Saturday, September 6, 2008

New York Times Take on Free Entry Battle

Business/Financial Desk; SECTC
In Parts of Canada, Landowners Battle Prospectors
By IAN AUSTEN
1910 words
2 September 2008
The New York Times
Late Edition - Final
9
English
Copyright 2008 The New York Times Company. All Rights Reserved.

SOUTH FRONTENAC, Ontario -- When Peter Griesbach discovered someone had
chopped down trees at his weekend house to make crude posts staking out
a mining claim, he assumed he could rid his land of the uninvited
prospector relatively quickly. He was wrong.

Indeed, seven years later Mr. Griesbach is still campaigning to change
the provincial law that allows anyone who pays the equivalent of $23.50
to dig for pretty much any mineral on private property in much of rural
Ontario.

Historically high mineral prices have set off a new wave of prospecting
in Canada, and with it new battles over mineral laws, some of which
date to the 19th century. Under the so-called free entry system,
effective in much of Ontario, prospectors and miners have had
relatively unfettered access to private land in many areas.

Now, after decades of promises to modify the law from successive
governments, Mr. Griesbach and other landowners may finally find some
measure of relief.

After a highly publicized clash between an Indian tribe and a mining
company this year, which led to the jailing of one native leader,
Ontario's government said it would alter the law by December. But
change is so controversial that even the broad details of any
modification will not be worked out for some time.

British Columbia has had a rise in conflicts between landowners and
prospectors, too, as it experiences a similar mining boom despite
recent legal reforms in that province that have made it harder to
invade private land.

But the controversy has been most intense in Ontario, where it has also
led to increased divisions along economic, regional and class lines.

Many owners of homes and ''cottages,'' as weekend or vacation homes are
known here, as well as farmers and ranchers in southeastern Ontario,
where Mr. Griesbach has his cottage, are not keen to have their trees
chopped down, land dynamited and soil turned over.

But in the vast, and relatively unpopulated, northern part of the
province (where summer homes are usually called ''camps''), many
residents see increased mining as one of the few ways to avoid economic
ruin from the collapse of the pulp and paper industry there. Anything
with the potential to curb mining's expansion will meet with
significant opposition in that region.

Still, even some mining companies have started to feel a bit
embarrassed by the controversy. ''There's a recognition from our
members that private property owners deserve more rights than exist
under the current act,'' said Chris Hodgson, president of the Ontario
Mining Association, which represents large mining companies. ''I have a
lot of empathy for a cottage owner that's discovered someone staking
their property.''

The large mining companies represented by Mr. Hodgson, a former mines
minister, do conduct some exploration work. But most prospecting and
nearly all land conflicts involve small prospectors working on their
own or for tiny mining companies. In Ontario, anyone can become a
prospector provided they are at least 18 years old and have 25 Canadian
dollars, plus tax, to acquire a license.

''Claim staking is actually a pretty lucrative way of putting money
into your pocket,'' said Garry Clark, the executive director of the
Ontario Prospectors Association. But most people in the industry
acknowledge that the chances of any particular claim becoming a mine
are remote.

The promise of becoming rich through a mining discovery is enough for
prospectors, or their clients, to raise money through Canada's venture
markets or private investments, even though such efforts usually end in
disappointment. ''The odds are really against people,'' Mr. Clark said
from his office in Thunder Bay, Ontario, the largest city in the north.
''All we do is take money, not all of it our own, and then we gamble it
on one in 10,000 prospects.''

There are about 5,000 licensed prospectors in Ontario, but Mr. Clark
estimates that only 2,000 people actively engage in the business, and
many spend some of their time plying other trades, such as trapping or
logging.

The one in 10,000 odds apply to staked claims that show evidence of
mineral deposits. Neither Mr. Clark nor anyone else in the industry
could quantify the overall number of staked claims that become mines,
although all agree that they are small.

Canada's constitution does not provide property rights like those under
most American laws. Unlike Canada and many other countries, original
land grants in the United States included both mineral and surface
rights, making the fictional tale of the Clampett family as told in
''The Beverly Hillbillies'' at least legally plausible. While the
mineral rights were sometimes sold by landowners over times, most state
laws place limitations on prospecting.

Over the years, the Canadian provinces have retained various rights to
land they granted to private property owners. On some private land, for
example, the government still owns white pine trees, a law dating from
the era when their timber was valued as naval ships' sailing masts. The
law is no longer enforced.

More commonly, particularly in the north, the government retained all
the mineral rights underneath privately owned land.

Some landowners, mostly in the populous southern and eastern parts of
Ontario, were given both the surface and mineral rights to their
properties, depending on when the land was settled. But in many cases,
the mining rights reverted back to the government after an owner at
some point over the last 150 years or so failed to pay mining as well
as property taxes.

What owners do once they find out the limitations of their rights
varies.

After learning that the prospector had the right to wander around his
cottage and chop down trees, Mr. Griesbach, a real estate appraiser who
lives near Kingston, Ontario, initially responded by taking out his own
prospector's license.

Metal tags on the stakes on his land indicated that they had been
placed of behalf of A. David Houston, the president and chief executive
of Graphite Mountain, a company that was actually controlled by another
of Mr. Houston's firms, Diamond Lake Minerals.

(While incorporated in Utah, Diamond Lake was headquartered at Mr.
Houston's home in Warkworth, a town in eastern Ontario.)

Believing that Mr. Houston had not properly followed all of the
government's staking rules, Mr. Griesbach used his prospector's license
to file a counter claim on his own land. That challenge set off what
became a series of seven hour drives to Sudbury, Ontario, to attend
hearings before the Provincial Mining Recorder.

To further dissuade prospectors, Mr. Griesbach had part of his land
registered as a private firearms range with the federal government and
posted suitably frightening signs saying, in effect, that anyone
wandering on his land was in danger of being shot.

Down the road from Mr. Griesbach, Donald T. Loucks and his wife, Mary,
had also discovered Graphite Mountain's stakes on the lands surrounding
Long Pond Lake which they had gradually acquired over several decades.
The private lake had originally been the couple's summer cottage site
but they built a house and became full-time residents after Mr.
Loucks's retirement from the insurance business in Toronto.

The mining stakes were just the beginning. A woodlands preservation
group backed away from an agreement with the Loucks when it learned
about the mining claim. Shortly afterwards, Graphite Mountain moved
heavy mining equipment onto a claim across the road from the Loucks's
land and began blasting and drilling. For two summers, aerial survey
planes buzzed overhead.

''It was like being under siege,'' said Mrs. Loucks, whose husband died
just over five yearsago.

The situation drew to a legal stalemate and the exploration stopped.
While Graphite Mountain still holds claims in the area, the company
became inactive last September after the death of Mr. Houston.

By contrast, the dispute over a uranium mining claim not far from the
Griesbach and Loucks properties in North Frontenac, Ontario, continues
to escalate.

Frank and Gloria Morrison mounted a different counterattack than Mr.
Griesbach, after stakes from Frontenac Ventures appeared in 2006 on 100
acres of land they had retired to from Ottawa.

Much of Eastern Ontario, including North Frontenac, is the subject of a
complex and longstanding land claim launched by the Algonquin Indian
tribe. The Ardoch Algonquin First Nation, the local branch of the
tribe, soon joined in protests against the uranium mining project after
being contacted by Mr. Morrison.

Frontenac Ventures, a privately held uranium mining company based in
Oakville, Ontario, eventually obtained a court injunction to keep
protesters out of the areas it was exploring. But Bob Lovelace, the
chief negotiator for the Ardoch Algonquins and a lecturer at Queen's
University in Kingston, defied the order. He argued that he was
governed by Algonquin law. That defiance led to a six month jail
sentence and a 25,000 Canadian dollar fine against Mr. Lovelace.

Ultimately Mr. Lovelace served only 102 days in prison before the jail
order and fine were both struck down by an appeals court in a decision,
released in July, that rebuked the trial court for ignoring earlier
rulings related to native land claims. The appeals court also
criticized the current mining act for being ''remarkably sweeping.''

The ruling has not ended the dispute. Nor has it reduced Mr. Morrison's
resolve to block the project, a crusade that, he acknowledged, has
divided him from neighbors, generally lifelong residents of the area,
who see the mine as a potential source of jobs.

''We've got our life savings right here in this land and now it's
worthless,'' said Mr. Morrison, a professional musician and former
employee of the Canadian Police Association. ''I now understand what
makes a person an anarchist and what makes a person break the law.''

Exactly how the government will keep both the prospectors and
landowners happy with its revised mining act is unclear.

Michael Gravelle, the minister of mines, said the bill will only be
drafted following another in a long series of consultations now
underway. Any legislation, he said, will have to contain ''an
appropriate balance'' between landowner and mining interests.

George S. White, the president of Frontenac Ventures, which has spent
about 4 million to 5 million Canadian dollars on its project to date,
said it would be a mistake to limit miners and prospectors,
particularly in the current buoyant minerals market.

''The mining business in Ontario has been the backbone of the economy,
it has served the province well for 150 years,'' he said. ''In a
situation like this, the responsibility is on the landowner to find out
what they bought. We shouldn't be held up to ransom by somebody who
doesn't want mining.''

And although Mr. White has little sympathy for Mr. Morrison in
particular, the two men do share one thing: frustration.

''Had I known that this kind of opposition would develop, I would not
have got involved in the project,'' Mr. White said. ''It's something I
don't think anyone foresaw.''

PHOTOS: Peter Griesbach found trees on his property chopped down to
stake a mining claim. Years later, he is still fighting the
prospector.; A claim stake on Mr. Griesbach's property in Ontario.;
Like Mr. Griesbach, Mary Loucks also found claim stakes on her land.
After a legal wrangle, the exploration stopped. (PHOTOGRAPHS BY IAN
AUSTEN FOR THE NEW YORK TIMES)

Sunday, August 31, 2008

Media on Mining Act RdShow, Lovelace Confident Supreme Ct Will Vindicate Decision

Mining Act

August 29, 2008

THE PROVINCIAL MINISTRY OF NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT AND MINING WAS IN KINGSTON LAST NIGHT TO DISCUSS POSSIBLE UPDATES TO ONTARIO'S MINING ACT.

IT IS THE FOURTH STOP ON A FIVE CITY TOUR.

PROTESTORS CONCERNED ABOUT URANIUM EXPLORATION WERE ALSO THERE.

NEWSWATCH'S DARRYN DAVIS REPORTS.

ONTARIO'S MINING ACT IS OVER ONE HUNDRED YEARS OLD AND IN THE OPINION OF THE PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT IT'S TIME TO UPDATE AN OUTDATED SYSTEM.

A LARGE GROUP OF RESIDENTS FROM SHARBOT LAKE ALONG WITH MEMBERS OF THE ARDOCH ALGONQUINS FIRST NATIONS GATHERED AT OUTSIDE THE RADISSON HOTEL WHERE PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS ON THE MINING ACT ARE BEING HELD.

THEY'RE PROTESTING URANIUM EXPLORATION THAT'S OCCURRING IN THEIR AREA.

BOB LOVELACE SPENT OVER THREE MONTHS IN JAIL FOR PROTESTING WHERE FRONTENAC VENTURES IS EXPLORING FOR URANIUM ON LAND THE ARDOCH ALGONQUINS HAVE AN UNSETTLED LAND DISPUTE ON.

THE MINING EXPLORATION COMPANY IS NOW APPEALING THE DECISION THAT SAW LOVELACE RELEASED FROM PRISON.

BOB LOVELACE

"FRANKLY WE'RE ACTUALLY PLEASED THAT IT'S GOING TO THE SUPREME COURT BECAUSE THE APPELLANT COURT DECISIONS WERE SOUND AND THEY REMINDED PEOPLE THAT PUBLIC DECENT AND ABORIGINAL LAW IS A PART OF CANADA AND A PART OF THIS DEMOCRACY."

PROTESTORS SAY THEY WOULD LIKE TO SEE A MORATORIUM ON URANIUM MINING AND EXPLORATION.

WHILE THAT DOESN'T SEEM LIKELY REPRESENTATIVES OF THE MINISTRY OF NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT AND MINING SAY THEY ARE LOOKING FOR AS MUCH PUBLIC INPUT AS THEY CAN GET AT THEIR PUBLIC CONSULTATION MEETING.

KATHY NOSSICH

"THE MINING ACT DOES NOT DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN THE TYPES OF MINERALS FOR THE PURPOSE OF EXPLORATION SO IF PEOPLE HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT URANIUM EXPLORATION INCLUDING ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS THEN WE WELCOME HEARING THOSE CONCERNS."

BUT WILL EXPRESSING THOSE CONCERNS AT THE MEETING HAVE ANY EFFECT?

ROB MATHESON A KINGSTON CITY COUNCILLOR RECENTLY MET WITH THE MINISTER FOR NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT AND MINING AT A MEETING OF THE ASSOCIATION OF MUNICIPALITIES OF ONTARIO.

ROB MATHESON

"THE PROVINCE IS GOING AHEAD WITH THEIR NUCLEAR AGENDA SO TO SPEAK AT THIS POINT WHICH I CERTAINLY HOPE THEY'LL RECONSIDER, GIVEN THE AVAILABLE RENEWABLES AVAILABLE THAT WE KNOW CAN WORK THAT IT WOULD BASICALLY BE HYPOCRITICAL TO PUT A MORATORIUM ON URANIUM MINING AT THIS POINT."

THE RESULTS OF OF THE PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS WILL BECOME MORE CLEAR IN DECEMBER, WHEN THE GOVERNMENT IS EXPECTED TO TABLE IT'S MODERNIZED MINING ACT.

DARRYN DAVIS CKWS NEWXSWATCH KINGSTON.

Wednesday, August 27, 2008

Frontenac Applies for Leave to Appeal in S.Ct.

wonders never cease, wonder who is financing this? Where there is a
junior there is a major in the background.

Proverbs 10:7

The memory of the righteous is a blessing,
but the name of the wicked will rot.

Wednesday, August 13, 2008

Former Harris MNR Minister Hodgson( of Ipperwash fame) Stakes out Industry Line on Mining Act Change

((Existing mining tax revenue streams are a miniscule basis for First Nation revenue sharing.Let's hope NAN, tribal council and first nation brain trust has their eyes on the prize,

OMA hypes the 40 agreements with First nations but what do they say?

here's what they say( at the early exploration stage),
first we are sorry that we never thought to notify you( after all it is "free entry) when we flew those airborne surveys, disturbed your traplines and staked your lands,

but now that you have the internet and are even working with enviros and human rights activists and all matter of troublemakers and can read all our promotional nonsense and look at our maps and go online and check out mndm claimsmaps we better meet with you and offer to maybe( no firm promises) employ a few line cutters and drill helpers and an environmental monitor,

respect you if you say no to our project? see you in court.

Pay for your technical and legal advice to review our workplan? not on your life, if you have lawyers where would all the fun be?,

Archaeology? Maybe OK as long as it is not peer reviewed and we can use our tame consultants who write what we say,

Use your hotel and community cooks? better to make an exploration camp far from community view, outside of any oversight by MNR or health authorities and spill our fuel and human waste to our hearts content,

compensation for impacts on your treaty and aboriginal rights? are you kidding this is all low impact,maybe we won't work during the fall and spring hunt if you press us,

joint venture to act on all that partnership talk? what would you bring to the party? your land? We thought you surrendered your land. take up that jurisdiction matter with the government.

we will promise that if we ever find anything on your land we will make another agreement to maybe share some part of our pie
share in the huge run up in our stock values? no, that gravy is for our directors and brokers ))


COMMENTARY; OMA stakes out position on Ontario's boreal plan
Chris Hodgson
1186 words
11 August 2008
Northern Miner
4
English
Copyright 2008 Business Information Group. All Rights Reserved.

--In July, the Ontario government announced plans to bar development in about half of the province's boreal forest. The following is a letter from Ontario Mining Association President Chris Hodgson to OMA member companies that maps out the association's position on the plan.

Recently, Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty made an announcement concerning the launch of the Far North Planning Process. A land-use plan for the Far North has been requested by various groups for years and the lead-up to this announcement has taken some time. A fundamental principle of the Ontario Mining Association since its inception in 1920 has been to workproductively with the government of the day and, in keeping with this, we have been engaged in an ongoing dialogue on this issue.

You may recall a memo that was sent on June 21, 2007, outlining the points of concern regarding a proposed Far North Planning Initiative that the OMA discussed with various ministers, members of the civil service and political staff. Since that memo was sent, our discussions with the government have taken on greater depth and, lately, more urgency. But the essentials remain the same. The government is faced with a large task, which requires management of many competing interests. Recent media reports have given rise to mounting expectations for a radical overhaul of the rules around access to land by resource companies. While the OMA supports changes to improve the systems in place, our concern has been that the scope of the initiative not become overwhelming. If that happens, the task would be drawn out and largely unmanageable, resulting in irrational decisions and regulatory uncertainty.

The OMA directors had an opportunity to discuss some of our concerns and proposed messaging at the most recent meeting of the board. Over the last weeks, I have taken this message to various ministers and deputy ministers, the premier's office, as well as members of the environmental community, including the Canadian Boreal Initiative. The purpose of the meetings was to find common ground on a way to approach the complex issues involved in land-use planning in a way that is manageable for the government, environmental non-governmental organizations and the industry. I believe that the premier's announcement reflects some measure of this consensus on key issues for our sector.

Until recently, political statements and media reports were calling for a significant overhaul of the Mining Act. The OMA argued that the inevitably prolonged legislative uncertainty would significantly undermine the investment climate in the province. To retain some sense of certainty, we asked that the re-view process be tightly scoped and conducted over a limited time-frame. The wording of the announcement, as well as follow-up conversations with senior policy advisers at the premier's office, have confirmed that the review process will be focused on dealing with private land issues and aboriginal participation.

The consultation process on the Mining Act review is set to begin in August and proceed on a tight schedule. Given prior discussions on the issues at hand with the Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada, the Ontario Prospectors Association, and a wide group of stakeholders involved on the Ministers Mining Act Advisory Council, we believe that workable solutions are in sight. Nonetheless, even with the limited scope, we foresee an intense consultation process and we ask that our members offer up their expertise, so that we have a strong presence at the discussion table.

In proposing to protect 50% of the Far North boreal forest, the government has stated that existing land tenure, claims and leases will not be affected. It is also recognizing the fundamental need to strike a balance between conservation and development for the future. This precludes arbitrary selection of protected areas and calls for a rational approach to planning, which is supported with substantive data on the region's biodiversity, carbon sequestration potential, aboriginal cultural heritage, natural resource and mineral potential. Both the OMA and leading environmental groups like the Canadian Boreal Initiative support a rational approach to land-use planning. This is reflected in the government's commitment to comprehensive mapping of the region, which is expected to take 10 to 15 years.

Meanwhile, I urge OMA members to take an active part in the multi-stakeholder discussions on creating a framework for the government plan. Mining has a miniscule footprint on the landscape, but it does depend on broad-based access to land to identify mineral potential at the early exploration stage. I believe that there are useful jurisdictional models, including the Yukon and Northwest Territories, which demonstrate how certain low-risk activities can take place with limited or no screening, while overall stringent environmental protections are maintained.

Modern mining practices stress environmental protection and ecological conservation. There are numerous examples of progressive practices to protect species at risk -- the De Beers Canada woodland caribou study in the Attawapiskat area comes to mind -- in addition to other measures to protect the environment, which we can bring to the table in the interest of working out the best possible land-use plan for the Far North.

The mining industry has done much to develop productive and respectful relationships with aboriginal communities. More than 40 impact benefit agreements have been signed between mining companies and First Nations, providing for employment, infrastructure and economic development. We welcome the move by the government to clarify the rules around consultation with the First Nations. We expect that this will take place as part of the Mining Act review and that a consultation template will be embedded in the revised Act.

The OMA believes that all those impacted by mining activity should benefit from the prosperity that the industry brings. For that reason, we have been recommending that the government create a system of revenue sharing with First Nations communities that support mining as an acceptable land use on their traditional lands and territories. We have proposed that a base fund be established and be supplemented annually from existing mining tax streams. We have stressed that these contributions come from the existing taxes and that no tax rates be increased and no new taxes be added, as this would undermine the competitiveness of the sector. A similar proposal, which takes the OMA position into consideration, has been endorsed by the Ontario Mineral Industry Cluster Council. We welcome the government's plans to provide a down-payment towards Resource Benefit Sharing this fall.

In all, the OMA appreciates the level of access to government decision- makers that we have been granted over an extended period of time and the openness with which our positions on land-use issues and the proposed Mining Act review have been received. Ultimately, I believe that the Ontario government is taking a measured approach to a complex set of issues and we look forward to participating fully in the consultations that will inform the government's decision- making. To be truly effective, we will need significant input by our members, and we welcome your comments, suggestions and participation.

Industry Lines in Mining Act Change Process

1. Existing Mineral "tenures" will not be Disturbed( no matter the failure to discharge the duty to consult)

2. First Nation Land Use Planning will not Compromise Mineral Potential( consider govt expenditures on programs to map mineral potential and compare them to government programs for first nations)

3.Revenue Sharing Will Not Come out of Industry Profits( or we will take our money and run to some authoritarian state where the military can enforce industry property rights)

same as it ever was
advantaging the advantaged and disadvantaging the disadvantaged