REFORM FREE ENTRY STAKING!

— free entry means anyone can stake land and get the rights to any minerals beneath it, unless it has been specifically withdrawn.

Q 2.1 Do you have any thoughts or concerns about the approaches we’re considering for disposition and acquisition, or additional things that you think we should consider?

All lands should be withdrawn unless specifically designated for mineral activity. Let’s do land use planning first, then maybe think about which areas should be designated for mineral activity.

Q 2.2 How important is it to have mineral tenure granted as a legal right, in which claim-holders have a legal right to explore and extract minerals? Please explain.

Not important at all. Claim-holders should be allowed to apply for permission to explore and extract minerals. It should not be a right that they can explore and extract.

Q 3.2 How important is it to establish clear rules for expropriation and compensation of mineral tenure?

Expropriation of tenure should be in the new legislation.

It would do well to remind the mining community that staking a claim only gives the stakee the opportunity (and it should not be a right in the New Mineral Legislation) to look for minerals. Why should compensation be paid? It only costs $10 to stake a claim.

A requirement for a community benefits agreement should be included in the new Yukon mineral legislation.

EXPROPRIATE THE CLAIM, RETURN THE TEN DOLLARS AND MOVE ON!

PAST AND CURRENT SECURITY AMOUNTS ARE WOEFULLY INADEQUATE!

Taxpayers will be paying for the following for cleanups:

Faro: over a billion dollars or more

Clinton Creek: $200 - $800 million (depending on the method chosen)

Mt Nansen: $70 - 90 million

Wellgreen: $15 million

Wolverine: over $35 million

Q 6.1 Do you think the approaches we’re considering for security will reduce risks for taxpayers?
Please explain.

Base security amounts on the specific cost of reclaiming a site, and not only reclaiming, but also care and maintenance until such time as reclamation can begin. Much has been spent on care and maintenance at Wolverine, and reclamation hasn’t even begun.

The Yukon must make security a requirement for all projects. Even a minor project (such as a small placer operation) can have major environmental impacts. If they don’t do reclamation, taxpayers will have to, and it can be expensive to taxpayers trying to restore salmon habitat.

Security should be seized from a proponent in circumstances such as failure to comply with a direction, failure to carry out reclamation, ceasing production without notice, abandonment and any act of bankruptcy. Although why should it be seized from a proponent? Shouldn’t security be held by the Yukon? It’s already in the Yukon’s hands.

Placer royalty: $0.375 per ounce of gold.
This royalty is calculated at 2.5% of the value of the gold.
The value of gold is set in legislation at $15 per ounce (a century ago).
Today, the value of gold is roughly $2,700 per ounce.
Hard rock or quartz royalties are based on a net-profit calculation, so the first couple of years of a mine’s operation usually means no royalties are paid at all (the start up costs of the mine ensure it is running at a loss for a few years).

Q 7.1 Do you have any thoughts or concerns about the approaches we’re considering for royalties for quartz mining, or additional things that you think we should consider?

Royalties must be defined in the New Mineral Legislation as a payment by the extractor of the mineral (the mining company) to the owners of the mineral (Yukoners or the First Nation government if it’s on Category A Land). Only then does ownership of the mineral transfer from the owner to the company.

Royalties for quartz mining must be based on per unit of production (e.g. pound of copper, ounce of gold etc.). Depending on the type of mineral being extracted it could be based on the net smelter model. It should not be based on a mine’s profit - too easy for a mine to not pay any royalties at all (look at Wolverine, operated for three years and not a penny of royalties paid).

All mineral development and exploration must include a reclamation plan. Developed mines must also include a closure plan that includes monitoring. The costs for closure and reclamation must be fully-covered by the mine owners through a pre-work security fund. If a pre-work security fund is not provided, mineral development proposals must not be accepted. 

THE YUKON’S CURRENT MINING SYSTEM PRIVATIZES THE PROFITS, BUT SOCIALIZES THE RISK!

Q 9.1 Do you think the approaches we’re considering will improve the management of abandoned sites? Please explain.

There are different ways to determine if closure of a site has been achieved, but key to them is getting input and approval from affected First Nations and adjacent communities. Having an independent (e.g., a board or committee) decision is also appropriate (especially if it’s an independent oversight committee for the mine in question).

Legislation (and regulations) could require long-term monitoring and reporting on a project-specific basis, and identify infrastructure types or permanent features that will always require long-term monitoring and reporting. However, given how technology and our understanding of environmental impacts can change (and sometimes quite rapidly) this could be a combination of legislation and regulations.

THE MAJORITY OF PAST HARD-ROCK MINES IN THE YUKON HAVE BEEN ABANDONED BY THEIR OWNERS, LEAVING TAXPAYERS TO PAY FOR CLOSURE.

THE MINE OPERATORS TOOK THE PROFITS, BUT LEFT AN ENVIRONMENTAL MESS FOR THE GOVERNMENT TO CLEAN UP.

Q 9.2 Do you have any thoughts or concerns about the approaches we’re considering for abandonment, or additional things that you think we should consider?

It should not be possible for Board of Directors of a proponent, or the senior officers of the company, to get away with just abandoning a mine site. Changes to the federal Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, and the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act are required to ensure these individuals are held accountable.