Feature Article April 10, 2003
LAND O' LAKES NewsWeb HomeMining claims abandoned in Tay Valley, but not in Bedfordby Jeff Green Within the past month, the majority of the mining claims by Graphite Mountain in Burgess district of Tay Valley Township have been abandoned by the company. However, the company still has 58 active claims in the Bedford District of South Frontenac.
The turn around in Tay Valley began when, days before a scheduled hearing to determine the legitimacy of disputed claims in both regions, the company abandoned all the disputed claims.
Subsequently, as the dates for renewal of claims in Tay Valley has approached, the company has been walking away from the mining claims.
Marilyn Crawford, a member of the Bedford Mining Watch, thinks the companys decisions in Tay Valley are related to cost. In order to maintain those mining claims in Tay Valley, they would be required to do some expensive assessment work, she said.
In Bedford, however, Graphite Mountain has done a lot of work on a property on New road towards the establishment of a mine.
The way the mining act rules are set up, they can apply the spending they have done on New Road to the other contiguous claims they have made in Bedford, so it will not necessarily cost them much, or any money, to keep up the Bedford claims.
The Bedford Mining Alert has also discovered a new claim, made on July 17, 2002 on Lot 16, Con. 2 Bedford. This claim was made by David Houston, who is a principal in the Graphite Mountain Company, but it was made in his own name and not in the name of the company, as all the other claims have been. As well, the major landowner, Clifton Kehoe, is listed as one of those who assisted in the staking. There is also a house and four cottages on Buck Bay within the claim territory, as well as pasture land. Access to the cottages is through the pasture land.
Marilyn Crawford said this particular claim stands out from the other claims that have been made in recent years, not only because it was made by Houston as a an individual, but because it also had the co-operation of the landowner.
It doesnt really connect to other territory that has been staked, and almost all of the surrounding lands are owned by people who own the subsurface rights as well, so they cant be staked. The paperwork on the claim is also more complete than weve seen with the other claims. It even said how many head of cattle there are on the land.
