JOHANNESBURG (miningweekly.com) – The proposed amendments to the Minerals and Petroleum Resources Development Act (MPRDA) suggested by the Department of Minerals and Energy (DME) in terms of rights to mineral dumps would not cover the gap exposed in terms of the Jagersfontein case, a senior legal manager said on Monday.

A December ruling in the Bloemfontein High Court found that the MPRDA did not apply to all of South Africa’s old mine dumps, when a case was brought to court in which diamond giant De Beers contested a decision by the DME to grant prospecting rights to Ataqua Mining, over dumps at De Beers’ Jagersfontein mine, in the Free State.

In their ruling, the presiding judges set aside the granting of the prospecting rights, noting that the provisions of the MPRDA did not apply to the Jagersfontein dumps.

Speaking at a Mining Law Update conference in Johannesburg, Anglo Platinum senior manager of legal resources Mpho Matjila stated that the DME had attempted to fill this gaping hole through amendments to the MPRDA.

The DME added to the definition of residue stockpiles and residue deposits to include “old order rights”. Matjila stated that old order mining rights was a concept of the MPRDA, and not the Minerals Act. As the MPRDA did not apply to dumps as it currently stood, the amendment regarding old order rights could also not apply to dumps.

The Jagersfontein case brought to the fore the issue of residue stockpiles and dumps, when the State sought to include dumps within the definition of residue stockpiles. However, the definition of residue stockpiles was the debris or discard of tailings, which could only be disposed of by holders of a mining right or mining permits, which could only be awarded under the MPRDA.

Matjile said that materials dumped before the date of conversion was therefore restricted from the definition of residue stockpiles.

A second amendment which was proposed by the DME, which dealt with the discard of stockpiles, stated that when a company was no longer interested in retrieving and retreating residue deposits, it would be done through the cancellation or termination of prospecting or mining rights. As both of these would again have to be granted in terms of the MPRDA, the amendment could not cover the gap.

In terms of the MPRDA, minerals are defined as naturally occurring on earth. However, since mining dumps are a result of mining activity, and therefore not natural, minerals found in the dump are not classified as naturally occurring, and therefore not covered by the Act.

Matjila noted that once minerals have been severed from the earth, the minerals became moveable and fell subject to separate ownership, which meant that the dumps could be privately owned.

He added that the MPRDA did also not apply to the mining or retreating of the dumps, as there were legally, no minerals in those dumps.

To subscribe to Mining Weekly's print magazine email subscriptions@creamermedia.co.za or buy now.