Are the compensations given to mining enterprises due to the overlapping with other investments in Turkey enough? Expectations of compensation for profit deprivation

Abstract

Generally, there can be very high differences among the alternative investment costs of the other activity which overlaps with mining. This situation can oblige the overlapping of the alternative investments of these activities that overlap with mining in the available location with mining sites due to not being able to be preferred. There is no mistake in shutting down mining activities completely or partially in these kinds of investment overlaps. However, are mining operations, whose activities have been finalized due to not being foreseen beforehand and who experience investment loss, given compensation for profit deprivation and investment losses? Are the investment costs of mining operations covered precisely? In these kinds of investment overlaps in Turkey, particularly license and land use fees of mining enterprises are not paid, compensation for profit deprivation are not paid by considering proved mineral reserve, and investment costs are given only to a limited extent. This situation occurred e.g. in Izmir as a result of the overlapping of 15 mining operations with a highway investment project route. The expectation of mining enterprises in Turkey and the opinion of doctrine considering Turkish Constitution and legislative provisions are that all mining investment losses to met completely and compensation for profit deprivation to met to a certain extent. In the answers given to the question asked for mining enterprises through SurveyMonkey program in 2018, most of the enterprises request that compensation for lost profit is given from the proved reserved to a certain extent due to mineral reserve losses. Along with the available investment costs foreseen in Turkish Mining Regulation, several times more of six-month operating costs determined as profit deprivation in nationalizations can be given to all mining enterprises whose activities are terminated in these investment overlaps. Or, a different method can be applied in the calculation of compensation for profit deprivation. In this method, it is suggested that a new calculation for compensation for profit deprivation shall be made by considering pit sale prices and proved reserves. There are distinctions made as the operations -whose proved reserves are determined according to UMREK, The operations whose proved reserves are not determined according to UMREK (or whose proved reserves determined in mining operating projects), “mining enterprise whose proved mineral reserve is determined according to UMREK (congruent with CRIRSCO), or not determined according to UMREK (considered mining operating project in Turkey), “open-pit or underground mining operation” and “mining operation providing or not providing additional added value by processing the minerals in their country and facilities.” Considering these differences, it was suggested to apply different compensation rates.