This week will probably see serious pronouncements from industry excutives on profits, losses, shares up & down, evil NGO blocking good mines, and failure to keep the press under control (see blog item below).
But while all these profound things are going on, a little noticed hearing will be taking place in Washington D.C. The outcome of this hearing could set policy and action in the mining industry in Canada and the United States for many years to come. If you happen by Room H1-200, Building H, 600 H Street, NW, Washington D.C. any time this week, you will hear Glamis Gold Ltd versus the United States of America being argued.
Glamis is arguing that in terms of NAFTA, the United States, California, and the Quechan Indian Nation “expropriated” Glamis’s proposed open-pit mine in California and should pay “fair and equitable” compensation to Glamis.
A recent background document on the open-pit filling law is the 2007 California Department of Conservation Resource Agency Report on Backfilling of Open-Pit Metallic Mines in California. This report looks at the status of implementation of California’s law requiring that open pits be backfilled: in summary, no progress to date.
Glamis appears to argue that this law makes it uneconomic for them to mine their deposit, and therefore in terms of NAFTA they should be compensated.
I have previously written this about this case: In 2000, the Interior Department denied a permit to mine, finding that the proposed mine would cause undue degradation to public land and substantial irreparable harm to the tribal lands of the Quechan Tribe. Following the 2000 election, the Interior Department reversed its decision and reopened the permit application process. A law suit over that decision resulted in a remand to the Department of the Interior.
Indian Country writes: “The move is the latest chapter in a nine-year-long dispute pitting Glamis against the Quechan tribe, whose members reside on the Fort Yuma Reservations in southeastern California. In the late 1990s the tribe objected to Glamis’ proposed 880-foot deep and mile-wide open pit cyanide leaching gold mine operation, claiming the mine would be too close to an area near Indian Pass that they held sacred.”
All the reports and documents on this case are readily available at the U.S. Department of State website. The arguements of those in opposition to Glamis can be read in the Submission of Non-Disputing Parties.
I thought NAFTA was supposed to promote trade, not be a crutch for Candian mining companies who did not like California’s environmental policies. I hate to imagine how much money has been spent on lawyers during nine years of litigation. Glamis must be making a lot of money somewhere else to be able to afford this ongoing lawyer-get-rich fight with the Quechan and Schwarzenegger, muscleman and governor.
The sight of a Vancouver company taking on the combined might of the Terminator et al. would normally be utterly inexplicable. But I can sort of understand what is behind it: Let me explain by describing a dinner party with old friends, their kids, and their kids’ friends. One works for an international consulting company, one for accountants to the mining industry, one consults on autistic children; in short a representative group of average west-coast Canadians. Here are some “quotes” I recall from the conversation that accompanied fine food & wine and congenial discussions:
“I think we should ban the Americans from making movies based on books–look at what they did to Harry Potter.”
“I don’t think we can return those draft dodgers to American–they will never get a fair trial there.”
“”Poor people are dying in droves in America because they cannot afford medical services.”
And so on.
We will watch this case with interest.
