining industry will lose confidence in the Mining Act...and the state may end up waiting for another 16 years of under-funded expenditure for Shovelanna to be developed.

If CAZ lose, they can pursue it through the courts based on the letter of the law, holding shovelanna up for years...they will have a very good case and what's more, have nothing to lose!

If CAZ win however, RIO can only question the minister's decision on the "public interest" argument...not sure they will want to upset him too much though given the delecate stages of some of their other projects?

As I have posted before...he is damned if does and damned if he doesn't...but one path it appears will be less litigious for the Minister.

Cheers!