PDA

View Full Version : CAZ Cazaly Resources Ltd



Pages : [1] 2

stolwyk
17-08-2005, 11:44 AM
CAZ Cazaly Resources Ltd: http://www.cazalyresources.com.au/

Graph: http://bigcharts.marketwatch.com/quickchart/quickchart.asp?symb=AU%3ACAZ&sid=0&o_symb=AU%3ACAZ&freq=1&time=8&x=41&y=18

Listed Oct 2003. Shares: 29 mill +11.15 mill(not listed)=40.15 mill shares. Share price: 33 cents

Options: CAZO: 9.1 mill to convert at 15.02 cents by 31 Jan. 2006. Option price: 16.5 cents



FARMOUTS:
8 July 2004: Divestment of East Kalgoorlie Project(PLANET):
http://stocknessmonster.com/news-item?S=CAZ&E=ASX&N=264574


2 Sept 2004: $1.4m Joint Venture with CSM at Kunanalling (nickel)
http://stocknessmonster.com/news-item?S=CAZ&E=ASX&N=268491

27 Jan 2005: Scimitar Resources Ltd closes IPO & Set to List on ASX
http://stocknessmonster.com/news-item?S=CAZ&E=ASX&N=280759


31 March 2005: Drake Resources Ltd Set To List on ASX
http://stocknessmonster.com/news-item?S=CAZ&E=ASX&N=286233
Extract:
"Cazaly Resources Ltd has vended the Mt. Carrington project to Drake. The terms of the Agreements involve Cazaly retaining a free-carried 10% interest as well as receiving consideration of $150,000 cash and 4,500,000 fully paid shares in Drake Resources Ltd".

30 June 2005: Graynic Metals Ltd Listing
http://stocknessmonster.com/news-item?S=CAZ&E=ASX&N=292952
Extract:
"Cazaly remains well funded and retains strong equity positions in and joint ventures with ASX listed entities Great Australian Resources Ltd, Discovery Nickel Ltd, Scimitar Resources Ltd and
Drake Resources Ltd. Importantly, Cazaly remains free-carried in these Agreements and there are drilling components in the majority of these Agreements".

14 July 2005: Mining Agreement - Catherwood Gold Deposit
http://stocknessmonster.com/news-item?S=CAZ&E=ASX&N=293916


June 30, quarterly: Outflow: $0.984 mill. Cash: $1.648 mill.


Gerry
Bought CAZ and CAZO last week.

stolwyk
17-08-2005, 01:56 PM
URANIUM PROJECTS
15 July 2005: Data exchange agreements
http://stocknessmonster.com/news-item?S=CAZ&E=ASX&N=294006

Extract:
"Cazaly recently announced it has made priority applications for two Exploration Licences situated in the Gascoyne region of Western Australia. The two applications lie some 150 kilometres apart and are called the Jailor Bore (ELA09/1194) and Pells Range (ELA09/1193)
projects and are deemed to be particularly prospective for Uranium mineralisation.

The Jailor Bore project surrounds known mineralisation at Jailor Bore, which is excised from the application area, and is prospective for calcrete hosted uranium mineralisation numerous occurrences of which occur throughout the area. Kalgoorlie-Boulder Resources Ltd has recently concluded an Agreement whereby they may acquire up to a 90% interest in the Jailor Bore tenement ( the Lyndon project).

The Lyndon project, ELA 09/1180 was the subject of exploration during the early seventies which resulted in the delineation of calcrete hosted uranium mineralisation. Subsequent work identified at least five medium to high intensity radiometric anomalies, four of which remain untested. Visible carnotite, a uranium bearing mineral, was observed in a bulk sample that returned a uranium assay of 1.81 kg/tonne.

Drilling intercepts have returned results as high as 1.80kg/t and 1.70kg/t from 5 and 2 metres in depth respectively, with most mineralisation within 4 metres of the surface. Kalgoorlie-Boulder Resources also announced it has made priority applications for three Exploration Licences that are prospective for uranium mineralisation.

The Eudamullah, ELA 09/1224 and 09/1225 and Winmar Creek, ELA 9/1226, projects are located in the Gascoyne Mineral Field. Both have been the subject of reconnaissance style uranium exploration dating from the late seventies which has generated a number of radiometric
anomalies requiring further investigation.

The Pells Range project contains some very significant historical results including rock samples up to 1.95 kg/t U3O8 and drilling results including 0.4m @ 0.8 kg/t U3O8 from drilling spaced at
1,600 metres and has yet to be followed up. Classic “roll front uranium” mineralisation styles are recognised at Pells Range".


9 Aug 2005: Lake Way Uranium Project
http://stocknessmonster.com/news-item?S=CAZ&E=ASX&N=296295

17 Aug 2005: High Grade Uranium Project acq in Northern Territory
http://stocknessmonster.com/news-item?S=CAZ&E=ASX&N=296841

stolwyk
17-08-2005, 03:11 PM
GOLD. (Farmouts on first post).
2 March 2005: Outridge Drilling Results
http://stocknessmonster.com/news-item?S=CAZ&E=ASX&N=283873

15 July 2004: Kunanalling Project
http://stocknessmonster.com/news-item?S=CAZ&E=ASX&N=265033
NB: Some of these have been farmed out.

26 July 2005: Initial Resource - Picante Deposit(Kunanalling):
http://stocknessmonster.com/news-item?S=CAZ&E=ASX&N=294791
Extract:
"The discovery of the mineralisation at Picante has further confirmed the Company’s belief that the Castle Hill area at Kunanalling has the potential to host further significant gold resources.

The identification of mineralising controls at Picante has lead to the recognition of several other look-alike targets within the project which, following initial drilling, have also yielded promising
results as previously announced. Further drilling and metallurgical testwork is currently being planned to finalise and upgrade the status of the resource".

stolwyk
17-08-2005, 04:42 PM
RE POST 1--FARMOUTS

Please include the following:
http://www.cazalyresources.com.au/index.php?id=24

(The JV with Scimitar and Drake have been mentioned previously in post1).

So, sofar CAZ has 10 JVs or Farmouts (6 from post 1 and 4 from the website. (Their listing is not complete-the website needs updating).

There are another 2 JVs, one with Placer Dome and the other concerning the Northland project (Placer Dome and Hampton Hill).

So, that makes it a total of 12 JVs.

These guys certainly work at high speed.

Reading the: "Projects" from their website, there are still massive areas still to be explored:
http://www.cazalyresources.com.au/index.php?id=9


It seems that CAZ wants to concentrate on Gold and Uranium and farm out the rest.

Gerry
Readers, please do your own research and you decide if and when to buy, hold or sell any stocks.

Dazza
18-08-2005, 03:33 PM
question for u gerry

so the reason why the SP shot from 25 to 65cents during december was due to upgrade of gold prospects.

how eva... it quickly sank down over the following 7 months ........ do u know why?

cause i dun..

stolwyk
18-08-2005, 04:51 PM
Gold prices reached a peak of about $455 in the beginning of Dec and sank to $365 in the beginning of Febr. There was a lot of optimism in Dec.

However, this Company dates from 2003 and has collected some of the best parcels while metal prices were low. I rate it highly, one reason being the large number of farmouts.

And there is a lot more of territory to farm out if they take time to explore,IMHO:

http://www.cazalyresources.com.au/index.php?id=10&PHPSESSID=1ca96be1d361805eb3a5daa85cb4c25a

http://www.cazalyresources.com.au/index.php?id=11

http://www.cazalyresources.com.au/index.php?id=12

And others.

There is no lack of decent projects, IMHO and they have preserved their capital very well: 40 mill shares and 9 mill options.


Gerry
Readers, please do your own research and you decide if and when to buy, hold or sell any stocks.

stolwyk
18-08-2005, 05:49 PM
Loeb Aron Research Report:

http://www.cazalyresources.com.au/news.php?g=4

Dazza
18-08-2005, 08:26 PM
thanks for your reply gerry

yes thats what i like about them too, farm outs :P

whats this about mining of gold in october?

production already?

with that private company eh?

stolwyk
30-09-2005, 10:30 PM
Sept 7: Tenement Application - Shovelanna Iron Ore Project
http://stocknessmonster.com/news-item?S=CAZ&E=ASX&N=298469

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

ASX RELEASE

30 September 2005
Cazaly Appoints Leading Capital and Legal Advisors To Assist in Licence Application For Shovelanna Iron Ore Project Cazaly Resources Ltd (ASX: CAZ) has appointed investment bank Argonaut Capital Limited and law firm Hunt & Humphrey to offer strategic advice to the company regarding the exploration licence application for the Shovelanna Iron Ore Project (ELA 46/678).

The Company made the application for an exploration licence for this project on 7 September 2005. Argonaut is an independent Perth-based investment bank with a track record of attracting major industry partners to emerging resource projects. Today they have confirmed their intention to place 1 million ordinary fully paid shares at $0.40 per share to raise A$400,000. This placement will be made to the existing Argonaut client base.

In addition, Cazaly has appointed leading resources law firm Hunt & Humphrey as its legal adviser in relation to the granting of the application for EL 46/678, together with any future legal matters associated with the exploration licence. In addition to its standing within the resources sector, its principal Michael Hunt is an authority on Western Australian mining law having written several leading textbooks on the subject and has been independently recognised as Western Australia’s number one mining lawyer. The exploration licence application covering the Shovelanna Iron Project, which lies approximately 25 kilometres east of Mt. Newman covers a portion of the Brockman Iron Formation and is located within 2 kilometres of the Shovelanna Hill, Wheelarra Hill Orebody 31 and Mt. Newman Orebody 18.

Yours sincerely
Nathan McMahon
Managing Director

Moonshine
01-10-2005, 07:58 PM
Some pretty keen speculation on HC that CAZ is "in bed" with MGX in relation to Shovelanna tenements.

100 million tonnes of Iron Ore involved... deal could possibly be stitched up already.

The appointment of the legal firm as pointed out by Gerry above will make it VERY hard for RIO to successfully appeal CAZ's exploration license application on Shovelanna.

Should CAZ come out on top (and the odds are HIGHLY stacked in CAZ's favour), this tightly held share should head North in rather a hurry.

Watching very closely on Monday, with a view to enter on any weakness.

Cheers,

Moonshine

ps - speculation is exactly that... an agenda-biased claim by ONE individual... not gospel.

Dazza
01-10-2005, 10:06 PM
i like gerry is in it for the farm outs they have

plus for myself the gold production that they are starting :P

stolwyk
01-10-2005, 10:42 PM
I rang CAZ late on Friday and asked them how often an Appeal (By a company like RIO) would have succeeded over the years, the Mining Act has been in force.

Their answer: ONCE only.

I am not sure in what circumstances this occurred.


One HotCopper poster mentioned that "his understanding is that for the appeal to be successful, the govt has to OVERRULE the Mining Act and they can only do this if it is in the BEST INTEREST OF THE STATE OF WA".

Apparently RIO has been sitting on this Iron Ore for many years. So if CAZ informs the Statutory Body not to allow this Appeal by RIO because it is in the interest of the State Govt. that this Ore project be speedily developed and that CAZ is willing to do that, then it *could* be that RIO would lose the case.

However, that is just an opinion.


Gerry

Moonshine
01-10-2005, 11:34 PM
The options (CAZO) are excercisable at 15c on 31st Jan 06... and at close on Friday (21.5c) were rading at a discount to the Heads at 38c.

They represent great value IMO.

Daz... will look to join you with those.

Cheers,

Moonshine

Dazza
02-10-2005, 02:47 PM
join me up :P
i brought at 21 cents the options and will exercise them in jan :P

stolwyk
04-10-2005, 12:11 PM
CAZ and ECH commit to drilling program for Shovelanna Proj.
http://stocknessmonster.com/news-item?S=CAZ&E=ASX&N=300952

TEXT:
Cazaly and Echelon Commit to Drilling Program
For Shovelanna Iron Ore Project

Cazaly Resources Limited (Cazaly) is pleased to announce that it has entered into an agreement
with Echelon Resources Limited (Echelon) to provide technical capabilities and fund a drilling program on the Shovelanna Iron Ore Project (ELA 46/678).

Cazaly made the application for an exploration licence for this project on 29 August 2005 and is particularly pleased that Echelon has agreed to commit $2.5 million towards an exploration program designed to generate a JORC compliant Indicated/Inferred Resource.

ELA 46/678 contains an extension of Orebody 18 currently being mined by BHP Billiton. The extension has a surface expression of some 3.5 kilometres and is generally 300 to 600 metres wide.

Cazaly and Echelon intend to commence a drilling program of up to 5,000 metres as soon as possible once the application is granted.
The tenement area, approximately 25 kilometres east of Mt Newman, was previously held by Hamersley Resources Limited (a subsidiary of Rio Tinto), Wright Prospecting Pty Ltd and Han****Prospecting Pty Ltd under E46/209 which expired on 26 August 2005.

Cazaly is also pleased to announce that it has received the results of rock chip samples taken from a recent field trip to ELA 46/678. From 13 samples the ore averaged 66.5% Fe (P 0.07%) indicating high-grade iron ore.

Under the agreement Echelon is also required to provide specialist iron ore technical services to ensure that Cazaly has the requisite technical capabilities to advance the Shovelanna Iron Ore Project through to development.

Echelon’s managing director, Mr Matthew Rimes, is a mining engineer with an extensive career in the resources sector. Mr Rimes has primarily worked for major mining companies including Rio Tinto Group and North Limited focused on iron ore. Over the past 10 years he has been with Robe River Mining (an associated entity of Rio Tinto) and held senior positions at Robe River Mining’s operations at Pannawonica and West Angelas. Prior to joining Echelon in June
2005, Mr Rimes held the position of Executive Manager Resource Development for Robe River
Mining.

In consideration for Echelon committing to provide technical capabilities and funding $2.5 million in exploration funds, Echelon will receive a 14% interest in ELA 46/678 and receive 5 million options in Cazaly, exercisable at $1.00, on or before 31 December 2007".
++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Comment: That action will satisfy the Mining Authority that the Iron ore will be immediately exploited.

Gerry

Dazza
04-10-2005, 03:00 PM
options up 50% yesturday
today up 40%

im happy very happy :P

Moonshine
04-10-2005, 04:39 PM
The announcement detailing the plans to drill the Shovelannna prospect is excellent.

Should cover any legal loopholes that either of the raised objections are aimed at.

Missed my chance to get into the options around the 20c mark... however, it is possible that the DORI decision on the tenement could take anywhere from a few weeks to a few months.

In this time the price will either:

a) keep edging upwards (and become more speculative, setting itself up for a big fall if the decision does not go CAZ's way)

b) retrace a bit and move into a sideways pattern untill the decision is known.

I fancy that scenario a) is the most likely outcome... especially since it would take a legal precedent for CAZ's application to be denied/overruled by the DORI.
In that case, I still will be looking for a slight retracement over the next week and hope to get in on a spot of weakness.

Of course, I could be totally wrong and she will keep steaming up to the $1.00 mark!!

Luck of the draw i guess.

Well done to Gerry and Dazza for getting it right.

Cheers,

Moonshine

stolwyk
07-10-2005, 12:32 PM
BHP no threat to Cazaly application

Jesse Riseborough

Thursday, October 06, 2005
BHP Billiton has confirmed it was forced into the Shovelanna iron ore tenement dispute earlier this week because the ground pegged by fast moving junior Cazaly Resources overlapped ground containing its Orebody 18 mine.

Cazaly Resource managing director Nathan McMahon told MiningNews.net that the tenement application may well have overlapped, unintentionally.

"Just by the way the tenements have to be applied for, there is always an overlap," he said. "That may well be the case [but] I can't second guess what the objection is about until we see it."

"Right now there have been two objections lodged and we have to attend to that."

BHPB spokeswoman Emma Meade confirmed to MiningNews.net that this was the basis for BHPB's objection to Cazaly's application.

"That is our only issue, that their application licence actually overlaps our existing tenement," she said. "Apparently it is quite common for this to happen. We are just procedurally lodging an objection because they are pegging over our ground.

"When Rio had the ground there was a boundary, a very clear line where theirs ended and ours began. If Cazaly are successful, they need to peg back to that boundary.

"We are not going to allow them to come on to our tenement – that is our only issue."

Cazaly made an application for the Shovelanna exploration licence on August 29 after the previous licence holders, Hamersley Iron [50%], Han****Prospecting [25%] and Wright Prospecting [25%] allowed the licence to lapse on August 26. Han****Prospecting has also lodged an objection.

McMahon conceded there remained the possibility that the previous holder could also apply directly to the minister. However MiningNews.net understands that the overturning of an application in such instances is rare.

"I am confident but it is not over until the fat lady sings," McMahon said.

Shares in Cazaly were off 1.5c [3.1%] to 46.5c in morning trade.

Click here to read the rest of today's news stories.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++

CURRENT: CAZ: 49 cents.

CAZO-No sale as yet. 33 cents later?

robbo
07-10-2005, 01:40 PM
Cazaly (CAZ)

Hi guys,

Yep, I did have Cazaly. Still do.

Remember that the "fight" will be between Hancock/RIO and Western
Australia, Department of MINES.

Not b/w CAZ and Hancock/Rio.

Implication being that CAZ do not have to spend millions on a Legal Fight....

It's a Legal argument, if and when it gets to that, b/w Government of WA (Dept of Mines) and Hancock/Rio and BHP

Probably eventually a "deal" will be brokered b/w the parties ....???

Still therefore on balance.... see very strong Up Side for CAZ.... although these things can take a few months to resolve.... and there are NO guarantees, until as the CAZ MD says, "the fat lady sings"....


Quite interesting to see how CAZ situation "pans out"..

Personally .....the way I personally and as an opinion only......assess it:... it seems that the precedent is quite clear and relatiely inviolable and firm, in CAZ's favour ...

I have a few Legal Contacts in Western Australia, and
having spoken to them ......they are backing CAZ on this one....

To go against this; IMO ...only.... would cause potential lack of confidence and major havoc in the smooth running of the "rules of the game" for the Mining Industry.

Basically, IMO..... Hancock/RIO, and to a smaller extent BHO, have got a real problem, on this one.....

It is mostly upside for CAZ, ..... of course only in my view....

Kindest Regards,

Robbo :)

stolwyk
07-10-2005, 05:11 PM
Someone on H/C mentioned that the CAZ Company secretary told him it usually took about 35 days and today is the day. Give it another week, he reckons.

Sofar, the Minister has never ruled against a pegged claim, according to him.

COMMENT: Reader, you got this second hand so you can ignore it if you want to.
__________________________________

I don't think there will be any negotiation between CAZ and Han****on the matter of owning the Iron ore block previously held by Hancock: CAZ was merely pegging out unclaimed tenements at that time, so no negotiation is warranted. Why should they; they have the aces and the Minister decides the outcome.

As to BHP Billiton's boundary dispute, the issue is a separate one and ought to be resolved quickly and amicably assuming CAZ is succesful.
__________________________

Gerry
Readers, please do your own research and you decide if and when to buy, hold or sell any stocks.

Dazza
09-11-2005, 04:45 PM
been working
from 9-530

and next shift at 6-10

so could someone post and tell me what da hell happened to my shares?

MY FIRST 1 BAGGER :p

am thinking of selling 50% though..
as that was my initial strategy for these spec plays...

stolwyk
09-11-2005, 05:02 PM
CAZALY LODGE SUBMISSION TO DOIR FOR SHOVELANNA
IRON ORE PROJECT – NO CASE TO ANSWER

http://stocknessmonster.com/news-item?S=CAZ&E=ASX&N=305055

Dazza
14-11-2005, 11:19 PM
YOU BEAUTY CAZ!!
brought at 21 cents the options that is, and its nearly a 2 bagger profit for me!!! with current end of day trading at 58cents for the options.

options run out 31 jan 2006 at 15cents strike rate, but its well worth it.

today was a trading halt, of which some good investment banking, have told given them the thumbs up for some bling bling $$$

the reason why i brought this was refer to earlier posts, what luck i have on this co. is their IRON!!! by taking someones rubbish (RIO) , and turning it into gold soon hopefully or should i say IRON!!,

here are the posts:

ASX RELEASE
14 November 2005
Cazaly Announces Investec Funding Commitment
for Shovelanna Iron Ore Project
Cazaly Resources Ltd (ASX: CAZ) today announced it had signed a Letter of Intent with
international banking group Investec Bank to provide and arrange financing, for the
development of the promising Shovelanna Iron Ore Project (ELA 46/678). The
agreement is subject to the grant of the tenement to Cazaly.
Investec ?which is listed on both the London and Johannesburg stock exchanges and
which has more than A$45bn in assets under management ?has agreed to arrange
funding for the project subject to the completion of a positive banking feasibility study
and following confirmation of positive project economics.
Cazaly Managing Director Nathan McMahon said Investec conducted a thorough review
of geological plans and documented material related to the Shovelanna Project, and
concluded that Cazaly was in possession of an iron ore tenement area of significant
potential value.
In its Letter of Intent, Investec said the potential value of the tenement was clearly
demonstrated and was confident that a resource containing >60% Fe grade will be able
to be reported to current JORC standards after completion of a proposed infill drill
campaign. Investec also acknowledged the multiple transportation options available to
the project including trucking along sealed roads to Port Hedland.
In addition, Investec said it was reassuring to know that BHP Billiton’s adjacent Orebody
18, which lies on the same geological formation as the Shovelanna Project area, had
existing buyers.
“We’re delighted to have Investec’s conditional support for the Shovelanna Project. They
have considerable global experience in assisting resource companies to source finance
for new mining projects,?said Mr McMahon.
He said Investec has indicated that they are keen to continue to work with Cazaly and
the joint venture partners, Echelon Resources Ltd, to bring the Shovelanna Project to
fruition. Echelon is providing technical and financial support to the project.
Mr McMahon said Investec indicated they were looking forward to their continued
involvement in what may turn out to be a major new Australian iron ore project, and were
committed to maximizing the value of the project and to developing it in the shortest
timeframe possible.
Yours sincerely,
Nathan McMahon
Managing Director
Investec Background
Investec is an independent, international, specialist banking group listed on both the
London and Johannesburg Stock Exchanges. It has representation in 11 countries
including Australia, the UK and USA. Investec provides a specialised range of banking
products and services, including investment banking, treasury and specialised finance,
private client services and asset management. Investec has substantial capital
resources, with a market capitalisation exceeding A$5bn and total assets under
management exceeding A$45bn.
Investec has considerable experience in assisting resource companies in sourcing
finance for new mining projects in many countries, including,
?Austral Coal’s Tahmoor coal mine in NSW
?Rio Nanceau’s Aqua Blanca polymettalic project in Spain
?Layfayette Mining’s Rapu Rapu gold/base metals project in the Philippines
?Constellation Copper’s Lisbon Valley copper project in the USA.
?Gallery Gold’s Mupane gold project in Botswana
?PGM Aqua Tenidas?zinc and copper project in Spain
For further information please cont

Dazza
14-11-2005, 11:24 PM
now, its going up slowly cause of the iron tenament, once its granted on HC its reported to rise to $4!!!

it closed at 75cents the heads today so look at that!

though if it gets rejected.. look to fall back down to 40ish to 50cents....

but if u have read the posts above, it looks like they will get it, i reackon they will too, read HC for more about the likelihood of them getting it or not.

from what ive read and seen, the argument is viewed that THEY WILL.

but to me, its alrite, as im in it for the gold, and their spin offs.

anything under 70cents for the head shares is a SCREAMING BUY IMO.

my position:
brought options at 21cents, sold half today at 50cents PRE TRADING HALT >.< to get my capital back.

rest of them WILL DEFINATELY fund the options to head shares, and will wait for the $4 mark.

IMHO , buy under 70cents, wait for a little pull back if any, use TA to get a good entry point ppl, as FA ... its A SCREAMING BUY!

Regards,
Dazza

Packersoldkidney
14-11-2005, 11:46 PM
Well if its reported on HotCopper, it must be true.

I'm in!!

Dazza
14-11-2005, 11:51 PM
quote:Originally posted by Packersoldkidney

Well if its reported on HotCopper, it must be true.

I'm in!!


sarcasm there kidney boy?
or u for real?
yes i know HC is fully ramping etc, BUT there are some good posters and threads out there, just gotta be good to know which one.

i feel CAZ is a good co. with good managers looking after it, smart co. IMO, not like crappy POL moving from initially gold, to iron to uranium.... sigh, cant have all winners :D

regards

Moonshine
15-11-2005, 12:07 AM
Hi Daz,

Sorry to report that i never bought into the options at 25c when I was looking a few weeks back... was waiting for the retrace that never came.

Bugger.

If you have been following the HC threads you would have also read the possibility of a LENGTHY court room drama from RIO should the decision go CAZ's way... just something to consider. Not an all together bad move to recoup your capital while you can.

Cheers,

Moonshine

Packersoldkidney
15-11-2005, 12:08 AM
Not knocking CAZ, Dazza; but I couldn't help myself. Hotcopper has had some doozy predictions over the years; most of which have come a cropper. There have been a few posters that have made the ASIC hitlist.

By the way, if CAZ is granted the lease, it could follow FMG.

Dazza
15-11-2005, 01:22 AM
quote:Originally posted by Packersoldkidney

Not knocking CAZ, Dazza; but I couldn't help myself. Hotcopper has had some doozy predictions over the years; most of which have come a cropper. There have been a few posters that have made the ASIC hitlist.

By the way, if CAZ is granted the lease, it could follow FMG.


agreed kidney, though i have no idea what FMG is , heard it went from 6c to $5?

i will definately move this stock into my LT portfolio once they have the lease,

so who else is aboard this train with me, stolwyk i know would be, what about davidrob? urself kidney?

Dazza
15-11-2005, 01:24 AM
not ramping caz or anything but....

some more media for caz..

Australian stocks: Market surges ahead

15.11.05 12.40am


The Australian sharemarket closed higher yesterday as strong prices for base metals boosted mining stocks.

Junior explorer Cazaly Resources jumped 14Ac to 74.5Ac as it secured financial support from a UK-based banking group for the development of the deposit at the centre of an ownership dispute with Rio Tinto.

Shares in Po Valley Energy soared 16.5Ac, or 36.26 per cent, to close at 62Ac after the gas explorer said an A$8.75 million cash injection from a US investment fund would speed up its Italian operations.

At the close, the S&P/ASX200 was up 34.1 points to 4608.4.

from the herald, yesturday

Packersoldkidney
21-11-2005, 05:24 PM
Dazza on another winner. Between ADN and this one you should have the Christmas presents covered.

Dazza
22-11-2005, 01:29 AM
oh stink moonshine you didnt get in, feel for u :(

regarding the lengthy courtbattle, not a problem for me as i for one brought at 21cents, without even pricing in the iron stuff

for those that have brought in recently i would caution at the moment. wait for retraces, and TA indicators to jump aboard, as FA they are a great company.

directors and their management are supurb.
RIO have had the licence for 16 years and done nothing.
CAZ have had it since august?
they have done:
some mine related study *n00b at this stuff sorry*
got a partner with them aswell
and also a BIG BANKER to bank roll hte project should it be awarded.

so get on the band wagon be4 it has been announced that CAZ has won it.


moonshine/POK
i have got my initial capital and also fees back, current holdings = pure profits. sold half at 110% profit

will not sell my current holdings and just wait and wait and wait... :D as its RISK FREE .

POK.
the ADN shares purchased, was with using my initial CAZO capital that i had gained back, so its a win win situation for me

will always remember CAZ... the one that got my strategy rolling.. and rolling hopefully!!

regarding the presents, unfortunately im only a kid with regards to u other big players out there, all profits are just used to futher fund more scripts :D

Regards,
Dazza

Ps working 60+ hours/week over the summer break, to earn some big cash for more scripts instead of paying my student loan :D thanks AUNTY HELEN

Dazza
22-11-2005, 01:38 AM
forgot to say

CAZ up nearly 40%
CAZO up nearly 50%
both on high turnover

the fundies or sheep have finally woken up

the wolves would have brought into this ages ago.

to any new investors looking to enter in, wait for pullbacks and TA indicating entry points to jump in :D

Dazza
22-11-2005, 02:02 PM
after yesturdays strong performance with strong volume, naturally the market would have corrected a bit...

but ....

currently CAZ is up 38cents or 35%
CAZO is up 29cents or 34%

so much for a bit of a fall from yesturday, this train has left and is reaching terminal velocity soon!!

5 bagger in as many months!!

currently CAZO options are at a discount of double value
difference = 30cents
exercise price = 15.02 cents
do the maths!!

Packersoldkidney
22-11-2005, 02:43 PM
Yes, looks to be doing an FMG, well done Dazza. I got in the options late in the piece, but I'm very happy all the same.

robbo
22-11-2005, 05:49 PM
CAZ Cazaly Resources

"To Be or Not to be..." That is the question.....???

Anyone any Inside Oil on CAZ ....???

Robbo [?][?][?]

Packersoldkidney
22-11-2005, 07:37 PM
quote:Originally posted by davidrob

CAZ Cazaly Resources

"To Be or Not to be..." That is the question.....???

Anyone any Inside Oil on CAZ ....???

Robbo [?][?][?]


Perhaps something related to the announcement of the 14th, Robbo?

CAZ don't have that much money to their name: I doubt if it will be a placement, but surely something to do with the finance side of things?

Packersoldkidney
22-11-2005, 07:40 PM
Correction, it could well be a placement.

Dazza
23-11-2005, 02:18 AM
seems like its only kidney, gerry and me in this stock eh?
wish that more of u guys could share this great co.

kidney, news on HC, seems to reackon its not a share placement, or a speeding ticket.

most likely either JV, spin off, Takeover, or something else. read the stuff.

though either way i dun really care :D hehehhe, just keep making new highs and im happy.

kidney, if there is a SPP , only headshares count eh?

how long do u tink it will take to convert options, and with using national banks system?
skytower care to comment?

CAZO - 6 bagger nearly...

Packersoldkidney
23-11-2005, 10:49 AM
Dazza; I could have egg on my face because of my predictions, but frankly I'm happy anyway. Article in the West Australian newspaper sums up what is happening.

Very interesting times: if she opens today, she'll open very strongly.

aussie joe
23-11-2005, 12:18 PM
Guys,

I'm in on this one aswell and could not be happier. Bought the shares @ 26c and have been loving the last couple of days.

Keep the posts coming

Cheers,

Joe

Dazza
23-11-2005, 02:47 PM
absolutely awesome the few months development of this co.

i didnt sleep well last nite, waiting to check a 2 infront of the price of this co.

yet its still in a TH!!!!

the 6 mill brought at market price, explains the mammmmoth rises of late.

expect more IMO as this battle toughens out.
FMG/RIO/BHP wahooot.

though im concerned now... what happens if my stupid money doesnt pay the options in time, and they get lapsed...

argggh scary!
will exercise my options ASAP when im back in nzl...
is tempted to buy more shares, but i will leave it as it is..

i feel a bit of risk holding onto options instead of headshares..
oh well :D

all is good, as im a HOLDER

caktus
23-11-2005, 03:34 PM
Dazza - I was involved with the Senetas Option conversion. I had no cash so had to sell enuf Options to meet the strike price
I made it OK tho I hung out for a higher price & that caused a bit of anxiety. As the date gets close to the conversion date most holders are still hangiong out so get in early
Best do it in tranches I found but leave plenty of time in fact I wud be converting now.After all the head share keeps rising & you have the best of both worlds.
Good luck & well done !!

Caktus

Packersoldkidney
23-11-2005, 05:11 PM
Oh man, this is getting very, very interesting. Any legal eagles want to comment on the announcement made by FMG this afternoon? They claim they now own the Shovelanna tenements. I think any decision will come down to: with which party were these deals made with? With Cazaly itself, or with McMahon and his 'associated' company.

I've got an uneasy feeling about this.

aussie joe
23-11-2005, 05:39 PM
Where is CAZ heading.

That's the million dollar question. All comments will be appreciated. Will the legal action commenced by FMG have a negative affect on there SP?

I hope not. Was happy this morning but this news has somewhat dampened my spirits.

Joe

Packersoldkidney
23-11-2005, 05:44 PM
Frankly, on the info given, I don't think FMG have a snowflakes chance in hell of claiming Shovelanna - but the thing is is that Forrest is the Snake Oil salesman to end all Snake Oil salesman. He is not to be trusted and nor are his lawyers.

Tomorrow will be a very interesting day. I think the people who bought in at a $1 and above might be in for a haircut, but I hope I'm wrong.

robbo
23-11-2005, 05:47 PM
Cazaly (CAZ)

Markets Hate Nothing more than that: 'Legs Eleven'-- Word .....that starts with the same letter as Eleven, and is oft the cause of Fear Driven: "U - Turns" ....

Answer: " U ncertainty "

'Deal or no Deal' for CaZ, when you've got Twiigy Forrest and his St Georges Terrace Perth mates ( surely not //.... backed by mates at RIO Tinto -- [:0][:X];)[B)]) -- ganged up against in you in such a Public Stoush....

and guess what... WA Mines Minister can now conveniently Delay and Delay and Delay decison for eternity by saying: "its before the courts" .......

Politically, what a sigh of releif for him... coz that waa a "Lose Lose decision.... and herein lies the fault ....IMO ...of the CAZ strategy......

They forced RIO/Hancokc Prospecting into a "WIN- Lose" .... or even worse, a ...."Lose - Lose" ....situation for all Parties...... not giving anyone a realistic .....face saving escape Route .... Mistake that was ....for sure....

Who (RIO) - would be mighty pissed off with, and who they would regard as just a annoying "fly in thier ointment" embarrassing 'Up Start' & grasping opportunist interloper,..... namely one Captain Nathan ..... from CAZ -- ( Did you see the tone of exactly just Who ..... FMG are suing, as per .... in thier ASX announcement---- its not just CAZ and related subsidaries, they are actually going for Captain Nathan "personally" --- so he better start, IMO, transferring his House and chattels into the missus name..... ;)

Nathan and the CAZ boys said they wanted to swim with the Crocodiles ......but really... ...not also with the White Pointers and Poisonous Jelly Fish at the same time.....

And also, in this Swamp they are dealing with Guys for whom Huuuge Legal Fees and Legal Costs and Money is .....absolutely infinite..... and of No Consequence....... (just really a nice Tax expense to write off in their Dollars easilly available context .... )

And in a small town like Perth, where the Legal Eagle Fraternity Always would rightly feel they need a Good Christmas and New Year Feed at the Trough --$$$$-----.......

-- there will now be a myriad of QC Opinions, QC Legal expenses, legal injunctions, claims and cross claims, legal argument over obscure un related "points of law" .... hear that legal cash register ring a mile away !!--- interlocutories,discovery of documents, and legal stays of commercial execution,-- sort of a Legal Orgy Fee "free for all"-- $$$$$$$$$----- legal "drag out a thon"--- with every Perth QC at seven Paces---- and hangers on sundry solicitors putting thier $5 a page photocopiers into Full Steam and hitching their: "Go Caz Go -- You bloddy Good Thing---$$$ chink, chink goes the Cash register---$$---.... 'Lucky Legal Gravy Train Star- --- to the inevitable Legal super expensive Sh *&*^ t fight Bandwagon ......

But the Judges in Perth, will be completely detached and objective,as I am sure they know no one in the Croesseus Club on the Perth Terrace, over there in Perth-- ;)

Personally hope some folks took some maybe--??-- good advice and sold down their exposed CAZ Holdings in Caz and Put their Well deserved and well earned excellent Profits, in their Own Bank where they firmly belong.......

Dazza did you ??? :)


And can get out of CAZ again, to trade another profitable deserved day, with a tidy profitable and well earned and deserved swag .....$$$----

Otherwise this CAZ Caboose will IMO... be slided up a Legal Rail siding for a long long potentially uncertain and who knows what where how or when time ....[?][?][?][?][?][?][?]

Also remember, that that the Bank MOU ( Memorandum of Understanding ) -- with CAZ, and the BHP --MOU --with CAZ, -- are all ONLY operable and doeble --- strictly subject to the Deal and Mining Lincence and all sundry Issues being "locked in":-- so right now they are not worthless, but not worth a great deal either --IMO....

IMO -- what Nathan and the CAZ boys ought to do,...... is sort of ..... send out some...... errrrr.....

Packersoldkidney
23-11-2005, 06:09 PM
I think the BHP deal is what has sparked the action, and yes you are probably right, Robbo, Rio is one of the players behind Twiggy's announcement.

But it begs the question: who yesterday and the day before was doing the buying? The Twig said it wasn't him nor his mates. Apparently those close to the action knew about the impending legal action for a number of days, yet there was still obviously inside trading going on during that time. What is going on?

This is going to devolve into a poop fight: and indirectly one of the fights is Rio on one side, and BHP on the other.

robbo
23-11-2005, 06:16 PM
Caz

Great Post that ... as is usual with your musings Packman.

Hmmmmm.....

Which indirectly says that maybe the Twig is now part of the Iron Ore Club .... -- as far as the previous Duopoly are concerned....--????---

Which augers more than okay for FMG ....

Interesting...

Robbo:)

Packersoldkidney
23-11-2005, 07:49 PM
quote:Originally posted by davidrob

Caz

Great Post that ... as is usual with your musings Packman.

Hmmmmm.....

Which indirectly says that maybe the Twig is now part of the Iron Ore Club .... -- as far as the previous Duopoly are concerned....--????---

Which augers more than okay for FMG ....

Interesting...

Robbo:)


Thanks for the praise Robbo, same back at you: it would be interesting to be a fly on the wall in a few boardrooms about the place.

All I can say is we'll have to wait to see what tomorrow brings.

I would expect an answering announcement from the management of Cazaly, that is, if, they want to stop a downward slide in the shareprice. The question is: do they want to actually do this? It may sound strange for a Board not doing anything from stopping the shareprice from droping, but in the case where the co. has risen round 40% per day in the last two days it has traded, maybe they will want to stabilise things a tad.

Dazza
23-11-2005, 10:29 PM
the way i c it im still holding, as these shares are pretty much free hold ones.
no way am i selling, until a decision on the lease can be made.

forrest will have to fight harder than that to sway my shares.

the weaklings will fall tomorrow and prob be all gobbled up by the 6 mill buyer these past weeks. not a problem for me.

ill be holding, and expect a higher share price later on.

though i must say prob be in the red tomorrow, but back to blue skies thereafter.

Regards,

Still holds

aussie joe
24-11-2005, 12:11 AM
Guys,

Go and check out hotcopper re some of the legal aspects regarding FMG application to the courts. Arguments both for and against are still in the air. Love to have a copy of the agreement FMG have specified.

Still can go either way in my opiniom. Hoping for more positive momentum but Robbo you have cast an element of doubt in my mind. Appreciate your views so keep them coming.

Everyone posting here - love your stuff. Right now I think I am with Dazza I holding for the ride. Some of the optimist see $6.00 on the horizon. I think I would be happy with $3. But as always if it did get there would have to reasses.

Cheers and happy trading

Joe

aussie joe
24-11-2005, 12:23 AM
fyi found this on egoli

"BHP line up Cazaly ore, while Fortescue circle
23/11/05 By: Stephen Blaxhall

Cazaly Resources Limited (CAZ) today announce that in concert with Echelon Resources Limited (ECH) it is in the process of coming to an agreement with BHP Billiton Iron Ore Pty Ltd, to supply ore produced from Cazaly’s proposed Shovelanna Iron Ore Project situated upon the ground the subject of application E46/678 to the BHP Billiton group.

The two parties have estimated that if an agreement is signed and outstanding legal and technical due diligence is completed in respect to E46/678, then based on the current benchmark price for Newman Lumps and Fines (FOB) BHP Billiton, Cazaly and Echelon would be sharing annual revenues of some $300 million, assuming production of 5 million tonnes per annum.



“We are absolutely delighted to be negotiating with BHP Billiton. We have been approached by a number of parties over the past month but it is our view that the proposed ore purchase will facilitate the rapid commercialisation of the Shovelanna Iron Ore Project,” commented Cazaly’s joint Managing Director Nathan McMahon.

Cazaly made an application for an exploration licence in the Shovelanna project in north Western Australia on 29 August 2005 after previous Licensee Rio Tinto, failed to renew its licence.

Cazaly also advised advises that Fortescue Metals Group Limited (FMG) is threatened Cazaly with legal action after FMG alleged that Cazaly Iron Ore Pty Ltd holds E46/678 on constructive trust for FMG.

Cazaly claim that there is no apparent basis for the claim and is considering its legal position.

At 1500 AEDT Cazaly Resources are in a trading halt and last traded at $1.50 , Echelon are also in a trading halt and last traded at 56.5c"

Packersoldkidney
24-11-2005, 10:03 AM
Cazaly: the plot thickens

MICHAEL WEIR

Cazaly Resources' joint managing director Nathan McMahon was being paid up to $50,000 a year by Andrew Forrest's Fortescue Metals Group to secure iron ore tenements for the company at the time Cazaly secured the Shovelanna deposit in the Pilbara.

The payments came to light in a dramatic day of developments yesterday in which Fortescue failed in a rushed legal attempt to stop Cazaly doing any deals on Shovelanna, which Cazaly pegged in August after Rio Tinto failed to renew a tenement licence.

Fortescue, which also denied being behind this week's frantic share-buying in Cazaly, claimed a private agreement it had with Mr McMahon gave it a pre-emptive right over the potentially lucrative deposit.

But after a two-hour hearing Federal Judge Malcolm Lee rejected the application, saying Fortescue had failed to show there was a serious question that needed to be tried.

Fortescue operations director Graeme Rowley said later that the company had not decided whether to pursue the action.

Fortescue lawyer Jeremy Giles told the court Fortescue had struck a deal in early 2004 for Mr McMahon, an expert in tenement management, to "solely act for FMG" to find iron ore tenements in the Pilbara.

He was paid a $15,000 sign-on fee, a further $15,000 after two months and another $15,000 when it was agreed the original "short-form" agreement should be formalised.

The deal included a fee on each anniversary, growing to $100,000 after four years, plus a royalty.

Mr Giles said Fortescue had been misled by Mr McMahon after the Shovelanna tenement ended up in Cazaly when it should have been offered to Fortescue.

He said Fortescue was under the belief that Mr McMahon was being paid to work "solely for FMG" and that "anything that fell in his lap" would be offered to the company.

But Malcolm McCusker QC, for Cazaly, said the lapsed Shovelanna tenement had been spotted by Mr McMahon's brother Shannon, the tenement manager for Cazaly, who took it to Mr McMahon as the joint managing director of Cazaly.

Mr McMahon had never "acquired or applied for" the Shovelanna tenement, so Fortescue's pre-emptive right did not apply.

"Nowhere in the agreement does it say that if anything came to Mr McMahon in any capacity he was bound to pass it on to FMG," Mr McCusker said.

"The information came to Cazaly and Cazaly made the application for the tenement." Cazaly remained suspended yesterday after confirming reports in WestBusiness that it had struck an ore sales deal over Shovelanna with BHP Billiton, which owns the neighbouring Orebody 18 mine.

Cazaly called a trading halt on Tuesday after its shares raced to $1.50 from Monday's 78¢ opening on massive turnover of more than 13 million shares, or 30 per cent of the company's issued capital.

Despite the sharp rise, Mr McMahon said he had not received any calls from the Australian Stock Exchange and said he "wouldn't have thought" news of the BHP Billiton negotiations had leaked into the market.

However, the ASX is known to be talking to the company about the lead-up to yesterday's announcement and scrutinising trading in Cazaly over the past few sessions.

An ASX spokesman would only say last night that the regulator was "aware of the price movements and the trading halt was appropriate".

Mr McMahon said the trading surge was most likely a combination of increasing investor confidence that Cazaly would win the battle over Shovelanna and aggressive buying by Patersons Securities' Sydney office.

aussie joe
24-11-2005, 08:55 PM
Robbo,

Your opinion on CAZ would be appreciated. Does your analysis of CAZ change with the result of the FMG legal writ being rejected.

Cheers and happy trading.

Joe

aussie joe
29-11-2005, 07:18 PM
Nice MOU with BHP today.

Share Price up 17.3%.

Can this be just the start?

aussie joe

robbo
29-11-2005, 07:51 PM
CAZ Cazaly

Hi aussie,

Cazaly is looking better now...

But investors, IMO, still need to be 'sophisticated', and recognize the relevant, and unforseen and unforseeable risks, as CAZ is still IMO, swimming in some unchartered and potentially very dangerous waters ....

One issue that Does, IMO, need to be considered is:

(1) A legal quagmire with RIO ....

and/or the Shares being put in a : >>> Suspension <<<<

.....for an indeterminate period along the lines of a.... DYL...

The corrolary to that, is that if it were my own money Joe, I would only Invest, if I did NOT need access to that invested amount of Cash.

( Your Reason Robbo ? : My Answer: coz a suspension Joe, will tie it up (your Cash in Caz) -- potentially for a potentially very longish -- like 1 -3 -6 -- plus months ??-- --- possible
time period ).....

(2) In my view this is not a: "Who is, 'in the right' -- in this situation - sort of Qustion or Issue...?" ( BTW- my view (which again is reallly irrelevant in this context, ..... Joe, is that: "Peggers ought to be Keepers, so Caz gets the nod".)

The real point Joe,.... IMO ..... really is:

Can ..... and will, Rio be able to feasibly use Massive legal firepower Dollars, to frustrate and 'throw a spaaner in the works' -- ( both or either ..... 'dollar wise' and 'time wise' .... )-- the Cazaly, arguable legitimate right to proceed and Mine Iron Ore in that disputed precinct ??

Note Joe, that it is not even worth wasting breath, IMO, over whether they ..... "Should be able to" .

" Shoulds" -- are a waste of emotional energy.

Investors never, IMO, ought to invest in "shoulds" or live in or with or by false or speculative 'hopes'.

Investors, are better served, IMO, -- investing in Facts, Facts, and more Facts, and Hard nosed Reasons, calculated probabilities, and Evidence .....

-- and preferably, IMO.... with as Much "weighted in their own favour; -- Margin of Safety", as is feasibly possible. (ie: limiting their possible downside, and playing always, great defence).

-So then, "shoulds" and "should nots" - this or that .... are irrelevant.

Instead Joe, the Real Hard but relevant Questions are: What tactical Game/s, Can RIO/Wright Prospecting -- effectively or likely play strategically .... to, (for wahtever reason-?) -- to frustrate Cazaly --??

And what are the real world ramificantions and consequences ... for CAZ investors, that may flow .... from a Rio Legal fight, for Cazaly investors ?

-- Another IMPORETANT, IMO....interesting dimension, is the reasonable proposition that Rio's partner, .... >>>> Wright Prospecting <<<< --- could be likely to sue Rio for negligently forgetting to renew the aforesaid disputed Iron Ore Mining Lease over what is now disputed ground ......

-- If I was Wright Prospecting, that scenario would be a very likely one .... and might feasibly come into 'play'....

.. And my own 'sources', tell me that this sort of "play" is definitely on the real set of likely possible scenarios, being played out, in the various War Rooms of the relevant Disputants/Players .....

-- Now if that Scenario gets played out, with its.... multitude of possibilities of: Claims and Cross Claims, and Injunctinons and legal estoppals , appeals and counter appeals to various Courts of Law, ..... then Rio will be likely, IMO, to put in a Big Legal fight, to show that they dispute the Merits of the Wright Claim and ........ 'vis a vis' -- the Cazaly claim, for no other reason, than to slow down the embarrassing and potentially Massive Legal Claim from Wright Prospecting -- in the matter surrounding Wright's rights to be owed a 'duty of care from Rio --??'-- and other consequent Claims ....

The above situation is just one of the many myriad of possibilites, IMO, Joe ....

All of the above, makes an unforseen and possibly lengthy: " Share Suspension for Caz" -- at least, a 'to be 'factored into' and 'weighed up' --

aussie joe
29-11-2005, 11:20 PM
Robbo,

As always, can't argue with your words of wisdom. Thanks for the heads up.

Hope CAZ mines this tenement expediantly with little legal action from RIO but as you rightly pointed out, this is based on a if and not fact.

Thanks again.

aussie joe

Packersoldkidney
01-12-2005, 08:01 PM
quote:Originally posted by cujodog

Looks like this share is in big trouble now. What about the suckers who paid $2.40 for this yesterday. They are on a 45% loss in 24 hours.


I'd say they've gone from being speculators to investors in the space of three days or so.

I exited Tuesday morning; not at the top, not really even close to the top, but I took a big profit nevertheless.

Packersoldkidney
01-12-2005, 08:12 PM
It will run again.

Dazza
01-12-2005, 11:27 PM
that it will kidney man

i havent sold my holdings yet. waiting for the big $4 or the $10..

ill be happy at $4.
going to exercise my options soon..

stolwyk
02-12-2005, 12:49 AM
I think it prudent to get out.

RIO is very big and could exert a lot of pressure.

Gerry
Readers, please do your own research and you decide if and when to buy, hold or sell any stocks.

Zacca
02-12-2005, 08:26 AM
Rio can exert pressure but so can Cazaly in a different way. Any proceedings could highlight the inaction and seeming incompetance of Rio over this claim; or conversly the bullying giant and the innovative junior. There's lots of ways to play this situation that I see, and there are dangers to Rio in a long drawn out confrontation too. BHP for instance without seeming to get involved.could be very easy keep publically mentioning that with the Cazaly deal they could develop a 'Super Pit' to the betterment of state finances. For the mines minister this would be hard to act against. Also if he is seen to be not applying the law judisciously this could also cause a problem politically for him.
Maybe the best solution for everyone is a farm in by Rio into the deal, although probably unlikely.Remember although Cazaly seized an opportunity, it did so apparently legally and then got a mining and finance agreement together quickly. At the very least Cazaly would be liable for due recompense. It also shows the ability of mangement to think 'out of the square'If their base figures(not counting further discoveries) is $85 million per year that's a lot of revenue for a small company with not many shares.
So I'm keeping my money in, it's high risk as Stolwyck pointed out, but all mining is high risk in finding and developing a resource. The difference as I see is the risk is legal and regularity as against geological.and the risk will be probably over a short timespan (non of the parties will wish to miss the sweet spot in iron ore prices in the immediate future), not over a long timespan as in normal mining exploration. In both you can loose your shirt or gain a suit.

TerryA
02-12-2005, 10:06 AM
Zacca,

Very well put, especially your last comment.

Thanks,

Damo79
02-12-2005, 02:30 PM
The options have an excise price of 15 cents don't they? Why is it then that the options are 30 cents less than the share?

Is there any reason someone couldn't but a heap of options at a $1, pay the other 15 cents to convert them, and sell for $1.30?

aussie joe
20-12-2005, 04:58 PM
big buying today.

Can these guys really pull it off.

aussie joe

TerryA
20-12-2005, 05:34 PM
Zacca,

>>Maybe the best solution for everyone is a farm in by Rio into the deal,<<

I would prefer to see a take over offer, CAZ for RIO !

Best wishes,

Disc: Holds CAZ and accumulating

aussie joe
20-12-2005, 07:36 PM
gb,

if the decison goes that way. double your estimate and then sum.

cheers,

aussie joe

trader10
20-12-2005, 07:45 PM
Interesting times....[8D]

http://www.miningnews.net/storyview.asp?storyid=51406§ionsource=s0

Cazaly cool on gold


Ben Sharples


Tuesday, December 20, 2005
LAGGING feasibility studies have delayed mining of Cazaly Resources' Kunanalling gold project near Kalgoorlie, which has taken a back seat to the disputed Shovelanna iron ore tenement in the Pilbara.

Expected to come online around mid-October, mining of the Catherwood, Wadi and Outridge deposits at the Kunanalling project was expected to progress over a 10-12 month period with cashflow being generated within the first couple of months.

Cazaly joint managing director Clive Jones told MiningNews.net the feasibility study was expected to be finalised this week but wouldn't be drawn on possible first production.

"Let's have a look at the study first and take it from there, but the indications are obviously very positive given the gold price," Jones said.

Meantime little dialogue has taken place with Placer Dome, with whom Cazaly entered into a treatment agreement with in July.

"We haven't really spoken to them, we're all waiting to see the feasibility study before we go to the next step, we won't really know until we get that," Jones said.

The Catherwood deposit currently has a resource of 44,000 ounces in mineralisation grading 2.5 grams per tonne of gold, while the Wadi's 30,100 ounces comes in dirt grading 2.4gpt gold. Under the agreement with Placer, ore is to be processed at its Paddington mill, located 30km from Kunanalling.

Jones added exploration on the company's gold assets, touted by Cazaly as the second largest landholding behind Placer, had slowed with the arrival of Shovelanna, and wouldn't be picked up until there was a resolution on the disputed iron ore tenement.

"We have slowed down the exploration [on the gold tenements] because Shovelanna will be the focus of the company if we get it," Jones said.

Cazaly lodged their second submission to the minister last week and Jones anticipated a decision on Shovelanna would be made around late January, early February.

Shares in the company have taken a remarkable ride since Cazaly pegged the Shovelanna tenement, with the stock exploding from a low of 20c in June to a peak of $2.40 late last month.

The stock was up 17.5c (15.7%) during afternoon trade to $1.29.

and

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,17615737%5E5001641,00.html

Shovelanna: Cazaly's ace of spades

December 20, 2005

if Cazaly and its joint venture partner, Echelon Resources, have got it right, they are about three years away from owning a project which could generate income of $300 million a year. Nice work if you can get it.

This week could be quite interesting for CAZ....:)))

Dazza
21-12-2005, 09:41 AM
its good news eh :D

now theres my gold coming online hopefully....

so POK is sold up, same with gerry

just poor old dazza holding onto his gem huh?
maybe we mite have seen the last of $1? maybe.. maybe not...

bumper week this week hopefully as news gets around, yes its just not all iron here folks! gold too!

aussie joe
21-12-2005, 05:23 PM
Dazza,

I'm still on this one with ya. Another 7c rise today, hopefully it will continue rising in anticipation of the favorable decision by the chippie (Minister Carpenter).

Humungous upside potential for those who like the risk thrill.

aussie joe

Dazza
21-12-2005, 10:26 PM
good on ya joey :D

cause they have just had another bumper rise today all goes well :D

even if they dun get it, they still have gold and farm outs :D

i hope ur buy price wasnt too high aussie...

i tink for the moment, anything around $1 is a good buy,
though punt it if u are in it for the iron.

if for the gold, i c it falling to 50cents, if and IF they dun get it..

which i doubt it..
KISS remember... RIO didnt resign the lease, it expried, CAZ jumped in, done
if only the ministers thought so too..

instead they drag it out a bit... but hey its natual we tlaking billions here..

billions that CAZ will get :D

i mean if u bet on the world cup, or u play lotto or ur even a horse man, then why not give CAZ a go... i ceertainly would :D

regards,
Dazza

not a betting man..

aussie joe
29-12-2005, 10:16 PM
This ones flying high atm. :):D

When will it stop[?][:0][|)]

aussie joe [8D]

Dazza
29-12-2005, 10:51 PM
right behind u aussie
nice ride today
will see what the new year brings

i have exercised all my options already.

waiting for the big bang!

aussie joe
03-01-2006, 09:46 PM
Time to bring this one back to the top of the discussion board.

Up ~ 7% today.

Risk vs Reward play.

Loving the ride :D:D

aussie joe

yogi-in-oz
04-01-2006, 02:02 AM
:)

Hi folks,

CAZ ..... as requested, here's some astroanalysis for this
stock, which shows some extreme negativity in the months
ahead:

16012006 ..... significant and negative news

23-24012006 ..... significant and negative move ???

02022006 ..... significant news (positive ???)

07022006 ..... spotlight on CAZ

14-16022006 ..... minor and finance-related???

From 18022006-to-29032006 there may be VERY STRONG
underlying negative sentiment for this company. During
that period, we may see some key dates, on:

20022006 ..... minor news???

09032006 ..... minor

15032006 ..... minor

24-27032006 ..... 2 positive cycles here ..... finance-related???

-----

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


happy trading

yogi

:)

Dazza
04-01-2006, 10:29 PM
another words its the crap dump for us eh yogi.........
**** i better sell out NOTTT

but thanks anwyays :P

today was traders days... high of 1.90ish?
but ended up at 1.60ish

aussie joe
11-01-2006, 02:12 PM
good buying atm for those with big balls. [^]

aussie joe

Dazza
11-01-2006, 04:13 PM
have exercised all my options
and just waiting .. and waititng :D

yogi-in-oz
18-01-2006, 12:13 AM
:)

Hi folks,

CAZ ..... as per post above on 04012006, negativity
sets in and price takes a tumble ..... :)

..... and more to come yet ... ???

happy days

yogi

:)

aussie joe
18-01-2006, 10:59 AM
yogi-in-oz,

hope you have read your tea leaves incorrectly.

aussie joe

Damo79
18-01-2006, 11:09 AM
quote:Originally posted by yogi-in-oz

:)

Hi folks,

CAZ ..... as per post above on 04012006, negativity
sets in and price takes a tumble ..... :)



Ummm... the post on 04012006 said significant and negative news on 16012006. Did I miss it? And a tumble. It was only down 2.8% for the day. Quite a small move for this share.

yogi-in-oz
02-02-2006, 02:15 PM
:)

Hi folks,

CAZ ... as per post in this thread on 04012006,
ticking up nicely today, on anticipated positive
news ... on 07022006 ... ??? ...

happy days

yogi


:)

aussie joe
02-02-2006, 11:01 PM
If yogi-in-oz is correct, then those who do not have a position on this share have a short time (2 trading days) to take up that position.

Easy money to be made.

go long if you think CAZ will be granted their application
or else go short

Great gamble
$$$$$$$$$$$$ for those that pick correctly

aussie joe [:p][:p][:p]

rotsevni
07-02-2006, 04:05 PM
quote:Originally posted by cujodog

I've finally relented and decided to get back into the market.

I am putting all my life savings into Cazaly. I have been reading that this company is certain to win it's case against RIO and the share price will triple within a matter of weeks.

I am going to make hundreds of thousands of dollars. This is too easy. This is the big one that I have been waiting my whole life for.


Relented to what/who? If you were pursuaded by what you read here then you're nuts.

The only upside to taking other peoples advice about investment decisions is that you can blame it all on somebody else if it does not work out.

You're beginning to sound like NOCASH. You two would get on like a house on fire. Maybe you could do stand-up comedy together as a double act to fund your gambling obsessions.

lanenz
07-02-2006, 04:42 PM
quote:Originally posted by cujodog

I've finally relented and decided to get back into the market.

I am putting all my life savings into Cazaly. I have been reading that this company is certain to win it's case against RIO and the share price will triple within a matter of weeks.

I am going to make hundreds of thousands of dollars. This is too easy. This is the big one that I have been waiting my whole life for.
cujo. you are either full of it or just plain stupid. More likely to be both. Give me your ear so I can f..k some sense into you ol boy.

surely other posters now real that this guy is a few sandwiches short of a picnic.

One way to look at it. Since you dont have much money left you dont have much to lose. While your there you can invest a couple of grand on lotto tickets. They pay out a tidy 50 cents for every dollar you spend.:)

robbo
07-02-2006, 04:48 PM
Cazaly (CAZ)


Red.

or

Black .

[?][?]

Regards,

Robbo :)

lanenz
07-02-2006, 04:50 PM
quote:Originally posted by davidrob

Cazaly (CAZ)


Red.

or

Black .

[?][?]
Regards,

Robbo :)


And zero will pop up for cujo. Perhaps he can change his name to lucky

lanenz
07-02-2006, 05:07 PM
quote:Originally posted by cujodog

It's a two horse race and I'm on the raging hot favourite.

There are now 3 certainties in life.


The 3 certainties are Death, taxes and Cujo being a few sammies short of a picnic. Exceptions are, death as some believe life is eternal and taxes because some countries are tax free

Sideshow Bob
07-02-2006, 05:33 PM
Cujodog,

You can put a Optimist (or similar) on the roof of your car, so you can take it to him!! :D

Cheers
SSB

lanenz
07-02-2006, 06:11 PM
quote:Originally posted by cujodog

Lanenz

I'll shout you a trip on my new yacht when the CAZ decision comes through. But only if you stop callimg me names.
Looks like I wont be going sailing huh? good to see u have a sense of humor.

metro
07-02-2006, 06:58 PM
quote:Originally posted by cujodog

I've finally relented and decided to get back into the market.
I am putting all my life savings into Cazaly.


OMG! Cujodog have you learnt nuffin yet?

lanenz
07-02-2006, 08:34 PM
Cujo. After a rethink I have taken your advice and dumped all my NZ Shares. Im like you, i dont want to make just a couple of grand, I am going for the whole enchilada. Tomorrow I am going to put it all in lotto tickets for this weekends draw. I figure that i will invest more money that any other investor in NZ so therefore i have the biggest chance to become a millionaire overnight. I am even buying a bigger tv so i can make sure my winning numbers are correct.

In good faith I am even willing to throw you a couple of $5 lucky dips next week after i win the big one.

yogi-in-oz
07-02-2006, 09:17 PM
:)

Hi folks,

CAZ news came through late today, but only
regarding the conversion fo options ..... :)

happy days

yogi

:)

aussie joe
08-02-2006, 01:08 AM
~ 99.5% of the options were converted.

Most probably the same chances of CAZ getting the nod.

Can't wait for this decision. Hurry up Premier

aussie joe[:p][:p][:p]

aussie joe
08-02-2006, 04:34 PM
My 15.02 c worth:

Approximately 4.75 million options converted as per announcement only 30000 odd were left to expire.

Sharks circling around the $1.50 mark taking only small bites at the holders silly enough to sell at these bargain basement prices. The last few days trading are a perfect example of this. Low volume, most of the hits have been taken when people are selling down. Whales and insto’s don’t tend to sell small parcels for piddly amounts of $$$$$.

Wouldn’t you expect a nice increase in volume if a company has just been diluted by 10%.

As stated many times I am extremely confident that Cazaly will get the nod but I must warn everyone that I have been know to be wrong on occasions.

I am half way through reading a book: The Predictor author Thomas a Bass and on a number of occasions the authors makes reference to the market knowing news before the news outlets do. The example given in this book references the spike in oil prices days leading up to the first gulf war. I have also read a few other examples: - 9/11 conspiracy with the significant increased options trading on the major American airlines days before the event. – Also I think it was Saudi Arabia exchanging oil for gold not too long ago.

To summarise, the news follows the money flow. Everyone needs to learn to read between the lines.

BTW – can someone please post this on HC as trial by video has rubbed out for an undisclosed amount of time for some lovely comments I had made either directed at the politicians presiding over this application or the HC moderators. Again, I will apologies and tone my language down to conform to your guidelines.


Ryderman,

I am still around lurking, can not contribute to any of the topics and hanging out for a quick resolution which I believe should occur in the next day or so. Money never lies.

Cheers

aussie joe [:p][:p][:p]

Placebo
09-02-2006, 10:46 AM
quote:So you think its funny do you?. I lost my wife and family due to bad share investments over the last two years.




....and now I intend to lose my money too.

aussie joe
09-02-2006, 07:27 PM
Thanks for your most thoughtful post :( placebo [?][?][?][?] Must have taken you hours to carefully word your argument.

Accumulation @ $1.50 prior to decision. Still looking good.

aussie joe [:p][:p][:p]

Brian Higgins
13-02-2006, 06:31 PM
Cujo,

What do you take this forum for and the people whom use it - a bunch of stupid ****ers. Dont think so. You are kidding yourself if you think we believe your postings and the information contained within.

Get a life.

BH

Dazza
13-02-2006, 10:30 PM
dog my fellow caz holder mate

dun worry about the newbie brian, he hasnt made his 10 bagger on this so no sweat.

todays price action saw a large initial drop on SMALL VOLUME, followed by a recovery. :D

winner69
14-02-2006, 07:33 PM
quote:Originally posted by cujodog

Only a few more days to go and there are going to be a lot of rich people thanks to this share.


How many more days do we have to wait mate??

I am getting impatient ... I want to be a millionaire now

lanenz
14-02-2006, 07:52 PM
quote:Originally posted by cujodog


quote:Originally posted by Brian Higgins

Cujo,

What do you take this forum for and the people whom use it - a bunch of stupid ****ers. Dont think so. You are kidding yourself if you think we believe your postings and the information contained within.

Get a life.

BH


I don't appreciate personal attacks.
give yourself an uppercut cujo. Revert to one of your other id's and start talking some sense

Packersoldkidney
09-03-2006, 02:54 PM
The punters are having a punt today.....rumours are news is expected soon, one way or another.

Packersoldkidney
10-03-2006, 11:12 AM
Running.....

Packersoldkidney
10-03-2006, 04:25 PM
Close will be interesting....but at this stage unless something concrete comes along in relation to Shovelanna, it will more then likely fade on Monday.

Packersoldkidney
10-03-2006, 04:55 PM
You are crazy to buy more at these levels.....market is undecided, you can tell by today's price action. What's pulling it up is the Shovelanna deposit and the possibility they might be awarded it, but the possibility they might not be awarded it is pulling it down. Market doesn't know what to make of CAZ.

Got a high wave candle that has cut straight through the top of the bollingers I've got set up. When that has happened for CAZ the stock has fallen like a rock the next trading day.

I'd be sitting it out, pal, until the market decides the direction this is going in.

Packersoldkidney
10-03-2006, 07:24 PM
Couldn't give a **** about HC, to be frank...there are some genuine sharks on that site, though its true not everyone there should be called that. If it was a past the post certainty it would be $5 and not $2, and not wavering like it did at the close of trade today.

Frankly I'm waiting until it is a 'past the post' certainty before I lay my money down: I'd rather make 100% profit for sure then the chance that I'll make 500% or lose the lot. Besides I think it will fall on Monday unless something concrete about Shovelanna is broadcast....that is what the chart is telling me, not some ******** from Hotcopper who is selling his/her stock at the same time he/she's telling you to buy, in one of his/her posts.

Packersoldkidney
10-03-2006, 07:33 PM
By the way, Gujo, Winny Churchill once said these very wise words:

"The potential for loss when gambling on a certainty is infinite."

Mick100
10-03-2006, 07:38 PM
The fact that cujodog is bullish on this share is another good reason to be very very cautious with CAZ. He's the laughing stock on the NZX forum. He starts slagging a company and it's shareprice goes up.

It sure is entertaining watching cujo jumping from one hot share to the next - all the while heading higher up the ladder of risk
,

Packersoldkidney
10-03-2006, 08:03 PM
There are surer things than Cazaly that have gone bust, taking all of the money of those who had invested in those sure things. Nothing is a certainty in this game, and if you are gambling money on CAZ, just make sure you are prepared to lose that money. Cazaly does have a good chance of being granted the tenement....but that is all that it is, a chance. You seem to think it is a certainty, and its not.


In relation to the chatter on Hotcopper or indeed anything you hear about stocks: "when you buy use your eyes and your mind, not your ears."

Packersoldkidney
10-03-2006, 08:36 PM
...or how many gamblers there are around.

I made a substantial amount of money on this stock in the space of a couple of days, but I did so on the basis of technical indicators, not listening to yammering from an internet forum.

Trading and investing is not about a heads or tails bet....if you want that you should go to the casino and put your money on one of the colours at the roulette wheel; because at the moment your approach to the stock exchange is nothing but pure Russian Roulette.

Packersoldkidney
10-03-2006, 09:09 PM
quote:Originally posted by cujodog



I often think about doing that. Head to the casino and play the roulette wheel. Play Red and just keep doubling up and eventually you are going to win. It's very simple really. Can't lose.


Yes, that's why all the casinos are broke; they are all charities and are quite happy for you to take their money off of them. Someone should tell James Packer as he's just shelled out over a billion for a casino licence in Macau. Over a billion just for the licence....all the Packers love giving away money; Kerry was particularly happy with James that he gave away all that money to Onetel. Funny, though, Kerry lost money in casinos by and large.....a pity noone told him your roulette trick, as I'm certain he would have died much richer then what he did. Kerry made all his money from gambling, had nothing to do with any of the companies he owned blah blah blah blah.


http://www.financial-spread-betting.com/images/discipline-trading-gambling.jpg

Packersoldkidney
10-03-2006, 09:31 PM
quote:Originally posted by cujodog

You seem to have a fasination with the Packers. I think that's a bit unhealthy mate.

Prefer that to having a fascination with losing money.

Packersoldkidney
10-03-2006, 09:56 PM
Why stop with CAZ? There are many other dead certs out there....just go over to Hotcopper, I'm sure they'll fill you in with all the details.

I'm sure you could do much better than a piddly yacht...what about a big **** off size ocean liner?

Just keep on doubling up.....

Dazza
10-03-2006, 11:13 PM
cujodog, dun worry about them, POK is pissed off cuase he didnt jump aboard, while i said i did at yes u heard me 20cents, or 1000% gain so far.. and ticking... so POK ive already made my 500% +++

we will c who is the laughing stock, when we await the results.

technically i c that CAZ has done nothing wrong.

if the lease goes to RIO... there will be revolt in WA u can be assured.

my physics teacher told me once too:
the more u tink about it, the more screwed and bogged down u get. KISS ppl.

and thats exactly what i have done, and why i continue to hold, and only to take my capital back but havent realised any profits.

Dazza
10-03-2006, 11:15 PM
IMO u are crazy not to have any part of ur portfolio exposed to CAZ.

its the bet of the decade. im making 1000% gains .. will u be?

im sure every single damn person on this thread, will invest in speculative shares.

why not dab a little on CAZ? i have :D

aussie joe
11-03-2006, 01:46 AM
me 3.

ALL IN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! as aussie bangs the table.

Packersoldkidney,

I enjoy posting on hc as well, so right back at ya. All the signals are screaming caz has got it. When the decision comes down bollinger bands will mean sh*t.

Hope they announce it over the weekend.

In life sometimes you play the odds. Make sure you do your homework or you can find it the newspapers, your choice. Easy, CAZ currently holds the lease.

RIO allowed it to expire by law, CAZ pegged it by law. The rest is irrelevant as the matter of "PUBLC INTEREST" is atm neck and neck and very difficult to split. Or is CAZ’s PUBLIC INTEREST argument slightly stronger.

These odds I like very much. ;);)

aussie joe :D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D All smiles

Snow Leopard
11-03-2006, 08:59 AM
quote:Originally posted by cujodog

I think you are being a bit dramatic. I don't think anyone ever died playing the stockmarket.

I knew someone who commited suicide after losing big time on a couple of trades.
His attitude was so similar to yours that I actually thought that he was cujodog. Obviously I was wrong, as you are still here and he is not.
There is nothing wrong in investing in speculative stocks provided you are sufficiently diversified for the occaisional winner to compensate for the more frequent loser.

Packersoldkidney
11-03-2006, 11:15 AM
**** me! Talk about the blind leading the blind!

I've already stated I've made a substantial amount of money on this stock....so in actual fact I did 'jump aboard', but I also sold out near the top of the most savage spike. If you read the thread I'll think you'll find that I've posted on it several times already. I also bought stock on Thursday and off loaded it yesterday.....that is not laying my money on the stock, but trading it. There is a big difference.

Difference between me and you people is that I don't fall in love with a stock, and I know that nothing is a certainty....making those two mistakes is one sure fire way to lose your money.

The words 'odds' 'gamble' and 'punt' come up with alarming frequency on this thread.....it may well be a very good 'gamble' and the 'odds' may well be stacked in its favour. As far as 'punts' go, though, I've seen stocks with much better prospects then CAZ go broke, taking those who thought it was a sure fire winner with them.

You may well get your 500% profit.....I hope you do, but you may also lose the lot, and that, my friends, is neither trading nor investing...its gambling, pure and simple.

lanenz
12-03-2006, 05:53 PM
What i love watching about these types of spec stocks is the sentiment that is relayed through these forums. As most individual investors including myself have at least at some stage been caught up in the hype of easy money. When it flows your way you feel invincible and that you can retire on your sharemarket investments. WRONG. If it that easy we all would be multi millionaires.

This stock i am watching from thesidelines with no intention of ever getting involved. Not becaue i dont like it but my money is invested in other sotcks or areas.

The point that i am getting at is i know many investors in this stock novery little or nothing about share investment.good luck to all that do well and wjho knows how high or how low it can go. For the average investor if you do well then its luck only. If you are one of those investors well done but keep your emotion in check. I have seen it and experienced it during the 80's. i therfore can say that it doesnt bother me if i havent invested in a flyer because i havent lost anything. The worst thing to happen is to have something and then have it taken away from you.

Disc. Novice investor and the more i know the more i realise that i dont know.

Dazza
12-03-2006, 10:32 PM
lanenz, yip im a novice investor, one that does not care when i threw in 1k to play with, when i work full time, thats like less than a weeks wages for me. so nothin too scary there my friend.

no need to research hardcore on CAZ as when i had brought it, it was just a speccie.

its all about risk vs reward + risk vs money management my friend.

and POK ive made my 1000% return as a fact, though it is only paper return, a strong stop loss is in tact.

u certainly have traded it yes, but some of us aint traders, obviously u have done well at selling at 2.40ish and then buying back lower to sell again. do though be careful as id hate for u to miss the big rise, just as u would hate for me to loose all my paper profits. but get this i have zero risk involved as i have my capital back..

and yes lanenz, IT WAS LUCK that i brought this be4 LUCK may have it, CAZ pegged the lease cause LUCK had it or UNLUCKY RIO forgot to renew it.

LUCK eh... yeah LUCK its a funny thing...

lanenz
13-03-2006, 06:59 AM
good on you Dazza. You seem like a great guy and i certainly wish you al the success.

There is a saying that you create your own luck.

For me ill sit on the side lines and watch with interst. Investors are lapping up these types of stocks and there will be plenty of money to be made. There will also be plenty of losers so im glad to see you have a stop loss.

Have a great year Dazza

Packersoldkidney
13-03-2006, 01:39 PM
quote:Originally posted by Packersoldkidney

You are crazy to buy more at these levels.....market is undecided, you can tell by today's price action. What's pulling it up is the Shovelanna deposit and the possibility they might be awarded it, but the possibility they might not be awarded it is pulling it down. Market doesn't know what to make of CAZ.

Got a high wave candle that has cut straight through the top of the bollingers I've got set up. When that has happened for CAZ the stock has fallen like a rock the next trading day.

I'd be sitting it out, pal, until the market decides the direction this is going in.


[^] ;)

Dazza
13-03-2006, 04:36 PM
copy of post from trade4profit at HC. I am not a nervous nellie on this stock :P. if u are then dun buy at 2.15 :P
-------------------------------------------------
I can’t understand how so many "expert" opinions keep finding their way to the CAZ thread from individuals clearly uninformed about the details of the case...

What is going on here…and how many of you are being paid for your services?

All relevant information has been posted here at HC, many, many times before...unfortunately however, there has been a concerted effort to flood the threads with so much "filler" that people find reading back through all of them far too tedious...so perhaps, we should forgive new posters for not being fully informed?

These "filler" posters have obviously done a "job" on CAZ…and by extension, the entire HC community.

There are so many misleading or just plain wrong statements/assumptions here it is not funny...for example, this business of how RIO could equate unrelated expenditure to Shovelanna…what a red herring!

Are you aware that RIO failed to meet minimum expenditure requirements for some 10 out of 16 years (by memory)...this is factually recorded on the tenement register. As a result, many of RIO's tenement renewals could not go through the normal process, instead requiring special dispensation.

Please…if you are going to partake in some kind of “negative ramp campaign”…at least try to do it with factual information…like how RIO might try to link Shovelanna to a local minerals development strategy?

lol…we know one doesn’t actually exist, but at least such an argument might seem plausible!

The uninspiring history at Shovelanna is a nice fall-back argument for CAZ and may help in a split decision scenario...but really, in context with the wider terms of the current application, it should have very little bearing on the final outcome.

Anyway…regardless of RIO’s previous transgressions on the tenement...up to a few days prior to CAZ actually pegging the ground, RIO were still in full and rightful legal possession.

There is no question on this issue.

What then followed however, was a rightful transfer of that legal possession under the terms and conditions of the WA mining act...as a result, CAZ are now legally in possession of the tenement.

Under the act however, anyone has the right to object for any number of reasons...these must be considered prior to the tenement being formally granted.

This is where were are now at…the minister is considering these objections.

Talk of couriers to blame, or RIO’s intentions to renew, or anything else of a prior nature are completely irrelevant...all that matters now are the pro's and con's of RIO's objection on the grounds of "public interest".

Do not forget, RIO are simply another objector here...and not because CAZ have encroached on their boundary in the pegging process...not because CAZ have broken the law in any way or not followed due process...not because “the dog ate my homework”…and certainly not because there is an existing operational mine at the site and that people will lose their jobs…no…RIO have objected because they believe the “public” would be better-off if they were to get it back!

Simple!

Initially, this was a pretty good case for RIO…CAZ are simply too small, with minimal cash backing and no track record suggesting they might be able to get a mine up and running…however, the minute BHP threw their hat into the ring, all that changed and RIO were effectively in checkmate!

It would be near impossible in my opinion, to decide in favour of RIO given the current parameters…well not purely on the “Shovelanna equation” anyway.

As we know however, when politicians get involved, anything can happen, so the impossible is always a possibility, but short of any corruption, in my mind the public will be far better served if CAZ should win.

Not only is the CAZ/BHP production route far more economically viable than anything RIO could come up with for Shovelanna, the fact also remains that the tenement is simply not pivota

Packersoldkidney
13-03-2006, 05:55 PM
T4P is a lawyer, I think from memory he's a QC....I think his argument about CAZ has more than some merit to it.

The issue is with T4P is that I've seen time and again where he has managed to jump on board a stock after its finished its spike...he's then written these flowery posts littered with caveats and arguments that he obviously learned from studying law at university, giving the reasons why the stock will go higher. The stock then proceeds to go lower, about which time he bleats about all the 'down rampers' ramping his stock down. (sorry, pal, it aint rampers pushing it down, tis the market)

It's probably just as well that he's a QC....it sounds like he needs the funds to back up his trading strategy.

In other words while I think his argument on CAZ is a good one, on his track record I really would not be trusting what he writes or says, simply because his record doesn't merit it.

Dazza
13-03-2006, 09:36 PM
cheers POK for that piece of info :P

appreicated

regards,
Dazza
*new to this game :D

Dazza
15-03-2006, 12:09 AM
once again a good post on HC, had to wean out the idiot ones :P
-------------------------------------------------
Cazaly Resources Pty Ltd / Cazaly Iron Pty Ltd (formally Cyril Resources)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Share Issue

51.25 Mil - CAZ listed (includes recent exerecised options)

66.48 Mil - CAZ Fully Diluted (inc Echelon/Investec/Argonaunt options)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Disclaimer - The information here is relevant to the Shovelanna Hill Iron

Ore project, and does not include information about Cazaly's

existing and Gold and Uranium projects.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Rio partners mentioned herewith are Hancock, Wright and Hamersley.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Shovelanna - Tenement History


TR5003 - Rio first applied for Shovelanna Project, which was converted

to Exploration Licence E46/08 in 1983.


E46/08 - Rio tenement E46/08 expired on 11 Feb 1989 at midnight.

Application renewal paperwork was 'lost in the post' according

to the DoIR 1990 annual report.


E46/209 - 3 months after E46/08 expired, Rio and Partners, pegged the

same tenement, as E46/209 on 18/05/1989 at 11:55am. Tenement

was granted 27/08/1989 (for 5 years up to 26/08/2005). The

tenement expired midnight 26/08/2005. Rio had posted a cheque

to the DoIR approx one month prior to the lease expiring, being

registered/receipted at the DoIR on 28/07/2005. However, there

was no tenement application papers with the cheque and therefore

the DoIR refunded the cheque to Rio. E46/209 was declared as

'dead' and the lease had expired. The cheque was refunded to

Rio, according to the DoIR tenement register, on 28/07/2005.


E46/678 - 3 days after E46/209 expired, Cyril Resources (100% subsidairy

of Cazaly Resources) applied for the Shovelanna tenement as

E46/678 on 29/08/2005 at 13:50. E46/678 is currently pending

ministers approval for granting.


NOTE: Cazaly should not be declared as a 'midnight pegger' because the

former lease expired and they had legally pegged vacant (crown)

land.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Objections

During the objection period of a new tenement application, two objections

were lodged at "Marble Bar" against Cazaly's E46/678 tenement, as follows:


MB54/056 - BHP

MB57/056 - Han****(only one of Rio's partners lodged objection)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

PREVIOUS 20 YEARS under Rio Tinto JV


- Total Drilling from 1986 to 2005: 0 holes for 0 metres

- Work completed included; mapping, a helimag survey, a resource

estimation and 10 rock chips.

- Total expenditure: $270,793 ($13,540 per annum ave.)

- In 1989 E46/08 licence accidentally forfeited “…due to postal

difficulties…” (1990 Annual Report to DoIR). Re-pegged 3 months later

as E46/209.

- “The proximity of the Shovelanna mineralisation to the BHP Orebody 18

deposit suggests there may be a strategic value to this tenement apart

from any future mineral value.” (1997 Annual Report to DoIR)

- No feasibility, metallurgical, geotechnical or other work suggestive of

a commitment to mining in the short to medium term.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

CAZALY'S RESEARCH ON SHOVELANNA


- Extensive 3.5km long iron ore zone delineated.

- Extension of BHPB’s Orebody 18 North deposit.

- Indicated Resource of 216Mt @ 62% Fe (Cazaly Resources Ltd., Nov. 2005).

- High potential for the discovery of further ore.

- 40,000m drilling programme planned.

- No drilling

trackers
15-03-2006, 12:41 PM
The sports betters put half time odds up for the AUS vs SA cricket match....AUS scored 430, paying $1.01 to win; SA paying $26:1....

That was a sure thing........wasn't it?

Dazza
24-03-2006, 11:54 PM
heres another theory from t4p, though its biased cause he has shares in caz :P so do i :P


-------------------------------------------------
Thinking outside the box...

RIO have been renewing Shovelanna year after year...just in case...often not meeting their required anual expenditure and on more than one occassion, missing their renewal dates by considerable periods.

They have clearly viewed Shovelanna as a low priority target...perhaps even seeing it as simply a thorn in the side of BHP's orebody 18 plans?

Which brings me to yet another scenario...

What if, after a significant strategic regional review, RIO came to the conclusion, along with Forest/Reinhart, that Shovelanna simply did not fit in anywhere for them?

Basically, they decided that for them, it was marginal at best and uneconomic at worst, which lead to a decision to relinquish!

Stay with me on this...

Now...what if, given RIO were of the opinion to let the tenement go, they decided to gain some mileage from letting it go whilst at the same time, preventing BHP from directly benefiting fvia direct application over the tenement?

What if RIO actually made it known that "Anna" may become available...but only for a short period.

To this end, I find it interesting that previous failures to renew did not attract any "midnight pegging" activities...so why this time?

But why would RIO do this?

Well...the obvious "dispute" that would follow, as an indignant RIO cried poor me, might actually help them gain favourable outcomes within other parts of their portfolio...Argyle immediately comes to mind.

It is a very real possibility in my mind, that this whole event has been one big "smoke screen"...that RIO really didn't care about the tenement and have been using it to their advantage.

Can anyone explain to me how RIO could ever actually mine Shovelanna profitably, given they have no infrustructure in the region and nothing nearby to faciltate economy of scale?

Good chance we have all been had here?

Cheers!

aussie joe
31-03-2006, 06:35 PM
cujodog,

and if they know that answer, let me know who won.

I betting on CAZ

aussie joe[:p][:p][:p]

winner69
02-04-2006, 06:56 PM
Thats shocking news cujopup ..... haven't you learnt your lesson about selling out too early ... like your sell down of FPH, GPG etc

But you have perservered longer than i thought you would have with CAZ ... you did give it a few weeks to make your millions but alas not millions but only a few hundred thou eh

Congrats on a great trade anyway .... and leaving some money on the table for others

Mick100
02-04-2006, 08:40 PM
Those junior uraniums stocks sure are hot at the moment. Makes me wonder how long it's going to last

You must be making a fortune cujo!
,

stockie4
03-04-2006, 11:53 AM
Eating grass. I am turning green and in a couple of days will be neighing or mooing this thing has been going on so long! Surely the dcision on CAZ is simple. That is look at the legislation-regulations line up the actions (inactions) of CAZ and RIO and see which fits. I have been wantign to get in on uranium stocks for weeks but have not been game because of the decision impending.:)

Anyway I hope all goes well for those who are holding (including myself of course) ACE

aussie joe
14-04-2006, 12:42 AM
desperate buying leading up to close and on close. Who ever was buying was buying whatever was on offer.

aussie joe [:p][:p][:p]

if you like to gamble come in spinner.[8D]

tigers
14-04-2006, 05:33 PM
Missed CAZ but plenty of ECH so we are both on the same pony

stockie4
15-04-2006, 01:23 PM
http://heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,18809647%255E664,00.html

See link for the latest on CAZ. It didn't happen pre-easter but the decision will almost certainly be handed down next week.

ace42

tigers
15-04-2006, 06:39 PM
just read hc getting nervous boys and girls?

aussie joe
20-04-2006, 10:52 PM
hold your breath.....

aussie joe [:p][:p][:p]

Moonshine
21-04-2006, 07:11 PM
IT'S ALL OVER.

http://www.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20060421/pdf/3wdw268wxb1k0.pdf

Section 111A Upheld... RIO wins.

winner69
21-04-2006, 07:17 PM
So the big bad boy wins eh

Long weekend for some ..... at least cujopup made a few bucks on this ..... but not the millions he was after

Packersoldkidney
21-04-2006, 07:20 PM
Oh man.....I feel really sorry for some of the people on here.

Cut your losses while you can.....and don't slit your wrists or do anything like that. There is always another day.

My sympathies are with shareholders.....and though I always thought the reversal was on the cards, I agree entirely with the statement made in the ASX release by McMahon.

tigers
21-04-2006, 07:28 PM
Cazaly lost rio won the shovellana EL

stockie4
21-04-2006, 07:54 PM
Is this the end of the mattter? ie Nathan McMahon ".... before deciding on a course of action".

Is there a possiblity that the minister may have to reconcile his the reason for his decision with the "Public Interest"?

Does he have to make known the reason/s for his decision?

Or was there some legal hitch with Rio having forwarded their money.

This has astounded me.

Comisserations to all who put their faith in CAZ being given a fair go

tigers
21-04-2006, 08:02 PM
This will not be the end of the matter at all.First in best dressed always wins in the end.CAZ was first (if you noticed the dates) THE QCs are lining up as we sit and stew.

tigers
21-04-2006, 08:46 PM
I repeat this is not the end of the matter.

vicmackay
21-04-2006, 09:52 PM
I'm thinking of buying some of these shares as I understand they are involved with Gold.

Does anyone recommend them?

Packersoldkidney
21-04-2006, 10:08 PM
quote:Originally posted by vicmackay

I'm thinking of buying some of these shares as I understand they are involved with Gold.

Does anyone recommend them?


lol. Yes, I'll recommend them to you...sub 30 cents.

pago
21-04-2006, 10:11 PM
hi surely one simple lesson here,never invest more then 10% of your portfolio in one stock ,cheers pago.

trader10
21-04-2006, 10:13 PM
LMFAO...VIC,

wake up and read the newspapers and the ann !

RIO 6:42 PM Rio Tinto Iron Ore welcomes Shovelanna decision

CAZ 5:55 PM Shovelanna Exploration Licence Application Terminated

Do not touch it on Monday if you like your hard earned money...lot's of funny buss could happening there at this present time....
And, be very careful with the rampers on this stock.....Thousands of them trying to get out now......

T10 ;)

vicmackay
21-04-2006, 10:30 PM
Just heard on the news that a broker reckons that CAZ's shareprice will actually go up on Monday becuase the current share price was not factoring in a win for them and also the commodity prices are booming.

Do you think that it may go up? I don't want to miss the boat, so may put in a buy order tonite on my Commsec account.

Packersoldkidney
21-04-2006, 10:42 PM
Sounds like you already have enough CAZ, Vic.

Yes CAZ will definitely be going up on Monday. ROFLMAO.

Packersoldkidney
21-04-2006, 10:44 PM
quote:Originally posted by Packersoldkidney

Sounds like you already have enough CAZ, Vic.

Yes CAZ will definitely be going up on Monday. ROFLMAO.


CAZ will definitely be going up; it will go up to 23 cents when it bottoms out at 22 cents.

Dazza
21-04-2006, 10:47 PM
its a sad day

yogi all congrats to u

cujudog ur an ****, u ramped da **** out of this stock earlier in the year, and now look at u, disgusting, will remember u on ST.

as for me what to now...

i am fortunate compared to others, i have already got my capital back.

remaning shares... profit will be a profit i guess.


to the n00b who reackons the price will rise, get over urself.

it will experience a fall, depending on what forrest will do IMO.

utterly disgusted with WA

montymax
21-04-2006, 10:47 PM
To say that the share will rise on Monday is unbelievable! The whole interest in this share has been based on the decision over the project. It may not be over, but it is a major blow to their chances. They do have some gold projects but it certainly does not justify their current share price. We will see a substantial fall on Monday.

Mick100
21-04-2006, 11:21 PM
quote:Originally posted by Dazza

its a sad day

yogi all congrats to u

cujudog ur an ****, u ramped da **** out of this stock earlier in the year, and now look at u, disgusting, will remember u on ST.

as for me what to now...

i am fortunate compared to others, i have already got my capital back.

remaning shares... profit will be a profit i guess.


to the n00b who reackons the price will rise, get over urself.

it will experience a fall, depending on what forrest will do IMO.

utterly disgusted with WA


Well, at least you know what it feels like to have had a 10 bagger dazza.
I don't know what cujo has said about this stock in the past but I do recall reading a post of his saying that he had sold a couple of weeks ago - so don't play the blame game - you should have done as he done.
,

Packersoldkidney
21-04-2006, 11:40 PM
quote:Originally posted by cujodog

Thanks for the back-up Mick. I sold out because my nerves couldn't take it anymore. Imagine what my nerves would be like tonite if I was still holding!


Echo those sentiments of Mick's, Cuj.

This will get flattened on Monday, and I take no relish in saying that, as there are many small holders that will be hurt.

winner69
22-04-2006, 07:06 AM
quote:Originally posted by vicmackay

Just heard on the news that a broker reckons that CAZ's shareprice will actually go up on Monday becuase the current share price was not factoring in a win for them and also the commodity prices are booming.



u not hirelm from sharescene are you? .... because hirelm is one pretty optimistic punter / gambler ......With posts like

Some people are saying that the CAZ shareprice won't actually fall even after this result. They are saying that the current share price is due to the rise in commodity prices over the last couple of months.

Wouldn't CAZ holders be laughing if it only went down by say 5c on Monday. the down rampers would be angry about that

and


predicting the share price will actually go up on Monday. Why is everyone panicking. CAZ's fundamentals have not changed. If no-one panics the share price will not go down - it's as simple as that. Keep calm, Breathe. This time next week you'll be wondering what tonite's fuss was about. CAZ is a $2 share - everyone knows that. Don't panic. Don't sell. You have never lost anything until you sell. Please don't lose sight of this. Please don't panic. Please don't sell.

winner69
22-04-2006, 07:18 AM
.... hell .... the market cap of this outfit was more than A$100 million .... (almost make the NZ50)

This will hurt

stockie4
22-04-2006, 11:37 AM
What are the legals with the Minister acting in the "Public interest"? Does he have to justify his significant action by detailing his reason/s to parliament? I have lost through speculation, however my speculation was soundly based by looking at the law(s) and the situation. Surely the minister should be made to detail the reason(s) for his decision.

trackers
22-04-2006, 02:07 PM
If only my brokers weren't such tightasses - I'd cut off my little pinky for the chance to short this sucker on Monday

trackers
22-04-2006, 02:09 PM
quote:Originally posted by vicmackay

I'm thinking of buying some of these shares as I understand they are involved with Gold.

Does anyone recommend them?


Is that post for real? Surely not..

trackers
22-04-2006, 02:12 PM
quote:Originally posted by vicmackay

Just heard on the news that a broker reckons that CAZ's shareprice will actually go up on Monday becuase the current share price was not factoring in a win for them and also the commodity prices are booming.

Do you think that it may go up? I don't want to miss the boat, so may put in a buy order tonite on my Commsec account.


You've obviously created an account for the sole purposes of ramping this stock, on the pretext of being an uneducated newbie...Lets hope noone falls for it

robbo
22-04-2006, 04:46 PM
(CAZ) --- Cazaly ---

Red

or....

Black

Hi Dazza,

Feel for you..... at this sort of ....Bummer..... time mate.....

So Glad though Dazza, that you at least had the sanity.... to Safeguard your capital, ....which you may recall I was Screaming at you to do ....about 10 weeks ago; or whenever it was ....

Dazza, you can actually may and can Gain something ....from this tardy and unpleasant CAZ affair.

It was imo, Unjust (but Bummers do happen)-- and a stinker of a politicians totally Suck ---- gutless decision.

And that is, imo ....

But what can you Gain from the CAZ affair? .

Wisdom is what....

---from the most painful and best Teacher of them all....

Bitter, hard and painful experience....

....Some ideas to chew over .... when the time is right.... might be ......

(1) When your ready, assess and Learn ....to stick with more -- "control over the predictability"--- ie: you in more control--- factor.

(2) Have an Exit plan--

**** For example, my Exit Plan usually (not always) is for me, very strictle, --- + 200%-- no matter what..... yep, + 200%--no matter what....

Let me spell this (+ 200% Rule --)-- out a tad more ....

....If you bought say CAZ .... at .... 40 cents....

Your Pre Determined Exit Plan--
Stipulates that .... You must Sell ...No matter what, at $1.20.

(3) The above Rule, imo Dazza, will save you a lot of unnecesary angst in the future.

(4) This above Rule, of having-- a Clear Concrete Black & White & definite--- Pre-Determined Exit share Price Strategy and Pre agreed Exit Share Price Plan may need a tad more elaboration........

Taking it --- a few steps further for you consider and ONLY ---- if Dazza, you find it --- "works for you" --- you should write it down; and stick it on a wall somewhere ...

(4) (a) To make compounding wealth, ie: -- snowballing consistent profits on profts on profits.....

Here is some meat on the bone on the Rule:

-- ... to consider:

(4b) Any share .... yep, any share.....

...... from now on, that you buy Dazza; ....imo requires you to have a clear & established a Margin of Safety -- Exit Share Price, that you have agreed ..... You will definitely....

sell at .... Strategy ........ no matter what ....

(4c)ie: a Pre Determined & Agreed with ...and written down Share Price that; you will resist at all costs, the Greed Factor, and Sell.... and take Your deserved Good Profits.... and Bank in Your Bank, no matter what....

(4d) If you are a bit unsure.... errr of the Top Bit, then be cool to calmly Sell slightly ..... on the lower side.....

ie: If you buy a Share.... at 40 cents, and $1.20 is what you consider to be reasonably attainable -- but you wonder a bit about the last few ..... metres .....of the journey... then calmly, --- take $1.15 ....instead, ....and ....be VERY happy..... and go to a expensive lovely romantic candle lit nice restaurant with your girl, to celebrate you wisdom, street smarts,newly made wealth, and your winning profits ..........

And again -- if 3 times ---your buy in price, comes up to say: ---$1.06 ..... then .... why not sell for say 96c, 97c, and 98 cents... respectively. ...to be on the Safe Side...?? That is still a -- + 185% -- or whatever --- massive gain....

(4 c) Why EXACTLY --- should you have such a rigid Plan ?? --

Answer: see point (5) -- next below......

(5) Dazza ----- Here is a carefully guarded Trade Secret ......

Ready to hear it. ... ??

Here it is then Dazzzz ......

Dazza ...... now Listen Up carefully....:

It is much easier Dazza, to find another New and totally fresh ..... New Share... of a New Company ---, than for the share that has now just risen thrice,(3 times)--- that you still own,

.....to on rsing, on average....th

mamos
22-04-2006, 06:36 PM
Excellent post Robbo. Very wise advice. I have taken on board.

tigers
22-04-2006, 08:17 PM
In reply to ace42 everyone seems to have forgotten the other sleeping giant who just happen to have a mine next door.Next week will be very intesting I am sure.

Dazza
22-04-2006, 10:58 PM
cheers robbo for that,

yes i have learnt greatly from this experience, i just didnt know when to take profits tsk tsk.

keep up the informative posts robbo

regards

small fish
22-04-2006, 11:40 PM
Wise post as usual Robbo and I think such a strategy is important when investing in these speculative resource stocks at the moment. Theres too many variables and incomplete information to understand every company and it is made more difficult when production from such companies is years into the future. However some companies have more prospects than others and I am quite happy to sell down but still leave 30-40% of the original holding on the table.
It is easy to be blinded by potential gains and forget about opportunity cost and in this case if you were managing the risk appropriately you might only leave 10-20% on the table.
Never owned CAZ myself but definitely something to be learned from this unfortunate outcome. Bad luck guys

vicmackay
22-04-2006, 11:54 PM
There is no way this share price will go down to 50 cents as some people have been saying. A share would not collapse by that much. I predict that it will not go under $1 ever again.

Moonshine
23-04-2006, 12:56 AM
Sorry vicmackay... i think you will be proven wrong on Monday.

CAZ were trading at about 25c on 7/09/2005 when they lodged their application for Shovelanna.

Since then all their other projects (Gold, U and whatever else they may hold) have been on the back-burner... admitted by CAZ directors themselves.

This share will go well back under $1.00.

Any further "hope" for CAZ re: Shovelanna, in the form of ongoing legal challenges, will be like asking burnt punters to pick up the hot coals again.

No doubt some will be foolish enough to do so, but it will take a while for investors/gamblers to get over the amount of money that is about to be lost on Monday.

IMHO... not even a legal challenge financially backed by BHP would attract money to this stock.

As was learnt years ago when a similar scenario unfolded... big business will remain just that... BIG BUSINESS.

Randy
23-04-2006, 10:40 AM
quote:Originally posted by vicmackay

There is no way this share price will go down to 50 cents as some people have been saying. A share would not collapse by that much. I predict that it will not go under $1 ever again.


Put the lot on [u]Robbo's Dane</u> in the first at Wagga today.

stockie4
23-04-2006, 11:53 AM
Hey, everybody, read this:


W.A. MINING ACT 1978 - SECT 111A
Minister may terminate or summarily refuse certain applications

111A . Minister may terminate or summarily refuse certain applications

(1) The Minister may —

(a) by notice served on the mining registrar or the warden, as the case requires, terminate an application for a mining tenement before the mining registrar or the warden has determined, or made a recommendation in respect of, the application; or

(b) refuse an application for a mining tenement,
if in respect of the whole or any part of the land to which the application relates —

(c) the Minister is satisfied on reasonable grounds in the public interest that —

(i) the land should not be disturbed; or

(ii) the application should not be granted;

or

(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.

(2) In subsection (1)(d) “late renewal application” means an application made in the manner prescribed for the purposes of section 78 (except that it was not made during the final year of the term of the lease) for the renewal of the lease with effect from the expiry of the term of the lease.

(3) Notwithstanding anything in this Act, an application to which a notice referred to in subsection (1)(a) applies ceases to have any effect for the purposes of this Act when that notice is served.

(4) The powers conferred by subsection (1) are in addition to any other powers of the Minister under this Act.

[Section 111A inserted by No. 58 of 1994 s. 44.]



Clearly the minister could not have applied “d” here. RIO would not have satisfied the requirements of “d” as it has not met expenditure requirements. The decision has been made purely on public interest grounds. And the minister has done so despite the contradiction arising between RIO not satisfying expenditure requirements and the public’s interest in it doing so.
AND

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

brisand
23-04-2006, 04:11 PM
What price was it before they pegged the RIO lease?


quote:Originally posted by vicmackay

There is no way this share price will go down to 50 cents as some people have been saying. A share would not collapse by that much. I predict that it will not go under $1 ever again.

tigers
23-04-2006, 04:30 PM
Go to abc.net.au business news THIS IS FAR FROM OVER.

winner69
23-04-2006, 04:58 PM
quote:Originally posted by Randy


quote:Originally posted by vicmackay

There is no way this share price will go down to 50 cents as some people have been saying. A share would not collapse by that much. I predict that it will not go under $1 ever again.


Put the lot on [u]Robbo's Dane</u> in the first at Wagga today.



2nd .... beaten by the forex trader Currency Lady

Was 8-1, though

Moonshine
23-04-2006, 05:22 PM
quote:Originally posted by brisand

What price was it before they pegged the RIO lease?


quote:Originally posted by vicmackay

There is no way this share price will go down to 50 cents as some people have been saying. A share would not collapse by that much. I predict that it will not go under $1 ever again.



Approx 25c on 07/09/2005... the day they announced their application for the Shovelanna tenement.

Factor in the rise in gold... to maybe 35c... and that is all they are worth.

trackers
23-04-2006, 05:28 PM
quote:Originally posted by vicmackay

There is no way this share price will go down to 50 cents as some people have been saying. A share would not collapse by that much. I predict that it will not go under $1 ever again.


Easy solution, I'll sell you some at 99c ;)

Packersoldkidney
23-04-2006, 05:40 PM
quote:Originally posted by vicmackay

There is no way this share price will go down to 50 cents as some people have been saying. A share would not collapse by that much. I predict that it will not go under $1 ever again.


Vic it sounds as if you are going to be hurt tomorrow......my tip to you is to take the hit and learn from it. Everyone in the investment game has lost money at one stage or another; Cazaly is going to cost you money tomorrow, so be prepared to grin and bear it. I doubt that after the dust settles that it will be much over 30 cents....it is difficult at this stage to say to what levels it will plumb tomorrow, but I suspect that it will definitely be well under a $1, and I suspect will be probably south of 50 cents almost straight on open.

Being realistic with yourself is the only way you will succeed in this game. Good luck, and I hope you are able to recoup your losses quickly.

Randy
23-04-2006, 05:51 PM
quote:Originally posted by winner69


quote:Originally posted by Randy


quote:Originally posted by vicmackay

There is no way this share price will go down to 50 cents as some people have been saying. A share would not collapse by that much. I predict that it will not go under $1 ever again.


Put the lot on [u]Robbo's Dane</u> in the first at Wagga today.



2nd .... beaten bt hr forex trade Currency Lady

Was 8-1, though


Paid place money $3.30, previously unplaced in 9 lifetime starts and no stakes money. Each way return on investment 65%, hope CAZ punters got some of it.

vicmackay
23-04-2006, 06:18 PM
quote:Originally posted by Packersoldkidney


quote:Originally posted by vicmackay

There is no way this share price will go down to 50 cents as some people have been saying. A share would not collapse by that much. I predict that it will not go under $1 ever again.


Vic it sounds as if you are going to be hurt tomorrow......my tip to you is to take the hit and learn from it. Everyone in the investment game has lost money at one stage or another; Cazaly is going to cost you money tomorrow, so be prepared to grin and bear it. I doubt that after the dust settles that it will be much over 30 cents....it is difficult at this stage to say to what levels it will plumb tomorrow, but I suspect that it will definitely be well under a $1, and I suspect will be probably south of 50 cents almost straight on open.

Being realistic with yourself is the only way you will succeed in this game. Good luck, and I hope you are able to recoup your losses quickly.


Please don't patronise me. I have never seen a share drop in one day from $2.13 to 30 cents. You guys are living in dreamland if you think that sort of decrease will occur. And you call yourselves experts. Ha.[:o)]

Packersoldkidney
23-04-2006, 06:26 PM
quote:Originally posted by vicmackay


quote:Originally posted by Packersoldkidney


quote:Originally posted by vicmackay

There is no way this share price will go down to 50 cents as some people have been saying. A share would not collapse by that much. I predict that it will not go under $1 ever again.


Vic it sounds as if you are going to be hurt tomorrow......my tip to you is to take the hit and learn from it. Everyone in the investment game has lost money at one stage or another; Cazaly is going to cost you money tomorrow, so be prepared to grin and bear it. I doubt that after the dust settles that it will be much over 30 cents....it is difficult at this stage to say to what levels it will plumb tomorrow, but I suspect that it will definitely be well under a $1, and I suspect will be probably south of 50 cents almost straight on open.

Being realistic with yourself is the only way you will succeed in this game. Good luck, and I hope you are able to recoup your losses quickly.


Please don't patronise me. I have never seen a share drop in one day from $2.13 to 30 cents. You guys are living in dreamland if you think that sort of decrease will occur. And you call yourselves experts. Ha.[:o)]


Didn't say 30 cents tomorrow, though that is on the cards: think sub 50 cents is defo on the cards, though. I'm not the one living in dreamland, as you will find out tomorrow at about 10:15, that is if it doesn't go into a suspension first.

tigers
23-04-2006, 06:28 PM
To VIC you were not around in 1987 then?

winner69
23-04-2006, 06:38 PM
Vic .... guy in this article calls you a silly sausage ..... (taken from sharescene) ... if nothing else quite an amusing piece of writing



Good article at minesite.com:

Even in London, 20,000km from the epicentre, expect to hear yowls of pain over the weekend from the silly sausages who disregarded Minesite’s advice and played the Cazaly Resources iron ore tenement pegging game in Australia. In two simple words: “they lost”. News of the loss came out after the ASX closed today, but not before speculators with nothing to do before the weekend bid the stock up an extra A5 cents to A$2.12, a price which capitalises a company with nothing to tell but a terrific story at a very stretched A$108 million. On Monday, when the Oz market re-opens it’s London to a brick that Cazaly will do what its namesake Aussie Rules footballer did every time he flew for a high mark – crash back to ground level.

For non-followers of the great Cazaly caper here’s a potted explanation. Last September this small explorer named after a pre-war football great, Roy Cazaly, stunned the market by announcing that it had pegged the rich Shovelanna iron ore tenement in Western Australia’s Pilbara region. For the previous 30 years, Shovelanna had been controlled by Rio Tinto. Cazaly’s pegging was a result of Rio Tinto lodging its renewal paperwork late, largely because a courier left it in his van on the way to the mining warden in Marble Bar. Within days, Cazaly soared from A20 cents to A$2.40 – with a cheer squad hailing the little Aussie battler’s big win over the multinational.

Not cheering was Minesite, as readers will have noted in a report posted on November 25. Take care was the message then – and follow the cash. What more excitable punters failed to do was cross-check Cazaly’s version of events with those from Rio Tinto, which is something the WA Mines Minister was always going to do before he handed control of a tenement from one company to another. And, 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.

That, as events have turned out, is exactly how WA’s Mines Minister, John Bowler, has seen the case; not that he uses such colourful words. In true civil-service speak, Bowler simply says has had “determined that in the public interest the application by Cazaly Resources for an exploration licence over the ground formerly held by Rio (what, no Tinto, Minister?) should be terminated. Bowler’s statement goes on: “I have carefully examined and considered the very substantial submissions presented by both parties and I am satisfied that the public interest is best served by terminating Cazaly’s application to explore the Shovelanna prospect.”

Cazaly’s cheer squad is crying foul. Chief executive, Nathan McMahon, said he is “extremely disappointed” with the decision, questioning whether it is in the best interests of the State. In fact, he goes as far as to say: “The Mining Act as we know may have been struck a fatal blow” .. and assorted other end-of-the-world-type statements. But, under WA Mining Law Cazaly does not really have a leg to stand on. In cases like this the Minister’s decision is final. Naturally, that may not stop an appeal, but it’s fairly certain that Bowler will have carefully wrapped his decision in layers of red-tape and Queen’s Counsel opinion. If Cazaly wants to challenge in the courts it will be a case of Minnow v Queen – which always makes for legal fun, but rarely results in a win for the Minnow. McMahon makes a muted reference to future action: “the

vicmackay
23-04-2006, 07:19 PM
quote:Originally posted by tigers

To VIC you were not around in 1987 then?


No I was born in 1988. What happended in 1987[?]

Dazza
23-04-2006, 07:43 PM
oh come on u bears, i hear of 15cents? 25 cents? get real man.
tomorrow will prob see a suspension IMO

IMO i reackon 40-60 cents. the sheep who followed to buy up $1+, will be the sheeps again tomorrow who will sell to fill RIO/BHP/other smart co. that will lap up cheap shares.

heres a bit more info

"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."

tigers
23-04-2006, 07:51 PM
A lot of investors lost their beemers and penthouses on the same day. Itwas a Tuesday as I remember and 12000 shares I had in a stock went from 8.00 to in 3.80 in 2hrs .the next day it was zip zippo b gger all.

stockie4
23-04-2006, 07:52 PM
In response to Winner69 and "Minesites" argument: Minesite (and yourself,if you are backing them, as you appear to be) you are backing an argument to allow a company to retain a tenement when they have not satisfied mining law (read the mining act and see for yourself).

If the reason why the minister acted in favour of RIO was because of sympathy for them missing out because of a "mixup" then he, to put it simply has not acted in the interests of the public but just in/only the interest of RIO.

What a precedent! It will be cited in the future when similar disputes arise.

I am guessing that all CAZ investors will be waiting eagerly for RIO to commence its operations at Shovelanna

yogi-in-oz
24-04-2006, 02:49 AM
:)

Hi folks,

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 trading

yogi

:)

lanenz
24-04-2006, 09:56 AM
Why? Money = power.....IMO.

Yogi, I dont think the stars had anything to do with the decision.

Raptor
24-04-2006, 11:48 AM
Yogi,
I see that you had today picked as "24042006 ... minor" for CAZ.
(You don't say whether this would be would be a positive or negative influence).

So far today, CAZ is down over 75% - wouldn't this be regarded as "Very significant and very negative"?

How come your system missed such a major event?

winner69
24-04-2006, 12:09 PM
quote:Originally posted by vicmackay


Please don't patronise me. I have never seen a share drop in one day from $2.13 to 30 cents. You guys are living in dreamland if you think that sort of decrease will occur. And you call yourselves experts. Ha.[:o)]


..... sorry vic .... but now you have seen what can happen

Worse still .... day 3 (after bad news) is generally when it settles down for a while

stockie4
24-04-2006, 12:17 PM
The information on this site may be (is) of interest THE USE IT OR LOSE IT PRINCIPLE.

http://www.freehills.com.au/publications/publications_1595.asp

I am still sticking with CAZ

winner69
24-04-2006, 12:18 PM
quote:Originally posted by vicmackay

.....Do you think that it may go up? I don't want to miss the boat........


Viv .... hope you didn't miss the boat


Opened at 45.5 .... now 55 .... thats plus 20%

Or if you missed theopen in the rush you could have got some for 41 ... thats 34% up

Fortunes have been made .... and lost today

vicmackay
24-04-2006, 01:35 PM
quote:Originally posted by winner69


quote:Originally posted by vicmackay

.....Do you think that it may go up? I don't want to miss the boat........


Viv .... hope you didn't miss the boat


Opened at 45.5 .... now 55 .... thats plus 20%

Or if you missed theopen in the rush you could have got some for 41 ... thats 34% up

Fortunes have been made .... and lost today


Actaully I have made tens of thousands today. Got in at 47c and now they are 66c - I'm laughing all the way to the bank:D

Packersoldkidney
24-04-2006, 01:43 PM
quote:Originally posted by winner69


quote:Originally posted by vicmackay


Please don't patronise me. I have never seen a share drop in one day from $2.13 to 30 cents. You guys are living in dreamland if you think that sort of decrease will occur. And you call yourselves experts. Ha.[:o)]


..... sorry vic .... but now you have seen what can happen

Worse still .... day 3 (after bad news) is generally when it settles down for a while


Yes, I can't see it going to much higher from here, and suspect it will go lower on lower volume in the absence of any news.

vicmackay
24-04-2006, 02:02 PM
quote:Originally posted by Packersoldkidney


quote:Originally posted by winner69

[quote]Originally posted by vicmackay


Worse still .... day 3 (after bad news) is generally when it settles down for a while


Yes, I can't see it going to much higher from here, and suspect it will go lower on lower volume in the absence of any news.


Well it's now at 72 cents. How much higher can you not see it going from here?! It will be back over $1 by the end of the week. What was all the fuss about?:D

saintjohn
24-04-2006, 02:28 PM
Day traders going to make a killing here. Watch the close....sub 50c I'm picking....

Damo79
24-04-2006, 03:39 PM
Wow! Check it out.

Total shares in CAZ = 51252456
Todays volume so far = 56451405

Hehe :D, 110% of the companies shares traded today.

Anyone seen that happen before?

trackers
24-04-2006, 03:48 PM
quote:
Please don't patronise me. I have never seen a share drop in one day from $2.13 to 30 cents. You guys are living in dreamland if you think that sort of decrease will occur. And you call yourselves experts. Ha.[:o)]


Take those words, grab a spoon...and eat them up.

I take it you're not interested in my offer on Saturday of selling you some caz at 95c? didnt think so

lanenz
24-04-2006, 04:03 PM
quote:Originally posted by vicmackay


quote:Originally posted by winner69


quote:Originally posted by vicmackay

.....Do you think that it may go up? I don't want to miss the boat........


Viv .... hope you didn't miss the boat


Opened at 45.5 .... now 55 .... thats plus 20%

Or if you missed theopen in the rush you could have got some for 41 ... thats 34% up

Fortunes have been made .... and lost today


Actaully I have made tens of thousands today. Got in at 47c and now they are 66c - I'm laughing all the way to the bank:D
Only if you are able to sell at a profit. What about the ones you were holding above 2 bucks?[8]

lanenz
24-04-2006, 04:17 PM
quote:Originally posted by Damo79

Wow! Check it out.

Total shares in CAZ = 51252456
Todays volume so far = 56451405

Hehe :D, 110% of the companies shares traded today.

Anyone seen that happen before?
Freakish. Its like pass the parcel

tigers
24-04-2006, 05:39 PM
Just released ASX CAZALY LETTER

yogi-in-oz
24-04-2006, 05:42 PM
quote:Originally posted by Raptor

Yogi,
I see that you had today picked as "24042006 ... minor" for CAZ.
How come your system missed such a major event?


Hi Raptor,

That major negative event happened on Friday last, NOT today.

Anyway, we had not updated CAZ for a long time, so
it fell off our radar ... never mind, those looking
for a bounce, might see some value in the key dates
ahead and posted above.

happy days

yogi

:)

Mick100
24-04-2006, 05:52 PM
quote:Originally posted by yogi-in-oz


quote:Originally posted by Raptor

Yogi,
I see that you had today picked as "24042006 ... minor" for CAZ.
How come your system missed such a major event?


Hi Raptor,

That major negative event happened on Friday last, NOT today.

Anyway, we had not updated CAZ for a long time, so
it fell off our radar ... never mind, .

happy days

yogi

:)


Too bad if there was some novice out there who may have been taking your stuff seriously aye yogi.
,

vicmackay
24-04-2006, 08:26 PM
Some people are saying that CAZ will win the judicial review and these shares will go to $4.00+

What does everyone else think?

Mick100
24-04-2006, 08:30 PM
Some people have been talking about 20-30c.
I think that CAZ will get there over the next couple of months.
The really dumb money was buying today.
.

Dazza
24-04-2006, 10:34 PM
mick ur an idiot
if u had done ur hmk, and saw that caz would be priced around 44-64cents as m12 has said on HC.

u would have made 50% plus easy trading today .

41 low - 77 high.

if i had listen to some of u jokes today with ur bearish behaviour.

what 15 cents? 25 cents? 35 cents?

yes u maybe correct that 20-30 cents eh, u think eh mick? any basis on that 'think'

i have not sold my free holdings as of late, and im damn smart i didnt listen to u bear fools who reackon the company is worth 10-30cents, if that is so, then there are some very overpriced U stocks in the market.

now get real fellas, and produce some definative posts, or will i have to weed out hte posts like i do on HC?

SS seems to be the best anyhow.

Dazza
24-04-2006, 10:38 PM
opportunity cost - from 2.40 down ages ago.

opportunity win - didnt listen to u bearish idiots and didnt sell out at 40cents, smiling now with the close at 67 cents

Mick100
24-04-2006, 11:09 PM
I think they have about $1.2m cash at present

Let's wait and see what happens when the enevitable capital raising comes around - maybe then, the reality of CAZ's situation will begin to sink in
,

Packersoldkidney
24-04-2006, 11:51 PM
quote:Originally posted by Mick100


I think they have about $1.2m cash at present

Let's wait and see what happens when the enevitable capital raising comes around - maybe then, the reality of CAZ's situation will begin to sink in
,


They've been gearing the whole company towards Shovelanna; they've employed extra staff, signed contracts, and will have big legal bills. A lot of that they will have to wind back, meaning more cash expenditure. The money will be flowing out like water out of a busted main.

Shovelanna is a fantastic deposit....if they don't have it they really don't have much else up their sleeves. Unless, by some miracle, they get back Shovelanna, the shareprice will bleed a slow death from here.

It *may* perk up tomorrow morning given at 3.55 they announced that they were going to launch some sort of legal assessment of the minister's decision, but if this goes to the courts it will be a bast ardly long process, and people will lose interest in it. Heck people will be losing interest in this next week.

The volume today was massive....and noone will be surprised if some of the interested parties in CAZ have increased their position today: but those interested parites are not traders and have an investment horizon more often measured in decades than years. And given the legal toing and froing to come over this it could possibly be years before any definitive decision is made in the courts.

Dazza
24-04-2006, 11:55 PM
true mick so u can read half yearly reports under the colomn 'cash'

what about the 6 mill options exercised ? thats 900k cash so that makes over 2 mill cash?

so that means cash component = 3 cps

now show me other spec shares that have hardly any cash?

reality will sink in mick, but in the meantime i aint no idiot and just sell it on the first day at 45cents open, if i had listened to the bears.

with the prospect of going to court etc, this will turn more money into the company.

enough for me to sell, i have my orders ready and if it hits, it hits.


and be4 u make more bearish comments bout a company u dun even invest in, or even know about.

id hate to think the idiots who listened to u and other bears and sold at 40cents today, only to c they could have potentiall sold at 70cents +, or held for a maybe stronger price on wednesday, as caz has announced what they intend to do.

only ramping i had done, was to put some speculative money into the company, as i have had.


so cut the bull mick , and have some proper analysis and stop talking the coloured stuff coming out of ur rectum.

i hate both rampers and downrampers without some research.


u mock and show no respect to davidrob, yet he puts his analaysis forth, tells ppl of his positions, and IMO has made a lot of people wealthy.

now if u aint got nothing good to say with back up then just shut ur mouth.

there are others out there who will defend davidrob, with ur jack **** negative comments towards someone

bear
25-04-2006, 10:52 AM
Dazza

You need to pull your head in mate... while Mick and others are bagging this company ... i think your comments are equally guilty by unbalanced promotion.

i congratulate you on your "free holding" but dont fall in love with the stock (you are getting there)... it will ultimately cost you.. what about the other opportunities you are missing out on while waiting

Good luck to if you hold ... id be out of there unless their remaining interests are worth this value

Bear

Dazza
25-04-2006, 09:33 PM
unbalanced promotion? yes i have promoted this in the start, but only enough with what u can loose nothing wrong with that, i have blatently not bulled this share up as some have in HC

if the below post is right, then u can kiss ur argument goodbye mick
-------------------------------------------------

Miners up with Cazaly
From: By Kevin Andrusiak

April 25, 2006
JUNIOR explorer Cazaly Resources claims it has financial support from the West Australian mining industry for a legal challenge to Friday's decision by the West Australian Government to strip it of the lucrative Shovelanna iron ore deposit.

Investors wiped nearly 70 per cent from Cazaly's market value yesterday - turning over more than 120 per cent of its issued paper - and sent shares in its partner Echelon Resources down by more than half in a savage reaction to the decision, released after the market closed on Friday.
The Government has since refused to comment on its decision, leaving market watchers and mining industry insiders speculating about the reason for handing the lease back to Pilbara heavyweight Rio Tinto.

State Resources Minister John Bowler maintained his silence over the matter before the legal challenge was launched. Government advisers said it was Mr Bowler's decision not to expand on the "public interest" grounds given for his decision.

Rio had argued it lost the deposit, which it has not worked for nearly two decades, only because a courier failed to deliver the reapplication for the tenement lease in August last year.

Cazaly managing director Nathan McMahon yesterday stepped up his attack on the Government, saying Mr Bowler did not have the "guts" to explain the decision to the public. "This is a Government which prides itself on transparency and as we have seen there is no transparency when big business is involved," Mr McMahon said. "The board feels deeply that this is worth fighting for.

"We are adequately funded and have had a huge response, including financially, from the WA mining industry in response to this decision."
Despite Cazaly's market capitalisation falling to $34 million from well over $100 million yesterday, Mr McMahon said the company was "adequately funded" to mount the legal challenge. "The funding will not diminish shareholder value," he said.

Cazaly has called upon the services of top West Australian Queens Counsel Malcom McCusker to spearhead the challenge and has also lodged Freedom of Information applications for all legal advice from the State Solicitors Office to Mr Bowler and the state's Department of Industry and Resources. It has also written to Mr Bowler asking for a "full written explanation" of the reasons for his decision.

Nearly 65 million Cazaly shares swapped hands yesterday, well over the 51 million on issue, as day traders played havoc with the share price. After beginning the day at 45.5c, down from Friday's close of $2.12, the share price found some market support to close at 66.5 cents.

Australian Shareholder Association chairman Stephen Matthews said the Government's failure to explain publicly had undermined its decision. "These kinds of things can come back to bite the Government if they do not act promptly and with transparency," Mr Matthews said.

The decision has also raised concerns in Mr Bowler's home town of Kalgoorlie-Boulder, with mining insiders saying privately it would be hard for him to hold his head up in the mining city.

Amalgamated Prospectors and Leaseholders Association secretary Scott Wilson said supporting a bigger player in the mining industry over a smaller player set a dangerous precedent.

"We were of the impression that if you follow the Mining Act you will be protected by law."

http://finance.news.com.au/story/0,10166,1...891-462,00.html

Dazza
25-04-2006, 10:44 PM
Bowler bats for Rio but refuses to reveal why
OPINION
Matthew Stevens
April 25, 2006
LET'S be blunt. If the West Australian Government's decision to punt
Cazaly Resources's claim on Shovelanna looks loopy and unfair,
that's because it is.
Resources Minister John Bowler cited public interest in returning
the disputed iron ore deposit to its accident-prone but influential
owner, Rio Tinto.

But just what that public interest might be is known only to the
minister. And it is likely to stay that way with Bowler's people
yesterday saying "at this stage" there are no plans to publish the
reasons for "terminating Cazaly's application to explore the
Shovelana (sic) prospect".

This is then the public interest test that the public has no right
to know about. One thing you can be sure about though is that the
final decision was very much Bowler's. It is understood that a
departmental review of the collection of Cazaly's and Rio's
submissions on Shovelanna was handed to the minister without a
recommendation on what action he should take.

Let's recall what the Shovelanna fuss is all about. Rio's Australian
antecedent, CRA, acquired title over exploration licence 46/678 in
1981 with the Han****family as a joint venture partner. It has been
more than 15 years since prospecting revealed a large, relatively
high-grade but, at least at that time, technically difficult iron
ore deposit. The discovery was put on CRA's production schedule
shelf where it has remained ever since.

On July 28 last year, Rio Iron Ore's tenement management team sent
its annual rental cheque for EL46/678 to the Marble Bar mining
registrar. It was due for payment on August 26. Rio then sent the
formal paperwork for the licence renewal, due on the same date, by
overnight courier on August 19. That dispatch never arrived.

Three days later, EL46/678 was pegged by Nathan McMahon - a
professional tenement manager for 15 years and now the founding
chief executive of Cazaly Resources. Within 12 weeks, McMahon had
formed a joint venture with Echelon Resources to develop Shovelanna,
secured Anglo-South African investment bank Investec to finance the
proposal and lined up BHP in a mine-gate production off-take
agreement which would have resulted in the Global Australian taking
a minimum 5 million tonnes a year from Shovelanna.

Cazaly stood to make about $85 million a year for paying a contract
miner to deliver ore to BHP, which is mining at Ore Body 18, just
over the hill from Shovelanna. Given government approvals, all was
looking sweet.

That the midnight peggers appeared to do everything by the book is
reinforced by the fact that, with no other avenue for challenge open
to it, Rio turned to the minister claiming public interest. Which
seemed a bit rich given that the find had remained fallow since its
discovery and evaluation and that Rio had so patently stuffed up.

Rio's case rested on three pillars: it always intended to renew the
licence; the rental payment was sent and accepted ahead of the due
date; and good resource citizens such as Rio rely on solid resource
security to maintain big-ticket investment.

Fine points, three. The most important legally was that Rio's bill
was paid and accepted. But the minister was not being asked to make
a decision on the legality of Cazaly's claim, only whether the
national interest was being served by the process the junior miner
had pursued.

And really, the idea that Shovelanna was of some crucial strategic
importance to Rio seems slightly over-cooked. It is hard to see how
the loss of a geographically stranded deposit was likely to result
in Rio reshaping its Pilbara investment profile.

Shovelanna's distance from any supporting Rio infrastructure would
appear to be why the company has no plan, short of long-term, to
transform the discovery into a mine.

The minister's decision has left Cazaly understandably livid; some
of its newer shareholders painfully out of the money (the stock hit

lanenz
25-04-2006, 11:02 PM
conspiracy theory? He is an underarm bowler who succumbed to the temptation of a nice bonus for a favorable outcome. Or it was the intention of the missing document to create a share explosion in this stock.

On a more legalistic view point I find the following of real importance.

Rio's case rested on three pillars: it always intended to renew the
licence; the rental payment was sent and accepted ahead of the due
date; and good resource citizens such as Rio rely on solid resource
security to maintain big-ticket investment.

Fine points, three. The most important legally was that Rio's bill
was paid and accepted. But the minister was not being asked to make
a decision on the legality of Cazaly's claim, only whether the
national interest was being served by the process the junior miner
had pursued.

I am no legal expert but the things going for Rio is they have already won the first battle. They still have 3 other areas in which to argue their case should they need to. They havent needed to at this stage. They also have the resources (no pun intended) to draw this out as long as long as they like.

My heart tells me CAZ to win but my head says that RIO will also win the war.

stockie4
26-04-2006, 10:22 AM
I agree with your summary (ie on public interest having nothing to do with the cheque being accepted).

Moreover where is the legal precedent (the exact one that is) which has established that the acceptance of the cheque means that the RIO had satisfied the mining law regarding applying for a renewal.

Has anybody stated these requirements on this site?

As I said before, I am barracking like hell for CAZ on this. Not only for the money I have lost but also because of principle involved.

If you wish to express your concerns about the actions of the minister or premier you can email them on. This matter is co controversial, enough pressure could bring about a political decision to return it to CAZ.


wa-government@dpc.wa.gov.au

acarpent@mp.wa.gov.au

jbowler@mp.wa.gov.au

lanenz
26-04-2006, 12:16 PM
It could be a good idea to get CAZ management to send out notices to all shareholders and to arrange a protest outside the ministers house/office. Try getting Bowlers email address and all the shareholders can spam with with protests letters.

I think it is winnable especially if the legal aspect is not clear cut.

stockie4
26-04-2006, 12:21 PM
wa-government@dpc.wa.gov.au

Good idea Rebel.

To send a email of protest these are the addresses

Alan Carpenter: acarpent@mp.wa.gov.au

Bowler: jbowler@mp.wa.gov.au

lanenz
26-04-2006, 12:39 PM
Done. I have emailed all 3. If you want you may wish to give a generic email so that anyone who supports CAZ or in the interest of transparency can copy and send it to the apropriate email addresses.

I think it would be viable for the company to inform all shareholders and public to encourage letters and emails to the apropriate authorities.

Just some food for thought and if the public and shareholders are pst off enough then they will take a few moments to express their concern and demand answers.

aussie joe
26-04-2006, 08:50 PM
Guys,

To many what if’s in that argument. Let’s look at the facts:

The mining law in simple terms requires that an application fee together with the application forms submitted to constitute a legal mining / exploration contract (detailing the terms of the contract land boundaries, company name etc etc etc - I would say that all those are critical details would you).

Even the point raised above is irrelevant in this case.

FACT (S) -

CAZ application was terminated on public interest ground with a sweet f*ck all, f*ck off, thanks for coming sort of an explanation. That is the issue here. –“no comment”

Vacant Land was pegged.
CAZ application was accepted and terminated.

CAZ shareholders are only after an explanation as to why OUR piece of dirt was stolen from us. Nothing more nothing less.

If it is in the public’s interest then let the public know. This can not be that hard to sell unless something untoward has occurred behind closed doors.

I have never heard of secret public interest have you.

When you dance with the devil, the stage is most likely in hell. 666Bowler[}:)][}:)][}:)]

When you abide by the laws you shall not be scr*wed. Obviuosly not in this instance. A contract is a contract. Law is law, no one person should be above those fundamental rules.


aussie joe :(:(:(

*** One law for the rich and another for the plebs *** as witnessed by the determination of ELA 46/678 by WA labor Minister for State Development, Mr Bowler, in exercising his discretion under section111A of the Mining Act of 1978. Others have called it corruption. Pillage from the poor to give to the rich. Welcome to hell. Bowler. Hope your resume is up to date.

Dazza
26-04-2006, 09:32 PM
The minister has looked at the situation, and determined that RIO had paid its fees in advance but the paperwork had arrived late.

This shows that RIO had every intention of renewing the lease.


WHAT BULL**** THAT IS

bowler didnt even give a damn reason why it was public interest, and what da hell does public interest got to do with cheques being paid.

get real rupert and cantab.

aussie joe
26-04-2006, 11:32 PM
quote:
That's a fair enough arguement unless however it can be argued that it's not in the public interest to disclose why it was in the public interest to terminate CAZ and give it to RIO. That is not as silly as it sounds.



sorry, it is as silly as it sounds.

What sort details can be so sentative?


Meet me around the corner with the brown paper bag and I will show you what I have in my folder.

It's no longer a democracy if one man is above the law. Isn't that why we went to war in Iraq[?]

I would love to see BHP put a public interest claim on RIO. Now that would be in the best interest of the public.

Disgraceful politics.

666Bowler - hope you have your dancing shoes on. The devil has requested a dance [}:)]

aussie joe :(:(:(

aussie joe
26-04-2006, 11:41 PM
quote:
Dazza,
Have you read RIO's press release.
Their submission obviously relies heavily on the fact that they had paid the renewel fee early.

John Bowler has handled this whole situation very badly, and CAZ investors rightfully need and should demand an explanation.

However now that the minister has made his decision, that decision is final.

There is nothing in the mining legislation that allows you to appeal this decision.

Once the minister has handed down a decision it is legally like his sh !t doesn't stink.

From a mining legislation point of view, legally the minister is always right no matter what.

Its a very ugly situation, handled very badly by John Bowler.




Rupert,

This has now set a very ugly precedent.

I can see a lot more public interest determinations being sort.

Someone’s going to have very full pockets and it won’t be the public.

If it is not right let’s voice our opinions and make it right.

The system has let down the public that it was designed to protect.

Everyone, led by CAZ holders, should be making a song and dance re: this injustice.

Once the ball is rolling it will build up pace and then no one will be able to get in it’s way and stop it.

It should not happen in Australia in the year 2666. sorry typo 2006.

666Bowler – hope you have had some lessons as you will be cast on centre stage. [}:)]

aussie joe :(:(:(

aussie joe
27-04-2006, 12:05 AM
cantab,

The public deserves to know!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

CAZ shareholders are conduit to bring back the judicial system. We are not a dictatorship.

Oh hail furore 666 bowler. shall we dance [}:)]

aussie joe :(:(:(

lanenz
27-04-2006, 04:51 AM
For what it is worth here is the following email and reply.

Dear Mr .......

Thank you for your email regarding Cazaly Resources and the Shovelanna
iron ore deposit.

Your comments have been noted and your correspondence referred to the
Hon John Bowler, Minister for Resources and Assisting the Minister for
State Development.

Mr Bowler has been asked to reply directly to you about this matter.

Regards
WA Govt


26/04/06 9:46 &gt;&gt;&gt;
Dear Sir/madam,

As you aware there are many disgruntled shareholders regarding Mr
Bowlers decision on Friday. The lack of transparency also puts in
question the ethics of the Western Aust government. I think you owe it
to the shareholders and public in the interest of transparency to give
a
detailed reason behind the decision.

Regards .....

stockie4
27-04-2006, 09:16 AM
Cazaly row: Tenements to go online

From the West Australian JOHN PHACEAS

WA's Department of Industry and Resources is already moving to head off any repeat of the Shovelanna tenement dispute, confirming it plans to introduce an online tenement renewal system.

A Department spokeswoman said yesterday DoIR had begun a complete overhaul of its minerals titles database 18 months ago that was scheduled for completion by December next year.

That overhaul would include the capability to lodge all tenement renewals electronically, thereby eliminating the requirement to physically lodge paper documents with the department, she said.

Similarly, amendments to the Mining Act which came into effect in February also meant companies could now lodge tenement renewals in any Mining Registrar's office, rather than the office in the same district as the particular tenement, she said.

The Shovelanna dispute was sparked last August when Rio Tinto failed to renew its lease over the rich iron ore deposit before it expired. Though it paid the renewal fees and sent the relevant documents to an overnight courier more than a week before they were due, the courier failed to deliver the renewal papers to the Marble Bar Registrar in time.

Exploration minnow Cazaly Resources then pegged what was technically vacant ground, sparking an eight-month David and Goliath battle for the rights to the deposit.

Those rights were returned to Rio Tinto last Friday, when Resources Minister John Bowler controversially ruled that Cazaly's application be terminated "in the public interest" even though Rio has kept the project in mothballs for two decades and Cazaly had struck a deal to sell all ore to BHP Billiton within three years of winning the tenement.

Cazaly shares have since plunged, and the company is preparing action in the Supreme Court to secure a judicial review of the decision. Cazaly is also seeking full access to all documents relating to Mr Bowler's decision under Freedom of Information laws and a written explanation of the decision from the Minister himself.

Mr Bowler has so far refused to provide any explanation for his ruling, and a spokesman yesterday said no comment was likely now that the matter was before the courts.

External legal experts are uncertain of Cazaly's legal chances of overturning Mr Bowler's decision given it was made according to his wide-ranging discretionary powers as minister.

Hugh McLernon, of specialist litigation funder IMF (Australia), said any challenge to Mr Bowler's discretionary power to make such a ruling would be extremely hard to press.

Another senior Perth mining lawyer, who declined to be named, said he was surprised the minister had not instead let the Warden's Court decide which application for the Shovelanna tenement should be approved, given Rio's original lease had lapsed and it had made a new application over the ground shortly after Cazaly.

Such a move would have resulted in a transparent court case open to the public rather a "behind the scenes" process, and would also lead to a clearer interpretation of "the public interest".

University of WA mining law expert Professor Richard Bartlett told ABC Radio that Mr Bowler merely had to be "satisfied on reasonable grounds" that his decision was in the public interest.

This article clearly points to the government's reason for removing Cazaly's entitlement. That is they disregarded RIO's incompetence in not correctly applying for the renewal of the tenement. How can it be in the public interest to assure future applicants that they do not need to follow the law!!!!

stockie4
27-04-2006, 02:22 PM
Now we are getting a reaction;

From the Melbourne Age:

WA Premier defends Cazaly decision
Email Print Normal font Large font April 27, 2006 - 11:54AM

Advertisement
AdvertisementWest Australian Premier Alan Carpenter says the government acted appropriately in its decision to strip Cazaly Resources of its lucrative iron ore mining tenement in the Pilbara.

Mr Carpenter says he supports the decision by his Resources Minister John Bowler to terminate Cazaly's application to explore the Shovelanna deposit.

That decision, announced late last Friday, has lead to the resource being handed back to mining giant Rio Tinto.

Cazaly pegged the mining tenement last August after Rio Tinto did not renew its exploration licence in time.

Mr Carpenter said Mr Bowler carefully examined the case and supports the Minister's view that the public interest was best served by terminating Cazaly's application.

"There isn't any favouritism, there cannot be favouritism," Mr Carpenter told ABC Radio.

"And as soon as you start heading down a path that provides favouritism ... you're in trouble," he said.

Mr Carpenter also rejected reported claims by the Association of Mining and Exploration Companies that the Minister is subject to lobbying, factional and external influences.

"The assertions made in that statement are purely hypothetical", Mr Carpenter said.

Cazaly Resources managing director Nathan McMahon has been demanding an explanation from the government and says the company is considering legal action.

Mr Carpenter says Mr Bowler will be making a public statement Thursday afternoon.

aussie joe
27-04-2006, 09:33 PM
Why? because? no comment?

How much $$$$$ does it take to pay you off 666bowler [}:)]

aussie joe :(:(;)


27/04/06

Minister explains reasons behind Shovelanna decision.

Resources Minister John Bowler today issued the following explanation of his decision in relation to the dispute over the Shovelanna lease between Rio Tinto and Cazaly Resources:

The Mining Act does not require me to give reasons for my decision.

However, I recognise the strong interest in this matter - both from the media and the public - and believe in those circumstances it is appropriate for me to provide a fuller explanation of my decision.

It must be recognised that this was a very substantial decision to make, and in making it I examined the hundreds of pages of submissions provided by both parties, and thought long and hard about their implications.

The undisputed facts are:

1. Rio, via the Rhodes Ridge Joint Venture, held the subject ground for over 30 years under various tenures, most recently under Exploration Licence 46/209. Over this period, Rio's reported expenditure in exploring this ground totalled $587,063. This exploration resulted in the discovery of significant iron ore mineralisation of 132 million tonnes at 62 per cent Fe, now known as the Shovelanna Resource.

2. E46/209 (Shovelanna Lease) was granted to Rhodes Ridge JV on August 27, 1989 by the then Minister for Mines, who also on that date approved the inclusion of 'iron' in the licence title pursuant to section 111 of the Act. During its 16-year life, Rhodes Ridge JV applied for and was granted partial exemption from (the bulk of) the required annual expenditure in 10 of these years; was granted exemption from the compulsory 50 per cent surrender 'drop off' on two occasions; and the term was extended for one year on 11 occasions.

All these exemptions and term extensions were granted on the basis of WA's
long-standing (and still current) iron ore policy, which provides for a difference in the treatment of iron ore tenements from those of any other mineral commodity.

3. The Shovelanna Prospect was due to expire at midnight, Friday August 26, 2005.

Page 1 of 3
4. Rhodes Ridge JV paid the State Government the forthcoming year's rent on that licence on July 28, 2005.

5. On Friday, August 19, 2005, Rhodes Ridge JV dispatched the forms applying for the extension of licence by an 'overnight first-class' courier.

6. The documentation was not received by the Marble Bar mining registrar's office by the required close of business on Friday, August 26, 2005 and the licence automatically expired at midnight.

7. The package containing the renewal forms was received by the courier's agent at Marble Bar on Friday, August 26, 2005 at approximately 4pm. The Marble Bar Mining registrar was not informed that a package addressed to her was awaiting collection, until Wednesday, August 31, 2005.

8. Immediately on notification, the mining registrar collected the package and upon discovering Rhodes Ridge JV's application for the extension of the licence, she telephoned Rhodes Ridge JV's office in Perth to inform them that the Shovelanna Prospect licence had expired.

9. Meanwhile, on Monday, August 29, at about 1.50pm, Cazaly Resources applied for a new exploration licence over the Shovelanna Prospect.

Against this set of facts and after considering the extensive submissions provided by both parties, I present the following reasons for my decision.

Each of the three reasons I will elaborate upon was sufficient on its own for me to be satisfied that the public interest was best served by terminating the Cazaly Resources application.

The State's Iron Ore Policy

Among the materials provided to me by the Department of Industry and Resources (DoIR) was the following advice:

'...Parliament intended that iron is a mineral for which special treatment be accorded under the Act...Parliament wanted the Minister to be in a position to exercise a much broader discretion in relation to iron tenements...this would have the effect of encourag

lanenz
27-04-2006, 10:02 PM
Although Bowler has had a few days to prepare for an explantion, on the face of it would be very hard to challenge the decision.

Dazza
27-04-2006, 10:14 PM
well cantab its been argued already

go to SS and read the posts there...

load of bollocks from ****ler, fairness ha, and intent to pay has got nothing to do with public interests

aussie joe
27-04-2006, 10:15 PM
Not good enough to overturn 100 years of law and precedence [^] unless there was some sort of sweetener thrown in to the deal. Nudge nudge wink wink. ;);)[}:)]

I think our man 18bowler[}:)] is going to cop a shellacking.

The Cazaly PR machine is going to have a labor party.

aussie joe :(:(;)

Shovelanna spells uncertainty: Cazaly letter to Dryblower


Thursday, April 27, 2006

DEAR Mr Blower, Your articles often make for interesting reading and they certainly do provide for a different take on what often are seen to be straight forward issues. It is often hard to take issue with a crusty old type (and I mean that good naturedly Dry) who’s been around the mining industry far longer than my paltry 20 plus years.



I am compelled however to take issue with your article “Cazaly claim catastrophe” from Monday April 24th with respect to the termination of our legal application for the Shovelanna licence.

Specifically I would like to discuss what you claim to be the “exchange of money” whereby Rio had prepaid rent to the government and, I quote “there is something extremely important about someone handing over a cheque for an asset – and something even more important about the other side accepting the cash. And that's what the WA Government did”.

Any sympathy for this line should be dismissed, it is a furphy. Why?

1. Partial compliance is NOT full compliance.
The Act is very clear on what is required in this instance. To accept just a cheque as full compliance re-writes the Mining Act. There are clearly numerous other situations both in government and in life generally where being late with paperwork is just plain tough luck.

2. The government ALSO accepted Cazaly’s cheque.
Yes, comprising pre-paid rent plus an application fee. According to your argument this should then ensure that Cazaly be granted the tenement - no other documents are required.

The government has seen it fit to grant a large number of licences to Cazaly through time. In fact we have had 16 licences granted since the Shovelanna application went in. It would appear that Cazaly is seen by the government to be a fit and capable company to explore and develop the States resources
which may potentially exist in these areas but not so for Shovelanna – how so?.

There is a simple equation upon which the State has used to grant licences in Western Australia as follows:

Rental payment + Application Fee + Technical Ability + Financial Capability + 1st application in = GRANTED Licence.

This basic equation has been good enough to serve the people of Western Australia for over 100 years. The Minister's recent decision has effectively re-written this to:

Rental payment + Application Fee + Technical Ability + Financial Capability + 1st application in + “Public Interest” = ? ? ? ?
(For this equation to read correctly please place the “Public Interest” factor in a very grey box)

This is the issue facing the WA mining industry, and this is why there should be very grave concerns about this decision. The Minister has allowed a very clear simple principle to be replaced by a very uncertain factor and one which can lead to all sorts of potentially unclear decisions. The industry can no longer be confident that the provisions of the Mining Act can be applied without political interference.

Regards,

Clive Jones
Joint Managing Director
Cazaly Resources Limited

http://www.miningnews.net

aussie joe
27-04-2006, 11:04 PM
thanks millways hope you do not mind.


Subject re: shovelanna spells uncertainty: cazaly letter
Stock Code CAZ - CAZALY RESOURCES LIMITED
Posted 27/04/06 21:58 - 6 reads
Posted by millways
IP 203.164.xxx.xxx
Post #1030797 - in reply to msg. 1030408 - splitview


I bet you didn't make this much last yearBolwer's 3 Excuses
==============

1. Can we sight the State's Iron Ore Policy?

Can we get a history from Bowler (ha! fat chance I
reckon) on how the policy has been previously
applied? What does it really say about the
RIO v CAZ case when read in its entirety?

How is the policy meant to be applied in regard to
"less onerous terms than licences for other
minerals....."

"The policy has been maintained by successive
Governments for many decades". Ok. But how has it
been maintained? How has it been applied? Has
there been any dispute like RIO v CAZ where the
policy has been applied?

Do previous applications of the policy (in practice)
help decide how RIO v CAZ should be decided?

2. Is the policy influenced by size? That is, is the
Bowler decision justice? Is size a factor when at
LAW, it should not be?

If I steal something, size and value (presumably
after a certain point) is not the issue. $100K or $100
million. No difference.

Similarly, if RIO has a big interest in Shovelanna,
does that mean their private interest should be
exempted from forfeiture under the law when caused
by their own incompetence?

Bowler's time lime on RIO's late application harks back
to precedents set by Courts. The judges have laid it
on the line time after time. "You Sir, should have
checked that the satchel had arrived by Friday"!

3. Promoting Investment in WA.

That British man who played with, was it Barclay
bank's money, in Hong Kong to have his transactions
reversed because from the Bank's point of view the
guy was pressing really really small button. The
consequences were clearly disproportionate to the
minor oversight or (in that case) action.

Also, Bowler is sending a clear signal. Size and Value
of a tenement is NOT relevant. All explorers can
now rely on a period of grace if the consequences
are disproportionate to a minor oversight or action.
And can an oversight = an inaction?

Bowler says this is particularly true when the cheque
is received. No! Not quite. When the cheque is
posted. No! Not quite. When the company makes a
minor mistake and forgets to send the cheque. No!
When the cheque is sent but due to an oversight,
the cheque is dishonoured. YES! The money did
arrive to cover the cheque, but a week later.

These sorts of arguments, when to make an exception is
why the State has no power to decide who should be put to
sleep on the basis that they are deformed or degenerate or
do not deserve to live. Some may approach the question believing
they can achieve a GREATER GGOD. A greater public interest
will be served if WE can decide who dies. And who dies is for ME
to decide who is qualified to be put to sleep. Yes, it’s all about
separating one case from the other based on MY judgement of the
a case based on DEGREES of consequences disproportionate to
MINOR oversights or actions.

It is like saying Bowler has to chose between his son or his daughter
Living. And he lets the one that promises him the most security in
His old age.

Promoting Investment in WA argument is biased! It
does not take into account the probable fact that
CAZ or whoever, could ALSO promote Investment in
W.A.

Investment in WA stems mostly from the
development of a mine. Not the exploration.

This argument by Bowler begs the question. Will
exploration diminishes, or change, or be less
lucrative (given the current economic conditions) by
having this NANNY State attitude to grown up Miners?

Should all investments, large scale or not (here
comes the size aspect again back into the arguing)
be Nanny Sate Protected from making mistakes.

If I walk into a glass door, do I expect the
government to have a policy to insure

stockie4
28-04-2006, 12:14 AM
The heat is being put on.

Help to increase the temperature. Send an email expressing your disgust with the ministers decision by contacting Carpenter and Bowler. Email addresses:

WA Government: wa-government@dpc.wa.gov.au

Alan Carpenter acarpent@mp.wa.gov.au

Bowler: jbowler@mp.wa.gov.au

This is now a political thing. The way to bring a reversal is to kick up a stink such that the government will reverse its decision and never pull this trick again.

Dennis

stockie4
28-04-2006, 01:08 PM
Letter to Mr. A. Carpenter, Premier WA.

his address: acarpent@mp.wa.gov.au

Dear Sir,

I have read Minister Bowler's statement outlining why he decided to terminate Cazaly's application for the Shovelanna tenement. I find it disturbing. This is a brilliant example of a minister bending in favour of a multi-national company and twisting his brain to get around his obligation to operate within a legal framework so as to remove a legal entitlement.

I made my decision to invest in Cazaly Resources after proper consideration. This consideration included a judgement as to whether Cazaly Resource's application had met the requirements of the WA Mining Act. To my mind Cazaly Resources had met all of the requirements. And Rio Tinto had not. Now, after having made an investment, I am being told that there is more to matter than the law.

I have never heard of the "Iron Ore Policy". At first glance it seems to be a (secret) anti competitive device aimed at maintaining the duopoly which has existed in iron ore industry in the past. The minister mentions that the policy is to be reviewed. Is this because it may be in conflict with national anti-competition laws?

I am unsure of the prospects of Cazaly's intended legal action. However it is my intention to hold my shares in Cazaly and show support for the company.

I wish Cazaly resources well in their endeavours to overcome the injustice dealt out by the minister, be it through the political or legal process.

My signature.

As I and others have said before. If we want a positive turnaround in this injustice we can get it bu putting political pressure on the government. Send a letter of protest.

winner69
28-04-2006, 06:51 PM
This commentator seems convinced the decision was correct ..... and mentioned the enormous risk punters were taking

http://www.crikey.com.au/articles/2006/04/28-1039-8836.html

Cazaly was trying it on over Shovelanna


By WA Liberal powerbroker Noel Crichton-Browne

An exploration of why Bowler did the right thing


Western Australian Resources Minister John Bowler was correct to terminate Cazaly's application for the Shovelanna iron ore deposit in the Pilbara previously held by Rio Tinto. Not to put it unkindly, those who bought into Cazaly Resources punting on Minister Bowler granting the area to Cazaly were taking an enormous risk and were always likely to lose their money.

Rio's undoubted bumbling and incompetence in attempting to renew its Exploration Licence 46/209 was never going to be sufficient to have this billion dollar deposit taken from it. There is nothing unlikely or untoward in Bowler's decision, which is very much in line with precedent and the spirit of the Western Australian Mining Act, not the least amendments recently passed through parliament with the support of all parties.

The facts of the matter are these: Rio's Exploration Licences were due to expire on 26 August 2005 and accordingly on 28 July 2005, Rio provided the Head Office of the Department of Industry and Resources with the appropriate renewal fee. Due to an antiquated provision of the Act which has its origins in the Mining Act of 1904, the renewal application, as distinct from the fee, must be lodged with the Mining Registrar of the relevant mining field; in this case the Marble Bar Mining Registrar.

Rio dispatched the renewal application to Marble Bar by overnight courier. In the event, the delivery was far from overnight however the application did arrive in Marble Bar prior to the close of business on the last eligible day. Due to a quaint local practice, the courier dropped his dispatches at "Lenny Lever's store" in the main street.

In keeping with Marble Bar time, Lenny rang the Mining Registrar six days later to inform her he had mail for her. Upon retrieving her package, the Mining Registrar discovered Rio's renewal documentation.

There is no Western Australian precedent on all fours with Rio's case however Pancontinental Mining had a not dissimilar situation in 1986. On that occasion, Pancontinental failed to renew the lease upon which its major Paddington gold mining operation north of Kalgoorlie was situated. At one minute past midnight a prospector, Bierberg, pegged the ground.

With the approval and support of the Liberal Party, the Labor Government of the time introduced retrospective legislation which saw the dramatic expansion of Sec 111A of the Act. That provision enabled the Minister to terminate Bierberg's mining lease application and return the ground to Pancontinental through its further application.

It is precisely the provision used by Minister Bowler to terminate Cazaly's application.

In respect to the need to lodge tenement applications with the relevant Mining Registrar, legislation had passed through the parliament prior to Rio's difficulties which allowed for all applications to be lodged with the Department in Perth however the legislation had not been proclaimed, an which event occurred in early February.

Putting aside the absurd argument that billions of dollars of resources should be allocated on misadventure, given the nature of exploration, development and sale of iron ore, that metal has always been treated differently to almost all other resources by governments of all hues. The WA Mining Act reflects this very sensible and necessary policy.

The development of iron ore deposits in Western Australia has always been based on an orderly sequential basis. One need not visit the monumental disputes that Langley George Han****and Earnest Archibald Maynard Wright had with then Resources Minister, Charles Court in the late sixties and early seventies to understand a policy embraced by successive Western Australian governments.

Lest my views be understood to g

aussie joe
29-04-2006, 04:09 AM
My faith in the political system has been restored, you were right Millways they truly are demigods.

This topic of CAZ’s application being TERMINATED seems to have become somewhat structured debate – politics and ethics being the main discussions, with these discussions stained by the law.
Thank you, WA Liberal powerbroker Noel Crichton-Browne for your truly ethical stance on this subject. Btw am I required to address you as hon. Also?
Can I just quote some of your phrases:

John Bowler was correct
punting on Minister Bowler
Cazaly were taking an enormous risk
Rio's undoubted bumbling and incompetence
in line with precedent and the spirit of the Western Australian Mining Act
The facts of the matter are these
the courier dropped his dispatches at "Lenny Lever's store"
Marble Bar time
one minute past midnight
It is precisely the provision used by Minister Bowler to terminate Cazaly's application.
Putting aside the absurd
based on an orderly sequential basis
Lest my views be understood
Fortescue Metals
public interest

The new presentations of the facts (thank you brownie) together with the historically significant reasoned presentations by the hon. John bowler, I must have had rocks in my head not to have agreed. Clearly I now see the benefits to the public.

Long Live the Australian Democratic systems, it’s going great guns.

I will no longer be posting on this any as the arguments presented by all are so too compelling. Apologies for all, I am tired, hurt, cold and scared.

Cazaly still and will always a special place in my heart. I have a far better understanding of how it really is.

lol holders. I do not think luck will play any role as the outcome is already known. CAZ your chances of ever realizing your statutory right to extract your lawfully acquired iron ore resource is no longer a 50 / 50 chance, it’s infinity approaching zero. It seems our laws are required to be followed on special occasions and this must me one of those Mark this date in your diaries and be sure to celebrate it for the momentous historical significance. I can tell my grandkids when I do grow up that I had witnessed the bowler decision. I am quite certain the timetable as prescribed by the government could be adequately accommodated by CAZ but that fact does not seem to be in the publics interest.

One truly convinced member of the public.

Check ya!

aussie joe [:o)]


Cazaly was trying it on over Shovelanna


By WA Liberal powerbroker Noel Crichton-Browne

An exploration of why Bowler did the right thing


Western Australian Resources Minister John Bowler was correct to terminate Cazaly's application for the Shovelanna iron ore deposit in the Pilbara previously held by Rio Tinto. Not to put it unkindly, those who bought into Cazaly Resources punting on Minister Bowler granting the area to Cazaly were taking an enormous risk and were always likely to lose their money.

Rio's undoubted bumbling and incompetence in attempting to renew its Exploration Licence 46/209 was never going to be sufficient to have this billion dollar deposit taken from it. There is nothing unlikely or untoward in Bowler's decision, which is very much in line with precedent and the spirit of the Western Australian Mining Act, not the least amendments recently passed through parliament with the support of all parties.

The facts of the matter are these: Rio's Exploration Licences were due to expire on 26 August 2005 and accordingly on 28 July 2005, Rio provided the Head Office of the Department of Industry and Resources with the appropriate renewal fee. Due to an antiquated provision of the Act which has its origins in the Mining Act of 1904, the renewal application, as distinct from the fee, must be lodged with the Mining Registrar of the relevant mining field; in this case the Marble Bar Mining Registrar.

Rio dispatched the renewal application to Marble Bar by overnight courier. In the event, the delivery was far from overnight however the application did arrive in Mar

stockie4
29-04-2006, 02:27 PM
In reply to the "advice"- offered by WA Liberal powerbroker Noel Crichton-Browne.

Quote: "There is no Western Australian precedent on all fours with Rio's case however Pancontinental Mining had a not dissimilar situation in 1986. On that occasion, Pancontinental failed to renew the lease upon which its major Paddington gold mining operation north of Kalgoorlie was situated. At one minute past midnight a prospector, Bierberg, pegged the ground."

The advice of Browne, in the above quote, is not correct. The Paddington mine and Cazaly cases are dissimilar - "not dissimilar". In fact, the cases are opposite

What is the history of the public interest in the mining law, ie why was the clause inserted into the Mining Act?

The Paddington mine case cited by Browne was the very reason why the "public interest" clause was inserted into the act. The Paddington mine was an operating venture employing over a hundred staff fully up and operational. Pancontinental Mining had satisfied the "use it or lose it principle", the resource was being extracted and therefore the public interest was being served.

If the prospectors application had stood there would have been a decline in benefit to the public in that an operating enterprise, would have closed. The contribution it was making to the state via royalties and employment creation would be cease. It was because of this that the government created the "public interest" clause. This (retrospective) ammendment to the mining act allowed the Paddington mine operations to continue.

Now clearly to claim, as Browne has done, that the decision of Bowler is correct because it has "happened" before is to stretch the string to the limit.

The public interest clause states that a minister may allow for a company to retain a tenement when it has failed to satisfy the correct procedure (ie late submission of documents) IF and ONLY IF that company has satisified the conditions required of it. Check for your self.

The Act:

111A . Minister may terminate or summarily refuse certain applications

(1) The Minister may —

(a) by notice served on the mining registrar or the warden, as the case requires, terminate an application for a mining tenement before the mining registrar or the warden has determined, or made a recommendation in respect of, the application; or
(b) refuse an application for a mining tenement,
if in respect of the whole or any part of the land to which the application relates —

(c) the Minister is satisfied on reasonable grounds in the public interest that —
(i) the land should not be disturbed; or
(ii) the application should not be granted;
or
(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

Clearly RIO has not satisfied the obligations involved in holding the lease (lack of expenditure) and therefore the minister has not been able to apply this clause and at the same time protect Rio Tinto's interest.

So we have the back up "the States iron ore policy".

It all makes up for interesting times I think. Especially when the "public interest policy may well be in conflict with the national competititon law.

stockie4
29-04-2006, 06:30 PM
Qustion: How arrogant can a company be?
Answer: As arrogant as the government will let it be.

From the West Australian Newspaper 30-4-06:

Rio Tinto sits tight on plan for Shovelanna

JOHN PHACEAS

Rio Tinto had absolutely no obligation to bring forward development of the Shovelanna iron ore deposit in the Pilbara after controversially winning it back from upstart junior Cazaly Resources, the mining giant's London-based chairman said yesterday.

In Perth to address an industry breakfast, Rio chairman Paul Skinner said the scale of Rio's iron ore business in the Pilbara required "intelligent" long-term access to resources to generate maximum value for WA.

Though Cazaly planned to develop Shovelanna within three years and the project had lain idle for two decades in Rio's hands, Mr Skinner said there was not even a "moral obligation" to fast-track the project.

"What companies like ours always have to do as major global investors is find the point at which host governments' interests, and our interests are properly aligned and that that particular resource is developed in the way which will give the long-term best value in this case to WA," he said.

Cazaly continues to threaten a legal challenge to last week's ruling by State Resources Minister John Bowler to terminate its application for the lease "in the public interest", which has cleared the way for it to be returned to Rio.

Mr Bowler on Thursday argued it would have been against the public interest to strip Shovelanna from Rio on a "technicality", given it had paid to renew the lease in July but a courier failed to deliver renewal documents to the Marble Bar Registrar before the lease expired in August.

Mr Bowler also argued that the health of WA's massive iron ore Continued on page 64Rio holds off Shovelanna

From page 61

industry depended on producers retaining long-term security of tenure to resources.

Cazaly managing director Nathan McMahon yesterday said it was outrageous Rio was unapologetic about its intention to keep Shovelanna in mothballs.

"Rio hold mineral rights to over 10,000sq km in WA and it is not up to them to decide when those resources are developed," he said. "These are our State's resources and should be utilised fairly for all participants, not just one or two select parties."

Mr McMahon said Cazaly remained confident it could mount legal action to have the decision reviewed, but was waiting on outcome of its Freedom of Information applications for all government documents relating to the decision before proceeding.

Legal experts are uncertain of Cazaly's prospects.

But in a similar case in 2000, Kimberley Diamonds successfully won the right to challenge a decision by then Mines Minister Norman Moore.

Kimberley had applied to the Wardens Court to have Rio stripped of the Ellendale diamond project on the grounds it had failed to carry its required work commitments, but Mr Moore struck out the application. It then won the right to challenge Mr Moore's ruling in the WA Supreme Court.

Rio later sold the project to Kimberley for $23.5 million.

stockie4
30-04-2006, 10:31 PM
Demands that the West Australian government overturn the Cazaly ruling are gathering pace. The extraordinary decision by the minister has been given wide media coverage. Without exception the coverage has been critical of the decision. You can hep Cazaly Resources overcome the injustice meted out to it's shareholders by emailing each of the members of the West Australian parliament.

Go to the site below and compile a letter expressing your disapproval. It will only take you a few minutes.
http://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/web/newwebparl.nsf/iframewebpages/Legislative+Council+-+Current+Members

BehemothEagle
04-05-2006, 12:31 PM
would anyone tell any up-to-date info as to CAZ

stockie4
04-05-2006, 01:43 PM
What is the latest on CAZ?

The CAZ decision is still in the news. The RIO executive have again stated that they have no intention of mining the Shovelanna in the near future. This was reported on the National ABC mid-day news: where the reporter stated that Bowler's decision continued to be a controversial one. The government continues to be under pressure on this and there is a real possibility that they will revisit the decision and give it back to CAZ. Why not give them a nudge? Send an email to the premier of WA, Alan Carpenter, at the email address below. Express your concerns on the injustice handed out to CAZ and the arrogance of RIO in its plan to let Shovelanna remain unexploited.



acarpent@mp.wa.gov.au

BehemothEagle
04-05-2006, 01:49 PM
ace42, I appreciate 4 ur comments.
good luck for guys holding CAZ.

BehemothEagle
05-05-2006, 03:58 PM
Strong support: 41
2nd : 45.5

stockie4
06-05-2006, 12:16 PM
Here we go again. The Shovelanna decision continues to make big news in the state and national media. And Rio is helping to keep the ball rolling! Rio is again being criticised for their big handedness on government.

I think you will find that the Shovelanna decision will unfurl as being anti-competitive. That is the state government, through royalties received as a % of iron ore prices, has a vested interest in maintaining the essentially duopolistic state of iron ore extraction in WA.

There has been an argument going on for some time over the iron ore juniors being given access to the "BHP & Rio" rail and port infrastructure. Why the "....."? Because Rio and BHP did not build the infrastructure, they were built by government. Remember when Whitlam complained about it back in the "70's". Hate to introduce party political, but Whitlam claimed that it was costing the country more than it was getting back.

All this makes interesting reading to me. If Cazaly succeed in getting a judicial review on Shovelanna and it goes back to the minister for reappraisal, his decision will be made in a new climate and the pressure will be on to restore CAZ's entitlement.

Of course this may all be bull**** (hope) but makes for a bit of fun.

PASTED FROM THE WEST AUSTRALIAN (Sat edition.)


Political tint to Rio railway tilt
JOHN PHACEAS

Fresh from its victory in lobbying the WA Government for the return of the Shovelanna iron ore project, mining giant Rio Tinto is facing new claims of trying to use its political clout to safeguard its business interests.

Andrew Forrest's Fortescue Metals Group yesterday said Rio had directly lobbied the Federal Government to head off Fortescue's application for access to iron ore railways in the Pilbara well after the National Competition Council stopped accepting submissions and after the NCC sent its secret final recommendation to Canberra.

In a further bombshell, WestBusiness has also confirmed that Federal Treasurer Peter Costello has taken responsibility for the matter from his Parliamentary Secretary, Chris Pearce, and will personally rule on Fortescue's application by May 22.

Under the application process, all submissions on Fortescue's call for access to BHP Billiton's Newman railway under the Trade Practices Act had to be lodged by early March. The NCC, which made a draft recommendation in Fortescue's favour in November, then made a confidential final recommendation to Mr Pearce ahead of the decision.

However, Fortescue projects director Julian Tapp yesterday said the Government had advised the company on May 1 that Mr Pearce would no longer rule on the matter and Mr Costello would decide.

Fortescue had also been given copies of two additional submissions presented to Mr Pearce by Rio in April, Mr Tapp said, and had been given just four days to respond.

"The usual policy procedure is that when the recommendation goes from the NCC to the Treasurer, you are not allowed to make any further representation," he said.

The first submission was a 40-page study by consultants Port Jackson Partners released publicly by Rio last month, which predicted opening the Pilbara iron ore railways to third parties could cost Australia $43 billion in iron ore sales over 20 years.

The second submission comprised a report by the Centre for International Economics which predicted that third-party rail access would boost gross domestic product by no more than $100 million a year, but could have a negative impact of as much as $1.5 billion a year.

Though Fortescue is seeking access only to BHP's Newman railway, a ruling in its favour has big implications for Rio which operates two iron ore railways and port facilities at Dampier and Cape Lambert.

Rio Tinto yesterday posted a copy of the CIE report and its letter to Mr Pearce (dated April 12) on the website of its Pilbara Iron business only after being questioned on the matter by WestBusiness.

A spokesman for Rio Tinto said the company had no comment on Mr Costello's deci

BehemothEagle
08-05-2006, 12:48 PM
how come continue to fall. what about its 346000ounces gold.

stockie4
08-05-2006, 01:01 PM
BehemothEagele. What is this about CAZ's gold?

How far away are they from production etc?

bronson
09-05-2006, 02:39 PM
Does anyone recommend this share as a "buy"? It seems to have gone down quite a bit over the last month or so and there doesn't appear to be a good reason for such a decline.

lanenz
09-05-2006, 03:56 PM
quote:Originally posted by bronson

Does anyone recommend this share as a "buy"? It seems to have gone down quite a bit over the last month or so and there doesn't appear to be a good reason for such a decline.
Way under valued. its a buy buy buy. No reason at all and you may want to put it down to a couple of mum and dad investors doing a little bit of profit taking.

bronson
09-05-2006, 06:12 PM
Cazaly have just announced a Uranium Deal with Southern Cross.

Some people say that this share will be worth $4 in 12 months time.

Mick100
09-05-2006, 06:23 PM
quote:Originally posted by bronson



Some people say that this share will be worth $4 in 12 months time.


You had better hurry up and get some mate
.

jackt
09-05-2006, 06:27 PM
Hi Bronson. Your shares investment approach is intriguing. You see light where most investors see darkness and flee in terror. Care to share some of the more exquisite strategic details?