|
|
Post by boaraxa on Apr 13, 2011 20:09:42 GMT 12
Hi guys iv been getting the run around from GE for about a month now and im beging to feel like im chasing my tale so to speak....out of curiosity has any1 here on the forum actually spoken to the CEO at glassearth...or am i dreaming if i think he will actually ring lol!..?
....phill
|
|
|
|
Post by RKC on Apr 15, 2011 12:32:42 GMT 12
G'day boaraxa,
It would be very interesting to know if anyone has any success at all negotiating with Glass Earth. My guess would be that your experence with Glass earth will be the same as any other miners who have approached them. If this is the case then the best the small scale miners can hope for from Glass Earth would be that they will soon run out of money and move to another country to carry out their paper shuffling.
Regards,
Rob (RKC)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 15, 2011 13:09:20 GMT 12
He who has the permit is king.
Direct quote on the phone from CEO of GE
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 15, 2011 13:24:14 GMT 12
Maybe time for a judicial reveiw. Should see a few ducking for cover
|
|
|
|
Post by aotea on Apr 15, 2011 17:55:08 GMT 12
Gidday Boaraxa,
Are you trying to seek a partial surrender to then seek a claim for yourself?
I had a tussle with them, but sent them a sweetly worded letter and they rolled over and let me rub their belly. I am happy to post the letter on here for you to copy and send?
|
|
|
|
Post by aotea on Apr 15, 2011 18:01:30 GMT 12
Try this letter out for size...they acted pretty smartly and rung me a couple of days later full of sugar.
Glass Earth (New Zealand) Limited
PO Box 24-109
WELINGTON 6042
Attention: Simon Henderson
Dear Sir,
Request to overlap part of PP-39332
I write to express my disappointment at your letter of 29 January 2009 where you refused to allow (MGL) to seek an overlap to parts of several watercourses held within the area covered by the expired Prospecting Permit PP39322.
MGL understands your refusal is neither reasonable nor consistent with the law. MGL has approached two other permit holders of seeking approval for small scale operations within very large permits. No issues have been encountered whilst obtaining these approvals. The companies have been supportive of MGL’s aspirations. Regrettably, Glass Earth Ltd (GEL) has chosen to take a different approach.
The main source of our disappointment and aggravation is that the mining proposed to be undertaken by MGL will have no effect on GEL operations. The mining proposed by MGL is small scale and alluvial, and comprises only several hectares.
Permit 39322 contrary to Crown Minerals Act 1991 and Commerce Act 1986
We understand that GEL obtained permit PP39322 on the basis that it was for hard rock mining purposes. The requirements of hard rock mining are significantly different to those for alluvial mining. We are currently attempting to seek confirmation of this from Crown Minerals, with the help of the Ombudsman.
It is contrary to the Crown Minerals Act 1991 (CMA) for GEL to obtain a permit effectively locking up a huge tract of land in a manner that excludes other operators.
MGL has obtained legal advice and, after careful consideration, has concluded
· The (exclusive) original permit PP39322 should never have been granted. It is too wide in scope and contrary to the CMA.
· A further exploration on similar terms (irrespective of recent areas surrendered) should not be granted as this would be contrary to the principles of the CMA for similar reason.
· Should the permit have been subject to a judicial review, the permit would likely be cancelled.
MGL’s starting position is that GEL cannot lock up huge tracts of land by simply obtaining an exclusive prospecting permit, effectively excluding other operators even where GEL will never mine particular areas authorised by the permit. The CMA requires that a holder actively be pursuing mining or exploration. Crown Minerals seeks the forfeiture of permits where the holder has not actively pursued mining.
There are significant parts of PP39322 which GEL will never prospect or mine. While portions of the permit have been surrendered, GEL will not be carrying out mining over the entire balance area. It is inconsistent with the requirement to actively pursue mining. MGL’s main concern is where PP39322 and the subsequent application for renewal (the subsequent application), excludes other operators from a resource that GEL will never mine. Put simply, this cannot be right, and would not likely be survive a judicial review. The locking up of significant tracts of land also contravenes the anti-competitive provisions of the Commerce Act 1986. Permit 39322 and any subsequent permits would be found unlawful on several limbs.
GEL has cited a number of reasons for refusing. MGL does not accept these reasons are valid. The reasons include that GEL wishes to protect its $7.2 million investment. This is a surprising ground as the operations proposed by MGL will have no effect on the GEL operation. MGL therefore poses no threat to GEL’s investment.
GEL also notes that it has support from Otago Regional Council (ORC). This is irrelevant and it is hard to see how the ORC would support a large corporate refusing approval to a small operator (based in, and adding to the economy within Otago), where the proposed activity will have no effect on GEL. In fact, we believe we could operate in synergy with GEL. We also do not accept that GEL is doing work for the benefit of future generations. The work done by GEL is only for the benefit of GEL and any other suggestion is disingenuous.
This is a very serious matter for MGL and it is “girding its loins” for a fight with GEL. MGL does not wish to get in a legal dispute nor enter into a judicial review of GEL’s permits. Our resources, like yours, are better spent exploring and mining rather than in a protracted legal dispute with another mining operator. However, GEL’s conduct thus far has given us no choice. Any action will inevitably delay the grant of the subsequent application and may even result in Crown Minerals refusing to grant the subsequent application.
MGL is prepared to give GEL one final opportunity to agree to surrender the areas that we have sought in our letter of 18 December 2008, and as shown attached.
If you do not agree, MGL intends writing to Crown Minerals challenging that validity of PP39322 and the subsequent application to extend the term. A draft letter that we intend to send to Crown Minerals is also attached for your information.
Furthermore, MGL has been in contact with other miners within Otago. MGL believes that GEL has upset a number of these miners with its broad sweeping approach to seeking permits and its subsequent refusal of requests for mining overlaps within permit 39322. In the event that Crown Minerals grants the application, MGL will seek support from these likeminded miners to undertake a judicial review challenging the grant. Our discussions to date indicate that we are likely to receive a high level of support. According to legal opinions sought, it is likely a judicial review will look upon the existing situation dimly.
Finally, MGL will apply for a Minerals Permit which includes the areas we have requested from GEL and the other areas where we have obtained approval from other operators.
If we do not receive your positive response by 5 March 2009 we will sent the attached letter to Crown Minerals and continue our discussions with the Commerce Commission and Ombudsman.
We look forward to your response.
Yours sincerely
|
|
|
|
Post by boaraxa on Apr 15, 2011 21:16:30 GMT 12
Hi aotea....now THAT is a letter!!
yes im trying to get GE to let some groung go then put a permit on it i spoke to a couple of the GE receptionist people and they first sound,d positive....but not for long!....just had the run around since then but i am still a wee bit hopefull someone will get back to me.
il geta hold of them again next week and see were i stand if not those sweet words you have written down mite have to be copied and sent to GE HQ....
girding it,s loins.....haha classic.
Thanks for that aotea.
regards phill.
|
|
|
|
Post by aotea on Apr 16, 2011 8:59:16 GMT 12
get stuck into them...good luck
Darryl
|
|
|
|
Post by powderburns on Apr 16, 2011 19:32:27 GMT 12
i enjoyed reading your letter Darryl! nice.
unfortuneately for joe public glass earth hoodwinked the government into granting a large claim to enable them to run huge contiguous aerial mag surveys (remember the probe that tangled in powerlines). this was back when gold was in the doldrums. GE will should have had a clause in their consent whereby they are obliged to release to the public forum the results of their work as a payback for granting ridiculously generous claims. i'm reminded of the publicly funded mineral surveys of australia.
unfortuneatly they have now morphed into a part time hobby miner (with access to gullible capital markets!!!), and they have a death grip on their data.
they really are no longer performing any form of public service and they original agreement should be examined closely and then ripped up.
they are having great fun with other peoples money. which is fine. but all should be aware they are mining the stockmarket, not opening up the gold fields of new zealand.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 28, 2011 9:53:43 GMT 12
For those doing battle with Glassearth, rumour has it they are not going to give up "any more" alluvial ground.
|
|
|
|
Post by roughau on Apr 29, 2011 17:41:39 GMT 12
Hi Guys,
to those of you who are doing battle with Glassearth.
Check out these new applications posted today on
Crown Minerals new applications list.
EP 53008
EP 53182
EP 53183
EP 53191
These are for a total of
51,340 ha
That's right Guys.
51,340 Ha.
What can we do to stop this blatant greed and
manipulation of Crown Minerals.
CHEERS
JET
|
|
|
|
Post by RKC on May 4, 2011 11:50:32 GMT 12
|
|
|
|
Post by aotea on May 4, 2011 19:49:38 GMT 12
If you want to send a signal to GEL and Crown Minerals, there is one thing above all. That is a judicial review. Expect to pay 10k, but if a group of like minded people wanted to band together, the result would more than likely, in my opinion, go against GEL.
Am happy to throw around some advice, but would need to sit out as I dont wish to upset CM, and potentially compromise future dealings that dont involve my money.
Thats your answer folks...and youl never have a better case to fight than this one.
|
|
|
|
Post by RKC on Oct 23, 2013 18:38:48 GMT 12
G'day, Glass Earth Gold to consolidate shares on issueGlass Earth has exited its long-standing Otago exploration programmes, having spent the bulk of $40 million around the province, selling its alluvial gold operations recently for about $1.75 million to local interests to refocus on targets in the central North Island.www.odt.co.nz/news/business/278129/glass-earth-gold-consolidate-shares-issueRegards, Rob (RKC) |
|
|
|
Post by powderburns on Oct 26, 2013 19:53:06 GMT 12
More detail on the sale here. A stone’s throw from Glass Earth’s Maniototo claim was the curiously named “Tinkers” diggings. It sits behind Omakau at the base of the Dunstan Range, where Thomson’s Creek spews its gold into the valley. The source is hidden somewhere in the steep mountain crags. From 1863 to 1922 men dragged gold from the alluvials, taking 1000oz per year using the power of water from the little creeks around. The article talks of Glass Earth spending $40 million looking for and mining gold in Otago. This is about 24,000 oz. See that the stockmarket is far more lucrative than a dirty old go ld mine. Swap your shovels, calluses and heavy dredges parts for latte's and business suits! Nothing makes a trader run faster than the fear of an aching back after being forced to work the short handled spade.
Tinkers, Vinegar Hill, Dry Bread: they sure knew how to name a gold mine back in the day. |
|
