Flag Resources (1985) Limited Says The Validity Of Mining Claim 809104
In Rathbun And Scadding Townships Is Being Challenged By A Provincial
Mining Recorder Stating The Claim Was Incorrectly Described On The
Application To Record. The Claim Has Been In Good Standing For 16 Years.
Invalidation Would Deprive Flag Of A Base And Precious Metal Discovery
First Drilled In 1986.
CALGARY, Oct. 16 /CNW/ - On September 20, Flag discovered a new mineral
zone, in Claim 809104. A representative grab sample assayed 1.28 percent
nickel and copper (0.425% Ni and 0.864% Cu) and 0.126 ounces or 4.35 grams of
P.G.E (0.49 grams gold, 0.44 grams platinum, and 3.43 grams palladium).
On September 22, Flag's president met and asked a Sudbury Mining Recorder
to check Claim 809104, to ensure the claim was in good standing. He reported
back to Mr. McLeod that the Scadding portion of the claim was invalid, as it
went from a surveyed township, Rathbun, to an unsurveyed township, Scadding.
He said, therefore, that the Scadding portion of the claim was open for
staking. Mr. McLeod met veteran staker, Ray Lashbrook, the same night,
informing him that the Scadding portion of Claim 809104 had been declared
open, by the Sudbury Mining Recorder. He asked Ray Lashbrook to go and stake
the declared open ground as quickly as possible. He went to stake the ground
two days later on September 24, that is when Flag discovered that 100 % of
Claim 809104 had been over staked by Claim 1230297, in 1997, by Terry Loney
and Associates, without notification to Flag.
Several days later, the mining recorder denied saying that the Scadding
portion of Claim 809104 was open for staking. Mr. McLeod says it cannot be
denied, as the mining recorder was the only one who could have told him that
it was open for staking, causing Mr. McLeod to call in Ray Lashbrook,
requesting that he stake, as quickly as possible, the supposedly open ground.
On September 27,2000, the claim map of Scadding Township, showed a gap
along the northern boundary, where Flag's 809104 and adjoining claims southern
claim posts were located. This recognition of Flag's claims in Scadding was
confirmed by the fact that most of this gap was eliminated and the map changed
on September 25,2000, just 48 hours after Mr. McLeod's meeting with the mining
recorder.
By declaring the portion of Claim 809104 in Scadding invalid, it caused
the portion of the Loney Claim 1230297, in Scadding, to also be invalid, as
it, like Claim 809104, extended from Rathbun to Scadding.
Whether because of this, or not, a new reason was submitted to Flag, for
the Scadding portion of Flag's Claim 809104, to be invalidated. In a letter
received on September 27,2000, apparently written on behalf of the mining
recorder, no mention was made of Claim 809104 going from a surveyed township
Rathbun to an unsurveyed township, Scadding.
Instead, the letter said that as Flag's application to stake only
referred to Rathbun Township, no part of Claim 809104 could legally exist in
Scadding Township. Flag was told that as Claim 1230297's application to record
designated Scadding Township, with the Scadding portion of Flag's 16 year old
claim becoming part of Claim 1230297, including Flag's base and precious metal
discovery, and Flag's 16 years of accepted assessment work was to be rejected.
Flag says, the reason for invalidating the Scadding Township portion of
Claim 809104, set forth in the September 27 letter, is not correct and cannot
be applied.
Flag's application to record Claim 809104 as being in Rathbun, was done
in accord with Ontario's mining act, requiring the township to be named in
which the Number 1 post is located. Claim 1230297 violated the mining act by
naming Scadding in its application to record, as its Number 1 post is also in
Rathbun, requiring Rathbun to be named. As both claims start in Rathbun and
extend into Scadding, one cannot be ruled to be in Rathbun and one to be in
Scadding.
Flag's work confirmed that the claim was staked where it was intended to
be staked. When Flag staked Claim 809104, in 1984, it was staked to cover a
surface occurrence of mineralization. As government funds for retracement were
cancelled, the Scadding-Rathbun boundary was not properly surveyed. With no
visible land marks to delineate the boundary, Flag's Claim 809104 was
unknowingly staked in Scadding, as well as Rathbun Township. However, Flag's
approximately, $ 100,000, of exploration expenditures were made in Scadding
and none in Rathbun, It was not until, the meeting with the mining recorder,
on September 22,2000, that Flag became aware that part of Claim 809104 was in
Scadding. On October 5, 2000, Flag finally found a small wooden stake
indicating the boundary.
Flag says that it should be noted how can a mining recorder rule that
Flag intended to stake only in Rathbun, when 80% of its Claim 809104 was in
Scadding.
Flag says the reasoning in the letter of September 27,2000, is in direct
contradiction to Section 17(b) of the Mining Act, which the Sudbury mining
recorder refused to acknowledge.
The regulation section 17 (b) is very clear and concise: " If it appears
that a licensee has attempted in good faith to comply with the Act and
Regulations, a mining claim of the licensee is not invalidated by: (B) the
failure of the licensee to describe or set out the actual area or parcel of
land staked out, in the application to record the claim or the sketch
accompanying the application. Ontario Regulation 115/91,17."
It clearly states that what has been actually staked cannot be
invalidated by failure to describe what has actually been staked in the
application to record. It applies to part of a claim, as invalidating part of
a claim would be invalidating part of what was actually staked. It is the
essence of the Mining Act, that a staker gets what he stakes between his claim
posts.
Subsequent field investigation, by G.P.S., revealed most of Claim 809104
is in Scadding Township. However Flag says work reports were related to the
claim posts of 809104, and the work between the posts accepted and filed for
assessment. Therefore the area of Claim 809104 in Scadding township cannot be
disputed pursuant to subsection 48 (5) (a), of the Mining Act and cannot be
invalidated due to being located incorrectly, as Flag has detailed under
section 17 (b) of the Mining Act. Subsequent over staking must therefore
exclude 809104, which must now be shown in its correct location in Scadding
Township.
Flag says the nature of the challenge to its 16 year old claim should be
of serious concern to the mining industry.
Flag is submitting an appeal of the letter of September 27, received from
the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines, to the Mining and Lands
Commission under Sections 105 and 112-1 of the Mining Act.
Flag will issue a news release, on Wednesday October 18, detailing its
present exploratory drilling and assays.
The Canadian Venture Exchange has neither approved nor disapproved the
contents herein.
For further information: Murdo C. McLeod, President, Toll free in North
America: 1-888-531-7798, web page www.flagresources.com, e-mail
flagresources@mail.com |
