A big part of the reason I feel we will get a YES this time.
I think the court will easily see INTENT on behalf of the province in the dealings with Pacific Booker, which can result in 3x the damages. The damages were $140 million Oct 1, 2012 when the price of 14 million shares dropped $10 ($14.95 to $4.95). And now there are potentially additional damages for making us wait another decade. A decade in which more than 50 shareholders have passed.
The Judge already said the BC Liberals kept moving the goal posts.
However in the emails below that I sent to the Premier and Ministers, the Regional Director of the NW Region of Ministry Energy and Mines replies with what I believe proves INTENT!
I understand that the information reported by the Environmental Assessment Office (EAO) was provided by Pacific Booker Minerals Inc.
The response says that it was the proponent/PBM that provided the estimated $64.5 million in mineral tax over the life of the mine.
Clearly Pacific Booker would not provide them with such an amount, as it would imply the mine was of NO VALUE!
$64.5 million of mineral tax x 1/3 = $21.5 million or approx. LBN's share.
$64.5 million is 13% of the net profit from the mine = $496 million net profit
$496 million less $64.5 million mineral tax, less Federal tax of 18% or $89 million = $342 million
I am not positive, however I think the federal corporate tax rate was 18% in 2012
The question becomes who would invest over $500 million to build a mine, and then wait 23 years to get their money back and earn only an additional $342 million
Plus this implies they got the mine for free or paid ZERO for the shares!
Shareholders are not going to give their shares for free.
This shows that there is no way that Pacific Booker would have come up with these numbers.
I think it is obvious that the BC Liberal "Cooked" the books.
But WHY do this? From what I understand, by showing the mine provided less than $100 million in mineral tax, or $64.5 million in this case, it meant that the BC Gov did not have to spend as much time or effort on the project.
Plus, this file was "hidden" and out of sight, as the BC Liberals changed the company name to "Booker Pacific" from Pacific Booker. Because the projects are listed alphabetically, it would be much harder to find the report.
I have rarely contacted the BC gov regarding BKM. However last summer I did, as I was concerned that LBN were not aware how much mineral tax they would receive.
For me the most important part of the response showed what I believed to be FRAUD on the part of the BC gov. If it ever gets to court, the BC gov may try to say their dealings with BKM resulted in a series of unintentional mistakes in order to avoid triple damages. I don't see any way that changing the company name and the amount of mineral tax will be considered unintentional.
Thus, if the Ministers turn down the permit this time, the chance they will pay triple damages is IMO very high. And, I think they know this, which is why I think our chances of receiving the permit are very high this time around.
========================================
Davies, Howard EMLI:EX <Howard.Davies@gov.bc.ca> | |
Dear Dr. Vanderlinden,
Thank you for your emails of June 10, 2021 to Premier Horgan and Minister Ralston and your concerns and comments related to the Morrison project.
I understand that the information reported by the Environmental Assessment Office (EAO) was provided by Pacific Booker Minerals Inc. The EAO is currently awaiting information from Pacific Booker before commencing the further assessment application review. When the further assessment application review starts for the Morrison Mine, this economic information could be updated by Pacific Booker.
If you’d like more information about this project, please see documents posted to the EAO’s project website here: https://projects.eao.gov.bc.ca/p/588510b4aaecd9001b81467b/documents
I would recommend that you contact the EAO directly for any further questions you may have about the ongoing assessment process.
Sincerely …………………………………………………….
Howard Davies Regional Director, NW Region B.C. Ministry of Energy, Mines and Low Carbon Innovation (EMLI)
3726 Alfred Ave Smithers BC V0J 2N0 Phone:
1 (250) 847 7653 Cell:
1 (250) 876 8327 Email:
howard.davies@gov.bc.ca ============================= Morrison Mine - the real share of the mineral tax going to LBN - $21 million vs. $285 million Dear Mr. Ralston, I am writing to you about the Morrison mine project from Pacific Booker (PB).
My concern is that the Lake Babine people (LBN) likely do not realize the enormity of the financial benefit that they would receive.
LBN needs to know what is in it for them, and there has been so much misinformation, that I believe most LBN are unaware of the real numbers.
The Environmental assessment Office (EAO) prepared a presentation with 15 slides in which they estimated provincial revenues would be $64.5 million.
If LBN was to get an approx. 1/3 share of the provincial mineral tax revenue, then they would expect approx. $21.5 million over the life of the mine according to the EAO.
How the EAO came up with these numbers is a mystery.
Pacific Booker was very conservative when predicting mineral tax revenue and still showed $207 million, which would have meant approx $69 million for LBN at a 1/3 share.
As an example of just how conservative PB was, they used a gold price of $658 in their calculations, when gold was in fact selling for more than $1600 an ounce at the time.
The link to the EAO slide presentation can be found at
The 15 EAO slides start on page 83, with the Financial Benefits slide on page 87.
Using the "Working Model" from PB, which has all the anticipated expenses and revenues, it shows $6.6 Billion in profit using today's copper ($4.50), gold ($1890) and silver ($28) prices.
Keeping in mind that this working model is approx. 10 years old, and that the costs/expenses will need to be updated, it will still provide ballpark net income figures.
That said, a 13% mineral tax on $6.6 billion results in $858 million in provincial tax revenue.
LBN's 1/3 share of $858 million is $285 million.
$21 million vs $285 million is quite the discrepancy!
I would have to guess that provincial negotiators used the EAO number of approx. $21.5 million, whereas now it would be $285 million.
There are approx 2700 LBN people and so $285 million is more than $100,000 for every man, woman and child or over $400,000 for a family of 4.
Trying to predict mineral prices is not an exact science.
That said, most experts are predicting strong copper prices because of the electrification process that will occur globally in the coming decades.
PB has 1.4 billion pounds of copper and so for every $1 US increase in price, it results in an extra $1.68 billion in CDN revenue.
LBN stands to gain approx. $70 million for every $1 US increase in the price of copper. ($1.68 x 13% mineral tax x 1/3 LBN share)
In addition, at today's copper price of $4.50/pound, I understand that low grade ore would also be used and could result in another 800 million pounds of copper.
It is very reasonable to think that LBN could receive $500 million with rising copper prices and an extra 800 million pounds of copper.
To keep these numbers in perspective, LBN recently (April 16th) referred to receiving $30 million from the Foundation Agreement as "a once in a lifetime opportunity to change our economic future"
If $30 million is referred to as a "once in a lifetime opportunity" then what would the LBN's mineral tax share of the Morrison mine be referred to?
Please share these numbers with LBN.
I truly believe that LBN do not realize how the mineral tax revenue will improve many aspects of their quality of life and they deserve to know.
Yours truly,
Dr. Kim Vanderlinden
PS It should also be kept in mind that:
1- More than 80% or 2200+ of LBN's 2700 citizens live in Woyenne / Burns Lake, which is approx. a 5 hour drive to the mine
Thus the Morrison mine will have a minor impact on the majority of LBN's people, as they live so far away
2- Only 1.6% or 18514 of Lake Babine's 1,126,272 sockeye are from Morrison lake and stream.
Therefore, the mine will have a minimal impact, if any, on the Lake Babine sockeye.