IV. Grant of a prospecting licence or a mining lease to a reconnaissance permit holder or a prospecting licensee respectively who was granted a reconnaissance permit or prospecting licence before the date of promulgation of the ordinance: (Section 10A(a)(2)(b)(i))
1. To apply for a prospecting licence by a permit holder or for a mining lease by a licensee who holds a reconnaissance permit or prospecting licence respectively before the date of promulgation of the ordinance shall have to carry out exploration as prescribed in the schedule so as to establish the evidence to show the existence of mineral contents. – Require to be check again as it explains about to carry a work of exploration again for which the Licensee has been allowed before to do so. On submission of Geological evidences (if its completed on previous permit) which proves about mineral occurrences, should be allow to have Mining License in further step. But if the licensee doesn't wish to have Mining License on his name then it should be allowed for auction again. We can save our wastage of resources and time too.
Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 4:16 PM
To: dgms_mail_list@yahoogroups.com
Dear Group,
The Ministry of Mines has notified "Draft Rules to Prescribe Parameters of Evidence on Existence of Mineral contents" (attached) in which they have prescribed certain limiting factors based on which existing/future exploration work will be assessed and it will be the basis of grant of mineral concession after completing the prospecting work (or previously completed prospecting but grant of PL/ML is pending before MMRD Ordinance).
After reading these rules, I have feeling that certain provisions are unnecessarily limiting the scope of prospecting work and they will result in wastage of valuable resources and time.
For example , the gist of Rule IV(3) (on page no.4) makes like this for me :
For the grant of ML, after a PL , it is required that
1. Entire PL area is to be prospected in G2 level
2. Part of PL area which is being applied for ML should be prospected on G1 level
3. Measured and Indicated resources to established based on the above two.
4. Reserves to be established from the above Resources (by feasibility/pre-feasibility study) to sustain mining for at least first five years
(This is my interpenetration of that particular section. I request you to kindly send you interpretation if it differs from the above)
Moreover, the Grid Pattern for G1. G2 etc propitiating levels as Scheduled in these draft rules as been made just half in comparison with Existing UNFC Field Guidelines.
I feel that we as industry should express strong opposition towards making such stringent regulatory framework, through various forums like FIMMI, CII etc.
Please share you valuable views and suggestions.
Best Regards,
Jai Singh,
Navi Mumbai.
Posted by: <premranjan_kumar2001@yahoo.com>
| Reply via web post | • | Reply to sender | • | Reply to group | • | Start a New Topic | • | Messages in this topic (2) |
Directorate General of Mines Safety, Ministry of Labour & Employment, Govt. of India
Websites: http://www.dgms.net and http://www.dgmsindia.in and http://www.dgms.gov.in
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If for any reason you wish to unsubscribe from DGMS Mailing List, send an email to:
dgms_mail_list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
0 comments:
Post a Comment