【ferro-alloys.com】

  Mineral Resources and Energy Minister Gwede Mantashe has published for public comment draft Geoscience Act regulations relating to the compulsory submission of exploration data to the Council for Geoscience (CGS) and the dissemination of that data.

  The draft regulation includes a requirement for submission of all geoscience data older than 15 years by any entity or individual currently holding the data, which will have implications for existing companies, universities or retired geologists holding extensive archives of data, Amaranth CX director Paul Miller tells Mining Weekly.

  He agrees with the principle behind the regulations in that gathering and disseminating data is essential for the proper management of South Africa’s geological endowment and  to encourage exploration investment in South Africa, however, the regulations lack detail and afford controversial power to the CGS.

  Miller explains that, effectively, data now has to be dug up from archives of companies that are no longer in operation, or anyone who holds data of this sort, potentially at great expense.     

  Additionally, noncompliance can lead to prosecution, according to the draft regulations, while CGS officials have been afforded the legal right to gain entry to any property without any appropriate oversight mechanisms as are required by other organs of State, like the police.

  Miller points out that not only is a regulation doubling up on the data submission requirements that already exist within the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act (MPRDA), but it appears to be placing a burden on the private sector because of Department of Mineral Resources and Energy (DMRE) dysfunctionality and inability to manage and submit the same data to the CGS as is required by the MPRDA.         

  “There has to be some management of that process,” he highlights, adding that there is also a need for an administrative dispute resolution process on the matter, which there currently is no mention of in the draft regulations. We should not be sending scientists to prison for failing to submit academic research to the government.

  Miller further questions whether entities like city libraries or existing State museums will have to submit all the geoscience information that they may have, at the risk of committing an offence. “The definition of geoscience data in the regulations is so wide that museums might literally have to hand over their entire collections to the CGS.”

  Additionally, the regulation requires any geoscience researcher to register with CGS and submit all research data, but Miller questions whether this includes, for example, undergraduate students at universities, or amateur geologists and mineral collectors, and again at who’s expense and could these parties be sent for jail for not submitting data?

  Miller says he supports the data gathering principle, but that the regulations need a lot more detail and thinking around exactly how it will be implemented. “How, for example, is the holder of geoscience information supposed to know if the CGS does not already hold the data - must they also travel to a CGS office to find out? Would they even be able to find out if they did?”

  The regulations can perhaps be remedied by requiring the CGS to publish an online index of what information they already hold.

  He adds that the regulation also neglects to address the annual submission of drill cores, which have been included in the definition of geocience data, which are often analysed over multiple years, as well as percussion drilling samples. It is unlikely that the CGS even has the handling and storage capacity for all drill cores and samples, even if that is the intent of the regulations.

  Additionally, the regulations lack mention of how geological data that contains price sensitive information will be handled and how its disclosure may clash with stock exchange requirements.

  Speaking of price, Miller states that CGS ought not to profit from disseminating data, however, the draft regulation makes provision that CGS may charge any price it likes for the industry to access the data that the industry itself will be required to submit to the CGS at its own expense.           

  “Are they then going to sell the data at any price they like? Or just to cover the direct cost of dissemination, such as printing and copying? Is there some cooling off period between data submission while you are still exploring before others can access it?”

  Further, Miller says it is uncertain what CGS’ obligations are with the data, assuming they will even be able to manage it effectively. “If the industry has obligations to submit then the CGS should have obligations to disseminate too.”

  He remarks that current legislation requires the DMRE to submit data it receives within 30 days to the GCS, which has not been happening effectively and for which there is no consequence for the DMRE regional managers who are responsible for submission, and yet the public are to be held criminally liable if they do not submit data to CGS, Miller explains.

  Moreover, Miller states that it is unclear whether CGS will give preference to certain parties interested in geological information as it is rumoured that one has to be politically connected to currently access data or that there is a “back door” alternative market in CGS government data currently.

  “The regulation should require that the CGS develop and publish a policy on information dissemination that will be adopted by the council, at the very least.”

  He concludes that the regulation will be unworkable if geologists do not get on board by raising their concerns and making submissions.

• [Editor:Catherine Ren]