What a difference a year makes.
In August 2010, the Park Authority for Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park, much of which is in Argyll, took what was generally regarded as an unthinkingly negative stance on an application to reopen the gold mine above Cononish Farm west of Tyndrum.
The Authority had accepted the recommendation of its Director of Planning – the Park is its own planning authority – that Scotgold Resources’ application to reopen the mine should be rejected.
The reason given was the impossibility of reconciling economic benefit with conservation needs – even th0ugh the mine is on the very fringes of the National Park.
Over the past twelve months or so, both sides have done some more thinking and it looks as if a constructive accommodation is on the brink of being achieved – which is in everyone’s interests.
Scotgold Resources has addressed environmental concerns to an extent that has eased anxieties within the Park Authority – and the Park Authority has let it be known that it is likely to approve the revised proposal at the meeting of its Board later this month (October 2011).
Chris Sangster, CEO of Scotgold, has more than 30 years experience as a mining engineer in Australia, Canada, South Africa and the UK.
At the time of Scotgold’s failed application to the National Park in 201o. Mr Sangster said of the Cononish mine: ‘There’s a particular band of rocks that are of the age when metal deposits were formed in the mine. This band stretches all the way from Tyndrum through to Canada, the United States and then all the way up into Norway and Sweden. We already know there are metal deposits in Sweden, Norway and Canada in those types of rocks, so if we find the right kind of environment we have a good chance of finding further deposits.’
This hope is of finding reserves of greater volume that those estimated by basic geochemical assays done over 10 years ago.
The history of Cononish
The history of this mine to date has involved a series of companies from across the world.
Development of the mine has been delayed by what, for many years, was the low price of gold. Between 1999 and 2002 the UK Chancellor, Gordon Brown, sold 395 tonnes of gold, 79 times the anticipated Cononish resource and half of the UK’s gold reserves, at the bottom of the market – a blind and short termist move estimated to have cost us nearly £5 billion – and the sale of so much gold drove the price of the commodity to an all time low. This made it uneconomic to develop the mine at Cononish in such circumstances.
Then , following the collapse of Northern Rock that signalled the start of the financial crisis of 2008 and which still envelops us – the price of gold has rocketed. This has made development of the Cononish mine it a commercial proposition at last.
Of those who became involved, first it was the Irish – with Ennex International finding a quartz vein on the lower slopes of Beinn Chuirn (lower peak below) in 1984. Ennex spent around a quarter of a million pounds on test drilling which led them to believe that the mine was worth developing. It was estimated – from geochemical assays on drilling cores and samples from the tunnel – that the mine could produce 5 tonnes of gold and 25 tonnes of silver.
In the 1990s, an adit (top photograph – an entrance tunnel to a fairly horizontal mine) of just under 1,300 metres was cut into the hill.
Then, in 1994, the exploration rights passed to the Caledonian Mining Company but the falling price of gold then discouraged Caledonian from development.
In 2007, Australia’s Scotgold Resources bought the exploration rights. They also applied to extend the lease and to start producing gold within two years, with an eight year production period in mind.
With the rise in the price of gold, this company made the application to the National Park which was refused.
Scotgold, production at Cononish and the Crown Estate Commission
If the Park Authority, as they indicate, approve the application this time, Scotgold will still – possibly – need to get permission for commercial production from the Crown Estate Commission.
This brings back to prominence the research into the rights of the Crown Estate Commission which rest on what were known as Mines Royal – research which has been carried out by Brian Wright of the Gold Rivers Trust, and which we published in April of this year (2011): Does the crown estate lack rights to Mines Royal on which the commissioners exact licence fees?.
Mr Wright’s research opens up the question as to whether the Crown Estate has indeed included rights to Mines Royal since two successive laws entered and remain on the statute book – the Mines Royal Acts of 1688 and 1693 respectively.
As we said in the article in question: ‘… in law, gold and silver in admixtures with copper, tin, iron and lead have not been ‘Mines Royal’ since 1688. This is the legal fact that is a facer for the Crown Estate Commissioners, one of which they are aware, which has brought changes to the text on their website but has not stopped them licensing mining for gold and silver and collecting fees.’
The 1693 Act went even further and actually: ‘… binned the very notion of Mines Royal‘.
We advise Scotgold to seek the support of the Scottish Government in further research on this matter and in testing the legal rights of the Crown Estate Commission to levy exploration and commercial production fees on gold and silver mining.
The photographs above show:
- Top, the 1990s adit to the Cononish mine – by copyright holder Helen Wilkinson and reproduced here under the Creative Commons licence.
- Above, Beinn Chuirn, the mountain hosting the quartz vein that is the basis for the estimated Cononish reserve, by copyright holder Mick Knapton and reproduced here under the Creative Commons licence. (The higher peak to the left is Ben Lui.)
As someone who bought a few Scotgold (LSE:SGZ) shares last year and again, fairly recently, I must admit being quite pleased at recent movements. Whilst the current rising cycle has a potential around 7.85p at best, I rather suspect the share price may retreat to around 5p prior to the park authority meeting.
Of course, what will happen after the meeting is the interesting thing. SGZ recon there’s 5 tons of gold in the mine. It was deemed unviable until the price of gold exceeded around $400. Currently, gold is around $1670
So when permission is granted, will the price go up 4x OR will it drop until such time as gold starts being recovered?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
What stands out to me about this story is the about turn by the National Park and the fact it happened in 12 months.
Gives those of us on the west side of Loch Lomond (the forgotten one), some hope that there is a molecule of sanity left at NP. Not sure who is in possession of said braincell… but perhaps all the shouting and moaning that has been aimed at the management of the Park has started to filter through to the Board.
Perhaps in 12 months we will have a NP that gives instead of just takes all the time. I live in hope.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
There might be a hint of the attitudonal problems that seem to affect the Park Authority in the way that one report in the national media referred to plans to mine in a ‘beauty spot’. While the likes of SNH and the John Muir Trust hold very genuine concerns, which have hopefully now been resolved, I wonder if there’s a tendency to see national parks as giant all-enveloping ‘beauty spots’ that should be frozen in time and denied human activity so that the public can escape their home environments, which – not being in a national park – they’re free to exploit for human gain with relatively little hindrance, with a clear conscience.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Having some experience of living in the Peak District National Park in England I can see many parallels with the situation with the Lomond & Trossachs Authority. Not only that but there are many eloquent retired incomers who consider that “National Park” confers on the designated area the status of “theme park.” It is not a theme park preserved for the benefit of those who want no change. A national park must be a working park, albeit developed in a careful & sensitive manner. If there are no substantive jobs then the local population cannot afford to live within its boundaries & villages will lose their families & with it their schools & facilities. Many would say that situation exists already.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Keith – good post. The impoact of retired incomers cannot be underestimated. Way past child-rearing age they out-bid young locals for houses and then quite generally don’t want change as they like the place the way it is and that’s why they moved there. They impact also on a demographic swing that is seeing lots more older people and fewer young people. The demand for local services for older people will only increase and conversely……
Grant “So when permission is granted, will the price go up 4x OR will it drop until such time as gold starts being recovered?”. It’s just gambling really isn’t it?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
To clarify in more detail exactly how the Crown Estate, a mere quanqo, has been’ arguably wrongly charging’ (Editor’s version) not only landowners and mining companies, the Mines Royal Acts 1688 and 1693, in conjunction with the Bill of Rights 1689 (which prohibited taxation by Royal Prerogative without express consent of Parliament) replaced and regulated refining of gold and silver, as previously asserted by the 1568 Case of Mines. Parliament decided that all gold and silver refined from base ores should be brought to the Royal Mint. No mining company ever did, so this ineffectual clause was abolished in 1867. The Crown quango however retained a pre-emption clause, whereby it could cart away all potentially gold or silver bearing ores and refine the contents for the Crown quango. You can just imagine the scene. The Crown agents arrive at the mine site, look at the rock pile and wonder if they should spend thousands of pounds on transport, never mind building a processing yard somewhere else etc etc etc. So, in 1969 this pointless pre-emption clause was abolished. The 1568 Case of Mines, which never applied to Scotland, was therefore voluntarily in absolute relinquished by the English Crown government quango. So, on what basis does Scotgold have to pay any fees to the English Crown Estate? Having spoken to representatives of the various interested mining companies, they would prefer to deal with the current situation, rather than having the ‘issue’ (Editor’s version) shifted to another government body. Now, I can understand why the devil you know might be better than the devil you don’t. But this isn’t a sustainable position when dealing with any ‘pragmatically self interested’ (Editor’s version) quango. The Crown Estate Commission has been acting ‘questionably’ (Editor’s version) since at least 1969 and its ‘compulsory clients’ (Editor’s version) must be compensated. Scotgold and other victims should not consider only their own short term interests. There are potentially hundreds of smallholders, farmers and householders who may have valuable gold-bearing rivers in their possession who should be able to benefit. Suppression of these rights by a quango ‘with no certain legal basis for such actions’ (Editor’s version) is ‘beyond farce’ (Editor’s version) (Sentence now irrelevant removed by Editor.) My advice to the Scottish government is to launch an urgent inquiry, and I will be happy to offer my evidence in full.
Brian Wright Treasurer Gold Rivers Trust
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Brian.
Thank you. A fascinating insight which deserved more than a green thumbs up!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I know nothing about the Crown Estate or the regulations regarding extracting gold/silver.
I do know however that comments like
“the Crown Estate, a mere quanqo, has been defrauding not only landowners and mining companies” and
“The Crown Estate Commission has been acting fraudulently since at least 1969 ” and
“Suppression of these rights by a demonstrably corrupt and idiotic government quango”
are all potentially defamatory or libellous.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Correct Simon…….you know nothing!
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
For Simon: You’ll be interested in this one, actually.
We have previously published a major article by Mr Wright on his extensive legal research into the extant mining rights held in the portfolio known as ‘The Crown Estate’. There is more than a question that those rights were legally removed in a series of laws, never repealed and which he identifies.
The Crown Estate Commission is well aware of this situation and obviously had been before they were approached by Mr Wright on the matter. Their response to knowing that he too had become aware of the legal context was to make substantive changes to the wording of claims made on their website on their mining rights. (All of this is documented in Mr Wright’s article.)
With the Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park having last night given permission for Scotgold Resouces to proceed with the extraction of gold and silver ores from its mine at Cononish, this is now an issue with a live link to Argyll. Crown Estate Commission fees for the production of such ores are not modest. But are they legal?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Newsie, I don’t know if the Crown Estate Commission fees are legal or not.
I do know however that some of the comments made by Mr Wright are a problem in that they are potentially defamtory and libellous. And if For Argyll is to permit agencies such as the Crown Estate to be described on its wewbsite as corrupt and engaging in fraud then they too are potentially part of that same problem.
If however, Mr Wright/For Argyll can prove corruption and fraud on the part of the Crown Estates then there is no problem.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
For simon: Yolu’re quite right – thank you – and we’ll have another look at what Mr Wright has said.
We imagine that what he sees as ‘corrupt’ is that the Crown Estate Commission has been aware of a real legal doubt over their mining rights but had not admitted to it and had continued to charge fees.
As we independentty understand it, there is no formal answer as the situation has not been tested – but the question of the legality today of the claimed ownership of mining rights that allow the Commission to levy fees on gold and silver production has certain substance.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Simon’s concerns should of course be answered. Firstly, I believe that it has been firmly established in law in the UK that only a person, including ‘legal persons’ such as companies or corporations, can sue for libel or slander. Secondly, the Crown Estate Commission (CEC) should, just like any government agency be accountable to the public. For this reason the government and its many agencies cannot sue for defamation. If government was able to sue any citizen for strongly expressing his or her opinions, and whether or not the allegations were true, this would totally undermine freedom of speech. Calling a spade a spade helps to hold government to account and can lead more quickly to a resolution. I have not accused any individual employed by the CEC or its mineral agents. In England and Wales the organisation is collectively responsible for interfering with landowners’ statutory rights to mine on their own lands, through the application of abolished Royal Prerogative and Preemption.
Thirdly, in Scotland, where the 1568 Case of Mines never applied, the Bill of Rights (which applies to all subjects of the monarch in any part of the world) is absolute, and neither Parliament has ever acceeded to taxes/duties on Scottish gold or silver ores. The CEC may until last year have applied such duties in ignorance and landowners may have been extremely gullible to allow themselves to be fleeced in this way. However, as soon as these errors were pointed out the CEC should have launched an internal inquiry and at least countered my arguments. So far they have decided to meet criticism with semantics and then silence, which speaks volumes. Unless they can at least put forward a convincing countercase, the CEC should now be required to refund the taxes which it has imposed upon mining companies both for exploration and actual mining. Refusing to do so will compound the CEC’s errors if and when their conduct is eventually subject to a full inquiry. At this point individuals may have to account for their conduct, and they will not be able to sue the CEC if they are found to have acted improperly. Successive governments which routinely permit one agency to breach the 1689 Bill of Rights must surely be held to account in order to prevent further possible abuses. There is a possible danger of this happening. A senior employee in a government agency commented to me that the government could simply change the law to give the CEC back all of the gold and silver in the UK. The Scottish Parliament would also have to agree, and it seems unlikely that the government in London would act unilaterally, without consulting the Welsh Assembly, the major goldfields south of the border being in Wales. Many MPs MSPs and peers are landowners, so they might object to such a swift abolition of their rights; but only if they are aware of their rights. Of course, even talking about changing the law would highlight the alleged abuses, and these could not easily be expunged as this would require retrospective legislation. Then many MPs who defrauded their expenses, and thousands of tax avoiders might ask for the same benefits. In any case, why should the CEC be able to impose its will across the entire UK, just because Queen Elizabeth the first thought she should own all the gold and silver mines and ores in England and Wales?
However, I am more concerned with helping small farmers and even householders in Scotland, Wales and in Western England to understand what their legal rights and practical options are. Members of both Parliments should act on behalf of their constituents and help to boost the rural economy by encouraging landowners to work with legitimate prospectors. By this I mean prospectors (including goldpanners) who will in future be able to report their findings and income honestly, without fear of being accused of ‘stealing the Queen’s gold’. The opportunities for tourism and small industry are both fascinating and rewarding and only the moribund CEC stands in the way of progress.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
For Brian Wright: Thank you for adding this very informative detail.
While what the senior civil servant you mention told you is, of course, true.
The UK Government could simply restore the lost rights to the Crown Estate Commission – but, in doing so, it would admit to the legally groundless levying of fees over the years and would have no case against failure to compensate. Wales would not be quiet in this and , as of last night, there are Scottish interests now involved.
It is also highly unlikely that any attempt to restore rights of this nature, long legally removed, would be acceptable to the electorate, especially in the aftermath of the current government’s granting to the monarchy of 15% of the revenues of the state owned portfolio known as ‘the Crown Estate’.
The current context of Prince Andrew’s questionable commercial, personal and self interested behaviour would raise public concern were it to be proposed to vire increased state revenues to the monarchy at the expense of economic growth.
The Prince appears still to be energetically and expensively enjoying an official post which he was supposed to have given up after serious public and senior criticism of his conduct in that post. He has also begun a continuing campaign to impose the burden of supporting his two daughters upon the public purse – on the pretext of potentially engaging them to undertake low level royal duties – which would have to be created for them to do.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
Ah, I wonder if the Royal Family is concerned that an undisclosed proportion of the 15% appears to have been obtained by questionable means! Now I am not anti Royal, indeed this old family business is an important part of the British Tourist Board’s portfolio. But if I was advising the Monarchy I’d rather get this issue resolved sooner than later. If it gets out of hand and police start asking questions the Queen and her family couldn’t legally be held to account, but any prosecution of anyone with Crown in their job title could bring the Royals into disrepute. It is one of my aims to help their Royal Highnesses to avoid this terrible embarassment.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
No problem.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
For Simon: FYI – following your welcome prompt, we have made revisions to Mr Wright’s comment with which we hope he will agree.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
Yes, your corrections are fine thanks.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
If anyone is interested in ScotGold share price movements, from our trending perspective a move below 5.59 mid price (the half way point between the buy & sell) brings a solid suggestion the price will move down to around 5.09p.
Any move upward from that point will be quite interesting as the new target becomes around 9p.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Escape from the Planet of the Crown Estate Commission.
The story so far. The CEC has been running a parallel universe where Parliamentary democratic laws have no meaning. Human landowners here are ruled by medieval laws. Suddenly a spacecraft crashes into a Welsh lake and out climbs a prospector from another Universe, where Parliamentary democratic laws are actually respected. The prospector has to constantly duck and dive, harassed and attacked (in a friendly way) by various officials. The prospector leaves messages on the trees, mainly pleading for the case that the democratic laws he has been used to should also apply in this parallel universe. How will the story pan out? Tune in for the next exciting episode in Escape from the Planet of the CEC.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Oh ho! This evening the CEC appears to have deleted all references to Mines Royal on its website. Searching with any reference to Crown Estate Mines Royal or Wardell Armstrong you will get this -
‘ 404 – File or directory not found. The resource you are looking for might have been removed, had its name changed, or is temporarily unavailable.’
A modern misapplication of ancient repealed laws appears to have been abruptly suspended tonight(probably pending internal inquiries)due to For Argyll’s persistence.
Free speech at its finest.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0