Mineral Tenure Act Regulation – Proposed Amendments Summary Report 2011

Table of Contents

1. Executive Summary…………………………………………………………………………………1

2. Background…………………………………………………………………………………………….3

3. Discussion………………………………………………………………………………………………5

4. Next Steps……………………………………………………………………………………………….9

5. Appendices:

i. Consultation Process………………………………………………………………10

 Executive Summary

Discussions between the former Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (the Ministry) and the mineral exploration sector (industry) have revealed that a balanced fee structure, affordable to both the individual prospector and company (Junior, Senior and Major) is necessary to promote further mineral exploration in British Columbia.

Eleven (11) mining associations and organizations submitted feedback to the Ministry via face-to-face meetings with Ministry Titles staff and a 73-day industry comment period in the fall of 2010. Participants were asked to provide input on proposed amendments to the Mineral Tenure Act Regulation, including a new fee structure and revised annual exploration work requirements (claim maintenance). In total, 117 industry representatives participated in information sessions and 25 submitted additional feedback by email during the comment period.

The majority of feedback mirrors consultations held with industry in 2008 and reflects the primary goals of the amendments, which are to:

1. Increase the efficiency of the current mineral subsurface tenure process;

2. Increase the amount of mineral land available for actual exploration and development; and

3. Update the fee and work requirement structure to align with current industry exploration costs.

Key findings from the consultation include:

• Restricting the use of cash in lieu, in addition to proposals to double the fee payment, was strongly supported by industry.

• The majority of industry representatives were in favour of a yearly staged increase for the exploration work requirements (mineral) but felt that the initial two years and years eight and beyond needed to be lower to allow individual prospectors and smaller companies to prosper.

• Industry representatives were in agreement with increasing the claim registration fee for both mineral and placer development but felt that current proposals ($1.75/ha and $6.00/ha respectively) were too high.

• No consensus was reached regarding proposed increases to lease rental fees; however, the general perception from industry was that the jump from $5.00/ha to $20.00/ha for placer development was too high and not comparable to proposed increases for mineral lease rentals (from $10.00/ha to $25.00/ha).

• Approximately 50% of industry participants recommended a revision of the proposed Portable Assessment Credit (PAC) fee increase and utility without specific suggestions.

• Increases to the maximum production limits for placer activities were endorsed by industry, with recommendations to make legacy and claim amounts equivalent.

• Overall support was received for eliminating the work registration fee, increasing the maximum claim size, and increasing administrative fees.

• A number of out-of-scope issues and recommendations were identified by industry, including the need for a more streamlined permitting process; improved services from
the ministry with respect to inspections, permitting and titles acquisition and maintenance; greater support and incentives for current and future mineral explorers; education and training on applications, sampling procedures, and consultation requirements; and further review of Mineral Titles Online.

Read the rest of this entry →