Image source
From: https://sites.google.com/site/crownmineralsnz/home/2-invite/3-pdf/submission
This is an example of a submission.
Please feel free to use this as a template...
From: your name
Date: before 6 June 2014
Subject: Submission to fees on permits consultation
CC: your email address
To: NZPAMfeesreview@mbie.govt.nz
Email: NZPAMfeesreview@mbie.govt.nz
Post: Donna Royal
Manager, Business Performance
New Zealand Petroleum & Minerals Ministry of Business, Innovation & Employment
PO Box 1473 Wellington 6140
Submission
By You
Question 1:
Do you agree with the analysis of the proposed fees for petroleum prospecting permits? If not, why not?
Question 2:
What are the effects of the proposed fees on your organisation?
Question 3:
Do you agree with the analysis of the proposed fees for offshore minerals permits? If not, why not?
Question 4:
What are the effects of the proposed fees on your organisation?
Background:
Crown minerals arose when a kingdom paid for its armed forces with gold and silver. When that ran low the kingdom invaded another kingdom that had less ability to defend its crown minerals. That is how empires grew. The Roman Empire, the Ottoman empire, the British empire.
Dr Elder was a Rhode Scholar and CEO of Solid Energy and estimated the value of the crown minerals in New Zealand and reported it to the 2010 NZPAM conference in Auckland. Land and sea bed $NZ 5 trillion to $NZ 20 trillion ($NZ 20,000,000,000)
95% of wealth offshore.
This current Government presides over one of the largest wealth transfers in this century.
New Zealand is the second wealthiest nation per capita on the planet behind Saudi Arabia.
Quick answer to questions:
Question 1:
Do you agree with the analysis of the proposed fees for petroleum prospecting permits? No
If not, why not? Does not encourage big money from over seas to investigate the resoures furthest from land and in the deepest parts of the sea.
It also does not offer close to land access to those that live closes to the Resourse to access it.
Question 2:
What are the effects of the proposed fees on your organisation?
Organisation is of public good not is of club good. The New Zealand public will cede 99% ownership of crown minerals to big money off shore.
Question 3:
Do you agree with the analysis of the proposed fees for offshore minerals permits? no
If not, why not?
Same as petroleum above. Push exploration money from big organisations based over seas to the deepest and furthest parts away from the shore.
Offer incentives local home grown interests close to shore.
Also over the next 50 years others may want to grow a business using crown minerals and higher fees in close to the shore will let marginal areas remain unlocked up and not tied down in big cheap to hold claims.
This submission supports smaller areas and geometrically dissuades large holding close to shore. It does not forbid but it regulates. Letting small enteritis room to grow bigger.
For example mining 12 miles into shore is very attractive for overseas. But so too should that exploration venture be for New Zealand locals born and bred in New Zealand
This current suggestion by NZPAM is a reflection of lobby activity from large over seas interests wanting access to a vast huge crown mineral asset.
It is time that geometric disincentives for big holdings was introduced and also increase these close to shore lines.
Question 4:
What are the effects of the proposed fees on your organisation?
Again for the public good. Concentration or wealth.
Counter proposal.
1. That fees be divided between New Zealand owned businesses/individuals and offshore corporates.
2. That fees are least for offshore corporate at the edge (furtherest away from shore) and most expensive (prohibitive) close to shore (for both mineral and petrolium)
3. That fees are least for New Zealand owned businesses / individuals closest to shore.
The above three points are to encourage local investment and partnerships where the resourse is cheapest to extract close in.
This would include minerals in the 12 mile limit are accessible by citizens and permanent residents of New Zealand because the fees are less. The offshore corporates are close to prohibitive in close and reduce as distance out increases.
20,000 years ago see level was 125 metres lower than in the past 10,000 (98% full and only higher (fuller) than today 2 million and 6 million years ago)
That makes the first 2 km out into the see the most potentially rich in minerals and easiest for extraction.
The United Nations recognises the plate New Zealand sit upon and the minerals that lay there. So this area is under deep waters and far from land and needs the most investment to explore and so letting overseas corporates access this for less price is encouraged.
A formula need be worked out so that all can have access to all areas.
Flat fees are not acceptable $50,000 cited as an example puts no limits on first in first served. It also let's large areas be tied up and bars other who come later with data pointing to a depost.
So stratify the fees out from the shore:
The first square km from shore is a geometric progression fee per square km.
Eg: With in the first km from shore over seas corporates are charged Per square km $1, $2, $4, $8, $16, $32, $64, $128.....
The idea is to have smaller claims closer to shore.
As the distance from shore increases the reduce it
1-2km from shore $0.10, $0.20, $0.4, $0.8, $1.6, $3.2....
2-5km from shore $0.01, $0.02, $0.04, $0.08, $0.16, $0.32, $0.64,
5-20km from shore $0.001, $0.002, $0.004, $0.008, $0.016, $0.032, $0.064,
20-400km from shore $0.0001, $0.0002, $0.0004, $0.0008, $0.0016, $0.0032, $0.0064,
The local individuals are charge the same so more people can have smaller areas.
It requires tweaking so that further out becomes more attractive for overseas interests.
The locals want to have the access to onshore resourse.
Conclusion.
The suggestions in this proposal are offering $20 trillion dollars worth of crown minerals in a way that does not see 33% of the mineral resource become the property of those that live closest to it!
The proposals are offering time priority rights for 50 years to those prepared to grab now. Others over the next 50 years will be shut out of access to crown minerals.
The proposal does not recognise proximity to land and the ease of land based operations to gain access to sea bed minerals.
_________________________________________________________________________________
Related viewing:
Ratu Mataira - "Thorium and New Zealand"
Also see: http://energyfromthorium.com/
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for your comment. All comments are moderated - BronnyNZ