The new Acts only distinguish between "metallic minerals" and...

The new Acts only distinguish between "metallic minerals" and "minerals" in a few isolated occasions.

The new Acts do not change the definition of "minerals" under the Mining Act 2010, which is:

“mineral” means any substance, whether in solid, liquid or gaseous form, occurring naturally in or on the earth, or in or under the seabed formed by or subject to a geological process, but does not include petroleum or surface water;

The Mining Act 2010 also defines "metallic minerals":

“metallic minerals” means a group of minerals comprising of gold, silve, copper, iron, nickel, cobalt, tin, tungsten, zinc,chromium, manganese, titanium, aluminium, platinum group of metals and other metallic minerals;

I suggest that you review the new Acts. They are very clear about what sections apply to "minerals" and which provisions apply to "metallic minerals".

I am familiar with legal advice from top tier law firms. I note the omission in the announcement of a description of the risks and uncertainty that has been identified to the company.

I would be cautious about taking the position that "everything is awesome" or that it "doesn't apply" - particularly given the absence of Regulations that will be prepared by the same Einsteins that came up with the new Bills.