Re: Eskers, Aggregates, Claim Staking and Permits.
posted on
May 21, 2014 12:49PM
NI 43-101 Update (September 2012): 11.1 Mt @ 1.68% Ni, 0.87% Cu, 0.89 gpt Pt and 3.09 gpt Pd and 0.18 gpt Au (Proven & Probable Reserves) / 8.9 Mt @ 1.10% Ni, 1.14% Cu, 1.16 gpt Pt and 3.49 gpt Pd and 0.30 gpt Au (Inferred Resource)
"...there is the misunderstanding that KWG (or anyone else for that matter) has to stake mining claims in order to somehow have control over these things."
I see your point, RHammer. Staking under the Mining Act is not the way to get a permit to build a road. I think KWG is well aware of this. However, you bring the variable "intention" which the legislations you quote don't take into account.
By staking these esker claims, KWG (and Cliffs initially) did not want to start the process of building a road: the goal was to establish a corridor for the future (foreseeing obviously the eventuality of a road or rail to mine the Big Daddy property). Staking claims on eskers (or anywhere suited) is not illegal, with or without intention of drilling. And these claims don't give more than surface rights to the staker, and they do not allow the holder to build any road on them per se. As you know, Cliffs decided to mine its Black Thor 100% held property, and to use the corridor for its exclusive benefit. They applied for an easement which was the way to go under the Mining Act, which was considered an indirect expropriation by its partner KWG, hence the opposition, the hearing, the appeal... But again: KWG is absolutely not to blame as regards to delays in the RoF development. Else, I think that they are - with Noront - a most active, moving-forward actor on the RoF scene. Finger should be first pointed at the governments, FN, environmentalists... and still, at Cliffs' shilly-shallying!
GLTA.