LETTERS (August 02, 1991)

A Lamentable Decline

First of all, my compliments on the March issue, which was excellent (as are most of the issues). I want to comment on Don Cranstone’s article on exploration expenditures and the inference that, because the 1990 expenditure level is higher than the 1970s, we are ok. [Ed.: Cranstone’s article was co-written with Ginette Bouchard.] There are two basic errors in this approach. First of all, much of Canada has now been fairly well explored, and exploration from now on will be more expensive than when we could make finds by prospecting or first-pass geophysical surveying. The deposits will be generally deeper and much more expensive to find and develop.

The second point is that, because of the additional costs and delays (which also increase costs) of various regulations and environmental laws, and increased social, operating and capital costs, many deposits are not economic. Examples are all the gold deposits discovered and developed in the 1980s. With the exception of Hemlo, most are now uneconomic.

My contention is that we probably need an exploration level of two to three times what we had in the 1960s and ’70s in order to keep our “ore” reserves (not mineral inventory) from declining. I expect 1991 expenditures will drop substantially again. The government’s blase attitude towards the decline in exploration should not be accepted.

Ed Thompson,

E.G. Thompson Mining Consultants,

Toronto, Ont.

Eskay Misrepresented

The Eskay Creek deposit is a magnificent exploration success. However, it is not yet quite as good as the reserve figure (43.97 million tonnes grading 26.4 grams of gold and 998.4 grams of silver per tonne) quoted in your March issue. The actual probable and possible reserve is 4.8 million tonnes grading 23.97 grams of gold and 905 grams silver per tonne. This figure does not include the 21A Deposit.

Lindsay Bottomer,

Vice-president, New Projects,

Prime Explorations,

Vancouver, B.C.