Search Documents

By Bryan Wilson

Background ?Nickel Rim South Mine started production ramp-up in Q2, 2009. ?The main dewatering pumps were put into use in August 2009. ?3 Feluwa?multisafe?positive displacement pumps ?1700m single lift pumping ?Reliability has been an issue due to the amount of slimes and fibers (from shotcrete) at the pumps. ?Critiqued internal dewatering system to solve some issues we were having with our sumps Findings 1.Much of the final dewatering system was not in place. a)Temporary pain. Difficult to say something is not working when the system was not yet in place as per design. b)Not enough capacity to handle slimes within the system. 2.Need to address issues with the final design: a)Ongoing costs: The end design has operating costs of $2.5 million b)Scoops in Sumps: The end design relies on scoops to be used for cleaning the sumps c)Slimes Recovery: The system mixes 3 different products in the sumps along with the fibers d)Pump repair costs: The existing Tsurumi pumps are too light duty for our slimes

Nov 1, 2011

By P. H. Oliver

The current theory of how explosives fracture rock offers no explanation for the improvements in fragmentation and the reduction of fly rock and back break which occurs when an adequate inter-row delay time is used. Nor does it explain why fragmentation improves with rectangular drill patterns where the hole spacing may be as much as four times the hole burden. A new theory of rock fragmentation is proposed which builds on the existing theory. It offers rational explanations for the many blast effects which the current theory does not address and the need for adequate timing delays between rows. It improves on the design of inter-row delay timing by defining the length of free-blasted face needed in front of a hole when selecting the delay element which will provide an adequate inter-row delay time.

May 1, 2003

By P. H. Oliver

"The current theory of how explosives fracture rock offers no explanation for the improvements in fragmentation and the reduction of fly rock and back break which occurs when an adequate inter-row delay time is used. Nor does it explain why fragmentation improves with rectangular drill patterns where the hole spacing may be as much as four times the hole burden.A new theory of rock fragmentation is proposed which builds on the existing theory. It offers rational explanations for the many blast effects which the current theory does not address and the need for adequate timing delays between rows. It improves on the design of inter-row delay timing by defining the length of free-blasted face needed in front of a hole *Retired from Inco Ltd., Sudbury, Ontario when selecting the delay element which will provide an adequate inter-row delay time."

Jan 1, 2003

By DAVID F. McFARLAND

THE making of courses of study and curricula has long held first place as the favorite pastime of educators. As a game, this activity is as fascinating to some as golf or bridge, 'and the golfer's hope of a low score is matched by the teacher's ambition to some day evolve a sequence of studies that shall prove the ideal preparation for a life of maximum service and, profit. There are few in, this gathering who have not tried their skill at this game and still fewer are those who have been long satisfied by the product of their efforts. A curriculum is hardly printed in the college catalog before conditions arise which seem to make changes desirable, and strong will power is needed to maintain the program long enough to give it a fair trial. Metallurgical curricula are not less subject to change than others, 'and; indeed they have seemed, at times, to change more rapidly than other curricula because of the changing 'needs of the industries and the demand that the graduate be trained to meet the new conditions. Metallurgical practice is constantly proving that "time makes ancient good uncouth," and the graduate metallurgist is required to adapt himself to newer and

Jan 1, 1930

By J. L. Viljoen

t has long been the drive of the industry and all operations to create an environment that is free of injury and illness. We have come a long way; the leaders, executives, managers, supervisors and workers are to be commended for relentlessly driving to create, what I call a ?White Flag Day Every Day?. Yet I am also aware of the huge shift we still need to create in the industry, on the operations and in the workplaces to have them free of injury and illness. Keywords People, values, care, trust, belief.

Jan 1, 2011

By Ryan W. Siggelkow

Mines today use various methods of mining to extract ore. Because of the dangerous nature of many of these processes, remotely controlled LHD machines are being used to extract the ore from the draw point. The remote control system, although being made safer all the time, has remained virtually unchanged for many years. The basic functionality is an operator switching the machine to remote control, getting out of the cab, walking up a stand, operating remotely, returning to the cab, switching to manual, driving manually, switching to remote, and switching to manual. It seems repetitive, and time consuming, does it not? Networking, convergence, video, voice, and data infrastructures, and other technologies are growing by leaps and bounds in virtually every industry and region, except for mining. From the comfort of the living room couch, a Canadian can play hockey online with full voice conversations over the Internet with someone in Russia in real time. Yet, a mine superintendent must jump through hoops to have a private conversation with the front line supervisor underground. "Is Joe around anywhere?" If Joe hears the message, he will respond. If not, who knows? Maybe he's hurt. Maybe he's not. Where is Joe? Nobody really knows, and that is scary. Today, surface knows that the workers disappeared into the cage at 7:00 a.m. They also know that the workers will probably and hopefully return at 3:00 p.m. Is there not a better way to handle this? With such a complex industry, it seems as if, for the most part, the introduction of new technology into mining has either been overlooked or has been met with some resistance. It is time to step back, look at the process, and see how it can be improved. Key areas of focus will be safety, productivity, dependability, and cost-effectiveness.

May 1, 2010

By F. Osmond, R. Kelly

"Malcolm Knowles, the famous adult educator once wrote: ""What a challenge we in human resources development face if we are to avoid the obsolescence of our workforce. I can foresee this challenge requiring that we reconceptualize (...) and redefine the role of HRD, away from that of managing the logistics of conducting training activities to that of managing a system of learning resources"".The context in which this was written surrounds the subject of adult education and the need for business and industry to change its approach to the treatment of adults as learners. In explaining what 'managing a system of learning resources' means, Knowles refers to line supervisors and managers as the most ubiquitous resources for day-in and day-out employee development. In many organizations training has been largely a staff rather than line responsibility. Even where trainers reported to line management, it was still seen as a staff function performed by a few specialists.This change referred to by Knowles places a much heavier responsibility on line supervisors and managers for the development of their personnel than has traditionally been the case. Managing that change - handing over the responsibility to the line organization - is the supreme challenge for the HRD function.Just why is this change necessary? Because too often, the learner does not effectively use on the job what he or she learned in the classroom. In fact, learners often discard new methods and revert to the older ways. The reason training does not stick is that the systems for training and work management are most often separate entities and while one may support the other, they need to be a single integrated system in order to ensure the transfer to the job effectiveness of training and some real value for the training dollars.Because much training can be wasted, steps have to be taken to ensure that it fulfills its intended purpose. The effective and continuing application of knowledge and skills that learners acquire can only be realized when line supervisors and managers are at the centre of the training system.This paper describes how such a systemis being developed at the Iron Ore Company of Canada (IOC) as a functional training program is introduced. The following text provides background information on the IOC - who they are and where they are located, a definition of functional training, an evaluation of the suitability of this approach for adults in industry, a description of how the program is being implemented at IOC and some observations that have been made as this change is experienced."

Jan 1, 1995

By W. K. Muwais, R. G. Cuddy

"The Lower Cretaceous McMurray Formation contains the bitumen reserves of the Syncrude Mine in northeastern Alberta. This formation comprises sediments deposited sequentially in fluvial, estuarine and marine depositional environments. The Syncrude Base Mine area consists mostly of estuarine sediments, as much of the original marine sediments have been eroded away. These estuarine deposits consist of channel-fill sediments and interchannel tidal flat sediments with the channel-fills comprising most of the orebody.Channel-fills contain, among other lithologies, interbedded sand, silt and clay rich layers that often occur as sequences of inclined beds with dips up to 25 degrees or more. A detailed knowledge of the distribution of these inclined beds, their lithological characteristics and their continuity is very important in assessing the risk of mine highwall instability . Techniques used to identify and characterize adverse structures are reviewed. INTRODUCTIONGeneralThe Syncrude Canada Ltd. oil sand mine is located within the surface mineable portion of the Athabasca Oil Sands area about 40 kilometres north of Fort McMurray in northeastern Alberta, Canada (Fig. I). The company commenced large-scale strip mining of oil sands in June 1977in the area, referred to as the Base Mine, situated in the southeast corner of the company's two lease areas (Fig. 2).The mining method (Fig. 3) utilizes large electric drag lines operating on a single bench with highwall depths up to 60 metres. Feed grade oil sand (= 6 wt.% bitumen) is mined by draglines and windrowed parallel to the highwall crest. Lower grade oil sand « 6 wt. 0J0 bitumen) occurring as waste bands is selectively mined by the draglines and cast back into the mined out pit or placed on the bench and hauled by truck. The windrowed feed is delivered to the extraction plant by a bucket wheel reclaimer and conveyor system. Stripping of Recent, Pleistocene and Cretaceous overburden units is done outside the conveyor systems by mobile equipment. The 4.5 kilometre long mine is split into four quadrants for planning and scheduling purposes, with each quadrant having an individual dragline-bucketwheel-conveyor system.Surface mining of oil sand at Syncrude requires the removal of vast quantites of material. The design of the open pit mine relies heavily on knowledge of the distribution of ore and waste materials, and on the physical characteristics of these materials.The geology of the oil sand below the dragline bench at the Syncrude Mine is complex. Geological, geotechnical and hydrogeological factors play an important role in the design and operation of the mine. This paper describes aspects of the geology that impact on the design and operation of the mine. Some of the methods and procedures adopted by Syncrude to successfully overcome difficulties that the complex geology creates are discussed."

Jan 1, 1989

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