Staking disputes escalate in Eskay Creek camp

Complicated and messy claim disputes are spreading like wildfire through the Eskay Creek region, north of Stewart, B.C., a rugged and remote area brought to prominence by a significant gold-base metals discovery by Calpine Resources (VSE). According to Byron Hosking, deputy gold commissioner, a large number of Section 35 claim disputes are before, or are expected to be brought before, the Chief Gold Commissioner for resolution. What’s making the situation so unusual, he said, is that ownership of some properties is challenged by as many as three or four layers of competing claim holders, all alleging the previous claims were located or recorded contrary to the Mineral Tenure Act.

Hosking told The Northern Miner it is likely to be next summer before some of the cases can be resolved as winter conditions prohibit the commissioner from conducting inspections. In addition, he said, some of the more hotly contested disputes will likely find their way to the law courts and then possibly into the appeals process.

At the suggestion of the Vancouver Stock Exchange, Calpine, Adrian and Tamavack Resources (VSE) released a chronology of events to ensure shareholders are up to date on the status of certain key properties. Copies are available at the Prime group in Vancouver, B.C.

The cornerstone project in the area is the TOK and KAY claims that make up the Eskay Creek property, owned equally by Calpine and Stikine Resources (TSE). Prime noted that these claims were surveyed in the summer of 1989 and found to lie further to the north and west with respect to surrounding modified grid claims than was shown in maps released by the company.

Chet Idziszek, president of Prime Explorations, said the survey has since been sent to the Surveyor General, although it has not yet been reviewed and approved. But he stressed the 21 zone as explored to date is contained within the surveyed property boundary of the key TOK and KAY claims. Because these are old claims in good standing, they remain untouched by Section 35 complaints.

But the survey did find a gap among several of the TOK claims (staked under the old 2-post system), measuring about 920 metres long and 30-50 metres wide from west to east, and overlying a portion of the Central zone of the 21 zone discovery. Ownership of this “gap” is in question because of underlying claim disputes, so the affected portion of the 21 zone won’t be included in reserve calculations.

The most prominent dispute involves claims held by Adrian Resources (VSE) that are considered likely to have the northern strike extension of the 21 zone discovery. Status of this ground is complicated because the Gold Commissioner has cancelled one layer of claims (SKI) optioned from ARC Resources Group, and inspectors have recommended cancellation of two others. No work is planned until the matter is resolved.

With the SKI claims cancelled, Adrian has agreements whereby it (and partner Stikine) could end up with a 50% interest in the DUP claims under an agreement with Alex Briden and Paul Dupras, individuals associated with Silver Princess Resources (VSE), or a 100% interest in the IKS claims under an agreement with ARC.

But claims inspectors have recommended that both the DUP claims and IKS claims be cancelled, although both parties plan to appeal under Section 34 of the Mineral Tenure Act. (Several other properties, including ones optioned to companies outside the Prime group, are subject to disputes between these same parties.)

But another complicating factor has emerged. In September, 1989, the Aftom claims were staked on behalf of Tagish Resources to cover not only much of the land currently subject to the various agreements of Adrian, Calpine and Tamavack, but nearby claims held by other companies.

In January alone, Prime companies Tamavack, Consolidated Powergem Resource (VSE), Gigi Resources (VSE) and Achilles Resources (VSE) all reported receiving copies of Section 35 complaints that dispute the validity of title to their respective properties.

These complaints were all made by Ken McKenzie, believed by Prime to be acting on behalf of Tagish Resources. Of obvious concern to Prime is the fact that McKenzie has filed Section 35 complaints against the previous layer of staking (IKS) on the Adrian property.

The possibility, however slim, does now exist for Adrian to be out of the picture completely, and McKenzie in, should the DUP and then IKS claims be cancelled by the Gold Commissioner as recommended by the inspectors. It is still not known if McKenzie’s complaints will impact on the TOK claims gap covering a portion of the 21 zone, although that appears to be a possibility.

But Prime intends to contest “vigorously” all complaints by McKenzie. In addition, the still battling Silver Princess and ARC Resource Group are very much in the picture as both plan to challenge recommendations that their respective DUP and IKS claims be cancelled. Both insist that a bona fide effort to stake their respective claims was made, in some cases under difficult weather conditions. As it stands now, Dupras still has title to the DUP claims.

Until the matter is resolved, no exploration and development work will be done on any of these claims.

Although the accusation of claim jumping is not formally used, the Prime group has initiated a lawsuit against McKenzie “as a further step in protecting its interest in these claims.”

Little is known locally about McKenzie or Tagish Resources, but speculation is rife that McKenzie may be acting on behalf of a major mining company. Several sources tell The Northern Miner that McKenzie’s staking effort was well financed and managed, employing professional mountain climbers to ensure proper staking in the most inaccessible areas. None of these reports could be substantiated.