why wasnt RIO holding it in a retention licence then? Why didnt they have it in mining leases?
The answer is that they wanted to hold onto it for a cheap as possible. While been in the cheapest form of tenure an EL is also the riskiest as it has more compliances. If this was in an MLA CAZ would have lost by now.
Also didnt I read somewhere that in there annjual report they stated that the tenement was of strategic value and was likly to be swapped with a BHP tenement in the future
why wasnt RIO holding it in a retention licence then? Why didnt...
-
- There are more pages in this discussion • 2 more messages in this thread...
You’re viewing a single post only. To view the entire thread just sign in or Join Now (FREE)
