Question 1
Do you agree that raising fees is reasonable given the cost of administering the Crown minerals permitting regime currently exceeds the amount recovered from permit holders?
Answered 1
Fees are already being raised and have been raised for the past 100 years so your question is disingenuous and speaks to the cash cow you see this sector with no question of innovation in the department to produce better results for less. I want to see the salary breakdown of the staff, the qualifications and reporting line structures of the organisation in any review. Go back to the drawing board and start all over again. Include royalties in the mix. To leave royalties our suggests you are just highway robbers in the dark with a blunderbust calling "stands and deliver". So rethink your strategy. You are not being reasonable by leaving so much out that is pertinent to making this sector profitable for New Zealand. I would say fire 10 staff to recover $1.7 million per year who are on over $100,000 pa and promote the others to those roles and try again with the review including royalties this time.
Question 2
Do you agree with the petroleum fee settings under option 1? Why/why not?
Answer 2
Like with onshore minerals the Petrolium sector must also have fees for areas of prospecting, exploration and mining. This stops one company claiming all the $20 trillion dollars in one go and sitting on it for 47 years.
Also having fees for areas of prospecting, exploration and mining for Petrolium will leave room for new entrants into the industry to gain area to look at as the older entrants drop area they find is profitable.
Question 3
What impact would the petroleum fee settings under option 1 have on your business?
Answer 3
My business is hammered by 300% increases, 100% increases in applications, 200% increase annual fees just so you can subsidise Petrolium on the $20 trillion of crown minerals that are out in the see that makes up 95 percent of crown minerals. I am a tier 2 onshore and you guys are killing us with your suggestions and options.
Question 4
Do you agree with the minerals fee settings under option 1? Why/why not?
The easy access to get started is on land and you are making options that stop people develop from prospecting to mining. Your whole business plan is reducing the smaller players who need to get a foot hold before looking to go offshore into the minerals in the 12 mile area from the coast. Your fees are not encouraging for start up and penilise those grandfather operations waiting for a break from you.
Question 5
What impact would the minerals fee settings under option 1 have on your business?
Answer 5
Reduce the area to unecconice size. You are forcing free surrender after so much work and been put in developing. You are robbing us blind. Shame on your approach. Options sux. No breaks and not looking at what higher royalties will being to the crown and population of the nation. Raise royalties to 34% from 1% currently and then make the fees open for more new people to enter and develop. Structure the fees for smaller operations and stop the big Petrolium having a free ride on squashing the locals.
Question 6
Do you agree with the petroleum fee settings under option 2? Why/why not?
answer 6
Your whole premise is wrong in not including royalties in this discussion. We do not have option one and option two. Your rent on Bowen House floors could be changed so you have a less central business location and put it out of the CBD to save money. Option three is not mentioned by you for a medium term to long term saving. So petroleum must pay per area under development and no other option is acceptable.
Question 7
What impact would the petroleum fee settings under option 2 have on your business?
answer 7
Your questions are becoming boring and repetitive as it it tiers you to have to consult with the public and industry. A better question would be around the 90Thorium232 rear earth mineral in the sands around the coast that produces 1 million times more energy gram for gram than coal. Thorium in a molten Fluride salt reactor development in Oakridge in the 1950-60s showed a energy option for humanity of at least 1,000 years and with no CO2 given off. You see how your questions are tied and out of date with new technology and belay an agenda. To put $20 trillion on the balance sheet of big multinationals after TPPA is signed and no nationalisation of crown minerals can happen. You must print this submission so the public can read it going into an election year and look the minister of the croon in the eye and ask who is heading the organisation what write these submission questions.
Question 8
Do you agree with the minerals fee settings under option 2? Why/why not?
Answer 8
What promotes 90Thorium232 extraction from sands along with other rear earth minerals is important and fees for thorium exploration should be nil as it is a strategic Resourse for New Zealand and have a 100% royalty on it to all but New Zealand individuals and companies.
Question 9
What impact would the minerals fee settings under option 2 have on your business?
Answer 9
The citizens of New Zealand number 5,000,000 and when considering $20 trillion in the crown mineral suite we see 20,000,000,000,000/5,000,000 = $4 million for every man and women and child in New Zealand. A better question even at 34% royalty that gives $1.3 million each citizen share of crown mineral. At current 1% royalty that is $40,000 per person and take off government debt we have a broke citizenship. So the impact of your fees are dismal. At $40,000 per person at 1% we offer up 99% to multinationals to put them on a balance sheet and not even need to mine it. Crazy. Rethink all options when you start again. A new government may be needed to reset this like the UK leaving EU. Besides the UK needs the $20 trillion on its balance sheet not Bruni under TPPA. Your whole fees options need to the reconsidered after UK and left EU. The world is different now we have to think in terms of common wealth countries. Stop and start all over again!
No comments:
Post a Comment