Skeena Resources Ltd T.SKE

Decision continued

[templetooth2]

"Mr Mill asserts that upon the deposit of waste rock and tailings into Albino Lake, they became subject to the reservation listed in Section 47 (now s. 50) of the Land Act which states that a disposition of Crown Land conveys no right, title or interest to minerals...as defined in the Mineral Tenure Act. At all times during the existence of lease 634409, a mineral title (either a mineral claim or a mining lease) has been registered over the Land Act lease area. This fact, and the reservation in Section 47 (now 50), is evidence of clear legislative intent that any minerals located on the area of the leasecan only be held by rights acquired under the Mineral Tenure Act.

"Decision

"I find that the waste rock and tailings located in Albino Lake are minerals to which Mr Mill has exclusive rights as the recorded holder of mineral claim 1051761 pursuant to the Mineral Tenure Act.

"The waste rock....was dumped there because it was deemed to have no economic value....It was deemed to be a waste by-product from the Eskay Creek Mine and had to be disposed of as a requirement to operate the mine. There is no evidence from Skeena that demonstrates Skeena's predecessors ever intended to store the waste rock for a future opportunity to process it into valuable minerals for sale or profit. ....

"The Land Act lease 634409 over Albino Lake grants only one right, which is to dispose of waste. It does not grant a right to store private property indefinitely or otherwise....."

               **************************************
 Highlights only, as I saw them.  Re the question of how I got the decision, I contacted someone at IR, and she kindly gave me an email contact address for the BC Gold Commissioner. In turn, the Commissioner's office sent me an email pdf of the decision, long since deleted from my inbox.

To repeat, for an accurate reading of how the Court will decide, you should flip a coin. Just because the Commissioner clearly set out the difference of rights conveyed under the Land Act versus the Mineral Tenure Act, is no guarantee the Court will agree.

Nonetheless, I wanted to post this because I've seen too many comments that suggest the upcoming decision is a lead-pipe cinch.

[metalhead666]

Thanks a lot!  You're correct that the court will hold final say over this. It still stikes me as absurd that he can claim what is "ON" the claim in addition to what's "UNDER" the claim.  It's not naturally occurring it was someone else's property put there ON TOP of his claim. As I understand claims having had one once....he's entitled to the