8th Janury Notice of intention to grant prospecting licences

Oldtree

http://www.dcenr.gov.ie/NR/rdonlyres/6A09D2DF-BF76-4EB2-A3BC-2DCD8DD9333E/0/Adverttograntfile3057AdventusExplorationLtdmd18122013.doc

Objections within 21 days if you feel it necessary Townlands in Kilmaine Barony, ballinrobe Neale etc

TopTec

Oh my Gawd... What next?

I knew that the aircraft that flew up and down the area for days last summer would not result in good news for Joe Public in general.

http://www.tellusborder.eu/Frequently+Asked+Questions.htm

I have read somewhere that there have been large areas containing gold deposits in the North West found during these surveys.

Surely they just can't enter onto land and start drilling?

TT

Oldtree

In a word yes! but only prospecting not actual mining, that will follow later after a further process should a find be made. I don't like the idea of a mine in my back garden we have enough trouble with water and illegal quarries as it is, but cannot think of a rational reason for objection, it was easier to object to Croagh Patrick being got at.

from FAQ here
http://www.dcenr.gov.ie/Natural/Exploration+and+Mining+Division/FAQs/

Does a licensee have the right to enter onto someone's land?

Yes. Under the 1940 Act, a licensee is entitled “...to enter on such land [...] and there do all such things as the licensee considers necessary or desirable for the purpose of ascertaining the character, extent, or value of the minerals lying on or under such land, .... and take and remove reasonable quantities of any such minerals for the purpose of analysis, test, trial or experiment”. However, a Licensee is required to carry out this work “......in such manner as not to interfere unnecessarily with the amenities of the locality .....”. Also, when a Prospecting Licence is being issued, the licensees are instructed that before exercising the rights of entry conferred by the Licence, they should, as far as may be practicable, discuss with the landowner or the surface occupier their intention to enter on the property and to carry out certain prospecting work there. This is explained in teh "Guidelines for Good Environmental Practice in Mineral Exploration" issed to licence holders. In addition, licensees are liable under the Minerals Development Acts to pay compensation should they cause any damage to land, minerals, or water supplies, or cause a nuisance by their prospecting

How does a person lodge an objection following the publication of a Notice indicating the Minister's intention to grant a prospecting licence?

A person can register an objection (indicating the detailed grounds) to the Exploration and Mining Division (EMD) of the Department within 15 working days or 21 days of the “Notice of Intention to Grant a Prospecting Licence” appearing in the local newspaper. All objections will be considered by the Department and a written response will issue in a timely manner. The Minister reserves the right to make details of any objections received available to the licence applicant where he/she considers necessary, in order to consider fully the validity of any objections received’.

Mayo Miss

How far down do I have to dig? I live in one of the townlands mentioned!

I wonder would Argos take an IOU for a metal detector....

irishgeo

Mayo Miss wrote: »

How far down do I have to dig? I live in one of the townlands mentioned!

I wonder would Argos take an IOU for a metal detector....

regardless you dont own what down there anyway. the government does.
.

Mayo Miss

irishgeo wrote: »

regardless you dont own what down there anyway. the government does.
.

If I do a bit of digging to plant a few flowers and happen to come across a big (or small) lump of gold I sure as heck ain't asking the government if they'd like me to pass it onto them. I'm off to cash for gold or a goldsmith to have something nice made up.

Oldtree

irishgeo wrote: »

regardless you dont own what down there anyway. the government does.
.

hasn't stopped the illegal quarrying on limestone pavements has it?

irishgeo

Mayo Miss wrote: »

If I do a bit of digging to plant a few flowers and happen to come across a big (or small) lump of gold I sure as heck ain't asking the government if they'd like me to pass it onto them. I'm off to cash for gold or a goldsmith to have something nice made up.

true , but if they find a deposit of gold. its tough luck for you.

Oldtree wrote: »

hasn't stopped the illegal quarrying on limestone pavements has it?

whats this?

Oldtree

irishgeo wrote: »

whats this?

I was referring to the lack of control of illicit quarrying here in mayo, an asset that apparently belongs to the government, and the rest of Ireland. It was attempted to be brought under control by section 261 in 2004 (that was a flop) and again in Section 261 (A) 2010 that has many of these quarries now in ABP. This issue is being closely monitored by the EU, who are aghast at the destruction of limestone pavements (protected under 1992 eu legislation) and the damage to ground water, nearness to sac nha etc.

A quarry (to be legitiamised) would need to prove pre 1964 workings. Very few did and spurious evidence was accepted by the council leading to registrations. there were 109 registrations applications in 2004 and 118 listed in 2010 in Mayo alone. Ariel photographs (which the council has access to) and residents submissions were also ignored by the council in favour of spurious letters from operators, also ignored were the councils own enforcement records and an unwillingness to get 1977 aerial photographs from the OSI, compounding all this was clerical errors of omission.

The main difference between the 2004 farce and the 2010 farce is that after the council had made a decision it could be appealed to ABP by someone who made a submission, this was specifically not allowed in the 2004 legislation, I wonder why?:rolleyes:

Oldtree

From here:
http://www.environ.ie/en/DevelopmentHousing/PlanningDevelopment/Planning/Quarries/

list of all quarries under review in Ireland

http://www.environ.ie/en/Publications/DevelopmentandHousing/Planning/FileDownLoad,33443,en.xls

Oldtree

Came across these gold miners in an ad in Pheonix

"A series of major gold targets have been discovered by Conroy Gold along this 30 mile trend and licences granted which give security of tenure. The Company is now planning its first operational gold mine in the area."
http://www.conroygoldandnaturalresources.com/
map
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/map-reveals-new-gold-concentrations-in-ireland-29697553.html
opencast mine preference
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/the-search-is-on-for-gold-in-the-stony-grey-soil-of-ireland-s-border-counties-1.1612192
GSI gold cd
http://www.gsi.ie/Programmes/Minerals/Collaborative+Projects/Gold+CD.htm

Tea Tree

well hey my townland is mentioned.
I defy anyone to try to dig for anything in my back garden Even the dog has trouble with it. There's an awful lot of (very obvious) archeology in some of the areas mentioned.
Have they given up on Clontibret/ Monaghan?
Right I'm off to the river with a sieve.

nuac

Oldtree wrote: »

I was referring to the lack of control of illicit quarrying here in mayo, an asset that apparently belongs to the government, and the rest of Ireland. It was attempted to be brought under control by section 261 in 2004 (that was a flop) and again in Section 261 (A) 2010 that has many of these quarries now in ABP. This issue is being closely monitored by the EU, who are aghast at the destruction of limestone pavements (protected under 1992 eu legislation) and the damage to ground water, nearness to sac nha etc.

A quarry (to be legitiamised) would need to prove pre 1964 workings. Very few did and spurious evidence was accepted by the council leading to registrations. there were 109 registrations applications in 2004 and 118 listed in 2010 in Mayo alone. Ariel photographs (which the council has access to) and residents submissions were also ignored by the council in favour of spurious letters from operators, also ignored were the councils own enforcement records and an unwillingness to get 1977 aerial photographs from the OSI, compounding all this was clerical errors of omission.

The main difference between the 2004 farce and the 2010 farce is that after the council had made a decision it could be appealed to ABP by someone who made a submission, this was specifically not allowed in the 2004 legislation, I wonder why?:rolleyes:

Good post.

One difficulty for the council in taking action against quarries is getting local evidence.

Many neighbours will phone or write into the council, or complain to councillors.

If the council propose proceedings e.g. an injunction application and need evidence from locals e.g. the extent of any activity pre 1.10.64, local selective amnesia can break out. Potential witnesses lose interest. In most rural areas there is a network of relationships - family, sport, political going back generations. Often only new arrivals in the area will attend court, and their evidence on some disputed points would be hearsay.

If the offending developer is from the same area or has strong connections there it becomes even more difficult to get the evidence.

While Council enforcement staff may be anxious to go to court, council administrators are often anxious about possible liability for costs if case not proven. If the neighbours are not willing witnesses the council may not wish to take the risk

Chisler2

In other words - the land can be raped and pillaged (yet again!!!!) because its people turn a blind eye, do nothing, and condone corruption and exploitation. Incidentally, the "300 jobs" the prospective mining would produce would be literally as "hewers of wood and drawers of water".........unskilled labour............whilst the profits to (as usual!) to multinationals abroad. Terrible.

Oldtree

nuac wrote: »

Good post.

One difficulty for the council in taking action against quarries is getting local evidence.

Many neighbours will phone or write into the council, or complain to councillors.

If the council propose proceedings e.g. an injunction application and need evidence from locals e.g. the extent of any activity pre 1.10.64, local selective amnesia can break out. Potential witnesses lose interest. In most rural areas there is a network of relationships - family, sport, political going back generations. Often only new arrivals in the area will attend court, and their evidence on some disputed points would be hearsay.

If the offending developer is from the same area or has strong connections there it becomes even more difficult to get the evidence.

While Council enforcement staff may be anxious to go to court, council administrators are often anxious about possible liability for costs if case not proven. If the neighbours are not willing witnesses the council may not wish to take the risk

You have hit the nail on the head there. It is indeed a tangled web in rural places here. But in addition to that it is impossible to ignore the lack of administration within the 261 scheme. Aerial photos, maps and financial/tax information is what is required for an operator to prove both the pre 1964 operation and continuous use since then. That is where the 1977 aerial photos really came into their own (and 1995 ones too), but these requirements were ignored by the council here.

lets play spot the quarry (one of many I can point to):

1995
http://maps.osi.ie/publicviewer/#V1,522814,758175,6,5
2000
http://maps.osi.ie/publicviewer/#V1,522814,758175,6,4
2005
http://maps.osi.ie/publicviewer/#V1,522814,758175,6,0
2009
https://maps.google.com/maps?q=neale+mayo&hl=en&ll=53.567714,-9.165795&spn=0.007391,0.017896&hnear=The+Neale,+County+Mayo,+Ireland&t=h&z=16

Old quarry there in the 50's but filled in, letter on planning file by owner at time.
Bought by the current operator in 1998.
achieved registration in 2004ish despite local submissions and lack of any evidence.
Applied to ABP and got planning "based on the strong weight given to the section 261 registration" :rolleyes:

follow the travesty of a story here:
Mayo council planning file
http://www.mayococo.ie/PlanSearch/mcc4/PlanningViewer/displayafile.asp?filenum=07787&la=1
ABP files
http://www.pleanala.ie/casenum/228880.htm

No sign of the 261 or 261A planning files online here in Mayo.

nuac

OK Noted

Can't recall ever seing 1977 OS aerial photos, but I could be wrong.

I recall some aerial photography on small scale, black and white. When enlarged for court they were too indistinct.

As the appointed day 1.1o,14 is nearly 50 years ago it is becoming increasingly difficult to establish the existence and scale of any activity then.

Becoming a bit like the Night of the Big Wind

Oldtree

I have seen 1977 ariel photos and they are easily got, just ring the osi and they will put you on to a very helpful man that u can email a map to you of the area you want photo of, he will then send you 1977 photo after payment, and they are just as clear as the osi 1995 photos, which are clear enough to spot a quarry, see the previous osi photos listed above (to scale and zoom in on them to get an idea of the detail that can be seen on the ground). Existence in 1950 dosn't really matter when proof of continuous use after 1964 to the 2000's is what is really required to register a quarry.

It just requires the necessity of real proof to fall on the operator, which is the spirit of the law, but that has not appeared to matter to the council.