PHOTO BY JUDY PATRICK, COURTESY OF SUMITOMO METAL MINING POGO
Sumitomo Metal Mining Pogo, which is investing roughly US$17 million onexploration during 2014 at its high-grade gold mine located roughly 60 miles(100 kilometers) southeast of Fairbanks, leads a group of diverse global-scalemining companies hailing from Australia, Japan, and the United States that arequietly exploring Alaska’s Interior. Page 9.
A special supplement to Petroleum NewsWEEK OF
July 27, 2014
3 Critical minerals bills get a boost Private sector group “ready to help” send stuck legislation to White House
4 Less than average Pebble Mine?EPA proposes limiting footprint to smaller than a mid-sized porphyry mine
10 Tsilhqot’in FN prevails in high court “Ground breaking” ruling grants Aboriginal title on Crown lands in B.C.
2NORTH OF 60 MINING PETROLEUM NEWS • WEEK OF JULY 27, 2014
www.lynden.com 1-888-596-3361
At Lynden, we understand that plans change but deadlines don’t. That’s why we proudly offer
our exclusive Dynamic Routing system. Designed to work around your unique requirements,
Dynamic Routing allows you to choose the mode of transportation — air, sea or land — to
control the speed of your deliveries so they arrive just as they are needed. With Lynden you
only pay for the speed you need!
Only pay for the speed you need... Dynamic Routing!SM
● C R I T I C A L M I N E R A L S
Stalled critical minerals bills get a pushPrivate sector coalition urges Capitol Hill lawmakers to move legislation meant to encourage domestic mining of vital minerals
BY SHANE LASLEYMining News
A coalition of 38 companies and
organizations, representing a broad
spectrum of America’s economy, is urg-
ing lawmakers on Capitol Hill to dust off
pending critical minerals legislation and
send a version to the White House for
President Barack Obama’s signature.
“Updating our geologic data, reducing
delays in permitting, bolstering research,
and encouraging efficient use can pay
dividends for future generations,”
explains the group pressing for critical
minerals legislation.
Two such bills aimed at reducing the
United States’ foreign reliance on miner-
als deemed critical
to the nation, both of
which have garnered
bi-partisan support,
have stalled in the
Senate.
The coalition of
38 – which is
Spearheaded by
Minerals Make Life,
an initiative of the
National Mining
Association, and includes a diverse group
of signatories that ranges from global cor-
porations such Dow Chemical Co. to
local civic groups such as Metropolitan
Milwaukee Association of Commerce – is
doing its part to get these bills moving
again.
In a letter addressed to leaders in both
the House and Senate, the group urged
U.S. lawmakers to pass legislation that
would encourage the domestic mining of
minerals that are critical to the United
States.
“Our organizations represent nearly
every sector of the American economy,
including defense, energy, transportation,
infrastructure, agriculture, technology,
academia, electronics, finance, and medi-
cine,” the group explained in its June let-
ter to Capitol Hill lawmakers. “From
exploration to recycling, we are active in
the supply chains for nearly every com-
modity. As a result, we have a unique per-
spective on the public policies needed for
reliable, affordable, and secure sources of
raw materials. Updating our geologic
data, reducing delays in permitting, bol-
stering research, and encouraging effi-
cient use can pay dividends for future
generations.”
According to the alliance, critical min-
erals legislation will bolster America’s
national and economic security, create
jobs, and reduce America’s reliance on
foreign countries. Urging bipartisan sup-
port, the letter said more timely permit-
ting can be achieved “that is consistent
with our nation’s environmental regula-
tions” and which will “allow the United
States to leverage its world-class mineral
reserves.”
Changing the dynamicU.S. Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska,
welcomed the new and renewed support
for the passage of critical minerals legis-
lation.
“This letter puts nearly 40 groups and
organizations on record as supporting not
just their members, but our nation’s secu-
rity, competitiveness, and future growth,”
Murkowski said in a July 9 statement. “I
thank them for their support and com-
mend their continued engagement on this
issue.”
Among those that
signed on is the
Alaska Support
Industry Alliance, a
trade association
that strives to pro-
mote responsible
exploration, devel-
opment and produc-
tion of oil, gas and
mineral resources
for the benefit of
Sen. Murkowski’s home state.
Murkowski, the top Republican on the
Senate Energy and Natural Resources
Committee, introduced “The Critical
Minerals Policy Act of 2013” for Senate
consideration in October of last year.
“We have got to change the dynamic
here, in this country, with how we view
the importance of minerals to our nation,”
Murkowski told the mining community in
Alaska shortly after introducing this leg-
islation, S.B. 1600. “We can’t move for-
ward until Washington (D.C.) gets out of
our way.”
A bipartisan group of 18 senators – 10
Democrats and eight Republicans – have
signed on as cosponsors of S.B. 1600.
Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., an original
S.B. 1600 co-sponsor, said, “So many
parts of our 21st Century economy
depend on critical minerals that it just
makes sense to bring federal policies up
to date. This bill creates a more secure
domestic supply chain for critical miner-
als, and makes sure that our country’s
national defense, high-tech jobs, energy
security and advanced medical care are
not held hostage by foreign suppliers.”
S.B. 1600 seeks to address the critical
minerals supply chain by establishing a
list of up to 20 minerals to be deemed
critical, streamlining the federal permit-
ting process, prioritizing workforce
development, and promoting alternatives
and recycling.
Instituting a list of minerals that is
widely accepted as critical to the United
States has proven to be a challenge – par-
tially because the list is dynamic, shifting
with changes on either the supply or
demand sides of the equation, and partial-
ly because of biases towards particular
sectors such as defense, energy or manu-
facturing.
Broadly speaking, a mineral is deemed
critical when it is both important to a
nation’s security or economy, and is at
risk of becoming unobtainable in the
quantities needed.
According to the United States
Geological Survey, during 2013, the
United States was 100 percent dependent
on foreign suppliers for 17 mineral com-
modities and more than 50 percent
dependent on foreign sources for at least
24 others.
Several of the minerals for which the
United States is heavily reliant on foreign
sources are not prospects for criticality
due to their scant use. Others, however,
are important ingredients to military
applications such as fighter jets, lasers
and radar systems and night vision equip-
ment; green technology applications such
as wind turbines, solar panels and hybrid
cars; and high-tech consumer goods like
mobile phones and iPads.
Almost everyone agrees that at least
some of the 17 rare earth elements should
be deemed critical due their importance
to the high tech, defense and clean energy
sectors. Dysprosium, terbium, europium,
yttrium and neodymium are among the
REEs that typically enter the critical min-
erals discussion. A study completed by
the U.S. Department of Energy in 2010
listed all of these rare earths as critical to
clean energy.
Less common than rare earths, indium
and gallium are also contenders for min-
erals deemed critical to the United States.
Other minerals that can be found in abun-
dance but are not mined in the U.S. and
often enter the critical mineral conversa-
tion are graphite and manganese.
If S.B. 1600 was to become law and
once a list of critical minerals is estab-
lished, this legislation lays out a compre-
hensive set of policies to address issues
associated with the discovery, production,
use, and re-use of the resources.
The United States is dependent on
China as a primary source of a number of
these high-tech metals.
“We don’t want to be sitting in a situa-
tion where the Chinese are making all of
the decisions as to what we are going to
3NORTH OF 60 MINING
PETROLEUM NEWS • WEEK OF JULY 27, 2014
North of 60 Mining News is a monthly supplement of the weeklynewspaper, Petroleum News. It will be published in the fourth orfifth week of every month.
Shane Lasley PUBLISHER & NEWS EDITOR
Rose Ragsdale EDITOR-IN-CHIEF (contractor)
Mary Mack CEO & GENERAL MANAGER
Susan Crane ADVERTISING DIRECTOR
Heather Yates BOOKKEEPER & CIRCULATION MANAGER
Bonnie Yonker AK / INTERNATIONAL ADVERTISING
Marti Reeve SPECIAL PUBLICATIONS DIRECTOR
Steven Merritt PRODUCTION DIRECTOR
Curt Freeman COLUMNIST
J.P. Tangen COLUMNIST
Judy Patrick Photography CONTRACT PHOTOGRAPHER
Forrest Crane CONTRACT PHOTOGRAPHER
Tom Kearney ADVERTISING DESIGN MANAGER
Renee Garbutt ADVERTISING ASSISTANT
Mapmakers Alaska CARTOGRAPHY
ADDRESSP.O. Box 231647Anchorage, AK 99523-1647
NEWS [email protected]
CIRCULATION 907.522.9469 [email protected]
ADVERTISING Susan Crane • [email protected]
Bonnie Yonker • [email protected]
FAX FOR ALL DEPARTMENTS907.522.9583
NORTH OF 60 MINING NEWS is a monthly supplement of Petroleum News,a weekly newspaper. To subscribe to Petroleum News and receive the monthly
mining supplement, call (907) 522-9469 or sign-up online atwww.PetroleumNews.com. The price in the U.S. is $98 per year, which includesonline access to past stories and early access to Petroleum News every week.(Canada/Mexico subscriptions are $185.95; overseas subscriptions are $220)Or, just purchase the online edition of Petroleum News, which also includesthe mining supplement and online access to past stories, for $69 per year.
Several of the individualslisted above are
independent contractors
Contact North of 60 Mining News:Publisher: Shane Lasley • e-mail: [email protected]
Phone: 907.229.6289 • Fax: 907.522.9583
see BILLS page 5
SEN. RON WYDEN SEN. LISAMURKOWSKI
“So many parts of our 21stCentury economy depend on
critical minerals that it just makessense to bring federal policies up
to date.” – Sen. Ron Wyden, Oregon
4NORTH OF 60 MINING PETROLEUM NEWS • WEEK OF JULY 27, 2014
WHATEVER
WHENEVER
WHEREVER
judypatrickphotography.comCreative photography for the oil & gas industry.
907. 258.4704
● A L A S K A
EPA seeks to limit Pebble to below averageEnvironmental agency proposes footprint restrictions based on a hypothetical median-size porphyry mine; legal battle rages on
BY SHANE LASLEYMining news
T he U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has
offered the proposal of allowing the Pebble
Limited Partnership to apply for permits to develop a
less than average-size porphyry mine at the world’s
largest undeveloped copper-gold-molybdenum deposit.
Falling short of an outright ban of building a mine at
Pebble, the EPA is proposing Clean Water Act Section
404(c) permit restrictions aimed at limiting the footprint
of any mine allowed to be developed at the enormous
porphyry copper deposit in Southwest Alaska.
The limits proposed by EPA were hailed as a victory
by many of Pebble’s staunchest critics.
“Far from a pre-emptive veto, the EPA’s actions sim-
ply place an understandably high standard for any min-
ing company wishing to apply for permits in Bristol
Bay,” said Tim Bristol, director of Trout Unlimited’s
Alaska program. “These restrictions will ensure that no
unacceptable adverse impacts will occur from mining
development in Bristol Bay.”
While relieved that the EPA
fell short of proposing an out-
right ban on mining at its world-
class copper deposit, the Pebble
Partnership continues to believe
the EPA is stepping beyond the
bounds of its authority by
imposing any kind of restriction
prior to permitting.
“While today’s announce-
ment from the US Environmental Protection Agency
Region 10 is only a proposal at this time, we are pleased
to note the agency has rejected requests to preemptively
veto the Pebble Project in favor of imposing specific
conditions on future development,” said Pebble
Partnership CEO Tom Collier.
“That said, we believe that EPA
does not have the statutory authori-
ty to impose conditions on devel-
opment at Pebble, or any develop-
ment project anywhere in Alaska or
the U. S., prior to the submission of
a detailed development plan and its
thorough review by federal and
state agencies, including review
under the National Environmental
Policy Act.”
A growing number in Washington D.C. agree the
agency has stepped beyond the bounds of its authority,
and some say the agency has broken the law in its effort
to stop or restrict Pebble prior to permitting.
Less than averageDuring a July 18 announcement that marked the offi-
cial launch of a 60-day public comment phase of the
CWA Section 404(c) process, EPA unveiled a list of
parameters that it considers to be the upper end of
streams and wetlands that should
be allowed to be disturbed while
mining at Pebble.
The proposed determination
recommends that mining the
Pebble deposit should not be
allowed to result in:
The loss of five or more miles
of streams with documented
salmon occurrence;
Loss of 19 or more miles of streams where salmon are
not documented, but that are tributaries of streams with
documented salmon occurrence;
Loss of 1,100 or more acres of wetlands, lakes, and
ponds that connect with streams with documented
salmon occurrence or tributaries of
those streams; or
Stream-flow alterations greater
than 20 percent of daily flow in
nine or more linear miles of streams
with documented salmon occur-
rence.
These restrictions are predicated
on the disturbance EPA predicts the
development and operation of a
250,000-million-ton mine at the
Pebble deposit – along with the associated mill, tailings
storage and other on-site facilities – would create over a
predicted 20-year mine-life.
“It is up to the mining company to determine if it can
develop a mine that gets below the impact levels
expressed in the restrictions,” EPA Region 10
Administrator Dennis McLerran informed the media
July 18.
EPA derived its estimates of the footprint impacts
during a process of evaluating three hypothetical mine
scenarios as part of its Bristol Bay Assessment.
EPA said the 250,000-million-ton mine used to deter-
mine the maximum impacts that it thinks should be
allowable represents the average size of the world’s por-
phyry copper mines.
Two significantly larger scenarios considered – a 2-
billion-ton mine with a 25-year mine life and a 6.5-bil-
lion-ton mine with a 78-year mine-life – were modeled
after plans included in a preliminary economic assess-
ment completed for Northern Dynasty Minerals Ltd.,
majority owner of the Pebble Partnership, in 2011.
During a July 18 media briefing, EPA Region 10
Administrator McLerran repeatedly pointed to the PEA
derivation of the mining scenario as legitimizing the
see PEBBLE page 5
TOM COLLIER DENNIS MCLERRAN
“It is up to the mining company todetermine if it can develop a minethat gets below the impact levels
expressed in the restrictions.”– Dennis McLerran, Region 10 Administrator, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency
5NORTH OF 60 MINING
PETROLEUM NEWS • WEEK OF JULY 27, 2014
be manufacturing – how, when and where
– because they have access to all the crit-
ical minerals,” Murkowski said. “We
have got them here; we just need the abil-
ity to develop them.”
Limiting delaysAnother piece of critical minerals leg-
islation, “National Strategic and Critical
Minerals Production Act of 2013,” gar-
nered wide support in the House before
getting bogged down alongside S.B. 1600
in the Senate.
Introduced by Rep. Mark Amodei, R-
Nevada, H.R. 761 aims to “enhance gov-
ernment coordination for the permitting
process by avoiding duplicative reviews,
minimizing paperwork and engaging
other agencies and stakeholders early in
the process” for strategic and critical min-
eral projects.
The bill defines strategic and critical
minerals as minerals necessary; for
national defense and security; for energy
infrastructure; to support domestic manu-
facturing, agriculture, housing, telecom-
munications, healthcare and transporta-
tion infrastructure; or for the economic
security of the United States.
To streamline the permitting process,
H.R. 761 would designate any proposed
mines that would produce strategic and
critical minerals as infrastructure projects
as described by Executive Order 13604,
“Improving Performance of Federal
Permitting and Review of Infrastructure
Projects,” signed by President Obama in
March 2012.
The infrastructure designation would
allow strategic and critical mineral proj-
ects to benefit from executive order
objective to “significantly reduce the
aggregate time required to make deci-
sions in the permitting and review of
infrastructure projects by the federal gov-
ernment, while improving environmental
and community outcomes.”
“What it simply says is this: ‘During
the permitting process, there has to be a
decision made within 30 days’,” Rep.
Doc Hastings, R-Wash. summarized dur-
ing a keynote speech at the Alaska Miners
Association 2013 Convention held in
Anchorage last November.
The legislation also attempts to limit
litigation delays by setting a 60-day time
limit to file legal challenges against a crit-
ical minerals project; limits injunctive
relief to what is necessary to correct the
violation of a legal requirement; and pro-
hibits the payment of attorney’s fees,
expenses and other costs by the U.S. tax-
payer.
H.R. 761 nabbed 57 co-sponsors and
passed the House 246-148. The legisla-
tion, however, has not moved since being
sent to the Senate in September of last
year.
“We have passed it out of the House,
and we are waiting for action in the
Senate. And, since I am a member of the
House, I can say we wait on the Senate a
lot,” quipped Hastings.
The group of businesses and organiza-
tions led by Minerals Make Life are
hopeful their letter will get critical miner-
als legislation moving again.
“Now is an opportune moment to
advance policies that benefit vast swaths
of the American economy and enjoy
broad support,” the coalition of 38 wrote
in their letter of support. “A great deal of
time and effort has been devoted to the
advancement of critical minerals legisla-
tion, a strong record has been built
reflecting the urgency of this challenge,
and the time has come to take next steps.”
“This is the perfect time to update our
nation’s mineral policies,” Murkowski
concurred. “We have bipartisan and cost-
neutral legislation that is ready to be con-
sidered. We have no reason to wait, or to
forgo the tremendous benefits that critical
minerals legislation would provide
throughout our economy.”
Murkowski and fellow lawmakers that
would like to see the United States adopt
critical minerals legislation now have pri-
vate sector help in making it happen.
“We remain hopeful that critical min-
erals legislation can be signed into law
soon and stand ready to help make it hap-
pen,” vowed the coalition of 38. ●
continued from page 3
BILLS
“A great deal of time and efforthas been devoted to the
advancement of critical mineralslegislation, a strong record has
been built reflecting the urgency ofthis challenge, and the time has
come to take next steps.” – Letterto Congress, Coalition of 38
assumptions made by his agency. The
scoping level study, however, was never
sanctioned by the Pebble Partnership and
was not intended to represent the mine
that would ultimately be proposed for
permitting.
This was addressed by the authors of
the PEA.
“It should be noted that the project
description the Pebble Partnership ulti-
mately elects to submit for permitting
under the U.S .National Environmental
Policy Act may differ from the develop-
ment cases presented in this preliminary
assessment,” cautioned Wardrop, the
engineering firm that completed the PEA.
While drawing PEA conclusions,
Wardrop said the Pebble Partnership's
ongoing engineering and stakeholder
engagement would influence the project
design ultimately submitted for permit-
ting..
“EPA’s proposal is based on a water-
shed assessment that its peer reviewers
found to be no better than a screening
document, and that EPA’s professionals
have recognized is missing the informa-
tion needed for a permitting decision,”
Collier commented on the conclusions
continued from page 4
PEBBLE
see PEBBLE page 6
drawn. “EPA’s proposal is also based on
mining scenarios that are outdated and, in
any event, would never qualify for envi-
ronmental permits.”
Though not discussed in EPA’s assess-
ment or proposed determination, an
underground mine, by its very nature
would have a smaller footprint that could
conceivably fall inside the parameters
being put forward by EPA, while mining
a larger portion of the Pebble deposit.
During a 2008 presentation in
Fairbanks, Tom Albanese floated the idea
of developing an underground mine to
extract the higher-grade resource at
Pebble East. At the time Albanese was
CEO of Rio Tinto, which held a roughly
20 percent interest in Northern Dynasty
shares.
An underground
mine was briefly
discussed in the
2011 PEA prepared
for Northern
Dynasty as a poten-
tial scenario for
mining the deeper
higher-grade por-
tions of the deposit.
“A potential
underground mine
has not been considered as a primary case
in this study. Further assessment of this
option is warranted to evaluate method-
ologies of enhancing relative economics
of an underground mine and confirming
its performance,” Wardrop advised.
Litigation continuesThe Pebble Partnership, however, is
not yet ready to go underground. Instead,
the company is steadfast in its pursuit of
an injunction to stop the EPA from impos-
ing limitations on its proposal before the
company gets a fair hearing under the
established state and federal permitting
process.
“EPA’s attempt to preemptively
impose conditions on future development
at Pebble, in the absence of completing an
Environmental Impact Statement, as is
required of every major development
project in the United States, is causing
significant and even critical harm to our
business interests and our abilities to fair-
ly advance our project,” Collier decried in
response to EPA’s latest move. “For this
reason, we fully intend to continue our lit-
igation against EPA in order to halt the
pre-emptive and unprecedented regulato-
ry process under Section 404(c) of the
Clean Water Act, and invalidate the con-
ditions proposed by EPA Region 10.”
In the complaint filed in the U.S.
District Court for Alaska during May, the
Pebble Partnership asserts that, in the
absence of a permit application, EPA’s
action exceeds its authority under the
CWA and is contrary to the Alaska
Statehood Act, the Cook Inlet Exchange
legislation, and other federal laws.
“Litigation is necessary in order to get
the agency’s attention and bring some
rational perspective back to the U.S. per-
mitting process. While we would prefer to
avoid this lawsuit, we are fully prepared
to defend ourselves against the precedent-
setting, unlawful actions of this agency,”
Collier explained at the time of the filing.
“The correct, legal, and defensible
way forward is for EPA to suspend its pre-
emptive 404(c) process and allow us the
full opportunity to have our project
reviewed by federal and state regulatory
agencies, including EPA, under NEPA.
Until that happens we must defend our-
selves against actions by EPA that are
contrary to the law,”
he added.
The Pebble
Partnership points
out that there is no
environmental risks
associated with
allowing it to
advance the project
to permitting, a
process in which
EPA would hold
sway.
“Our legal action does not in any way
seek to diminish EPA’s legitimate role
under the CWA, or its right to participate
as a regulatory agency within the Clean
Water Act permitting process – including
a comprehensive review under the
National Environmental Policy Act,”
Collier explained.
The state of Alaska has intervened as
plaintiff in the case and the United Tribes
of Bristol Bay, which describes itself as a
consortium working for the protection of
the Bristol Bay watershed from large-
scale metallic sulfide mines, has inter-
vened as a defen-
dant.
The Alaska
Peninsula Corp., a
Native corporation
that owns surface
land rights in the
Bristol Bay region
near Pebble, is also a
plaintiff in the law-
suit against EPA.
D.C. weighs inAs the Pebble Partnership and state of
Alaska seek a court order to stop EPA
from pressing ahead with its attempt to
limit development at Pebble, a growing
number of officials in Washington D.C.
are questioning the legality of EPA’s
action related to Pebble, and the methods
the agency used to get to this point.
“It is important to remember that, in
addition to the lawsuit brought by Pebble
and the State of Alaska against EPA, there
are a number of investigations yet under-
way with respect to EPA’s Bristol Bay
Assessment and its pre-emptive regulato-
ry process – including one by the Office
of the EPA Inspector General and another
by the House Committee on Oversight
and Government Reform. There are also
two bi-partisan bills pending in the US
House and Senate seeking to clarify that
EPA does not have authority to preemp-
tively veto or otherwise restrict develop-
ment projects prior to the onset of federal
and state permitting.
The Regulatory Certainty Act, spon-
sored by Rep. Bob Gibbs, R-Ohio, the lat-
est such legislation, seeks to make it clear
when EPA does, and does not, have the
authority to prohibit or restrict a project
under section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
In short, H.R. 4854 would limit the
EPA’s right to exercise its 404(c) authori-
ty to the duration of the permitting
process, preventing the agency from sin-
gularly stopping or restricting a project
before developers have an opportunity to
apply for permits, or pull permits that
have already been granted but not violat-
ed.
The bill passed out of the House
Transportation and Infrastructure
Committee with a 33-22 vote.
“After three years of hearings in my
subcommittee, it is clear that U.S. EPA is
out of control and has disregarded the
intent of Congress and its longstanding
partnership with the states in administer-
ing the Clean Water Act,” said Gibbs,
who chairs the
Subcommittee on
Water Resources
and Environment.
“We all want to pro-
tect the environment
but EPA has attempt-
ed multiple power
grabs to unilaterally
expand its own juris-
diction and authority
over the states.”
Rep. Don Young, R-Alaska, blasted
the EPA for its attempt to restrict devel-
opment of Pebble, which is located on
lands selected by Alaska for it mineral
potential.
“For the EPA to put forward these
types of restrictions, prior to any permit
applications and without due process, is
alarming to say the least,” Alaska’s sole
congressman admonished. “As I’ve said
in the past, the EPA’s expansive, jurisdic-
tional power grab is a very serious threat
to Alaska’s sovereignty and the future of
any development on state, Alaska Native,
or privately owned lands both in Alaska
and across the United States.”
Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, had a
similar take on EPA’s determination.
“The EPA is being disingenuous in
saying that this deci-
sion is only going to
impact mining in a
particular area of
Alaska,” Murkowski
said. “The EPA is
setting a precedent
that strips Alaska
and all Alaskans of
the ability to make
decisions on how to
develop a healthy
economy on their
lands. This is a blue-
print that will be
used across the
country to stop eco-
nomic develop-
ment,” Murkowski
said.
Sen. Mark
Begich, D-Alaska,
was more measured
in his response, say-
ing EPA’s actions are
targeted at Pebble.
“As I’ve often stated, I believe Pebble
is the wrong mine in the wrong place.
However, I remain a strong supporter of
the mining industry and mines in other
regions of Alaska and remain committed
to ensuring that this process does not
allow any precedent to be set that could
restrict other responsible mining projects
in Alaska or the U.S.,” Begich said.
Already, the Chippewa Federation, a
group of six tribes, has petitioned the EPA
to use its CWA Section 404 authority to
protect the Bad River Watershed in the
Lake Superior region of northern
Wisconsin from exploration and potential
development of an iron project.
Wisconsin Public Radio News reports
the EPA has set a meeting with the
Chippewa Federation for Aug. 16, a day
after the agency has scheduled public
hearings to take public testimony on its
404(c) process at Pebble.
Unless the District Court judge grants
the Pebble Partnership its request for an
injunction, EPA plans to push ahead with
the 404(c) process.
As part of the 60-day comment period
that started on July 18, the environmental
agency has scheduled hearings to get
additional public input on its proposed
determination. These will start with a
hearing in Anchorage on Aug. 12, fol-
lowed by six hearings in Bristol Bay com-
munities over the ensuing three days.
Following the comment period, the
EPA Region 10 office has the choice of
withdrawing from the process or sending
a recommended determination to EPA
headquarters in Washington D.C. for a
final determination. The recommended
determination could mirror the July 18
proposed determination or be revised
based on review of public comments.
Either way, the Pebble Partnership and
Army Corps of Engineers will be afford-
ed one final opportunity to weigh in
before EPA posts a final determination. ●
6NORTH OF 60 MINING
PETROLEUM NEWS • WEEK OF JULY 27, 2014
Toyo, Tsurumi, & Grindex submersible pumps
Pinch ValvesHose
American madeSchurco slurry pumps
Schurco parts to fit Weirpumps and applications.
WE KNOW MINING
Phone (907) 694-7583 Fax (907) 694-7584 [email protected] Box 771452, Eagle River, AK 99577
continued from page 5
PEBBLE
BOB GIBBS, R-OHIO
REP. DON YOUNG, |R-ALASKA
SEN. LISAMURKOWSKI, R-ALASKA
SEN. MARK BEGICH,D-ALASKA“After three years of hearings in
my subcommittee, it is clear thatU.S. EPA is out of control and hasdisregarded the intent of Congressand its longstanding partnershipwith the states in administering
the Clean Water Act.” – Rep. Bob Gibbs, R-Ohio
“For the EPA to put forward thesetypes of restrictions, prior to anypermit applications and withoutdue process, is alarming to say
the least.” – Rep. Don Young, Alaska
DON’T MISS ANOTHER ISSUE!
SUBSCRIBE TODAY
(907)
522-9469
7NORTH OF 60 MINING
PETROLEUM NEWS • WEEK OF JULY 27, 2014
● G U E S T C O L U M N
Worst of funding drought could be overRecent price volatility is making producers cautious about long-term capital investments, despite more upbeat industry sentiment
BY CURT FREEMANFor Mining News
A s is normally the case in high sum-
mer in Alaska, news has started to
trickle out of the hills on projects where
new work is being conducted, and several
properties have changed hands or are in
the process of changing hands as mining
deals are negotiated and announced
across the state. Alaska mines are enjoy-
ing slight upticks in metals prices, but
recent price volatility has left producers
cautious about making long-term capital
investments in new or existing projects.
Regardless of the micro- and macro-eco-
nomic details, there is a growing feeling
in the industry, coming from organiza-
tions small and large, that we have weath-
ered the worst and that market conditions
and public opinions are slowly but surely
improving. With that more upbeat senti-
ment comes a noticeable increase in inter-
est in mineral resources, Alaska’s includ-
ed. It’s about time!
WESTERN ALASKACongratulations are in order for part-
ners TECK RESOURCES and NANA
INC. on the 25th anniversary of the Red
Dog mine! It has been an amazing journey,
from the first mention of mineralization at
the site back in the 1960s, its turbulent
staking and exploration history in the
1970s and its attainment of production in
1989. We will hear a great deal more about
the life and times of this amazing mine as
the year goes on but the longevity of Red
Dog clearly proves that working at an
Alaska mine can be a career, not just a job.
Congratulations to everyone who helped
make and who is keeping Red Dog a shin-
ing example of how to do it right in
Alaska!
NOVAGOLD RESOURCE INC.
announced second-quarter 2014 financials
and a project update for its Donlin Gold
project, a 50:50 joint venture with
BARRICK GOLD CORP. During the
quarter, the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, the lead agency for the pro-
ject’s environmental impact statement, and
cooperating agencies, completed identifi-
cation of project alternatives, a major step
in the permitting process. The alternatives
comprise variations on certain mine site
facility designs, local transportation
options, and power supply options.
Preparations of the remaining components
of the preliminary draft EIS are well
underway and expected to be completed
over the next two quarters. This includes
the alternatives development and the
analysis of their potential environmental
impacts. The company’s share of expenses
for the project for the second quarter was
$3,131,000.
FIRE RIVER GOLD CORP.
announced that WATERTON GLOBAL
VALUE L.P. has taken full and unrestrict-
ed ownership of the Nixon Fork gold-cop-
per mine and MYSTERY CREEK
RESOURCES, INC., the U.S. corpora-
tion that owns the mine. This action is a
result of the default by Fire River on the
terms of a credit agreement with Waterton.
Fire River will deliver all rights, debts,
properties and obligations on the property
to Waterton and Waterton will accept such
as full and final satisfaction of the indebt-
edness due to Waterton under the credit
agreement. As part of the final settlement
agreement Waterton also agreed to pay to
Fire River approximately $250,000 in cash
and other obligations. Waterton’s immedi-
ate plans for Nixon Fork were not
released.
The U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency said it is endorsing its own analy-
sis that would place significant barriers to
development of Northern Dynasty’s
Pebble gold-copper-molybdenum project.
The company stated that “…we do not
accept that EPA has the statutory authority
to impose conditions on development at
Pebble, or any development project any-
where in Alaska or the US, prior to the
submission of a detailed development plan
and its thorough review by federal and
state agencies including review under the
National Environmental Policy Act.” The
EPA analysis, conducted before any per-
mits for mine construction have been
requested by the project owners, imply the
project would cause the loss of at least five
miles of streams with documented salmon
or loss of 1,100 or more acres of wetlands,
lakes and ponds that connect to salmon-
bearing streams or tributaries of those
streams. The EPA’s claim that their prece-
dent-setting proposal is specific to the
Pebble deposit and would not affect other
deposits or claims was met with immedi-
ate and extreme skepticism by mining
companies, mining advocacy groups and
natural resource industry representatives.
A public comment period on this decision
is open until Sept. 19 and public meetings
are planned at several Alaska locations. To
learn more about the decision and the com-
ment period, please see
http://www2.epa.gov/bristolbay/public-
i n v o l v e m e n t - b r i s t o l - b a y - 4 0 4 c -
process#comments
MILLROCK RESOURCES INC.
announced completion of geophysical sur-
veying on its Alaska Peninsula project.
The survey included 1,140 line kilometers
of high-resolution airborne magnetic and
radiometric data collected over three
prospects of interest: Bee Creek, Mallard
Duck Bay, and Kawisgag. The completed
work was the first of a two-phase summer
program, which is being funded by FIRST
QUANTUM MINERALS LTD. The sec-
ond phase is planned to start in mid-July
and will consist of a geological mapping
and geochemical sampling program and
will focus on the geophysically surveyed
areas, where known porphyry copper
prospects occur.
REDSTAR GOLD CORP announced
commencement of field work program at
its Unga gold project. The phase one field
program is designed to complete detailed
field mapping and sampling of high-grade
gold-silver vein systems in preparation for
diamond drilling. The field program will
examine the highest-priority targets, such
as the Shumagin Vein, where historic shal-
low drilling in the 1980’s intersected sig-
nificant high-grade mineralization which
was confirmed by the company’s 2011
drill program. The vein remains open at
depth and along strike. Other high-priority
targets include the Apollo-Sitka and
Aquila vein systems. Veins will be mapped
in detail and sampled with a focus on
extending known mineralization along
strike, determining the distribution of min-
eralization within vein systems and assess-
ing the geologic structural controls to min-
eralization.
INTERIOR ALASKAFREEGOLD VENTURES LTD.
reported initial results from metallurgical
testing at its Golden Summit project near
Fairbanks. A series of composite samples
from the various areas from the
Dolphin/Cleary resource area were sub-
mitted to SGS CANADA INC. A total of
279 samples of drill core assay rejects
which represented the different areas of
the resource were composited to form 5
sample types: oxide, transition, hornfels-
sulfide, intrusive-sulfide and schist-sul-
fide. Overall gold recoveries were
obtained from standard 48-our bottle roll
tests and 120-hour intermittent agitation
leach tests. Oxide material averaged 88
percent recovery, Transition material aver-
aged 57 percent, Intrusive material aver-
aged 56 percent, and Hornfels-Sulfide
material averaged 45
percent. Standard
bottle roll test work
was carried out on a
variety of grind sizes
however recoveries
did not increase sub-
stantially with finer
grinds, with the
exception of the
transition material
which showed
recoveries of greater
than 70 percent are achievable at a 75
micron grind size. In addition a series of
tests using a variety of methods were com-
pleted, including direct carbon-in-leach,
pressure oxidation - carbon-in-leach, flota-
tion - carbon-in-leach, and flotation- pres-
sure oxidation - carbon-in-leach. The high-
est overall recovery was achieved by pres-
sure oxidation - carbon-in-leach with
recoveries greater than 94.3 percent, and
averaging 98.1 percent under best condi-
tions tested. The combination of flotation –
pressure oxidation – carbon-in-leach
resulted in recoveries of 92 percent.
Although lower recovery than whole ore
pressure oxidation, a significant advantage
would be a much smaller quantity of mate-
rial would need to be treated (approxi-
mately 10 percent would be subject to
pressure oxidation). Cyanide consumption
was lowest under pressure oxidation - car-
bon-in-leach requiring 0.5-0.7 kilograms
of sodium cyanide per tonne. All other
processes averaged one to four kilograms
of sodium cyanide per tonne. Additional
metallurgical testing is planned for the
project, including a series of column tests,
partial oxidation and heap leach amenabil-
ity investigations.
SUMITOMO METAL MINING (85
percent) and SUMITOMO CORP. (15
percent) recently updated future plans for
their Pogo gold mine. In 2013 the mine
produced 10.5 metric tons of gold (about
337,500 ounces), and the partners are pro-
jecting 2014 production of roughly 10.7
metric tons of gold (344,000 oz). The part-
ners also indicated that commencement of
production from the East Deep zone was
planned for the first quarter of this year.
The year-end 2013 resource/reserve esti-
mates at Pogo total 59 metric tons of
reserve and an additional 85 metric tons in
resource for a total of 144 metric tons of
gold (approximately 4.629 million ounces)
in the Liese and East Deep zones. Total
production from commencement of com-
mercial production to year-end 2013 is
2,472,632 ounces of gold at average head
grades of 13-17 grams per metric ton gold
(0.38 to 0.49 oz per short ton gold).
Average mill recovery over life of mine to
date is approximately 87 percent.
BLUESTONE RESOURCES INC.
announced that it had defaulted on a previ-
ously arranged loan with John Robins, the
company’s president and CEO. Both par-
ties have now agreed that the company can
extinguish the debt by transferring to
Robins 100 percent interest in the compa-
ny’s Richardson gold project in the
Richardson Mining District, Alaska.
Immediate plans for the project were not
released.
Freegold Ventures Ltd. announced that
is has acquired the Shorty Creek copper
gold porphyry project from Fairbanks-
based Gold Range Limited. Under the
terms of the 10-year lease, Freegold has
agreed to issue 750,000 common shares to
Gold Range as con-
sideration. Gold
Range will be
responsible for the
annual State of
Alaska mining claim
rents after which
point Freegold will
be responsible. Gold
Range will retain a 2
percent net smelter
returns royalty on
production from the
project. The proper-
ty is located in the Livengood-Tolovana
Mining District approximately 100 road
kilometers (62 miles) northwest of
Fairbanks and 4 kilometers (2.5 miles)
south of all-weather paved Elliott
Highway. Total recorded production from
the district though is approximately
540,000 oz gold. The property was origi-
nally staked as an antimony prospect in the
1970s but was drilled as a copper-molyb-
denum show a few years later. In the mid-
1980s soil sampling identified significant
gold, copper and pathfinder elements.
Limited shallow drilling (6,843 feet in 20
holes) was completed in 1989 and 1990.
Significant drill intercepts include 220 feet
grading 1.22 g/t gold in hole RH89-08
beginning at surface, including 25 feet
grading 4.59 g/t gold and 55 feet grading
1.03 g/t gold in hole RH90-19. A small soil
and rock sampling program (566 soil sam-
ples and 21 rock samples) was completed
in 2005. Shorty Creek bears similarities to
other Tertiary age gold-enriched porphyry
copper deposits in eastern Interior Alaska
and western Yukon Territory. In addition
to the geochemical signature, widespread
alteration and hornfels development with
the occurrence of small bodies of biotite
granodiorite, quartz porphyry and aplite
are present throughout the property.
Freegold is planning a ground geophysical
program in order to evaluate the project
see FREEMAN page 8
TheauthorThe author
Curt Freeman,CPG #6901, is awell-known geol-ogist who lives inFairbanks. He pre-pared this column CURT FREEMANJuly 21. Freeman can be reached by mailat P.O. Box 80268, Fairbanks, AK 99708.His work phone number at AvalonDevelopment is (907) 457-5159 and hisfax is (907) 455-8069. His email is [email protected] and his website iswww.avalonalaska.com.
Regardless of the micro- andmacro-economic details, there is a
growing feeling in the industry,coming from organizations small
and large, that we have weatheredthe worst and that market
conditions and public opinions areslowly but surely improving.
– Curt Freeman, guest columnist
during the current field season.
UCORE RARE METALS INC.
announced that it has commenced a field
program on its Ray Mountains rare earths
and tin multi-metal property. The company
plans to complete the resampling and
assay testing of key locations recently
reported by the Alaska Geological Survey,
and earlier U. S. Bureau of Mines work in
the area, and examine the geological set-
ting of the Kilolitna River Basin. A number
of samples collected during this effort will
be processed for lab testing in the coming
weeks. Rare earths and associated metals
such as tin have been found to occur in the
alluvial outwash of the Ruby granitic
batholith located in the area. The target
metals are contained in heavy minerals
such as monazite, xenotime, cassiterite,
wolframite and zircon, which are wide-
spread throughout the region.
NORTHERN ALASKANOVACOPPER INC. announced sec-
ond-quarter 2014 financials and a project
update for its Bornite deposit at its Upper
Kobuk Mineral Projects in the Ambler
District. The company’s 2014 field pro-
gram will consist of a re-logging and re-
assaying program of between 10,000 and
13,000 meters of historical drill core from
Bornite. Targeted historical holes are locat-
ed within the extensions of the Upper and
Lower Reef mineralization captured in the
open pit resource estimate released earlier
this year and the up dip portion of South
Reef zone. This effort is a continuation of
last year’s program of re-sampling and re-
assaying which targeted 33 drill holes
comprising 11,067 meters of core original-
ly drilled between 1957 and 1975 and only
selectively sampled by subsidiaries of
Kennecott, the former owner of the prop-
erty. The company also indicated that dur-
ing the first half of 2014, it had focused
efforts on supporting the Alaska Industrial
Development Export Authority in initiat-
ing the permitting process on the Ambler
Mining District Industrial Access Road
which is expected to provide access to
Upper Kobuk Mineral Projects. In late
April 2014, AIDEA’s board of directors
approved a resolution authorizing AIDEA
to proceed with an application for the
Ambler road to the federal agencies that
have jurisdiction over the Ambler road
project and to engage a firm to prepare the
environmental impact statement for the
project under the direction of the federal
agencies. The State of Alaska approved
$8.5 million for use by AIDEA for this
purpose during the 2015 fiscal year.
SOUTHEAST ALASKACOEUR MINING INC. reported sec-
ond-quarter production results from its
Kensington gold mine near Juneau.
Second quarter production is estimated at
28,089 oz of gold, a significant increase
over the 23,162 oz of gold produced in the
second quarter of 2013. The mine
processed 163,749 tons of ore grading 0.18
oz per ton gold during the quarter. Average
recovery was 94.5 percent. Mill through-
put was steady at 1,800 tons per day aver-
age. The increased production was the
result of a 10 percent higher gold grade
during the quarter, including an average
grade of 0.22 oz/t gold during June.
Estimated 2014 total production from
Kensington is 105,000 to 112,000 oz of
gold.
UCORE RARE METALS announced
updated plans for 2014 exploration at its
Bokan – Dotson Ridge rare earth element
project on Prince of Wales Island. The
fully permitted $2.5 million, 5,000-meter
diamond drilling program consists of
2,500 meters of infill drilling; 1,500 meters
of deep targeted drilling to expand the
resource at depth; and 1,000 meters of
geotechnical and groundwater drilling to
support environmental analysis and
planned permitting. ●
WE’RE NOT AFRAID TO GET OUR HANDS DIRTY.
Order now!Available now at the low price of $98.00 for print or $69.00 for online.
907-522-9469 | www.miningnewsnorth.com | [email protected]
8NORTH OF 60 MINING PETROLEUM NEWS • WEEK OF JULY 27, 2014
continued from page 7
FEREEMAN
● G U E S T C O L U M N
We cannot hold our breath over Prop OneIn the short run, the measure is about oil taxes; but in the long run, its passage would affect every aspect of Alaska’s future.
BY J. P. TANGENSpecial to Mining News
I have long mused over the difference
in how people solve problems. Every
time we are confronted with an election,
the debate resurfaces. One would sup-
pose that individuals trained in analytical
thinking would be inclined to reach con-
clusions lineally, consistent with the
Socratic syllogism in which conclusions
are based upon facts. In the course of my
career, I have long dealt with individuals
who are trained in the “hard” sciences,
such as geologists and engineers. They
tend to base their judgments on the the-
sis that “if you knew the facts as I know
the facts, you would come to the same
conclusion that I have come to.” This,
of course overlooks the reality that the
vast percentage of the electorate vote,
and act, on the theory that facts are con-
fusing, and are totally irrelevant to the
decision-making process.
It is often said that the optimist sees
the glass as half full, the pessimist sees
the glass as half empty and the engineer
sees the glass as too big for the job. The
point being that all see the same glass,
and all are correct in our conclusions, but
the perspective leads to a vastly different
perception.
I was recently struck by the report
from a legislative candidate who, in
going door-to-door, was told by a con-
stituent that he did not apply for
Permanent Fund dividends, because oil
companies “pillage” Alaska. Clearly,
there are many sound arguments for
declining a PFD – it is an entitlement pro-
gram that is not needs-based, for instance
– and there are arguments to support the
PFD – it keeps the management of state
money on the radar screen of the citizen-
ry; however, it is a long stretch to get
from pillage to an annual check. The div-
idend, is based on the earnings of the
Permanent Fund and is at least one step
away from anything the oil companies
do, and of course, the oil companies are
simply not allowed to pillage.
Globally speaking, Europe is in crisis
(again) because the would-be Tsar of
modern Russia is using his hand on the
oil spigot to deter sanctions over the
devolution of Ukraine. Arguably,
America could soon become the energy
source that protects millions of central
Europeans from re-emergent tyranny.
In recent years, through evolving tech-
nological developments, the United
States has slowed
its slide toward
dependence on for-
eign oil sources.
Alaska, however, is
always out of step
with the rest of the
nation, as illustrated
by the pending bal-
lot on Proposition
One. This measure
would cause the
state to revert to the
ACES tax prescrip-
tion which demonstrably inhibited oil
exploration while it was in effect; unfor-
tunately, odds favor this measure passing
narrowly.
In order to support Proposition One or
any other attack on Alaska oil production,
a person has to be deaf, dumb and blind to
the fact that oil production emoluments
pay the bulk of Alaska’s bills and the
availability of Alaska oil in the future
conceivably may have implications for
our free-world allies.
Passage of Proposition One undoubt-
edly will lead to reduced oil production in
Alaska, less tax revenue, fewer public
services and most significantly to some of
us who are interested in mining, the cost
of delivering energy to remote projects
increasing, making those projects less
attractive.
Chaos theory
teaches us that one
cannot capture a
butterfly without
putting the whole
world at risk of
some unintended
consequence. For
our dear friend who
is concerned about
oil companies pil-
laging Alaska, per-
haps his glass just
isn’t the right size. Every breath he takes
results in carbon dioxide entering into the
atmosphere, contributing to the green-
house effect and ultimately global warm-
ing. Should the oil industry be driven out
of Alaska by unbearable taxes, we may all
be grateful for his incremental contribu-
tion toward a warmer climate, lest we
freeze in the dark. ●
Passage of Proposition Oneundoubtedly will lead to reducedoil production in Alaska, less tax
revenue, fewer public services andmost significantly to some of us
who are interested in mining, thecost of delivering energy to remoteprojects increasing, making those
projects less attractive. – J.P. Tangen, guest columnist
Mining & thelaw
The author,J.P. Tangen hasbeen practicingmining law in J.P. TANGENAlaska since 1975. He can be reached [email protected] or visit his Web site atwww.jptangen.com. His opinions do notnecessarily reflect those of the publishersof Mining News and Petroleum News.
● A L A S K A
Global miners explore Alaska’s InteriorAs Sumitomo, Newmont search for gold near Pogo, MMG seeks nickel in the Wrangellia and a mystery metal north of the Yukon River
BY SHANE LASLEYMining News
A group of diverse global-scale mining
companies hailing from Australia,
Japan, and the United States are quietly
exploring a relatively small region of
Alaska’s Interior.
Two of these international players –
Sumitomo Metal Mining and Newmont
Mining Corp. – are seeking gold in the
Pogo region of the Tintina Gold Belt.
Melbourne-based MMG Ltd., on the other
hand, is seeking nickel in the Wrangellia
Terrane, a promising band of rocks imme-
diately south of the legendary gold
province.
Together, these companies accounted
for more than US$15.5 million of explo-
ration in 2013 and are whispered to be car-
rying out programs topping US$20 million
this year.
Exploring East DeepThe largest and most widely known of
these exploration programs is being con-
ducted by Sumitomo Metal Mining Pogo
LLC – a joint venture between Japanese
firms Sumitomo Metal Mining Company
(85 percent) and Sumitomo Corp. (15 per-
cent) – on the Pogo Mine property located
roughly 60 miles (100 kilometers) south-
east of Fairbanks.
With a budget of US$17 million, the
Pogo program is not only the largest in this
region of Alaska, but will likely be the
largest exploration spend in the Far North
State during 2013.
In recent years, the Tokyo-based owners
of Pogo have had great success in finding
new deposits of high-grade gold in the
shadow of the mill at the underground
operation.
The most significant of these finds is
East Deep, a zone of high-grade gold min-
eralization immediately northeast of the
processing facilities at Pogo.
First drilled in 2010, East Deep has been
the target of increasingly expansive drill
programs at Pogo in the ensuing years.
Since mining began at Pogo in 2006, the
Liese zone – three flat-lying, parallel quartz
veins that carry high-grade gold – has been
the primary source of ore for the mill.
East Deep is believed to be an extension
of the Liese zone that was separated by a
gold-barren diorite roughly 95 million
years ago.
In 2012, Sumitomo drove two drifts
through some 300 meters of diorite wedged
between these now separate zones. The
drifts were used to complete 24,596 feet of
definition drilling at East Deep.
In addition to providing a platform for
underground drilling, these drifts provided
access for a 12,000-ton bulk sample of East
Deep ore that was processed during the
third quarter of 2013.
To mine the high-grade gold at East
Deep, Sumitomo developed the 2150 por-
tal. This year, ore from East Deep makes up
a portion of the feed for the mill at Pogo.
Expanding East Deep northwest toward
the North Zone, a group of higher grade
vertical veins that are believed to be feed-
ers that provided a conduit to deliver gold
mineralized fluids to the Liese and East
Deep zones, was a primary objective of the
2013 surface drill program at Pogo.
In addition to expanding East Deep to
the hypothesized source of gold-bearing
fluids, this drilling discovered two new
North Zone veins, NZ3 and NZ4.
Focusing on North ZoneSMM Pogo told Mining News that the
expansion of these newly found North
Zone veins is the primary focus of current
drilling at the project.
“These veins are significant and are
most likely the feeder zones for the main
ore body and probably continue down for
considerable depth. In addition, drilling
this year continues to expand these vein
resources along their strike length,” Lorna
Shaw, spokeswoman for SMM Pogo,
explained in a recent email. “The continu-
ity of the North Zone mineralization is suf-
ficient that part of the resource will most
likely become part of the reserve at the end
of the year.”
Roughly US$5 million of the 2014
exploration budget at Pogo is being invest-
ed in driving two drifts from the under-
ground workings at East Deep to the North
Zone. These exploration drives will pro-
vide a better angle for drill the vertical
North Zone veins as well as provide a plat-
form for defining the northwest expansion
area of the East Deep zone.
While northerly expansion of East Deep
continues, a large focus of this year’s sur-
face drilling is on the expansion of Pogo
South, an exploration target located imme-
diately south of the Liese zone.
“There are two helicopter fly rigs
drilling at South Pogo for the entire field
season. This is augmented by another drill
rig drilling from underground in the most
southerly drift inside the mine,” explained
Shaw. “So far, we have defined three sepa-
rate veins in this area that appear to be
extensions of the Liese veins in the mine.
This drilling will add to the resource at
South Pogo and part of this resource may
be converted to reserve by the end of year.
The 4021 zone, a known gold deposit
located roughly 2.5 miles (four kilometers)
southeast of Liese, furthers the southward
expansion potential.
During the spring Alaska Miners
Association convention in Fairbanks,
SMM Pogo General Manager Chris
Kennedy explained that 4021 has shifted to
the east along a major fault separating it
from the Liese zones. If the geological
units are lined up to their original positions,
4021 is on strike with the Liese zone. This
opens up the prospect of gold mineraliza-
tion between these two known zones.
For right now, however, the Pogo explo-
ration team has plenty of promising
deposits surrounding the mill to follow up
on.
“The resource at 4021 stands like a bea-
con on the horizon and serves as an indica-
tor that the mineralization extends out at
least that far. Eventually, we will get there
as we systematically expand the main Pogo
deposit in that direction,” explains Shaw.
“In the end, we are assuming that we
can replace the number of ounces going
through the mill each year by finding new
reserves and converting known resource
into reserves by additional drilling,” she
added.
Beyond PogoA few miles beyond the southeastern
exploration horizon of Pogo proper, sub-
sidiaries of Sumitomo Metal Mining (95
percent) and Sumitomo Corp. (5 percent)
continue a broader search for high-grade
gold on a group of claims that are part of
the Stone Boy project.
The Stone Boy partners have been
exploring the larger Pogo district since
1991. This includes recent drilling on the
Monte Cristo property, located roughly 40
miles (65 kilometers) west of Pogo, and the
Ink claims situated a few miles southeast of
the mine.
Under contract with the Stone Boy part-
ners, Pathfinder Mineral Services managed
a US$2 million exploration program on the
Stone Boy project that included 18,447 feet
of drilling in 21 holes on these properties;
as well as rock and soil sampling.
Roughly US$429,000 of the 2013 pro-
gram was allocated to ongoing exploration
at Monte Cristo.
The Naosi Zone, a gold-silver-antimony
prospect within the larger Monte Cristo
properties had previously been one of the
primary exploration targets of the Stone
Boy project. In 2011, the partners released
results from drilling Naosi, including drill
intercepts of 7.8 grams per metric ton gold,
19.7 g/t silver and 0.1 percent antimony
over 7.92 meters; and 22.83 meters grading
4.2 g/t gold, 48 g/t silver and 0.17 percent
antimony.
Last November, however, Sumitomo
Metal Mining and Sumitomo Corp. said
they have decided to put exploration at
Naosi on hold in favor of other prospects at
the Monte Cristo property as well as other
properties that make up the district-scale
Stone Boy project.
The Ink claims, located about 15 miles
(24 kilometers) southeast of Pogo, were the
9NORTH OF 60 MINING
PETROLEUM NEWS • WEEK OF JULY 27, 2014
see GLOBAL page 11
To mine the high-grade gold at East Deep, Sumitomo Metal Mining Pogo has developedthe 2150 portal. This year, ore from the new zone makes up a portion of the feed for themill at Pogo.
JUD
Y P
ATR
ICK
, C
OU
RTES
Y O
F SU
MIT
OM
O M
ETA
L M
ININ
G P
OG
O
● C A N A D A
High court weighs in on aboriginal claimTitle declared in “Tsilhqot’in Nation v. British Columbia” on tract of Crown lands in western province has nationwide implications
BY ROSE RAGSDALEFor Mining News
T he Supreme Court of Canada June
26 released its highly anticipated
decision in “Tsilhqot’in Nation v. British
Columbia.”
Called “ground-breaking” by
observers, the judgment by Canada’s
highest court granted a declaration of
Aboriginal title over a tract of Crown
lands to the Tsilhqot’in Nation of the west
central interior of British Columbia. It is
the first time in Canadian history that
Aboriginal title has been definitively
established and affirmed.
The civil action claim asserted by the
Tsilhqot’in First Nation in 2002 involves
lands in central British Columbia west of
Williams Lake. At a lengthy hearing of
339 days over five years, the key issue
was whether the Tsilhqot’in First Nation
was entitled to Aboriginal title to all or
part of the claim area.
Justice Vickers of the British
Columbia Supreme Court found that
because the Tsilhqot’in asserted an “all or
nothing” title claim, a declaration of title
could not be granted, as they exclusively
occupied some areas but not others. The
findings were without prejudice to the
Tsilhqot’in First Nation’s ability to pur-
sue specific title claims at a later date.
The trial court also held that, to the
extent Aboriginal title was established,
British Columbia no longer had jurisdic-
tion under the Forests Act and related leg-
islation to grant harvesting rights and
other authorizations, under the doctrine
of inter-jurisdictional immunity.
The key difference, attorneys say,
between the BC court decisions was the
extent to which the First Nation claimants
need to establish continuous and exclu-
sive occupation over defined areas of
land. The trial decision, recognizing the
nomadic nature of this First Nation’s
existence over time and the seasonal
aspects of some of the land’s uses, adopt-
ed what was considered a more flexible
approach to the test for establishing
Aboriginal title. By contrast, the BC
Court of Appeal suggested the test
required a higher threshold of continuous
and exclusive physical occupancy of
defined areas in order to prove a claim,
describing the requirement as “intensive
presence at a particular site.” It explicitly
rejected a broad “territorial” approach to
Aboriginal title, finding it would be “anti-
thetical to the goal of reconciliation.”
The Supreme Court favored the BC
court’s reasoning and granted the declara-
tion of Aboriginal title to the broader ter-
ritory asserted by the Tsilhqot’in. As did
the trial court, the
Supreme Court clari-
fied the test set out in
its 1997 Delgamuukw
ruling, which held
that Aboriginal title
can be found if the
Aboriginal group
proves sufficient,
continuous, and
exclusive occupation.
Sufficiency entails regular use of territo-
ries. Continuity is relevant when present
occupation is relied on as proof of pre-
sovereignty occupation. Exclusivity
involves an intention and capacity to con-
trol the land.
The Supreme Court’s approach high-
lighted how the characteristics of the par-
ticular claimant group and the land
claimed could affect the existence of title.
Despite post-Delgamuukw jurisprudence
suggesting the need for a site-specific
approach to determining “Aboriginal
Rights,” the Supreme Court preferred a
broad “territorial” approach to determin-
ing title.The Supreme Court clarified that
Aboriginal title is an independent, benefi-
cial legal interest, giving rise to a fiduci-
ary duty on the part of the Crown. A dec-
laration of Aboriginal title confers the
right to use and control the land and to
reap the benefits flowing from its
resources. It allows for the use of the land
in a way that benefits the collective as a
whole, including future generations.
In allowing the appeal of the
Tsilhqot’in from the decision of the
British Columbia Court of Appeal in
William v. British Columbia,2 the
Supreme Court has: (a) clarified the law
as it pertains to the establishment of
Aboriginal title and the nature of such
title; (b) addressed how the establishment
of Aboriginal title affects the Crown’s
duty to consult with Aboriginal peoples;
and (c) clarified how provincial (and fed-
eral) legislation may apply to lands sub-
ject to Aboriginal title, and if necessary,
infringements may be justified.
Tsilhqot’in is a decision with potential
implications for all parties involved in
resource development
in British Columbia
and across Canada:
Aboriginal groups,
governments and pro-
ponents. Tsilhqot’in
does not alter the
Crown’s duty to con-
sult and accommo-
date, which continues
to apply wherever the
Crown contemplates conduct that might
adversely affect potential or existing
Aboriginal rights or title. However, as a
practical matter, provincial and federal
governments will need to dedicate greater
resources to assist them in determining
the strength of Aboriginal claims to title
when carrying out consultation.
Transparency and sharing of information
among Aboriginal groups, governments
and proponents will be key to assessing
the potential impacts of project activities
to Aboriginal title and ensuring that the
Crown’s obligations to Aboriginal groups
are met. Where a project may infringe on
Aboriginal title, governments and propo-
nents will be motivated to reach agree-
ments with potentially impacted
Aboriginal groups in order to secure cer-
tainty around the land base for the devel-
opment of resource projects.
20 years of litigationThe litigation concerns the
Tsilhqot’in’s claims for Aboriginal rights
and title in two areas known as
Tachelach’ed and the Trapline Territory
(Claim Area), stemming from decisions
of the Provincial Crown to grant a forest
license under the Forest Act in 1983 and
a cutting permit in 1989 to Carrier
Lumber Ltd. to log in the Trapline
Territory. The Claim Area was confined
to a sparsely populated area that consti-
tuted about five percent (a total of about
3,000 people) of the Tsilhqot’in’s asserted
traditional territory.
In brief, at the trial level, Justice
Vickers of the BC court was tasked with
considering whether:
The Tsilhqot’in held Aboriginal title
and/or Aboriginal rights to all or part of
the claim area;
The provincial Forest Act applied to
Aboriginal title lands; and
The issuance of forest licenses and
other authorizations unjustifiably
infringed the Tsilhqot’in’s rights in the
claim area.
The BC Supreme Court found that
there was sufficient evidence of occupa-
tion by the Tsilhqot’in to support a claim
for Aboriginal title in certain parts of the
claim Area, but refrained from granting a
declaration of Aboriginal title as a matter
of procedural fairness.
The BC Court of Appeal upheld the
lower court’s decision and dismissed the
plaintiff’s claims for Aboriginal title,
finding that a “territorial claim” was not a
viable foundation for a claim of
Aboriginal title. In considering whether
Aboriginal title was made out on the pres-
ent facts, the appeals court applied a nar-
rower test based on site-specific occupa-
tion of lands, requiring proof of intensive
use of definite tracts of land within rea-
sonably defined boundaries at the time of
European sovereignty.
The Court of Appeal concluded that
there was insufficient evidence of a regu-
lar presence or intensive occupation of
specific tracts of land in the claim area
and declined to make a declaration of
Aboriginal title in respect of the claim
area or any specific sites within the claim
area. The appeals court was of the view
that the Tsilhqot’in’s culture and tradi-
tions could still be fully respected without
recognizing Aboriginal title over the
claim area, and affirmed the Aboriginal
rights of the Tsilhqot’in in the area.
A different viewThe Supreme Court of Canada
allowed the Tsilhqot’in’s appeal and
made a declaration of Aboriginal title
over the claim area, finding that the trial
court had correctly applied the test for
Aboriginal title and correctly found that,
on the evidence, the Tsilhqot’in had
established Aboriginal title over the claim
area. Canada’s high court noted that the
procedural reasons that had originally
precluded a declaration of title at the trial
level were no longer relied on by the
province and were not at issue. The
Supreme Court further declared that
British Columbia had breached its duty to
consult with the Tsilhqot’in in respect of
the issuance of logging licenses under the
Forest Act.
In concluding that the test for
Aboriginal title was met, the high court
also clarified the test based on the princi-
ples it had set out in its 1997 decision,
“Delgamuukw v. British Columbia.” In
summary, “Delgamuukw” established
that Aboriginal title to land is based on
“occupation” of such lands prior to the
10NORTH OF 60 MINING PETROLEUM NEWS • WEEK OF JULY 27, 2014
TAIGAVENTURES.COM
Find us at2700 S. Cushman, Fairbanks, AK 99701 | 907-452-6631 | Fax: 907-451-8632351 E. 92nd Ave., Anchorage, AK 99515 | [email protected] | www.taigaventures.com
MOVE IT WITH TAIGA VENTURES
RELIABLE \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
COST-EFFECTIVE \\\\\\\\\\\\\
EFFICIENT \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
WHEN you want it.
Fairbanks and Anchorage- based remote site expediting and logistic support; camps of all sizes, fuel systems.
WHERE you want it.
FASTCAMPS — EXPEDITING
BAROID DRILLING MUD • BILFINGER PVC WELL MONITORING SUPPLIES
see COURT page 11
“Aboriginal title is what it is —the unique product of the
historic relationship betweenthe Crown and the Aboriginal
group in question.” – “Tsilhqot’in Nation v. British Columbia,”
Supreme Court of Canada
target of the remaining $1.6 million of
exploration on the Stone Boy Project. The
program included 16,210 feet of drilling in
12 holes, resulting in 2,129 core samples. In
addition to drilling, 787 soil samples and 48
rock samples were collected on the Ink
claims during 2013.
Though precise quantities of gold dis-
covered have not been disclosed, assess-
ment reports state that results from the
drilling indicate the presence of gold and
pathfinder minerals associated with quartz
veins cutting fine-grained granodiorite
intrusive rocks.
Going forward, the Sumitomo partners
intend to continue exploration activities in
the Stone Boy project in a quest to discover
a new gold mine to follow operations at
Pogo. This includes a robust exploration
program in 2014.
Sumitomo, however, is not the only
global mining company that is interested in
this segment of the Tintina Gold Belt that
trends southeast from Pogo Mine.
Over the course of 2012 and 2013,
Newmont Mining Corp. staked two blocks
of claims – Healy and Healy River – imme-
diately south of Stone Boy’s Ink property.
Newmont North America Exploration
Ltd., the North American exploration arm
of the Colorado-based global gold miner,
completed at least $470,000 of early stage
exploration on its Healy claims.
This reconnaissance-stage program
included geological mapping and a geo-
chemical program of 4,306 soil and 326
rock chip samples.
Mining News was unable to confirm
whether Newmont is conducting explo-
ration at Healy this year, but the fresh
claims staked in 2013 indicate the company
has plans to continue its investigation of this
region.
Nikolai nickelAs part of its global search for base
metal deposits, MMG Ltd., owner of the
famed Century zinc mine in Australia, has
been quietly seeking nickel in Alaska. This
includes more than US$2 million spent on
exploration in 2013 and a follow-up pro-
gram this year.
Headquartered in Melbourne and listed
on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange, MMG
is looking beyond exploration at and around
its mines in Australia, Asia and Africa.
“In general, 2013 saw a shift of focus
from mine district exploration centered on
MMG’s operating assets with increasing
exploration maturity, to new discovery
exploration targeting transformational dis-
covery,” the company explained in its annu-
al report.
Toward this end, MMG USA
Exploration LLC, a subsidiary of Australia-
based MMG Ltd., invested roughly
US$1.58 million on nickel exploration on
three large blocks of state of Alaska mining
claims that follow an arc south of the Alaska
Range. These claim groups include
Amphitheater, which borders Pure Nickel’s
Man property to the south and west; Butte
Creek, located about 40 miles (65 kilome-
ters) southwest of Amphitheater; and
Talkeetna, a block of claims roughly 30
miles (about 48 kilometers) further along
this arc that coincides with the Wrangellia
Terrane, a band of rocks known to host
nickel-platinum group metal deposits that
arcs from Southcentral Alaska through
southern Yukon Territory and along the
coast of British Columbia.
The 2013 program at MGM’s properties
in the Alaska portion of Wrangellia, collec-
tively known as the Nikolai project, includ-
ed geophysical surveys, mapping, rock
sampling and 1,188 meters of core drilling
in six holes.
The Talkeetna property accounted for
roughly half of MMG’s reported 2013
Nikolai project expenditures. The work at
this property located about 100 miles north-
west of Anchorage involved an early-staged
program of compiling geological informa-
tion on the property, mapping and rock sam-
pling.
In addition to a similar reconnaissance
level mapping and sampling program, the
company commissioned a 1,817-line-kilo-
meter helicopter-borne versatile time-
domain electromagnetic (VTEM) geophys-
ical survey for Amphitheater, the claims
bordering the Man nickel-PGM-copper
property.
Bluff, a block of claims that blankets a
roughly 13-mile by five-mile (21 kilometers
by eight kilometers)section of mountains
stretching southwest of the Denali
Highway, was the target of drilling last year.
Beyond seeking nickel along the south-
ern slopes of the Alaska Range, MMG
invested at least US$550,000 on early-stage
exploration on its Twenty Mile and Squaw
Creek projects in the Rampart Mining
District, some 100 miles (160 kilometers)
northwest of Fairbanks.
Though the Rampart region is not
renowned for its nickel potential, placer
gold and tin have been mined from area
streams since Alaska’s gold rush days at the
dawn of the 20th Century. More recently,
geologists have been investigating the rare
earth element potential of this section of
Interior Alaska.
The 2013 program on these claims locat-
ed north of the Yukon River included a
2,396-line-kilometer helicopter-borne ver-
satile time-domain electromagnetic survey,
mapping and rock sampling.
MMG continues exploration at its
Nikolai project in 2014. ●
11NORTH OF 60 MININGPETROLEUM NEWS • WEEK OF JULY 27, 2014
continued from page 9
GLOBAL
assertion of European sovereignty. The Aboriginal
claimant must successfully demonstrate that such occu-
pation possesses three characteristics: The occupation
must be sufficient (at the time of European sovereignty),
continuous (where present occupation is relied upon),
and exclusive (historically).
The Supreme Court of Canada disagreed with the
Court of Appeal’s views that occupation sufficient to
ground Aboriginal title should be confined to specific
settlement sites, and further disagreed that evidence of
intensive use of a definite tract of land was required.
Rather, the high court held that Aboriginal title may
extend to tracts of land that were regularly used for hunt-
ing, fishing, trapping or foraging and over which the
Aboriginal group exercised effective control at the time
of European sovereignty. The high court held that the
narrow approach put forth by the Court of Appeal would
be inconsistent with the reality of the semi-nomadic
lifestyle of groups like the Tsilhqot’in.
The Supreme Court of Canada held that an assess-
ment of the sufficiency of occupation is a context-spe-
cific inquiry that requires a culturally sensitive approach.
It must be approached from both the common law per-
spective (e.g. concepts of possession and control) and the
Aboriginal perspective (including the laws, practices,
customs and traditions of the Aboriginal group). The
Aboriginal group must demonstrate that it has historical-
ly acted in a way that would communicate to third par-
ties that it held the land for its own purposes, and provide
evidence of a “strong presence on or over the land
claimed” indicating that the land was controlled by, or
under the exclusive stewardship of the Aboriginal group.
The Supreme Court noted that
continuity of occupation between
present and pre-sovereignty occu-
pation does not require proof of an
unbroken chain of continuity
between present and past prac-
tices, but rather that the present
occupation must be rooted in pre-
sovereignty times. This is deter-
mined on the facts. Exclusivity of
occupation requires proof that the
Aboriginal group had the “inten-
tion and capacity to retain exclusive control” over the
lands, and this also must be approached from the com-
mon law and Aboriginal perspective.
Aboriginal rights?The Supreme Court concluded that, “Aboriginal title
is what it is — the unique product of the historic rela-
tionship between the Crown and the Aboriginal group in
question.” Aboriginal title is a burden on the underlying
title asserted by the Crown at sovereignty, giving rise to
a fiduciary duty on the part of the Crown. While other
forms of property ownership (e.g. fee simple) may assist
in understanding aspects of Aboriginal title, they do not
dictate precisely the nature of Aboriginal title.
The high court held that Aboriginal title is a beneficial
interest in the land, and confers on the Aboriginal group
holding it rights that are similar to those associated with
fee simple ownership: Rights to determine how the land
is used, enjoyment and occupancy, possession, the right
to the economic benefit of such uses, and the right to pro-
actively manage the land.
However, there are also limits on
such protected uses of Aboriginal
title lands. As a result of the col-
lective nature of Aboriginal title,
use of the land must be consistent
with the nature of the group’s
attachment to the land and lands
must not be encumbered in ways
that would deprive future genera-
tions of the Aboriginal group
from enjoying the benefit of the
land. Further, Aboriginal title lands cannot be alienated
except to the Crown, which maintains underlying title to
the land.
The Supreme Court of Canada distinguished between
the obligations of the Crown towards Aboriginal groups
before and after Aboriginal title has been established.
Prior to the establishment of Aboriginal title, the well-
known principles of consultation and accommodation of
Aboriginal interests set down by the Supreme Court in
“Haida Nation” continue to apply. Where the Crown has
real or constructive knowledge of the potential existence
of Aboriginal title, and contemplates conduct that might
adversely affect it, the Crown must consult with the
Aboriginal group, and where appropriate, accommodate
the Aboriginal group. Since Aboriginal title is the
strongest form of right, a strong claim of Aboriginal title
continued from page 10
COURT
see COURT page 12
“Once title is established, it may benecessary for the Crown to reassess
prior conduct in light of the newreality in order to faithfully
discharge its fiduciary duty to thetitle-holding group going forward.”
– “Tsilhqot’in Nation v. British Columbia,”Supreme Court of Canada
12NORTH OF 60 MINING PETROLEUM NEWS • WEEK OF JULY 27, 2014
Fort Knox and Sam Kirstein, the director of Fairbanks Community Food Bank, are partners in improving our community.
At Fort Knox, stewardship means helping our neighbors and community, and protecting our land and water resources, too. That’s why we’re committed to the food bank.
Sam modestly says, “Good happens in the community, and I get to see it happen.” We like to think that Sam is one of the many generous individuals in the community out there making good things happen every day.
And we’re mighty glad she does.
Fort KnoxOur People. Our Community.
Fairbanks Gold Mining Inc.A Kinross company
may attract more stringent duties on the part of the
Crown.
However, once Aboriginal title has been proven, the
Supreme Court held that given the exclusive rights con-
ferred to an Aboriginal group by Aboriginal title, “gov-
ernments and others seeking to use the land must obtain
the consent of the Aboriginal title holders” in order to
proceed with development. If the Aboriginal group does
not consent, the government’s only recourse is to estab-
lish that the proposed incursion on the land is justified
under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, on the
basis of the broader public good. In order to do so, the
Crown must demonstrate
that:
It discharged its procedur-
al duty to consult and accom-
modate;
Its actions were backed by
a compelling and substantial
objective; and
The governmental action
is consistent with the
Crown’s fiduciary obligation
to the Aboriginal group.
The Supreme Court of
Canada adopted the observa-
tions of Lamer C.J. in
Delgamuukw regarding the types of compelling and sub-
stantive legislative objectives that might justify the
infringement of Aboriginal title, namely: “The develop-
ment of agriculture, forestry, mining, and hydroelectric
power, the general economic development of the interior
of British Columbia, protection of the environment or
endangered species, the building of infrastructure and
the settlement of foreign populations to support those
aims...” The high court noted that justification must be
considered from both the Aboriginal perspective as well
as the broader public perspective, consistent with the
goal of reconciliation.
Resource development projects are routinely faced
with asserted but unproven Aboriginal title claims. The
Supreme Court noted that as a practical matter, as the
strength of a claim increases, the required level of con-
sultation and accommodation will correspondingly
increase. Further, the high court noted that:
“Once title is established, it may be necessary for the
Crown to reassess prior conduct in light of the new real-
ity in order to faithfully discharge its fiduciary duty to
the title-holding group going forward. For example, if
the Crown begins a project without consent prior to
Aboriginal title being established, it may be required to
cancel the project upon establishment of the title if con-
tinuation of the project would be unjustifiably infringing.
Similarly, if legislation was validly enacted before title
was established, such legislation may be rendered inap-
plicable going forward to the extent that it unjustifiably
infringes Aboriginal title.”
The Supreme Court further
commented that governments
and individuals proposing to
use or exploit land can avoid a
charge of infringement or fail-
ure to adequately consult by
obtaining the consent of the
interested Aboriginal group.
The Supreme Court
acknowledged that up to this
point, the law had been
unclear regarding whether a
valid provincial law could
ever justifiably infringe an
Aboriginal right, or whether
such justification was reserved for the federal govern-
ment due to its constitutional jurisdiction. Canada’s high
court also noted inconsistencies between earlier judg-
ments and the fact that this issue had never been explic-
itly resolved. In Tsilhqot’in, however, the Supreme Court
has now provided a clear test to be applied to all govern-
ment action (both federal and provincial) that may
infringe Aboriginal rights or title.
ImplicationsObservers say this decision represents an important
step in the development of Aboriginal rights litigation in
Canada. While the decision is a significant victory for
Aboriginal groups, it does not fundamentally alter the
law in Canada. Since the Supreme Court of Canada’s
1973 decision in ‘Calder,’ the law has recognized the
possibility of Aboriginal title. It has long been a question
of when, not if, an Aboriginal group would be successful
in proving Aboriginal title.
It is important to note that there remains a high thresh-
old to meet the test to establish Aboriginal title.
Moreover, once Aboriginal title is established, it does not
create a blanket prohibition on the government from
using the land, provided that the government can justify
the incursion. The Supreme Court’s adoption of Lamer
C.J.’s observations in “Delgamuukw” regarding the
types of uses that may be justified should be a positive
sign for industry proponents.
From a practical perspective, proponents of resource
projects can expect an increased focus by governments
on the strength of an Aboriginal claim to title as part of
the consultation process. For projects on lands subject to
a strong case for Aboriginal title, governments are likely
to seek to further insulate their decisions by carrying out
more extensive consultation and accommodation discus-
sions with Aboriginal groups. There will almost certain-
ly be increased pressure on both governments and pro-
ponents to reach agreements on resource projects that
may infringe on Aboriginal title. Where an agreement
cannot be reached, proponents can expect governments
to engage in a much more deliberate balancing of the
public policy rationale for pursuing resource develop-
ment.
“While questions remain, this decision provides addi-
tional clarity in a critical area of law. It affirms the scope
of provincial jurisdiction and resolves a long-standing
question about the circumstances in which government
can justifiably infringe Aboriginal title. Finally, the deci-
sion provides further guidance to government,
Aboriginal groups and proponents at an important time
for the development of natural resources in Canada,”
attorneys say.
The Supreme Court’s decision will create challenges
for governments and proponents seeking to authorize
development projects on Aboriginal lands. It clarifies, if
continued from page 11
COURT
see COURT page 19
Government has the duty to consult withFirst Nations, but members of AME BC
recognize that respectfully engaging withFirst Nations early and often creates
mutual understanding, trust and respect.We have seen that mutual benefits can
often occur when this approach is taken byeveryone involved, including industry, First
Nations and government.” –David McLelland, chairman, Association for Mineral
Exploration British Columbia
13NORTH OF 60 MININGPETROLEUM NEWS • WEEK OF JULY 27, 2014
Exploring the vastmineral resources of Alaska & Canada’s Far North
Don't miss your opportunity to be included in North of 60 Mining News' 2014 Mining Explorers.
This beautiful annual magazine provides the most comprehensive coverage of the exploration companies seeking tounlock the vast mineral resources of Alaska and Canada's Far North.
The advertising placement deadline is fast approaching - September 12th.
To advertise in the 2014 Mining Explorers publication, please contact:Susan Crane • 907-770-5592 Bonnie Yonker • 425-483-9705
www.miningnewsnorth.com | 907-522-9469
14NORTH OF 60 MINING
PETROLEUM NEWS • WEEK OF JULY 27, 2014
● A L A S K A
Ucore advances Bokan, eyes Ray MountainsAs the SE Alaska rare earths project closes in on permitting, Ucore begins to explore a placer REE-tin property in the Interior
BY SHANE LASLEYMining News
U core Rare Metals Inc. has field programs under-
way at both the Bokan-Dotson Ridge rare earth
elements project in Southeast Alaska and its Ray
Mountain REE-tin project in the Interior region of the
state.
Work at Bokan Mountain is focused on collecting the
last bits of information needed to complete a plan of
operation that can be submitted for permitting and final-
ize a feasibility study sched-
uled for delivery in 2015.
As a potential domestic
source of a suite of heavy rare
earth elements that many con-
sider minerals critical to the
United States, including dys-
prosium, terbium, yttrium and
europium, Ucore’s Bokan
Mountain project in Southeast Alaska has garnered
attention from officials on both the state and national
level.
The most recent expression of this government sup-
port is Senate Bill 99, legislation that authorizes the
Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority to
issue up to US$145 million in bonds to fund infrastruc-
ture and construction at Ucore Rare Metals’ Bokan
Mountain.
“Bokan represents an unsurpassed opportunity for
Alaska to furnish materials of critical importance to
American national defense, energy consumption and
competitiveness in high-tech applications at a world
level, and Alaska lawmakers have recognized this,”
Ucore President and CEO Jim McKenzie said as the bill
was wending its way through the Legislature.
During a June ceremony held in Ketchikan, Alaska
Gov. Sean Parnell endorsed the legislation by signing it
into law.
“The official signing of SB99 is an important mile-
stone for our company and for the people of Alaska,”
said McKenzie. “Bokan will advance Alaska’s econom-
ic agenda, and ensure a secure domestic supply line of
rare earth metals for the American market.”
Before AIDEA is willing to offer up any funding
under the provisions provided
by the legislation, Ucore must
convince the quasi-state-
owned agency that developing
a mine at Bokan and building
an associated REE processing
facility will pay dividends on
the capital investment.
In mid-July, Ucore kicked
off a 5,000-meter drill program that aims to gather the
final bits of geological and geotechnical data needed for
an upcoming feasibility study, just the level of analysis
needed for the AIDEA board of directors to undertake its
due diligence on the viability of investing in the REE
project.
“It’s great to see this program get underway as one of
the final steps required to trigger our forthcoming feasi-
bility study,” said Ucore COO Ken Collison.
Feasibility studiesIn its trek to get Bokan in operation as early as possi-
ble, Ucore has hired SRK Consulting to compile baseline
data and qualitative results from ongoing engineering
studies to produce a formal plan of operations for the
rare earths project. This plan will be submitted to the
U.S. Forest Service to facilitate delivery of an
Environmental Impact Statement and initiate the review
process set out in the National Environmental Policy
Act.
This work includes:
The continued collection of baseline water samples,
which began in 2012;
Construction of a meteorological station to collect
weather data required for the permitting process;
Kinetic testing of representative samples of drill core
required to support state and federal permitting initia-
tives; and
Barrel tests containing samples of sorted rock to
assess water quality runoff for the planned rock manage-
ment facility, which will contain rock rejected from the
x-ray sorting equipment planned for the Bokan opera-
tion.
This summer’s work also will inform the upcoming
feasibility study, which builds upon a 2012 preliminary
economic assessment that anticipates an underground
mine feeding 1,500 tons of ore to a 750-metric-tons-per-
day mill and a state-of-the-art processing facility at
Bokan Mountain.
This operation is anticipated to produce 2,250 metric
tons of rare earth oxides per year during the first five
years of full production; including an annual output of
95 metric tons of dysprosium oxide, 14 metric tons of
terbium oxide, and 515 metric tons of yttrium oxide.
The ability to run a mill half the size of the ore being
mined is due to an x-ray sorter that will reject half the
feed as REE-barren waste prior to milling. By halving
“Ucore is increasingly a standalone storyas the prospective go-to for super-metalscritically required in U.S. military, green-
tech and high tech arenas.” – Jim McKenzie, president and CEO, Ucore Rare Metals Inc.
see BOKAN page 18
A preliminary assessment completed in 2012 anticipates the Bokan Mountain project in Southeast Alaska will produce 2,250 metric tons of rare earth oxides per year during the first fiveyears of full production; including an annual output of 95 metric tons of dysprosium oxide, 14 metric tons of terbium oxide, and 515 metric tons of yttrium oxide.
UC
OR
E R
AR
E M
ETA
LS I
NC
.
15NORTH OF 60 MININGPETROLEUM NEWS • WEEK OF JULY 27, 2014
mining newsI would like to introduce you to North of 60 Mining News, a monthly
supplement to Anchorage-based Petroleum News. North of 60 Mining News covers the mining industry in the Arctic, focusing onAlaska and northern Canada. It is inserted in Petroleum News the
fourth week of every month.
Mining News carries the latest news in the industry, as well as features on the most important projects and issues, such as new
technology, environmental policy, aboriginal rights and mining legislation. It is the only newspaper that covers this far northernregion in such depth, and our reporters frequently travel to see
mining projects for themselves and to attend major mining conferences.
In addition to news and features, we publish regular columns byFairbanks geologist Curt Freeman and Anchorage attorney J.P.Tangen, a specialist in mineral law. A subscription to the paperincludes access to the online archive of thousands of mining and
petroleum articles from past years.
The most recent addition to North of 60 Mining News is the weeklyonline newsletter, keeping you up to date on the most important
news affecting the industry.
North of 60 Mining News is a newspaper that no company involved inthis region’s mining industry should be without. It’s your paper, for
your industry. We would like to hear from you!
If you have any questions about advertising, subscribing, or if would like additional information please contact:
Shane at (907) 522-9469, [email protected] Susan at (907) 770-5592, [email protected]
Bonnie at (425) 483-9705, [email protected]
www.miningnewsnorth.com | 907-522-9469
Mining Companies
Kinross Fort Knox/Fairbanks Gold Mining Inc.Fairbanks, AK 99707Contact: Anna Atchison, Manager, Community and Government RelationsPhone: (907) 490-2218 Fax: (907) 490-2290E-mail: [email protected]: www.kinross.comLocated 25 miles northeast of Fairbanks, Fort Knox isAlaska’s largest producing gold mine; during 2011,Fort Knox achieved 5 million ounces of gold pro-duced, a modern record in Alaska mining.
Usibelli Coal MineFairbanks, AK 99701Contact: Bill Brophy, VP Customer RelationsPhone: (907) 452-2625 • Fax: (907) 451-6543Email: [email protected]: www.usibelli.comOther Office
PO Box 1000Healy, AK 99743Phone: (907) 683-2226Usibelli Coal Mine is headquartered in Healy, Alaskaand has 700 million tons of coal reserves. UCM pro-duces an average of 2 million tons of sub-bituminouscoal each year.
Service, Supply & Equipment
Alaska Air Cargo • Horizon Air CargoP.O. Box 68900 SEAFZSeattle, WA 98168Contact: Joe Sprague, Vice President of CargoPhone: (206) 392-2705 or 800-2ALASKAFax: (206) 392-2641E-mail: [email protected]: www.alaskacargo.comAward winning cargo services to more places, moreoften, with more lift to, from, and within the state ofAlaska.
Alaska Analytical Laboratory1956 Richardson HighwayNorth Pole, AK 99705Phone: (907) 488-1266 • Fax: (907) 488-077E-mail: [email protected] analytical soil testing for GRO, DRO,RRO, and UTEX. Field screening and phase 1 and 2site assessments also available.
Alaska Steel Co.6180 Electron DriveAnchorage, AK 99518Contact: Joe Pavlas, outside sales managerPhone: (907) 561-1188Toll free: (800) 770-0969 (AK only)Fax: (907) 561-2935E-mail: [email protected] Full-line steel and aluminum distributor. Completeprocessing capabilities, statewide service. Specializingin low temperature steel and wear plate.
Companies involved in Alaska andnorthwestern Canada’s mining industry
D I R E C T O R Y
The Red Dog mine in northwest Alaska.
17NORTH OF 60 MININGPETROLEUM NEWS • WEEK OF JULY 27, 2014
Austin Powder CompanyP.O. Box 8236Ketchikan, AK 99901Contact: Tony Barajas, Alaska managerPhone: (907) 225-8236 • Fax: (907) 225-8237E-mail: [email protected] site: www.austinpowder.comIn business since 1833, Austin Powder providesstatewide prepackaged and onsite manufacturedexplosives and drilling supplies with a commitment tosafety and unmatched customer service.
Calista Corp.301 Calista Court, Suite AAnchorage, AK 99518Phone: (907) 279-5516 • Fax: (907) 272-5060Web site: www.calistacorp.com
Construction Machinery Industrial, LLC5400 Homer DriveAnchorage, AK 99518Contact: Robert Fairbanks, Sales ManagerPhone: (907) 563-3822Fax: (907) 563-1381Email: [email protected]: www.cmiak.com
Delta P Pump & EquipmentPO Box 771452Eagle River, AK 99577Contact: Sue Ahrens, OwnerPhone: (907) 694-7583Fax: (907) 694-7584E-mail: [email protected]: www.deltappump.comDelta P Pumps and Equipment is a full line distribu-tor for pumps, pump parts, and related equipment.We also handle system design, complete fabrication,installation assistance, and some repairs. Delta PPump and Equipment is a woman owned Alaskanbusiness established in 2000.
GCI Industrial TelecomAnchorage:11260 Old Seward Highway Ste. 105Anchorage, AK 99515Phone: (907) 868-0400Fax: (907) 868-9528Toll free: (877) 411-1484Web site: www.GCI-IndustrialTelecom.comRick Hansen, [email protected] Johnson, Business Development [email protected]:Aurora Hotel #205Deadhorse, Alaska 99734Phone: (907) 771-1090Mike Stanford, Senior Manager North [email protected], Texas:8588 Katy Freeway, Suite 226Houston, Texas 77024Phone: (713) 589-4456Hillary McIntosh, Account [email protected] Industrial Telecom provides innovative solutionsto the most complex communication issues facingindustrial clientele. We deliver competitive services,reputable expertise and safely operate under themost severe working conditions for the oil, gas andnatural resource industries. GCI-your best choice forfull life cycle, expert, proven, industrial communica-tions.
HDR Alaska Inc. 2525 C St., Ste 305Anchorage, AK 99503Contact: Jaci Mellott, Marketing CoordinatorPhone: (907) 644-2091Fax: (907) 644-2022Email: [email protected]: www.hdrinc.comHDR Alaska provides engineering, environmental, plan-ning, and consultation services for mining and mineralexploration clients. Services include: biological studies;cultural resources; project permitting; NEPA; stakehold-er outreach; agency consultation; and environmental,civil, transportation, energy, and heavy structural engi-neering.
Jackovich Industrial & Construction SupplyFairbanks, AK 99707Contact: Buz JackovichPhone: (907) 456-4414 • Fax: (907) 452-4846Anchorage officePhone: (907) 277-1406 • Fax: (907) 258-170024- hour emergency service. With 30 years of experi-ence, we’re experts on arctic conditions and extreme
weather.
Judy Patrick Photography511 W. 41st Ave, Suite 101Anchorage, AK 99503Contact: Judy PatrickPhone: (907) 258-4704Fax: (907) 258-4706E-mail: [email protected]: www.judypatrickphotography.comCreative images for the resource development industry.
Keller Williams Commercial101 West Benson, Ste. 503Contact: Stewart Smith, Associate BrokerAnchorage, AK 99503Phone: (907) 865-6505Cell: (907) 727-8686Email: [email protected]: Mollie Smith, Commercial AssociateCell: (907) 229-1384Email: [email protected] site: www.stusell.com;www.AKMiningClaims.comMining Claims to buy, sell, or lease, call the Alaskaprofessionals. We provide real estate brokerage serv-ice to the mining industry, with over 35 years of com-mercial experience. Call for a list of our featuredproperties.
Last Frontier Air Ventures39901 N. Glenn Hwy. Sutton, AK 99674Contact: Dave King, ownerPhone: (907) 745-5701Fax: (907) 745-5711E-mail: [email protected] Base (907) 272-8300Web site: www.LFAV.comHelicopter support statewide for mineral exploration,survey research and development, slung cargo,video/film projects, telecom support, tours, crewtransport, heli skiing. Short and long term contracts.
LyndenAlaska Marine Lines • Alaska Railbelt MarineAlaska West Express • Lynden Air CargoLynden Air Freight • Lynden InternationalLynden Logistics • Lynden TransportAnchorage, AK 99502Contact: Jeanine St. JohnPhone: (907) 245-1544 • Fax: (907) 245-1744Email: [email protected] combined scope of the Lynden companiesincludes truckload and less-than-truckload highwayconnections, scheduled barges, intermodal bulkchemical hauls, scheduled and chartered airfreighters, domestic and international air forwarding
and international sea forwarding services.
Northern Air Cargo3900 W. International Airport Rd. Anchorage, AK 99502Contact: Mark Liland, acct. mgr. Anch./Prudhoe BayPhone: (907) 249-5149 • Fax: (907) 249-5194Email: [email protected] • Website: www.nac.aeroServing the aviation needs of rural Alaska for almost 50years, NAC is the states largest all cargo carrier movingnearly 100 million pounds of cargo on scheduled flightsto 17 of Alaska’s busiest airports. NAC’s fleet of DC-6,B-727, and ATR-42 aircraft are available for charters toremote sites and flag stops to 44 additional communi-ties.
Pacific Rim Geological ConsultingFairbanks, AK 99708Contact: Thomas Bundtzen, presidentPhone: (907) 458-8951Fax: (907) 458-8511Email: [email protected] mapping, metallic minerals exploration andindustrial minerals analysis or assessment.
Pebble Partnership3201 C St., Suite 604Anchorage, AK 99503Phone: 907-339-2600www.pebblepartnership.com
PND Engineers Inc.1506 W. 36th Ave. Anchorage, AK 99503Phone: (907) 561-1011Fax: (907) 563-4220Website: www.pndengineers.comFull-service engineering firm providing civil, structur-al, and geotechnical engineering, including miningsupport, resource development, permitting, marineand coastal engineering, transportation engineering,hydrology, site remediation, and project manage-ment.
TTT Environmental LLC 4201 “B” St.Anchorage, AK 99503Contact: Tom Tompkins, general managerPhone: 907-770-9041 • Fax: 907-770-9046Email: [email protected]: www.tttenviro.comAlaska’s preferred source for instrument rentals, sales,service and supplies. We supply equipment for airmonitoring, water sampling, field screening, PPE andmore.
Taiga Ventures2700 S. CushmanFairbanks, AK 99701Mike Tolbert - presidentPhone: 907-452-6631 • Fax: 907-451-8632Other offices:Airport Business Park2000 W. International Airport Rd, #D-2Anchorage, AK 99502Phone: 907-245-3123Email: [email protected] site: www.taigaventures.comRemote site logistics firm specializing in turnkeyportable shelter camps – all seasons.
Total Safety U.S. Inc.209 E. 51st Ave.Anchorage, AK 99503Contact: Tyler Zollinger, District Manager.Phone: (907) 743-9871Fax: (907) 743-9872E-mail: [email protected]: www.totalsafety.comA full service safety company specializing in RemoteMedical Services, H2S Services, Industrial Hygiene, andSafety Consultants. Total Safety provides Service,Rental, or Sales of Safe Breathing Air, Gas Detection,and Technical Safety Equipment.
URS Corp.700 G Street, Suite 500Anchorage, AK 99501Contact: Joe Hegna, Alaska Vice President/AlaskaOperations ManagerPhone: (907) 562-3366 • Fax: (907) 562-1297E-mail: [email protected]: www.urscorp.comProvide engineering, construction and technical serv-ices with capabilities to support all stages of projectlife cycle. We offer a full range of program manage-ment; planning, design and engineering; constructionand construction management; operations and main-tenance; and decommissioning and closure services.
Advertiser IndexAlaska Airlines Cargo
Alaska Analytical Laboratory
Alaska Dreams
Alaska Steel Co.
Austin Powder Co. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Calista Corp. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Constantine Metal Resources
Construction Machinery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Delta P Pump . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Fairbanks Gold Mining/Fort Knox Gold Mine. . . 12
GCI Industrial Telecom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Greer Tank Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
IFR Workwear Inc.
Judy Patrick Photography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Keller Williams Commercial
Last Frontier Air Ventures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Lynden. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Nature Conservancy, The
Northern Air Cargo
Pacific Rim Geological Consulting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Pebble Partnership
PND Engineers Inc.
Salt+Light Creative
Sourdough Express Inc.
Taiga Ventures/PacWest Drilling Supply . . . . . . . 10
Total Safety
URS Corp.
Usibelli Coal Mine
the material, the sorter is essentially dou-
bling the mill head grade. Another 50 per-
cent of the material is slated to be
removed via magnetic separation between
the mill and leaching circuit.
“So we are going to have 1,500 tpd
coming out of the mine, but we are going
to have a 750-tpd grinding circuit and
then the leaching circuit, which is exten-
sive, is only 375 tons per day,” summa-
rized Collison.
In addition to the economic advantages
associated with purchasing and operating
a smaller mill, this setup provides envi-
ronmental rewards.
While the PEA envisions a small, tem-
porary facility to store tailings during the
early stages of development, at a certain
point the mine will consume all of the
tailings produced to fill underground
voids.
“A zero tailings footprint is a unique
environmental objective, and we are
aware of no other mine, rare earth or oth-
erwise, that has accomplished such a
design feature,” said McKenzie.
In the latter half of 2013, Ucore con-
tinued testing this cutting-edge technique.
A 22-ton sample tested by a company in
Germany rejected 52 percent of the feed
while retaining 96.3 percent of the rare
earths in the material that would report to
the mill.
This resulted in an output grade from
the sorter of 1.56 TREO, compared with
0.77 percent TREO in the original sam-
ple. In the fall of 2013, Ucore sent a 33-
ton sample of Dotson Ridge material to
Germany for further x-ray sorter testing.
The output from this sample will pro-
vide feed for a pilot plant for Bokan, the
final stage of bulk-scale testing of the
production circuit prior to the release of a
bankable feasibility study. Rather than an
onsite, scaled-down version of the facili-
ty, the pilot plant will involve up-scale
bench testing of the various components
planned for the cutting-edge operation.
The XRT sorting is one portion of the
pilot plant; the testing of a state-of-the-art
technique that utilizes nanotechnology to
separate the 16 different rare earth ele-
ments found in the Dotson Ridge deposit
at Bokan is another.
Metallurgical testing currently under-
way at Hazen Research of Denver aims to
optimize the process flow-sheet already
set out in Ucore’s preliminary economic
assessment.
The finalized flow-sheet will form the
basis of the Bokan pilot plant scheduled
for later this year.
Ucore is working with Montana-based
IntelliMet LLC to pioneer an REE-pro-
cessing technique known as solid-phase
extraction, a nanotechnology process that
is expected to result in a smaller and more
efficient facility for transforming Bokan
Mountain concentrates into rare earth
oxides.
The results of the pilot-plant testing,
together with a 5,000-meter drill pro-
gram, will be incorporated into the Bokan
feasibility study, scheduled for delivery in
2015.
“Very few heavy rare earth projects in
the world are undertaking such an
advanced level of development, permit-
ting and field operations in 2014,” touted
McKenzie. “Ucore is increasingly a
standalone story as the prospective go-to
for super-metals critically required in
U.S. military, green-tech and high tech
18NORTH OF 60 MINING
PETROLEUM NEWS • WEEK OF JULY 27, 2014
Sophie Station Suites1717 University Ave Fairbanks | 800.528.4916
[email protected] | FountainheadHotels.com
• Government Lodging - Free Internet Access
• Corporate Rates - Free Airport Shuttle Service
• Meetings & Groups - Catered Presentations
Your First Choice in FairbanksBusiness Travel
continued from page 14
BOKAN
see BOKAN page 19
The 2014 field program at the Bokan Mountain rare earths project is expected to provide the last bits of information needed to finalize a feasibility study scheduled for delivery in 2015.
UC
OR
E R
AR
E M
ETA
LS I
NC
.
19NORTH OF 60 MININGPETROLEUM NEWS • WEEK OF JULY 27, 2014
not introduces, a significant new type of leverage –
focusing on property rights – available to Aboriginal
groups. Future Aboriginal litigation may increasingly be
about proving title, as opposed to alleged deficiencies
over the adequacy of consultation.
The decision may reduce certainty about resource
projects in areas of the country where Aboriginal title is
or could become an issue, which includes almost all of
British Columbia, much of Atlantic Canada, parts of
Ontario and Québec and some of the North. The decision
will also be attractive for those First Nations who assert
that treaties did not extinguish title but were merely
peace treaties.
The Supreme Court’s suggestion that projects
approved by the Crown before the declaration of title
may need to be re-assessed or even canceled once title is
declared could raise potential concerns over some proj-
ects in Canada.
Justification for infringing Aboriginal title will
arguably require more proactive attention by the Crown.
That is, the federal and provincial governments will need
to adopt a more systematic approach to consulting with
Aboriginal groups (as opposed to merely delegating con-
sultation to proponents) and rationalizing any infringe-
ment in a transparent and principled way.
Attorneys say the decision also raises the question of
how Aboriginal title will be proven going forward. This
decision was a result of a very long and expensive civil
action. Will the courts continue to require that title be
proven only in a civil action, or can it be proven in, for
example, a judicial review or a tribunal proceeding?
And, will the Crown, to discharge its duty of honor after
this decision, create processes that provide timely oppor-
tunities for determining Aboriginal title?
Finally, that the provinces can continue to regulate
land subject to Aboriginal title claims and title determi-
nations should be a welcome relief to many and will
allow for consistent regulation across each province.
Some legal observers say concerns over widespread
development restrictions resulting from this decision are
likely premature.
On the issue of what public benefit objectives could
justify infringement on Aboriginal title, the Supreme
Court confirmed its decision in “Delgamuukw” that the
development of agriculture, forestry, mining, hydroelec-
tric power and infrastructure could be compelling and
substantial, but would have to be considered on a case-
by-case basis. In this case, the enactment and application
of British Columbia’s forestry management and harvest-
ing regime to the Aboriginal title lands of the Tsilhqot’in
Nation failed to meet this test. The findings of the lower
court were upheld as to the limited public benefit (eco-
nomic or ecological) of the forestry regime, and it was
determined that undue hardship and denial of rights of
the Tsilhqot’in Nation would result, according to the
court.
“What perhaps should be given more attention is the
assertion by the SCC that the Aboriginal title holder and
any government authorizing development on the lands
must ensure that such development does not deprive
future Aboriginal generations of the control and benefit
of the lands,” some attorneys say. “We can expect that
the exhaustion of particular resources and the footprint
of proposed developments will be given significant
scrutiny.”
After 20 years in the courts, the success of the
Tsilhqot’in Nation in this case has ushered in another
phase of Aboriginal rights recognition in Canada and
provides important guidance on how the concepts of suf-
ficiency, continuity and exclusivity will be applied to
Aboriginal title claims across Canada. Resource devel-
opment in areas where Aboriginal title remains an issue
(predominantly British Columbia and Eastern Canada
but also parts of Ontario, Quebec and the North) will
require enhanced Aboriginal engagement, clear public
benefit and protection of future Aboriginal use.
Duty to consultKarina Briño, president and CEO of the Mining
Association of B.C., issued a statement June 26 in
response to the Tsilhqot’in decision.
Briño said the trade group, which represents the inter-
ests of B.C.’s mining industry, is reviewing the Supreme
Court of Canada’s decision on “Tsilhqot’in Nation v.
British Columbia.”
She said the decision confirms that resource develop-
ment over land where Aboriginal title is asserted must,
by law, be preceded by meaningful consultation. It fur-
ther reinforces that industry’s commitment to meaning-
ful consultation and engagement with First Nations will
continue to position British Columbia as an attractive
jurisdiction in which to mine. The decision provides cer-
tainty and clarification around aboriginal title and the
application of provincial law and regulation on the land
base, Briño added.
The Association for Mineral Exploration British
Columbia also responded to the Supreme Court of
Canada’s judgment.
“While this is a complex and precedent-setting case
that will require further review, we at AME BC know
that the path forward is for the federal and provincial
governments to continue consulting with the Tsilhqot’in
Nation,” AME BC Gavin C. Dirom President & CEO
said. “The outcome of such consultation will enable fur-
ther investment from the mineral exploration and devel-
opment industry that will create jobs and shared eco-
nomic opportunity for all British Columbians, including
the people of the Tsilhqot’in Nation. Improved certainty
about title, consistent decision making processes and the
application of predictable and reasonable laws and regu-
lations are critical to successfully attracting investment
to British Columbia.”
AME BC Chairman David McLelland said, “It is
important to recognize that the Supreme Court of Canada
confirmed that provincial laws and regulations will con-
tinue to apply in the Tsilhqot’in Nation Aboriginal title
area, subject to section 35 of the Constitution Act.
Government has the duty to consult with First Nations,
but members of AME BC recognize that respectfully
engaging with First Nations early and often creates
mutual understanding, trust and respect. We have seen
that mutual benefits can often occur when this approach
is taken by everyone involved, including industry, First
Nations and government,” he added. ●
continued from page 12
COURT
arenas.”
Upgrading, expanding resourceThe 2012 PEA was based on an inferred resource of
5.3 million metric tons averaging 0.65 percent total rare
earth oxides, which has since been updated.
This updated resource estimate, published by Ucore
last October, outlines an indicated resource of 2.9 mil-
lion metric tons averaging 0.614 percent (39.7 million
metric tons) total rare earth oxides and an inferred
resource of 2 million metric tons averaging 0.605 per-
cent (26.6 million pounds) TREOs.
Roughly 40 percent of the TREOs are the higher val-
ued heavy rare earths, many of which are considered crit-
ical to the green energy, defense and high-technology
sectors.
A C$7.8-million private placement completed in
April, along with C$2.8 million of working capital Ucore
had on the books at the end of March, is anticipated to
provide ample funds to meet Ucore’s needs during the
next 12 months, including the C$2.5-million drill pro-
gram currently underway at the Southeast Alaska REE
project.
The smaller of two rigs drilling at Bokan Mountain is
focused on upgrading inferred resources to the indicated
category by infill drilling of the rare earths deposit.
The larger rig is drilling multiple deep holes with the
goal of expanding the resource to depth, as well as com-
pleting a number of geotechnical holes and groundwater
monitoring wells to obtain supplementary data for use in
the engineering and permitting of the project.
This program is expected to provide engineers with
the data needed to complete a plan of operations for min-
ing the heavy rare earth element-enriched deposit at
Bokan Mountain.
“I am very pleased to see our Bokan project moving
forward according to plan,” said Ucore President and
CEO Jim McKenzie. “We look forward to working in the
field once again with Aurora Geosciences and our other
consultants to advance this strategically important proj-
ect. The list of pre-construction deliverables continues to
shorten, and Bokan aims to be the first primarily heavy
enriched rare earth mine to achieve production on U.S.
soil.”
Ray MountainsAs Ucore presses ahead at Bokan, the company has
dispatched crews for a summer field program on its
REE-tin property located roughly 110 miles (175 kilo-
meters) northwest of Fairbanks.
The company said this program will include re-sam-
pling and assay testing of key locations recently report-
ed by the Alaska Geological Survey, and other earlier
U.S. Bureau of Mines work in the area, and examine the
geological setting of the Kilolitna River Basin.
Ucore said its Ray Mountains claim block is aligned
with major alluvial features of the Ray Mountains
region.
Rare earths and associated metals such as tin have
been found to occur in the alluvial outwash of the Ruby
granitic batholith located in the area. The target metals
are contained in heavy minerals such as monazite, xeno-
time, cassiterite, wolframite and zircon, which are wide-
spread throughout the region.
When Ucore staked the Ray Mountain claims in 2011,
it noted that the prospective heavy mineral placers found
there can be effectively concentrated via conventional
gravity separation and processing methods using only
water as the separation medium. The company also
pointed out that the technology to process a monazite-
xenotime placer concentrate for contained REEs has
long been known elsewhere in the world and poses no
new metallurgical challenges.
“The Ray Mountains region offers excellent access to
established transportation routes, making these claims a
potential source of heavy REEs for the processing facil-
ity currently being planned at the Bokan-Dotson Ridge
deposit to the south,” said McKenzie. “With an extensive
drilling program commencing at our Bokan property,
and the sampling work at Ray Mountains, it’s a busy and
exciting time for Ucore.” ●
continued from page 18
BOKAN
The stark contrast between rare earth-bearing veins and barren rock is allowing Ucore to test the implementation of an x-ray sorter prior to the mill as it prepares an operational plan for its Bokan Mountain project in Southeast Alaska.
UC
OR
E R
AR
E M
ETA
LS I
NC
.
20 NORTH OF 60 MINING
PETROLEUM NEWS • WEEK OF JUNE 29, 2014
hitachimining.com
When choosing shovels, consider this – Hitachi doesn’t build all kinds of equipment.
THAT’S ALL.
E A S I E S T C H O I C E .
Anchorage Branch5400 Homer Dr.Anchorage, AK 99518(907) 563-3822(907) 563-1381 F
Juneau Branch 5302 Commercial Blvd. Juneau, AK 99801(907) 780-4030(907) 780-4800 F
Fairbanks Branch2615 – 20th Ave. Fairbanks, AK 99709 (907) 455-9600(907) 455-9700 F
Ketchikan BranchPO Box 1434 Ward Cove, AK 99928(907) 247-2228(907) 247-2229 F
Wade GiesFairbanks Branch Manager
Bob GerondaleChief Operations Officer