Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

CAZ - Cazaly Resources

zoo

Joined
19 February 2006
Posts
25
Reactions
0
I feel bad for all caz holders actually, but gees, why would you take the risk and not swallow some profits at recent runup in sp? ( Assuming most didnt ).

Probably the same reason we all do...we see our nest egg growing and IMAGINE what a few more cents or dollars will do to the sp, so we sit.....and the decision goes to the other camp. This is part of market behaviour that we all go thru and will go thru again with any number of stocks. Some say its a learning experience....depends on your makeup...my 2000 debacle with ERG has helped me...and yep, I looked at caz at all diff levels but never considered it as an option for me and my investment rules. So good luck guys/gals...tax credits can sometimes make a huge diff to your trading as well.
 
Joined
13 September 2005
Posts
149
Reactions
0
I have read all the media reports.

In the court of public opinion RIO would never have won.


What gets ME is that we still don't have a clear cut explanation as to why it was in the Publics Interest to terminate Cazaly's application.


The minister has avoided giving a full explanation and has ducked for cover.

Who own WA

Looks to me like RIO do

A giant overseas mining co.
 
Joined
10 November 2005
Posts
902
Reactions
1
The worst part is this area may never get mined is that in the Publics Interest!! :swear:
cheers laurie
 
Joined
4 April 2005
Posts
209
Reactions
0
This is from The West Australian today

Jilted junior eyes lawsuit

MICHAEL WEIR

Cazaly Resources has threatened to take the State Government to court over the shock decision to hand the disputed Shovelanna iron ore deposit in the Pilbara back to mining giant Rio Tinto.

A shattered Cazaly boss Nathan McMahon yesterday vowed to pursue all options open to the company and would not rule out litigation.

Mr McMahon described the decision as abhorrent and said Resources Minister John Bowler had bowed to pressure from big business and dealt a potentially fatal blow to the "pro-development, transparent and fair values" that underpinned the WA Mining Act.

His comments were echoed by leading lobby group the Association of Mining and Exploration Companies, whose chief executive Justin Walawski said it was an "astonishing decision" at a time when the State's exploration levels were already at historic lows.

"This sends a strong message about how much exploration is really wanted in this State," Mr Walawski said. "There are already impediments to exploration and now we have a Minister who overturns a perfectly legal claim."

Brokers said Cazaly shares, which have raced from 30 ¢ to a peak of $2.30 last month and closed at $2.12 yesterday on speculation of winning the tenement, were likely to be severely hammered when trading re-opened on Monday.

"A lot of success has already been factored in and this will come as a big shock," one broker said. "There is likely to be a lot of punting money coming out."

Cazaly pegged the Shovelanna lease, near Newman, in August after Rio Tinto failed to renew its tenement before it expired.

Rio immediately began lobbying the State Government to have the lease returned, arguing it would not be in the public's interest to hand it to a small company lacking the financial or technical clout to develop it.

It also argued that it had clearly demonstrated its intent by paying the renewal fee well in advance and despatching the documents to a courier days before the due date.

But Cazaly argued Rio had deliberately kept the project in mothballs for more than two decades, and had not drilled a single hole in 16 years.

Cazaly also quickly stitched up a funding deal with merchant bank Investec, confirmed a resource of more than 200 million tonnes, and struck a deal to supply up to five million tonnes of ore annually to BHP Billiton, which is already mining the adjoining Orebody 18 deposit.

Cazaly claimed the public's interest is best served by awarding the lease to a company prepared to develop the lease and generate royal ties and employment for the State.

"You can interpret this as a direct win for big business," Mr McMahon said yesterday.

"This is not a plaint, we pegged vacant ground and Rio went to the Minister and said 'see that little company over there, knock them off in the public interest'."

Reflecting the sensitivities of the issue, Mr Bowler ducked for cover last night and refused to comment beyond a half-page statement that said it was "in the public interest" for the Cazaly's application to be terminated and Shovelanna to be handed back to Rio.

Rio Tinto iron ore chief Sam Walsh said in a statement the decision was welcomed and the company always intended to renew the tenement.
 
Joined
13 September 2005
Posts
149
Reactions
0
laurie said:
The worst part is this area may never get mined is that in the Publics Interest!! :swear:
cheers laurie

My guess is that Nathan is now worried that rio will expediate exploration at their expense!

Also take note of what Nathan said in a media article!

"Basically it's a public interest decision ... it's got nothing to
do with the balance sheet of one company versus the other."


As to the arguments about a 50 50 punt - that came out of Carpenters deceitful mouth back late last year. Prior to this comment - Everyone who bought shares in CAZ believed it was going to be a 100 to 1 positive outcome for CAZ! based on the laws and principles of the mining act. Carpenters comment gave rise to confusion and all the speculation we have seen to date.

Rio's defense and submission should have been made transparent and laid out for investors to make an informed decision right from the start, but did you notice they always remained tight lipped and never offered any comments when questioned by the media.

The real criminals are the politicians

and their decision needs to be scrutinised

along with any kickbacks they might be receiving from RIO

Also another bone of contention is that whenever CAZ's sp would peak to $2.00 last year Carpenter would come out and warn people about speculating!

Did he warn people about speculating in Rio shares!

Anyway I am so passionate about this issue!

I don't know why just am I made some good money from CAZ and it will be sad to see so many lose!
 
Joined
8 April 2006
Posts
18
Reactions
0
Hey everybody, read this:

Rio Tinto Iron Ore chief executive Sam Walsh welcomed the decision, saying the company had always intended to renew the Shovelana tenement lease.

"Investors in the resource industry need confidence and security that long-term decisions can be made in a stable and certain policy and administrative environment," Mr Walsh said.

Well thanks a lot from all of us who invested in Cazaly and did so after making proper consideration of the matter!

Investment in mining is a risky business at the best of times. I am sure that all of us carried out due diligence before deciding to put money into CAZ. This diligence included an examination of the mining act and the inaction of RIO and the actions of CAZ.

Bowler and his government have handed down a decision which has turned the WA Mining Act on its head. Obligations upon RIO to satisfy the requirements involved in holding and retaining the tenement have not been met (we all know the details) yet the minister has overturned a tenement holding which has satisfied all legal obligations.


I for one will be standing by CAZ (I have not lost a fortune) on a matter of principle. I am looking forward to the company applying pressure upon the government to justify in action. The public's interest is bound with the need for certainty in the application of mining laws. It is certainly not vested in a process which does not provide for, as RIO has put it, "Investors in the resource industry need confidence and security that long-term decisions can be made in a stable and certain policy and administrative environment



Now it is up to the government to come out (not run away) and state the reasons why they decided that it was in the public interest to act in the way they did.
 
Joined
25 August 2004
Posts
390
Reactions
0
public interest demands a public explanation its simply not good enough to give a decision to the public with no reasoning when its intended for thier best interest.. I hope some of the liberals get hold of this if they do thier homework they would be able to at least bring some light to it.. What annoys me the most is at a surface glance one can say yeah that sounds fair they had intent... but if you take the time to look at the past precedents, the spirit, principles and most of all the legalities of the mining act - it reeks so bad..

THiers one thing that always occcurs with these kind of fall in love with a stock stories and its confirmation bias... You only see what validates your position.. One thing that I put into the back of my mine was somewhere (i think in february) they developed a new type of holding claim .. i vaguely remember this being posted and it was to do with long term holding for strategic purposes... it twigged me then as possibly an opening being setup to validate a RIO decision .. can't remember the full details but it was a little sus at the time..

I honestly thought the best of carpenter thinking he was just concerned for caz holders when he hadn't got all the information yet.. BUt it clearly looks like the decision was made along time ago and wouldn't be changed despite the submissions.. The whole process seems to of been just a running through of the motions.. It sucks that this is left all up to one man with no transperency what so ever.. shamtastic

i'm sure there's another exciting chapter in the caz story to come... i hope they work the media hard.
 
Joined
1 November 2005
Posts
86
Reactions
0
tarnor said:
but if you take the time to look at the past precedents, the spirit, principles and most of all the legalities of the mining act...

You forgot to add "THE VIBE" :)

I am not happy with the outcome but surely people had to know this was always a possability and have some kind of exit strategy. To think that CAZ had this in the bag was a mistake. In CAZ and in general there should always be a plan to cover all possabilities. It will be very interesting to see what happens to the share price on Monday. If it dives big time would this make it attractive to people incase of a possable appeal? Now I dont know anything about options but could you have bought some kind of option to sell the shares at eg $2.00 if the decision was not favourable to hedge your bet?

Scott
 
Joined
4 December 2005
Posts
138
Reactions
0
They are stuffed , share price will hit 11 cents monday and then will settle
at 30 cents, good buying opp.
 
Joined
28 March 2006
Posts
28
Reactions
0
ok i mite put 1000$ on it once the share is at its lowest point around 11-15cents, but caz had it coming for them. small company big ambitions, BIG COMPETITI0N.

but i dont understand the market you see, before all this stuff with rio tinto, was the share really worth around 2.00? seriously, even with all the outcomes and good announcements? because i would have thought the stock would have been worth around 70-88cents.

lets see what options/suggestions we can come up with about buying before monday morning 10.00am!!!!!!!
 
Joined
28 March 2006
Posts
28
Reactions
0
I HOPE THE PEOPLE WHO BOUGHT CAZ ARE GONNA COUNT THE PROFITS ON MONDAY MORNING.......................................SORRY I MEAN THE LOSES

I THINK THE SHARE IS GONNA B WORTH :2twocents :2twocents :2twocents :2twocents :2twocents
 
Joined
23 April 2006
Posts
1
Reactions
0
:) Hi there, long time observer, first time contributor. In relation to CAZ, I too hold a portion of shares, and am not looking forward to monday trading! However from a more optimistic perspective, CAZ could utilise the attention derived from this unfortunate outcome to focus on their other mineral exploration..particually the flavour of the month...Uranium.
Given their current holding(s) in both the NT and WA, they would be wise to focus attention and commitment to these options. The market is quick to reward companies that seem to be on the Uranium search vessel, and little has been said or done in relation to their current Uranium research. I would suggest people focus on their Jan 06 Research paper, highlighting some good potential. Sure state govs has long since responded negatively to a resurgence of Uranium mining...however given the sway, and world wide demand, sooner or later, those companies that have exploration within these areas will reap the benifits.
In short....sure CAZ is going to get a probable hammering t'morrow...but focus on its other commitments, and coupled with careful publicity and commitment from CAZ and it may not actually be that bad. After all, so many people failed to respond ( with share movement) when it released its news on its Uranium exploration potentional...that perhaps only judicious investors have taken note ( behind the RIO hype) that CAZs share price should also factor this above mentioned point.
At the end of the day, sure CAZ isn't valued at $2.20...but highlight Uranium potential, and wait and see......
 
Joined
2 October 2005
Posts
234
Reactions
0
pussycat2005 said:
As to the arguments about a 50 50 punt - that came out of Carpenters deceitful mouth back late last year. Prior to this comment - Everyone who bought shares in CAZ believed it was going to be a 100 to 1 positive outcome for CAZ! based on the laws and principles of the mining act. Carpenters comment gave rise to confusion and all the speculation we have seen to date.

The real criminals are the politicians

and their decision needs to be scrutinised

along with any kickbacks they might be receiving from RIO

Also another bone of contention is that whenever CAZ's sp would peak to $2.00 last year Carpenter would come out and warn people about speculating!

Now now, Pussy, no need for such vitriol.
Carpenter (from what I have heard him say on numerous occassions since January) was non-committed when questioned about this issue in the past (see my post #9 on this thread from February). He doesn't make the decision anyway(or other politicians for that matter) - the State Solicitors office that do. They are meant to be impartial. Although I guess you would probably argue that there is some sort of scandal involving them as well.

Of course the Premier would caution people about speculating on CAZ, as would anyone with half a brain. This was a HIGHLY speculative play at best and anyone following the issue knew it.
If you put your money on CAZ (as I assume you did) and now stand to take a big hit on Monday, that's unfortunate, but really it's the old story - if something sounds too good to be true, it probably is. You can't blame anyone else except yourself for the (potential) loss, regardless of the merits of the decision handed down.

I feel for the people who saw this as get-rich-quick scheme, but they should be looking at the bigger picture and not be blinded by ramping and hype that often apprears on these forums.

Personally, I couldn't care less who gets the mining lease over this piece of dirt , RIO or CAZ.
Can you point it out on a map?

There's gonna be some carnage on Monday..........
 
Joined
13 September 2005
Posts
149
Reactions
0
BraceFace said:
Now now, Pussy, no need for such vitriol.
Carpenter (from what I have heard him say on numerous occassions since January) was non-committed when questioned about this issue in the past (see my post #9 on this thread from February). He doesn't make the decision anyway(or other politicians for that matter) - the State Solicitors office that do. They are meant to be impartial. Although I guess you would probably argue that there is some sort of scandal involving them as well.

Of course the Premier would caution people about speculating on CAZ, as would anyone with half a brain. This was a HIGHLY speculative play at best and anyone following the issue knew it.
If you put your money on CAZ (as I assume you did) and now stand to take a big hit on Monday, that's unfortunate, but really it's the old story - if something sounds too good to be true, it probably is. You can't blame anyone else except yourself for the (potential) loss, regardless of the merits of the decision handed down.

I feel for the people who saw this as get-rich-quick scheme, but they should be looking at the bigger picture and not be blinded by ramping and hype that often apprears on these forums.

Personally, I couldn't care less who gets the mining lease over this piece of dirt , RIO or CAZ.
Can you point it out on a map?

There's gonna be some carnage on Monday..........

What part don't you understand! Prior to Carpenters public 50 50 slur those who INVESTED IN CAZ saw it as 100/1 and not in Rio's FAVOUR!

The merits of the case are simple
RIO were negligent
CAZ pegged vacant land

I am happy with the returns i made following caz up from 60 to 2.00

Fortunately I couldn't stomach the underhanded methods the CARpenter/Bowler camp were applying so I bailed, They are crooked and bent.

This decision confirms it!

Shifty announcement late Friday evening!

No explanation as to why the govt decided to terminate caz's application

no comment from Bowler

and you call that a fair outcome

lol give me a break!

IMho :)
 
Joined
10 January 2006
Posts
193
Reactions
0
Taken from an article in minesite mag.
---------------------------------------
"despite what the cheer squad said, Rio Tinto had a case; it had paid for the renewal of Shovelanna, even if the paperwork was in a truck somewhere up the Great Northern Highway. Not only did Rio Tinto pay via a cheque lodged with the WA Mines Department office in Perth, but the Department’s web site even acknowledged that the payment was specifically for Shovelanna. Even the most simple minded speculator should have been able to work out that an exchange of money is a pretty definite expression of intent, even if the dog ate the paperwork, or someone left it in a van".
-------------------------------------------
Pretty clear cut to me.
If WA Mines dept. believed that physical receipt of the paperwork was mandatory they would have held the cheque until the paperwork was received.
 
Joined
1 November 2005
Posts
86
Reactions
0
pussycat2005 said:
What part don't you understand! Prior to Carpenters public 50 50 slur those who INVESTED IN CAZ saw it as 100/1 and not in Rio's FAVOUR!

The merits of the case are simple
RIO were negligent
CAZ pegged vacant land

Who cares what the investors thought. They dont make the decisions, they dont often know all the facts, and they dont know all the relevant laws and regulations. Did you read the mining legislation posted by markrmau?

MINING ACT 1978 - SECT 111A said:
(d) a person who in relation to the land was formerly the lessee of a mining lease the term of which has expired, or is a person deriving title through such a former lessee, has subsequently made a late renewal application and the Minister, being satisfied that the requirements of that expired mining lease and of this Act in relation to that lease had been substantially observed (other than as to the timing of an application for renewal) and that the person has continued to observe those requirements as if the term of the lease had not expired, determines that the renewal application should be approved and grants that renewal.

I dont think you are being impartial and you need to step back and look at this from all sides. From what I have read Rio paid well in advance and sent the paperwork off a couple of weeks in advance. They were assured that it would be delivered early and it wasnt. As far as they probably knew it was in. As far as the premiers 50/50 comment that is his duty of care to say that. Do you have any proof that there are underhanded methods going on or just baseless accusations. If you dont like the outcome have your say at the ballot box next election.

Scott
 
Top