Tag Archive | mining

MPRDA Bill returned to National House of Leaders

Some sort of movement on MPRDA at last……..

sent to clients 18 March…..In a parliamentary document recently published it is shown that the Mineral and Petroleumcoal mining Resources Development Amendment (MPRDA) Bill has been sent on a token trip through the National House of Traditional Leaders for comment in thirty days and then to be returned to the Portfolio Committee on Mineral Resources.

This is probably for some temporary major changes to be made to the Bill after debate until such time as two new Bills, one for the mining industry and one for the oil and gas industry, are drafted in time to come.     No doubt this movement was initiated as the result of the recent meeting between President Zuma and business leaders.

The extraordinary affair of the MPRDA has been going on since the first draft of the Bill was published for comment in December 2012 regulating extensively the exploitation of minerals and resources and the legal movement and transfer of resource rights.    Both industries have their own and very different BEE charters and the single Bill deals with both and many empowerment factors.

Core issues


Two issues
of note were that in the new Bill as originally proposed the Minister was to form a new “entity” which will “promote onshore and offshore exploration for and production of petroleum” and which will also “receive, store, maintain, interpret, add value to, evaluate, disseminate or deal in all geological or geophysical information” relating to petroleum and gas exploration matters.

Secondly, sections 80 and 84 of the anchor Act were to be amended to provide for State participation in any successful minerals and gas/oil development exercises carried out by the private sector, the Bill providing for a State right to free carried interest in all such exploration and production rights.
Specific details regarding the extent of the “free carry” were to be published in a government gazette, a figure of 20%susan shabangu being bandied about at the time.   “We are on the path of changing the mining and petroleum industry in South Africa, whether you like it or not,” said Mineral Resources Minister Susan Shabangu earlier in 2014.

Strong views

Accompanied by a public outcry and strongly worded objections from private industry, foreign companies and other institutions, the Bill reached Parliament virtually unchanged.    Again, brought up before the Portfolio Committee on Mineral Resources in public hearings, were strong objections from Opposition MPs and institutionalised industry, neither of whom minced their words, describing the Bill, in one case, as a “self-destruction tool of South Africa’s investment climate.”

Nevertheless, the ANC Alliance continued on their course and the Bill was hammered through in a rush at the end of the parliamentary term, the ANC summonsing through its whip sufficient numbers.

In the background, as the Bill went through Parliament, was the fact that the Department of Mineral Resources and the Department of Energy were only just completing their split apart. Crossed wires were the order of the day.

Nothing happened

Since that date the Bill has sat in limbo; a new Mineral Resources Minister Ngoako Ramatlhodi Ngoako Ramatlhodiagreeing shortly after with the with mining companies and the Chamber of Mines that the best and fastest way forward to bring certainty to the mining and oil drilling industry would be to pass the Bill subject to amendments based on a new approach to the mining beneficiation issue.

Secondly, the matter of state “free carry” could be dropped.

At the time it was guessed that at least a year and a half would be the delay if two replacement Bills were to be drafted, separating mineral resources from oil and gas in the light of the fact that both have separate and very different BEE charters. The quicker alternative to bring some certainty was that temporary amendments to the existing Bill should be made.

Despite this, the Bill has just stuck right there, in the President’s office, until recently, now moving back togas exploration sea Parliament because, as is suspected, business leaders in their recent discussions with President Zuma must have drawn his attention to the continuing lack of lack of certainty in both industries because of unknown legislative changes about to occur and an apparent inability by Cabinet to give clear policy leads.

So where are we?

So as far as the MPRDA Bill is concerned, there is movement in the goods sidings but whether any train is about to start on a journey can only be known when a meeting is scheduled by the Portfolio Committee on Mineral Resources. Yet another minister is the train driver.

Previous articles on category subject

 

 

 

 

 

 

Posted in Cabinet,Presidential, Energy, Facebook and Twitter, Fuel,oil,renewables, LinkedIn, Mining, beneficiation, Special Recent Posts, Trade & Industry0 Comments

Mineral and Petroleum Resources Bill halted perhaps

Mineral and Petroleum Act extends State rights…

New MPRDA starts with 20% free carry, maybe more….

oil rigThe Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Amendment Bill, the legislation that will give the state a right to a 20% free carried interest in all new exploration and production rights in the energy field, has been passed by Parliament before it closed and sent to President Zuma for assent. According to press reports, new minister of mineral resources, Ngoako Ramatlhodi, may have halted the process by request, however, in the light of public sentiment and opposition moves to challenge the Bill’s legality.

Section 3(4) of the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act (MPRDA) currently states that the amount of royalty payable to the State must be determined and levied by the Minister of Finance in terms of an Act of Parliament. This Act, in force, is the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Royalty Act 28 of 2008 but considerable uncertainty always surrounded how this would work and what was actually meant.

Any uncertainty has now been removed and the MPRDA amendments now passed have brought to an end a process which started when the draft Bill was first published for comment in December 2012.

Beneficiation of minerals included

mine dumpThe legislation seeks to “regulate the exploitation of associated minerals” and make provision for the implementation of an approved beneficiation strategy through which strategic minerals can be processed locally for a higher value – the exact definition of the word “beneficiation” yet having to be defined.

Importantly, the new Act will give clear definitions of designated minerals; free carried interest; historic residue stockpiles; a mine gate price; production sharing agreements; security of supply and state participation generally.

Stockpiles and residues affected

The new Act also states that regulations will apply to all historic residue stockpiles both inside and outside their mining areas and residue deposits currently not regulated belong to the owners. Ownership status will remain for two years after the promulgation of the bill.

In addition to the right to a 20% free carried interest on all new projects, ownership by the state can be expanded via an agreed price or production sharing agreements.

The NCOP concurred with Bill on its passage through Parliament and made no changes.

Legal commentators note that the Royalty Act, at present in force, triggers payment in terms of the MPRDA upon “transfer”, this being defined as the consumption, theft, destruction or loss of a mineral resource other than by way of flaring or other liberation into the atmosphere during exploration or production.

The Royalty Act differentiates between refined and unrefined mineral resources as “beneficiation”, this being seen as being important to the economy; incentives being that refined minerals are subject to a slightly lower royalty rate.

Coal and  gas targeted maybe

Nevertheless it appears, commentators note, that in terms of mineral resources coal is being targeted and also zeroed in on is state participation in petroleum licences. Others have pointed to the possible wish of government to have a state owned petroleum entity such as PetroSA to be involved fracking exploration.

Earlier versions of the Bill entitled the State to a free carried interest of 20% and a further participation interest of 30%, with the total State interest capped at 50%; however, the version that Parliament approved removed the reference to a 30% participation interest as well as the limit of 50%, effectively giving the State the right to take over an existing petroleum operation, law firm Bowman Gilfillan explained in a media release earlier this month.

Democratic Alliance (DA) Shadow Minister of Mineral Resources, James Lorimer said in a statement that the Act, “would leave the South African economy in a shambles”, adding that this would lead to people losing their jobs.

The DA has said it has now begun a process to petition President Zuma, in terms of Section 79 of the Constitution, to send this Bill back to the National Assembly for reconsideration,” he said.

Chamber opinion differs

Surprisingly, the Chamber of Mines stated that it “generally welcomed and supported” the approval of the MPRDA Amendment Bill, adding that it believed significant progress had been made in addressing the mining industry’s concerns with the first draft of the Bill, published back in December 2012.

Clearly the mining and petroleum industries particularly gas exploration industries, both of whom have separate equity BEE charters, are still very much at odds on the effects of the promulgation of such an Act, as is DA and the ANC.

Other articles in this category or as background

http://parlyreportsa.co.za//bee/mprda-bill-causes-contention-parliament/

http://parlyreportsa.co.za//bee/major-objections-minerals-and-petroleum-resources-bill/

Posted in BEE, cabinet, Energy, Facebook and Twitter, Fuel,oil,renewables, Justice, constitutional, LinkedIn, Mining, beneficiation, Public utilities, Trade & Industry0 Comments

MPRDA Bill brings changes in BEE and exploration rights

BEE consolidated

coal miningMoses Mabuza, when briefing Parliament on the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Amendment (MPRDA) Bill, told parliamentarians that amongst the many issues proposed by the new Bill an important issue was the setting up of penalties for non-BEE compliance across both the mining and liquid fuel sectors.

However, he said that he was confident that all stakeholders in the both industries would look back on a their association with black empowerment with understanding and pleasure, despite the opposition to the Bill on various differing and wide-ranging issues at present.

Bill will create right environment

Mabuza, who is deputy director general, mineral and policy promotion,department of mineral resources (DMR), said industry will be surprised see how much this legislation in the years to come will have contributed  to the country’s development, both in the mining, liquid fuels industry and business in general.    He told told the portfolio committee on mining resources, when briefing MPs on the Bill page by page, that it was important to understand government’s viewpoint as far as the oil and gas industry is concerned.

“We want to see that no partnerships created by the Bill are mutually exclusive or self interested”, he said. “We wish to create an environment where the state participates together with mining and gas industry with nation’s developmental objectives in mind.”

Blank cheque

“We give you the assurance”, Mabuza said, “that any regulations which are to follow will provide the kind of certainty sought in both the mining and petroleum industry”.

Opposition members still called to see the basis of the regulations first before further debate, since they claimed that at present, and as things stood, the wording of the Bill amounted to giving the state “a blank cheque” by not knowing what regulations were to be imposed.

The minister objected to this, saying that trust was called for and DMR would sit down with other departments and stakeholders and agree upon regulations within the framework  of the Act. “This is the only way things can work”, Mabuza said. “That is why the Act is a framework, with us all working from this plan.”

Working with stakeholders

In tracing the history of the MPRDA, deputy Mabuza and his co-presenter for policy development in DMR, Adrian Arendse, continually referred to stakeholder meetings throughout the process over the years, including stakeholder workshops where the various parties consulted were broken down into sectors such as environmental, petroleum industry, mining industry, finance and bankers and legal interests.

“We received commendable inputs from these workshops and in an overall sense, particularly where mining and petroleum was concerned and we have received both consensus and support for the proposals now before Parliament.”

Not conducive

Opposition parliamentarians denied this saying from what they had heard that there had not been overall consensus on many issues and the complete lack of uncertainty.   Lack of clarity on state motives was a total disincentive to investors, commented one MP.    Said another opposition MP, “Mining industry representatives have said in the media that this Bill will not grow the industry, so tell us why you think it will.”

Deputy director Mabuza, in response, again gave assurances from government that the proposed Bill represents no fundamental shift in government policy. He said clarity and certainty would follow in the course of time as regulations became evident.

Different horses on courses

Further on BEE matters, questions were asked on how government intended putting into force a parallel BEE charter that incorporated the liquid fuels charter, which called for less than 10% ownership as a target, and the mining charter which was at 27%, plus other anomalies.   One MP said that in gas exploration there were enormous developmental costs and the charter made no sense on these issues.

Mabuza said he was aware of the “vast differences” between the two documents and this would have to be discussed in rounds of talks to come and considered carefully. Some of those talks had already started, not referring with whom and on what particular subject.

However, he said there were also big differences in the industries themselves, in both matters of beneficiation and style of operations. DMR wanted to land up in a situation where nobody was disadvantaged, either the poor or the investor.

Exploration rights change

On exploration rights, Mabuza said where the Bill really differed from previous regimes was that the “first come first served” principle in exploration and rights licensing was to be abolished totally. “This system leads to mediocrity”, he said. “We have learnt much over the 15 years with such licensing regulations, during which time South Africa has lost it share in global resource exploration, going from 3% to a current 1%. We do not wish to go down this road any longer”, he said on licensing.

“The first person served often meets the absolute minimum requirements and in so many cases, South Africa has had years of brownfields investments and never the greenfields operations that number 5 or 20 in the queue might have offered for a license on the same project. Mediocrity resulted and South Africa has suffered consequently”, he said.

Mining and energy split

In answer to questions on the liaison between DMR and the department of energy (DOE), Mabuza described the sphere of control under the MPRD Act as being simply a question of “downstream” energy resources being for DOE and “upstream” matters on exploration mining licences and industry regulations being for DMR.  Obviously, he said, environmental issues were handled by those competent to do so.

Mabuza said that in coming up with the proposed Bill, DMR had consulted with, or observed, the practices of Canada, Angola, Ivory Coast, Russia and Gabon but opposition members complained that the process of consultation or observation meant absolutely nothing.   They want to know who DWEA had listened to in coming up with the current proposals.  Those before Parliament said they had made their own decisions and stakeholders had been involved along the road in discussions, particularly in the mining industry.

Planned for the future

Mabuza said that South Africa “remained the wealthiest mining and exploration production country in the world and with Africa reaching never-before, unprecedented levels of geo-political stability, the future was bright.   “We have designed legislation that takes both the state and our developmental economy into that future”, he said.

On the subject of penalties in the area of BEE non-compliance, opposition members complained that such contributed further to red tape, political uncertainty and investor complications.    Mabuza denied this and told parliamentarians that any penalties written into the Bill were a maximum sum only “and in any case”, he said, the 10% maximum still represented ‘just petty cash’ for most mining companies”.

“We had to bring in some form of penalty where shareholders were alerted to non-compliance otherwise management just carried on regardless of regulations or compliance issues”, Mabuza said.

Refer previous articles in this category
http://parlyreportsa.co.za//uncategorized/mineral-and-petroleum-development-bill-grabs-resources/
http://parlyreportsa.co.za//energy/draft-mprda-bill-for-comment/

Posted in BEE, Energy, Enviro,Water, Facebook and Twitter, Fuel,oil,renewables, LinkedIn, Mining, beneficiation, Trade & Industry0 Comments


This website is Archival

If you want your publications as they come from Parliament please contact ParlyReportSA directly. All information on this site is posted two weeks after client alert reports sent out.

Upcoming Articles

  1. MPRDA : Shale gas developers not satisfied
  2. Environmental Bill changes EIAs
  3. Border Mangement Bill grinds through Parliament

Earlier Editorials

Earlier Stories

  • Anti Corruption Unit overwhelmed

    Focus on top down elements of patronage  ….editorial….As Parliament went into short recess, the Anti-Corruption Unit, the combined team made up of SARS, Hawks, the National Prosecuting Authority and Justice Department, divulged […]

  • PIC comes under pressure to disclose

    Unlisted investments of PIC queried…. When asked for information on how the Public Investment Corporation (PIC) had invested its funds, Dr  Daniel Matjila, Chief Executive Officer, told parliamentarians that the most […]

  • International Arbitration Bill to replace BITs

    Arbitration Bill gets SA in line with UNCTRAL ….. The tabling of the International Arbitration Bill in Parliament will see ‘normalisation’ on a number of issues regarding arbitration between foreign companies […]

  • Parliament rattled by Sizani departure

    Closed ranks on Sizani resignation….. As South Africa struggles with the backlash of having had three finance ministers rotated in four days and news echoes around the parliamentary precinct that […]

  • Protected Disclosures Bill: employer to be involved

    New Protected Disclosures Bill ups protection…. sent to clients 21 January……The Portfolio Committee on Justice and Constitutional Affairs will shortly be debating the recently tabled Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill which proposes a duty […]