EL7270 is not a contract for a training mine. It never was. It...

EL7270 is not a contract for a training mine. It never was. It is a standard worded EL, but it has the added condition that the miner must fund a training centre out of the mining proceeds. It does not imply a mine operated by apprentices. (Unions wouldn't wear it.)

Maitland was the initiator of this, as he worked as a mine electrician for most of his life. The school was not intended to be the main focus of EL7270, as it's a pretty stock standard EL. The Mining Act allows for an EL to be issued without tender, if it has an extra condition attached to it. The direct issuing of EL7270 is certainly not the first time this has occurred.

The only legal point of contention is the amount paid for the lease. Considering the previous poor JORC reports on E7270, and the GFC, the price was perhaps above expectaions. Keep in mind, the govt reaps royalties, if the mine is good. They cannot take both royalties and the mining company's profit, as BO'F is trying to do.

ICAC conceeded Act's conditional clauses the first time they investigated EL7270. Even in Acacia, they have not recommended any changes to the Act. EL7270 is an Instrument of the Crown, and a contract between the Crown and the miner. Break a contract and you will be sued.

This Acacia report is turning out more and more, to be a two-Act nonsense play.

(Perhaps TobyJack can cut & paste a full extract of EL7270 here. Journalists/Greens blogs don't count for anything.)