the fact that Western Australia is rightly perceived as a reliable mining jurisdiction on a global, page-38

The JORC table section 2 for KDR update states "...A forfeiture claim is pending a portion of the tenement package however the tenure of KDR has established the tenements to be in good standing..."

While I understand what is trying to be said here, it is misleading. Once tenements go under plaint then exploration commitments effectively go to zero until resolution, although the company is still liable for rents, and rates. All funds expended on plainted tenements are always at risk until resolution of the action. While I can understand holders expecting that $55M of subsequent expenditure blasts out a compelling legal position, it doesn't really bear consideration in the process, particularly at the warden's level. The Minister gets the discretion to consider it, but anyone purporting to speak for the Minister's position should be ignored.

The Cazaly case isn't directly comparable in my opinion, as the tenement was 'accidentally' dropped on a technicality and immediately pegged by a competitor.