National Mineral Policy 2006 - Department of Mines
National Mineral Policy 2006 - Department of Mines National Mineral Policy 2006 - Department of Mines
7.42 Despite the fact that SME mining is suboptimal, puts pressure on public utilities, andis not environment friendly, the SME sector represents almost 40 per cent of the current ironore mining industry. Therefore, the SME sector comprising stand alone miners will have tobe helped to overcome bottlenecks so that they become efficient miners. This can be donethrough a combination of regulatory and development measures. Unless stand alone minersare encouraged to produce and sell ore to local users in the market, both SME miners as wellas the downstream SME operations (sponge/pig iron units) will suffer.VIABILITY AND THE MULTIPLIER EFFECT7.43 As mentioned in paragraph 7.16 above, it has been claimed before the Committee bythe Indian Steel Alliance 4 and steel producers that iron ore at extraction cost yields substantialsavings, which are required for setting off against the high cost of infrastructure, freight, andenergy to make steel making a viable operation in India. However, this claim is contested bysteel makers who do not have captive mines and have to buy their iron ore at market pricesbut are still operating viably and making good profits. Their support for captive mines isdriven more by the need for a level playing field than by any need for cheap or free iron ore.Even if it is true that there are steel mills in the world that have captive mines the Committeeis also aware that the large steel makers of Japan and Korea purchase their iron ore on longtermcontracts from countries such as Australia and Brazil and are highly efficient in theproduction of steel. Hence the Committee concludes that viability of steel mills in generalcannot be linked to captive mining.7.44 As mentioned in paragraph 7.16, it is argued that the downstream use of steel isfundamental to much of manufacturing and infrastructure and if the multiplier effect of steelon downstream industry is considered then the value addition potential of steel is immense.However, the concern of the downstream user is not so much with the source from which thesteel comes as with the price at which it comes. If the price at which steel is sold is the(international) market price then it does not matter to the downstream user as to whoproduces the steel and whether the steel is imported or purchased locally. Thus the multipliereffect cannot be an argument for allocation of iron ore mines exclusively to steel mills.4 A representative body of the five primary steel producers in the country, namely SAIL, Tata Iron and Steel CoLtd (TISCO), Essar Steel, Jindal Vijayanagar Steel, and Ispat Steel.158
7.45 Finally, the argument presented is that steel makers with captive mines add muchgreater value than stand alone miners. A basic reality is that iron ore cannot be used for anypurpose other than steel making and its intermediates like pig iron and sponge iron. Standalone miners must also sell their product to steel makers and pig iron and sponge ironproducers. These steel makers and sponge/pig iron producers add the same value as the steelmakers with captive mines. In evaluating the value addition argument, the comparison has tobe of like with like. The value added by stand alone miners has to be compared with the valueadded by captive miners in their mining operations only and not in their steel makingoperations. The value added by steel makers with captive mines has to be compared with thevalue added by the steel maker without captive mines and not with stand alone miners. Fromthis perspective, there does not appear to be any rationale for reserving iron ore mines forcaptive operation.7.46 From the above discussion, the Committee concludes that a case has not been madefor allocation of iron ore mines to the steel plants for captive mining. The example of thesteel mills in East Asia and the mills in India that do not have captive mines show that captivemining is not a prerequisite for efficient production of steel. A thriving steel industry does notneed to rely on captive mining. However, captive mines are a reality in India, and many ofthem are run efficiently. At the same time, there are benefits that large-scale stand alonemining can bring that the country cannot afford to ignore, such as induction of advancedtechnology in exploration as well as optimum mining operations. It would be in the country’sinterest to have a mining regime in which space exists for both captive and stand alone mines.FINDING THE MIDDLE GROUND7.47 In the light of the discussions above, the Committee would recommend the following:1. Stand alone mining and captive mining should continue to co-exist in the country.The position should be reviewed in 2016–17 in light of the emerging situation ofestablishment of steel capacity in the country, on the one hand, and accretions tothe level of iron ore resources in the country, on the other. A view can be taken atthat time on whether the balance of advantage in the grant of LAPL/PL/MLshould be changed in favour of steel mills.2. Through appropriate changes in Section 11(3)(d) it should be clarified that in asituation of multiple applications for grant of iron ore LAPL/PL/ML, the existinginvestment in steel plants that have exhausted their current captive mines should159
- Page 118 and 119: was of the opinion that while the m
- Page 120 and 121: such an arrangement, the Ministry o
- Page 122 and 123: developed, controlled, and run by s
- Page 124 and 125: subject to overt and covert restric
- Page 126 and 127: consideration to the end use of the
- Page 128 and 129: (iii)parameters laid down in existi
- Page 130 and 131: Chapter 6Augmenting State Revenues(
- Page 132 and 133: the value addition question conside
- Page 134 and 135: In a system of ad valorem rates of
- Page 136 and 137: must provide revenues sufficient to
- Page 138 and 139: Box 6.1: Methods of Valuation of Ro
- Page 140 and 141: Another point to be borne in mind b
- Page 142 and 143: ailable, cognisable criminal offenc
- Page 144 and 145: e worked out. This should be string
- Page 146 and 147: 7.3 Considering the high-risk natur
- Page 148 and 149: Table 7.2: Minimum Listing Requirem
- Page 150 and 151: (ii)(iii)only. Such funds have not
- Page 152 and 153: addition, the minimum post-issue fa
- Page 154 and 155: and hence this ore should be conser
- Page 156 and 157: miners distort the market for their
- Page 158 and 159: 7.22 The current law does not make
- Page 160 and 161: is mostly of low grade magnetite. H
- Page 162 and 163: Most magnetite findings are entirel
- Page 164 and 165: in UK 206 kg, and in China it grew
- Page 166 and 167: metres. The use of down hole drill
- Page 170 and 171: also be a consideration. However, t
- Page 172 and 173: price, reduce profitability, and pu
- Page 174 and 175: IMPACT ON DOMESTIC IRON ORE PRICES
- Page 176 and 177: 7.58 Export of iron ore fines on a
- Page 178 and 179: POLICY ON BEACH SAND MINERALS7.64 B
- Page 180 and 181: not contain more than 0.1 per cent
- Page 182 and 183: 7.73 On 18 January 2006, the DAE no
- Page 184 and 185: with the Centre is mainly to ensure
- Page 186 and 187: India enterprise) reported that the
- Page 188 and 189: chloride process pigment technology
- Page 190 and 191: are disposed of in the mined-out ar
- Page 192 and 193: directed to ensure that the AERB/AM
- Page 194 and 195: would have to be carefully drafted
- Page 196 and 197: ‘In coordination with the Geologi
- Page 198 and 199: Exploration Licences• The current
- Page 200 and 201: • The fees should be significantl
- Page 202 and 203: surveys have been undertaken, the P
- Page 204 and 205: automatic until the exhaustion of t
- Page 206 and 207: y stating in the MMDR Act that a pr
- Page 208 and 209: departmental representative for sec
- Page 210 and 211: therefore (under Rule 63A), pass su
- Page 212 and 213: • Section 12(1) of the MMDR Act s
- Page 214 and 215: o The lessee should not be asked to
- Page 216 and 217: again and the State Mines Departmen
7.42 Despite the fact that SME mining is suboptimal, puts pressure on public utilities, andis not environment friendly, the SME sector represents almost 40 per cent <strong>of</strong> the current ironore mining industry. Therefore, the SME sector comprising stand alone miners will have tobe helped to overcome bottlenecks so that they become efficient miners. This can be donethrough a combination <strong>of</strong> regulatory and development measures. Unless stand alone minersare encouraged to produce and sell ore to local users in the market, both SME miners as wellas the downstream SME operations (sponge/pig iron units) will suffer.VIABILITY AND THE MULTIPLIER EFFECT7.43 As mentioned in paragraph 7.16 above, it has been claimed before the Committee bythe Indian Steel Alliance 4 and steel producers that iron ore at extraction cost yields substantialsavings, which are required for setting <strong>of</strong>f against the high cost <strong>of</strong> infrastructure, freight, andenergy to make steel making a viable operation in India. However, this claim is contested bysteel makers who do not have captive mines and have to buy their iron ore at market pricesbut are still operating viably and making good pr<strong>of</strong>its. Their support for captive mines isdriven more by the need for a level playing field than by any need for cheap or free iron ore.Even if it is true that there are steel mills in the world that have captive mines the Committeeis also aware that the large steel makers <strong>of</strong> Japan and Korea purchase their iron ore on longtermcontracts from countries such as Australia and Brazil and are highly efficient in theproduction <strong>of</strong> steel. Hence the Committee concludes that viability <strong>of</strong> steel mills in generalcannot be linked to captive mining.7.44 As mentioned in paragraph 7.16, it is argued that the downstream use <strong>of</strong> steel isfundamental to much <strong>of</strong> manufacturing and infrastructure and if the multiplier effect <strong>of</strong> steelon downstream industry is considered then the value addition potential <strong>of</strong> steel is immense.However, the concern <strong>of</strong> the downstream user is not so much with the source from which thesteel comes as with the price at which it comes. If the price at which steel is sold is the(international) market price then it does not matter to the downstream user as to whoproduces the steel and whether the steel is imported or purchased locally. Thus the multipliereffect cannot be an argument for allocation <strong>of</strong> iron ore mines exclusively to steel mills.4 A representative body <strong>of</strong> the five primary steel producers in the country, namely SAIL, Tata Iron and Steel CoLtd (TISCO), Essar Steel, Jindal Vijayanagar Steel, and Ispat Steel.158