|
Post by RKC on Sept 6, 2010 16:04:00 GMT 12
G'day,
New Zealand Miners Right
According to a book I have, considerable ammendements were made to the New Zealand Mining Act in 1971/3 when the Miners Right was abolished and replaced by a Prospectors Right, which cost $2 and was valid for one year. This Prospectors Right entilted the owner to prospect on unoccupied Crown Land and to take samples. So ... referring to a Prospectors Right would possibly be more appropriate as a means of providing for the use of metal detectors on unoccupied DoC land.
Regards, Rob (RKC)
|
|
|
Post by waipori on Sept 6, 2010 18:31:21 GMT 12
Mining Review Miners Rights were withdrawn around 1970-71, and replaced with a prospectors right. They were for 1 year, and were obtainable from the post office for $2.00. The holder was authorized to take mineral samples from unoccupied Crown Land. Unoccupied Crown Land is Crown Land which has not been formally designated for any use or Reservation. It does not include State Forest land, Reserves, or National Parks, but did include a strip 20m wide along the banks of rivers which are more than 3m wide. The Crown Minerals Act came into being in 1991, and all mining became a commercial activity. The costs of obtaining a Mining Permit were greatly increased. We put in a submission about the lack of a Miners Right, and the high costs which now applied. We were told that the Crown wanted a return on its assets, and you paid these costs or you gave up. In other words, suck it up! It is about time they started to look at small scale mining and prospecting. We will be putting in a submission, and hope that everyone who reads this forum will do so too. To remove suction dredging from the permit system, the allowable engine horsepower would have to be increased from 5 hp to 13-14 hp. Perhaps the ORC guidelines could be used. Along with Rob we were heavily involved in that process. One of the reasons the Crown Minerals Act was introduced, was to give the Ngai Tahu group exclusive rights to all the greenstone, and all other licences were revoked. In 1989 we put in submissions to have a 2 tier licence that would apply to blacksanders, suction dredgers and other small scale miners and prospectors, but our suggestions were completely ignored.
|
|
|
Post by RKC on Sept 7, 2010 11:38:18 GMT 12
G'day Euan, Good to know you will be putting in a submission. Thats now at least three submissions that Crown Minerals will receive which will give them something to think about for a while. And thanks for the historic facts about the Miners/Prospecting Right in New Zealand. The Prospecting Right that followed the Miners Right must have been withdrawn in New Zealand prior to 1989. I first arrived in New Zealand to dredge in 1989 and I remember trying to purchase a Miners/Prospecting Right after reading in a book that they were available. However I soon learned they had been withdrawn and could no longer be purchased. Then a few years later in 1991 everything changed with the introduction of the RMA when choppers packed with Mines Inspectors and Resource Management Officers descending from the sky to find the dredgers working without any Permits or Consents ( golddredgingforum.proboards.com/thread/395/dredging-new-zealand-mountain-stream ). In Queensland the Miners Right was withdrawn in 1989 to be replaced by a Prospecting Permit with greatly reduced rights. And now, as Geoff wrote in his pöst above " Qld does issue short term permits which can be obtained for as short as a month for only a few dollars." These short term permits must be the Permits utilized by miners using metal detectors in places like Clermont. Eureka! Miner's Right will stay (Victoria) tinyurl.com/25rs5udI like your idea of having " a 2 tier license that would apply to blacksanders, suction dredgers and other small scale miners and prospectors". It could be something to raise during the second round of the submission process. Regards, Rob (RKC)
|
|
|
Post by RKC on Sept 21, 2010 17:02:26 GMT 12
|
|
|
Post by RKC on Sept 25, 2010 10:49:20 GMT 12
|
|
|
Post by RKC on Sept 25, 2010 16:17:03 GMT 12
|
|
|
Post by boaraxa on Sept 25, 2010 18:26:44 GMT 12
Hi rob dosent it also say that if you want exclusive wrights that youl still need a permit...?
|
|
|
Post by RKC on Sept 25, 2010 19:00:03 GMT 12
G'day boaraxa,
Todays newspaper article has confused the issue and my first thoughts are that the miners may have over-reacted. And possibly perceived a threat where one does not exist.
The "Crown Minerals Act Review discussion paper" states "It is proposed to remove the requirement to obtain a permit for non- mechanised gold activities (such as gold panning) and operations using low mechanization (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)".
I always understood that if the hobby fossickers were allowed to fossick without having to first get a Permit, as proposed in the discussion paper, they could still not venture onto a granted claim (Mining Permit) without permission of the claim owner, and granted claims would not be effected. This needs to be clarified by Crown Minerals! If the intention of Crown Minerals is to get rid of Mining Permits for small scale mining then I would certainly be against any change to the regulations and would want to put in a submission apposing such a proposal.
Dredging claim permit owners must be able to legally exclude hobby fossickers from their claim if they wish to do so. And to equally also be able to allow hobby fossickers on their claim if they wish to do so.
The closing date for submissions is not far away and this needs to be clarified as soon as possible.
Regards, Rob (RKC)
|
|
|
Post by boaraxa on Sept 25, 2010 19:45:34 GMT 12
Yes your rite there rob it does need clarified.... i thought it looked pretty good but i gess when it comes to the goverment you can never be too cautious!! regards phill.
|
|
|
Post by aucn on Sept 26, 2010 8:16:39 GMT 12
i agree boaraxa, but i read that a permit holder will have a choice to keep a permit or let it go.. seems bit strange.. can you post the generic submission from westland minerals .rob still believe that some form of miner rights should still be required could even be issued as heritage thing for tourism fossicking etc few more dollars for the cash strapped govt..
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 26, 2010 13:11:20 GMT 12
Hi All,
We are all going to need to take great care in this, I smell a rat. Brownlee with his obvious enthusiasm with NZ's mineral estate and his vision as it being a "way out" of our financial problems is not going to look to small miners. They are going to be an impediment to this. I have said before to take a look at what government did to the fishing industry. Take out nearly all of the small operators and give it all to the big players. Less paperwork for the same return to the government. There is a documentary on the NZ fishing industry, repeated recently, that showed the step by step metheod they used and we are seeing the same start now with the minerals industry.
|
|
|
Post by RKC on Sept 26, 2010 15:12:53 GMT 12
G'day, The more I have though about this new turn of events today, the more I'm suspecting that it has the potential to backfire on the miners if not handled correctly. The problem is that we have not been told anything in the Background paper except generalizations that can be interpreted a number of ways. More will no doubt come out in the second round of the submission process, but by then mistakes could have already been made. Hopefully there will be more in the Greymouth Star prior to the closing date for submissions. I checked the website of Minerals West Coast and there is nothing there at present which would tell us anything more than we already know. www.mineralswestcoast.co.nz/index.aspxI doubt it would be any good contacting Crown Minerals as they would probably just refer us to the Background Paper without adding any more. The comment from Crown Minerals that " 25% of its time is "wasted" on small claims" is probably more telling than anything else. From when this latest gold rush commenced, just a few years ago, I know that Crown Minerals have been bombarded by claim owners complaining about hobbyists fossicking on their claims ... and the bureaucrats would have not been pleased with the time that takes up. Much of the problem we have had with Crown Minerals, going back many years, is that they don't take the professional dredgers seriously. They lump us in with the hobby fossickers ... who don't even take themselves seriously ;D. If the proposals in 5.1, 5.2 and 5.3 (small scale gold activities ) of the Background Paper are introduced into law and some, or all, of the hobby fossickers no longer take up claims (Mining permits) then this has the advantage for us that waterways are not tied up by hobbists who do no more than play around for a few weeks each year at the hight of summer. The Wakamarina is an example, as most of the claim owners have always been hobbyists (or local landowners whose sole intention is to keep people out of the area) who rarely do any mining and never any serious mining ... or don't even get near the water. Maybe a new class of Permit needs to be introduced to specifically provide for professional suction/eductor dredging. Such a Permit could have conditions that specify a minimum number of days it should be worked each year. Additionally there should always be the provision there to allow the Permit holder to decide if he should allow hobby fossicking on his claim, or not. Most professionals would allow hobbyists on their claim provided the hobbyists did not breach any claim conditions, such as conditions prohibiting digging into river banks. Regards, Rob (RKC)
|
|
|
Post by RKC on Sept 26, 2010 15:40:27 GMT 12
G'day,
The proposal 5.3 of the discussion paper states "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".
By saying there would be no extensions of duration granted in respect of current mining permits, are they actually saying there would not be any more Mining permits granted for small-scale mining? What would be the definition of small-scale mining? It would be OK if dredges using motors of 5hp or less were defined as small scale and anything else thats larger, provided for with a special dredging Mining permit.
Regards, Rob (RKC)
|
|
|
Post by waipori on Sept 26, 2010 15:40:54 GMT 12
After reading through the CMA comments 5.3 relating to small scale gold mining activities, that it is proposed that there would be no extensions to the duration of current permits, and that further small scale suction dredgers would be limited to 5hp engine [5.1] I would like to get some feedback on these points please. It seems to me that those of us who operate a dredge thats a bit bigger than a toy are going to be once again unprovided for!
|
|
|
Post by aucn on Sept 26, 2010 16:57:24 GMT 12
think you have hit the nail on the head waipori ,seems that they are going to try to phase out suction dredging permits, as they state the existing permits will not be reknewed, definitely need a good submission put in... any good scribes ? to draft one .. so all existing permit holders to sign .. might be better than a few submissions as most will not put one in..
ken
|
|