|
Post by RKC on Oct 2, 2012 15:18:36 GMT 12
G'day, Crown Minerals (Permitting and Crown Land) Bill"Public submissions are now being invited on the Crown Minerals (Permitting and Crown Land) Bill.
The closing date for submissions is Friday, 2 November 2012 This bill is an omnibus bill and amends the Crown Minerals Act 1991, the Conservation Act 1987, the Continental Shelf Act 1964, the Reserves Act 1977, and the Wildlife Act 1953. This bill aims to promote prospecting for, exploration for, and mining of Crown owned minerals for the benefit of New Zealand."www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/PB/SC/MakeSub/a/c/d/50SCCO_SCF_00DBHOH_BILL11798_1-Crown-Minerals-Permitting-and-Crown.htmRegards, Rob (RKC)
|
|
|
Post by RKC on Oct 4, 2012 18:53:57 GMT 12
|
|
|
Post by aucn on Oct 4, 2012 22:35:42 GMT 12
from crown minerals draft act.hobby or recreation operations means small-scale suction dredging operations where the suction dredge has a combined engine rating no higher than 13 horse power, and beach sand mining operations that are limited to hand tools and riffle box
I think a hp restriction is not the way to go better to go like the Otago Regional Council and have dredge nozzle diameter as a restriction . i have found with my 6 inch dredge running a 29hp motor at 2200 revs my fuel economy is better than the twin 9 and 13 hp honda motors i get 3.2 litres hour fuel .
|
|
|
Post by lbd on Oct 4, 2012 23:09:09 GMT 12
" has a combined engine rating no higher than 13 horse power" Which is of little value when the councils impose RMA restrictions of less that 10hp. Wouldn'tit be nice to see a same std used by all govt department...sigh
|
|
|
Post by aucn on Oct 4, 2012 23:29:28 GMT 12
here is my submission..
I would like to make a submission on the use of HP as a measure for classing a Hobby Suction Dredge , as the Otago Regional Council has had Hobby Dredging as a Permitted Activity since the 1990's, I think New Zealand Petroleum & Minerals should keep some consistency in the definition and adopt the Otago Regional Councils definition. Definition: being an eductor dredge with 150mm nozzle, by putting a hp restriction on ..how do you measure : hp is it.. continuous.. intermittent or maximum ? if there is no hp stickers on a motor..or is it the right one? what about modifications to the engine ? The Otago Regional Council Definition is a lot easier to measure in the field. By using a larger motor your fuel consumption is a lot better as you can reduce your revs intake size regulates that amount of gravel you can suck you can only suck so much gravel up a tube more hp does not mean more gravel .. From Draft Minerals Programme Oct 2012 Schedule 1: Definitions
hobby or recreation operations means small-scale suction dredging operations where the suction dredge
has a combined engine rating no higher than 13 horse power,
and beach sand mining operations that are limited to hand tools and riffle box
|
|
|
Post by aucn on Oct 4, 2012 23:43:09 GMT 12
|
|
|
Post by gogold on Oct 5, 2012 17:23:19 GMT 12
thanks aucn i had not seen that part of the draft i have just made a similar submission. the ORC rules would be a good guideline.
|
|
|
Post by RKC on Oct 8, 2012 0:38:03 GMT 12
G'day, I've just finished reading as much as I could find online about the review of the CMA. And it's been nothing but frustrating trying to locate any details that could provide something to respond to in a submission.There seems to be an agreement that the CMA needs streamlining, as proposed, but I don't see any actual proposals so far to achieve this for the small-enterprise mining sector... only rhetoric so far! I could only find one reference to a 13 horsepower limit for small-scale dredging operations, which was found in the document, the Draft Minerals Program October 2012 where, under definitions it states, "hobby or recreation operations means small-scale suction dredging operations where the suction dredge has a combined engine rating no higher than 13 horsepower". At present and without further information I just don't have any way of knowing what the definition of small-scale dredging will actually mean in practice or the implications to us of the use of a definition of a 13 horse power motor by Crown Minerals. If it means that any dredges with a combined horsepower of more than 13 horsepower will now have to be subject to extra scrutiny before the granting of a Mining Permit, then this will mean more regulatory hoops to jump through before even tackling the RMA and access (DoC and LINZ), regulatory impediments. That's certainly not streamlining and simplifying the regs! It became routine practice in the 90s that when a serious dredge miner applied for a Mining Permit over an active river bed they would apply for a dredge (or dredges) up to 10-inch to be permitted in the Mining Permit conditions. And it was something that was rubber stamped by NZP&M (then Crown Minerals) and it is a practice carried on since. And even though nearly all of the applicants had no intention of using a 10-inch dredge it gave them some flexibility. Anyway, the final decision of what size dredge would be chosen for a permit was largely an environmental one which then comes under the RMA regs. So ... any dredges with a combined engine rating of above 13 horsepower might in future be subject to scrutiny from Crown Minerals to reach a decision whether the dredge should be permitted, or not. And, to the miner, this "scrutiny" would be more of his time used up and more of his money he will have to part with before getting his permit granted by Crown Minerals. I sure hope that's not the intention as it would be the opposite of the stated aims of the review, which is to streamline and simplify the CMA. I believe Eductor Dredges of the sizes 10-inch and 8-inch, and 6-inch should be classified as small-scale mining, and dredges of a size about 6-inch and less could be classified as hobby dredges. But even that may not work as it would all depend on how the bureaucracy defines the words, small-scale and hobby. And, larger dredges such as the Grey river dredge and Danny Walkers dredge currently on the Clutha would be in another category ... and if the bureaucrats need something to do they can scrutinize that category as much as they want. One thing that it seems will be written into the new regs, is the two tier system, as proposed. And I can't see too much wrong with separating the large scale mining from smaller scale mining with different regulations applicable to each. But there was one aspect of the original proposal of a two tier system that did concern me. And that was putting hard-rock mining in tier one. My concern was that small-scale mining for near surface auriferous quartz leaders would no longer be possible for the individual miner (and I brought up that issue in my previous submission. See attachment to this post). But that has been addressed (if I'm reading it right) and in the "Amendments to the Crown Minerals Act 1991 (proposed)" it states, as follows ... 27 I propose that the Act be amended to include definitions for Tiers 1 and 2, and specify which provisions will apply to Tier 1 operations, Tier 2 operations, or both. Similar amendments will also need to be made to the minerals programs and regulations. I propose that the Act define Tier 1 as: a. Petroleum b. Hard rock gold and silver c. Coal d. Ironsand e. Metallic mineralsf. Any underground operation g. Any offshore operation h. Any operation that would otherwise be Tier 2 but exceeds a threshold set in a Schedule to the Act in relation to exploration expenditure, royalties, or production 28 Tier 2 will comprise all other permits (such as alluvial gold, aggregates and industrial minerals) and any operations that would otherwise be Tier 1, but are below a size threshold set in the proposed Schedule. I propose that the Act provide that size thresholds may be amended by Order in Council, on the recommendation of the Minister.29 I propose that the Schedule initially provide that: a. A mining permit for alluvial gold, which would ordinarily be Tier 2, would become Tier 1 if the annual royalty exceeds $20,000 2 . b. An exploration permit for hard rock gold or silver, iron sand, other metallic minerals, or coal, which would ordinarily be Tier 1, would become Tier 2 if expected total work programme expenditure is below $100,000, or $150,000 in the case of coal. c. A mining permit which would ordinarily be Tier 1, would become Tier 2 if the permit is for:i. Hard rock gold or silver, and the annual royalty is less than $30,000. ii. Ironsand, and annual production is less than 500,000 tonnes. iii. Other metallic minerals, and annual production is less than 500,000 tonnes of ore. iv. Coal, and annual production is less than 100,000 tonnes.It also seems like there may be more Fossicking Areas set aside for hand mining by weekenders. This could be a problem if the rivers selected are payabley auriferous and are rivers that would be better mined by professional miners. There are more than enough hand mining areas already set aside and the ones we have at present are under utilized. There will be provision for anyone to object to any new fossicking areas being declared, so it should be easy enough to stop any more. More fossicking areas on active rivers effectively locks up a river to prevent to resource being mined by those who know what they are doing (and certainly know enough not to waste time with a sluice box). It would be better for the hobby fossickers if there was a few rivers open to legally allow the use of small mechanized equipment. Rivers such as the Moonlight (West Coast) from the bridge upstream to the gorge would be a perfect place for hobbists to play around with equipment such as 2" dredges. And they could all camp together ... to socialize, as they seem to like to do. Other rivers such as the Waka and the Mangles would be equally suitable. That would then keep them out of the rivers which need to be seriously dredged. Regards, Rob (RKC) Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by aucn on Oct 8, 2012 7:26:24 GMT 12
hi rob i also have concerns on the putting of all underground operations into tier 1, and have submitted the following..
I believe that Small Underground Gold Mines should be classed differently as proposed in the Draft where all Underground Mines are Tier 1 The definition of a Small Mine should be consistent with the Dept. of Labour requirement for holding a B Grade Tunnel Managers Certificate for an Underground Mine Employing less than 3 persons working underground . and that a Small Mine comes under Tier 2 for Administration requirements in the Minerals Programme. There are a many areas within NZ that contain payable gold that could be mined underground with modern machinery by a small operations , this type of mining has a small environmental footprint and as such can mine areas where surface mining would not be able to be done. The Health and Safety aspects of these operation are already covered by the Health and Safety in Employment Act 1992 (HSE Act) and it would be a shame that an Administrative barrier brought in by a Mining Authority would hinder these operations and future operations.
|
|
|
Post by RKC on Oct 8, 2012 11:17:30 GMT 12
G'day aucn, The Coromandel Peninsula would have to be one of the most prospective gold fields anywhere in the world where any number of the type of small enterprise hard-rock mines you refer to could be developed. But ... we all know what happened to mining on the Pensiluar! It's interesting to me that the last pocket bonanza hard-rock gold deposit mined on the Peninsula was found by two individual miners. During the Great Depression two men from Coromandel town were unemployed with nothing to do so one day they decided to try a bit of mining as they had nothing to lose. They went into the hills behind Coromandel town where shafts are everywhere and randomly picked a shaft (adit). Going to the end of the shaft they started to dig further in from where the old timers had finished, back ... who knows when. They only had to dig a few feet to find a pocket of extremely rich gold. Nowadays the hill where most of the old mines are located is Maori land which has signs posted prohibiting entry to anyone except the tribe. img.photobucket.com/albums/v172/Coochee/GQSS20.jpgRegards, Rob (RKC)
|
|
|
Post by RKC on Oct 9, 2012 17:44:53 GMT 12
G'day, Pressure put on Government to make mining easierwww.radionz.co.nz/news/political/117697/pressure-put-on-government-to-make-mining-easier"RMA changes signalled"Meanwhile, much of the Government's intention to make it easier to mine in this country is reflected in the Crown Minerals (Permitting and Crown Land) Bill. The Bill is aimed at promoting more mining of Crown owned minerals and also streamlining and simplifying future mining applicationsBut mining proposals will still be covered by the Resource Management Act and the Government has signalled it intends making further changes to that legislation. Other companies have also raised concerns about the Resource Management Act, including Todd Energy which says it wants to see greater consistency in the approach taken by local authorities under the Act."Regards, Rob (RKC)
|
|
|
Post by RKC on Oct 9, 2012 21:59:46 GMT 12
G'day, "If there’s one thing the political left does much better than the right, it’s submit.
That could be because people on the right are getting on with their lives and work and are less concerned about giving their views.
It could also be, at least for now, that they’re more likely to be supportive of proposed legislation and people are more likely to submit when they’re opposed to something than when they’re in favour of it.
Whatever the reason, it would be helpful if there was a bit more balance in submissions on legislation such as the Crown Minerals (Permitting and Crown Land) Bill."homepaddock.wordpress.com/tag/crown-minerals-permitting-and-crown-land-bill/Regards, Rob (RKC)
|
|
|
Post by RKC on Oct 9, 2012 22:05:07 GMT 12
G'day, New Crown Minerals Bill – a better regime but still some issues"The Crown Minerals (Permitting and Crown Land) Bill is a big step towards a more flexible and pragmatic mining regime. The Bill improves substantially on the existing Act and significantly on the March 2012 discussion paper.
But with flexibility comes stricter compliance management and broader Ministerial discretion. Security of tenure could be affected. The select committee process will be important to getting the best legislation possible and we urge you to get involved".www.chapmantripp.com/publications/Pages/New-Crown-Minerals-Bill-a-better-regime-but-still-some-issues.aspxRegards, Rob (RKC)
|
|
|
Post by RKC on Oct 9, 2012 22:11:33 GMT 12
|
|
|
Post by RKC on Oct 9, 2012 22:15:43 GMT 12
|
|