"I don't want no 5 billion. Bad things will happen to people if you dig here"

[Odin]

Stupid superstitions:

[Kuciwalker]

Progress

[CrONoS]

Progress is so XIXth century

[ZEE]

.

[Colonâ„¢]

Your anium. Hehehe.

[Agathon]

I don't see what the problem is.

The Federal government has expressed its willingness to make this land part of Kakadu National Park (or whatever it is called). This man seems amenable to the suggestion. I think it is the best solution.

How would Americans feel if miners blew up Half Dome, or gutted Yellowstone for Uranium? Kakadu and this area is at least as beautiful as those.

[OzzyKP]

Jeffrey Lee

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by Agathon
How would Americans feel if miners blew up Half Dome, or gutted Yellowstone for Uranium? Kakadu and this area is at least as beautiful as those.

I'd be down with that. Nuclear things are cool.

[Space05us]

"I'm not interested in white people offering me this or that … it doesn't mean a thing.

Racist bigot.

[Flubber]

The article doesn't seem to give a lot of detail, but the fact that a company has a "mineral lease" probably means that the individual here either never owned the minerals or if they did, they leaseed them out (more likely the former from the context)

In Canada,in the oil and gas context a surface owner cannot simply prevent a party with mineral rights from accessing their minerals. WE actually have legislated processes to allow development and compensation for the surface owner. BUT a mine can be much more intrusive than a mine

However, there are two complexities here:

1. Aboriginal rights/ lands-- the rules on these often are confusing or simply do not exist

2. It seems this is a park area or wilderness area-- that can change everything


I wondered if there are possible compromises. If the mine concept is "open pit", probably not but if it is a deeper deposit, it may be possible to locate the mine entrance and the associated facilities and trucking a few more kilometres away from any sensitive areas. Whether this is possible depends on how large and how sensitive the areas that people wish to protect are

[Flubber]

oops DP

[Flubber]

A couple of other comments

1.Industry can sometimes try to avoid sensitive areas. OIl companies frequently use directional drilling when accessing petroleum under sensitive lands or townsites or any otehr areas where surface access is problematic.

2. Since the guy apparently has no heirs, he is probably smart to try to get the land into a park. I know even here in Calgary, people with an environmental purpose donated their riverfront woodlands to a foundation to try to ensure it would not be developped and 'could be enjoyed by all Calgarians". IT is not hard to find people that would share his purpose to protect some lands and he probably could get a fair bit of support for an anti-mining stance.

[Lancer]

Aren't you guys forgetting something? There are spirits and as if that were not enough, a blue tounged lizard that must not be disturbed.

We've been warned! We dare not cross these ancient taboos. Nuf said.

[Hueij]

Originally posted by Lancer
Aren't you guys forgetting something? There are spirits and as if that were not enough, a blue tounged lizard that must not be disturbed.

We've been warned! We dare not cross these ancient taboos. Nuf said.

I'm with Lancer on this one.

[DanS]

Originally posted by Agathon
The Federal government has stated it will respect traditional ownership rights.

Your whitey laws don't take precedence here, sonny.

Then the federal government needs to declare eminent domain on the lease and compensate the French company fairly for the rights.