Search Documents

By Karl J. C. Harries

"1.1. WHAT ARE AGREEMENTS AND HOW ARE THEY FORMED?In order to have an agreement, at common law, there must be an offer, acceptance of that offer, and consideration passing between the parties. In addition, the material terms (i.e. the basics or substance) of the agreement must be discernible, preferably by means of documentation. Although these concepts may appear simple and straightforward, the law relating to them is voluminous and complex. Some brief comments are worthwhile.• Offer/acceptance: Both offer and acceptance should be in writing, but they need not be. The actions, conversations, and/or correspondence of the parties may constitute either or both of them. Notwithstanding, the local law or practice of a jurisdiction will impose some specific requirements for certain types of agreements. If these requirements are not met, the agreement may be unenforceable. For example, Ontario’s Mining Act requires transfers of unpatented mining claims to be evidenced in writing and recorded.1• Consideration: Consideration is usually thought of as being money, but it can be virtually anything, even “the premises” (i.e. the mutual covenants or promises contained in the agreement itself). In addition, if one party, relying upon the offer of another, does something to his detriment, then the doing of the act can be considered to be an acceptance of the offer and, under the legal concept of “detrimental reliance”, can also be consideration. Whether or not detrimental reliance exists will depend upon the circumstances of each case.2• Material terms: The requirement that the material terms of an agreement must be discernible does not mean that all of the terms of an agreement must be documented or even have been considered, just the basic or material ones. In addition, it will be up to a judge to decide what is material – not necessarily the parties. In order to establish the material terms, a Court may look at all relevant documentation and may hear oral evidence. It will resist “writing the agreement”"

Jan 1, 2003

By Karl J. C. Harries

"10.1. INTRODUCTIONDefinitions are a necessary part of every agreement. Their purposes are to assist the reader in reading and understanding an agreement and to attempt to avert potential confusion and, therefore, disputes. In some circumstances, they may be critical in deciding a dispute. As they are often substantive, they should not be treated lightly.It is far easier and less confusing for a reader to read “the Company” or “the Recipient” than to be faced with “the party of the First Part”, or to see the “Jones Property” than “that part of the property hereinbefore described in paragraph 1.01 hereof”. It is also advisable not to use “-ee” and “- or”, as in payee and payor.One thing must always be remembered: once a word has been defined in an agreement, it will always have the defined meaning unless the contrary is clearly indicated or is required to make sense of a provision.2 It can be confusing for a reader if commonly used words are defined in other than ordinary terms. Unique words that will stand out in the text are more likely to be recognized as having special meaning. It is also good practice to identify defined terms by capitalizing them in the text of the agreement. Boldfacing of definitions is also sometimes used for this purpose but, as boldfacing is not easily identified in handwritten revisions, it can be missed in the press of negotiations, especially when several typists are involved. Lack of consistency in identifying defined terms is not a fatal mistake, but it can create confusion, especially if the reader is new to the agreement or is reading it in a highly technical manner, such as when there is a dispute.If definitions used in the main text also apply to a schedule, they need not be included in both. Omitting them from the schedule makes the agreement look shorter, which to some people is a benefit. If definitions are not repeated, make certain that the schedule clearly indicates that words defined in the main text have the same defined meanings in the schedule3 and are clearly identified as defined words. In considering whether or not to repeat in a royalty schedule definitions appearing in the agreement proper, think of definitions as an aid and a reminder to the reader. Repeating them will help a reader, if only by saving the nuisance of remembering where to find them in the main text and constantly turning to it. All the definitions needed to read the schedule will be right there, so that the schedule is a self-contained document. Just make certain that, if you do repeat a definition, you repeat it in identical terms. If you have to change any defined term to make it fit the royalty provisions, use a different word or phrase as the defined term to warn the reader that he is dealing with a different concept.4"

Jan 1, 2003

By Karl J. C. Harries

"11.1. INTRODUCTIONA royalty is the most common form of interest retained by an owner who is disposing of his property or by a joint venturer who ceases, voluntarily or otherwise, to participate in the joint venture.1 Rarely does a non-participating party have a direct interest in the property and/or assets of a project, except during the period when a non-participating joint venturer may be having his interest diluted.2 In fact, it is most unwise to permit a non-participating party to have such an interest. It may give rise to significant problems that could prevent or substantially delay the development of an orebody and require a considerable amount of time, effort, and money to correct.3In negotiating a royalty, it is important to be aware that there is no law or convention that says, “You just don’t do that in a royalty agreement.” As with any agreement, inventiveness and flexibility on the part of the negotiator are not just assets, but virtual necessities. It is also for this reason that it is essential to read the royalty provisions, particularly the definitions, fully and carefully, especially if you are the recipient. On the other hand, if your inventiveness and flexibility cause your accountant to question the advisability of one of your ideas, pay close attention to him.4 He will, no doubt, have had experience with many royalties, and no competent professional adviser disparages a client’s ideas without good reason. Besides, he will probably be the person who will be determining the royalty or certifying the determination of it. At the very least, he will be auditing your general financial statements, which must, of course, reflect the royalty determination. Heeding his advice not only may make the determination easier but also will probably save you money in professional fees later on. Nevertheless, do not simply accept his comments or recommendations without understanding what they mean, why they have been made with respect to your royalty agreement (sometimes professionals have comments that they make as a matter of course and, even though they may be valid, you should require them to be justified to you), and how they will affect your royalty determination.It is surprising how many corporate payors insist that their standard royalty provisions5 be used as a matter of policy, thereby effectively tying the negotiator’s hands. It is even more surprising, and to professional advisers frightening, how many of the senior employees who insist that such a policy be adhered to, virtually without variation, do not know what is in the standard provisions and would be hard-pressed to explain them to a property owner. If standard provisions are appropriate, by all means use them, but do allow experienced and sensible negotiators some flexibility and make sure that everyone within the corporation who may have to use such provisions – negotiator and supervisor alike – knows what they contain and why they are as they are. For example, there are often good and convincing reasons to describe a deduction in a certain way or to include a certain specific type of deduction. On the other hand, quite often the answer to the question “why?” is that “it has always been there”; this is, or should be, an unacceptable answer. In any event, if you, as the negotiator, appear to know what you are talking about, are familiar and comfortable with your royalty provisions, and are backed up by your boss with the same words or reasoning, a property owner cannot help but be satisfied that you are knowledgeable, even if he still does not agree with your provisions. Finally, if you do use standard provisions, make sure that they are reviewed and updated regularly."

Jan 1, 2003

By Karl J. C. Harries

"12.1. NO DEPRECIATION/GAAPAll calculations and computations relating to the Royalty shall be carried out in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles consistently applied to the extent that such principles are not inconsistent with the provisions of this Schedule and the agreement attached hereto, it being specifically agreed that nothing herein contained shall permit, or be construed to permit, the Operator to deduct any amount for depletion, depreciation, amortization or any deduction that represents a non-cash outlay.Comment: In cases like net profit royalties where recoupment of prior expenditures is permitted, care should be taken to avoid any implication that depreciation may also be taken. It is only logical and equitable that Property Owners should not be permitted an apparent ability to “double dip” with respect to deductions. A provision like this example should accomplish the task. It will be noted that the example specifically contemplates that the negotiated arrangements will prevail over any requirements of GAAP. Accordingly, if the parties agree to an unusual formula for recoupment, it will not be set aside to accommodate GAAP requirements. Under GAAP, revenues and expenditures are accounted for on an accrual basis. In addition, it specifically prohibits the taking of non-cash deductions, which is in keeping with the concept of recoupment.Although in some ways the example states the obvious and could be considered redundant, its presence, especially in provisions contemplating recoupment, makes it clear to the financial people that there may well be some variations from normal practices dictated by GAAP, while at the same time confirming the availability of GAAP to fill any voids.The accounting profession often makes the caveat that application of GAAP is an “art”, not a “science”. GAAP do not provide a cure-all and can create problems that will have to be addressed. For example, GAAP contemplate that asset costs are to be reduced by investment tax credits, which can cause a problem for a payor with more than one mine."

Jan 1, 2003

By Karl J. C. Harries

13.1. RIGHT TO RECEIVE ROYALTY CONTRACTUAL ONLY1

Jan 1, 2003

By Karl J. C. Harries

"14.1. INTRODUCTION1The boilerplate of an agreement is not a single provision, but a series of provisions that are expected in “every agreement”. They are sometimes also referred to as the “lawyer’s provisions”. Many businessmen consider the boilerplate to be superfluous and, to some extent, window-dressing by the lawyers – even legalese. They will often offer advice to the effect that it can “pretty well be ignored”. Such advice could not be more wrong.Most boilerplate provisions are essential parts of every agreement. Some may be part of a “standard package” and may have little relevance to the agreement at hand, but these are the exception rather than the rule. The exceptions should not be treated as justification for giving all these provisions short shrift. The boilerplate should receive the same review, consideration, and negotiation as the provisions that set forth the business deal. It is often these provisions that make the deal work or that are turned to at the time of disputes. If they are inadequate, as they sometimes are (unfortunately, some draftsmen are also loath to review or update their standard boilerplate provisions or to tailor them to the deal at hand), they can create problems, rather than offer solutions. Such problems can be costly and time-consuming for the parties to address. Inadequate or incomplete provisions may ultimately be one of the reasons for the parties to turn to the courts to settle their differences. On the other hand, good boilerplate provisions can help keep them out of the courts.One of the principal objectives of an agreement should be to provide procedures, or mechanics, for implementing agreed principles and for the parties to follow to settle their differences, real or perceived, without going to the expense and disruption of a lawsuit. An agreement should aim to keep the parties away from the courts, not serve as a springboard to the courts. It must nevertheless be acknowledged that, if there is a major falling-out among the parties to an agreement, the chances are that, however carefully the provisions of that agreement have been negotiated and drafted, the parties will end up before the courts or some other adjudicating body."

Jan 1, 2003

By Karl J. C. Harries

"2.1. INTRODUCTIONNo agreement can be perfect in the sense that it contemplates and provides for all eventualities. Mineral acquisition agreements are usually negotiated and drafted at a time when an orebody is no more than a gleam in a geologist’s eye, so it is hardly possible to provide for development and operation in other than the most general terms. However, an agreement that stops short of contemplating the possibility of an orebody and production is ill-advised. Accordingly, it is important to provide procedures to make decisions that will let the project proceed, even in the face of a fallingout between parties. Whether the parties are shareholders in a corporation or venturers in a contractual common undertaking like a joint venture, differences of opinion and disputes will occur. Unfortunately, more and more are ending up before the courts. Besides greed and the growing tendency in society to fight rather than talk, there are other factors that contribute to the increase of litigation. In some jurisdictions, agreements have tended to become complicated, often defying interpretation, even by a lawyer, and explorationists want their budgets to go into the ground as constructive work rather than into a lawyer’s pocket. All this has led to a growing tendency for corporations to take the attitude that the chances of finding a mine are, at best, marginal and there are lots of earlier agreements in the files to draw from, so why not prepare their own agreements? As discussed in the preceding chapter, this can be folly. All these factors can quickly have parties facing each other in court while a project sits idle. Added to this is the problem that, in some jurisdictions, lawyers may take cases on a contingency-fee basis, sometimes promoting the pursuit of a nebulous claim.When an orebody is discovered, someone will always want some, or more, for himself. There is a breed of “prospectors” who prospect for legal actions, on the somewhat sound grounds that a major corporation will buy off nuisance litigation, rather than incurring the cost and effort of attacking even a poorly founded claim in the courts. They may even find a winner. Besides, it is far more comfortable and relaxing to prospect for problems and legal niceties than to prospect for an orebody.1 In short, it is appropriate to consider briefly some of the factors relating to lawsuits and judgments. Although many of the comments are made in the context of the common law and the Canadian legal system, most of the concepts and suggestions are applicable to any legal system."

Jan 1, 2003

By Karl J. C. Harries

"3.1. INTRODUCTIONThis chapter discusses briefly the common law concepts of fiduciary relationship, constructive trust, and breach of confidence. Following a discussion of confidentiality agreements, the last section of the chapter compares and comments on two common law cases, the LAC Case and the Metalore Case. Civil law readers should not ignore this chapter or § 3.5. the comparison as, to a large extent, the concepts and comments are universal, even though the procedures for applying them may vary.1It should be appreciated that, regardless of the legal system, if the Court sees that a wrong has been done, it will attempt to right that wrong, either by awarding monetary damages against the wrong-doer to compensate the injured party or by attempting to make the injured party whole again by such means as negating an agreement (as in the Metalore Case) or returning property to a wronged party (as in the LAC Case). The methodology for accomplishing either of these results will vary with the jurisdiction, and the two are not mutually exclusive.These two Ontario cases have been chosen, not because they are the only ones available – they certainly are not – but because both are relatively well known within the minerals industry and they deal with problems that may face any explorationist (although it is to be hoped that the facts of the Metalore Case do not represent “normal” behaviour). Each judgment offers useful guidelines, as well as insight into a judge’s approach to problems, the type of information he expects to receive, how his mind works, and, particularly in the Court of Appeal judgment in the Metalore Case, how he might reason through and “justify” his decisions.3.2. SOME LEGAL CONCEPTS In order to appreciate some of the matters discussed in this chapter, it is necessary to have some idea of the common law considerations of fiduciary relationships, constructive trust, and breach of confidence."

Jan 1, 2003

By Karl J. C. Harries

"4.1. INTRODUCTIONThis chapter, although divided into four parts, deals with only two principal topics. The first briefly describes and discusses some common types of property interests and considerations relating to them and the second deals with entering upon privately owned lands and obtaining the consent to do so.It should be noted that the terms “mining rights” and “mineral rights” are used interchangeably. As so used, they include the right to exploit the minerals and dispose of them for the benefit of the owner/lessee. This is relatively common in common law jurisdictions. In some jurisdictions, the two terms have distinct meanings, with “mining rights” referring to the right to work or exploit the minerals and “mineral rights” referring to the minerals themselves.Finally, it must be mentioned that the comments in the Introduction and §§ 4.2., 4.3. and 4.4. are based primarily upon Ontario law and Ontario’s mining and real property systems of registration. They have been included for illustrative purposes.4.2. LICENCES, CLAIMS, AND LEASESIn most jurisdictions, there are several basic types of interests that can be obtained from the state for mining purposes and that are of interest to the explorationist, as opposed to the operator. Different jurisdictions will have variations of these and possibly some extra ones that will address special purposes or local concerns. In virtually every jurisdiction, privately owned property rights are obtained through negotiation between owner and acquiror.Exploration or prospecting licence. This licence grants to the holder the right to prospect over a large tract of land and the exclusive right to acquire mining claims within that tract for the term of the licence. Such licences are usually negotiated documents requiring a minimum expenditure during the first year (often secured by a deposit or surety bond) and minimum annual expenditures thereafter to continue the licence in force up to its full term. The term will rarely exceed four years. The number of claims permitted to be staked will be limited in some way, possibly as to a maximum aggregate area or a maximum number of claims per annum. It is normal for the holder to have to drop part of the licensed area each year, so that the area shrinks annually, although exploration expenditure requirements will usually increase.These types of licences are usually used by governments to encourage exploration of otherwise unattractive or remote areas, such as the far northern parts of some of Canada’s provinces. They do not grant any real property interest in the area for which they are issued, and they will be subject to any claims or property rights that exist in the area. They are contracts with the state that grant certain exclusive rights in return for commitments to carry out work. They may or may not be specifically authorized by statute."

Jan 1, 2003

By Karl J. C. Harries

"5.1. INTRODUCTIONThis chapter is intended as a general overview of the subject of royalties between private parties – royalties extracted by governments are not dealt with. This same subject is covered in detail in Volume II, which critiques many sample provisions taken from agreements, giving both pros and cons. If you find something that interests you in this chapter, check Volume II for extra information. Detailed cross-referencing to Volume II has not been attempted, however, most subjects mentioned in this Chapter will also appear in Volume II, usually in greater detail. Reference should be made to the Index.A Brief History of Royalties1In the early days of mining in Canada, the tendency was to sell a claim for cash and to move on, using the stake to look for and stake more prospects. As prospectors became more sophisticated and Canada’s North opened up, the market for properties and the number of mining properties available increased dramatically. Speculation and the practice of consolidating several small properties into one large holding entity became common. In “hot” areas, the speculators2 could far outnumber the prospectors, many of the former having little or no prospecting expertise but lots of market and promotional savvy. However, to consolidate a number of small parcels into one large project can be expensive, and many of the parcel owners became interested in keeping a share in the project, rather than giving up everything. Speculators who were trying to consolidate small parcels wanted to minimize cash payments to parcel holders (usually they did not have much cash and preferred it flowing in their direction rather than away from them). Accordingly, non-cash transactions were developed to meet the aspirations of both owners and speculators."

Jan 1, 2003

By Karl J. C. Harries

"6.1. INTRODUCTIONThis chapter comments on some of the more common types of agreements related to property examination and acquisition, other than the farm-in/joint venture agreement or common undertaking, which is dealt with in the next two chapters. Many of the comments made in Part IV of Chapter 4 apply equally to any such agreement. In addition, many of the comments in Chapter 8 and the examples in Volume II are most certainly relevant to many other types of agreement.6.2. RIGHTS OF FIRST REFUSAL1A right of first refusal is a right that obligates an owner to offer his property, or an interest therein, to the holder of the first right if the owner intends to sell or otherwise dispose of it. It may be triggered either by the owner wishing to offer his property for sale or by receipt of a bona fide offer to purchase his interest from an “outside” third party. The mechanics and procedures to implement a first right should be set out clearly in the agreement, and their basics are the same, whether the first right is a stand-alone document or is part of an acquisition agreement.2Rights of first refusal are common in agreements to permit some control over the disposition of an interest and there they can be a valuable provision. However, some explorationists feel that they are also a good stand-alone agreement to have while a property is being evaluated to decide whether or not it is worth optioning. The reasoning is that such an arrangement will tie up the property to allow a quick look and, if the property looks interesting, the balance of the term of the first right will give an ample exclusive period of time to negotiate with the owner and settle an acquisition agreement. In addition, the explorationist is protected by the first right if the owner decides to negotiate a deal with another party."

Jan 1, 2003

By Karl J. C. Harries

"7.1. INTRODUCTIONThis chapter addresses the joint venture and examines a number of general concepts of the joint venture relationship. Chapter 8 looks at some specific concepts related to the provisions of a joint venture agreement, which are equally applicable to a shareholders’ agreement or other contractual relationship. The term “joint venture” is used because the author is a common law solicitor (a matter of convenience for which apologies are offered to civil law readers), but it should be noted that, in many aspects, the legal structure of an entity is irrelevant. It is the relationship of the parties, be they venturers or shareholders, that is important, and the areas of concern are surprisingly similar (except for terminology).The details of the joint venture relationship and agreement could fill several books. Accordingly, this chapter and the next focus on selected topics that appear to have caused problems or confusion or to be the basis for disputes. And remember that, although the following discussion is in the context of a joint venture, many of the comments apply, either directly or indirectly, to virtually any common undertaking and the agreement defining it.For interest’s sake, this chapter starts with a summary of some of the earlier types of agreements and arrangements that have evolved into the joint venture agreement of today in Canada, the philosophy of their format, and the reasons for their demise.7.2. EVOLUTION OF THE CANADIAN JOINT VENTUREThe Early DaysMuch of the opening up of Canada’s north is due to exploration for and development of mines. The early discoverers were relatively free to roam and explore at will and, if they were fortunate enough to find something, they dealt with the appropriate government to acquire exploitation rights. The early interests lay in gold or silver. Workings were small, usually worked by the owner alone or with only a couple of helpers to extract the native gold or silver. If the owner wanted to move on, he could sell his property outright and use his stake to look elsewhere.As logging and mining camps were opened, the development of better roads and railways made access easier. Entrepreneurs saw the opportunity to make money by assembling large parcels of land and working them as a single operation. In order to do this, some owners who were not ready to sell out had to be convinced to do so through more attractive offers"

Jan 1, 2003

By Karl J. C. Harries

"8.1. INTRODUCTIONThe purpose of this chapter is not to provide precedents or examples of provisions, but rather to offer some comments that may be worth considering in the negotiation or review of an agreement. These comments are not intended to be exhaustive. It must also be noted that, although the chapter is written in the context of a common law joint venture, the concepts and concerns for the most part apply equally to a corporation that is owned by only a few shareholders for the purpose of participating in the project held by the corporation.The corporation has the advantage of having much of its organization established by local corporate law, but the particular wishes of the shareholders will appear in a shareholders’ agreement. The principal differences will be surprisingly small, save for the acquisition provisions that appear in a farm-in agreement1 and the substantial portion of the joint venture agreement devoted to creating and organizing the joint venture entity. Where the joint venture agreement refers to venturers and committees, the shareholders’ agreement will refer to shareholders and the board of directors, but both will have to deal with such basic matters as decision-making, default, dispute resolution, first refusals, funding, and carrying out work on the project. For convenience, this chapter usually refers to “venturers”, which may be taken to include shareholders.Negotiations give rise to many varying circumstances and concerns, and the main asset of the negotiator is an open and flexible mind. A desired result can often be accomplished indirectly in circumstances where the other side has adopted an inflexible position on a suggested approach. As precedents and standard forms tend to focus a negotiator’s thinking, they can be counterproductive. It is after the deal has been agreed to that a precedent can be of great assistance to the draftsman.The concepts are arranged in alphabetical order for convenience, not to suggest their sequence or position in an agreement or their relative importance. An agreement should adopt a progression of subjects in what the parties consider a logical sequence to read and work with. However, experience has indicated that it is best to set out in a single article the substance of the deal (i.e. the terms relating to the farm-in and what the acquiring party has to do to acquire his interest), preferably near the beginning of an agreement. The acquisition of the interest is, after all, the first order of business. The joint venture provisions will then follow in a reasonable sequence. It is also worthwhile to devote a single article to any special provisions that may apply during the earn-in period. For example, it may be provided that, although all work is to be done by the acquiring party as operator (with the duty of care, liability, and reporting requirements as set out in the joint venture sections of the agreement), but during the acquisition period, the acquiring party, acting as operator, may be at liberty to do such work as he wishes, without the need for any committee or other approvals, and committee meetings may be suspended.2An agreement is divided into paragraphs and articles to make it easier for the parties to read and understand, and to assist a party in finding “that provision” when the need arises. A comprehensive table of contents will also assist the parties who must work under an agreement. An added benefit of a table of contents is that in preparing it, the draftsman sees the overall structure of the agreement and will often catch and correct flaws."

Jan 1, 2003

By Karl J. C. Harries

"9.1. INTRODUCTIONIn Chapter 5 of Volume I royalties are dealt with and several topics would appear to be duplicated in this Volume. However, Volume I may be looked upon as a general guide, whereas this Volume is a reference volume. It deals in considerable detail with specific provisions and concepts relating to royalties between private parties. This does not, however, mean that Chapter 5 can be ignored. It should be looked upon as a source of general information concerning royalties between private parties and as a negotiating aid intended to give an overview of various topics. You may well find that in its general approach it will lead you to ask a question which, hopefully, will be dealt with in this Volume .It should be remembered that royalty agreements are agreements with a particular focus, and so the concepts set forth in Chapter 1 apply to them. This chapter addresses a few considerations specific to royalties that will usually form part of an agreement rather than a stand-alone agreement.9.2. FORMAT FOR ROYALTY PROVISIONSIn many of the cases where royalties arise, they are adjunct to, or part of, other arrangements. For example, a royalty may form part or all of the consideration to be given to an owner upon purchase of his property, or it may arise if a joint venturer ceases to contribute to the venture and has his interest converted to a royalty.1 It is with such situations that this section primarily deals; if the royalty is contained in an agreement that is singularly, or primarily, concerned with creating it, then it is just a normal agreement.Commonly, by the time the right to receive the royalty arises, at least some of the other provisions of the agreement have been performed and/or become redundant. For example, in an option agreement the royalty will be a continuing obligation of the optionee, usually arising only after the option has been exercised.2 In a joint venture agreement, a royalty will often arise where the interest of a non-participating venturer has been diluted and converted to a royalty, in which case the recipient will usually become a passive party, entitled only to his royalty, and most of the rights that he enjoyed as an active venturer will cease to be effective."

Jan 1, 2003

By E. S. Moore

"The Michipicoten-Goudreau area, bordering on the northeast corner of lake Suferior, has had a tectonic history related to that of the geosyncline occupied by this lake. This basin has been a major structural feature in the Canadian Shield since at least late-Precambrian time. It has been extensively faulted and was the centre of great igneous activity in the Keweenawan feriod . Many of the faults, folds, dykes, and sills in the surrounding regions tend to head directly or indirectly into this basin. Some of the faults in the Michipicoten-Goudreau area appear to run under the eastern part of lake Superior just as the large Keweenaw fault in Michigan extends into the lake on the south side. Some of these faults may even be extensions of or counterparts of the faults on the south side of the lake. Another set of faults in the Michipicoten-Goudreau area runs nearly transverse to some of these major faults, and it is evident that in some places movement has recurred at a later time on faults formed in an early period.STRATIGRAPHYThe rocks of this area, with the exception of Pleistocene and Recent formations, are all Precambrian:"

Jan 1, 1954

By G. W. H. Norman

"During the past few years emphasis has been placed on the importance of major faults, fault zones, and associated structures in localizing ore deposition. This interest has developed partly through experience in mining camps in other parts of the world, and partly by the discovery of such structures associated with ore deposits in the Abitibi region, northwestern Quebec. The recognition of these structures has been brought about chiefly by detailed mapping that has been gradually extended along most of the southern gold belt of Quebec and across adjacent parts of Ontario. In the Chibougamau region of northern Abitibi, progress has been made in mapping major faults by using aeroplane photographs with a scale of about 1,000 feet to 1 inch for field mapping. These studies have shown that many large faults occur in the Abitibi region; also that there is a relationship, direct or indirect, between faults and mineral deposition. The faults are, however, of more than one type and age, and this should be clearly appreciated in any planned programme for prospecting this great region adequately.Geology of the Abitibi RegionGeneral GeologyFaults of more than one age and type occur in the Abitibi region. In order to appreciate some of the age relationships of the faults, a brief summary of the historical aspects and major structural features of the geology (fig. 1) is necessary. These historical aspects may be briefly summarized in chronological order as follows:(1) Accumulation of Archæan lavas and associated pyroclastic rocks, either alternating with, or essentially followed by, deposition of sedimentary rocks, and interrupted at least once by local and perhaps regional folding and erosion."

Jan 1, 1954

By H. Clare Horwood

"In the Red Lake area in northwestern Ontario the relationships between general structures and structures containing ore deposits are among the most unusual and most interesting of any in the Precambrian Shield. The more important orebodies, which are in the central-eastern part of the area, occur in a variety of rocks on the northeastern, eastern, or southeastern sides of a series of granite stocks. Other deposits in the western part of the camp also are structurally associated with granite masses .The relationships were determined in the course of general and detailed geological mapping by detailed analyses of the fracture patterns in the rocks adjacent to the orebodies. In every case it was found that the structures containing the ore were produced by compressive stresses from the direction of intrusion of the granite masses( 2).The Red Lake area lies in the Patricia part of the district of Kenora and is accessible by boat from Hudson or by airplane from Kenora, Sioux Lookout, or Winnipeg. A road from Vermilion lake, on highway No. 17, was opened in August, 1947.The first discoveries of mineralization in the area that proved to be of economic importance were made in 1925 by Lorne Howey and George McNeely for Haileybury interests and by Ray Howey and W. F. Morgan for Mcintyre-Porcupine Mines, Limited. Both prospecting ventures were organized because of information presented by Bruce(l) in his map and report for the Ontario Department of Mines. The discoveries, which were both along the same structure, a quartz porphyry dyke, later developed into the Howey and Hasaga gold mines. Other discoveries were made at intervals as a result of prospecting and development work on ground staked for its location."

Jan 1, 1954

By W. Roy Dunbar

"The Porcupine area is in northern Ontario at the intersection of N. Lat. 48° 30' and 81° W. Long. It is 125 miles due north of the Sudbury nickel range. Practically all the mineral production of this area has come from the townships of Tisdale, Deloro, Whitney, and Ogden, in order of importance. The accompanying map of the Porcupine area and its extensions to the east and west (Fig. 4) has been included to show what I consider to be an essential objective of this paper, a perspective for exploration.The discovery of gold ore in the Porcupine area at such an early date resulted from the extension of the Temiskaming and Northern Ontario railway and exploratory survey lines north into unexplored territory, for the early history of Porcupine is inextricably tied to the exploration along Niven's survey lines and the extension of the railway north from Cobalt to Nellie Lake. The following are the more significant events leading to the discovery of gold in Porcupine.1896-E. M. Burwash, employed by the Ontario Bureau of Mines, examined the country along Niven's base line and noted quartz veins that carried traces of gold. He was attached to Niven's survey party.1899-The late W. A. Parks reported on the geology of the portage route from Mattagami river to Night Hawk lake, for the Ontario Bureau of Mines. He noted the occurrence of gold in quartz veins and reported “I regard the region south of the trail to Porcupine lake as giving promise to the prospector"". He also was attached to Niven's survey party.1901-Charles Camsell, while prospecting for the Algoma Central railway, did some work on a vein occurrence carrying low gold on ground now known to be part of the Hollinger mine (3).1907- Extension of the Temiskaming and Northern Ontario railway to Nellie Lake.1909- Bannerman followed up Indian story about occurrence of coal, and found iron formation. He remained to prospect and found the gold-bearing vein of the Scottish Ontario property."

Jan 1, 1954

By M. Harrison, C. H. Stockwell

"Metals vah1ed at more than $200,000,000 have been obtained, mainly since 1930, from the mines of northern Manitoba. The greater part of this production has been copper, zinc, and gold from the Flin Flon, Sherritt Gordon, and Mandy mines. The chief mines from which gold alone has been produced are God's Lake, Laguna, and Gurney. At present (May 1947) Flin Flon and Sherritt Gordon are the only producing mines, but the Nor-Acme property is being developed for large-scale production of gold. Large deposits of nickel and copper are being diamond drilled at Lynn Lake, and the Thompson, Ferro, and other properties are being developed. The mineral deposits lie within irregular or elongated areas of Precambrian sedimentary and volcanic rocks, surrounded by granite ( Fig. 1).The common rock types include basic and acidic flows, agglomerate, ruff, greywacke, arkose, argilli te, conglomerate, and their gneissoid and schistose derivatives. They are invaded by sills, dykes, and irregular bodies of gabbro and diorite, and all are cut by granite. Some of the sediments are interstratified with volcanics, and others are deposited unconformably on them.STRUCTURAL GEOLOGYLittle is known of the structures of the rocks in the area as a whole, because by far the greater part is unexplored or has been covered only by reconnaissance surveys. Available information indicates a general east structural trend in the southeast part, whereas in the west part the folding is mote complex with no definite overall trend. However, in a few small areas in the western part where detailed work has been done, as around the Flin Flon, Sherritt-Gordon, Nor-Acme, and other properties, the structure is fairly well known. The following descriptions apply chiefly to these areas ."

Jan 1, 1954

By H. Clare Horwood

"In the Little Long Lac-Sturgeon River area of Thunder Bay district, Ontario, most of the known ore deposits occur in fractures, shear zones, and zones of brecciation, in folded sedimentary rocks . In two or three instances, however, deposits occur in Keewatin greenstones and in later granitic rocks of probable Algoman age.The principal regional features in the area are the long narrow bands of Keewatin volcanic rocks and Timiskaming sedimentary formations that extend east from lake Nipigon to Long Lac, a distance of about 65 miles. The belts continue to the east for many miles beyond Long Lac and probably for some distance to the west under the waters of lake Nipigon. They are intruded in places, particularly in the north, by large masses of diorite, granodiorite, and granite. Small intrusive masses of diorite and porphyry also occur in many localities throughout the area.The Little Long Lac-Sturgeon River mining area is the youngest camp in Ontario and has been in production only since 1934.The district is readily accessible from the branch line of the Canadian National railway between Longlac station on the main line and Port Arthur, and from the Trans-Canada highway No. 17. Both these means of communication traverse the area in a general east-west direction parallel with the principal structural trend of the rocks of the region.In the Little Long Lac section discoveries were made by W. W. Smith in 1931 (Hard Rock property) , by T. A. Johnson in 1932 ( Bankfield property) , by T. A. Johnson and T. Oklend in 1932 (Little Long Lac property) , by F. MacLeod and A. Cockshutt in 1933 (MacLeod-Cockshutt property) , and by George and Frank Papineau in 1935 (Hutchison Lake property).In the Sturgeon River section discoveries were made by Powers and Silam in 1925 (Northern Empire property), T. A. Johnson in 1931 (Dik-Dik property) , and by Russell and James Cryderman in 1935 and 1936 (Sand River and Leitch properties)."

Jan 1, 1954