JUNIOR MINING — Alberta exploration rights holders may face

Mining companies looking to cash in on the unknown metallic minerals potential of Alberta should tread carefully, as there are untold and untested environmental and bureaucratic pitfalls around many corners.

Point in any direction in the province, and you are likely to bump into government-controlled Crown land. One-eighth of the province comprises either national parks or military weapons ranges.

Few dare to ask what the future might hold now that the Alberta government has sold mining exploration rights to the very boundaries of all five national parks in the province, as well as the two weapons ranges. And the nature of diamond exploration, for example, suggests the real possibility of an environmental Pandora’s box, particularly for those owning rights along those boundaries.

“It hasn’t been an issue at the land acquisition stage, but it could be at the serious exploration stage,” said Brian Hudson, manager of mineral agreements with Alberta Energy. “Our attitude is to permit every bit of ground we can at this stage, so at least companies have the opportunity to go and see if there’s anything out there.”

Potential diamond-bearing kimberlite pipes can extend many kilometers in either direction. What happens if a kimberlite pipe extends into a national park or a weapons range? Even now, such heavy hitters as Monopros, Dia Met Minerals (TSE), BHP Minerals Canada, and Cameco (TSE) own exploration rights adjacent to Jasper National Park.

The acting chief of warden operations for Parks Canada, Duane Martin, stated categorically that Parks Canada legislation does not allow for resource extraction activity within parks unless there is some historical precedent for it. That explains why logging was recently

permitted in the Wood Buffalo National Park. (A recent court challenge has halted that activity.)

He added that there have been minor boundary adjustments to national parks in the past for clarification or correction of a boundary. He is aware of no changes to allow for extension of an adjacent commercial activity. In the case of a boundary change request, applicants must follow a formal process. Martin said the remote possibility of a boundary change could involve a land exchange, whereby any land lost in a specific area would be gained in another.

Any request for boundary change to allow for extension of a commercial venture has, to his knowledge, never been tested. Interested parties, however, do have the option of taking their request to the political arena to request a change in legislation, or consideration as a special case. Cameco spokesman Rita Mirwald said they have some experience gold mining in a Saskatchewan provincial park. This work became possible because “grandfathered” mineral leases were in place before the park was established. Regarding national parks, however, her feeling is that Cameco would back away from any dealings with national park authorities because of the environmental can of worms it would open.

“Our exploration there is at a preliminary stage,” she said. “We’re trying to eliminate the least prospective areas of the claims first.”

Should the scenario of a potential orebody extending into a national park or weapons range arise, Hudson said Alberta Energy would assemble its risk management team to assess what options were available to the province. But given the current level of environmental sensitivity by the public, he felt such a request for exploration rights for mining would be too explosive an issue for many mining companies to consider seriously.

“It’s going to take a lot braver man than I am to step into a public forum and request a boundary change to a park so that we can have mining there,” he said.

While they have yet to broach this subject with their federal counterparts, Hudson said access to military weapons ranges might be higher on the agenda. “We’ve had some expressions of interest in access to the bombing ranges,” he said. “We’ve advised them (leaseholders) that if they wish us to pursue the matter, they are looking three years down the road before we get a decision.” Unlike national parks, weapons ranges occupy provincial Crown land leased to the Department of National Defence.

There already is an oil and gas extraction agreement on both the Primrose weapons range near Cold Lake and Suffield weapons range near Medicine Hat, but this took a high degree of co-operation and co-ordination with the military. The access agreements to both weapons ranges was negotiated by Alberta Energy Company, 50% owned by the Alberta government at the time the agreement was signed.

Well heads are encased underground to avoid destruction during weapons exercises. Tanks can even drive over them without causing damage. A spokesman for the Department of Energy’s geology and planning branch said negotiating a mining agreement on these weapons ranges would be difficult since companies would likely want to start mining with an open pit. That doesn’t seem possible with military exercises occurring all around and overhead.

— Tony Kryzanowski

is a freelance writer from

St. Albert, Alta.