Search Documents

By P Audet, D Doley

The mining industry often embraces mine closure criteria that require the reinstatement of predisturbance or even presettlement (ie historic) ecosystems. However, the extent and severity of disturbance associated with most mining activities mean that critical physical and biological characteristics are irreversibly altered. Consequently, it is rare that a reconstructed landscape can support ecosystems even close to the historic condition, and this rarity is reflected in the small number of mine leases that have been extinguished by attainment of such completion criteria. Novel ecosystems are defined as those in which some or all physical and biotic components are irreversibly different from the historic condition. Recognition of the concept of novel ecosystems allows mine closure criteria to be set according to attainable physical and biological conditions that provide safe, stable and manageable environments with acceptable ecological functions. We propose that a landscape that first maximises physical stability and economy yet will provide a range of environments for vegetation communities and fauna habitats that may be very different from those existing prior to a disturbance should be considered suitable alternatives to, eg targeting idealised historic environments. As a result, mine closure criteria should be established by detailed description of the best attainable physical conditions, with negotiated identification and testing of the most appropriate biological systems for the various parts of the reconstructed landscape. As a general practice, revegetation would use native, but not necessarily local species if the new physical environment is not conducive to the survival and growth of local species. These new ecosystems would need to be managed in perpetuity, although the intensity of management might be low if landscape design and engineering are combined with appropriate species introductions. Here, we suggest an abbreviated procedure that may be adapted in light of local conditions and circumstances for guiding decisions influencing the physical and biological properties of reconstructed landscapes that will enable novel ecosystems to meet realistic closure criteria.CITATION:Doley, D and Audet, P, 2014. Changing restoration priorities in the 21st century – opportunities for novel ecosystem design in mine closure, in Proceedings Life-of-Mine 2014 , pp 649–662 (The Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy: Melbourne).

Jul 16, 2014

CSA mine, which is a deep level copper operation, located 12 km north of Cobar, NSW, currently uses a top down stoping method, utilising cemented hydraulic backfill (CHF) to fill and stabilise the stoping void thus assisting the extraction sequence. The stope sequence then requires development back through the CHF stope so that the necessary infrastructure for the subsequent stoping, such as raise bore pads can be sited. The primary and secondary support installed in the CHF consisted of 100 mm thick fibrecrete from floor to floor with 7 + 2.4 m long resin support tendons installed at 1.5 m ring spacing. This support system relied on the resin achieving a quality bond with the CHF, and also the fibrecrete developing early structural strength due to the use of an accelerator. In addition to the delays in the excavation turn around time, it was felt that a superior support system could be designed. Such a system was designed; risk assessed, tested underground, and trialled in selective CHF digouts, and eventually signed off as the chosen support method in CHF digouts. This paper discusses the change from a passive support system used in CHF digouts to an active support system using Swellex bolts and weld mesh, which has provided an active support system, that is superior, faster to install, reduced the excavation turn around time and is overall a cheaper support system.

Nov 25, 2010

By Nolan Eckroade, Nigel Pereira

Wireless electronic blasting systems are a new technology that enable truly wireless initiation through rock, air and water. This is achieved using low frequency magnetic induction waves to wirelessly send a firing command to groups of in-hole primers. Fully wireless initiation not only removes the limitations imposed by a wired connection to each primer in a blast, but also enables users to alter the paradigm of conventional mining techniques to advance operational productivity and reduce personnel exposure to high-risk activities. While initially deployed in underground applications, wireless electronic blasting is now being used in the open cut environment. To capture the early impacts in surface mining operations, case studies conducted at three surface mines evaluated blasts utilizing a wireless electronic blasting system against baseline blasts using conventional, wired initiation systems. The purpose of this paper is to outline the specific learnings associated with wireless electronic blasting in surface mining to date. The paper will include references to these specific case studies as well as benefits realized and applications for the future.

By D Frost, G Harbort, T Lipiec, N Deonarain

"The use of flotation columns has remained a contentious issue among mill operators. There are those who consider them an essential part of any mineral processing operation, while others consider them a necessary evil, which should only be installed if there is no alternative. Lastly, there are those who believe they should not be installed, no matter how great the perceived benefit.This paper provides an analysis of over 4000 installed flotation columns, contained in the Amec Foster Wheeler flotation database. Changing trends in column flotation use by type, commodity and geographical region are discussed. The effect of changing commodity prices and the China ‘phenomenon’ are reviewed. Special reference is made to the changing face of column flotation in Australia.Of note is the fact that after falling to a 20 year low in installed flotation column capacity in 2014, flotation columns during 2015 went through a resurgence in popularity. This resurgence was in direct contradiction to depressed metal prices and was driven by brownfield optimisations to reduce off-site costs, particularly in base metals. A case study is presented comparing the benefits of column flotation at high commodity prices with low commodity prices.Citation:Harbort, G, Deonarain, N, Frost, D, Lipiec, T and David, D, 2016. Changing Trends in Column Flotation Use - Their Impact for Australian Mill Operators, in Proceedings 13th AusIMM Mill Operators’ Conference 2016, pp 93–104 (The Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy: Melbourne)."

Oct 10, 2016

By A E. Petts

Record iron ore prices and a renaissance of infrastructure in the Pilbara have Flinders Mines poised to move from explorer/developer to an iron ore producer. The potential of the company’s Pilbara Iron Ore Project was first highlighted by the announcement of Rio Tinto’s Caliwingina North deposit to the north and the Fortescue Metals group’s Serenity deposit in the southeast. The success of Flinders Mines’ exploration has been based on incorporating landscape studies into an existing geological framework, and using this to understand the iron-rich materials that were emplaced during the Tertiary. The development of the Delta and Eagle deposit resource models highlights this process. There are three main mineralisation styles at the project; detrital iron, channel iron and bedded iron deposits. They have textural and mineralogical similarities with comparative deposits in the region. Gaining an insight into the geological processes unique to detrital iron deposits and more distal channel iron deposits has been important to understanding the geometallurgy of the mineralisation. The model sits comfortably with other regional oregenesis models and allows a contextual framework to be developed around the timing of deposition of the Fe-rich detritus and pisolitic nodules that dominate the deposits. The exploration model also allows Flinders to explore more effectively for bedded iron mineralisation developed prior to, and since the development of the Tertiary weathering landscape.

Jul 11, 2011

By T Gill, A Faragher, B Scott, V Kakebeeke

In 2000, after six year intensive exploration for high-grade haematite deposits, Rio Tinto included the channel iron deposits (CID) as a specific iron ore target in the Hamersley Province iron ore exploration program. The exploration model was simple and based on the then current understanding of CID genesis. Fundamental to the model was an interpretation that CID deposits after their final accumulation stage could be entirely concealed in their channels. Inversion to mesas and therefore exposure of the CID profile would only occur in areas where the modern drainages follow the ancient and have significantly incised their current bedrock. The model took encouragement from observations at Bungaroo Creek, where large CID accumulations occur in a deep valley incised in the Wittenoom Formation concealed below recent valley fills derived from the surrounding BIFs. Also, in the headwaters of the Yandicoogina system CID occurs below a more recent cover of calcrete and clay. After a number of failed or partially successful attempts, exploratory drilling in 2002 in the Caliwingina valley in the northern Hamersley Range identified significant CID mineralisation. Subsequent drilling programs from 2003 onwards revealed the presence of a large CID system, which stretches from the middle reaches of the Caliwingina Creek to deep under the sediments of the Fortescue Valley, a channel length of more than 30 km. Although the drilling is still somewhat sparse, the geological resource estimation suggests that Caliwingina is presently the third biggest CID system of the Pilbara (after Yandicoogina and Bungaroo Creek) and is of comparable size to the premining Robe River system (1.6 Bt), with comparable Fe-grades to the Yandicoogina global resource grade (57.7 per cent Fe). Large detrital and canga deposits overlie the Caliwingina CID, or interfinger with it, and although the economics of these are presently unfavorable, could ultimately present a low-grade iron resource of slightly smaller size to the CID mineralisation at Caliwingina Creek. Together with the recently discovered Serenity and Solomon deposits, as well as Cabbage Gum Bore and other smaller occurrences, the Caliwingina Creek deposit is part of a major new CID district in the central Hamersley Ranges, approximately halfway between Yandicoogina and Robe River. Although exploration in this new district is still underway, the preliminary indications are that this area will provide a total CID resource well over 3 Bt, and is on a par with the major known CID systems in the Hamersley Province.

Jan 1, 2009

By Philippe Dumont

Presentation of the project Underground civil works to be performed They include two single track running tunnels and a service tunnel of a length of fifty kilometers . Many cross adits (180 adits) : to link the tunnels (53 cross passages), to relieve air super pressure from one tunnel to the other (87 piston ducts), to install technical adits (40 electrical rooms). Two cross-overs located at one third of the whole length, allow trains to shunt from one tunnel to the other so as to ensure one way traffic in case of emergency. Pumping stations allow water to be collected at the lowest point and pumped out. 1 Main features of the tunnels 1.1 The service tunnel This 4.8 m inner diameter gallery allows During civil works - front probing operations of the geological layers encountered (front and vertical probes). - lateral soil grouting that may be necessary to facilitate the boring of the two running tunnels . During operations - Maintenance and safety vehicles traffic - Fresh air supply to running tunnels - Fire protection and drainage system - Electricity supply and control and communication. The service tunnel has been bored with a 5.72 meter external diameter Robbins TBM for the undersea section, and a MITSUBISHI TBM for the land section.

Jan 1, 1991

By D. A. Barr

High-grade gold-silver mineralization associated with electrum and argentite was discovered in a quartz vein at the Chappelle property, 273 km north of Smithers, B.C., in 1969 following a regional geochemical reconnaissance program in the Cassiar-Omineca Mountains. Subsequent exploration resulted in the discovery of numerous quartz veins with associated precious-metal values in a belt 17 by 3 km in area centrally located within Toodoggone Group volcanic and sedimentary rocks of Lower to Middle Jurassic age and a window of Takla Group volcanic rocks of Upper Triassic age. More detailed investigations, consisting principally of 5677 m of surface drilling in 57 holes and crosscutting, drifting and raising on Chapelle Vein A, has outlined a high-grade gold-silver-bearing shoot with a strike length of 200 m, an average width of about 3 m and extending to an average depth of about 40 m below surface.

Jan 1, 1978

By Karl J. C. Harries

"1.1. WHAT ARE AGREEMENTS AND HOW ARE THEY FORMED?In order to have an agreement, at common law, there must be an offer, acceptance of that offer, and consideration passing between the parties. In addition, the material terms (i.e. the basics or substance) of the agreement must be discernible, preferably by means of documentation. Although these concepts may appear simple and straightforward, the law relating to them is voluminous and complex. Some brief comments are worthwhile.• Offer/acceptance: Both offer and acceptance should be in writing, but they need not be. The actions, conversations, and/or correspondence of the parties may constitute either or both of them. Notwithstanding, the local law or practice of a jurisdiction will impose some specific requirements for certain types of agreements. If these requirements are not met, the agreement may be unenforceable. For example, Ontario’s Mining Act requires transfers of unpatented mining claims to be evidenced in writing and recorded.1• Consideration: Consideration is usually thought of as being money, but it can be virtually anything, even “the premises” (i.e. the mutual covenants or promises contained in the agreement itself). In addition, if one party, relying upon the offer of another, does something to his detriment, then the doing of the act can be considered to be an acceptance of the offer and, under the legal concept of “detrimental reliance”, can also be consideration. Whether or not detrimental reliance exists will depend upon the circumstances of each case.2• Material terms: The requirement that the material terms of an agreement must be discernible does not mean that all of the terms of an agreement must be documented or even have been considered, just the basic or material ones. In addition, it will be up to a judge to decide what is material – not necessarily the parties. In order to establish the material terms, a Court may look at all relevant documentation and may hear oral evidence. It will resist “writing the agreement”"

Jan 1, 2003

By Karl J. C. Harries

"10.1. INTRODUCTIONDefinitions are a necessary part of every agreement. Their purposes are to assist the reader in reading and understanding an agreement and to attempt to avert potential confusion and, therefore, disputes. In some circumstances, they may be critical in deciding a dispute. As they are often substantive, they should not be treated lightly.It is far easier and less confusing for a reader to read “the Company” or “the Recipient” than to be faced with “the party of the First Part”, or to see the “Jones Property” than “that part of the property hereinbefore described in paragraph 1.01 hereof”. It is also advisable not to use “-ee” and “- or”, as in payee and payor.One thing must always be remembered: once a word has been defined in an agreement, it will always have the defined meaning unless the contrary is clearly indicated or is required to make sense of a provision.2 It can be confusing for a reader if commonly used words are defined in other than ordinary terms. Unique words that will stand out in the text are more likely to be recognized as having special meaning. It is also good practice to identify defined terms by capitalizing them in the text of the agreement. Boldfacing of definitions is also sometimes used for this purpose but, as boldfacing is not easily identified in handwritten revisions, it can be missed in the press of negotiations, especially when several typists are involved. Lack of consistency in identifying defined terms is not a fatal mistake, but it can create confusion, especially if the reader is new to the agreement or is reading it in a highly technical manner, such as when there is a dispute.If definitions used in the main text also apply to a schedule, they need not be included in both. Omitting them from the schedule makes the agreement look shorter, which to some people is a benefit. If definitions are not repeated, make certain that the schedule clearly indicates that words defined in the main text have the same defined meanings in the schedule3 and are clearly identified as defined words. In considering whether or not to repeat in a royalty schedule definitions appearing in the agreement proper, think of definitions as an aid and a reminder to the reader. Repeating them will help a reader, if only by saving the nuisance of remembering where to find them in the main text and constantly turning to it. All the definitions needed to read the schedule will be right there, so that the schedule is a self-contained document. Just make certain that, if you do repeat a definition, you repeat it in identical terms. If you have to change any defined term to make it fit the royalty provisions, use a different word or phrase as the defined term to warn the reader that he is dealing with a different concept.4"

Jan 1, 2003

By Karl J. C. Harries

"11.1. INTRODUCTIONA royalty is the most common form of interest retained by an owner who is disposing of his property or by a joint venturer who ceases, voluntarily or otherwise, to participate in the joint venture.1 Rarely does a non-participating party have a direct interest in the property and/or assets of a project, except during the period when a non-participating joint venturer may be having his interest diluted.2 In fact, it is most unwise to permit a non-participating party to have such an interest. It may give rise to significant problems that could prevent or substantially delay the development of an orebody and require a considerable amount of time, effort, and money to correct.3In negotiating a royalty, it is important to be aware that there is no law or convention that says, “You just don’t do that in a royalty agreement.” As with any agreement, inventiveness and flexibility on the part of the negotiator are not just assets, but virtual necessities. It is also for this reason that it is essential to read the royalty provisions, particularly the definitions, fully and carefully, especially if you are the recipient. On the other hand, if your inventiveness and flexibility cause your accountant to question the advisability of one of your ideas, pay close attention to him.4 He will, no doubt, have had experience with many royalties, and no competent professional adviser disparages a client’s ideas without good reason. Besides, he will probably be the person who will be determining the royalty or certifying the determination of it. At the very least, he will be auditing your general financial statements, which must, of course, reflect the royalty determination. Heeding his advice not only may make the determination easier but also will probably save you money in professional fees later on. Nevertheless, do not simply accept his comments or recommendations without understanding what they mean, why they have been made with respect to your royalty agreement (sometimes professionals have comments that they make as a matter of course and, even though they may be valid, you should require them to be justified to you), and how they will affect your royalty determination.It is surprising how many corporate payors insist that their standard royalty provisions5 be used as a matter of policy, thereby effectively tying the negotiator’s hands. It is even more surprising, and to professional advisers frightening, how many of the senior employees who insist that such a policy be adhered to, virtually without variation, do not know what is in the standard provisions and would be hard-pressed to explain them to a property owner. If standard provisions are appropriate, by all means use them, but do allow experienced and sensible negotiators some flexibility and make sure that everyone within the corporation who may have to use such provisions – negotiator and supervisor alike – knows what they contain and why they are as they are. For example, there are often good and convincing reasons to describe a deduction in a certain way or to include a certain specific type of deduction. On the other hand, quite often the answer to the question “why?” is that “it has always been there”; this is, or should be, an unacceptable answer. In any event, if you, as the negotiator, appear to know what you are talking about, are familiar and comfortable with your royalty provisions, and are backed up by your boss with the same words or reasoning, a property owner cannot help but be satisfied that you are knowledgeable, even if he still does not agree with your provisions. Finally, if you do use standard provisions, make sure that they are reviewed and updated regularly."

Jan 1, 2003

By Karl J. C. Harries

"12.1. NO DEPRECIATION/GAAPAll calculations and computations relating to the Royalty shall be carried out in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles consistently applied to the extent that such principles are not inconsistent with the provisions of this Schedule and the agreement attached hereto, it being specifically agreed that nothing herein contained shall permit, or be construed to permit, the Operator to deduct any amount for depletion, depreciation, amortization or any deduction that represents a non-cash outlay.Comment: In cases like net profit royalties where recoupment of prior expenditures is permitted, care should be taken to avoid any implication that depreciation may also be taken. It is only logical and equitable that Property Owners should not be permitted an apparent ability to “double dip” with respect to deductions. A provision like this example should accomplish the task. It will be noted that the example specifically contemplates that the negotiated arrangements will prevail over any requirements of GAAP. Accordingly, if the parties agree to an unusual formula for recoupment, it will not be set aside to accommodate GAAP requirements. Under GAAP, revenues and expenditures are accounted for on an accrual basis. In addition, it specifically prohibits the taking of non-cash deductions, which is in keeping with the concept of recoupment.Although in some ways the example states the obvious and could be considered redundant, its presence, especially in provisions contemplating recoupment, makes it clear to the financial people that there may well be some variations from normal practices dictated by GAAP, while at the same time confirming the availability of GAAP to fill any voids.The accounting profession often makes the caveat that application of GAAP is an “art”, not a “science”. GAAP do not provide a cure-all and can create problems that will have to be addressed. For example, GAAP contemplate that asset costs are to be reduced by investment tax credits, which can cause a problem for a payor with more than one mine."

Jan 1, 2003

By Karl J. C. Harries

13.1. RIGHT TO RECEIVE ROYALTY CONTRACTUAL ONLY1

Jan 1, 2003

By Karl J. C. Harries

"14.1. INTRODUCTION1The boilerplate of an agreement is not a single provision, but a series of provisions that are expected in “every agreement”. They are sometimes also referred to as the “lawyer’s provisions”. Many businessmen consider the boilerplate to be superfluous and, to some extent, window-dressing by the lawyers – even legalese. They will often offer advice to the effect that it can “pretty well be ignored”. Such advice could not be more wrong.Most boilerplate provisions are essential parts of every agreement. Some may be part of a “standard package” and may have little relevance to the agreement at hand, but these are the exception rather than the rule. The exceptions should not be treated as justification for giving all these provisions short shrift. The boilerplate should receive the same review, consideration, and negotiation as the provisions that set forth the business deal. It is often these provisions that make the deal work or that are turned to at the time of disputes. If they are inadequate, as they sometimes are (unfortunately, some draftsmen are also loath to review or update their standard boilerplate provisions or to tailor them to the deal at hand), they can create problems, rather than offer solutions. Such problems can be costly and time-consuming for the parties to address. Inadequate or incomplete provisions may ultimately be one of the reasons for the parties to turn to the courts to settle their differences. On the other hand, good boilerplate provisions can help keep them out of the courts.One of the principal objectives of an agreement should be to provide procedures, or mechanics, for implementing agreed principles and for the parties to follow to settle their differences, real or perceived, without going to the expense and disruption of a lawsuit. An agreement should aim to keep the parties away from the courts, not serve as a springboard to the courts. It must nevertheless be acknowledged that, if there is a major falling-out among the parties to an agreement, the chances are that, however carefully the provisions of that agreement have been negotiated and drafted, the parties will end up before the courts or some other adjudicating body."

Jan 1, 2003

By Karl J. C. Harries

"2.1. INTRODUCTIONNo agreement can be perfect in the sense that it contemplates and provides for all eventualities. Mineral acquisition agreements are usually negotiated and drafted at a time when an orebody is no more than a gleam in a geologist’s eye, so it is hardly possible to provide for development and operation in other than the most general terms. However, an agreement that stops short of contemplating the possibility of an orebody and production is ill-advised. Accordingly, it is important to provide procedures to make decisions that will let the project proceed, even in the face of a fallingout between parties. Whether the parties are shareholders in a corporation or venturers in a contractual common undertaking like a joint venture, differences of opinion and disputes will occur. Unfortunately, more and more are ending up before the courts. Besides greed and the growing tendency in society to fight rather than talk, there are other factors that contribute to the increase of litigation. In some jurisdictions, agreements have tended to become complicated, often defying interpretation, even by a lawyer, and explorationists want their budgets to go into the ground as constructive work rather than into a lawyer’s pocket. All this has led to a growing tendency for corporations to take the attitude that the chances of finding a mine are, at best, marginal and there are lots of earlier agreements in the files to draw from, so why not prepare their own agreements? As discussed in the preceding chapter, this can be folly. All these factors can quickly have parties facing each other in court while a project sits idle. Added to this is the problem that, in some jurisdictions, lawyers may take cases on a contingency-fee basis, sometimes promoting the pursuit of a nebulous claim.When an orebody is discovered, someone will always want some, or more, for himself. There is a breed of “prospectors” who prospect for legal actions, on the somewhat sound grounds that a major corporation will buy off nuisance litigation, rather than incurring the cost and effort of attacking even a poorly founded claim in the courts. They may even find a winner. Besides, it is far more comfortable and relaxing to prospect for problems and legal niceties than to prospect for an orebody.1 In short, it is appropriate to consider briefly some of the factors relating to lawsuits and judgments. Although many of the comments are made in the context of the common law and the Canadian legal system, most of the concepts and suggestions are applicable to any legal system."

Jan 1, 2003

By Karl J. C. Harries

"3.1. INTRODUCTIONThis chapter discusses briefly the common law concepts of fiduciary relationship, constructive trust, and breach of confidence. Following a discussion of confidentiality agreements, the last section of the chapter compares and comments on two common law cases, the LAC Case and the Metalore Case. Civil law readers should not ignore this chapter or § 3.5. the comparison as, to a large extent, the concepts and comments are universal, even though the procedures for applying them may vary.1It should be appreciated that, regardless of the legal system, if the Court sees that a wrong has been done, it will attempt to right that wrong, either by awarding monetary damages against the wrong-doer to compensate the injured party or by attempting to make the injured party whole again by such means as negating an agreement (as in the Metalore Case) or returning property to a wronged party (as in the LAC Case). The methodology for accomplishing either of these results will vary with the jurisdiction, and the two are not mutually exclusive.These two Ontario cases have been chosen, not because they are the only ones available – they certainly are not – but because both are relatively well known within the minerals industry and they deal with problems that may face any explorationist (although it is to be hoped that the facts of the Metalore Case do not represent “normal” behaviour). Each judgment offers useful guidelines, as well as insight into a judge’s approach to problems, the type of information he expects to receive, how his mind works, and, particularly in the Court of Appeal judgment in the Metalore Case, how he might reason through and “justify” his decisions.3.2. SOME LEGAL CONCEPTS In order to appreciate some of the matters discussed in this chapter, it is necessary to have some idea of the common law considerations of fiduciary relationships, constructive trust, and breach of confidence."

Jan 1, 2003

By Karl J. C. Harries

"4.1. INTRODUCTIONThis chapter, although divided into four parts, deals with only two principal topics. The first briefly describes and discusses some common types of property interests and considerations relating to them and the second deals with entering upon privately owned lands and obtaining the consent to do so.It should be noted that the terms “mining rights” and “mineral rights” are used interchangeably. As so used, they include the right to exploit the minerals and dispose of them for the benefit of the owner/lessee. This is relatively common in common law jurisdictions. In some jurisdictions, the two terms have distinct meanings, with “mining rights” referring to the right to work or exploit the minerals and “mineral rights” referring to the minerals themselves.Finally, it must be mentioned that the comments in the Introduction and §§ 4.2., 4.3. and 4.4. are based primarily upon Ontario law and Ontario’s mining and real property systems of registration. They have been included for illustrative purposes.4.2. LICENCES, CLAIMS, AND LEASESIn most jurisdictions, there are several basic types of interests that can be obtained from the state for mining purposes and that are of interest to the explorationist, as opposed to the operator. Different jurisdictions will have variations of these and possibly some extra ones that will address special purposes or local concerns. In virtually every jurisdiction, privately owned property rights are obtained through negotiation between owner and acquiror.Exploration or prospecting licence. This licence grants to the holder the right to prospect over a large tract of land and the exclusive right to acquire mining claims within that tract for the term of the licence. Such licences are usually negotiated documents requiring a minimum expenditure during the first year (often secured by a deposit or surety bond) and minimum annual expenditures thereafter to continue the licence in force up to its full term. The term will rarely exceed four years. The number of claims permitted to be staked will be limited in some way, possibly as to a maximum aggregate area or a maximum number of claims per annum. It is normal for the holder to have to drop part of the licensed area each year, so that the area shrinks annually, although exploration expenditure requirements will usually increase.These types of licences are usually used by governments to encourage exploration of otherwise unattractive or remote areas, such as the far northern parts of some of Canada’s provinces. They do not grant any real property interest in the area for which they are issued, and they will be subject to any claims or property rights that exist in the area. They are contracts with the state that grant certain exclusive rights in return for commitments to carry out work. They may or may not be specifically authorized by statute."

Jan 1, 2003

By Karl J. C. Harries

"5.1. INTRODUCTIONThis chapter is intended as a general overview of the subject of royalties between private parties – royalties extracted by governments are not dealt with. This same subject is covered in detail in Volume II, which critiques many sample provisions taken from agreements, giving both pros and cons. If you find something that interests you in this chapter, check Volume II for extra information. Detailed cross-referencing to Volume II has not been attempted, however, most subjects mentioned in this Chapter will also appear in Volume II, usually in greater detail. Reference should be made to the Index.A Brief History of Royalties1In the early days of mining in Canada, the tendency was to sell a claim for cash and to move on, using the stake to look for and stake more prospects. As prospectors became more sophisticated and Canada’s North opened up, the market for properties and the number of mining properties available increased dramatically. Speculation and the practice of consolidating several small properties into one large holding entity became common. In “hot” areas, the speculators2 could far outnumber the prospectors, many of the former having little or no prospecting expertise but lots of market and promotional savvy. However, to consolidate a number of small parcels into one large project can be expensive, and many of the parcel owners became interested in keeping a share in the project, rather than giving up everything. Speculators who were trying to consolidate small parcels wanted to minimize cash payments to parcel holders (usually they did not have much cash and preferred it flowing in their direction rather than away from them). Accordingly, non-cash transactions were developed to meet the aspirations of both owners and speculators."

Jan 1, 2003

By Karl J. C. Harries

"6.1. INTRODUCTIONThis chapter comments on some of the more common types of agreements related to property examination and acquisition, other than the farm-in/joint venture agreement or common undertaking, which is dealt with in the next two chapters. Many of the comments made in Part IV of Chapter 4 apply equally to any such agreement. In addition, many of the comments in Chapter 8 and the examples in Volume II are most certainly relevant to many other types of agreement.6.2. RIGHTS OF FIRST REFUSAL1A right of first refusal is a right that obligates an owner to offer his property, or an interest therein, to the holder of the first right if the owner intends to sell or otherwise dispose of it. It may be triggered either by the owner wishing to offer his property for sale or by receipt of a bona fide offer to purchase his interest from an “outside” third party. The mechanics and procedures to implement a first right should be set out clearly in the agreement, and their basics are the same, whether the first right is a stand-alone document or is part of an acquisition agreement.2Rights of first refusal are common in agreements to permit some control over the disposition of an interest and there they can be a valuable provision. However, some explorationists feel that they are also a good stand-alone agreement to have while a property is being evaluated to decide whether or not it is worth optioning. The reasoning is that such an arrangement will tie up the property to allow a quick look and, if the property looks interesting, the balance of the term of the first right will give an ample exclusive period of time to negotiate with the owner and settle an acquisition agreement. In addition, the explorationist is protected by the first right if the owner decides to negotiate a deal with another party."

Jan 1, 2003

By Karl J. C. Harries

"7.1. INTRODUCTIONThis chapter addresses the joint venture and examines a number of general concepts of the joint venture relationship. Chapter 8 looks at some specific concepts related to the provisions of a joint venture agreement, which are equally applicable to a shareholders’ agreement or other contractual relationship. The term “joint venture” is used because the author is a common law solicitor (a matter of convenience for which apologies are offered to civil law readers), but it should be noted that, in many aspects, the legal structure of an entity is irrelevant. It is the relationship of the parties, be they venturers or shareholders, that is important, and the areas of concern are surprisingly similar (except for terminology).The details of the joint venture relationship and agreement could fill several books. Accordingly, this chapter and the next focus on selected topics that appear to have caused problems or confusion or to be the basis for disputes. And remember that, although the following discussion is in the context of a joint venture, many of the comments apply, either directly or indirectly, to virtually any common undertaking and the agreement defining it.For interest’s sake, this chapter starts with a summary of some of the earlier types of agreements and arrangements that have evolved into the joint venture agreement of today in Canada, the philosophy of their format, and the reasons for their demise.7.2. EVOLUTION OF THE CANADIAN JOINT VENTUREThe Early DaysMuch of the opening up of Canada’s north is due to exploration for and development of mines. The early discoverers were relatively free to roam and explore at will and, if they were fortunate enough to find something, they dealt with the appropriate government to acquire exploitation rights. The early interests lay in gold or silver. Workings were small, usually worked by the owner alone or with only a couple of helpers to extract the native gold or silver. If the owner wanted to move on, he could sell his property outright and use his stake to look elsewhere.As logging and mining camps were opened, the development of better roads and railways made access easier. Entrepreneurs saw the opportunity to make money by assembling large parcels of land and working them as a single operation. In order to do this, some owners who were not ready to sell out had to be convinced to do so through more attractive offers"

Jan 1, 2003