Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

CAZ - Cazaly Resources

Joined
4 December 2005
Posts
138
Reactions
0
123enen said:
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.
100 % agree if you pay the money you have the intent , so if you brought the
shares at $2.00 you will have lost about 85 % off your money so learn from
this buy only into companies with real value or just put your money on the
horses.
 
Joined
13 September 2005
Posts
149
Reactions
0
Strw23 said:
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


Scott only a court of law could lift the lid of what went on behind closed doors.

And I hope the facts of this scandalous saga become transparent.

Rio's failure to renew their lease didn't happen once it happened twice.

And their irresponsibility will cost them dearly - if justice is to prevail!

so I hope in the end CAZ get their day in court!
 
Joined
25 August 2004
Posts
390
Reactions
0
Hi as i posted else where heres a bit of the summary of what the problem is...

briefly..

Money refunded to RIO... no paperwork no lease(the paperwork is the crucial element)... .. CAZ application now first in line... RIO's paperwork now arrives after CAZ paperwork.. under legal process shovelanna legally cazalies..

RIO apeals under s111a to have cazaly lease terminated on grounds of public interest..

So basically you now have to determine would the lease be of best interest to the public in cazalies hands or RIO's

RIO's Intent shouldn't come into the arguement it a very very small public interest attempt at best centering on sypathy compared to whats up for grabs here...

Principles of mining act
Use it or lose it policy.. companies can be stripped of resources if they don't meet expentiture.. Much negativity around locking up valueable resources for the state and how this would be cleaned up..

RIO only met obligatory expenditure on the lease 5 out of 11 times if i recall.. they have done nothing on the lease for something like 16 years??? and hold it for strategic value as it is very far from thier infastructure.. its main value is its adjacent to BHP orebody 18 thier main rival..

public interest would say that we shouldnt have our resources locked up.. that it is most practical to have it mined by caz and tied in with bhp.. producing revenues for the state

caz demonstrated ability to bring the resource into production

________________

Precedents

In past similar situations and decisions compaines have been told condolences for the loss but something as important as a a tennent renewal should be watched closely

"Failure of a mining application to be received by Registrar when sent in time must not be looked at when deciding whether a competing application has been filed"

The only one recalled example where it was returned to the previous holder involved the midnight pegging of a lease where the mining pit was being dug.. many people and thier families would of been adversly effected etc.. The public interest loop hole was brought into protect this sort of situation i presume..

Totally different to the RIO's exploration lease which they did SFA on..

why give it to a big multinational when you can keep something in an australia company which will provide revenue for the state and at least minutely erode the controlling power of two giants in the industry

shovelanna was nothing to rio wouldnt have even effected thier share price.. but cazaly and holders(gamblers ? :/) who put thier faith in the government will be slaughtered

_____________________________________________

RIO have doen this on a few occasions as far as couriers being late.. why should they be untouchable.. Even so intent is irrelevant here it means jack all.. its the company respnsibility to get thier stuff in on time.. Something so important should be delivered early, watched carefully or done in person..

the general consensus was thier was no arguement for caz to answer 2.. bothing no public interest arguement.. thiers a sympathy for RIO arguement? but that just doesn't cut it..


it was trading at such a high price cause cazaly was odds on as far as the law went.. was big money in this.. many in the know are completely shocked its a total seperate set of rules for the big company for something that they wont even use.. and effects them little.. spineless

THe thing that upsets me the most is the genral public don't understand they'll never get beyond a few newspaper articles which bearly scratch the surface..

Please consider this you may see a lot of people whinging alot and you'll think thier sore losers.. And you migth take the chance to make yourself feel superior by saying they were idiots etc but don't forget this case its a telling saga - the law means little when it comes to powerful multinationals even in australia..I'm really glad to see pussy posting he made a killing out of caz and traded it better then some. he has no vested interest in being appalled..
 
Joined
13 September 2005
Posts
149
Reactions
0
And I found this on HC which clearly sums up the issue at hand!

The rio submission was on the basis of public interest not whether caz's lease was invalid!

The caz lease has been terminated...thus for it to be terminated it had to be accepted in the first place.

get with it guys the real argument is whether the public interest is served by giving it to rio...given that caz had will, resources (both financial & technical) to develop the deposit for the first time in 20 years that the deposit had any chance of being developed

lastly the mining act is strictly adhered to (till this point) on a first in basis

if bowler was so convinced of his reason why has he not explained it!
 
Joined
13 September 2005
Posts
149
Reactions
0
"Mining company wants explanation
By Jane Hammond
23-04-2006
From: AAP

THE head of mining minnow Cazaly Resources, Nathan McMahon has
called on West Australian Resources Minister John Bowler to explain
why his company has been stripped of a lucrative mining tenement.

Mr McMahon said he had been offered no explanation as to why
Cazaly's application for the tenement had been terminated in the
name of public interest.
"This fight is not over yet, not by a long shot," Mr McMahon said.

Mr Bowler announced late on Friday that he would strip Cazaly of the
valuable Pilbara iron ore tenement enabling Rio Tinto to reclaim the
ground.

Mr Bowler said at the time that he had carefully examined the case
and was satisfied that the public interest was best served by
terminating Cazaly's application to explore the Shovelanna deposit
in the Pilbara.

The move handed the resource back to mining giant Rio Tinto which
had forgotten to renew its permit for the mining tenement last
August, enabling Cazaly to peg the claim.

Mr Bowler was not available for comment today.

Mr McMahon is seeking legal advice on the issue and is demanding an
explanation as to how the decision best serves the public interest.

"In all my experience in the mining industry I have never heard of a
case where a person has got their tenement terminated or refused by
the minister in the public interest where that party has done
everything right," Mr McMahon said.

"There are more than just the handful of major mining companies that
make this state go on. This is a huge win for big business, it is
awful for everyone else."

Mr McMahon said the decision was a throwback to the dark days of WA
Inc.

"This decision is unexplained. The minister must explain this
decision to the public.

"I would like John Bowler to go to the front bar of the Exchange
Hotel in his electorate of Kalgoorlie and explain his decision to
all those people who make a living off small mining companies."

Mr McMahon said the mining industry was in shock over the decision
and he was receiving support from many different sectors of the
industry and associated businesses."
 
Joined
1 November 2005
Posts
86
Reactions
0
tarnor said:
public interest would say that we shouldnt have our resources locked up.. that it is most practical to have it mined by caz and tied in with bhp.. producing revenues for the state

caz demonstrated ability to bring the resource into production

I dont claim to be an expert so I am just throwing this up there. But what if not deveoping this site is in the public interest. Developing this could cause an oversupply and hence effect prices negatively and possibly causing other mine closures or lay offs. Would it be a better idea to develop this mine some time in the future when supply is slowing down. I have personally worked away at mines my whole life and know what its like when mines close down because its not cost effective to remove the product until prices rise. Just a thought.

Scott
 
Joined
25 August 2004
Posts
390
Reactions
0
Yep your spot on and i'm glad to see someone is actually thinking.. this could be the case but with the ironore demand at the moment and set to rise i think what we have now is the perfect time to mine it and capitalise on the high prices.. Particually when the adjacent orebody 18 is being prepared and both resources could effectively be mined as the one project (which was mentioned in LOI/BHP)

RIO being a company with many projects is not reliant on shovelanna alone but can bring them online in a timely manner... But in this case its miles away from thier infastructure it may never be mined by them and possibly would be swapped with bhp or who knows.. its of strategic value..

from this angle i think its clearly in the publics interest to have cazaly develop it..

to use this logic you could say that it was in the public interest that we stripped every company of thier tennents and had one develop it.. RIO isn't here to protect us its the politicains who give the 'okay; to the development of new resources shovelanna is still at the exploration stage.. caz were about to launch into a serious drilling campaign and find the extent of whats thier .. what have RIO done for the tennent in how many years? :(
 
Joined
25 August 2004
Posts
390
Reactions
0
Liberals wade into Cazaly claim row

CATIE LOW


State Opposition Leader Paul Omodei joined Cazaly Resources yesterday in demanding Resources Minister John Bowler disclose the reasons behind his controversial decision to hand back the disputed Shovelanna iron ore deposit to mining giant Rio Tinto.

With Cazaly shares expected to be savaged today, Mr Omodei said the Government had taken far too long to make a ruling and it needed to explain why returning the Pilbara resource to Rio Tinto was in the public interest. "There are a lot of people in the community that aren't happy about that decision but I want to know why, on what grounds has John Bowler made that decision," Mr Omodei said.

With Cazaly and the WA Government apparently on a collision course for legal action, the State's junior explorers have decried the decision, claiming it will do serious damage to the State's exploration sector.

Mr Bowler maintained his silence on the issue yesterday.

Cazaly pegged the Shovelanna deposit, near Newman, in August after Rio Tinto failed to meet the deadline to renew its lease. Rio lobbied 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.

Cazaly secured 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's share price rocketed from 30 ¢ to a high of $2.30 last month. It closed at $2.12 on Friday.

A number of parties are already understood to have offered financial support to fund any legal action by Cazaly but managing director Nathan McMahon said it was too early to be talking about a fighting fund or whether BHP Billiton would play a role.

"Right now what we have is a three-line comment from the Government that doesn't talk about anything," Mr McMahon said. "This has got the smell of big business about it and the WA public should be able to get a reason."

Fellow iron ore junior Atlas Gold said it was difficult to see how Cazaly's plan to develop Shovelanna in partnership with BHP Billiton was not in the best interests of the State. Managing director David Flanagan said one of the key issues was the timing of the development of the Shovelanna deposit, which Rio Tinto had left virtually untouched for two decades.

"If it's going to be done in the best interests of the State it needs to be done in the current commodity boom," Mr Flanagan said.

Association of Mining and Exploration Companies chief executive Justin Walawski said the Government's decision had the capacity to undermine investment in mineral exploration in WA.

But former Portman boss George Jones said he had expected the Government would find in Rio's favour, particularly as it had paid for the lease and sent off its renewal.
 
Joined
6 November 2005
Posts
915
Reactions
0
:)

Hi folks,

..... and for those traders, who may be looking
for a bounce in CAZ, here's some info that
may help.

Now that the results are out against CAZ, it
will be interesting to see how far it falls and
WHEN traders will start buying back into CAZ.

Here's our take on the sentiment ahead and
some key dates to watch for news/moves,
in this stock:

24042006 ... minor

2804-01052006 ... minor and positive news?

09052006 ... negative spotlight on CAZ

15-16052006 ... 2 cycles here and negative
news expected

19-22052006 ... minor & positive - finances?

29052006 ... significant & positive news?

09062006 ... positive spotlight on CAZ

14-15062006 ... 2 cycles, negative finances?

04072006 ... significant, negative cycle

10-11072006 ... major & positive finances ?
2 cycles here.

26072006 ... minor

03082007 ... minor ... finances?

11082006 ... negative spotlight on CAZ

20-22082006 ... major and negative news?

28082006 ... major & negative finances?

01-11092006 ... 3 very significant, negative
cycles in play here.

21092006 ... minor

25092006 ... minor and positive news?

... and that STRONG negative cycle should
re-appear from 29092006-to-03102006, as well.

happy days

yogi

:)
 
Joined
8 April 2006
Posts
18
Reactions
0
Strw23 said:
I dont claim to be an expert so I am just throwing this up there. But what if not deveoping this site is in the public interest. Developing this could cause an oversupply and hence effect prices negatively and possibly causing other mine closures or lay offs. Would it be a better idea to develop this mine some time in the future when supply is slowing down. I have personally worked away at mines my whole life and know what its like when mines close down because its not cost effective to remove the product until prices rise. Just a thought.

Scott

Scott if this is the reason why the government decided in favour of RIO, then it would be guilty of market manipulation and the ACCC would be on to them.
 
Joined
24 March 2006
Posts
570
Reactions
0
so scared to follow this bull
can go up or down either way very fast....
jeez... now i look like a chicken.... :p:
 
Joined
17 September 2004
Posts
884
Reactions
8
I'm a bit confused here. The link I refered to earlier stated:

"The Minister may....refuse an application for a mining tenement......a person who in relation to the land was formerly the 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."

The minister was doing exactly what was required from the mining act.

Rightly or wrongly, the fact that RIO doesn't intend to mine it is irrelevant. RIO showed that their action in relation to renewing the lease had been substantially observed - they paid for the renewal and gave the documents to a courier a week before the cutoff.

Public interest is a furphy. Please consult a licensed physician before trading CAZ.
 
Joined
13 September 2005
Posts
149
Reactions
0
markrmau said:
I'm a bit confused here. The link I refered to earlier stated:

"The Minister may....refuse an application for a mining tenement......a person who in relation to the land was formerly the 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."

The minister was doing exactly what was required from the mining act.

Rightly or wrongly, the fact that RIO doesn't intend to mine it is irrelevant. RIO showed that their action in relation to renewing the lease had been substantially observed - they paid for the renewal and gave the documents to a courier a week before the cutoff.

Public interest is a furphy. Please consult a licensed physician before trading CAZ.

Am I the only one that can't seem to find a paragraph about late renewals.

Is this a 2006 Ammendment

:banghead:
 
Joined
13 September 2005
Posts
149
Reactions
0
markrmau said:
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/wa/consol_act/ma197881/s111a.html

111A - (1) - d.

Note, I have NFI what 111A - (2) means.

Thanks markmau

ok so its stating the minister can grant a renewal if the former lessee forgot to extend! but see this can't stand because the application was already granted to CAZ before their late application came in.

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.

Secondly we can't really come to any conclusions because the Minister hasn't really declared any "reasonable grounds" that made him terminate CAZ's EL, so you can't really speculate about cheques and the dog ate the paperwork etc

So everyone is still holding their breaths
 
Top