National Mineral Policy 2006 - Department of Mines

permissible activities in order to make the reconnaissance operation more conclusive. Section3 of the MMDR Act specifically excludes pitting, trenching, subsurface excavation, ordrilling (except drilling of bore holes as specified by the Central government) from thedefinition of reconnaissance operations. The Committee headed by the Additional Secretary,Ministry of Mines, mentioned in paragraph 4 of the Introduction, was in agreement with theview that some amount of pitting, trenching, and surface drilling needs to be allowed.However, there is also the view that RPs that permit too much exploration are counterproductivein that they tend to be used as PLs on smaller areas while leaving large areasunexplored. For this reason, prospecting activities such as pitting and trenching wereexcluded from the RP from the beginning. Clearly, RPs that permit any activity beyondregional exploration (such as pitting, trenching, and surface drilling) cannot be non-exclusivein nature as this would tend to produce anarchy on the ground with a number of parties tryingto prospect at or near the same spot at the same time. Further, there are certain technologiesnow available for more intensive regional exploration such as deep imaging andelectromagnetic probing, which are very expensive and not likely to be used by a nonexclusiveRP holder. It is, therefore, necessary to balance the pros and cons of a nonexclusiveRP vis-à-vis an exclusive concession. In this background, it is proposed that inaddition to the non-exclusive RP the earlier concept of an exclusive LAPL be reintroduced,with the conditionality of exploration technology and expenditure being not only severe butalso laid down in great detail in the MCR and applied rigidly. In such LAPLs, not only wouldpitting, trenching, and surface drilling be automatically permitted (as they are PLs meant fordetailed exploration) but also the use of other expensive technical innovations for regionaland detailed explorations would be automatically encouraged. This could include aerialsurvey using technologies superior to those used by GSI. Thus, while LAPLs may not begranted for entirely greenfield areas (except on technology considerations) the reconnaissancedata to be furnished need not go beyond GSI’s P2-level data. The MCR will need to lay downdata requirements in rigorous detail. It goes without saying that in the case of the LAPLholder also the transfer to a ML will have to be seamless and assured as long as it is based onwork done by the LAPL holder in his area. The issue of differential treatment in respect ofarea and duration required for the LAPL is dealt with in subsequent paragraphs.1.42 Since the purpose of the RPs is to supplement the regional exploration work of GSIand other public sector agencies, such RPs would be given for areas on which GSI has notdone any exploration work at all (except geological mapping) or has abandoned the work28