Only popping in as charted you guys a week or so ago and thought may have a little run but alas, hit some turbulence atm.
With respect to the FML expenditure matter, maybe the Forfeiture Applicants were thinking that because FML "exploration exp" only amounted to "x" and "mineral expenditure" required at "y" wasn't met that they can lodge the forfeiture? Just musing.
There was a similar court case a couple years back as per the below link. Whether there has been other challenges or changes I wouldn't know as not a lawyer and this is just info available on the net publicly so interpret as you will.
https://www.gtlaw.com.au/insights/expenditure-relief-wa-mining-companies-“project-exemption”-under-mining-act-1978-wa
Couple of relevant sections:
It had been held previously that only items reported as “Mineral Exploration Expenditure” could be used. But that approach fails to give effect to the words “in connection with” in section 102(2a). The Court’s decision has the effect that expenditure other than that noted under “Mineral Exploration Expenditure” can be used to calculate “aggregate exploration expenditure”. Lauren Shave, Senior Associate, argued this aspect of the case before the Court and said that the Court’s judgment gives primacy to the text of the legislation and promotes “substance over form”. Her Honour found that expenditure “in connection with exploration” is not to be construed narrowly, and is clearly capable of including expenses such as rent and rates for the tenement, and preparatory work relevant to exploration for minerals, such as the cost of obtaining expert reports or native title authorisation.
Each amount of “exploration expenditure” must then be added together to reach a “total exploration expenditure” for that tenement. Finally, the “aggregated exploration expenditure” is calculated by adding all of the “total exploration expenditure” amounts drawn from each operations report.
Snapshot (just relevant info) of one of the tenements listed in the FML Announcement just as a reference. Can see the total exp over mineral expenditure for 2018 is higher and includes the exploration, rental and admin expenditure. Anyway, just thought post as possible info for holders to interpret.
| Tenement Summary |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Identifier: | M 38/264 | Type: | Mining Lease |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Status: | Live | District: | MT. MARGARET |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Lodged: | LEONORA | Area: | 790.75000 HA |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Purposes: |
| Term: | 21 Years (Renewed) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Markout: | 06/09/89 11:00 | Received: | 06/09/89 13:37 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Commence: | 08/03/90 | Expiry: | 07/03/32 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Holders |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Company Name | Shares | Total Shares |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| FOCUS MINERALS (LAVERTON) PTY LIMITED | 96 | 96 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Expenditure |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Year | Form 5 Type | Min Expd | Exp Lodged Date | Total Expd | Exemp No | Exemp Lodged | Exemp Amt | Exemp Status | Outcome Date | Exploration Activities | Mining Activities | Aboriginal Survey | Rent | Administration | Prospecting | Strike Through |
| 2020 |
| $79,100.00 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| FALSE |
| 2019 |
| $79,100.00 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| FALSE |
| 2018 |
| $79,100.00 | 21/03/18 | $81,634.38 |
|
|
|
|
| $42,278.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 | $23,561.38 | $15,795.00 | $0.00 | FALSE |
