Skip navigation

Between a rock and a hard place

Special to The Globe and Mail

Cottagers returning to their retreats this weekend may be surprised to find that they don't own the mineral rights to their properties, and someone else has staked a claim ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. Bruce Deeks from Calgary, Canada writes: Third paragraph, last sentence: “As a result, anyone who has paid $25.50 for a prospector's license is free to enter those lands and mark off old-fashioned mining claims.” Why don't people who are concerned about their cottages simply pay the fee and stake their own claims?
  2. A C from France writes: I had the same thought. Probably because it takes a minimum of knowledge and effort, and just how many surrounding square kilometres are you going to stake? If you are on a lake it could be tens of square kilometres... a tad difficult to organise perhaps... But probably easier than fighting a mining company.
  3. s r from Canada writes: I believe in most cases, they've already been bought up, in bulk by large mining corporations.

    http://thetyee.ca/News/2005/04/19/CompanyGrabsMining/
  4. Terry Tufts from North Frontenac, Canada writes: If you wish to stake your own land for the 25 bucks, you also have to yearly investigate for minerals to a minimum of $400 and some odd dollars and the work is fairly involved. It's kind of like blackmail and some people can't afford th added expense and time involved.
  5. J S from Canada writes: Bruce Deeks from Calgary, Canada - I had the exact same question.
  6. Tom Richards from Canada writes: Check the claim maps. If you are in an area which has potential mineral claims you are probably staked over already. Exploration compnaies don't stake on property boundaries they stake by, for example 25km x 25km parcel of land. It could encompass cottages, golf courses even resorts.
    If in the 1;1,000,000 chance your property is used for developing a mine, then negotiate a small NSR (net smelter return) of 1-2% and retire.
  7. Dave Scott from ottawa, Canada writes: my father expalined this to me when I was a boy fifty years ago, somehow mature canadians with advanced degrees even haven't heard of the mining laws in canada.
  8. M K from Ottawa, Canada writes: 'had been staked for a potential open-pit uranium mine.'

    Great reporting ... oops, I mean populist fear-mongering!

    The land could only be staked for exploration, the 'potential' for an open-pit uranium mine is utterly remote at best.

    But more to the point, companies have the right to stake land. And still more to the point, they have the right to develop the land according to the laws of the jurisdiction without 'environmental laws' being used as a political escape hatch.

    Make the rules, apply the rules as they were intended and live by the rules.

    Self-righteous, hypocritical 'cottagers' aside, responsible resource development is the backbone of Canada and society as a whole.

  9. Robin S from Tory Hill, Canada writes: The economy of Haliburton is based on tourism. Cottagers pay 80% of the taxes. Any mine would have devastating effects on the local economy as the cottagers will pack up and move away. The municipality should have the right to say no if a mine is not in keeping with its official plan.

    Christine A
  10. Robin S from Tory Hill, Canada writes: M K from Ottawa, Canada writes: 'had been staked for a potential open-pit uranium mine.' Great reporting ... oops, I mean populist fear-mongering! The land could only be staked for exploration, the 'potential' for an open-pit uranium mine is utterly remote at best. But more to the point, companies have the right to stake land. And still more to the point, they have the right to develop the land according to the laws of the jurisdiction without 'environmental laws' being used as a political escape hatch. Make the rules, apply the rules as they were intended and live by the rules. Self-righteous, hypocritical 'cottagers' aside, responsible resource development is the backbone of Canada and society as a whole. MK of Ottawa. I am the person quoted in this piece, our land is staked. The problem with the 'Rules' is that they take only mining into consideration. No thought for the environmetal laws that you call a 'political escape hatch', no regard for the very real potential for water contamination due to drilling, NO EA if the land is owned by the crown and NO RIGHTS for the surface rights owner. You are currenetly correct regarding the likelyhood of a mine AT THIS TIME and THAT my friend is one of my big beefs with the mining act. A prospector can explore on my land or crown land, they under the 'Law' can build a road to the exploration site, bulldoze trees into piles of rotting waste, trench, dig, drill and blast as well as take away 1000 tonnes of rock samples KNOWING FULL WELL that a mine will never happen on the site... So the governmment is in fact complicent in STOCK FRAUD ATTEMPT. These mickey mouse exploration people are trying to get a dollar bump out of their penny stocks and walk away from the mess after ruining huge tracts of private and crown land. AND, guess what??? I as a land owner can NOT fix what they have ruined even at my own expence because now we are down to 'their' minerals. Robin Simpson
  11. Philosopher King from Ivory Tower, Canada writes: M K from Ottawa, Canada: Yeah who cares if the owners of the land lose the 100K they paid for the land eh? Many times of strip mining make the immediate area unhealthy to live in, and kill any resale value.

    Bye bye 100K.

    Companies who dig massive open pit mines next to hundreds of cottages should be expected to buy the land at market value BEFORE the mine.

    Period.
  12. Robin S from Tory Hill, Canada writes: Let me tell you all something you may not know. Last year the total dollar value of exploration in Ontario was 650 Million dollars (the most spent in history in ontario). ONE % of that money was spent in the southern ontario mining zone, that's 6.5 million dollars. Now start to compare the dollard spent by cottagers and tourists in the Haliburton area along far less the entire southern ontario zone. Look at the real estate value in the area and the potential losses due to mining, not to mention the VERY real possibility of massive lawsuits.
    When I was at the table with BIG mining (not these annoying nats we find in the south) ALL of them voiced the same words 'NOT INTERESTED IN SOUTHERN ONTARIO'.
    We will be asking for all NEW mining in southern ontario be withdrawn and that it be in the legislated wording NOT to be changed at the Ministers whim which is how the new act is worded.
    All current mines would be grandfathered. BTW, the sand and gravel arguement is a moot point as it is a different act that licences pits and quarries. However, even pits and quarries should be looked at when the pit is in an area where uranium is. After all, do we really want our highways coated in radioactive material?????
  13. Another vicious kick right in the face from Orwell's Ghost, writes: Bruce Deeks from Calgary, Canada writes: Third paragraph, last sentence: “As a result, anyone who has paid $25.50 for a prospector's license is free to enter those lands and mark off old-fashioned mining claims.&8221; Why don't people who are concerned about their cottages simply pay the fee and stake their own claims?

    ===============

    I had the same idea. And take it up a notch -- 'neighborhoods' form of cottagers form a company to file claims for a whole area.

  14. Another vicious kick right in the face from Orwell's Ghost, writes: M K from Ottawa, Canada writes: ... But more to the point, companies have the right to stake land.

    ===========================

    Let's express this fully, however:

    Companies have been given the right to stake, by governments elected by people.
  15. Robin S from Tory Hill, Canada writes: Yes, a person or group Can stake their own land BUT,, the prospector has to do work on the claim to keep the claim and this means exploration on your own land and expenses to do the work. The other problem is this,,, the Ministry is there to PROMOTE staking and exploration with the goal of a mane, they ARE NOT in the business of allowing surface rights owners to protect their property by staking it. I was told that If I staked my own land and another prospector staked over my claim and made the arguement that I was protecting my land that the second prospector would be given the claim. This is why we want the act changed, because you just can't win without rules that take other than mining interests into consideration.

    Robin Simpson
  16. Dr. Bundolo from Calgary, Canada writes: The Ontario based media and of course the Ontario citizens tend to treat many phenomenon as if they were unique to Ontario. Case in point is the mineral rights issue.
    Many provinces and for certain Alberta have long established the principle that the surface rights are separate from mineral (sub-surface) rights. No big story here. In Alberta, there is lots of bureaucracy and protocols to handle this issue with tribunals, boards, due public processes and yet facilitation of mineral extraction. The oil industry runs a business and a huge part of our economy within this system. Private land ownership is no barrier to this legal right of mineral extraction. And your land title deed clearly states that the ownership does not include minerals under the ground. So to hear the cottagers harumphing about this as if it was some new thing is just so laughable. And Haliburton is close to Bancroft where a hundred years plus ago, there were mines all over the place for many kinds of minerals. All currently abandoned for decades. The fact that cottagers as a later type of landowner, has served to keep the issue dormant until now. Lets have some reporting about surface rights and how it is handled in Alberta to show that it is not the end of the world. But then Ontarians might learn that the world does not revolve about them.
  17. Robin S from Tory Hill, Canada writes: Dr. Bundolo from Calgary, Canada writes:
    As it happens dear Dr, the article is discussing Ontarios mining act NOT the Alberta mining act. And as for the Bancroft area, yes, there are mine sites all over the place and in addition to small mines there are 3 old uranium mines that are now radio active waste storage facilities that were NOT cleaned up for over 40 years and are contaminated waste sites that YOU and I pay for. These old uranium mines supplied bomb material for the US atomic bomb business. These site Must be monitored for over 1000 years at least and WE pay for that monitoring you and I. The bottom line is this, southern ontario is NOT the place it once was, we have a new economy here now and it's called tourism. Mining is a filthy business that in fact screws every Canadain in one way or another. AND BTW, I am a full time resident NOT a cottager who BTW have all the same rights as some bozo from Alberta.

    Robin Simpson
  18. Mark Shore from Ottawa, Canada writes: Robin S writes 'Mining is a filthy business that in fact screws every Canadain in one way or another'

    You forgot to include agriculture, forestry, manufacturing and construction.
  19. Robin S from Tory Hill, Canada writes: Mark Shore from Ottawa, Canada writes: Robin S writes 'Mining is a filthy business that in fact screws every Canadain in one way or another'

    You forgot to include agriculture, forestry, manufacturing and construction.

    Yes I did and I realize you are right however I'm trying to keep on topic. ;-))
  20. Mark Shore from Ottawa, Canada writes: Robin S, enjoy your long weekend and I'm betting you probably won't see too many prospectors, diamond drillers, geophysical survey crews or geologists.

    In fact, considering how scarce mineral deposits are given modern mining economics, it's unlikely you'll ever see anything besides sand and gravel quarries opening up in your area. The majority of historical mines in Canada or elsewhere wouldn't be put into production if discovered today. Most are too small and too low grade to be profitable, given high capital and operating costs, and the legal requirement to pay for (in some cases prepay) future remediation and reclamation costs.
  21. Robin S from Tory Hill, Canada writes: Thank you Mark, I will have a great weekend.
    Just one or two words on mitigation. Yes they have to put up a bond if mining takes place BUT after the mitigation the bill goes to you and I for constant monitoring of any uranium site,, for 1000 years or so.
    I fully understand the unlikely event of mining here and now however they can still ruin my land and your land (crown land) without so much as a howdy unless you consider a 24 hour notice a howdy. I consider it an invasion of my land and our way of life.

    Have a great weekend yourself.

    Regards

    Robin
  22. Luke R from Toronto, Canada writes: but even if the surface rights are separated from the 'mineral' rights the prospector should still reauire the land owners permisison to enter the property and to compensate them for cutting his trees. that does, after all, happen on the surface, no?
  23. Robin S from Tory Hill, Canada writes: Luke
    The land owner gets 24 hours notice that exploration is to take place. If that land owner decides they don't want to give permission that's tough, if the land owner tries to stop the exploration the land owner goes to jail. There is no requiremnet to pay for or fix the mess they make in fact as I have stated earlier, the land owner can NOT fix the mess. Surface rights means NO RIGHTS AT ALL when it comes to the mining act. Also, the act demands that the surface rights owner live uop to the letter of the law whereas the same is not the case for the explorer prospector. We are fighting with a particular company that didn't give written notice of exploration the an SRO owner prior to exploration which is required under the act. The owner knew they were coming due to discussion with the company however they did NOT live within the act. The ministry is saying because it was discussed he was given notice and refused to cancel the claim which was up on April 4th. So, the act only really exists to control the SRO land owner and NOT the exploration company.

    Regards

    Robin Simpson
    www.fighturanium.com
  24. Prairie Boy from Canada writes: Robin S Mining screws the people? Ask Saskatchewan. Our 'boom' is the result of mining. Potash, uranium, diamonds, coal and a few other goodies like oil sands. You must work for the government , you know people that hate everything but make a living from it.
  25. Western Girl from Canada writes:
    It's not just mining - the title to my parent's house clearly gave rights to the CPR, as well as excluding mineral rights. Theoretically, CP could have unilaterally declared that they would run a line through the living room. Also not very likely, but evidently still possible, according to the title. Somebody else owns the house now...
  26. Helene McKenzie from Canada writes: Always nice to hear that those who can afford to have a home-away-from-home in cottage country will battle so that their weekends aren't too messed up, all the while sending the mining companies north to make a huge mess of where people live year-round. Gotta love that southern idea of power sharing.
  27. Robin S from Tory Hill, Canada writes: Helene McKenzie from Canada writes: Always nice to hear that those who can afford to have a home-away-from-home in cottage country will battle so that their weekends aren't too messed up, all the while sending the mining companies north to make a huge mess of where people live year-round. Gotta love that southern idea of power sharing.

    Helen
    If you were at all informed or part of an activist group in the north you would Know that it is NOT us in the south who are screwing the North but the ministry of northern development and mines. We worked very hard to get the little we got AND we were asking for the MNDM to reunite SRO with the mineral rights FOR ALL OF Ontario. We were also asking that all municipalities be allowed to enforce their official plans for land use. Sooooo, don't shoot the messenger, dooooo something to help. We have had our group going for going on three years now and have NEVER heard a word from activist groups in the North, are there any?? If so, have them contact us at
    www.fighturanium.com
    Although I am a full time resident of cottage country, cottagers have rights too and apparently they make noise when unhappy, do you?
  28. Mark Shore from Ottawa, Canada writes: Helene McKenzie, you mean northern places like Val d'Or, Rouyn, Matagami, Kirkland Lake, Cobalt, Timmins, Sudbury, Pickle Lake, Thompson, Flin Flon, Kimberly, Trail, Yellowknife, Whitehorse, etc?

    The only reason many NIMBYs can get to where they live or cottage is that some point in the past or present resource companies pushed roads in.

    There's a lot of naturally beautiful places on Earth that haven't been exploited for resources. The scenery is often accented by undernourished populations living in picturesque mud and grass houses.
  29. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Terry Tufts... writes:'... have to yearly investigate for minerals to a minimum of $400 and some odd dollars and the work is fairly involved. It's kind of like blackmail...'

    Blackmail? It's just like homesteading, where if you want to retain the land you have to actually work on it rather than just hold it for speculative purposes.
  30. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Robin... writes:'... we were asking for the MNDM to reunite SRO with the mineral rights FOR ALL OF Ontario.'

    If understand this correctly you want surface owners to be GIVEN, free of charge and without responsibilities, the mineral rights currently owned by all ontarians via the Crown?

    That seems a bit more than trivially greedy.
  31. frank arnold from pickering, Canada writes: To Helene McKenzie.I would like to know why a person such as yourself believes that if someone owns a cottage,that they are therefore some sort of economic elitist.My cottage is not on Lake Joseph or anywhere else in the Muskokas.It is indeed a retreat where my family and I have worked very hard over a period of 25 years and at great expense in both time and money to produce a place which we all enjoy.I would fight any attempt to mine my property for minerals of any description,with every weapon at my disposal.I would fight any attempt to mine the property that my full time residence is on in exactly the same manner.I would resist the trenching and contaminating of my front lawn and my cottage property and so would you Helene.
  32. mike hunt from Canada writes: so why don't cottage owners pay the 25 bucks, get their prospecting licences, and stake their own land and the land surrounding their properties.. and then don't explore it?
  33. Tories Lie Again and Again from Canada writes: As Peak Oil approaches and we shift to an Electric powered economy the pressure to develop Uranium deposits will be ever increasing.

    Those like Robin S. who pile into the SUV and head up north for cottage season and burn precious fossil fuels tooling around the lake without a productive reason should look closely at what is causing the frantic search for Uranium.

    Simple fact is we are running out of options to power our economy and every stone needs to be explored.
  34. Dick Garneau from Canada writes: The mining regulations should be revisited for the benefit of the land owners and the mining companies. They should also be different for big companies vs. single or small group prospectors.
    .
  35. slapdash dapoint from are your gov'ts out to ruin you? mine are, Canada writes: Helene McKenzie - you really need to talk to a professional, get rid of that misplaced anger you're clinging to.

    robin, keep up the fight. it's ridiculous that mineral rights should supersede the rights of the land owner, especially when that land is occupied - home, cottage or otherwise. sounds like trespass laws are made moot by the mining act as well.

    i've been looking at a few parcels of land north of haliburton, i'll be keeping an eye on your progress.
  36. Earl Anthony from Sudbury, Canada writes: The article is mostly a load of horse hockey. A lengthy application process already exists before significant material can be mined and involves public notification and approvals. Staking a claim rarely leads to mining activilty. In fact you probably can access your cottage or favorite campground because of the road network provided by forestry or mining activities. That being said stakers should be more respectful of surface rights.

    A bigger threat to property riights in the new act is the strengthening of the aboriginal rights on traditional land. Traditional land covers not only your cottage but your homes in downtown Toronto. What you now demand of mining activities aboriginal interests may in the future ask of you.
  37. Rusty Brown from Green and wet Cobourg, Ontario, Canada writes:
    Garth: I am not at all comfortable with the idea that we should casually shoot each other with 6-cent bullets to resolve our conflicts.

    Remember: 'those who live by the sword shall die by the sword' (Matthew 26:52).

    RB
  38. Ted Harrison from Canada writes: GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: 'If understand this correctly you want surface owners to be GIVEN, free of charge and without responsibilities, the mineral rights currently owned by all ontarians via the Crown?'

    ***

    I think that what surface owners want is that the surface not be messed with. If companies can explore and then mine an area without going anywhere near the surface, that would address part of the problem.

    It wouldn't address our growing global population, our per capita increase in resource consumption, and the commensurate environmental degradation and resource depletion, however.
  39. Robin S from Tory Hill, Canada writes: Tories Lie Again and Again from Canada writes: As Peak Oil approaches and we shift to an Electric powered economy the pressure to develop Uranium deposits will be ever increasing.

    Those like Robin S. who pile into the SUV and head up north for cottage season and burn precious fossil fuels tooling around the lake without a productive reason should look closely at what is causing the frantic search for Uranium.

    Simple fact is we are running out of options to power our economy and every stone needs to be explored.

    Get a life. I drive a 1998 ford van and I live on my land all year round.
    The uranium in Haliburton is at 1/2 pound per ton you bozo, do some homework and you'll find that unless uranium goes to $500.oo per pound it will NEVER be viable to mine it here. So what we are fighting about is the disruption to our lives and the NEEDLESS distruction of private property and crown land, the potential contamination of our water source, the damage to the environment and on and on and on.
    People who make assumptions should do some bloody homework.

    Robin Simpson
    www.fighturanium.com
  40. Robin S from Tory Hill, Canada writes: garth mckenzie from Canada writes: Phhht. Nothing a 6c bullet can't fix, first time some a-hole with a tin pan shows up on your property.

    Garth
    We would start with a nice peaceful blockade. ;-))) 6 cents is a lot to waste on a miner. ;-))
  41. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Ted Harrison... writes: 'GlynnMhor: I think that what surface owners want is that the surface not be messed with.'

    In other words, they want to deny access to the property of others, based on their own convenience.

    But what the fellow above was saying was that he wanted the mineral rights attached to the surface, apparently for free.
  42. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Robin... writes:'... unless uranium goes to $500.oo per pound it will NEVER be viable to mine it here...'

    So, if that's the case, then you have nothing to be concerned about, since the uranium mining will stop before it starts.
  43. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Maybe what you Ontarians need to do is examine the regulations and policies of the Alberta regulatory regime, and adopt most of them.

    While the Crown land is all subject to exploration, compensation and mitigation for surface rights holders (including those who lease grazing rights, for example) is an integral part of government management of its resources.
  44. Robin S from Tory Hill, Canada writes: Glynnmhor My edited reply. You are another one who seems to make assumptions about our motives etc. We DID NOT ask for reunification of mineral rights free. We did NOT mention money at all during our three years of fighting with the dictatorship of mines. FYI,, there are only 2% of SRO land owners in southern ontario sooo there is NO loss to the people of the province, in fact the big miners who supposedly contribute soooo much to the economy don't want to mine here at all. We are left with opportunistic 'Jr, explorations companies' who are only interested in defrauding investors into thinking there is actually something worth mining. What we got was virtually nothing after the 'consultations'. The ministry has 'withdrawn' SRO lands in southern ontario ' at the whim of the minister which means at the whim of the minister it can be reopened at any time. I live on 100 acres surrounded by 1000s of acres of crown land (only 20% of southern ontarios crown land is open for staking) so having my land withdrawn means nothing other than I could be sitting like an island in the middle of an open pit uranium mine should they ever go forward. And BTW, my land is staked so NOTHING has changed for myself and other SRO land owners because they grandfathered all current claims. Hahahahaha, like Ontario would actually listen to Alberta regarding mining. The TSX is the biggest investment avenue on EARTH for mining and they want to keep it that way.
  45. Yvonne Wackernagel from Woodville, Canada writes: Can a person find this by looking at the records in the local Registry Office? Is your lawyer obligated to tell you about this vulnerability at the time he reports on your purchase? It used to be that lawyers searched at the Ontario Hydro Registry for any liens against rural properties at the time of purchase, but I understand that this service is not now given; I often tell people buying farms that if a hydro pole is on their farm, the Hydro has a lien on the property and can come at any time and build towers across their land, even though they claim that as a Policy they would not. However, when push comes to shove, they have the legal right?
  46. Yvonne Wackernagel from Woodville, Canada writes: And there appears to be all kinds of tricks in the trade. I have been told of owners of very large and expensive cottages selling a large part of their lands on the waterfront to the Conservation Authorioty to save them from paying major municipal taxes but are still able to enjoy privacy ???
  47. Robin S from Tory Hill, Canada writes: Yvonne Wackernagel from Woodville, Canada writes: Can a person find this by looking at the records in the local Registry Office? Is your lawyer obligated to tell you about this vulnerability at the time he reports on your purchase? It used to be that lawyers searched at the Ontario Hydro Registry for any liens against rural properties at the time of purchase, but I understand that this service is not now given; I often tell people buying farms that if a hydro pole is on their farm, the Hydro has a lien on the property and can come at any time and build towers across their land, even though they claim that as a Policy they would not. However, when push comes to shove, they have the legal right?

    Yvonne
    Some lawyers find the information some don't. Lawyers are not obligated to do much IMO. You can go to the Ministry of northern developement and mines website and find your way to the maps and from there find out if you are a SRO land holder (surface rights only)
    Maps can be blown up to see a single lot. If there is a full circle marking you have both mineral and surface rights, if it is marked with a 1/2 circle yur screwed. ;-))

    Our website has a link to MNDM website.

    www.fighturanium.com
  48. Robin S from Tory Hill, Canada writes: slapdash dapoint robin, keep up the fight. it's ridiculous that mineral rights should supersede the rights of the land owner, especially when that land is occupied - home, cottage or otherwise. sounds like trespass laws are made moot by the mining act as well.

    i've been looking at a few parcels of land north of haliburton, i'll be keeping an eye on your progress.

    Slapdash
    From our website www.fighturanium.com you can find our email address. If you'd like to contact us we can help you with land that is safer than other pieces. Feel free to contact us, we'd be happy to help. Haliburton has a great deal to offer other than uranium. ;-))

    Robin
  49. C C from Coombs, Canada writes: I'm a free miner. I just have to go online and I can stake whatever I want. Takes a minute and is cheap.

    The theory is that a mine is the most productive thing you can do with any land. As cottagers are about the least useful, I doubt much will change.
  50. Robin S from Tory Hill, Canada writes: C C from Coombs, Canada writes: I'm a free miner. I just have to go online and I can stake whatever I want. Takes a minute and is cheap.

    The theory is that a mine is the most productive thing you can do with any land. As cottagers are about the least useful, I doubt much will change.

    A free miner???? Now that is funny. As for 'not much will change',,,,,
    Just watch us.
  51. Robin S from Tory Hill, Canada writes: C C from Coombs, Canada writes: I'm a free miner. I just have to go online and I can stake whatever I want. Takes a minute and is cheap.

    The theory is that a mine is the most productive thing you can do with any land. As cottagers are about the least useful, I doubt much will change.

    Cottagers pay 80% of the taxes in Haliburton and add a HUGE amount to our economy, miners rape the land, lie and cheat and abuse anything in their way.
  52. M M from Canada, Canada writes: Somehow it is really hard for me to generate a lot of sympathy for the poor, oppressed cottage owner - lakeside cottages are lovely and I'm sure you enjoy yours, but cry me a river about mineral rights. As the first commenter stated - problem is solved by taking out a license for your land. Why the G & M thinks this is worthy of any discussions is beyond me.
  53. Commander Groovechild from Canada writes: If somebody wants to fill the road leading up to my property and take 3 to 5 acres of trees, man I would be laughing. There must be some kind of form I can fill out so loggers can take stuff from my parcel.
  54. james c from Canada writes: M M from Canada, Canada writes: Somehow it is really hard for me to generate a lot of sympathy for the poor, oppressed cottage owner - lakeside cottages are lovely and I'm sure you enjoy yours, but cry me a river about mineral rights.
    -------------------

    Some people (Robin S) live on their land full time, year round. They are not all cottagers who only show up for summer and on weekends. How would you like a mine built next to your home M M?
  55. John Bark from Vancouver, Canada writes: It seems that we have a generation of advocates instead of critical thinkers.

    Our family had a cottage in the Kawarthas for more than 50 years. We now have a summer home in the Cariboo in central B.C. Given our love for and dedication towards our current 'cottage' I can understand the desire to have our property left in pristine condition. However, without the taxes flowing from mining concerns, and service related fields, my personal taxes would rise to levels where I could possibly not afford the luxury of a second home.

    It's far better to work with the prospectors than alienate them. In the resulting donnybrook, everyone loses, but the one coming out on the short end will very likely be the cottager.
  56. Robin S from Tory Hill, Canada writes: John Bark from Vancouver, Canada writes: However, without the taxes flowing from mining concerns, and service related fields, my personal taxes would rise to levels where I could possibly not afford the luxury of a second home.

    Now here's the critical thinking you were talking about. Cottagers pay 80% of the taxes in ALL of Haliburton sooooo if the miners cause them to stop coming or to sell their land off at cut rate prices what happens?????
    Yes that's right, land values drop and MY taxes as a year round resident go through the roof, services are limited and on and on. Now that is critical thinking.
  57. Commander Groovechild from Canada writes: I have a feeling this doesn't apply to most cottage owners. Isn't this for Crown land? Just on this last tax bill for Huntsville I see charges for the town, district, waste management and education. It seems psychotic to be paying all of those things only for Jeb the prospector to stake his mineral claim. I point out to Jeb that if he wants to get deep into the property, he's going to have to cut down some trees.
  58. chris W from Tranna, Canada writes: Fight stakers with stakers: find out if the ministers and the Premier have cottages and go stake them. Promise to rip up the place looking for a fairy mine unless this new act is written with the protections you need. That should focus their attention wonderfully.
  59. Robin S from Tory Hill, Canada writes: Commander Groovechild from Canada writes: I have a feeling this doesn't apply to most cottage owners. Isn't this for Crown land? Just on this last tax bill for Huntsville I see charges for the town, district, waste management and education. It seems psychotic to be paying all of those things only for Jeb the prospector to stake his mineral claim. I point out to Jeb that if he wants to get deep into the property, he's going to have to cut down some trees. No, it's isn't just crown land, my property is staked. A municipality has NO control over crown land within the borders of the municipality. If a county or towship decides they don't want mining in the area, tough, the mining act tops everything. In a case near Ottawa two entire cottage lakes were staked, 40 cottages on one lake and 400 on another even though they can not mine near a lake or other water body. When asked about this the mining company clearly stated 'We'll drain the lake'. THAY is where the Ontario mining act is at. We as land owners must live within the letter of the law not only where it concerns the mining act but also the ontario building code, the health department requirements regarding septic systems etc etc, the mining act allows exploration without EAs, without concern over water well contamination etc etc. Hell, i'm not even allowed to cut trees down on my own land yet these creeps can bulldoze the trees into piles and let them rot.
  60. Commander Groovechild from Canada writes: Is a fairy a type of mineral? Maybe on Mr. Smitherman's property. Premier, we've come in search of an ancient underground beer aquifer. Don't mind us. I can totally see myself with a metal detector and a pack of Vietnamese pigs smelling out the legendary Labatt vein, staking out his property in a half-drunken stupor.
  61. John Bark from Vancouver, Canada writes: Robin S, you are a good example of an advocate instead of a critical thinker.

    Instead of understanding what I meant ie. federal personal income taxes being kept under control, in part by taxes on mining production, you immediately take things out of context in order to support your cause. Why not listen to the reasoning of others instead of dictating your agenda.

    Don't forget, property taxes apply wherever we live in Canada, whether be with our summer place or our home in the city.
  62. Robin S from Tory Hill, Canada writes: John Bark from Vancouver, Canada writes: Robin S, you are a good example of an advocate instead of a critical thinker.

    Instead of understanding what I meant ie. federal personal income taxes being kept under control, in part by taxes on mining production, you immediately take things out of context in order to support your cause. Why not listen to the reasoning of others instead of dictating your agenda.

    Don't forget, property taxes apply wherever we live in Canada, whether be with our summer place or our home in the city.

    John bark
    Get a life. If mining were to happen here in Haliburton it would be a five year mine at best and for that we would lose many tax paying cottagers, and YES I mean property taxes which in this case are the taxes we worry about. The problem with critical thinkers like you is that you have NO idea of the issues we face here and now yet you spout off like you do. The income tax arguement is idiotic and has Nothing to do with our plight.
  63. Yvonne Wackernagel from Woodville, Canada writes: Now is the time to speak and maybe vote for Randy Hillier who has been fighting the government(s) for farmers' property rights and would love to open the constitution to get that subject straightened out. You should all read The Landowner Magazine to make your hair curl when you find out what happens to farmers on their (own) land.
  64. Robin S from Tory Hill, Canada writes: Yvonne Wackernagel from Woodville, Canada writes: Now is the time to speak and maybe vote for Randy Hillier who has been fighting the government(s) for farmers' property rights and would love to open the constitution to get that subject straightened out. You should all read The Landowner Magazine to make your hair curl when you find out what happens to farmers on their (own) land.

    Yvonne
    Our coalition group has been in constant contact with Randy Hillier, he`s not that supportive to be honest.
  65. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Robin... writes: 'Glynnmhor: We DID NOT ask for reunification of mineral rights free.'

    Oh? So just how much were you willing to pay for them, then?
  66. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Basically, Robin, you're yet another in a long series of NIMBYists who oppose anything anywhere near them.

    Neither you nor your cause are anything special, much less important enough to change the constitution. Some people tried to put property rights into the Charter, but they were chouted down, and the chances of successfully opening the document are nil.
  67. Robin S from Tory Hill, Canada writes: Glynnmhor

    The province charges people who own their mineral rights in the country (not the city) so it would be up to the province to send us a bill now wouldn`t it...

    Who ever said a word about the constitution or the charter, not me. If I were a nimby, why the hell would I keep fighting for the rights of others. You are a serious idiot IMO. Your arguments have nothing to do with my statements and are full of ridiculous assumptions that are directed at me rather than adressing the issues.

    Take a hike.
  68. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Robin... writes: 'Glynnmhor: Who ever said a word about the constitution or the charter, not me.'

    Ah, I see what happened. At 19:08 you pasted what Yvonne had said, but didn't enclose that in quotation marks so it appeared to be part of your remark.

    The English language does have a set of fairly standardized conventions, and the use of quotation marks is among them. It makes it easier to follow the flow, as does limiting the quotations to that about which you are responding.
  69. John Bark from Vancouver, Canada writes: Robin S,

    You seem to have a real problem dealing with reason. Hillier also is a strategist and and critical thinker.

    To slam those who don't agree with your agenda is unfortunate. Very narcissistic wouldn't you think?
  70. Robin S from Tory Hill, Canada writes:
    Bark.

    Who the hell slammed Randy Hillier. You people seem to read but not comprehend. Talk about wanting to hear yourself speak. The problem is you are full of crap that nobody wants to hear. Go to bed you need sleep.

    Ohhhh and Glynn ``````````````````` does that work for you.
  71. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Robin... writes: 'Who the hell slammed Randy Hillier.'

    In your post of 19:08 you complained he wasn't supportive of your cause.

    'Ohhhh and Glynn ``````````````````` does that work for you.'

    Does what work?

    Do you mean the single leading quote? Single quote markes are normally reserved for quotations embedded within other quotations, and I know of no protocol involving stringing 19 of them together.

    At least it's prime.
  72. Scott Boyce from Archangel, Russian Federation writes: The reality is that no mining company in their right mind would want to do exploration in Ontario cottage country - they know they'd be facing incredible resistance to their activities. And even if they found something it would almost certainly never get developed. It's good that individuals voice their concerns. At the same time, there has to be a balance, a compromise. If mining is evil, then by extension all those who use products of mining (i.e. all of us) are evil too. Those of you who truly want nothing to do with mining, please get out of your car, pull your toddler off off his tricycle, slip off your gold band and your opal necklace, forget about the Bahamas this March, turn off the lights, stop eating vegetables that come from land ploughed by steel. Even Stone Age man depended on mining products for survival! Canada's wealth - our wealth - is to a large extent due to its mineral resources, and mining is part of our heritage. Yes, it is undeniable that certain mining companies have in the past done, and even at present are doing, great harm to the environment, to local communities and to their own workers. But it is also true that the majority of western mining companies today go to great lengths to minimize the environmental impact, to make a positive contribution to the local community, and to ensure the health and safety of all of their employees. I'm a geologist who has been working in the mining industry in Canada and internationally for a couple of decades now. I don't like the idea of disrupting the environment or local communities/societies either - I'm a passionate lover of the outdoors and of far-off places, as geologists tend to be. But unfortunately we can't get the materials that our modern world is built upon from thin air. Questioning the need/desirability for a specific mining project helps keeps things in check. But if you are anti-mining, please have an open, fair mind and make your protest based on unbiased, accurate information.
  73. Robin S from Tory Hill, Canada writes: Scott Boyce from Archangel, Russian Federation writes: The reality is that no mining company in their right mind would want to do exploration in Ontario cottage country - they know they'd be facing incredible resistance to their activities. And even if they found something it would almost certainly never get developed.

    Exactly right Scott.

    We base our protest on the mining act and the reasons NOT to mine in southern ontario, period. We use the MNDM own numbers and facts to argue for change. As you said, NO mine will ever open here in Haliburton because we will stop it. Thus no safe investment here.
    Although your post is somewhat fair and accurate there is NOTHING safe about mining uranium anywhere on earth and god help those in third world countries who have to deal with Canadian mining companies.
  74. Jim Shepherd from Toronto, Canada writes: The last mine to go into production in Ontario was Goldcorp in Red Lake 10 years ago.

    Cottagers have little to worry about.

    However, they might ponder why Ontario is now a 'Have-Not' Province. Best Regards.
  75. Orest Zarowsky from Toronto, Canada writes: Property rights indeed. But whose? Corporate trump individual, it seems. As for the performance of mining corporations, well, Jared Diamond's book 'Collapse' has a very interesting discussion of how responsible that crew is. And who ends up on the hook for long term clean-up costs? Oh yeah, that would the 'taxpayer'. Funny how that works out.

    As for Mr. Randy Hillier and his pals, well that crew are a joke. Their beef is that they don't want to take even basic steps to prevent their operations from polluting the rivers that pass through their property. As in 'I don't care what happens to my downstream neighbour'. They are too stupid to grasp that the same attitude and approach from their upstream neighbour will cause them grief and avoidable expenses. And that polluting the aquifer on which all of their wells depend is also a very bad idea. Duelling banjos anyone?

    GlynnMhor is a known RRW troll, with very serious cognition and pattern recognition difficulties. He can be safely ignored.

    Yo, Jim Shepherd - long time no hear from you. How ya doin'? Have you managed to calm down a bit?
  76. Dawn from Minnesota from Minnesota, United States writes: When I was living in Colorado, I had occasion to look at a house that was for sale. I noticed in the purchase agreement that the owner only had rights to the surface of the land and what was on top of it. The real estate agent glossed over that little formality. He said that all of the other property in the area was the same: surface rights only. He added that there was no scheduled mining activity. Needless to say, I didn't buy.
  77. Tories Lie Again and Again from Canada writes: Earl Anthony brings up the very important issue regarding Aboriginal rights over traditional lands.

    He is very correct in that, there is the potential that every piece of real estate could become the subject of an approval process that must include First Nations.
  78. Towlar 3 from Canada writes: Buried in all this noise is an interesting assertion from Robin S (who is too easily riled and would serve his cause better by calming down).

    He suggests that most of these claims are staked by small exploration companies who don't seriously expect to find anything worth mining, but are trying to create interest in their stocks. In working the claim, they bulldoze access roads, strip off the surface soil, etc., causing permanent damage.

    If all of that is truly an elaborate stock-boosting theatre, it seems to me some regulation could balance the interests of surface rights owners, investors, the public, and exploration companies. Perhaps a graduated claims process: claimholders have to start with the least invasive exploration methods and provide evidence (in the public record) that the claim is promising before being allowed to move on to more destructive methods.

    That wouldn't necessarily prevent a viable mine from being developed, but it would discourage frivolous exploration and give information to investors. Since neither cottagers nor exploration companies would be completely happy, it could be a good compromise.
  79. Robin S from Tory Hill, Canada writes: Tories Lie Again and Again from Canada writes: Earl Anthony brings up the very important issue regarding Aboriginal rights over traditional lands. He is very correct in that, there is the potential that every piece of real estate could become the subject of an approval process that must include First Nations. Well so far Earl has been wrong. At Sharbot Lake there was no prior consultation with Algonquins when miners staked a 35,000 acre land claim. Robert Lovelace and Paula Sherman were both given 6 month jail terms and 15 and 25 thousand dollar fines. Both were Chiefs, both were university profs with no criminal record. Many whites were also arrested for standing on the road to THEIR Land, only the Natives were jailed, all white charges dropped. The mining company President lamented that he could not hire para military units to guard the site like they do in Africa. Bob Lovelace spent 3 months in jail before the high court overturned the trial judges ERROR. Same deal north of Thunder Bay, 6 council members of the KI band were jailed and fined. The recent 'consultations' to revise the mining act centered on Aboriginal rights but really, the Ministry is just talking the talk and all the wording is BS IMO. The changes that have been proposed will be driven by regulations that will say things like 'At the whim of the minister.' The proposed revisions are a crock at best. My bet is nothing will change with Native people, they'll get screwed as usual.
  80. Robin S from Tory Hill, Canada writes: Towlar 3 from Canada writes: Buried in all this noise is an interesting assertion from Robin S (who is too easily riled and would serve his cause better by calming down).

    After three years of dealing with liars and cheats I do NOT suffer fools very well. I have however been dealing with ministry people at the highest levels without ever calling them liars and idiots (to their faces)))).

    As for your graduated plan for exploration.
    One of the early types of exploration is deep diamond drilling for core samples. In the case of the site we live on, the company told us in a public meeting that they would drill 15 holes no deeper than 150 feet. Told us that there could be no water well contamination. They drill 50 holes the following month to a total depth (for all holes) of 20,000 feet. Our group organized a water testing program to set a baseline for uranium in wells. After the drilling the 5 closest wells to the site had gone up considerably.
    So even though your ideas sound reasonable, we totally reject the idea of ANY further exploration in southern ontario especially for uranium which is an entirely different subject.
  81. Pierre-Yves P from Canada writes: .
    To Scott Boyce from Archangel, Russian Federation:

    'The reality is that no mining company in their right mind would want to do exploration in Ontario cottage country - they know they'd be facing incredible resistance to their activities.'

    Sure, but this ignores the likely fact that a company or individual would be staking a claim as red-herring toward a plan which has nothing to do with mining exploitation.
  82. Robin S from Tory Hill, Canada writes: Pierre-Yves P from Canada writes: .
    To Scott Boyce from Archangel, Russian Federation:

    'The reality is that no mining company in their right mind would want to do exploration in Ontario cottage country - they know they'd be facing incredible resistance to their activities.'

    Sure, but this ignores the likely fact that a company or individual would be staking a claim as red-herring toward a plan which has nothing to do with mining exploitation.

    Pierre
    You hit the nail on the head . These people are prepared to comtaminate our water source, tear up private and crown land to get a $1.00 bump of their US based penny stock and walk away having defrauded investors, ruining land, disrupting peoples lives, and contaminating our water source.

    Best regards

    Robin Simpson
    www.fighturanium.com
  83. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Orest... writes:'GlynnMhor is a known RRW troll, with very serious cognition and pattern recognition difficulties. He can be safely ignored.'

    It seems somewhat contradictory, then, that you seem unable to ignore me, and appear obsessed with making dergoatory remarks about me.
  84. Orest Zarowsky from Toronto, Canada writes: @ GlynnMhor: No, I'm just warning others about you. Informing them that your own performance is justification to ignore you. As for 'derogatory' remarks, well now. 'Handsome is as Handsome does'.

    You certainly are a troll. And you are - demonstrably - very much bigger than your britches, to boot. Stupid too - as has been noted by others.

    Your failure to come up with reasonable alternative proposals to the things you object to is the most telling indictment of your 'position'. Especially in the context of reality and the cold, hard fact that the issues you denigrate and ignore are real and do impat on humanity.

    Say there GlynnMhor, why do you hate your own children - and potential grand-children - so much? What have they done to you to deserve that level of hatred?
  85. John Bark from Vancouver, Canada writes: 'Robin S from Tory Hill, Canada writes: Towlar 3 from Canada writes: Buried in all this noise is an interesting assertion from Robin S (who is too easily riled and would serve his cause better by calming down).

    After three years of dealing with liars and cheats I do NOT suffer fools very well. I have however been dealing with ministry people at the highest levels without ever calling them liars and idiots (to their faces))'

    ***

    I think the saying is ...'I don't tolerate incompetence well...', and your ideological agenda has transcended all reason. It has underminded any competence people in cottage country might have in your lack of support for economic advancement of our natural resources.

    I enjoy a hearty debate with those who can demonstrate a balanced, reasoned and critical approach to their point of view. Sadly yours is lacking all these basics.

    Time to move on. I wish you luck. I think you will need a lot of it.

    Cheers
  86. Bernard Samson from Dog River Sask, Canada writes: Chris w, great idea. Take it further - the surface rights issue does not end at cottage country - it applies to their HOMES as well. Go stake a claim at the premier's home. Or for that matter - at Queen's Park! Call the news channels first - will make great footage as MNDR squares off against the OPP for jurisdiction!
  87. Phil Stooke from London, Canada writes: Stake your own claims first and beat them to it? Does any mechanism prevent a landowner from doing that?
  88. L.B. MURRAY from !! from Canada writes: What??? Is this still happening in 2009??

    Tamil Tigers block a major Toronto superhighway one weekend, and next weekend, some cottage owners might find ''mining claims'' on their precious waterfront properties, after paying an arm and a leg on property taxes.

    Friccckinnng unbelievable but this is happening in Canada. We're too scared and too polite. Time to put a stop to all this nonsense. Enough is enough. Make no mistake about it, but my ''bleeding heart'' is turning to stone.

    Enough. My grandfathers, uncles, cousins didn't fight 2 World Wars for nothing. Enough. (P.S. Both sides of the family, both sides of the border, Canada and US fighting Hitler).

    Enough. Quite enough.

    -= 00131313
  89. FIG JAM from Our Town, Canada writes: All shoreline cottages should be confiscated, dismantled and the shoreline returned to its natural state.
  90. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Orest, quod erat demonstrandum.
  91. Robin S from Tory Hill, Canada writes: John Bark from Vancouver, Canada writes:

    ***

    I think the saying is ...'I don't tolerate incompetence well...',
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Actually john bark, the saying is,, 'I don't suffer fools gladly'

    Glad you have decided to move on,, bye bye now. ;-))
  92. Herbalizer man from Canada writes: L.B. MURRAY from !! from Canada writes: What??? Is this still happening in 2009??
    --------------------------------------------------
    my sentiments exactly! This is beyond comprehension. I really don’t see this being different from a scam artist getting a second mortgage on your home and running away with the money.
    A few posters have alluded to cottagers being out of touch with “progress” or the financial necessities of the province. What if this was to happened in your own home? Are you going to move away and let some faceless corporation take over your property so that may exploit your property for a quick buck? ( I doubt that you would)
    The fact that very few people are outraged or concern with the erosion, or stagnation of people’s rights against corporate ones is telling of today’s state of society.
    Sad….
  93. Robin S from Tory Hill, Canada writes: Orest, thanks, i've met glynn on other threads before. The fact that we seem to be on opposing sides of every issue leads me to be sure that I'm on the right course.

    Regards

    Robin Simpson
  94. Orest Zarowsky from Toronto, Canada writes: @ Robin S: Randy Hillier is another one you should avoid like the plague. He is currently a candidate for the leadership of the Ontario PC party. It is a toss-up who is the more extremist and ideologically-driven candidate; Hillier or Tim Hudak. What is scary indeed is that Hudak is the front-runner. And he is another RRW ideologue. Just like GlynnMhor.
  95. Orest Zarowsky from Toronto, Canada writes: @ GlynnMhor: You're Busted. Again.
  96. E B from Canada writes: If they want to prospect they should buy the property first. Let's change this robber baron's antiquated law.
  97. Robin S from Tory Hill, Canada writes: Anyone who supports our cause of REAL changes to the Ontario mining act should contact us at fighturanium@gmail.com and we will put you on our mailing list. Our group and many others will be contacting as many MPPs over the summer as we possibly can. We will be posting example letters and form letters on our website www.fighturanium.com for people to send to MPPs, Gravelle the mines minister and McGuinty as well as the mining critics.
    Third reading will not be until the Fall sitting and we're pushing for the new act to go to committee so we will have input.
    Hope to hear from some of you.

    Best regards

    Robin Simpson and Christine Atrill
    FUME founders
  98. Mark Shore from Ottawa, Canada writes: Robin S, don't forget Ontario's gold, nickel, diamond and copper miners. I'm sure they have similar 'creeps', 'liars', land-raping, would-be paramilitary-hiring management as uranium explorers. Right?

    I think you've gone on long enough to paint yourself as an angry crank, many of whose 'facts' are questionable and can therefore be brushed aside by both the provincial government and business you want regulated (or eliminated). This is unfortunate because there is clearly significant room for improvement in both surface/subsurface rights conflict management and environmental management/remediation of mining activities, which has been a key focus of most mining companies for the last 15-20 years.

    Property taxes paid by cottagers are hardly the basis for an economy of 10M people.
  99. Robin S from Tory Hill, Canada writes: Mark Shore
    Please list the questionable facts.
    You are damned right I'm angry along with a few thousand other angry land owners. So give me a list.
  100. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Robin... writes:"You are damned right I'm angry..."

    You're an angry NIMBY, but all NIMBYs are angry cranks anyway.

    If you really REALLY didn't want to live somewhere that might be mined, you shouldn't have bought in a place where you got only the surface rights. And since you've been whining about the Crown land nearby that the Crown might permit to be mined, you shouldn't have bought anywhere near Crown land either.

    Move to Toronto and you'll never be at risk of mining, but don't complain about your own choices turning out to be not at successful as you had hoped.
  101. Mark Shore from Ottawa, Canada writes: OK, part 1 (main point)

    Uranium occurs naturally in ground water at levels from a few parts per trillion to a few parts per million. The current Canadian recommended maximum for drinking water is 20 micrograms/liter (20 ppb) buIf you depend on a bedrock water well in an area near low-grade uranium mineralization, even if uneconomic, it would be prudent to monitor U regularly along with other heavy metals, organic contaminants and bacteria, and radon gas in basements (if you have one).

    However there is no feasible way that a 40-60 mm diameter diamond drill hole can positively affect groundwater flow in a fractured acquifer. If a drillhole produces water under artesian pressure (potentially decreasing flow to nearby water wells) it is the responsibility of the company that drilled it to cement and/or cap the hole shut.

    It's entirely likely that seasonal variations in U concentration due to surface water influx or low-level readings near the detection level of a commercial lab are being misinterpreted.

    I also find it hard to believe that an exploration company would say they would only drill to a depth of 150 feet. Meters maybe. But obviously I wasn't there.

    And no, I have never now or in the past been involved in uranium exploration and personally think the uranium revival in eastern Ontario and western Quebec over the last few years is a waste of time, money and resources.
  102. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Mark Shore... writes:"... radon gas in basements..."

    That's for sure.

    Most basements are kept outside the air circulation of the house, with no return venting along the basement floor. Radon therefore collects in the basement if it is being emitted from the surrounding rock and soil.

    If the basement is finished, then just make sure the cold air return vents are along the floor, and in the spring and autumn run the furnace fan continuously while opening the upstairs of the house (screen doors, windows).

    Or you can get special systems that just draw air off the basement floor and vent it directly outside.

    Dilution IS the solution to pollution.
  103. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: And as an aside, if you finish a basment, you want to make sure the cold air return vents are not in the ceiling, as some lazy HVAC contractors are wont to do.

    Return air vents in the ceiling scavenge warm air from the room, since warm air rises. Meanwhile the cold air that you really want to be warming stays on the floor.
  104. Mark Shore from Ottawa, Canada writes: Robin S: Part 2 (other points) 'paramilitary security': Due to poverty and lack of alternative income sources, artisanal miners (garimpeiros in Brazil) commonly swarm mine sites in particular some areas of South America and Africa. Access control and security is a necessity - just try wandering uninvited through any industrial plant or construction site in Canada and see how limited to mining this is. Due to remoteness of many sites and lack of funds, many governments make it clear that mine site security is up to the companies involved, within limits. 'rape, god help the third world', etc. Accidents, mortality rates, and environmental practices in indigenous third world mining environments (China included) are orders of magnitude worse than best-practice European, Australian or North American operations, where some projects have gone one million man-hours without a lost-time incident. Large mining companies do their best to bring first-world safety protocols to other countries, if not wages. Our shrunken Canadian mining companies and their global counterparts aren't exactly bringing the apocalypse to tropical Edens. 'India' Although the Indian government has recently revised its laws on foreign investment and specifically solicited Canadian mining company interest, to my knowledge no Canadian mining companies are operating or exploring in India. In your comments, you went from a couple of site-specific issues such as consequences of uranium mining and surface right holder impacts to a global anti-mining tirade. Potential allies in both government and large mining companies and associations (*none* of whom are in favor of shoddy actions by some junior companies) are far more likely to file your complaints in the extremist category, and disregard them accordingly. I know I did... PS. The 1998 Ford van that you mentioned is made up of metals (iron through platinum) mined from a dozen or more countries, not to mention the computer you're using as well.
  105. Robin S from Tory Hill, Canada writes: Mark Shore Thanks so much for the lecture, we've done the studies and mt partner is a certified radon gas tester. Our water prior to drilling was at 7 micrograms and after it was 18 and yes it could be naturally occuring and a natural seasonal fluctuation. New Brunswich however just passed new laws based on studies that now require well water testing PRIOR to and drilling. Do you think maybe their information is a bit more up to date than yours??? Houses in this area suffer from natural occuring uranium and HUGE amounts of Radon gas HUGE. In these cases you NEED to have mitigation done, all the fans and air exchangers you could stuff in your basement will not clear the amounts of radon we have been finding. As for the exploration company lying to us regarding the number and depth of holes, well dear mark, we have the entire meeting on video, would you like to see it????? They also said when asked (a number of times) that no harm would come to wells. When asked if they would mitigate wells if they did increase in uranium after drilling they said NO,, BECAUSE (let's see if you get the drift of this) we could not prove that it was their drilling that contaminated the wells further, >> "It's could have been the drilling done 20 years ago.<<< Get it Mark??? As for the wonderful practices of Canadian miners in third world countries, do some reading. Oh and, watch the film called URANIUM, it's on our website, and that catastrophy happened right here in ontario. There are a number of site on the web that show clearly what happens when uranium is mined. Look at CAMECOs brand new state of the art mine that has been flooded since it opened. You are just more BLAH BLAH BLAH that we have heard from (what can I say) people like you.
  106. Jackie Medeiros from Calgary, Canada writes: It never fails to amaze me how few people actually read their land titles when purchasing a piece of land. This is, in my opinion, just as foolish as those who purchase a home in an urban area, only to complain when years later a road is built in their backyard. Chances are the area was zoned for a future roadway in the first place, however this doesn't stop the complaints from filing in. Educate yourselves as to the rights you will and won't have as a surface landowner. It is not uncommon for mineral rights to be held separately by the crown, and if this is the case for you, find out what industries may be active in the area. If you're not prepared to deal with that activity on your land, then don't purchase it. As unfortunate as a mine in your back yard may be, it does have to be mined somewhere.

Comments are closed

Thanks for your interest in commenting on this article, however we are no longer accepting submissions. If you would like, you may send a letter to the editor.

Report an abusive comment to our editorial staff

close

Alert us about this comment

Please let us know if this reader’s comment breaks the editor's rules and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.

Do not use this to complain about comments that don’t break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.

Back to top