Yeah, water rights are separate, but I guess anything else of value comes under mineral rights... maybe even fossils.

Generally if you're smart and have a good solicitor, they'll do searches which include checking on any mining claims on the land.

I'm not sure about this, but I also think the seller has a duty of disclosure to tell you of any such mining leases although now that i think about it, maybe not.

Both of those fall under the usual heading of a mining lease or claim. It's interesting that the value of the lease or claim is paid to the government and not the landowner in Australia.

From the looks of this thread, we have very different systems in place in Australia.

Sorry to quote myself, but it made me think of a relevant situation here at the moment.

You may have heard of the 'Wildlife Warriors' run by the Irwin family.

Well, a few years ago, the government gave them a chunk of land on Cape York to do with as they pleased, only they forgot to mention that a company called 'Cape Alumina' held a mining lease over the land in question.

Now Terry Irwin is fighting tooth and nail to stop the mine from going ahead, but she's not going to be successful. She lost the first round. Now they have to appeal, and it's really not going to be worth it. It's only a short term mine which is proposed, and they've got the capital to go ahead. There's no way the government's going to knock it back.

Wow, that sucks. A friend of mine was asking me why the State of Pennsylvania doesn't own the mineral rights under my place. He said it as a joke since he knows my... uh, tendency toward full property rights. The Irwin story is a unfortunate warning.:thepain: There must be some kind of environmental push back coming?

The land has no particular value to anyone. It's over run with ferral pigs which are harmful in just about every way you can imagine, and yet the Irwin group used the pigs as their reason for protecting the area. No wonder they lost.

The lease is for a bauxite mine which will only run for about 10 to 20 years, so in terms of mining, it's a very short project.

In Australia, you'll find the Irwins don't have anywhere near the profile they do overseas because we have to live with the consequences of some of their actions. While I agree that conservation is a good idea in theory, we must consider the notion of sustainable development if we're to ever get anywhere as a race. Unfortunately the Irwins are against development in general, even in areas where the environmental impacts will be minimal.

I wonder if they considered that when they chopped down heaps of trees etc to build 'Australia Zoo' and the carpark.

ETA: Dazza was one of the environmental scientists who worked on the study for the land on Cape York on behalf of the mining company so the info I'm giving you is first hand.

Is he proud of the fact that he crushed the dreams of the grieving widow and sweet, innocent, fatherless child?

Tyrannosaurus Sue was declared a "mineral", if I recall correctly, and was therefore awarded to someone other than the ones who discovered and recovered it, in another example of illogical legal convolutions about property. I was living in Connecticut when the New London story was unfolding and nobody I knew agreed with the court's decision.

I can't imagine any logical person agreeing with that travesty.:mad:

I don't think pride has much to do with it really. He provided environmental data which proved that their argument was not logical or particularly environmentally friendly either.

People need to use these resources. The mine is on a small portion of the land they've been given by the government.

Perhaps they should have considered the fact that there was an existing mining lease on the land before they stuck their hands out and accepted the gift.

BTW, I'd love it if the government gave me a nice big block of land to look at and supposedly do nothing with other than watch wildlife.