Search Documents

By Karl J. C. Harries

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

Jan 1, 2003

By Karl J. C. Harries

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

Jan 1, 2003

By Karl J. C. Harries

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

Jan 1, 2003

By Karl J. C. Harries

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

Jan 1, 2003

By Karl J. C. Harries

13.1. RIGHT TO RECEIVE ROYALTY CONTRACTUAL ONLY1

Jan 1, 2003

By Karl J. C. Harries

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

Jan 1, 2003

By Karl J. C. Harries

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

Jan 1, 2003

By Karl J. C. Harries

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

Jan 1, 2003

By Karl J. C. Harries

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

Jan 1, 2003

By Karl J. C. Harries

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

Jan 1, 2003

By Karl J. C. Harries

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

Jan 1, 2003

By Karl J. C. Harries

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

Jan 1, 2003

By Karl J. C. Harries

"8.1. INTRODUCTIONThe purpose of this chapter is not to provide precedents or examples of provisions, but rather to offer some comments that may be worth considering in the negotiation or review of an agreement. These comments are not intended to be exhaustive. It must also be noted that, although the chapter is written in the context of a common law joint venture, the concepts and concerns for the most part apply equally to a corporation that is owned by only a few shareholders for the purpose of participating in the project held by the corporation.The corporation has the advantage of having much of its organization established by local corporate law, but the particular wishes of the shareholders will appear in a shareholders’ agreement. The principal differences will be surprisingly small, save for the acquisition provisions that appear in a farm-in agreement1 and the substantial portion of the joint venture agreement devoted to creating and organizing the joint venture entity. Where the joint venture agreement refers to venturers and committees, the shareholders’ agreement will refer to shareholders and the board of directors, but both will have to deal with such basic matters as decision-making, default, dispute resolution, first refusals, funding, and carrying out work on the project. For convenience, this chapter usually refers to “venturers”, which may be taken to include shareholders.Negotiations give rise to many varying circumstances and concerns, and the main asset of the negotiator is an open and flexible mind. A desired result can often be accomplished indirectly in circumstances where the other side has adopted an inflexible position on a suggested approach. As precedents and standard forms tend to focus a negotiator’s thinking, they can be counterproductive. It is after the deal has been agreed to that a precedent can be of great assistance to the draftsman.The concepts are arranged in alphabetical order for convenience, not to suggest their sequence or position in an agreement or their relative importance. An agreement should adopt a progression of subjects in what the parties consider a logical sequence to read and work with. However, experience has indicated that it is best to set out in a single article the substance of the deal (i.e. the terms relating to the farm-in and what the acquiring party has to do to acquire his interest), preferably near the beginning of an agreement. The acquisition of the interest is, after all, the first order of business. The joint venture provisions will then follow in a reasonable sequence. It is also worthwhile to devote a single article to any special provisions that may apply during the earn-in period. For example, it may be provided that, although all work is to be done by the acquiring party as operator (with the duty of care, liability, and reporting requirements as set out in the joint venture sections of the agreement), but during the acquisition period, the acquiring party, acting as operator, may be at liberty to do such work as he wishes, without the need for any committee or other approvals, and committee meetings may be suspended.2An agreement is divided into paragraphs and articles to make it easier for the parties to read and understand, and to assist a party in finding “that provision” when the need arises. A comprehensive table of contents will also assist the parties who must work under an agreement. An added benefit of a table of contents is that in preparing it, the draftsman sees the overall structure of the agreement and will often catch and correct flaws."

Jan 1, 2003

By Karl J. C. Harries

"9.1. INTRODUCTIONIn Chapter 5 of Volume I royalties are dealt with and several topics would appear to be duplicated in this Volume. However, Volume I may be looked upon as a general guide, whereas this Volume is a reference volume. It deals in considerable detail with specific provisions and concepts relating to royalties between private parties. This does not, however, mean that Chapter 5 can be ignored. It should be looked upon as a source of general information concerning royalties between private parties and as a negotiating aid intended to give an overview of various topics. You may well find that in its general approach it will lead you to ask a question which, hopefully, will be dealt with in this Volume .It should be remembered that royalty agreements are agreements with a particular focus, and so the concepts set forth in Chapter 1 apply to them. This chapter addresses a few considerations specific to royalties that will usually form part of an agreement rather than a stand-alone agreement.9.2. FORMAT FOR ROYALTY PROVISIONSIn many of the cases where royalties arise, they are adjunct to, or part of, other arrangements. For example, a royalty may form part or all of the consideration to be given to an owner upon purchase of his property, or it may arise if a joint venturer ceases to contribute to the venture and has his interest converted to a royalty.1 It is with such situations that this section primarily deals; if the royalty is contained in an agreement that is singularly, or primarily, concerned with creating it, then it is just a normal agreement.Commonly, by the time the right to receive the royalty arises, at least some of the other provisions of the agreement have been performed and/or become redundant. For example, in an option agreement the royalty will be a continuing obligation of the optionee, usually arising only after the option has been exercised.2 In a joint venture agreement, a royalty will often arise where the interest of a non-participating venturer has been diluted and converted to a royalty, in which case the recipient will usually become a passive party, entitled only to his royalty, and most of the rights that he enjoyed as an active venturer will cease to be effective."

Jan 1, 2003

By M. Harrison, C. H. Stockwell

"Metals vah1ed at more than $200,000,000 have been obtained, mainly since 1930, from the mines of northern Manitoba. The greater part of this production has been copper, zinc, and gold from the Flin Flon, Sherritt Gordon, and Mandy mines. The chief mines from which gold alone has been produced are God's Lake, Laguna, and Gurney. At present (May 1947) Flin Flon and Sherritt Gordon are the only producing mines, but the Nor-Acme property is being developed for large-scale production of gold. Large deposits of nickel and copper are being diamond drilled at Lynn Lake, and the Thompson, Ferro, and other properties are being developed. The mineral deposits lie within irregular or elongated areas of Precambrian sedimentary and volcanic rocks, surrounded by granite ( Fig. 1).The common rock types include basic and acidic flows, agglomerate, ruff, greywacke, arkose, argilli te, conglomerate, and their gneissoid and schistose derivatives. They are invaded by sills, dykes, and irregular bodies of gabbro and diorite, and all are cut by granite. Some of the sediments are interstratified with volcanics, and others are deposited unconformably on them.STRUCTURAL GEOLOGYLittle is known of the structures of the rocks in the area as a whole, because by far the greater part is unexplored or has been covered only by reconnaissance surveys. Available information indicates a general east structural trend in the southeast part, whereas in the west part the folding is mote complex with no definite overall trend. However, in a few small areas in the western part where detailed work has been done, as around the Flin Flon, Sherritt-Gordon, Nor-Acme, and other properties, the structure is fairly well known. The following descriptions apply chiefly to these areas ."

Jan 1, 1954

By G. Vibert Douglas

"Gold occurs in Nova Scotia in three ways, saddle reefs, fissure veins, and fossil placers. Of these the saddle reefs are the commonest. They have been the source of most of the gold and have also been the subject of most of the literature on the gold occurrences.The Meguma or Gold-bearing series of Nova Scotia is a conformable succession of quartzite's and slates, possibly Precambrian in age, which have been folded into a number of anticlines and synclines that strike (Fig. 1) roughly east and west. This folding has been termed Acadian and is probably a westward continuation of the Caledonian revolution in Britain. It may have started in the Ordovician and continued through the Silurian and into the Lower Devonian. It was followed by the intrusion of the great Devonian granite batholiths. It is thought that the mineralization is connected with the late phases of the cooling of the granite. As the name saddle reef implies, the veins form on the crests and flanks of the anticlines, possibly in the synclinal troughs as well. The beds favoured by the solutions are the slates. The reason for this is apparent when it is realized that in order to fold over 30,000 feet of sediments (the thickness of the Meguma according to E. R. Faribault) through p radians of arc it is necessary to have a differential movement between the top and bottom beds of p times the thickness of the sediments. In the case of the Gold-bearing series, in which strong quartzite beds lie between incompetent slate beds, most of this differential movement was taken up in the slates. The evidence for this is the remarkably fine drag folding and the intense shearing and comminution of some of the beds of slate (Fig. 1). The quartzites exhibit some shearing and faulting, but there is little doubt that the greater permeability lay along the incompetent slate beds. The mineralizing solutions followed these beds and also passed from one slate bed to another through a joint or fault in the intervening bed of quartzite. These joining veins are called angulars in Nova Scotia. Within the veins the gold is in shoots and the real problem is to find out what controls the position and extent of the shoots."

Jan 1, 1954

By C Bie, S Li, P Xiao, P Zhao, H Lin

"Based on solid simulation material research, the simulation conditions for methane and coal solid-gas coupling were obtained using solid-fluid coupling theory. Using sand as the aggregate and paraffin and oil as the cementing agents, a material suitable for solid-gas coupling simulation was developed. A permeability testing instrument was also developed, and the compressive strength, brittleness parameters and seepage velocity of material were tested with different aggregates. The results showed that as the paraffin content increased, the compressive strength of the material increased but the permeability decreased. The oil removed the drawback of intensely changing material compressive strength. By setting a different ratio of aggregate to cementing agent, it can simulate rocks with different strengths and permeability. Applying the material to a mining simulation experiment revealed a relationship between methane seepage velocity and overlying strata movement. By extracting pressure relief gas from Shanxi Tianchi coalmine drainage, the authors found that the mining fissure zone was a storage area of pressure relief gas, and a gas drainage system can be placed to achieve good results. CITATION: Li, S, Zhao, P, Lin, H, Bie, C, Pan, H and Xiao, P, 2015. Character of simulation material of coal – rock and gas solid-gas coupling and engineering application, in Proceedings The Australian Mine Ventilation Conference, pp 105–110 (The Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy: Melbourne)."

Aug 31, 2015

By P. N. Mohan Das, K. Harikrishna Bhat

"The major ilmenite reserves are located in India at Chavara (CH), Manavalakurichi ( MK) and Chatrapur, Orissa (OR). India stands first in terms of ilmenite reserves, which are estimated to be 278 million tonnes out of which, 142 million tonnes are processable. Mineralo-chemical analysis shows that Chavara ilmenite is the most weathered one with about 60% TiO2 while Chatrapur is the least weathered with about 50% TiO2. Co-existence of ilmenite with pseudorutile, rutile and haematite is observed in substantially varying amounts in the three deposits. It is observed that the tropical weathering rather than the source rock difference has apparently played an important role in imparting major compositional and structural dissimilarities among ilmenites in different places.In processing of ilmenite through the Becher process, aeration rusting of pre-reduced ilmenite is found to be the rate limiting step thus, affecting the productivity of the process. Investigations have proved that the addition of some organic compounds such as glyoxal, sucrose etc., to the system accelerates the reaction to such an extent that the rusting time has been reduced to less than half.A new route of processing ilmenite for synthetic rutile has also been developed in which, ilmenite is carbothermally reduced and then processed through plasma route. The slag thus obtained is processed further to get high-grade synthetic rutile, metallic iron and high purity iron oxide. The process has been scaled up in a continuous moving bed plasma reactor. It is technologically and economically more viable where, all the iron values are recovered as salable byproducts. This paper describes the salient features of the technologies developed for the beneficiation of ilmenite to synthetic rutile."

Jan 1, 2003

By M. Aatach, St. Gaydardzhiev, M. Kadiyski, E. Visariev, V. Stoilov

Detailed process oriented characterisation on representative samples from plant survey of the slag flotation plant belonging to Aurubis, Bulgaria has been realised in order to evaluate the mineralogical occurrences of Cu, Ni, Mo and Co bearing phases. The slag subjected to flotation consisted in majority of fayalite, magnetite-iron oxides and a glass-like phase. Ni and Mo have been found to be closely associated to magnetite and fayalite. The tailing from the slag flotation has been subjected to sulphation roasting followed by water leaching as a hydrometallurgical means to recover the remaining Cu, Mo, Ni and Co. Based on the various sulphation roasting conditions (acid dosage, duration, temperature) copper, nickel and cobalt were brought to solution to a different extent. Molybdenum was the most difficult to be rendered soluble due to its close association with iron, suspected to form an insoluble compound with it. Sulphation roasting performed at 350ºC has secured the best extraction degree for Cu, Mo and Co, while maximum recovery of Ni has been documented when roasting was done at 150°C. Keywords: Copper slag; characterisation; SEM; roasting; metals leaching, hydrometallurgy 16(2), 153–65.

Jan 1, 2020

By Wolfgang Öfner

Many technical processes also yield dusty residues which usually contain appreciable amounts of valuable matter. Often they also accumulate substances detrimental to the process. Dumping them entirely in landfills wastes raw material and causes high disposal costs, but recycling them without prior treatment is often not feasible. Physical separation processes are preferable because of their rather low energy demand. In order to develop such treatment systematically, the residues must be characterized properly. The technique for such a characterization is taken from mineral processing: perfect fractionation according to continuous properties of the particles supplemented with chemical analysis are used for plotting the Henry-Reinhardt chart. This represents the benchmark for assessing actual separation processes and tests. Their results are compared in terms of ?selectivity? and plotted in the kappa chart. In this paper, Henry-Reinhardt chart and kappa chart are applied to several different types of residues from iron and steel production and show their potential for being upgraded before reutilization in the production process. This approach is suitable for virtually all dusty residues from other industrial processes as well. Keywords: residue, dust,iron and steel, process development, Henry-Reinhardt chart, kappa chart

Sep 1, 2012