Prospecting in Queensland just got much more expensive

Frik Els | January 13, 2012 | 7:55 pm Energy Australia Europe Coal Iron Ore 

The Australian reports the Queensland government is going after speculative prospecting by what the state treasurer termed two-dollar shell mining companies, slapping the industry with $375 million in additional fees.

Under the radical new rules competitive cash-bidding auctions for mining exploration permits – primarily for coal – will replace the flat $1,030 application fee in force currently.

The Australian reports:

“What we see at the moment is because of the resources boom a lot of two-dollar companies have come into the range — or shell companies, they’re out there trying to get resources permits because it’s easy for them to get a grant and then try to talk it up on the stock exchange,” Mr Fraser [State Treasurer] said.

The Sydney Morning Herald reports on the reaction in the industry:

Queensland Resources Council said the charges would hit junior miners most. The chief executive of the lobby group, Michael Roche, said the $370 million in new charges by 2014-15 was ”predicated on a flawed assumption that minerals and energy companies are bottomless cash pits”.

The new charges and levies in the state come on top of a carbon tax which will force Australia’s top 500 polluting companies to pay a tax of $24.50/tonne on carbon emissions from July 2012 and a new minerals resource rent tax (MRRT) set at an effective 22.5% rate on the so-called super-profits of the extractive industries.

Mining.com Recommends

3 Comments

  • Freeman65

    Another Stupid Government that does not realize that high taxes kills all business.

  • Athamm

    Actually not a bad idea. Some of the junirs are so woefully undercapitalised they present real comercial risk to their staff, contractors and suppliers…..

    This will cull the specs from the serious…

    Such is capitalism. You bid I raise.

  • in-app payments

    Really good post. I really appreciate your effort to bring out this informative post. Yes, Athamm, I agree with your point of view.

    • More News