this from The Australain.....Rio claims courier was to blame in...

this from The Australain.....


Rio claims courier was to blame in Shovelanna dispute, court told

March 21, 2007

WESTERN Australia would be the ultimate loser if Rio Tinto was stripped of an iron-ore tenement after a courier failed to deliver renewal documents on time, the state's lawyers said yesterday.
Lawyers acting for the state Government said penalising Rio after a courier failed to deliver critical renewal documents would have a detrimental affect on investment in the West Australian mining industry.
The Supreme Court heard evidence on day two of a hearing about the disputed Shovelanna tenement in the Pilbara region.

Junior explorer Cazaly Resources snared Shovelanna in 2005 after Rio let its licence expire, but the tenement was handed back to Rio after then resources minister John Bowler used his discretion under the state's Mining Act.

The state's barrister, Rob Mitchell, told the court that if Rio was to lose hundreds of million's of dollars worth of resources because of a "slip" by a courier, it would be detrimental to investment in the state.

Mr Mitchell argued that companies wouldn't invest in hundreds of millions of dollars worth of infrastructure if resources could be "lost on a whim".

Cazaly did have a win of sorts when Mr Mitchell conceded some information in a Department of Industry and Resources document, quoted by Mr Bowler when he made his decision, was irrelevant to the Shovelanna case.

Mr Mitchell said the information used in the department's document had been sourced from a report about a separate iron-ore case, but he was adamant it had no bearing on the minister's final decision.

He also poured cold water over Cazaly's claim the state's long-standing iron-ore policy was inconsistent with the Mining Act.

Mr Mitchell said the objective behind the iron-ore policy was to guarantee long-term tenure over ground for miners to support long-term contracts and justify the large capital outlay to export iron ore.

Cazaly's barrister Malcolm McCusker had argued it contravened the Mining Act's aim of encouraging a "use it or lose it" policy that required tenement holders to develop resources in a timely manner.

The court reserved it decision.