Mineral and petroleum permitting review begins

[RKC]

Mineral and petroleum permitting review begins

www.crownminerals.govt.nz/cms/news/2010/mineral-and-petroleum-permitting-review-begins

Regards,
Rob (RKC)

[aucn]

Good to see the review in place. being able to fossick with no permit with hand and small motorised plant is in the right direction.
I do have an issue with this though, some sort of permit should be issued ,, ie fossickers permit , the reason being that most people have no idea where permit bdy's are .. and at least this could be on the permit ie..where you can go and check to see where unpermitted areas are,
hate to see mobs of people just rocking up anywhere to fossick and not knowing if they are on a claim or not..
the other issue is regional council permission..
i suppose they could be the ones to issues the fossicking permits bit like the way doc issue hunting permits ??
..still good to see ..

ken

[GeoffS]

Ken

The Victorian model which is the issuing of a Miners Right (costs $29.90 for 2 years) and allows access to Crown land -with some areas off limits-and use of hand tools only although motorised pumps are OK works here and has done for 150 years . To my knowledge it causes very few problems and the look on peoples faces when they get their first Miners Right is a sight to see. They walk out with their head held just a little bit higher and proud as punch and it is issued with a fold-up basic dos and don`ts which we know 99% of people follow.
I have not heard of any infrigement prosecutions of the Miners Right.

Geoff

[aucn]

Yes something like that would be go..also might encourage an organisation to be formed early days yet, will put a reply in to the discussion paper ..
will be back in the cold country on thursday
ken

[RKC]

G'day,

I have only had a chance for a quick look at what the government requires in this review process and submissions on dredging appear to me to be appropriate.

As regards the small scale/fossicking issue, submissions are invited and the following is what is being asked.

"Removing Permit Requirements for Small-Scale Gold Activities in
River and Lake Beds and Coastal Marine Areas

5 Small-scale gold activities
5.1 Around a quarter of the minerals mining permits granted by Crown Minerals
relate to small-scale operations, principally beach-sand gold and suction
dredge operations. The scale of these activities means that any fees received
are outweighed by the resources required to process and manage these
permits. It is proposed to remove the requirement to obtain a permit for non-
mechanised gold activities (such as gold panning) and operations using low
mechanisation (where the machinery used does not exceed 5 horsepower) in
river and lake beds and coastal marine areas (save that such activities may
only be carried out where there is no existing permit over the area). As a
result of this change, the provisions on gold fossicking areas would also be
able to be repealed.
5.2 One of the effects of this change is that iwi consultation under the CMA would
no longer occur in respect of these activities (as is currently undertaken before
the grant of a permit). However, it should be noted that people wishing to
carry out these activities would still be required to obtain appropriate land
access consents and any approvals under the RMA.
5.3 Holders of current gold permits over these areas may choose either to
continue to hold their permit for exclusive rights or surrender their permit.
However, it is proposed that there would be no extensions of duration granted
in respect of current mining permits for beach-sand gold and suction dredge
operations.
13 Do you have any comments on the proposal to remove permit requirements
for small-scale gold activities in river and lake beds and coastal marine areas?"

I will be making a submission with the emphasis of my submission on commercial scale eductor/suction dredging. And I hope every other dredger will also be putting in submissions.

The issues with commercial scale dredging are fairly straight forward as to the changes needed. Off the top of my head, the issues I can think of now are the excessive costs to establish a dredging operation ( RMA fees). The complexity of the dredging regulations are also a significant issue as is the length of time its takes to get a claim established before dredging can commence.

Most of the problems the dredgers have with the current regulations is because of the Resource Management Act (RMA) and even though this review is concerned with the Crown Minerals Act it would still be worthwhile to bring up the issues with the RMA in any submission to the review.

I'ed like to hear what other dredgers consider are the issues that should be raised in submissions.

Submissions on fossicking are not as straight forward as they are for commercial scale dredging and it would be useful to discuss the issues so anyone making a submission on fossicking can be fully informed before actually making a submission. For example, it seems from the quote above that the reintroduction of a Miners Right is not being considered by the government.

Regards,
Rob (RKC)

[RKC]

G'day,

As regards the fossicking issue thats being considered in this review, I have just realized that there is no mention of the use of metal detectors. Its probably well worth while mentioning metal detectors in any submissions on the fossicking issue.

Regards,
Rob (RKC)

[drg]

Hi all,
This will be good for everyone, recreational fossickers and professional dredgers alike. To have the legal right to be able to prospect for free is something that everyone needs and it's great that the Govt. are addressing the issue. Now everyone needs to just get in and start putting forward their submissions, to make sure that this goes through.
Cheers

[boaraxa]

Hi guys
things look there heading in the rite direction which is great it would be nice to see costs were slash,d !! for small scale permit,s (dredging)and pretty much free rain to prospect with a "green light from the land owner/occupier" pluss i reckon if the multinationals wana set up shop over here why not charge them double for the permit....theres a few other outfits in other industrys that charge double the cost to forigners here now(maybe with the excption of the aussie,s!!! ) and have done for many years...pluss i reckon ther should be a definate exclution of rivers / creeks on large scale exploration permit,s so that way if the small scale fellas wana prospect/mine they can do so without all the red tape or in some cases straight out refusal...i mean at the end of the day even those of you that have 8-10 inch dredges should shurely be classified still as small scale... well in the eyes of the CMA anyway...the RMA well that could be a wee bit different as really....can it get much worse?....how many differnt sigunatures does a reasorse consent need!!!....but like rob said well worth a mention to the rma all the same ...i mean who wants to wait 20 more years for another opportunity to change a few things...i say aim high!!!
cheers...phill

[RKC]

G'day boaraxa,

The point you raise regarding the exclusion of rivers and streams from Exploration Permits could well be the most important issue that should be put in submissions from the commercial scale dredgers. And its particularly relevant because of the recent problems associated with the massive Exploration Permits granted to Glass Earth (which has been discussed in this forum previously) over Otago. I will probably make this issue the focus of my submission. I'm still reading through the information provided by Crown Minerals on this review process and there will probably be more points that become apparent to be raised in my submission.

Regarding the government charges payable by a Mining Permit applicant to establish a dredging claim (Crown Minerals Mining Permit) on a waterway, I am in favour of leaving the Crown Minerals fees as they are. If the fees were reduced then we would return to the situation that existed during the last gold rush in the 1980s, when most river claims were taken up by real-estaters who sat on their claims. If it was again possible to have a river Mining permit granted for a low fee then it would lock out the genuine river miners and be another difficulty to overcome before actually being able to do any dredging.

I was really surprised to see the issue of providing for fossickers mentioned as an issued to be addressed in the review. It really is a success even to just have it looked at! It does however have the potential to implode if the submissions from the hobby fossickers are ill-informed. I very much doubt the majority of fossickers are even aware of the review or even aware that the fossicking issue has been raised in this review. The local paper here in Greymouth (the Greymouth Star) only had a single paragraph a few days ago, which just mentioned that a review had commenced. And that's a paper which usually prints articles about mining ... be it either small scale mining or large scale mining. I was wondering today if the Otago Miners Association is aware that the fossicking issue has been raised. If there is anyone here who will be talking to Bob Kilgour (President of the Otago Miners Assoc) maybe they could give him a heads up.

Regards,
Rob (RKC)

[aucn]

Rob
i agree with your comments , is the otago miners assoc. still active
as for real estating , a proper system of automatically having to drop a min. 50% of area on a prospecting permit every year and 25% for an exploration permit should be in
hope i bring some warm weather ... flying back to NZ tomorrow

ken

[RKC]

G'day aucn,

The Otago Miners Assoc has always been none too formal ... but can come together if the need is there.

Thanks for the thoughts on real-estating. I'll give it some thought and maybe add it to my submission.

It looks like there will be an early start to the gold-getting season this year ... good time to arrive! The weather here on The Coast during winter has been incredible ... a very mild winter. And the weather today is perfect after a cold start of 5 degrees at 6am. The whitebaiting season started today and all the enthusiastic whitebaiters are out today enjoying sitting in the sun and dragging their nets through the water of the Grey River.

Regards,
Rob (RKC)

[boaraxa]

Hi rob
yes that real estate issue is something i didnt think of....but shurely ther must be another system of insureing claims are being worked regularly other than haveing a high cost to get set up...good to see a few different ideas going around now....cheers rob
regards phill.

[RKC]

G'day,

I had a look through the Crown Minerals Act (CMA) review Discussion Paper today and as there are references in there to the relationship between the Crown Minerals Act (CMA) and the Resource Management Act (RMA), the RMA could probably be commented on in any submission the the CMA review.

The gold fossicking issue is raised (page 19 sect 5) where the question is asked "Do you have any comments on the proposal to remove permit requirements for small-scale gold activities in river and lake beds and coastal marine areas?". And it appears as if the Minister might also be considering abolishing the present declared fossicking areas. There is no detail in the Discussion Paper, and probably all that's required at present is for hobbyists to make submissions in support of the proposal. There is a two stage process in this review with the first submissions due by 5.00pm on 8 October 2010. To be included in your submissions are your name, organisation’s name (if applicable), and your address (postal and/or email) and either: send your comments by email, preferably in a Microsoft Word document, to
[e-mail], or
mail a hard copy to:
Crown Minerals Act Review
Ministry of Economic Development
PO Box 1473
Wellington 6140

My guess is that the purpose of the first stage is simply to gauge if there is support for the proposal to remove permit requirements for small-scale gold activities in rivers. With the intent of the second stage being to invite detailed comments on the issue ... if Crown Mineral's decide there is enough support from the first round of submissions then they will take it further. So, my assessment is that all that's required at present from the fossickers is to put in submissions essentially saying yes. Then in the next round of submissions it would be possible to address issues such as the use of metal detectors. And by then more might be known of what Crown Minerals have in mind.

If there are only a few submissions received by Crown Minerals agreeing with the proposal then the issue will most likely not be taken any further and things will remain the same for fossickers, with only a few declared fossicking areas available where they can legally fossick for gold. So, its essential every fossicker puts in a submission. I'm considering composing a pro-forma submission to be used by those who just want to sign a submission. If anyone has any ideas on how to word the submission please let me know. I could then make up a Word document that anyone could download or print out, to sign. Usually I would not encourage pro-forma submissions as they do not carry as much influence as a individual submission, but in this case where a yes is all that's required, then it would probably be worthwhile. What will matter in this first round of submissions is numbers!

The major problem I can see at present is that most fossickers will not yet even be aware of the proposal. And there is not much time left to somehow make sure they all know of the proposals for change by Crown Minerals.

www.gisborneherald.co.nz/article/?id=19114

Regards,
Rob (RKC)

[GeoffS]

Rob


We (and I mean the PMAV with our 600 plus members and another 600 plus club members) are right behind this but I still think pushing for a Miners Right would also be a good move. It has stood the test of time here in Victoria and we are the envy of prospectors in other states because we have it and it enshrines rights that prospectors in other states dont have. Note I insist on "prospector" not fossicker . And here is an email I sent to the PMAV committee only yesterday on this very subject:

"To the best of my knowledge there is no fossickers license in NSW but Qld does issue short term permits which can be obtained for as short as a month for only a few dollars.

There is a major minerals act review just started across the ditch in NZ and I contribute to a forum where just this matter is being tossed around now. I have urged them to use the word prospector and not fossicker as fossick has a number of meanings but interestingly enough is of unknown origin and first surfaced as a word here in Australia in 1852. Its original meaning was troublesome -to fossick was to make a fuss, bustle about. It then morphed into meaning to search for gold by digging out crevices with a knife or a pick which makes you wonder if all the early prospectors were "troublesome" and to further wonder if anything has changed It probably needs a cunning linguist to adjudicate on which word more accurately describes todays activities but I feel prospector is the better word. At no point right up to the present day is there any connection between fossicking and metal detectors or other equipment such as sluices, dryblowers, dredges etc.

Over in Kiwiland crevicing is much more common than here but detectors and dredges are commonplace. Here is the link to the forum and it makes interesting reading as it is amazing how similar their issues are to ours : golddredgingforum.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=554

Geoff Strang

[RKC]

G'day Geoff,

Thanks for your support and making the current issue here in New Zealand known to the PMAV committee! Any submissions from Australia would be most welcome I'm sure (and as you are a Kiwi, make sure you get your submission in by the closing date of 8 October 2010).

There is no doubt that the introduction of a 'Miners Right' in New Zealand would be an excellent means of providing for the hobbyists ... especially those who use metal detectors to search for gold. And raising the issue of a Miners Right with Crown Minerals in this review will at the very least get the bureaucrats thinking more about how to best provide for the hobbyists. The issue raised in the review relating to Small-scale gold activities (Sect 5) seems to be exclusively about getting gold from waterways and if it was introduced as proposed it would however not provide for the use of metal detectors away from waterways (a Miners Right would solve this problem as well as providing for the use of sluice box's etc in rivers). I very much doubt the bureaucrats at Crown Minerals have even considered the use of metal detectors as a means of gold getting in New Zealand by hobbyists.

I suspect that the reason Crown Minerals are looking at the issue of small scale gold mining activities at this time is that during this latest gold rush they have been getting a lot more complaints from Mining Permit owners who have had hobbyists coming on to their claims. Mostly, this has been occurring around the Queenstown area and from what I have been told, usually the response from Crown Minerals has been to ask the Permit holder themselves to get proof before they will take it any further.

I've never read anything that would explain the reasoning behind the New Zealand governments withdrawal of the Miners Right. It was a trend back then in Australasia and there could not have been any opposition from Kiwis to its withdrawal, at a time when the gold price was low. I'm not sure of the exact year it was withdrawn but it was some years before the Resource Management Act (RMA) was introduced in the early 90s. And therefore the Miners Right issue is not related to the RMA.


The use of the word fossicker is fairly entrenched in New Zealand. I can see your reasoning for no longer wanting to use the word and replacing it with prospector. However, the word 'fossicking' is used by government as their means of describing the hobbyists ... there are declared fossicking areas, for example. It might be worthwhile for you to raise the terminology issue in your submission to Crown Minerals.

The problem at present is to get as many submissions in as possible. Numbers is what will count in this first round of the submission process. At present, I'm sure that the great majority of hobbyists are not even aware of this review. I'll be making a submission and I've made the issue known here ... not sure how to make the issue more widely known. Maybe publicity in newspapers?. The number of people out scratching around for gold increased significantly last summer because of the gold price rise and this coming summer it looks to me like even more will be about. They all need a change in the laws and no doubt would all support a change. But if there is not a good response from the hobbyists you can be sure that Crown Minerals will be quick to state there is no issue any more because of a poor response to a call for submissions. Its happened before with the suction dredging issue when there were newspaper adds asking for submissions and very few were received. I did not put in a submission myself because I did not see the newspaper advertisement and only became aware of it later in a letter from Crown Minerals when they said they would not be taking the dredging issue any further because of a lack of interest.

The tourism aspect is a point that submitters might like to raise in any submissions. I’ve always though that the South Island goldfields are a hobby prospectors paradise and with the reintroduction of a Miners Right then there is a tourism potential there. Kiwi hobby prospectors might not like the idea of competing for ground with overseas tourists, but if government sees that there is a chance to increase tourist numbers to New Zealand then it would be something else in favour of the reintroduction of a Miners Right. I’ll never forget a Japanese hobby prospector I once saw in the fossicking area of Sixteen Mile creek near Queenstown who had a smile a mile wide as he shoveled into his tiny sluice box in the stream bed.



Regards,
Rob (RKC)