NQMA lobbying for access changes.

Go down

NQMA lobbying for access changes. Empty NQMA lobbying for access changes.

Post  GoldHound on Sun Nov 24, 2019 9:48 pm

Hi Guys

I've started this post to inform members and non member detectorists that the NQMA (North Queensland Miners Association) is lobbying the Queensland Mines department to change access laws to EPM's (exploration tenements)

The proposed change would ban detecting and prospecting on exploration tenements without the consent of the tenement holder.

This would effectively ban metal detecting in any gold field as they are mostly covered by exploration tenements. Whats worse is that more than half of the members of the NQMA are detectorists or hobby prospectors. And they are using the money from their yearly fee's to lobby for this change.

This change is the brain child of James Said the current president of the organization.

I urge members and non members to contact the NQMA and voice your concern about the changes they are lobbying for.

To contact the NQMA please email info@nqma.com.au, please reference the best contact below in your email.

President – James Said
Vice President – Graham Byrne
Secretary – Lyn Byrne
Treasurer – Michele Mobbs
Native Title Officer – Paul Crossland
Publicity Officer – James Said

Feel free to spread the word

Regards
Dale
GoldHound
GoldHound
Contributor Plus
Contributor Plus

Number of posts : 547
Registration date : 2014-01-06

Back to top Go down

NQMA lobbying for access changes. Empty Re: NQMA lobbying for access changes.

Post  moredeep on Sun Nov 24, 2019 10:31 pm

This is some what puzzling Dale,whats in it for NQMA to do this,what will they gain from this proposal.
As we know prospectors/detectorist take bugger all in the scheme of things.
Sounds like something shonky going on,good luck.

cheers moredeep
moredeep
moredeep
Management

Number of posts : 717
Age : 59
Registration date : 2018-05-23

Back to top Go down

NQMA lobbying for access changes. Empty NQMA

Post  Rockwall on Mon Nov 25, 2019 8:00 am

moredeep wrote:This is some what puzzling Dale,whats in it for NQMA to do this,what will they gain from this proposal.
As we know prospectors/detectorist take bugger all in the scheme of things.
Sounds like something shonky going on,good luck.

cheers  moredeep
I tried to upload a screenshot of the Qld EPM rules etc. It appears vast amounts of land can be tied up for very little outlay. Unless of course genuine exploration happens. If total exclusion is applied that would open the door for EPM holders to charge detectorists a fee to access the EPM, would it not? Surely that isn't behind this? At the moment the small towns get a boost when detectorists move in for the winter up here. Total exclusion would just make life tougher for them.
Rockwall
Rockwall
Contributor
Contributor

Number of posts : 32
Age : 68
Registration date : 2017-06-24

Back to top Go down

NQMA lobbying for access changes. Empty Re: NQMA lobbying for access changes.

Post  boobook on Mon Nov 25, 2019 12:12 pm

As a retired SW Qld. open cut opal miner, I always understood that the grant of an EP(Minerals) permit gave exclusive prospecting/exploration rights to the grantee of that permit.
Conditions applicable to the permit (graticular blocks, usually granted for 5 years) was that at the end of each 12 month period, 50% of the permit area was forfeited until the permit area was either exhausted or a portion converted into a mining lease.
I for one, would be concerned that after the outlay of considerable cost to register an EPM that the area became accessible to anyone who wished to prospect there without permission.
There is provision in the regulations for anyone to apply for a Prospecting Permit to cover a nominated area but that also costs money.
Hobby prospectors/fossickers are catered for under the conditions of the Qld. Fossickers License which covers the whole State. This is the document required when detecting in the Clermont/Georgetown/Forsythe etc. regions or anywhere a declared fossicking area is listed.
mike



boobook
Contributor Plus
Contributor Plus

Number of posts : 321
Registration date : 2011-09-12

Back to top Go down

NQMA lobbying for access changes. Empty Re: NQMA lobbying for access changes.

Post  Rockwall on Mon Nov 25, 2019 4:52 pm

boobook wrote:As a retired SW Qld. open cut opal miner, I always understood that the grant of an EP(Minerals) permit gave exclusive prospecting/exploration rights to the grantee of that permit.
Conditions applicable to the permit (graticular blocks, usually granted for 5 years) was that at the end of each 12 month period, 50% of the permit area was forfeited until the permit area was either exhausted or a portion converted into a mining lease.
I for one, would be concerned that after the outlay of considerable cost to register an EPM that the area became accessible to anyone who wished to prospect there without permission.
There is provision in the regulations for anyone to apply for a Prospecting Permit to cover a nominated area but that also costs money.
Hobby prospectors/fossickers are catered for under the conditions of the Qld. Fossickers License which covers the whole State. This is the document required when detecting in the Clermont/Georgetown/Forsythe etc. regions or anywhere a declared fossicking area is listed.
mike


That's part of the problem. There are GPAs at Clermont and Charters Towers but none furthrt north. Georgetown, Forsayth etc would be shut down under total exclusion.
Rockwall
Rockwall
Contributor
Contributor

Number of posts : 32
Age : 68
Registration date : 2017-06-24

Back to top Go down

NQMA lobbying for access changes. Empty Re: NQMA lobbying for access changes.

Post  GoldHound on Mon Nov 25, 2019 6:07 pm

As the law stands, the EPM holder has exclusive rights to peg a lease in an epm and rights of access to do field work.
The EPM dose NOT give the holder mineral rights or exclusive access rights.
Under the current framework if you have permission from the land holder, this is all you need to access the area and prospect by hand methods including metal detecting.
It's like this for a reason.
This keeps the playing field open to anyone so if large companies buy up large EPM's they cannot lock up ground without doing any exploration for long periods of time. And when the EPM lapses it goes into what is called moratorium where by anyone can go and pegg ground for a period of time before anyone can lock the ground up under EPM again
This is suposed to allow the little guy to be able to economically pegg a lease and to keep the playing field fair.
I have had both leases and large EPM's held under our exploration company and belive that the laws are fair how they are.
As they somewhat restrict large companies from tieing up ground that they never even explore but just use in their portfolio to sell shares, this is a very common practice among listed companies.

These changes that James Said is lobbying for are self serving. Firstly he is trying to make it easy for large companies like the ones he works for to lock up ground and is also trying to make prospectors have to ask for permission so he can milk them for their gold find locations (as he can't find gold on his own lol).
GoldHound
GoldHound
Contributor Plus
Contributor Plus

Number of posts : 547
Registration date : 2014-01-06

Back to top Go down

NQMA lobbying for access changes. Empty Re: NQMA lobbying for access changes.

Post  GoldHound on Mon Nov 25, 2019 6:56 pm

This proposed change is very bad for both prospectors and the industry.
It only serves the few who are more interested in floating exploration company's selling shares and scamming investors.
As nearly all greenfield exploration and new mineral deposits are done/found by smaller companies or individuals who actually do field work.
GoldHound
GoldHound
Contributor Plus
Contributor Plus

Number of posts : 547
Registration date : 2014-01-06

Back to top Go down

NQMA lobbying for access changes. Empty Re: NQMA lobbying for access changes.

Post  davsgold on Mon Nov 25, 2019 7:13 pm

G'day Dale

I agree with you, it is not good when big company's just lock up the ground to keep small ones out. I think everyone deserves a chance.

cheers dave
davsgold
davsgold
Contributor Plus
Contributor Plus

Number of posts : 6082
Registration date : 2008-10-25

https://www.x-coils.com/

Back to top Go down

NQMA lobbying for access changes. Empty Re: NQMA lobbying for access changes.

Post  gcause on Wed Dec 11, 2019 12:04 am

I have spoken to the NQMA it turns out I was totally misinformed as to what was actually happening.
They do support metal detectorist's who do the right thing and abide by the rules.
I should not have been so trusting of the information being presented here.
I will be renewing my NQMA membership.


Last edited by gcause on Wed Dec 11, 2019 11:35 am; edited 1 time in total
gcause
gcause
Contributor Plus
Contributor Plus

Number of posts : 276
Age : 54
Registration date : 2011-09-15

Back to top Go down

NQMA lobbying for access changes. Empty Re: NQMA lobbying for access changes.

Post  boobook on Wed Dec 11, 2019 10:37 am

From your post Grant, I would have to assume you are more a hobby fossicker (your word) than a registered small miner.
If you were a miner, you would be very familiar with the costs of establishing and maintaining your operation whether it be an ML or EPM.

Apart from the establishment costs, there is an ongoing liability for both statutory requirements, rent and compensation to the landholder. And believe me this can be quite substantial, if you choose to dispute it you will end up in court with potentially more costs. (its worth perusing a few recent Qld. Supreme Court cases!)

Why not approach the holder of a EPM or even ML if you wish to detect in that area. Offer decent bona fides, written permission for land access from the landholder and to provide information as to finds/noted geology. There may be beneficial outcomes all round.

I understand that gold detecting is your current hobby, but please don't develop an interest in opal and take your attitude to the W.Qld. opal fields. Whether ML, EPM or even vacant ground, some miners over there you do NOT mess with. Mad
mike

boobook
Contributor Plus
Contributor Plus

Number of posts : 321
Registration date : 2011-09-12

Back to top Go down

NQMA lobbying for access changes. Empty Re: NQMA lobbying for access changes.

Post  gcause on Wed Dec 11, 2019 11:42 am

boobook wrote:From your post Grant, I would have to assume you are more a hobby fossicker (your word) than a registered small miner.
If you were a miner, you would be very familiar with the costs of establishing and maintaining your operation whether it be an ML or EPM. 
Aboslutely Mike, I am a hobby fossicker and have never owned an EPM or ML but do know others who are. I have now spoken with the NQMA and I was totally misinformed by the information being presented here and should not have been so trusting of the forum posts. If people do the right thing by the land holders and abide by the fossicking laws there will be no problems.
gcause
gcause
Contributor Plus
Contributor Plus

Number of posts : 276
Age : 54
Registration date : 2011-09-15

Back to top Go down

NQMA lobbying for access changes. Empty Re: NQMA lobbying for access changes.

Post  GoldHound on Wed Dec 11, 2019 12:07 pm

Hi Mike the opal industry an the gold/mineral mining industries are very different.
A lot more opal miners pegg their own leases where as most gold/mineral leases are purchased off individuals or juniors. The general size of the mining operations are also much smaller.
So the problems I am talking about are not as relevant to your sector but they still occur to a degree.

The below link is an article that talks about how most gold deposits are discovered and initial development is done by individuals or small companies referred to as junior's in the mining sector. https://www.mining.com/web/juniors-are-the-answer-to-gold-industry-challenges/
This is what I am talking about above.
Limiting access dosent serve any one who has an actual interest in the industry long term, it only serves the few scammers or short sighted greedy individuals who think because they pay for an EPM that they have mineral rights.

We had 2 large EPM's which we sold that covered over 80sq km up until a few months ago and at no time did we ever try to regulate who went there or try parasite their gold find locations.
I and my business partners are firm believers in peoples access rights and their intellectual rights to their finds which came from their hard field work.

If I wanted someone's valuable information obtained from hard work in the field I would offer them compensation. As anyone who dose field work knows this costs a fortune, much more than the small amount to take up an EPM, which is why so few EPM's ever get explored.

I have been on both sides of the fence here.
I have held both ML's and EPM's and prospected on open ground or EPM's.

I've had people quickly take up EPM's over ground when they heard we found gold there.
Is that right?
Should I now have to negotiate access with this type of person? (Like James Said)
Should I now have to turn over my gold locations from in many cases years of in field work just because someone takes up an epm and I want access to make my living?

My concerns with this change are not just focused on hobby prospectors, they are focused on the whole industry both sides of the fence will lose if lobbying for these changes is successful.
GoldHound
GoldHound
Contributor Plus
Contributor Plus

Number of posts : 547
Registration date : 2014-01-06

Back to top Go down

NQMA lobbying for access changes. Empty Re: NQMA lobbying for access changes.

Post  GoldHound on Wed Dec 11, 2019 12:20 pm

Hi Grant
They must have pulled the pin on the lobbying
I know a few of the committee members one rang me last week and told me of the trouble my post had caused them.
I also had another friend ring The regional director of the mines dept in Townsville who said "we are looking into the proposed changes to access put forward by the NQMA" before I put the post up.
So I really hope my post caused enough trouble to make them back pedal. I take this as a win if this is the case as things are fine how they are.
GoldHound
GoldHound
Contributor Plus
Contributor Plus

Number of posts : 547
Registration date : 2014-01-06

Back to top Go down

NQMA lobbying for access changes. Empty Re: NQMA lobbying for access changes.

Post  gcause on Wed Dec 11, 2019 12:51 pm

GoldHound wrote:Hi Grant
I wont be revealing anything I discussed with the NQMA other than to say they are looking into the best interests of the landowners, the miners and fossickers.
I should not have been so trusting of the information being presented here.
I will be renewing my NQMA membership and I encourage others to do so.
gcause
gcause
Contributor Plus
Contributor Plus

Number of posts : 276
Age : 54
Registration date : 2011-09-15

Back to top Go down

NQMA lobbying for access changes. Empty NQMA LOBBYING

Post  Rockwall on Fri Dec 13, 2019 9:47 am

gcause wrote:
GoldHound wrote:Hi Grant
I wont be revealing anything I discussed with the NQMA other than to say they are looking into the best interests of the landowners, the miners and fossickers.
I should not have been so trusting of the information being presented here.
I will be renewing my NQMA membership and I encourage others to do so.
Secrecy usually means there is something to fear. There is nothing on the NQMA website.
Rockwall
Rockwall
Contributor
Contributor

Number of posts : 32
Age : 68
Registration date : 2017-06-24

Back to top Go down

NQMA lobbying for access changes. Empty Re: NQMA lobbying for access changes.

Post  Rockwall on Fri Dec 13, 2019 10:13 am

gcause wrote:
GoldHound wrote:Hi Grant
I wont be revealing anything I discussed with the NQMA other than to say they are looking into the best interests of the landowners, the miners and fossickers.
I should not have been so trusting of the information being presented here.
I will be renewing my NQMA membership and I encourage others to do so.
No mention of prospectors, the ones who do a lot of work looking for new areas. Fossickers  generally just go to known mining areas. Having to ask permission to prospect on a certain area of an EPM means giving away what can be countless hours of research, meaning the EPM holder can sit back and wait. I think this is the main concern. Why not give  an assurance if this is not the aim, if it isn't!
Rockwall
Rockwall
Contributor
Contributor

Number of posts : 32
Age : 68
Registration date : 2017-06-24

Back to top Go down

NQMA lobbying for access changes. Empty Re: NQMA lobbying for access changes.

Post  gcause on Fri Dec 13, 2019 11:33 am

There is no secrecy as far as I am aware only a lot of misinformation being spread about NQMA's intent and actions. I was advised by the NQMA that there will be a statement coming out shortly to clarify their position and address the misinformation that is being spread about them.
gcause
gcause
Contributor Plus
Contributor Plus

Number of posts : 276
Age : 54
Registration date : 2011-09-15

Back to top Go down

NQMA lobbying for access changes. Empty Re: NQMA lobbying for access changes.

Post  Rockwall on Fri Dec 13, 2019 12:04 pm

gcause wrote:There is no secrecy as far as I am aware only a lot of misinformation being spread about NQMA's intent and actions. I was advised by the NQMA that there will be a statement coming out shortly to clarify their position and address the misinformation that is being spread about them.
Not being prepared to reveal what was said that leads to your accusation of others spreading misinformation gives the impression of secrecy. Wouldn't be because others were prepared to stand up that caused  a shift in policy?? Perhaps there was no misinformation about the original intent?
Rockwall
Rockwall
Contributor
Contributor

Number of posts : 32
Age : 68
Registration date : 2017-06-24

Back to top Go down

NQMA lobbying for access changes. Empty Re: NQMA lobbying for access changes.

Post  gcause on Fri Dec 13, 2019 1:29 pm

Not being prepared to reveal what was said that leads to your accusation of others spreading misinformation gives the impression of secrecy. Wouldn't be because others were prepared to stand up that caused a shift in policy?? Perhaps there was no misinformation about the original intent?

I have to ask why would you want me to breach a confidence and then accuse me of secrecy when I refuse to do so? If you told me something in confidence would you want me to breach that confidence and go around telling others about it? It goes against my upbringing to do so, end of story.

As for being prepared to stand up, I actually confronted the NQMA directly and spoke to them directly.

So was anyone who is spreading this information about the NQMA actually present in person at the meeting in question to hear what was actually said?

To take and quote a one liner out of a set of minutes out of context doesn't count as hard evidence of a legislative change being imminent, government just doesn't work that way.

If no one spreading this information was present at that meeting then spreading information about that meetings content and getting it wrong would be considered misinformation in my book.

As far as I am aware there is no shift in policy by anyone, these forum posts are totally irrelevant to governments decision making processes. I was an advisor to state government and have worked in state government departments and with local councils so I know how the system works.

So why not wait for the NQMA to make a statement first before trying to address an issue that people only perceive to be there?

Either that or meet with the NQMA committee in person or phone them and address these perceived concerns directly.
gcause
gcause
Contributor Plus
Contributor Plus

Number of posts : 276
Age : 54
Registration date : 2011-09-15

Back to top Go down

NQMA lobbying for access changes. Empty NQMA

Post  Rockwall on Fri Dec 13, 2019 1:56 pm

gcause wrote:
Not being prepared to reveal what was said that leads to your accusation of others spreading misinformation gives the impression of secrecy. Wouldn't be because others were prepared to stand up that caused  a shift in policy?? Perhaps there was no misinformation about the original intent?

I have to ask why would you want me to breach a confidence and then accuse me of secrecy when I refuse to do so?  If you told me something in confidence would you want me to breach that confidence and go around telling others about it? It goes against my upbringing to do so, end of story.

As for being prepared to stand up, I actually confronted the NQMA directly and spoke to them directly.

So was anyone who is spreading this information about the NQMA actually present in person at the meeting in question to hear what was actually said?  

To take and quote a one liner out of a set of minutes out of context doesn't count as hard evidence of a legislative change being imminent, government just doesn't work that way.

If no one spreading this information was present at that meeting then spreading information about that meetings content and getting it wrong would be considered misinformation in my book.

As far as I am aware there is no shift in policy by anyone, these forum posts are totally irrelevant to governments decision making processes. I was an advisor to state government and have worked in state government departments and with local councils so I know how the system works.

So why not wait for the NQMA to make a statement first before trying to address an issue that people only perceive to be there?

Either that or meet with the NQMA committee in person or phone them and address these perceived concerns directly.
Obviously whoever you spoke to convinced you other people were telling fibs. Fair enough, your choice.
Rockwall
Rockwall
Contributor
Contributor

Number of posts : 32
Age : 68
Registration date : 2017-06-24

Back to top Go down

Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum