Item 4.
Information on the Company
DESCRIPTION OF BUSINESS
Introduction
The Companys executive office is located at:
#1103-1166 Alberni Street, Vancouver, B.C. V6E 3Z3 Canada
Telephone: (604) 681-8556
Facsimile: (604) 687-5995
E-Mail:
info@pacificbooker.com
Website:
www.pacificbooker.com
The Contact persons in Vancouver are Ruth Swan, Chief Financial Officer, and John Plourde, President/CEO & Director.
The Company currently leases its executive offices in Vancouver. The lease covers approximately 1,622 square feet and is currently $6,547 per month. The lease is in effect until January 31, 2020. The premises are considered adequate for the Companys current needs. However, the Company may seek to lease additional office space in the future to meet its requirements as it transitions into development of its mineral property.
The Company's fiscal year ends January 31
st
.
The Company's common shares trade on the TSX Venture Exchange under the symbol "BKM" and over-the-counter in the United States under the symbol PBMLF. The Company was formerly listed on the NYSE MKT
(now NYSE American) Exchange under the symbol PBM until its voluntary delisting on April 29, 2016.
The authorized share capital of the Company consists of 100,000,000 common shares without par value. As of January 31, 2019, the end of the most recent fiscal year, there were 14,871,404 common shares issued and outstanding.
Corporate Background
The Company was originally incorporated under the
Company Act of British Columbia
under the name of Booker Gold Explorations Ltd. on February 18, 1983. On February 8, 2000, the Company conducted a 1 for 5 reverse split and changed its name to Pacific Booker Minerals Inc. At the Companys Annual General Meeting held on July 16, 2004, shareholders approved new Articles of Incorporation under the new British Columbia
Business Corporations Act
which replaced the
Company Act of British Columbia
.
The Company presently has no subsidiaries.
Currently, the Company conducts all of its operations Canada and all of its assets are located in Canada.
History and Development of the Business
Since inception, the Company has been involved in mineral exploration. The majority of the Companys efforts since inception have been conducted on properties in Canada, particularly the Morrison and Hearne Hill copper/gold properties. The Company originally entered into an option agreement to earn a 100% interest in the Hearne Hill property in December, 1992, subject to a 4% Net Smelter Royalty (NSR). The Company met the option requirements until December 2004. During the year ended January 31, 2006, the Company wrote-off the entire capitalized value of the Hearne Hill property which totaled $7,851,288.
In October 1997, the Company optioned the adjacent Morrison Property from Noranda (now Falconbridge Ltd., a unit of Xstrata Plc.). The Noranda option agreement allowed the Company to earn a 50% interest in the Morrison Property upon the expenditure of $2,600,000 on exploration over five years and delivery of a bankable feasibility study. If Noranda decided not to proceed with development of the Morrison Property, the Company could acquire a 100% interest (subject to a 3% NSR) in the property. The Company met the expenditure requirement under the Noranda agreement.
In April 2004, the Company announced that it had signed a purchase agreement with Noranda on the Morrison property whereby Pacific Booker can acquire a 100% interest in the property by paying Noranda $3,500,000 cash over 36 months and issuing to Noranda 250,000 common shares and 250,000 warrants, as well as 250,000 additional common shares upon commencement of commercial production. The Companys final cash payment of $1,500,000 was due to Falconbridge Ltd., the successor company to Noranda, on or before April 17, 2007. In September 2006, the final cash payment was made to Falconbridge, less a $50,000 discount for early payment.
Since the acquisition of the Morrison project in 1997, the Company has concentrated its efforts on exploring the project and initiated a Full Feasibility Study on the Morrison project in January 2004.
In 1995, the Company acquired 100% interests in the Copper and CUB mineral claims located near the Morrison project. During the year ended January 31, 2005, the value of the Copper and CUB claims were written off.
On August 7, 2007, the Companys common shares began trading on the NYSE Amex (formerly the American Stock Exchange) under the symbol PBM.
On March 12, 2009, the Company released the positive full Feasibility Study on the Morrison Project as completed by Wardrop Engineering Ltd. The study describes the scope, design features and financial viability of a conventional open pit mine with a 30,000 tonnes per day mill.
On September 28, 2009, the company announced it had completed the Environmental Assessment on the Morrison Project and submitted the Application for an Environmental Assessment Certificate to the British Columbia Environmental Assessment Office ("BCEAO"). The Environmental Assessment Certificate is required to apply for the various Licenses and Permits required for the construction, operation, decommissioning and reclamation of the proposed open-pit mine at the Morrison property. On July 12, 2010, the Company announced that the BCEAO accepted for review the Company's Application for an Environmental Assessment Certificate. The Company was also notified by the BCEAO that it has met the requirements of the Section 11 Order with respect to both public and First Nations Consultation and is satisfied with the Consultation Plans proposed by the Company for the Application Review period.
On October 1, 2012, the Company announced that the Honourable Rich Coleman, British Columbia Minister of Energy, Mines and Natural Gas and Minister Responsible for Housing and Deputy Premier, and the Honourable Terry Lake, British Columbia Minister of Environment have decided to refuse to issue an Environmental Assessment Certificate for the Morrison Project as proposed. On October 30, 2012, the Company was advised by the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency ("CEAA") that due to the refusal of the BC Environmental Assessment Certificate, the CEAA is requesting additional information regarding whether and how the Company intends to redesign the Morrison Copper/Gold Project to address the concerns identified.
On April 4, 2013, the Company announced that John J.L. Hunter, Q.C. of Hunter Litigation Chambers Law Corporation has filed a petition with the Supreme Court of British Columbia on behalf of Pacific Booker Minerals Inc. to set aside the decision in late September 2012 of the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Energy, Mines, and Natural Gas to deny Pacific Booker Mineral Inc.s application for an Environmental Assessment Certificate in connection with the Companys proposal to construct and operate an open pit copper/gold mine on the Morrison Project. The petition is seeking the following relief: a.) an order in the nature of certiorari quashing and setting aside the decision made in late September 2012 of the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Energy, Mines, and Natural Gas to deny Pacific Bookers application for an Environmental Assessment Certificate in connection with the Companys proposal to construct and operate an open pit copper/gold mine near Morrison Lake in north-central British Columbia; b.) an order remitting the Companys application for a Certificate to the Ministers for reconsideration with directions from the Court; c.) costs; and d.) such further and other relief as this Court considers just and appropriate.
On May 1, 2013, the Company announced that it had received a request to its counsel from the Ministry of Justice for a period of time to respond to the Supreme Court of British Columbia petition. The Company has agreed to May 31st as the date by which the Ministry of Justice is to respond. The parties have also agreed to a hearing date in July.
On July 15, 2013, the Company announced that it had completed 70,000 units of a non-brokered private placement announced on May 23, 2013. The private placement units consisted of one share at a purchase price of $4.00 per share, and one warrant to purchase an additional half of one share at a price of $4.00 exercisable any time prior to 5:00 p.m. Vancouver time on July 8, 2014 and at a price of $5.00 exercisable any time prior to 5:00 p.m. Vancouver time on July 8, 2015. The shares shall not be traded before November 8, 2013. The proceeds of the private placement will be used for general working capital. No finders fee or commission was payable for this private placement.
On August 14, 2013, the Company announced that the hearing in the British Columbia Supreme Court regarding its challenge of the decision to turn down the proposed Morrison Copper/Gold Mine, announced by the provincial government on October 1st of last year, had concluded. The hearing was before Justice Kenneth Affleck, Q.C. and lasted two and a half days. During the hearing, oral submissions were made by lawyers for the Company, for the Government, for the Lake Babine Nation, and for the Hereditary Chiefs of the Gitxsan Nation. The Company is seeking an order setting aside the government's decision and remitting it back to the government for reconsideration. At the conclusion of the hearing, Justice Affleck reserved judgment.
On December 9, 2013, the Company announced that the British Columbia Supreme Court released the Judgement regarding the Companys challenge of the decision by the Provincial Government to turn down the proposed Morrison Copper/Gold Mine, announced by the provincial government on October 1st of last year. Justice Affleck ruled that: The petitioner is entitled to a declaration that the executive directors referral of the application for a certificate to the ministers and the ministers decision refusing to issue the certificate failed to comport with the requirements of procedural fairness. There will be an order in the nature of
certiorari
quashing and setting aside the ministers decision and an order remitting the petitioners application for a certificate to the ministers for reconsideration. The petitioner is entitled to costs.
On January 13, 2014, the Company announced that the 30 day period for the BC Government to challenge the December 9, 2013 BC Supreme Court decision has ended without challenge from the BC Government. The Company and the interveners will be entitled to be provided with a copy of the recommendations, if any, sent to the Ministers and will be entitled to provide a written response to the recommendations in advance of a further decision.
On March 12, 2014, the Company announced that it had submitted a response to the letter from the Associate Deputy Minister and Executive Director of the BC Environmental Assessment Office (EAO), Doug Caul, dated January 24, 2014, regarding the opportunity for Pacific Booker to respond to the updated version of the September 20, 2012 Recommendations of the Executive Director report in regards to the Companys application for an Environmental Assessment Certificate. At the request of the Company, Klohn Crippen Berger (KCB) prepared a report that clarifies the remaining concerns of the EAO regarding the Morrison Copper/Gold Project. This information should allow the EAO and the Ministers to make an informed decision with respect to supporting the EAO Conclusion that EAO is satisfied that the Assessment process has adequately identified and addressed the potential adverse environmental, economic, social, heritage and health effects of the proposed Project, having regard to the successful implementation of the conditions and the mitigation measures set out in Schedule B to the draft EA Certificate.
On May 23, 2014 the Companys response to the Working Group comments was submitted to the BC Environmental Assessment Office (BCEAO).
On July 4, 2014, the Companys application for the Environmental Assessment Certificate for the Morrison Copper/Gold Mine Project was referred to the Minister of Environment and the Minister of Energy and Mines for reconsideration.
On August 19, 2014, the environmental assessment of the Morrison Copper/Gold project was suspended by the Honourable Mary Polak, Minister of Environment, pending the outcome of the Independent Expert Engineering Investigation and Review Panel in relation to the tailings dam breach at the Mt. Polley mine. Mt. Polley, operated by Imperial Metals and unrelated to Pacific Booker Minerals, is an open pit copper/gold mine with a developing underground project located in south-central British Columbia. Under the BC Environmental Assessment Act (EAA), the Minister of Environment can suspend an assessment until the outcome of any investigation, inquiry, hearing or other process that is being conducted by the Government of British Columbia and is material to the assessment.
In February 2015, the Company was provided an opportunity to provide comments on the Mount Polley Investigation and Report in relation to the Morrison project, with the comments to be received by March 20, 2015. The Company submitted a report, prepared by Harvey McLeod of Klohn Crippen Berger Ltd., to the BC Environmental Assessment Office, the Ministry of Energy and Mines and the Ministry of Environment in response to the Mount Polley Independent Technical Review Board Panel Report Recommendations in regards to the Mount Polley TSF Failure.
The report continues to support KCBs opinion that the Project has been designed using Best Available Practices and can be safely constructed, operated, and closed to protect the environment. It also states that the design of the Morrison Tailings Storage Facility (TSF) uses Best Available Technologies that are appropriate for the site conditions.
On April 17, 2015, the responses from the Lake Babine Nation, the Gitxsan Treaty Society and the Gitanyow Hereditary Chiefs to the March 2015 report from KCB were posted on the BC Governments e-PIC site. Klohn Crippen Berger Ltd will prepare a response to the comments before the May 8th deadline.
On May 8, 2015, the Company submitted a response to the BC Environmental Assessment Office, the Ministry of Environment and the Ministry of Energy and Mines in response to the Aboriginal groups comments on both the Mount Polley Independent Technical Review Board Panel Report Recommendations and Pacific Bookers response to the Report. The response included a letter, prepared by Harvey McLeod of Klohn Crippen Berger Ltd., which addresses the points raised in the April 2015 letters from the First Nations.
On July 8, 2015, the Company announced that the Minister of Environment and the Minister of Energy and Mines have made a decision under Section 17(3)(c) of the Environmental Assessment Act regarding the application that the Company has made for an Environmental Assessment Certificate for the proposed Morrison Copper/Gold Project and have ordered that the Morrison Project undergo further assessment.
On December 23, 2015, the Company submitted a response document to the July 2015 decision by the Minister of Environment and Minister of Energy and Mines that the Morrison Project undergo further assessment. The document has been acknowledged as received by Kevin Jardine, Associate Deputy Minister, Environmental Assessment Office.
In April 2016, the Company filed a Form 25 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission to voluntarily withdraw its common shares from listing on the NYSE MKT (now NYSE American) Exchange. The delisting was effective before the start of trading on April 29, 2016, and the Companys shares began trading Over-the-Counter in the United States.
Business Overview
All of the Companys mineral operations are located in Canada. The Company and all of its properties are at the exploration stage. Currently, the Company is completing the required permitting of its Morrison Project. Based upon the positive full Feasibility Study, the Company intends to proceed with development of a mine at Morrison once the required permits are received.
Operations are not seasonal as the Company can conduct certain types of work at its properties year-round. To date, the Companys revenue has been limited to interest on its cash balances and therefore it is not currently dependent upon market prices for its operations, nor is it dependent upon any patents, licenses or manufacturing processes. The Companys operations are dependent upon mining exploration rights and claims as well as the terms of option and/or joint venture agreements on those properties. Please see the individual property descriptions below for the details of each of the Companys mineral exploration projects.
The mineral operations of the Company are subject to regulation by several government agencies at the Federal, Provincial and local levels. These regulations are well documented and a fundamental aspect of operations for any resource company in Canada. Management believes it is in compliance with all current requirements and does not anticipate any significant changes to these regulations which will have a material effect on the Companys operations.
Mineral Properties
The Company currently operates in the mineral exploration sector. All of the Companys properties are located in British Columbia, Canada and are at the exploration stage. Currently, the Companys only active project is the Morrison project in British Columbia. The individual mineral properties are described below.
Morrison Project
The Morrison Project is a copper/gold exploration project and, including the adjacent Hearne Hill project, covers an area of approximately 65 square kilometers in British Columbia, Canada. Morrison is subject to a purchase agreement between the Company and Falconbridge, a unit of Xstrata Plc., where the Company can acquire a 100% interest in the Morrison property. Under the acquisition agreement, the Company has made all the required cash payments to Falconbridge and is only required to issue Falconbridge 250,000 additional common shares upon commencement of commercial production.
The project is currently at the exploration stage. In March 2009, the Company received a positive Full Feasibility Study on the project and is currently in the process of obtaining the environmental certificates and permits necessary to proceed to the development stage.
Location and Access
The project is located in the Omineca District approximately 65 kilometers northeast of the town of Smithers in the Babine Lake region of north-central portion of British Columbia, Canada. The project lies 30 kilometers north of the town of Granisle which was originally built to service several mines in the area. Access is via paved British Columbia Provincial Highway 321 from Topley to Granisle to Michelle Bay, then by barge across Babine Lake to Nosebay. A network of logging roads provides access to the Morrison Project approximately 38 kilometers from the barge landing.
Mineral Claims and Land Title
The Morrison Property is represented by the Erin #1 mineral claim which is covered under the
Mineral Tenure Act of British Columbia (Mineral Tenure Act
). The Company is acquiring the Morrison Property from Falconbridge Ltd, and has completed all the required cash payments under the agreement and must issue an additional 250,000 common shares to Falconbridge upon commencement of commercial production. The Claim is 500 hectares in size is in good standing until October 30, 2026.
The Company does not believe there are any conflicting claims of ownership on any of the underlying claims. Copies of the acquisition agreements, including a list of the various claims underlying the property, have been filed as exhibits to the Company 20-F Registration Statement. A list of the Companys claims is also available on-line at the British Columbia Governments Mineral Titles Online database located at www.mtonline.gov.bc.ca.
Under the
Mineral Tenure Act
, claim holders may apply for additional 20 year terms as long as the extension is required for mining purposes. Annual rental fees payable to British Columbia is $10 per hectare.
Under the purchase agreement with Noranda (now Falconbridge) dated April 19, 2004, Noranda indicated that to the best of its knowledge, there is no claim or challenge to its ownership or title to the mineral claims by any other party. A copy of that agreement was filed as an exhibit to the Companys 20-F Registration Statement.
Although the project lies within the traditional Lake Babine First Nations region, the project area is not under any native claim, nor is any claim anticipated based upon currently available information. The Company has endeavored to appraise the Lake Babine First Nations on its planning and results of its studies, including environmental, wildlife, and fish studies.
How Acquired
The Company originally signed an agreement with Noranda Mining and Exploration Inc. (Noranda) dated October 22, 1997 regarding the underlying claims. Under the agreement, Pacific Booker can earn a 50% interest in the Morrison claims by spending $2,600,000 over a period of five years and delivery of a bankable feasibility study by October 31, 2003. If Pacific Booker has met the expenditure requirement, Noranda may, under the agreement and upon receipt of a written request from Pacific Booker, extend the date for completion and delivery of the bankable feasibility study for up to an additional two years. The agreement with Noranda also allowed the Company to recover from Noranda 15% of its total exploration expenditures on the Morrison Property in order to offset additional overhead and administration costs associated with financing and administration of the exploration program.
In April 2004, the Company announced that it had signed a new purchase agreement with Noranda Inc. (now Falconbridge Inc., a unit of Xstrata Plc.) regarding the Morrison Property which would replace the original agreement signed in October 1997 as described above. Under the agreement, the Company would acquire a 100% interest in the project from Noranda in exchange for the payment of $3,500,000 cash and issuance of 250,000 common shares and 250,000 common share purchase warrants under the following schedule:
|
|
|
|
Cash Amount
|
Due Date of Payment
|
|
|
$1,000,000
|
Within 60 days of signing the Agreement (Paid)
|
$1,000,000
|
18 months from the date of the signing of the Agreement (Paid)
|
$1,500,000
|
36 months from the date of the signing of the Agreement (Paid)
|
Upon Commencement of any commercial production from the property, the Company must issue to Falconbridge an additional 250,000 common shares. If at the time of issuance, the Companys common share price is below $4.00 per share, the Company is obligated to pay, in cash, the difference between $1,000,000 and the value of the 250,000 common shares issued. This amount is figured by the average trading price which is less than $4.00 per share multiplied by 250,000 common shares.
If the Company is unable to comply with the terms of the above agreement, it will be required to execute a re-transfer of its interest in the project to Falconbridge which would result in Falconbridge holding a 100% interest in the Morrison claims.
The final cash payment of $1,500,000 was due to Falconbridge on or before April 19, 2007. In September 2006, the Company satisfied this payment by paying Falconbridge $1,450,000 after negotiating a $50,000 early payment discount. In addition to the cash payments, the Company issued 250,000 common shares and 250,000 warrants exercisable until June 5, 2006 at an exercise price of $4.05.
During 2005, Noranda amalgamated with Falconbridge and continued as Falconbridge Limited. In August 2006, Falconbridge was acquired by Xstrata Plc. There were no changes to the Companys agreement with Noranda/Falconbridge as a result of either merger.
Regional Geology
The properties are situated on the northern edge of the Skeena Arch in a region underlain by volcanic, clastic and epiclastic rocks. This sequence of rocks has been cut by a northwest trending series of faults that have created a long linear sequence of horsts and grabens. The rocks have been intruded by a variety of intermediate to felsic stocks, plugs and dykes of Eocene age.
During the Tertiary-Eocene period, Biotite Feldspar Porphyry (BFP) plugs and stocks of the Babine Igneous Suite were emplaced along major faults in a continental magmatic arc. Porphyry copper deposits in the area are temporally and spatially associated with the Babine Igneous Suite intrusions.
Property Geology
The Morrison copper-gold porphyry deposit is an elongated 600 by 1,500 m long northwesterly-trending deposit. The main BFP pluton at Morrison is a faulted plug, with nearly vertical contacts, which occupies a northwesterly oriented elliptical area. The Morrison plug is known to contain a large number of phases of BFP. There are numerous offshoots of the plug, many of which are northerly trending dykes or sills. The offshoots vary in width from less than 1 meter to greater than 500 meters.
The mineralization at Morrison occupies the central part of a major graben that is a component of the regional northwesterly trending block-fault system of the Babine area. The western bounding fault is believed to be along Morrison Lake, and the eastern fault is about 0.8 kilometers east of the property. The most prominent structure at Morrison is the north-northwest trending East Fault, which bisects the BFP plug and copper zone. The Morrison copper zone conforms to the shape of the BHP plug and is disrupted by the East and West faults. The copper zone is defined by external and internal boundaries that mark the limits of lithologic units with copper content consistently greater than 0.2% copper. In most places, the external boundary is relatively sharp and copper content declines outward to less than 0.1% copper within about 40 meters. The low-grade core averages between 0.15-0.2% copper. All copper sulphides are primary, with chalcopyrite the main copper-bearing mineral. A pyrite halo is developed in the chlorite-carbonate altered wallrock that spatially bounds the copper zone. Copper mineralization is weakly developed in the pyrite halo.
Current Infrastructure
Only minimal facilities currently exist on the property. Smaller buildings are on site, including a permanent core shack. Most exploration supplies are brought in via barge across Babine Lake and stored on site for the duration of the exploration program. Access from the barge landing to the camp and the exploration area is by heavy logging road. This network of logging roads is maintained by Canfor, a separate company that has logging rights over the area, including the Companys property.
Water is available from the lakes and watercourses adjacent to the property. This water can be used for both potable and process water. A large source of electrical power is not currently available on the project site. An existing BC Hydro substation is located on the west side of Babine Lake near Granisle Township. An existing 138 kV line served the Bell mine site south of the property. In June 2008, the Company confirmed the availability of power from the Bell mine electrical facility which is now energized at 25 kV and can be re-energized to its design voltage. A new 24.7 km 138 kV overhead line will be constructed to link from the former Bell mine site to the proposed Morrison mine site substation. BC Hydro has completed a study regarding the system load for the new line.
The economy of the region is based upon resource production, primarily mining and logging. The town of Granisle on Babine Lake was built to support the mines in the area, and offers housing and basic support services. An experienced workforce lives in the area of the property, and it is anticipated that most would commute to the property daily via barge or boat.
Previous Exploration History
The Morrison Lake area was first explored for minerals in the early 1960s. Regional stream sediment sampling in 1962 by Noranda Exploration Ltd. led to the discovery of the Morrison deposit in 1963. Between 1963 and 1973, Noranda conducted exploration at Morrison and drilled 95 diamond holes. By 1968, a sub-economic copper deposit had been outlined at Morrison that consisted of two zones. The zones are immediately northwest and southeast of a small central pond, and their positions correspond closely to strong geochemical and magnetic anomalies. Geological mapping done in 1963 and 1967 indicated the possibility that the two zones might be part of a single faulted deposit. Drilling in 1970 to test the central areas succeeded in joining the portions of the faulted copper zone. In total, Noranda drilled 95 diamond drill holes totaling 13,893 meters.
Following the completion of the 1973 drill program, Noranda conducted no further field work at Morrison, although pit design studies were conducted in 1988 and 1990 in order to determine if the deposit could economically supply feed to the operating mill at its Bell Mine located approximately 15 kilometers south. Noranda determined that the deposit would not be economical to mine and process at Bell at that time.
Prior Exploration by Pacific Booker
The Company acquired an option to acquire the Morrison property in 1997. The Company initiated Phase I exploration shortly after finalizing the option agreement. Work including a property wide geochemical survey, trenching, mapping, and diamond drilling was conducted from 1997 to July 2000. Eleven diamond drill holes of large size NQ core totaling 3,818 meters were used to confirm and validate Norandas previous work as well as to test and define the mineralization at depth. Based upon the results of the Phase 1 program, the Company initiated Phase 2 of exploration, which included the drilling of 13 additional diamond drill holes totaling 3,181 in order define the configuration and potential economic limits of the deposit. The Company also completed an IP survey over the northwest sector of the deposit area to search for possible extensions to the known deposit and to possibly define the boundary between the copper zone and the pyrite halo.
In 2001, the Company initiated Phase III exploration at Morrison. The program was designed to delineate the deposit both laterally and to depth by completing a series of diamond drill holes at 60-meter centers. The program was also designed to determine the copper and gold distribution of the deposit and identify potentially higher grade zones of mineralization in order to complete a resource study of the deposit and provide data for a full feasibility study. From June 2001 to July 2002, the Company drilled 58 holes totaling 15,284 meters. The review of the prior work conducted by Noranda as well as the 3 exploration phases conducted by Pacific Booker has allowed the Company to identify three main zones of mineralization for the deposit. These are the Central, Southeast and Northwest Zones.
The Central Zone forms the main segment of the Morrison deposit. It is largely bounded by the East and West Faults with part of the southwesterly margin of the zone conforming to the transitional contact with the pyrite halo. The Phase III drilling defined and confirmed three significant copper-gold mineralization domains within the Central Zone. Drilling has confirmed the dimensions, configuration and continuity of higher grade copper and gold domains within the Central Zone.
The Southeast Zone occurs as a 300 m wide semi-circular-shaped zone east of the East Fault. The copper-gold mineralization abruptly weakens along the eastern margin where it transitionally changes to the pyrite halo style of mineralization. The zone remains open to the south.
The Northwest Zone is interpreted as an apparent faulted off-set of the Central Zone and lies west of the West Fault and is bounded by the pyrite halo to the west. The zone is 75 by 400 meters long and drilling to date extends the zone to a depth of 170 meters.
Several areas of mineralization at the Morrison deposit remain open and require additional drilling to test for extensions or further definition. These include southern and southeastern portions of the deposit, where mineralization remains open and the boundaries of the copper/gold mineralization remain undefined; and at depth, where drill hole MO-99-04, the deepest drilled on the property to date, ended in mineralization at a depth of 454.46 meters. There are also several areas of interest on the property around the main Morrison deposit which have also been identified for drilling to test for possible satalitic mineralization, particularly to the northwest and southeast of the known mineralization.
Current Exploration and Morrison Feasibility Study
The Phase III drill program totaled 82 holes of about 23,000 meters which succeeded in substantially delineating the Morrison deposit. The Company engaged SNC Lavalin of Toronto, Ontario, to prepare a scoping study for Morrison which included a geostatistical block model and a resource estimate. Snowden Mining Industry Consultants of Vancouver, British Columbia was engaged to incorporate SNCs work into generating optimized pit designs and manual geological polygonal block models for further developing resource estimates for the Morrison deposit. Snowden completed and delivered its report to Bookers management in early May 2003.
Upon receipt of the Snowden Resource Estimation and Preliminary Pit Optimisation Study, Booker initiated a Feasibility Study on the Morrison property. In December 2003, the company engaged Beacon Hill Consultants to prepare a full feasibility study on the Morrison project. The Study includes geotechnical, waste management and environmental studies, as well as studying potential waste and tailings sites. The feasibility study will also include a further 4000 meters of drilling to obtained geotechnical data as well as further delineate the higher grade mineralization in the central copper zone, explore mineralization to the south-east and close off the deposit to the north and south. In September 2003, the Company released assay results from 5 holes drilled along the known northern limits of the Morrison deposit and which management believes has successfully closed off the northern edge of the deposit.
Beacon Hill completed a draft of a Preliminary Assessment Report on the feasibility of the claims and continued the work to bring the draft report to the Final Feasibility Report. During the second half of 2004, work at the property site was primarily composed of environmental studies, including surface water quality sampling and flow rate monitoring, fish habitat studies, acid-rock drainage potential, and wildlife impact studies.
Fieldwork resumed in January 2005 after a winter break. 4 large (PQ) diameter drill holes totaling 700 meters were drilled as part of the metallurgical test program. These holes were twinned from smaller holes drilled between 1998 and 2002 and were designed to obtain representative bulk samples of potential mill feed material. Process Research Associates of Vancouver was retained to conduct the material test program including comminution and flotation tests on these samples in order to determine an optimal ore treatment process. The testwork indicated the metallurgy of the deposit was relatively straightforward. The results will be reviewed to establish a metallurgical database which will be used to establish design criteria in conjunction with other test work to determine potential mining and resource estimates. The design criteria will also be used to develop preliminary capital and operating cost estimates at a range of potential rates of tonnes mined to enable optimization of the proposed mine. These cost estimates are critical components of establishing a mine cut-off grade, optimized mill throughput and the overall mining plan. Following the review of the optimization studies, design activities for the mill and concentrator plant will proceed. Core from the metallurgical drill holes are also used for Acid Rock draining studies. Waste rock intersected in two holes is being used in humidity cell tests, which are used to determine the long term effects of the environment on the waste rock materials in regards to future potential environmental impact.
Environmental baseline studies continued for Surface Water Hydrology, Groundwater Hydrology, Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat, Fisheries and Aquatic Habitat, Trace Metals in Vegetation and Acid Rock Drainage studies. Digital water pressure monitors were installed in three drill holes for modeling pit hydrogeology, and static groundwater monitoring in old drill holes is continuing in order to test for seasonal changes in water levels. A Preliminary Hydrology Report was submitted which will be used for the planning and design of the mine infrastructure and facilities.
A drill program was completed during the winter of 2005 to finalize ore delineation and to determine geo-technical criteria for the design of the pit. Detailed design of the pit and updated mineral resource estimates will be completed which incorporate the drilling results. On October 14, 2005, a Draft Terms of Reference document was developed and submitted to the British Columbia Environmental Assessment Office (BCEAO) for an Application for an Environmental Assessment Certificate for the construction, operation, maintenance, decommissioning and reclamation of an open-pit mine on the Morrison property. The final Terms of Reference document was developed in consultation with government agencies, First Nations, and the public. A revised Project Description was also submitted to the British Columbia Environmental Assessment Office.
A geotechnical investigations program was completed on the proposed open pit. The main purpose of the site investigation program was to collect the geotechnical information for the open pit slope design for the feasibility study. Seven oriented core drill holes were drilled to provide geotechnical information for the rock mass in the vicinity of the proposed final pit walls and to intersect the major structures that were identified in previous investigations. In addition to detailed geotechnical logging, core sample collection and packer permeability tests were completed on the drill holes. Laboratory test work on selected samples included point load tests, unconfined compressive strength tests and direct shear tests. Detailed geotechnical logs were compiled along with the field and laboratory tests results to establish a complete geotechnical database for the open pit area.
The geotechnical drill program commenced on the proposed waste management site and plant site included drilling 14 short geotechnical and condemnation drill holes, and 35 test pits. The purpose of the drill holes is to test the foundations of the waste retaining dam, to test the foundations for the plant site, and to monitor ground water. Standard Penetrometer Testing (SPT) was used for overburden intervals and Packer Testing for rock foundations. Soil samples for laboratory geotechnical tests were collected from the SPT process. The primary purpose of the test pits is to test waste dam, plant site and waste conveyor foundation and slope stability. Another purpose of the test pits is to determine locations of potential construction material, i.e. till, sand, or gravel. One geotechnical drill hole was drilled in the proposed open pit to monitor groundwater quality in the mineralized zone and two drill holes were drilled downstream of the waste management site to monitor groundwater quality.
During fiscal 2007, work continued on the full Feasibility Study. The following consulting firms have been retained to perform these specific work programs as part of the Feasibility Study.
·
Wardrop Engineering Inc
–
to complete the Feasibility Study.
·
Geo-Sim Services Inc
–
to update the NI43-101 compliant Resource Estimate.
·
Nilsson Mine Services
–
to update the Open Pit Optimization and schedule.
·
Rescan Environmental Services Ltd.
–
to complete the Environmental Assessment.
·
SGS Canada Inc.
–
to complete the grinding and floatation test work and circuit design.
·
Klohn Crippen Burger Ltd.
–
to complete the Geotechnical Engineering and Design for tailings and waste rock management, surface water management and infrastructure foundation design.
During fiscal 2007, work on the project included:
·
Commenced work on the Open Pit Optimization. This work includes mine plan, resource reserves, mill size, equipment requirements, equipment costs, and haulage costs.
·
Feasibility level Open Pit Geo-technical investigations, to provide the geo-technical information required for the feasibility level open pit slope design;
·
Feasibility level Open Pit Slope Design, to determine the steepest practical slope angles for the open pit mine;
·
Waste Management Site and Plant Site Geo-technical Investigations, to provide geo-technical information for the design of the Waste Management Facility and the proposed plant.
·
Completed a waste management site alternative study.
·
Geo-chemical analysis of geologic samples for Acid Base Accounting and assaying of samples for molybdenum.
·
Commenced with metallurgical (grindability) testing.
·
Additional Environmental Baseline Studies.
·
Continued to develop the Decommissioning, Reclamation, and Closure Plan.
·
Continued work to complete an NI 43-101 compliant Resource Estimate.
In April 2007, the updated Resource Estimate for the Morrison project was completed by Geosim Services Ltd. and filed. The estimate was prepared using a cut-off grade of 0.3% Equivalent Copper. The copper equivalent was calculated using relative recovery and metal prices of $1.78/lb copper, $465/oz gold, and $10/lb molybdenum. Composited intervals from 98 drill holes representing 22,982 meters of core were used in the block model estimation. Block size was 20x20x12 meters and grade estimation was carried out by the ordinary kriging using 6 meter downhole drill composites. Gold grades were capped at 1.5 g/t prior to compositing.
Cautionary Note to U.S. Investors concerning estimates of Measured and Indicated Resources
This section uses the terms measured and indicated resources. We advise U.S. investors that while those terms are recognized and required by Canadian regulations, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission does not recognize them.
U.S. Investors are cautioned not to assume that any part or all of mineral deposits in these categories will ever be converted into reserves.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average Grade
|
Contained Metal
|
Class
|
Tonnes
|
Cu EQ
(%)
|
Cu
(%)
|
Au
(g./t)
|
Mo
(%)
|
Cu (lb)
000,000s
|
Au(oz)
000s
|
Mo(lb)
000s
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Measured
|
96,516
|
0.47
|
0.40
|
0.20
|
0.004
|
851.13
|
614.4
|
8,511
|
Indicated
|
110,353
|
0.46
|
0.39
|
0.20
|
0.005
|
936.66
|
691.8
|
12,164
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Measured/
Indicated
|
206,869
|
0.46
|
0.39
|
0.20
|
0.005
|
1,787.78
|
1,306.3
|
20,676
|
Cautionary Note to U.S. Investors concerning estimates of Inferred Resources
This section uses the term inferred resources. We advise U.S. investors that while this term is recognized and required by Canadian regulations, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission does not recognize it. Inferred resources have a great amount of uncertainty as to their existence, and great uncertainty as to their economic and legal feasibility. It cannot be assumed that all or any part of an Inferred Mineral Resource will ever be upgraded to a higher category. Under Canadian rules estimates of Inferred Mineral Resources may not form the basis of feasibility or other economic studies.
U.S. investors are cautioned not to assume that part or all of an inferred resource exists, or is economically or legally mineable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average Grade
|
Contained Metal
|
Class
|
Tonnes
|
Cu EQ
(%)
|
Cu
(%)
|
Au
(g./t)
|
Mo
(%)
|
Cu (lb)
000,000s
|
Au (oz)
000s
|
Mo (lb)
000s
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Inferred
|
56,524
|
0.47
|
0.40
|
0.21
|
0.005
|
494.72
|
374.4
|
6,231
|
Sample Protocols
All project samples are covered under a quality control program which commenced in the Phase II program beginning with drill hole Mo-00-17. There was no systematic quality control program implemented for samples from the first 16 drill hole samples.
All drill core is delivered to the core shack by the diamond drillers at the end of each shift. The core shack is a permanent, insulated and locking structure. All drill core is photographed prior to any disruption by geologists and geotechnicians before logging. Detailed core logs are compiled in 3.05 meter intervals. All core is split with a diamond saw into two halves. The first half is packaged and bagged and tagged in plastic bags for shipment to the laboratory, and the second half is replaced in the core box for reference and storage in the core shack.
Samples are organized into 20-sample batches with inclusion of quality control samples into the sample sequence of each batch. The suite of 17 core samples in the batch are complemented with one Booker Standard prepared by CDN Resource Laboratories of Delta, B.C., one Blank Standard from barren Morrison drill core, and one certified reference standard from Rocklabs Ltd. in Auckland, New Zealand in every second sample batch. One sample in the batch is prepared as a duplicate. The sample batches are transported by Company personnel to a shipping point where they are carried by private trucking company to independent certified assay laboratories. Check assays are submitted to a separate independent assay laboratory.
All of the Companys work on the property is supervised by a Qualified Person as defined under National Instrument 43-101 in Canada. National Instrument 43-101 is a set of rules developed and administered by the Canadian securities regulators to govern how Canadian resource companies handle and disclose technical information regarding their mineral project operations to the general public. It requires all disclosure be based on advice by a Qualified Person, which is defined as an individual that is an engineer or geoscientist with at least 5 years of experience in mineral exploration, mine development or operation or mineral project assessment; has experience relevant to the mineral project and technical report; and is a member in good standing of a relevant professional association.
Fiscal 2008 Work
Work on the full Feasibility Study and the environmental assessment continued during Fiscal 2008. The environmental assessment will be used to apply for a mining permit for the construction, operation and maintenance, and decommissioning and reclamation of an open-pit mine on the property. On January 18, 2008, a Section 11 Order under the BC Environmental Assessment Act was issued to the Company, which permits the Company to conduct a formal environmental assessment in support of the Morrison Project Permit to construct application.
A Geotechnical and Hydrogeology Drill program was completed, as 15 geotechnical and 16 water monitoring holes were drilled in the proposed impoundment area, the open pit, and the plant site. This concluded the fieldwork, although environmental monitoring continued.
Wardrop Engineering completed a Trade-off Study to evaluate the application of High Pressure Grinding Rolls (HGPR) as an alternative technology to the conventional semi-autogenous milling process for the project. The results of the Study indicate the application of HPGR would result in significant operating costs savings amounting to more than 23%, including the reduction of power of 3.67 megawatts, or $0.08/t, and reduction of consumables of $0.59/t. As a result, HGPR was incorporated into the project design.
Floatation and grinding testwork was completed by SGS Canada. The testing recoveries were Copper of 84.4%, Molybdenum of 79%, Gold of 59.4%, and Silver of 55.6%, with a concentrate grade of 25.1%.
For the fiscal year ended January 31, 2008, the Company incurred $3,346,755 in expenditures on the Morrison property.
Fiscal 2009 Work
Work on the full Feasibility Study and the environmental assessment continued during Fiscal 2009 and was completed early in Fiscal 2010. Nilsson Mine Services finalized the mine plan based on the four year trailing average metal prices of Copper $2.75, Gold $658.32 and Molybdenum $29.23, resource reserves, haulage costs, and pit optimization. As a result of the increase in the mineable reserve, the plan for disposal of Waste Rock (PAG/NAG) was revised. Also required was a Geotechnical, Hydrogeology and Condemnation Drill program; and test-pitting program, including : the drilling of four geotechnical and six water monitoring drill holes in the proposed plant site, waste storage and low grade ore stockpile areas; one condemnation drill hole in the plant site area; seven test-pits for soil characterization in the open pit area; and fourteen test-pits in the proposed plant site, waste rock storage, low grade ore stock pile, and over-burden storage areas; and an update of the Capital and Operating costs.
Updated Project Description was completed and submitted to British Columbia Environmental Assessment Office in September 2008. During the fiscal year, meetings and communication with key government people and agencies (including Hon. Gordon Hogg, Minister of State for Mining (MEMPR); John Cavanagh, Assistant Deputy Minister (EAO, MEMPR) and Robin Junger, Associate Deputy Minister Environment) continued.
In November 2008, the Company and the Lake Babine Nation (LBN) signed a Capacity Funding agreement for the LBN to participate in the Environmental Assessment and for community engagement. In December 2008, in response to an unexpected and allegedly defamatory press release issued by Chief Betty Patrick on October 14, 2008, the Company filed a Statement of Claim against the Lake Babine Nation (LBN). The Company requested a public retraction of the press release but no response was received from the LBN. In October 2009, in the spirit of cooperation and in consideration of the election of a new Chief and Council, the Company discontinued the legal proceedings. The Company provided the LBN with capacity funding to enable effective consultations in the environmental assessment process, as well as for developing a communications protocol.
For the fiscal year ended January 31, 2009, the Company incurred $4,813,818 in expenditures on the Morrison property.
Fiscal 2010 Work
Work on the full Feasibility Study was completed and the environmental assessment work continued during Fiscal 2010 and continued into Fiscal 2011. The Feasibility Study was completed by Wardrop Engineering Ltd., a Tetra Tech Company, on March 12, 2009. The study describes the scope, design features and financial viability of a conventional open pit mine with a 30,000 tonnes per day mill.
The total mineable reserves from the Feasibility Study are given below:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Category
|
Tonnes
|
Cu
%
|
Au
(g/t)
|
Mo
(%)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Proven
|
115,121,000
|
0.355
|
0.173
|
0.004
|
Probable
|
109,130,000
|
0.304
|
0.152
|
0.004
|
Total Proven and
Probable
|
224,241,000
|
0.330
|
0.163
|
0.004
|
Cut-off grade was determined by combining mining, processing, disposal and overhead costs of the ore, as well as the Net Smelter Return ("NSR") from the concentrate produced. Estimates used include Operating Costs of CDN$8.15 per tonne milled over the life of the mine, and the overburden and waste total is 184.12 Mt for a strip ratio of 0.82:1. NSR cut-off-value is $CDN5.60/t, based upon the geo-spatial location of the ore within the mine design. The cut-off grade is determined when the cost of processing a block as ore equals the cost of handling the block as waste.
Metal prices used in the study were a four year trailing average (as of January 12, 2009) of $2.75/lb Copper, $658.32/oz Gold, and $29.23/lb Molybdenum, at an exchange rate of US$0.87. Metallurgical test-work to date has reported silver present in the concentrate, but silver was not included in the financial analysis. Recovered metal is estimated at 1.37 billion lb Cu, 658,090 oz Au and 10.05 million lb Mo. Metal recoveries are estimated at 84% Cu, 56% Au, and 50% Mo. Mine life is estimated to be 21 years, and capital costs are estimated at CDN$516.68 million (including a CDN$59.92 million contingency allocation). Pre-Income Tax Internal Rate of Return (IRR) of 20.05%, based on Net Present Value (NPV) at 8.0% discount rate is CDN$495.9M; and the Payback period on capital is 4.2 years. A copy of the Feasibility Study was filed on EDGAR under Form 6-K on April 23, 2009.
With the receipt of the positive Feasibility Study, the Company focused its efforts on permitting issues for the planned development of the Morrison project. On May 22, 2009, the British Columbia Environmental Assessment Office ("BCEAO") issued the Final Terms of Reference for an Environmental Assessment Certificate application. An Application for an Environmental Assessment Certificate was submitted by the Company to the BCEAO on September 28, 2009. The Application was evaluated to determine if the Application addressed all the items in the Application Terms of Reference. On October 27, 2009, the EAO issued a letter to the Company accompanied by a list of deficiencies in the Application itemized in a Screening Evaluation Table which identified information or clarification requests to be addressed by the Company for the Application to progress to the Review stage. In addition, the Company submitted Licenses and Permits, including Mining Lease (MEMPR), Crown Lease for mineral tenure 520519 (tailings storage facility) (ILMB), Statutory Right-of-Way Crown Land Tenure for a transmission line (ILMB), Occupant License to Cut for the mine site (MOFR), Special Use Permit (MOFR), Road Permits and Road Use Agreements (MOFR),and Forest License to Cut for the transmission line (MOFR), for Concurrent Review with the Application for an Environmental Assessment Certificate.
On July 14, 2009, pursuant to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA), Fisheries and Oceans (DFO), Natural Resources (NRCan), Transport Canada (TC) issued a Notice of Commencement to conduct a comprehensive study. The BCEAO and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency will coordinate their respective review processes to ensure that joint steps are undertaken wherever that can appropriately be done consistent with the Canada-British Columbia Agreement for Environmental Assessment. The Morrison Copper/Gold Project was accepted as an MPMO project by Major Project Management Office (MPMO) who oversee and track the federal review and Aboriginal engagement and consultation for major resource projects.
For the fiscal year ended January 31, 2010, the Company incurred $3,182,035 in expenditures on the Morrison property.
Fiscal 2011 Work
Work to support the environmental assessments continued during Fiscal 2011.
From January to March 2010, the Company completed a drill program around the perimeter of the proposed open pit in order to better characterize the Acid Rock Drainage and Metal Leaching ("ML-ARD") potential of waste rock and pit walls. The hydraulic conductivity of the rock and faults was also tested and the geotechnical characteristics of the rock observed. Results from the drilling indicated that waste rock and pit walls contain less pyrite than had been predicted in preliminary assessments.
In May 2010, an Addendum to address the deficiencies in the EAC Application was submitted to the BCEAO and accepted for Review in July. The BCEAO informed the Company that it had met the requirements of the Section 11 Order with respect to both public and First Nations Consultation and was satisfied with the Consultation Plans proposed by the Company for the Application Review period.
In October and November 2010, the Company responded to the comments and issues raised by the reviewers of the Application and submitted its responses in the Review Response Report.
In December 2010, the Company met with BCEAO, and Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEAA) to discuss reviews of tracking tables (this table tracks the comments and responses to the comments raised during the review process), the Table of Commitments and the BCEAO draft Assessment Report. BCEAO requested that the Company consider changes to the project design, mainly dealing with changes to the closure phase of the project and water management. The changes were intended to significantly reduce the risk of long term residual and cumulative effects and in the potential magnitude of effects associated with the operating and closure plan.
As per the Project Terms of Reference and Canadian legislation, the Company must devise a Fish Habitat Compensation Plan ("FHCP") to replace fish-bearing and aquatic habitat that will be lost as a result of the Project. In general, new habitat is required to replace lost habitat at a 2:1 ratio, however the submitted FHCP provides new habitat at a 3:1 ratio. The Company submitted a FHCP to DFO and EAO on December 8, 2010.
The Lake Babine Nation (LBN) completed a Salmon Spawning Survey in October/November 2010.
The LBN completed a study with respect to relocating the Overburden Stockpile from Morrison Point as it was considered to be a barrier to wildlife migration, potentially too close to Morrison Lake with the potential to contribute dust and drainage to the lake which would impact salmon spawning. As a result, the Overburden Stockpile was relocated inland 700 meters from Morrison Lake.
The Morrison Copper/Gold Project has been identified as a major natural resource project. The federal Major Projects Management Office ("MPMO") will track and monitor the progress of the Project through the federal EA and ensure service standards and timelines are met. On May 10, 2010, MPMO completed the Project Agreement and posted the document on their website: (http://www.mpmo.gc.ca/project-projet/morrison-eng.php). The Agreement describes the federal review process and outlines the key roles, responsibilities and service standards required of the Proponent and federal agencies. The federal review includes environmental assessment, regulatory reviews, aboriginal engagement and consultation activities. Federal agencies signatory to the Agreement include: Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, Natural Resources Canada, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Environment Canada, Transport Canada and Indian and Northern Affairs Canada.
For the fiscal year ended January 31, 2011, the Company incurred $1,876,149 in expenditures on the Morrison property.
Fiscal 2012 Work
As a result of the December 16, 2010 meeting with the BC Environmental Assessment Office (EAO), and Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEAA) the Company proceeded with incorporating the changes into a conceptual design, which was subsequently discussed with the EAO and other reviewers in January and February 2011. Feedback from these meetings was used prepare a Review Response Report which was submitted to the EAO on March 30, 2011. The Company also submitted an Application Information Key (AIK) identifying the order of precedence by identifying the more current documents that take precedence over prior documents.
EDI Environmental Inc., with participation of the Lake Babine Nation, completed a Moose and Mule Deer winter survey in January 2011 to determine habitat use within the Project area during a typical winter.
As a result of comments received from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO), Canada, the Company submitted an updated Fish Habitat Compensation Plan (FHCP) to DFO and EAO on March 23, 2011.
Further comments were received from the EAO on April 15, 2011 that dealt mainly with the segregation of waste rock. The Company expanded on the waste segregation plan and submitted this plan to the EAO and CEAA for review on April 26, 2011. Additional comments from the Federal agencies, Environment Canada and Natural Resources Canada were then received on May 25, 2011.
Considering all the comments received as well as additional data acquired from field work during spring break-up, the Review Response Report Rev. 2 ("RRR Rev. 2") was submitted to the EAO on July 4, 2011 and that the Review period resumed on July 18, 2011
In August 2011, the Company responded to additional questions and provided clarification on commitments coming from the RRR Rev. 2.
In September 2011, the EAO issued copies of their draft Environmental Assessment Report to the Working Group for review. Subsequent to receiving comments from the Working Group, the EAO determined that it could not come to a conclusion regarding the significance of Project effects. The EAO, therefore, sought a 3rd party assessment of the Project effects to confirm and inform them.
In September 2011, the Company collected additional baseline and freshet data. Baseline data was collected for Streams 7, 8 and 10, Morrison Lake, Nakinilerak Lake and leach barrels for ML/ARD. An additional salmon spawning study was in process with Lake Babine Nation performing the study.
On November 13, 2011 Robertson Geoconsultants Inc. (RGC) submitted the 3rd party review on Hydrogeology and Water Quality. They concluded that no additional field work was required and that the scope of hydrogeological site characterization work completed to date may exceed baseline data collected for Environmental Assessment Certificate applications of other mining Projects in B.C. They also concluded that any uncertainties could be addressed by way of sensitivity analysis.
On November 21, 2011 Solander Ecological Research Ltd. submitted the 3rd party review of the Aquatic Resources and Fisheries. They concluded that if the proponent is able to demonstrate with reasonable confidence that seepage and effluent discharges will not exceed BC Water Quality Guidelines (BCWQGs), then only minimal fisheries work appears to be required for the Environmental Assessment, although additional work may be required for permitting.
Note: The 3rd Party Aquatic Effects review focused to a large degree on the requirements for potential technical studies if the water quality modeling indicated the potential for significant adverse effects on Morrison Lake.
On December 16, 2011 the Company met with the EAO, the CEAA, RGC and the Company consultants Klohn Crippen Berger Ltd. and Minesite Drainage Assessment Group to review the scope of work to address the recommendations made in the 3rd party review reports.
On December 21, 2011, the EAO requested that the Company commit to lining the TSF with a geomembrane or equivalent with a permeability of 10-10(m/s). The Company committed to lining the TSF with an engineered soil barrier and/or geo-membrane with an average permeability of 10-9m/s to limit seepage to the receiving streams and Morrison lakebed to meet water quality objectives that are protective of salmon spawning habitat and stream aquatic habitat. The water quality objectives would be developed to the satisfaction of the Permitting agencies.
On January 31, 2012, the Company submitted the 3rd Party Review Response Report, which incorporated the scope of work agreed to in the December 16, 2011 meeting. The Report was directed towards hydrogeology, water balance, geochemistry and aquatic habitat with respect to the potential for significant adverse effects on Morrison Lake; adaptive management plans that would be further developed in the detail design and permitting stage to ensure that operations will be managed to mitigate potential effects; and additional commitments to include physical lake behavior, fish populations and distribution, spawning surveys, and salmon escapement. The report also included Preliminary Proposed Water Quality Objectives (PPWQOs) to be used primarily for emergent groundwater that may surface in the Tailings Storage Facility receiving streams and the Morrison lakebed.
The 3rd Party Review Response Report was provided to RGC and the Ministry of Environment for review. In addition, the EAO commissioned Dr. Laval of the University of British Columbia (UBC) to review the results of the Lake Effects section of the 3rd Party Review Response Report completed by Dr. Lawrence of UBC.
The result of the review of the 3rd Party Review Response Report was a request by EAO to provide Tailings Storage Facility (TSF) seepage estimates for a full geo-membrane liner. In addition, the EAO commented that BCWQG are the objectives that Company should be striving to achieve, and that is the EAOs strong first preference.
Fiscal 2013 Work
On March 19, 2012, the Company announced that it had published a Notice for an Application for a Mining Lease, as required under Section 42(1)(c) of the Mineral Tenure Act. The mineral claims subject to the mining lease application are Tenure Numbers 625123, 625143, 625183, surveyed by Mark McGladrey, BCLS, whose field notes and plans have been approved by the Surveyor General.
On April 27, 2012, the Company submitted a 3rd Party Review Response Report - Addendum 1, which provided the results of lining the TSF with a geo-membrane liner; leakage through the geo-membrane liner, geo-chemical loading in streams and emerging groundwater and Morrison Lake effects.
As a result of the Company' responses to the 3rd Party Review, the Company received a revised draft copy of the EAOs Assessment Report. The Company completed a review of the draft assessment report and provided comments to the EAO for consideration and prepared an updated Project Description, Key Commitments (Conditions) List and Tracking Tables to accompany the EAOs Assessment Report.
On July 9, 2012, the Company provided comments to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEAA) on a draft Comprehensive Study Report (CSR).
On July 23, 2012, the Company announced that it was in receipt of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Lake Babine Nation.
In August 2012, the Company was informed by the BCEAO that the timing for referral to the Minister of Environment, and the Minister of Energy and Mines would take place on August 20, 2012. On August 13, 2012, the Company submitted its final response to the BCEAO with respect to the Environmental Assessment Application.
The referral documents, consisting of the Final Environmental Assessment Report (Schedule A, Certified Project Description and Schedule B, Table of Conditions) and the Environmental Assessment Certificate #M12-01 (to be signed by the Ministers), were submitted to the Ministers on August 21, 2012. The Company received a copy of the referral documents on August 27, 2012.
On August 29th, the Company announced that the BCEAO had completed the Review Stage of the Morrison Copper/Gold Project and submitted their referral documents to the Minister of Energy and Mines and the Minister of Environment.
On August 30, 2012, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEAA) informed the Company that CEAA had received feedback from the federal departments on the draft Comprehensive Study Report (CSR) and was planning to have a second draft prepared for the Company's comments during the week of September 4, 2012.
On October 1, 2012, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Natural Gas, and the Minister of Environment had decided to refuse to issue an EA certificate for the Project as proposed.
On October 30, 2012, the Company was advised by the CEAA that due to the refusal of the BC Environmental Assessment Certificate, CEAA was requesting additional information regarding whether and how the Company intends to redesign the Morrison Copper/Gold Project to address the concerns identified.
On October 31, 2012, the Company responded to the Ministry of Environment rejection of the Companys Application for an Environmental Assessment Certificate addressing the factors that were considered by the Ministers in reaching their decision, (as per the e-mail from the Minister of Environment received October 1, 2012) and emailed to the appropriate ministers and posted on the Companys website.
Between the November 1
st
and the end of the fiscal year, the Company provided various updates and information in regards to the Environmental Assessment process and decision.
On November 8th, the Company clarified information in regards to the Salmon population in Morrison Lake, stating that the Morrison Copper/Gold Project is not located within the Skeena River headwaters.
On November 20th, the Company released information on the plan to line the Tailings Storage Facility.
On November 22nd, the Company commented on the Ministry of Energy and Mines (MEM) expressed concerns with respect to the Companys compliance with the Provincial Metal Leaching/Acid Rock Drainage (ML/ARD) Policy.
On November 28th, the Company provided information on the effects of the project on the Morrison Lake Water Quality
On December 6th, the Company released information on the amount of data collected to support the Companys understanding of Morrison Lake Water.
On December 10th, the Company provided the information that the Morrison Lake Sockeye Salmon stock was historically enhanced by the Babine Salmon Hatchery which operated from 1907 to 1936.
On December 12th, the Company released information on the dilution capacity of the Morrison Lake.
On December 19th, the Company released information on the conclusions of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency on the Morrison project. The BCEAO Executive Directors report stated the position of the Federal Agencies. It summarized that CEAA considers that the issues examined by its agencies have been addressed through project design, mitigation measures and other commitments agreed to by the Proponent. CEAA has produced a draft Comprehensive Study Report that concludes that the proposed Project is not likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects. The CEAA draft Comprehensive Study Report, September 2012, concluded that: The environmental effects of the Project have been determined using assessment methods and analytical tools that reflect the current best practices of impact assessment practitioners. As a result of incremental changes to the project design and additional mitigation measures and commitments applied to the Project throughout the comprehensive study process, the Agency concludes that the proposed project can be constructed, operated, maintained, and decommissioned without significant adverse effects, including consideration of cumulative effects. No significant adverse biological, physical, or human health effects are predicted. Any residual effects are predicted to be of low magnitude, moderate duration, localized in geographic extent, and reversible over the long term following decommissioning. Taking into account the above, including proposed mitigation measures and proponent commitments; the Agency concludes that the Project is not likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects.
On January 9, 2013, the Company released some information on the extent of work completed during the Morrison Copper/Gold Project Environmental Assessment period.
On January 16th, the Company repeated the 2009 Feasibility Study Results. The mineral reserve estimates have been prepared and classified in accordance with CIM Classification established under National Instrument 43-101 of the Canadian Securities Administrators. The reserve estimate takes into consideration all geologic, mining, milling and economic factors and is stated according to Canadian Standards (NI 43-101). Under US standards, no reserve declaration is possible until financing and permits are acquired.
Fiscal 2014 Work
On February 6, 2013, the Company released information to the public on the economic effects of the Morrison Copper/Gold Project.
On February 13th, the Company announced that it had retained John J.L. Hunter, Q.C. of Hunter Litigation Chambers Law Corporation to advance litigation against the Province of British Columbia in connection with the refusal of the Government to issue an Environmental Assessment Certificate for the Morrison Copper/Gold Mine Project. On April 4
th
, John J.L. Hunter filed a petition with the Supreme Court of British Columbia on behalf of Pacific Booker Minerals Inc. to set aside the decision in late September 2012 of the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Energy, Mines, and Natural Gas to deny Pacific Booker Mineral Inc.s application for an Environmental Assessment Certificate pursuant to the Environmental Assessment Act, SBC 2002, c 43 in connection with the Companys proposal to construct and operate an open pit copper/gold mine (the Morrison Copper/Gold Project) near Morrison Lake in north-central British Columbia. The petition is seeking the following relief: a.) an order in the nature of certiorari quashing and setting aside the decision made in late September 2012 of the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Energy, Mines, and Natural Gas to deny Pacific Bookers application for an Environmental Assessment Certificate in connection with the Companys proposal to construct and operate an open pit copper/gold mine near Morrison Lake in north-central British Columbia; b.) an order remitting the Companys application for a Certificate to the Ministers for reconsideration with directions from the Court; c.) costs; and d.) such further and other relief as this Court considers just and appropriate.
In March 2013, the Company, through its counsel at Hunter Litigation Chambers, filed two separate requests to the Environmental Assessment Office (EAO), the Ministry of the Environment (MOE) and the Ministry of Energy, Mines, and Natural Gas (MEM) to access records under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The purpose of these requests was to obtain further information regarding the government's decision to deny Pacific Booker's application for an Environmental Assessment Certificate in connection with the proposed Morrison Copper/Gold Mine. The first request was for a copy of a report containing the recommendations of the Executive Director of the EAO, as submitted by the EAO to the MOE and the MEM on or about August 21, 2012 (as well as any subsequent or revised versions of the Recommendations). The EAO provided a copy of the August 21, 2012 Executive Director's Recommendations as per the request. In contrast, the MOE responded to the first request on April 8, 2013 and advised that no records were located in response to the request. Pacific Booker's second freedom of information request was for: (1) all documents submitted by the EAO to the MOE and/or the MEM between August 1, 2012 and October 1, 2012; and (2) all documents relating to the denial of Pacific Bookers application for an environmental assessment certificate. On April 9, 2013, the MOE again advised the Company that no records were located in response to the request.
On April 18, 2013, the Information Access Operations of the provincial government sent a letter to Pacific Booker, through its legal counsel, which provided clarification regarding the Ministry of the Environment's (MOE) April 8 and April 9, 2013 responses to the Company's freedom of information requests. As described in further detail in the news release issued by Pacific Booker on April 17, 2013, the MOE's April 8 and April 9, 2013 responses had stated the MOE had no records responsive to the Company's freedom of information requests. The government's letter clarified the MOE's previous responses, as follows: "This correspondence confirms that, for the purposes of [the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act], the Environmental Assessment Office is not considered a distinct public body separate from the Ministry of Environment. That is to say, the file prefixes EAO and MOE are used for administrative purposes only. While our correspondence on files MOE-2013-00069 and MOE-2013-00078 advised you that the Ministry of Environment had not located responsive records, it would have been more accurate to advise you that the records in the custody or control of the Environmental Assessment Office would include those sent to and received from the Ministers Office and would continue to be processed under files EAO-2013-00014 and EAO-2013-00016."
On May 1, 2013, the Company announced that it had received a request made to Hunter Litigation Chambers by the Ministry of Justice for a period of time to respond to the petition.
On August 7, 2013, the Company was in British Columbia Supreme Court challenging a decision announced by the provincial government on October 1, 2012 to turn down its proposed Morrison Copper/Gold Mine. The Company stated that it believes the government erred in overlooking conclusions in their own 206-page comprehensive assessment report dated August 21, 2012. That report stated that, based upon successful implementation of mitigation measures and legally-binding conditions, the Environmental Assessment Office is satisfied that the proposed Project is not likely to have significant adverse effects. The comprehensive assessment report also concluded that the First Nations consultation process was carried out in good faith, was appropriate and reasonable in the circumstances, and was sufficient to maintain the honour of the Crown. The Executive Director of the Environmental Assessment Office rejected the conclusions of his office's comprehensive assessment report and recommended that the Morrison Copper/Gold Mine not be approved. The Executive Director's recommendation was based in part on a new risk versus benefit test introduced after the assessment report was completed, and which the Company was not given any opportunity to address. This test was not included in the Terms of Reference established for the environmental assessment, was not applied previously to other projects and has not been consistently applied since the negative decision regarding the Morrison Copper/Gold Mine project. The Company believed this fails to meet the requirements of procedural fairness.
The Company announced on August 14, 2013, that the hearing in the British Columbia Supreme Court before Justice Kenneth Affleck, Q.C. had lasted two and a half days. During the hearing, oral submissions were made by lawyers for the Company, for the Government, for the Lake Babine Nation, and for the Hereditary Chiefs of the Gitxsan Nation. The Company is seeking an order setting aside the government's decision and remitting it back to the government for reconsideration. At the conclusion of the hearing, Justice Affleck reserved judgment.
On August 26, 2013, the Company announced receipt of a memorandum, prepared by Klohn Crippen Berger Ltd., on geomembrane lined tailings storage facilities. The memorandum provides a summary of geomembrane lined tailings storage facilities and lists a number of projects where liners are used and where liners are incorporated into the design phase. The memorandum suggests (at least) a thousand years as the potential life of a liner that is buried below tailings (maintains a near constant moderate temperature).
On October 3, 2013, the Company clarified the bonding requirements for the Morrison Copper/Gold project. The BC Mines Act and the Health, Safety and Reclamation Code for Mines in BC require mining operations to carry out a program of environmental protection and reclamation to ensure that land, watercourses and cultural heritage resources will be returned to a safe and environmentally sound state and to an acceptable end land use upon termination of mining. The Chief Inspector of Mines has the ultimate legislative authority for all issues pertaining to the Mines Act and the Health, Safety and Reclamation Code. The amount of the bond is progressive over the life of the mine as the disturbance area increases. This bond is held until the Chief Inspector of Mines is satisfied that all reclamation requirements for the operation have been fulfilled.
On December 9, 2013, the Company announced that the British Columbia Supreme Court had released the Judgement regarding the Companys challenge of the decision by the Provincial Government to turn down the proposed Morrison Copper/Gold Mine, announced by the provincial government on October 1st of last year. The hearing was held before Justice Kenneth Affleck, Q.C. from August 7 to 9, 2013. Justice Affleck ruled that: The petitioner is entitled to a declaration that the executive directors referral of the application for a certificate to the ministers and the ministers decision refusing to issue the certificate failed to comport with the requirements of procedural fairness. There will be an order in the nature of
certiorari
quashing and setting aside the ministers decision and an order remitting the petitioners application for a certificate to the ministers for reconsideration. The petitioner is entitled to costs.
In his decision, Justice Affleck found the administrative process which was followed, including the decision of the previous Minister of Environment and the previous Minister of Energy & Mines, failed to comport with the requirements of procedural fairness. In reaching this conclusion, Justice Affleck rejected arguments by the governments lawyer that common law rules of procedural fairness do not apply to the environmental assessment process. The Court ordered that the Ministers decision be quashed and set aside, and ordered that the Companys application for an environmental certificate be remitted to the current Ministers for reconsideration. This time, the Company and interveners will be entitled to be provided with a copy of the recommendations, if any, sent to the Ministers and will be entitled to provide written response to the recommendations in advance of a further decision.
On July 18, 2013, the Company received an envelope in the mail containing what appears to be an August 13, 2012 draft of the Recommendations of the Executive Director of the Environmental Assessment Office in respect of Pacific Booker's application for an Environmental Assessment Certificate for the Morrison Copper/Gold Mine. The Company had not previously seen the draft Recommendations and was not aware that this document existed. This document was submitted to the BC Supreme Court on July 18, 2013 as Affidavit #4 of Erik A. Tornquist.
On December 19, 2013, the Company announced that the Court Transcript related to Companys challenge of the decision by the Provincial Government to turn down the proposed Morrison Copper/Gold Mine, is available on the Companys website. The decision document is available online at the British Columbia courts website.
On January 13, 2014, the Company announced that the 30 day period for the BC Government to challenge the December 9, 2013 BC Supreme Court decision had ended without challenge from the BC Government. The application will be remitted to the current Ministers for reconsideration. The Company and the interveners will be entitled to be provided with a copy of the recommendations, if any, sent to the Ministers and will be entitled to provide a written response to the recommendations in advance of a further decision.
Fiscal 2015 Work
On March 12
,
2014, the Company announced that it had submitted a response to the letter from the Associate Deputy Minister and Executive Director of the BC Environmental Assessment Office, Doug Caul, dated January 24, 2014, regarding the opportunity for Pacific Booker to respond to the updated version of the September 20, 2012 Recommendations of the Executive Director report in regards to the Companys application for an Environmental Assessment Certificate.
At the request of the Company, Klohn Crippen Berger (KCB) prepared a report that clarifies the remaining concerns of the EAO regarding the Morrison Copper/Gold Project. This information should allow the EAO and the Ministers to make an informed decision with respect to supporting the EAO Conclusion that EAO is satisfied that the Assessment process has adequately identified and addressed the potential adverse environmental, economic, social, heritage and health effects of the proposed Project, having regard to the successful implementation of the conditions and the mitigation measures set out in Schedule B to the draft EA Certificate.
The EAOs January 24, 2014 letter outlines the key conclusions of the December 9, 2013 decision of the British Columbia Supreme Court in Pacific Booker Minerals Inc. v. British Columbia (Environment), 2013 BCSC 2258. The important elements that apply to the Company in addressing the concerns underlying the negative recommendation include:
·
The rejection
“
failed to comport with the requirements of procedural fairness
”
;
·
Pacific Booker should not have been prevented from
“
learning at least the substance of the recommendations
”
;
·
Stipulated that: On the reconsideration, Pacific Booker and the interveners will be entitled to be provided with the Executive Directors recommendations, if any, to the Ministers, and will be entitled to provide a written response to the recommendations.
The EAO letter also outlines the substance of the key concerns underlying the negative recommendation, which are summarized as follows:
1.
The project design provides for end-stage mitigation rather than up-front prevention of metal leaching and acid rock drainage.
2.
The project design is based on the unproven assumption that effluent to be discharged directly into Morrison Lake would be diffused by the behaviour of the Lake.
3.
Provincial technical reviewers expressed significant concerns about whether the proposed measure (geomembrane liner of the 5 km2) would work as modeled.
4.
The project has the potential to result in significant long-term financial and environmental liabilities. These aspects relate to the size of the reclamation bond and the proximity to valued fish resources.
5.
The project was opposed by Gitxsan and Gitanyow Nations and Lake Babine Nation.
Furthermore, the Company recognizes that the Executive Director was of the view that the Company should consider feasible design alternatives for its proposed mine. It is the Companys interpretation of this comment that the substance of this view is associated with the design alternative of placing potentially acid generating mine rock into the tailings storage facility (TSF) as opposed to infilling the open pit on mine closure.
In addition, the economic effects on the Province was raised as a concern as part of the Executive Directors recommendations.
KCB believes that the Project design is protective of the environment and clarification of the rationale and the potential for environmental effects are presented within the report. To further support the assessment, three Technical Expert Opinions are included for lake modeling of water quality predictions, aquatic effects and geomembrane liners.
On March 28th, the Company was advised by letter from Associate Deputy Minister and Executive Director of the BCEAO, Doug Caul that a two-week extension (to April 25, 2014) to the deadline for the members of the Working Group to submit their responses to the response prepared by Klohn Crippen Berger and the Company. The Company was also advised that following receipt by EAO, any responses from the Working Group will be provided to the Company and the Company would have 20 days from the receipt of those comments to reply.
On or about April 25th, the responses received from the Working Group were posted on the Project Information website.
On April 29th, the Company was advised by letter that the second phase of the reconsideration process was complete. The Company was given until May 20, 2014 to provide a reply to any new comments or evidence by the Aboriginal groups and the Working Group and that following receipt of the reply that all parties would be contacted and provided with a outline of the process and procedure for referral to the Honourable Mary Polak, Minister of Environment and the Honourable Bill Bennett, Minister of Energy and Mines.
On May 20th, the Company requested a 3 day extension (to May 23rd) to the submission date.
On May 23rd, the Company submitted its response to the Working Group comments received on April 29, 2014. The letter from the Company states our technical response is contained in the enclosed report prepared by KCB with support from a number of Technical Experts. This letter will provide more general comments on the process to date and the relevant questions for your consideration. It also states that the Morrison Copper/Gold Project is located in a resource development area (not a protected area) within the Morice Land and Resource Management Plan, a component of British Columbia's land use strategy and signed by the BC Government in May 2007, which supports economic activities such as mining and forestry. It clearly states that mining is an encouraged economic activity in the region. Also, the Lake Babine Nation's 5-year Economic Development Plan, March 2012, supports mining within its' Traditional Territory. The letter also commented that The consistent theme is that the reviewers seem to want absolute certainty on all environmental matters before a Certificate can be issued. This represents a misunderstanding of the environmental assessment process and should not be allowed to influence your recommendation to the Ministers and many of the reviewers have taken the position that there are "uncertainties" that should lead to the denial of the Certificate. Very few things in life are absolutely certain, and decisions of this nature cannot be made on the basis of certainty but rather on the best independent scientific evidence of likelihood and consequence. The EAO Assessment Report demonstrates that the Company's mitigation plan is sound and that there are no significant adverse effects. None of the comments by the current reviewers provide any new information to contradict this finding. PBM's Application was prepared by Qualified Professionals and the Company wishes to express a concern that some reviewers of PBM's submission to the September 2012 Reasons and Recommendation of the Executive Director may not be impartial reviewers, may not have reviewed all available documents and may not have exercised due care and attention in reviewing documents.
The Morrison Copper/Gold Mine as proposed would bring significant economic benefits including employment during construction and operation. PBM believes that it has accommodated all of the concerns of the Ministry of Energy & Mines, Ministry of the Environment and First Nations and proposes a project that uses unprecedented measures to be protective of the environment. PBM will construct and operate the Morrison mine in compliance with industry best practices, using proven technology and in full compliance with all permit requirements.
The letter accompanying the technical response, prepared by KCB states The document continues to support our opinion that the Project will not have a risk of significant adverse environmental effects and addresses the main items of concern identified by reviewers of the Morrison Copper/Gold Project EAO Decision Response Document (KCB 2014). These comments were received from the Working Group members and associated parties. This report is provided on behalf of Pacific Booker Minerals Inc. who requested the opportunity to respond to the comments received.
On July 16th, the Company announced that PBM had received a letter from the Associate Deputy Minister and Executive Director of the BCEAO, Doug Caul, advising that the Companys application for the EAC for the Morrison Copper/Gold Mine Project was referred to the Minister of Environment and the Minister of Energy and Mines for reconsideration on July 4, 2014. The letter stated that the 45 day timeline for a decision by the Ministers, subject to any extensions, will continue to be applied.
On August 19th, the Company announced that the Honourable Mary Polak, Minister of Environment, had suspended the environmental assessment of the Morrison Copper/Gold project pending the outcome of the Independent Expert Engineering Investigation and Review Panel in relation to the tailings dam breach at the Mt. Polley mine, which was announced on August 18th by the Minister of Energy and Mines, the Honourable Bill Bennett.
Under the BC Environmental Assessment Act (EAA), the Minister of Environment can suspend an assessment until the outcome of any investigation, inquiry, hearing or other process that is being conducted by the Government of British Columbia and is material to the assessment.
In November, the Company entered into a consulting agreement with The Progressive Group to provide strategic communications counsel on political and public policy and to provide advice on those matters. The agreement with the Progressive Group ended at the end of February.
The Independent Review Panel Report on the investigation into the cause of the failure of the tailings storage facility (TSF) at the Mount Polley Mine was released on January 30, 2015. One of the seven recommendations in the report was that future permit applications for a TSF should be based on a bankable feasibility study.
On February 11th, the Company announced that it had conducted geotechnical site investigations during 2006 and 2007 on the TSF (Tailings Storage Facility). The Site investigations included approximately 20 drill holes, 9.5 km of geophysical survey lines and over 15 test pits, along with geotechnical and hydrogeological testing consistent with good practice for a Feasibility Study and environmental application. In 2009, Klohn Crippen Berger prepared a Geotechnical Feasibility Study design of the tailings storage facility, mine waste rock dump, low grade ore stockpile, and the associated facilities. The design covered the geotechnical, water management and civil aspects of the works.
Fiscal 2016 Work
On February 26, 2015, the Company announced that it had received a letter from Doug Caul, Associate Deputy Minister, BC Environmental Assessment Office in which he provided PBM an opportunity to provide comments on the Mount Polley Investigation and Report in relation to the Morrison project by March 20, 2015. He asked that PBM focus their comments on the potential implications of the recommendations of the Report to Morrison and effects relating to its proposed tailings management facility and that it is not necessary to reiterate the submissions made previously regarding the Morrison project. Mr. Caul advised PBM that he had committed to providing that same opportunity to the Lake Babine Nation, the Gitxsan Treaty Society and the Gitanyow Hereditary Chiefs. He also stated any materials provided by them will be forwarded to you, with a short opportunity to respond. The same opportunity to respond to your submissions will be provided to Lake Babine Nation, the Gitxsan Treaty Society and the Gitanyow Hereditary Chiefs.
On March 23rd, the Company announced that it had submitted a report to the BCEAO, the Ministry of Energy and Mines and the Ministry of Environment in response to the Mount Polley Independent Technical Review Board Panel Report Recommendations in regards to the Mount Polley Tailing Storage Facility (TSF) failure. The report, prepared by Harvey McLeod of Klohn Crippen Berger Ltd (KCB), continues to support KCBs opinion that the Morrison project has been designed using Best Available Practices and can be safely constructed, operated, and closed to protect the environment. It also states that the design of the TSF uses Best Available Technologies that are appropriate for the site conditions. The Companys letter and the KCB report have been posted on the Companys website.
On April 17th, the responses from the Lake Babine Nation, the Gitxsan Treaty Society and the Gitanyow Hereditary Chiefs to the March 2015 report from KCB were posted on the BC Governments e-PIC site.
On May 8th, the Company submitted a response to the BC Environmental Assessment Office, the Ministry of Environment and the Ministry of Energy and Mines in response to the Aboriginal groups comments on both the Mount Polley Independent Technical Review Board Panel Report Recommendations and Pacific Bookers response to the Report. The response includes a letter, prepared by Harvey McLeod of Klohn Crippen Berger Ltd., which addresses the points raised in the April 2015 letters from the First Nations. The letters have been posted on the Companys website.
On July 8, 2015, the Company announced that the Minister of Environment and the Minister of Energy and Mines made a decision under Section 17(3)(c) of the Environmental Assessment Act regarding the application that the Company has made for an Environmental Assessment Certificate for the proposed Morrison Copper/Gold Project and ordered that the Morrison Project undergo further assessment.
On December 23, 2015, the Company submitted a response document to the July 2015 decision by the Minister of Environment and Minister of Energy and Mines that the Morrison Project undergo further assessment. The document has been acknowledged as received by Kevin Jardine, Associate Deputy Minister, Environmental Assessment Office.
Fiscal 2017 Work
On February 16, 2016, 3 Pacific Booker Minerals directors and Robin Junger, of McMillan LLP, attended a meeting in Prince George at the request of the Lake Babine Nation. Dominique Nouvet of the law firm Woodward and Company initiated the meeting arrangements on behalf of the LBN and was in attendance. The Chief and Councillors spoke from prepared notes as our directors were advised that the LBNs Chief and Council would not support the Morrison project.
The LBN prepared and released to a newspaper an announcement in advance of the meeting. On the same day as the meeting, the announcement was posted on the LBN website stating BC rejected this Mine for good reason in 2012. Contrary to that statement is the judgement from BCEAO of no significant adverse effects. PBM has hired professional technical firms who qualifications have been certified and who have stated that this mine can be constructed, operated and decommissioned in an environmentally responsible manner. That decision by the Ministers has been challenged and rescinded by the BC Supreme Court. The statement from the Ministers quoted in the news release shows part of the issue with the October 2012 decision. It notes the unacceptable environmental risks that would be created by building a mine directly beside Morrison Lake, at the headwaters of the Skeena River. Morrison Lake is not located at the headwaters of the Skeena River. It is located in the Skeena River Watershed, downstream of the headwaters. The release also comments on discharge treated mine effluent into the Lake. The material to be discharged into the lake is treated water. This release also states that the court case was won because the EAO had recommended that the Ministers reject it without informing PBM of this negative recommendation. On the contrary, the decision was reversed because PBM was not given the chance to challenge the negative assumptions that were used to support the decision. Until early September 2012, PBM was assured by the EAO reviewers that the information was sufficient, and that the decision should be a positive one.
PBM has also become aware of communications between the deciding Ministers and interested parties during the decision phase of the original review. These communications were not provided to PBM and may have contained items that were not factual but were accepted as fact. The Company always intended for the Morrison Mine, which is located in a historic mining area, to be operated in a way that will not impact in a negative manner on the surrounding communities. PBM preferred to hire local workers and use local suppliers during the time of the exploration of the Morrison property, and intended to continue that practice during the construction and operation of the mine.
On December 15, 2016, the Company announced the posting of a PowerPoint presentation, titled Misinformation in the 2012 Decision, on the Companys website. The presentation compiles a response to the Recommendation of the Executive Director, (Derek Sturko, Associate Deputy Minister and Executive Director EAO, dated September 20, 2012), detailed on the final two pages of the report. There are misstatements in the recommendation that have been addressed in subsequent responses to the BCEAO, but a concise, plain language response that can be readily understood by any viewer has not previously been presented.
On February 2, 2017, the Company announced the posting of a video on the Companys website. The video shows the Morrison Project location, the mine site plan (showing the proposed open pit and tailings management facilities and the changes in those items over the anticipated life of the mine), the processing plant and a tour of the main waterways between the project site and the Pacific Ocean.
In May of 2016, the Company restarted the water monitoring on the Morrison Lake in order to obtain the additional information of a full years data to report.
Fiscal 2018 Work
On February 2, 2017, the Company posted a video on the company website. The video shows the Morrison Project location, the mine site plan (showing the proposed open pit and tailings management facilities and the changes in those items over the anticipated life of the mine), the processing plant and a tour of the main waterways between the project site and the Pacific Ocean. The video is posted at:
http://www.pacificbooker.com/property.htm
.
In May 2017, the Company completed and reported on the water monitoring work on the Morrison Lake to provide a full year (May 2016 to May 2017) of consecutive data. The monitoring program was conducted using temperature loggers to obtain continuous concurrent measurements of Morrison Lake inflow/outflow temperature and lake thermal stratification to determine the lakes mixing patterns over a year-long timeframe. In addition to collecting continuous temperature data, profiles were collected regarding specific conductivity, dissolved oxygen (both % saturation and milligrams per litre), pH and temperature. The data collected during this thermal stratification study will provide information for detailed modelling of diffuser inputs to the lake and supports the stratification assumptions made by Dr. Laval and Dr. Lawrence during their independent environmental affects assessments of the proposed Morrison Lake diffuser. The report concludes that the Morrison Lake is a typical dimictic lake, with waters that mix from top to bottom during two mixing periods each year, with stratification beginning in the spring, strengthening through the summer and then breaking down through the fall. Stratification is the natural separation of water in the lake into layers due to the change in water's density with temperature. The 2016 Morrison Lake Thermal Stratification Study interim report and the Supplement (final) report can be found on the reports page of the Company website at:
http://www.pacificbooker.com/reports.htm
.
In April and May, during the BC Election campaign, the Company sent individual emails to 86 Liberal, 80 NDP and 79 Green Party Candidates on 14 days during the campaign and those emails were subsequently sent to approx. 1,000 subscribed individuals in our news list. The purpose of these plain language communications was to give the readers an understanding of our experience during the judgement phases of the Environmental Assessment process and the impact of the decisions made by the Ministers involved. The emails have been compiled in a pdf file and have been posted on the Company website at:
http://www.pacificbooker.com/pdf/2017%20Campaign.pdf
.
The Company has been following the news media coverage of the new provincial government and observing the processes used. PBM has noted that new individuals have been posted on the EAO Project Information website as Project Lead, Executive Project Director and Compliance & Enforcement Lead. The updated information is shown at the following link:
http://projects.eao.gov.bc.ca/p/morrison-copper-gold/detail
Fiscal 2019 Work
Management continued to communicate with the Members of the BC Legislative Assembly to provide information in support of the Morrison project benefits and in challenge to the misinformation that led to the decision to refuse to grant the EA Certificate in 2012 and the further information required decision of 2015.
In February 2018, PBM sent a letter to Premier John Horgan, Andrew Weaver (BC Green party leader), Andrew Wilkinson (BC Liberal party leader) and David Eby (Attorney General) and reminded them of the issues we face and requesting that they address the wrong done by the October 2012 unfair decision to refuse to grant the EAC for the Morrison project. In April of 2018, we also sent a letter to the same 4 individuals and ccd the Chief and Council of the LBN, advising the readers of the history of our relationship with the LBN. PBM received a response from David Eby which expressed the opinion that PBM had been given the opportunity to respond to the unfavourable recommendations of the Executive Director of the Environmental Assessment Office before the Ministers decision was made. He indicated that as PBM did not seek judicial review of the Ministers Order of July 7, 2015, the Order remains in effect. PBM replied to the Attorney General and reminded him that the Environmental Assessment Office (and the Working Group) was not mentioned as part of the reconsideration process in Justice Afflecks remedy and therefore, PBM does not agree with the statement that Pacific Booker has since been provided with an opportunity to make representations to the Ministers, as anticipated by Justice Afflecks decision. We also reminded Mr. Eby that when the reconsideration process was completed, the report titled Recommendations of the Executive Director (dated September 20, 2012) was included with the referral documents. That report should not have been included in the new referral as it was part of the decision that was quashed by the court in December 2013. PBM concluded the letter to Mr. Eby with the statement: All we are asking for is a fair and unbiased review. But with the Order from the previous Ministers still in effect, we have little hope of getting an unbiased review when we cant even get the EAO to clarify the precise nature of the environmental work required by Schedule A of the Section 17 Order.
In May of 2018, PBM completed an analysis of the documents that were submitted by Derek Sturko as the Recommendation of the Executive Director to the Ministers for the 2012 decision. The document has been posted at:
http://www.pacificbooker.com/reports.htm
. PBM sent a letter and supporting documents to George Heyman (Minister of Environment and Climate Change Strategy) and to Michelle Mungall (Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources) and ccd Premier John Horgan, Andrew Wilkinson, Dr. Andrew Weaver and David Eby. In our letter, we reminded the new Ministers who we are and included a little snapshot of our history in the EAO process. We also stated If the EAO had enough information to determine that the Morrison Project would not have any significant adverse effects, the further assessment decision appears to be a way to say no without actually saying no. In reference to the letters submitted to the original ministers as part of the original referral package, we would like to ask why those with opposing views can request a refusal of a certificate based on beliefs without having to support that belief with facts, but the proponents must have science based facts to support any opinion. We also asked, As the new ministers, we request that you give our application a fair and impartial review.
In June 2018, the BC Government announced that it was changing the environmental assessment process to ensure the legal rights of First Nations are respected and the publics expectation of a strong, transparent process is met. Changes to B.C.'s environmental assessment process are focused on enhancing public confidence by ensuring impacted First Nations, local communities and governments and the broader public can meaningfully participate in all stages of environmental assessment through a process that is robust, transparent, timely and predictable; advancing reconciliation with First Nations; and protecting the environment while offering clear pathways to sustainable project approvals by providing certainty of process and clarity of regulatory considerations including opportunities for early indications of the likelihood of success.
Management has been following the news/information released regarding the EA revitalization process. The new Bill 51 2018 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ACT was given Royal Assent on November 27th. One of the more significant changes includes a statement that before making a recommendation, the chief executive assessment officer (EAO) must seek to achieve, with respect to the recommendation, consensus with participating Indigenous nations and the reasons for the recommendations must accompany the documents. In the decision on application for environmental assessment certificate section, Section 4 (c) states that on receipt of a referral under subsection (1), the ministers must, within 30 days of receiving the referral, (i) issue an environmental assessment certificate to the proponent and attach any conditions to the certificate that the ministers consider necessary, including, without limitation, conditions respecting payments to be made for initiatives to mitigate effects of the project, or (ii) refuse to issue the certificate to the proponent. Please note that the option of further assessment required is no longer available.
In July 2018, the Lake Babine Nation elected a new chief and councillors. Gordon Alec is the new chief and many of the councillors are new to the position. PBM has already written to the new chief congratulating him on his win and stating that we would be very pleased to be able to meet with him at his convenience to introduce ourselves and to answer any questions he may have. In November 2018, PBM again wrote to Chief Alec and said I would prefer to meet with you "one on one" to be able to discuss the Morrison project. After we have come to an understanding of our matter, then we can reach out to an appropriately qualified individual to proceed with further arrangements and/or discussions, as necessary. We hope that you will consent to a meeting where we can discuss these matters. To date, we have not received a response from the Chief.
The Company has also been made aware of an online video posted by Raven Trust to raise funds for a legal challenge to "Save the Morrison". In July 2018, PBM sent a letter to Raven Trust to make them aware of some incorrect or misleading statements in the video and the text presented. The video can be found at:
https://raventrust.com/save-morrison-lake/
.
Anticipated Fiscal 2020 Work
The Company will continue its efforts to acquire the Environmental Assessment Certificate as required for the project.
Between February and April 2019, PBM has corresponded with Kevin Jardine, Associate Deputy Minister, Environmental Assessment Office. Mr. Jardine stated I note in your letter your desire to advance this Project. If that is the case, please advise, within 30 days of your receipt of this letter, when you will provide the draft SAIR for review. If I do not hear from you in this regard, or if you are unable to commit to a date by which you would provide the draft SAIR, then I will consider the appropriate next steps to ensure this proceeds in a timely manner or is otherwise concluded. In March, PBM said We will prepare the draft SAIR for review and expect that we will require 30 days to provide that document. We are now prepared to proceed with the hope and expectation that a meaningful two-way discussion on the necessary details will be part of the next phase in our long stay in the EA process. And in April, PBM submitted a first draft document and stated: Please find enclosed our first attempt at preparing the draft SAIR for review. We hope that this document will be a starting point for the preparation of a document that will meet the need dictated by the Section 17 order. We look forward to your feedback on this early version.
The Company estimates its expenditures for the anticipated work on the Morrison project for the year ending January 31, 2020 will be CDN$50,000 without receiving the EAC or CDN$1,000,000 if the EAC is received during the fiscal year.
Hearne Hill Property
The Hearne Hill property lies adjacent to the Companys Morrison project as described above. Hearne Hill is represented by various mineral claims covered by the
Mineral Tenure Act
which were acquired from Arms-length individuals. The Company has a 100% interest in the Hearne Hill property, subject to a 4% NSR.
How Acquired
The Hearne Hill property was originally acquired by the Company in 1992. The Company agreed to purchase a 100% interest in the Hearne Hill claims from three arms-length individuals under the following terms:
1)
$60,000 in total option payments;
2)
$100,000 in royalty payments per year;
3)
Issuance of 40,000 common shares in 4 tranches of 10,000 shares each as certain milestones were met.
All option payments have been made and all the common shares have been issued. The Company currently has a 100% interest in the property, subject to a 4% NSR to the vendors and required royalty payments of $100,000 per year. The annual royalty payments may offset any net smelter royalty obligations, and the NSR may be purchased by the Company for a cash payment of $2,000,000 at any time.
During fiscal 2007, the Company was named in an action filed with the British Columbia Supreme Court by Lorne Spence, one of the original optionors of the Hearne Hill property. Mr. Spences action sought the return of certain mineral claims, or unspecified damages in the alternative. Mr. Spence also sought to include the return of the Companys Morrison property as part of the suit. In June 2007, the Supreme Court of British Columbia dismissed the application to include the Morrison property. On April 20, 2009, the Company announced that a settlement had been reached in the action filed against the Company in the BC Supreme Court. Pursuant to the settlement, the Company will retain the right, title and interest in and to all claims that were the subject of the action, with the exception of Mineral Tenure No. 242812 (the Hearne 1 Claim) and Mineral Tenure No. 242813 (the Hearne 2 Claim), which were transferred to the plaintiff optionors. Pursuant to the settlement, no cash payment was made to the plaintiffs and all claims in the action have been dismissed.
Property Geology Hearne Hill
The property is underlain by volcanic rocks of the Lower to Middle Jurassic Hazelton Group rocks which are intruded by porphyritic rocks in a series of northeasterly trending dykes. The intrusive composition is that of diorite or quartz diorite. Several phases of intrusions are known, including some post mineral dykes.
Chalcopyrite, bornite and molybdenite occur as fracture fillings and disseminations in the biotite feldspar porphyry and the surrounding wallrock. The mineralization is due to a large porphyry copper system. The erratic nature of the copper distribution is caused by late stage intrusions. The volcanic rocks, in contrast to the late stage BFP, are higher in grade.
There are two known bodies of mineralized breccia. The southern body, known as the Chapman zone, has been known for several years, and the northern body, known as the Peter Bland zone, was found by Pacific Booker during its 1995 drill program. These are dilational zones of brecciation which are surrounded by areas of fracturing which carry high grade mineralization. Gold is enriched in the breccia relative to the stockwork mineralization.
The breccias in the Bland zone are also related to a principal fracture system which dips steeply to the east. As in the Chapman zone, copper/gold/silver mineralization occurs infilling what were originally voids between the breccia casts, but areas of high grade fracture filling mineralization also occurs in altered volcanic rocks in close proximity to the breccia zones. The width of the enriched core of the Hearne Hill porphyry system averages approximately 50 meters at surface and appears to widen at depth.
Exploration History
Tro-Buttle Exploration undertook a large scale soil sampling and magnetometer survey east of Morrison Lake on Hearne Hill. In 1967, while excavating a bulldozer trench on the most prominent anomaly on the western flank of Hearne Hill, a 1.5 meter boulder of brecciated rock cemented with chalcopyrite was unearthed. Based upon that discovery, Texas Gulf Sulphur optioned the property that year and undertook a systematic geological assessment of Hearne Hill. The program included 12 diamond drill holes totaling 1942 meters. Although drilling intersected only a small section of mineralized breccia, a low-grade porphyry deposit was partially delineated. As the copper grades were considered sub-economic, Texas Gulf declined to pay a large option payment and returned the property to Tro-Buttle in early 1968. Canadian Superior Exploration then acquired an option on the property and performed magnetometer, IP, geological and geochemical surveys, followed by a percussion drill program in 1969. Results were not sufficient for either Canadian Superior or Tro-Buttle to maintain the property, and the property reverted back to the government.
No exploration was conducted at Hearne Hill from 1969 to 1989. In 1989, prospectors Chapman and Bland staked the property and optioned it to Noranda as part of Norandas search for additional ore for processing at the Bell Mine. Noranda conducted an exploration program on Hearne Hill including a small diamond drill program which succeeded in discovering a small breccia pipe, but the potential copper and gold resource did not meet Norandas current requirements and the property option was dropped in 1990. Chapman and Bland continued to explore the property on their own and continued to drill the breccia pipe. Results were good, and the property holders were in the process of permitting the property for production when Noranda closed the Bell Mine in April 1992.
In December 1992, Pacific Booker optioned the Hearne Hill property. In 1993, the Company began its exploration at Hearne Hill with a magnetometer survey, geological mapping, trenching and follow-up percussion drilling. From 1993 to 1997, the Company completed several phases of exploration on the property, including drilling 143 diamond drill holes. The Company was successful in discovering the higher-grade Chapman and Bland zones, as well as the lower grade porphyry envelope. In 1997, the Company engaged Giroux Consultants to prepare a preliminary resource estimate for the project. Additional drilling will be necessary in order to upgrade the indicated resource to the Proven category for a feasibility study. Since 1997, Pacific Booker has concentrated most of its exploration efforts on the adjacent Morrison property. Because the Company is currently focused on the feasibility study at Morrison and the Hearne Hill resource has not been determined to be economic, management wrote down the remaining value of the Hearne Hill property during the fiscal year ended January 31, 2006.
Item 5.
Operating and Financial Review and Prospects
Overview
The Company's financial statements are stated in Canadian Dollars (C$) and are prepared in accordance with International Financial Reporting Standards for fiscal years ended January 31, 2019 and 2018. The value of the U.S. Dollar in relationship to the Canadian Dollar was $1.31 as of January 31, 2019.
The Company has since inception financed its activities through the distribution of equity capital. The Company anticipates having to raise additional funds by equity issuance in the next several years, as all of the Companys properties are at the exploration stage. The timing of such offerings is dependent upon the success of the Companys exploration program and feasibility study as well as the general economic climate.
As a mineral explorer in the Province of British Columbia, the Company was eligible to receive British Columbia Mining Tax Credits for grass-roots exploration expenditures. These credits are a percentage of the Companys eligible exploration expenditures made each year. The credits are refundable annually, and application for reimbursement is made along with the Companys annual Federal tax return. After a review by the tax authorities, the Canadian Federal government, on behalf of the British Columbia Provincial government, issues a check for those credits. Since the refund process typically takes about a year, the Company accounts for these tax credits as a Receivable on its balance sheet upon the Company attaining reasonable assurance of collection from the Canadian Federal Government. At January 31, 2017, the Company had no receivable on its Balance Sheet for the mining tax credit because the exploration work done is no longer considered grass-roots exploration.
The Company typically contracts with outside suppliers for the majority of its exploration work. In order to ensure the availability of these contractors, the Company in the past has maintained cash deposits with some of these suppliers as an advance against anticipated payments for exploration work performed. The Company accounts for these payments when made as Exploration Advances on its balance sheet. As these contractors perform the exploration work, the amounts of the advances are deducted from any amounts owed to the contractors and are recorded by the Company as deferred exploration costs.
Results of Operations
Year Ended 1/31/2019 vs. Year Ended 1/31/2018
The net loss for the year ended January 31, 2019 was ($283,552), or ($0.02) per share, compared to a loss of ($400,029), or ($0.03) per share for the year ended January 31, 2018. The decreased loss in the current year included an increase in Share based payment expense (previously called Stock-based Compensation expense) of ($75,426) compared to ($66,419) in the prior year, with the increase due to a longer term and a higher risk free interest rate in the calculation of the fair value of stock options granted which vested on granting in June 2018; a decrease in Professional Fees from ($69,942) to ($46,800), reflecting the reduced cost for legal fees in regards to the Freedom of Information (FOI) requests and other legal matters; a reduced amount in 2019 for accounting/management services provided by Ruth Swan; an increase in Office Rent from ($77,444) to ($79,172); an increase in Travel costs from ($10,599) to ($15,848), reflecting a small increase in activity since the denial in October 2012; a decrease in Shareholder information and promotion costs from ($25,395) to ($22,430), reflecting the decrease in activity; a decrease in Telephone costs from ($4,946) to ($4,889), due to a service call in the prior year; a decrease in Depreciation from ($3,596) to ($3,045); a decrease in Filing and Transfer agents fees from ($29,198) to ($19,849), due to the private placement fees in the prior year; an increase in Finance income from $704 to $811; a decrease in Office and miscellaneous from ($16,658) to ($12,190), reflecting decreased need for supplies; a decrease in Directors fees from ($11,500) to ($11,000); an increase in the gain on Foreign exchange from ($1,880) to $7,411; and a decrease in Consulting Fees from ($20,900) to ($1,125), reflecting fees paid to Victor Eng and a reduction in fees paid to Erik Tornquist for activities not related to the Morrison project.
Year Ended 1/31/2018 vs. Year Ended 1/31/2017
The net loss for the year ended January 31, 2018 was ($400,029), or ($0.03) per share, compared to a loss of ($2,438,331), or ($0.19) per share for the year ended January 31, 2017. The decreased loss in the current year included a decrease Share based payment expense (previously called Stock-based Compensation expense) to ($66,419) compared to ($2,079,010) in the prior year, with the decrease due to a reduced number of stock options granted which vested on granting in February 2017; a decrease in Professional fees from ($72,245) to ($69,942), reflecting the reduced cost for legal fees in regards to the FOI requests and other legal matters, offset by an additional amount in 2018 for accounting/management services provided by Ruth Swan; and a decrease in Office Rent from ($79,596) to ($77,444); and an increase in Travel costs from ($7,353) to ($10,599), reflecting a small decrease in activity since the denial in October 2012; and a decrease in Shareholder information and promotion costs from ($26,982) to ($25,395), reflecting the decrease in activity; and a decrease in Telephone costs from ($5,636) to ($4,946), due to a service call in the prior year; and a decrease in Depreciation from ($4,399) to ($3,596); a decrease in Filing and Transfer agents fees from ($48,446) to ($29,198), due to the decrease in NYSE MKT fees; a decrease in Finance income from $784 to $704; a decrease in Office and miscellaneous from ($18,842) to ($16,658), reflecting decreased need for supplies; an increase in Directors fees from ($11,000) to ($11,500); and a decrease in the loss on Foreign exchange from ($2,931) to ($1,880); and an increase in Consulting Fees from ($675) to ($20,900), reflecting fees paid to Victor Eng and Erik Tornquist for activities not related to the Morrison project.
Year Ended 1/31/2017 vs. Year Ended 1/31/2016
The net loss for the year ended January 31, 2017 was ($2,438,331), or ($0.19) per share, compared to a loss of ($683,137), or ($0.05) per share for the year ended January 31, 2016. The increased loss in the current year included a increase in Share based payment expense (previously called Stock-based Compensation expense) to ($2,079,010) compared to ($204,914) in the prior year, with the increase due the end of the quarterly vesting stock options granted in September 2015 and for the options granted in July 2016; an increase in Professional fees from ($47,599) to ($72,245), reflecting the cost for the legal counsel in regards to the Freedom of Information requests; and a decrease in Office Rent from ($79,991) to ($79,596); and a decrease in Travel costs from ($15,512) to ($7,353), reflecting the decrease in activity since the denial in October 2012; and a decrease in Shareholder information and promotion costs from ($38,024) to ($26,982), reflecting the decrease in activity; and an increase in Telephone costs from ($5,411) to ($5,636), due to a service call; and a decrease in Depreciation from ($5,364) to ($4,399); a decrease in Filing and Transfer agents fees from ($83,179) to ($48,446), due to the voluntary delisting from NYSE MKT; a decrease in Finance income from $967 to $784; a decrease in Office and miscellaneous from ($61,071) to ($18,842), reflecting decreased insurance cost from the ending of the Directors and Officers insurance; a decrease in Directors fees from ($13,000) to ($11,000); and a decrease in the gain on Foreign exchange from $2,336 to ($2,931).
Critical Accounting Policies and Estimates
Management is required to make judgments, estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities at the date of the consolidated financial statements and the reported amounts of revenues and expenses during the reporting period. On a regular basis, management evaluates its estimates and assumptions. The estimates are based on historical experience, past results, and on various other assumptions that are believed to be reasonable under the circumstances, the results of which form that basis for making judgments about the carrying values of assets, including mineral properties, and liabilities that are not readily apparent from other sources. Actual results may differ from these estimates due to events or circumstances which may be beyond the control of the Company.
The financial statements have been prepared in accordance with International Accounting Standard (IFRS) issued by the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) and Interpretations of the International Financial Reporting Interpretations Committee (IFRIC).
The Companys financial statements have been prepared on a historical cost basis except for certain financial instruments which are stated at fair value.
The accounting policies set out below have been applied consistently, to all periods presented in these financial statements. The significant accounting policies adopted by the Company are as follows:
(a)
Foreign currency translation
The monetary assets and liabilities of the Company that are denominated in foreign currencies are translated to the functional currency at the rate of exchange at the reporting date and non-monetary items are translated using the exchange rate at the date of the transaction. Revenues and expenses are translated at the exchange rates approximating those in effect at the time of the transaction. Exchange gains and losses arising on translation are included in the statements of comprehensive loss.
(b)
Cash and cash equivalents
Cash includes cash on hand and demand deposits. Cash equivalents includes short-term, highly liquid investments that are readily convertible to known amounts of cash and have a maturity date of less than 90 days and are subject to an insignificant risk of change in value.
(c)
Mineral property interests and Exploration and evaluation assets
All costs related to the acquisition of mineral properties are capitalized as Mineral Property interest. The recorded cost of mineral property interests is based on cash paid and the fair market value of share consideration issued for mineral property interest acquisitions.
All pre-exploration costs, i.e. costs incurred prior to obtaining the legal right to undertake exploration and evaluation activities on an area of interest, are expensed as incurred. Once the legal right to explore has been acquired, exploration and evaluation expenditures are capitalized in respect of each identifiable area of interest until the technical feasibility and commercial viability of extracting a mineral resource are demonstrable. Costs incurred include appropriate technical overheads. Exploration and evaluation assets are carried at historical cost, less any impairment losses recognized.
When technical feasibility and commercial viability of extracting a mineral resource are demonstrable for an area of interest, the Company stops capitalizing exploration and evaluation costs for that area, tests recognized exploration and evaluation assets for impairment and reclassifies any unimpaired exploration and evaluation assets either as tangible or intangible mine development assets according to the nature of the assets. Mineral properties are reviewed for impairment whenever events or changes in circumstances indicate that its carrying amount may not be recoverable. If, after management review, it is determined that the carrying amount of a mineral property is impaired, that property is written down to its estimated net realizable value. When a property is abandoned, all related costs are written off to operations.
(d)
Impairment
(i)
Financial assets
The Company assesses on a forward-looking basis, the expected credit losses associated with its assets, even if no actual loss events have taken place. In addition to past events and current conditions, reasonable and supportable forward-looking information that is available without undue cost or effort is considered in determining impairment. One model applies to all financial instruments subject to impairment testing.
(ii)
Non-financial assets
The carrying amounts of equipment, vehicles and furniture are reviewed at each reporting date to determine whether there is any indication of impairment.
The carrying amounts of mining properties and exploration and evaluation assets are assessed for impairment only when indicators of impairment exist, typically when one of the following circumstances applies:
·
Exploration rights have / will expire in the near future;
·
No future substantive exploration expenditures are budgeted;
·
No commercially viable quantities discovered and exploration and evaluation activities will be discontinued;
·
Exploration and evaluation assets are unlikely to be fully recovered from successful development or sale. If any such indication exists, then the assets recoverable amount is estimated.
Mining properties and exploration and evaluation assets are also assessed for impairment upon the transfer of exploration and evaluation assets to development assets regardless of whether facts and circumstances indicate that the carrying amount of the exploration and evaluation assets is in excess of their recoverable amount.
The recoverable amount of an asset (or cash-generating unit) is the greater of its value in use and its fair value less costs to sell. In assessing value in use, the estimated future cash flows are discounted to their present value using a pre-tax discount rate that reflects current market assessments of the time value of money and the risks specific to the asset. For the purpose of impairment testing, assets that cannot be tested individually are grouped together into the smallest group of assets that generates cash inflows from continuing use that are largely independent of the cash inflows of other assets or groups of assets (the "cash-generating unit", or "CGU"). The level identified by the group for the purposes of testing exploration and evaluation assets for impairment corresponds to each mining property.
An impairment loss is recognized if the carrying amount of an asset or its CGU exceeds its estimated recoverable amount. Impairment losses are recognized in profit or loss. Impairment losses recognized in respect of CGUs are allocated to the assets in the unit (group of units) on a pro rata basis.
Impairment losses recognized in prior periods are assessed at each reporting date for any indications that the loss has decreased or no longer exists. An impairment loss is reversed if there has been a change in the estimates used to determine the recoverable amount. An impairment loss is reversed only to the extent that the assets carrying amount does not exceed the carrying amount that would have been determined, net of depreciation or amortization, if no impairment loss had been recognized.
(e)
Restoration and close down provision
The Company is required to have a bond in place in an amount determined by the Ministry of Mines to provide for the costs of reclamation of the site disturbances. This bond shows as Reclamation deposit in the assets on the statement of financial position. The reclamation obligation is generally considered to have been incurred when mine assets are constructed or the ground environment is disturbed at the project location.
The Company also estimates the timing of the outlays, which is subject to change depending on continued operation or newly discovered reserves. Additional disturbances or changes in restoration obligations will be recognized when they occur.
The Company has determined that it has no additional restoration obligations as at January 31, 2019.
(f)
Equipment, vehicles and furniture
Equipment, vehicles and furniture are recorded at cost. Depreciation is calculated on the residual value, which is the historical cost of an asset less the prior allowances made. Depreciation methods, useful life and residual value are reviewed at each financial year-end and adjusted, if appropriate. Where an item of equipment, vehicles and furniture is comprised of major components with different useful lives, the components are accounted for as separate items. The Company currently provides for depreciation annually as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Automobile
|
30% declining balance
|
|
Computer equipment
|
30% to 45% declining balance
|
|
Office furniture and equipment
|
20% declining balance
|
(g)
Option based payments
The Company has an equity settled stock option plan that grants options to buy common shares of the Company to Eligible Persons (as defined by the policies of the TSX Venture Exchange and/or National Instrument 45-106). The fair value of stock options are estimated at the measurement date, using the Black-Scholes option pricing model and recorded as option based payments expense in the statement of comprehensive loss and credited to contributed surplus within shareholders equity, over the vesting period of the stock options, based on the Companys estimate of the number of stock options that will eventually vest.
(h)
Private Placement Unit Offerings
The Company engages in equity financing transactions to obtain the funds necessary to continue operations. These equity financing transactions involve issuance of common shares or units (Units). A Unit comprises a specific number of common shares and a specific number of share purchase warrants (Warrants) at a set price. The Warrants are exercisable into additional common shares prior to expiry at a price and on the terms and conditions stipulated by the Financing Agreement.
Warrants that are part of units are valued using residual value method which involves comparing the selling price of the Units to the Companys share price on the announcement date of the financing. The market value is then applied to the common share purchase (Share Capital), and any residual amount is assigned to the warrants (Warrant Reserve).
Warrants that are issued as payments for agency fees or other transaction costs are accounted for as share-based payments and are recognized in equity.
Under IAS 32, these warrants are an equity instrument as they are not issued in exchange for goods or services and are exercisable for a fixed amount of cash, denominated in the functional currency. Warrants classified as equity instruments are not subsequently re-measured for changes in fair value.
If a warrant holder exercises the option to convert the warrants into common shares, the accounting for the exercise will include the transfer of the Warrant Reserve value to the Share Capital account. The accounting for unexercised warrants will transfer the Warrant Reserve value to the Contributed Surplus account at the date the warrants expire unexercised.
(i)
Loss per share
The basic and diluted loss per share shown in these statements is calculated using the weighted-average number of common shares outstanding during the year.
The weighted average number of common shares outstanding for the year ended January 31, 2019 does not include the 1,575,565 (2018 2,004,965) warrants outstanding and the 2,625,000 (2018 2,525,000) stock options outstanding as the inclusion of these amounts would reduce the loss per share amount and are therefore considered anti-dilutive.
(j)
Income taxes
Income tax expense comprises current and deferred tax. Income tax is recognized in the statements of comprehensive loss except to the extent it relates to items recognized in other comprehensive income or directly in equity.
(i)
Current tax
Current tax expense is based on the results for the period as adjusted for items that are not taxable or not deductible. Current tax is calculated using tax rates and laws that were enacted or substantively enacted at the end of the reporting period. Management periodically evaluates positions taken in tax returns with respect to situations in which applicable tax regulation is subject to interpretation. Provisions are established where appropriate on the basis of amounts expected to be paid to the tax authorities.
(ii)
Deferred tax
Deferred taxes are the taxes expected to be payable or recoverable on the difference between the carrying amounts of assets in the statement of financial position and their corresponding tax bases used in the computation of taxable profit, and are accounted for using the statement of financial position liability method. Deferred tax liabilities are generally recognized for all taxable temporary differences between the carrying amounts of assets and their corresponding tax bases. Deferred tax assets are recognized to the extent that it is probable that taxable profits will be available against which deductible temporary differences can be utilized. Such assets and liabilities are not recognized if the temporary difference arises from the initial recognition of goodwill or from the initial recognition (other than in a business combination) of other assets in a transaction that affects neither the taxable profit nor the accounting profit.
Deferred tax liabilities:
·
are generally recognized for all taxable temporary differences;
·
are recognized for taxable temporary differences arising on investments in subsidiaries except where the reversal of the temporary difference can be controlled and it is probable that the difference will not reverse in the foreseeable future; and
·
are not recognized on temporary differences that arise from goodwill which is not deductible for tax purposes.
Deferred tax assets:
·
are recognized to the extent it is probable that taxable profits will be available against which the deductible temporary differences can be utilized; and
·
are reviewed at the end of the reporting period and reduced to the extent that it is no longer probable that sufficient taxable profits will be available to allow all or part of an asset to be recovered.
(k)
Financial Instruments
The Company adopted IFRS 9 Financial Instruments effective February 1, 2018. Under IFRS 9, the Company recognizes all financial assets initially at fair value and classifies them into one of the following measurement categories: fair value through profit or loss (FVTPL), fair value through other comprehensive (FVTOCI) or amortized cost, as appropriate. On adoption of IFRS 9, there was no accounting impact to the financial statements and there were no changes in the carrying values of any of the Companys financial assets.
Financial liabilities are initially recognized at fair value and classified as either FVTPL or amortized cost, as appropriate.
Financial assets are derecognized when the rights to receive cash flows from the investments have expired or have been transferred and the Company has transferred substantially all risks and rewards of ownership.
At each reporting date, the Company assesses whether there is objective evidence that a financial asset has been impaired.
The Company has classified each financial instrument into the following categories:
|
|
|
|
|
Financial Asset or Liability
|
Category (IAS 39) old
|
Category (IFRS 9) new
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents
|
FVTPL
|
FVTPL
|
|
Receivables
|
Loans and receivables
|
Loans and receivables
|
|
Reclamation deposits
|
Loans and receivables
|
Loans and receivables
|
|
Accounts payable and accrued liabilities
|
Other liabilities
|
Other liabilities
|
|
Amounts owing to related parties
|
Other liabilities
|
Other liabilities
|
Financial instruments measured at fair value are classified into one of the three levels in the fair value hierarchy according to the relative reliability of the inputs used to estimate the fair values. The three levels of the fair value hierarchy are:
·
Level 1 Unadjusted quoted prices in active markets for identical assets or liabilities;
·
Level 2 Inputs other than quoted prices that are observable for the asset or liability either directly or indirectly;
·
Level 3 Inputs that are not based on observable market data.
(l)
Equity Instruments
Equity instruments issued by the Company are recorded at the proceeds received net of direct issuance costs. The Company has its common shares as equity instruments.
(m)
Leases
Leases in terms of which the Company assumes substantially all the risks and rewards of ownership are classified as finance leases. Upon initial recognition, the leased asset is measured at an amount equal to the lower of its fair value and the present value of the minimum lease payments. Subsequent to initial recognition, the asset is accounted for in accordance with the accounting policy applicable to that asset. Leases in terms of which the Company does not assume substantially all the risks and rewards of ownership are classified as operating leases, which are recognised as an expense on a straight-line basis over the lease term. The Company currently does not have any finance leases.
(n)
Provisions
A provision is recognized if, as a result of a past event, the Company has a present legal or constructive obligation that can be estimated reliably, and it is probable that an outflow of economic benefits will be required to settle the obligation. Provisions are determined by discounting the expected future cash flows at a pre-tax rate that reflects the current market assessments of the time value of money and the risks specific to the liability. The unwinding of the discount is recognized as a finance cost. The Company has not recognized any legal or constructive obligations based on past events during the current period.
(o)
Finance costs
Finance costs comprise interest expense on borrowings and the reversal of the discount on provisions. Borrowing costs that are not directly attributable to the acquisition, construction or production of a qualifying asset are recognized in the income statement using the effective interest method. The Company currently does not have any finance costs.
Recently adopted accounting standards, and accounting standards issued but not yet effective
Certain pronouncements were issued by the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) or the International Financial Reporting Interpretations Committee (IFRIC) and that are mandatory for current or future accounting periods have been discussed below. Pronouncements that are not applicable or do not have a significant impact or do not have a significant impact or for any items that are in effect and the adoption of the standard had no impact to the Company, may have been excluded from the discussion below.
(a)
IFRS 2 - Share Based Payments
In June 2016, the IASB issued amendments to IFRS 2, clarifying how to account for certain types of share-based payment transactions, including the accounting for the effects of vesting and non-vesting conditions on the measurement of cash-settled share-based payments, accounting for share-based payment transactions with a net settlement feature for withholding tax obligations, and accounting for modifications to the terms and conditions of a share-based payment that changes the classification of the share-based payment transaction from cash-settled to equity-settled. The IFRS 2 amendments are effective for annual periods beginning on or after January 1, 2018. The implementation of amendments to IFRS 2 had no accounting impact to the Companys January 31, 2019 financial statements.
(b)
IFRS 15 Revenue from Contracts with Customers
In May 2014, the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) issued IFRS 15 Revenue from Contracts with Customers, which specifies how and when an entity will recognize revenue as well as requiring entities to provide users of financial statements with more informative, relevant disclosures. IFRS 15 was effective for annual periods beginning on or after January 1, 2018. Given the Company does not have revenue, the adoption of IFRS 15 did not have an impact on the Companys financial statements.
(c)
IFRS 16 Leases
In January 2016, the IASB issued IFRS 16, replacing IAS 17, Leases. IFRS 16 provides a single lessee accounting model and requires the lessee to recognize assets and liabilities for all leases on its balance sheet providing the reader with greater transparency of an entitys lease obligations. IFRS 16 is effective for annual periods beginning on or after January 1, 2019 with early adoption provided. The implementation of amendments to IFRS 16 is not expected to have an impact to the Companys January 31, 2020 financial statements.
Liquidity and Capital Resources
The Companys working capital position as of January 31, 2019, the end of the most recent fiscal year, was $619,755. Subsequent to the year end through May 8, 2019, the Company has not issued any common shares pursuant to a private placement or to the exercise of stock options. The Company has issued 1,575,565 common shares on exercise of warrants for gross proceeds of $1,575,565. The Companys current working capital and proceeds from the anticipated exercises of options and/or warrants are expected to be sufficient for the fiscal 2019 unless the Company begins the planning and or construction phase of the Morrison project. Budgeted amounts of $50,000 for the ongoing work on the Morrison project and fiscal 2020s estimated General and Administrative expenses of $600,000 (of which approximately $11,000 are non cash items).
Although the Company expects to have sufficient working capital for its planned property expenditures and general and administrative expenses for fiscal 2020, the Company has no cash flow from operations, and additional funds will likely be required for fiscal 2020 when the Company proceeds with the next phase in the Morrison project. The Companys ability to continue as a going concern depends upon its ability to raise additional funds to meet its business objectives. If the Company is unable to raise additional funds to meet its requirements, it may be forced to suspend the work process, or cease operations altogether.
Additional funding will be necessary to fund any development on the Morrison Project. Specific funding requirements are dependent upon the mine plans of the feasibility study and at this time management cannot predict the amount of funds needed or the timing of any equity and/or debt financings.
The Company has financed its operations through the issuance of common shares. The following private placements have been completed in the last 5 fiscal years.
Table No. 4
Private Placements
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fiscal Year
Ended
January 31
|
Type of Share Issuance
|
Number of Common Shares Issued
|
Price
|
Total Proceeds
|
|
|
|
|
|
2015
|
None
|
Nil
|
Nil
|
Nil
|
|
|
|
|
|
2016
|
Private Placement
|
277,800
|
$ 2.00
|
$555,600
|
|
|
|
|
|
2017
|
Private Placement
|
581,000
|
$ 1.00
|
$581,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
2018
|
Private Placement
|
1,015,502
|
$ 0.50
|
$507,751
|
|
Private Placement
|
560,063
|
$ 0.80
|
$448,050
|
|
|
|
|
|
2019
|
None
|
Nil
|
Nil
|
Nil
|
Year Ended January 31, 2019
The Companys Working Capital as of January 31, 2019 was $619,755. During the year, Operating Activities used cash of ($195,256). In addition to the fiscal years net loss of ($283,552), other non-cash charges included Share-based payments expense of ($75,426) and Amortization of ($3,045). Changes in non-cash working capital items included decrease in Receivables of $3,118, decrease in Prepaids and Deposits of ($4,459), increase in amounts owing to related parties of ($13), and increase in Accounts Payable and Accrued Liabilities of ($2,235). Investing Activities used cash of ($10,132), which included cash used for Deferred Exploration of ($10,132), and purchase of Equipment, Vehicles or Furniture of ($nil). Financing Activities provided cash of $73,500, with the entire amount from the Issuance of Capital Stock.
During the year, the Company issued 73,500 common shares pursuant to exercise of warrants for proceeds of $73,500.
Year Ended January 31, 2018
The Companys Working Capital as of January 31, 2018 was $757,336. During the year, Operating Activities used cash of ($379,025). In addition to the fiscal years net loss of ($400,029), other non-cash charges included Share-based payments expense of ($66,419) and Amortization of ($3,596). Changes in non-cash working capital items included increase in Receivables of $619, increase in Prepaids and Deposits of ($30,244), decrease in amounts owing to related parties of ($8,861), and decrease in Accounts Payable and Accrued Liabilities of ($8,861). Investing Activities used cash of ($55,616), which included cash used for Deferred Exploration of ($52,147), and purchase of Equipment, Vehicles or Furniture of ($3,469). Financing Activities provided cash of $955,801, with the entire amount from the Issuance of Capital Stock.
During the year, the Company issued 1,575,565 common shares pursuant to private placements for proceeds of $955,801.
On September 13th, the Company completed a private placement originally announced on July 20th with 1,015,502 units at $0.50 per unit placed for total proceeds of $507,751. Each unit consisted of one common share and one share purchase warrant, with each warrant exercisable into one additional common share at a price of $1.00 until September 13, 2019.
The warrants also contain an acceleration clause. If the common shares close at a price of $1.40 or greater for a period of 20 consecutive days, the Company may accelerate the expiry date of the warrants by providing notice to the warrant holders which would set the expiry date on the 30
th
day after the date on which notice is given by the Company.
On November 6th, the Company completed a private placement originally announced on September 14
th
. 560,063 units priced at $0.80 per unit were placed for total proceeds of $448,051. The units consisted of one common share and one share purchase warrant, with each warrant exercisable into one additional common share at a price of $1.00 until November 6, 2019. to purchase an additional share at a price of $1.00 exercisable for two years. The warrants also contain an acceleration clause. If the common shares close at a price of $1.40 or greater for a period of 20 consecutive days, the Company may accelerate the expiry date of the warrants by providing notice to the warrant holders which would set the expiry date on the 30
th
day after the date on which notice is given by the Company.
On September 18th, the Company amended the 138,900 Warrants issued as part of the Private Placement completed in September 2015. The Exercise price was reduced from $2.50 to $1.00 and the expiry date extended to September 21, 2019. The warrants also contain an acceleration clause. If the common shares close at a price of $1.20 or greater for a period of 10 consecutive days, the expiry date will accelerate, and the warrants would expire on the 31
st
day afterwards. Subsequent to the end of the fiscal year, 73,500 of these warrants were exercised and 65,400 expired unexercised.
Year Ended January 31, 2017
The Companys Working Capital as of January 31, 2017 was $178,037. During the year, Operating Activities used cash of ($338,891). In addition to the fiscal years net loss of ($2,438,331), other non-cash charges included Share-based payments expense of ($2,079,010) and Amortization of ($4,399). Changes in non-cash working capital items included decrease in Receivables of $2,039, decrease in Prepaids and Deposits of ($2,869), increase in amounts owing to related parties of ($3,054), and increase in Accounts Payable and Accrued Liabilities of ($8,069). Investing Activities used cash of ($242,672), which was cash used for Deferred Exploration. Financing Activities provided cash of $581,000, with the entire amount from the Issuance of Capital Stock.
During the year, the Company issued 581,000 common shares pursuant to a private placement of common stock units at a price of $1.00 per unit for proceeds of $581,000. Each unit consisted of one common share and one common share purchase warrant. Each warrant is exercisable into one-half of a common share at a price of $1.50 per share until June 27, 2018.
Variation in Operating Results
The Company derives finance (previously called interest) income on its bank deposits, which depend on the Company's ability to raise funds.
Management periodically, through the exploration process, reviews results both internally and externally through mining related professionals. Decisions to abandon, reduce or expand exploration efforts is based upon many factors including general and specific assessments of mineral deposits, the likelihood of increasing or decreasing those deposits, land costs, estimates of future mineral prices, potential extraction methods and costs, the likelihood of positive or negative changes to the environment, permitting, taxation, labor and capital costs. There cannot be a pre-determined hold period for any property as geological or economic circumstances render each property unique.
The Company's financial statements are stated in Canadian Dollars (CDN$) and are prepared in accordance with International Financial Reporting Standards for fiscal years ended January 31, 2019 and 2018. The value of the Canadian Dollar in relationship to the US Dollar was $1.31 as of January 31, 2019.
Research and Development
The Company conducts no Research and Development activities, nor is it dependent upon any patents or licenses.
Trend Information
The Company knows of no trends, uncertainties, demands, commitments or events that are reasonably likely to have a material effect on the Companys operations or financial condition.
Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements
Under the Agreement with Noranda (now Falconbridge Ltd., a unit of Xstrata Plc.) dated April 19, 2004, the Company is obligated to issue 250,000 common shares at a minimum fair-value of $1,000,000 to Falconbridge on or before commencement of commercial production. If at the time of issuance the Companys common share price is below $4.00 per share, the Company is obligated to pay, in cash, the difference between $1,000,000 and the value of the 250,000 common shares issued. This amount is figured by the average trading price which is less than $4.00 per share multiplied by 250,000 common shares.
The Company has signed an agreement with a hunting lodge in the area of the project, which, conditional on the receipt of applicable permits and licences, requires the Company to pay $100,000 (plus sales tax if required) as full and final compensation for any loss of business which the lodge may suffer in connection with the construction, development and overall operation of the mine. This payment is required to be made three months prior to commencement of construction.
Tabular Disclosure of Contractual Obligations
The Company currently owns a 100% interest in the Morrison Property. The Companys remaining contractual obligation to Falconbridge is to issue 250,000 common shares at a minimum fair-value of $1,000,000 to Falconbridge on or before commencement of commercial production as discussed under Off-balance Sheet Arrangement above.
The Company leases its Vancouver office, which runs through January 31, 2020.
Table No. 5
Contractual Obligations
As of February 1, 2019
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Payments due by period
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
less
than 1
year
|
1 3
years
|
3 5
Years
|
more
than 5
years
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Long-Term Debt Obligations
|
|
None
|
None
|
None
|
None
|
None
|
Capital Lease Obligations
|
|
None
|
None
|
None
|
None
|
None
|
Operating Lease Obligations
|
|
$78,558
|
$78,558
|
None
|
None
|
None
|
Purchase Obligations
|
|
None
|
None
|
None
|
None
|
None
|
Other Long-Term Liabilities
|
|
None
|
None
|
None
|
None
|
None
|
Item 10.
Additional Information
Share Capital
The Company has financed its operations through the issuance of common shares through private placement, the exercise of warrants issued in the private placements, and the exercise of stock options. The changes in the Companys share capital during the last 3 fiscal years are as follows:
During Fiscal 2019, ended January 31, 2019, the Company issued 73,500 common shares pursuant to exercise of warrants for total proceeds of $73,500.
No common shares were issued pursuant to a private placement or for the exercise of stock options in Fiscal 2019.
During Fiscal 2018, ended January 31, 2018, the Company issued 1,575,565 common shares pursuant to 2 private placements for total proceeds of $955,801.
·
Under the first placement, 1,015,502 common shares units at $0.50 per unit were placed for total proceeds of $507,751. Each unit consisted of one common share and one share purchase warrant, with each warrant exercisable into one additional common share at a price of $1.00 until September 13, 2019. The warrants also contain an acceleration clause. If the common shares close at a price of $1.40 or greater for a period of 20 consecutive days, the Company may accelerate the expiry date of the warrants by providing notice to the warrant holders which would set the expiry date on the 30
th
day after the date on which notice is given by the Company.
·
Under the second placement 560,063 common share units at $0.80 per unit were placed for total proceeds of $448,051. The units consisted of one common share and one share purchase warrant, with each warrant exercisable into one additional common share at a price of $1.00 until November 6, 2019. to purchase an additional share at a price of $1.00 exercisable for two years. The warrants also contain an acceleration clause. If the common shares close at a price of $1.40 or greater for a period of 20 consecutive days, the Company may accelerate the expiry date of the warrants by providing notice to the warrant holders which would set the expiry date on the 30
th
day after the date on which notice is given by the Company.
No common shares were issued pursuant to the exercise of warrants or for the exercise of stock options in Fiscal 2018.
During Fiscal 2017, ended January 31, 2017, the Company issued 581,000 common shares pursuant to a private placement of common stock units for total proceeds of $581,000. Each unit was priced at $1.00 per unit, with each unit consisting of one common share and one common share purchase warrant. Each warrant is exercisable into one-half of a common share at a price of $1.50 per share until June 27, 2018. No common shares were issued pursuant to the exercise of warrants or for the exercise of stock options in Fiscal 2017.
Shares Not Representing Capital
-No Disclosure Necessary-
Shares Held By Company
-No Disclosure Necessary-
Stock Options
Stock Options to purchase securities from Registrant can be granted to Directors and Employees of the Company on terms and conditions acceptable to the regulatory authorities in Canada, notably the TSX Venture Exchange (the Exchange).
At the Companys Annual General and Special Meeting held on June 28, 2018, Shareholders approved a new Stock Option Plan dated 2018 (The Plan). Under the Plan, the Company may issue Stock options for up to 20% of the common shares outstanding at the effective date of the Plan, or 2,974,280 common shares. The Plan provides that eligible persons thereunder include any director, officer, employee (full or part-time), consultant or management company employee of the Company or any affiliate of the Company designated by the directors under the Plan. The definition of consultant is the same as that contained in the policies of the Exchange.
The Plan will be administered by the board of directors or a committee thereof. The board of directors will have the authority to determine, among other things, the persons to whom options are granted and the number of such options. At the time an option is granted, the board will also determine the exercise price of the option which, subject to a minimum price of $0.10, shall be equal to the closing price of the common shares on the Exchange on the day immediately preceding the date of grant, and any vesting criteria or other restrictions with respect to the exercisability of the option. At a minimum, unless the approval of the Exchange is received, Options issued to Eligible Persons performing Investor Relations Activities must vest in stages over 12 months with no more than one-quarter of the Options vesting in any three month period. Subject to any restrictions contained in the Plan, the board may also impose such other terms and conditions as it shall deem necessary or advisable at the time of grant.
The term of the options will be determined by the board, but in any case must be no more than ten years from the date of grant. Options are not transferable other than by will or the laws of descent and distribution. If an optionee ceases to be an eligible person for any reason whatsoever, other than death or disability, the option (to the extent that it has vested at the time of termination) will terminate at the end of the period of time permitted for exercise of the Option (such period of time to not be in excess of six months), to be determined by the Board at the time of the grant of an Option, and be of no further force and effect. If an optionee dies or is disabled, the optionee (or the legal representative of the optionee) may exercise the option (to the extent that it has vested) until the earlier of the first anniversary of the date of death or disability and the options expiration date.
The Plan provides that the maximum number of common shares which may be reserved for issuance to any participant pursuant to options may not exceed 5% of the common shares outstanding at the time of grant (on a non-diluted basis) less the aggregate number of common shares reserved for issuance to such person under any other option to purchase common shares under any other share compensation arrangement. Under the Plan, the maximum number of common shares that may be issued to any participant, or to one insider and the insiders associates, within a one year period pursuant to option exercises may not exceed 5% of the outstanding issue.
The maximum number of common shares which may be reserved for issuance to all the insiders of the Company pursuant to share options is limited to 20% of the common shares outstanding at the time of the grant (on a non-diluted basis) less the aggregate number of common shares reserved for issuance to insiders under any other share compensation arrangement.
A copy of the Plan has been filed as an exhibit to this Annual Report.
The names and titles of the Directors/Executive Officers of the Registrant to whom outstanding stock options have been granted and the numbers of common shares subject to such options are set forth in Table No. 13 as of May 15, 2019, as well as the number of options granted to Directors and all employees as a group.
Table No. 13
Stock Options Outstanding
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Name
|
Total
Number of
Options
Held
|
Total
Number of
Options
Vested or
Vesting
Within
60 Days
|
CDN$
Exercise
Price
|
Expiration
Date
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gregory Anderson,
former President, CEO
Director
|
325,000
|
325,000
|
$ 1.00
|
July 18, 2021
|
|
|
|
|
|
John Plourde,
President, CEO and Director
|
385,000
|
385,000
|
$ 1.00
|
July 18, 2021
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ruth Swan,
Chief Financial Officer
|
130,000
100,000
100,000
|
130,000
100,000
100,000
|
$ 1.00
$ 1.00
$ 1.00
|
July 18, 2021
February 20, 2021
June 26, 2023
|
|
|
|
|
|
William Deeks, Director
|
275,000
|
275,000
|
$ 1.00
|
July 18, 2021
|
|
|
|
|
|
Victor Eng, Director
|
100,000
|
100,000
|
$ 1.00
|
July 18, 2021
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dennis Simmons, Director
|
375,000
|
375,000
|
$ 1.00
|
July 18, 2021
|
|
|
|
|
|
Erik Tornquist, Director
|
385,000
|
385,000
|
$ 1.00
|
July 18, 2021
|
|
|
|
|
|
William Webster, Director
|
275,000
|
275,000
|
$ 1.00
|
July 18, 2021
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Officers and Directors
(8 persons)
|
2,450,000
|
|
|
|
Total Employees and Consultants
(2 persons)
|
145,000
|
|
|
|
Total Officers/Directors/Employees
And Consultants
|
2,595,000
|
|
|
|
Resolutions/Authorization/Approvals
-No Disclosure Necessary-
Memorandum and Articles of Association
The Company was originally incorporated under the Company Act of British Columbia on February 18, 1983. Due to changes to provincial laws, the Company was required to adopt new Articles of Incorporation under the new British Columbia Corporations Act. At the Annual General Meeting of Shareholders held on July 16, 2004, the Company adopted amended Articles of Incorporation under the B.C. Corporations Act (the Act).
There are no restrictions on the business the company may carry on in the Articles of Incorporation.
Under the Companys articles and bylaws a director is not allowed to vote on any transaction or contract with the Company in which has a disclosable interest unless all directors have a disclosable interest in that transaction.
Part 16 of the Companys bylaws address the duties of the directors, including the borrowing powers. Directors must manage or supervise the management of the business and affairs of the Company and have the authority to exercise all such powers which are not required to be exercised by the shareholders, or as governed by the Act.
There are no age limit requirements pertaining to the retirement or non-retirement of directors.
A director need not be a shareholder of the Company.
The rights, preferences and restrictions attaching to each class of the Companys shares are as follows:
Common Shares
The authorized shares of common stock of the Company are of the same class and, once issued, rank equally as to dividends, voting powers, and participation in assets. Holders of common stock are entitled to one vote for each share held of record on all matters to be acted upon by the shareholders. Holders of common stock are entitled to receive such dividends as may be declared from time to time by the Board of Directors, in its discretion, out of funds legally available therefore.
Upon liquidation, dissolution or winding up of the Company, holders of common stock are entitled to receive pro rata the assets of Company, if any, remaining after payments of all debts and liabilities. No shares have been issued subject to call or assessment. There are no pre-emptive or conversion rights and no provisions for redemption or purchase for cancellation, surrender, or sinking or purchase funds.
The Company may by special resolution, create, define, and attach special rights or restrictions on any shares and by special resolution and by otherwise complying with any applicable provision of its Memorandum or these Articles to vary or abrogate any special rights and restrictions attached to any shares, but no right or special right attached to any issued shares shall be prejudiced or interfered with unless all members holding shares of each affected class consent thereto in writing, or unless a resolution consenting thereto is passed at a separate class meeting of the holders of the shares of each such class by a majority of three-fourths of the rest of such shares.
An annual general meeting shall be held once every calendar year at such time (not being more than 13 months after holding the last preceding annual meeting) and place as may be determined by the Directors. The Directors may, as they see fit, to convene an extraordinary general meeting. An extraordinary general meeting, if requisitioned in accordance with the Company Act, shall be convened by the Directors or, if not convened by the Directors, may be convened by the requisitionists as provided in the Company Act.
There are no limitations upon the rights to own securities.
There are no provisions that would have the effect of delaying, deferring, or preventing a change in control of the Company.
There is no special ownership threshold above which an ownership position must be disclosed.
Material Contracts
The Company considers the following as material contracts, which have been entered into by the Company which are currently in effect:
1.
Option Agreement for Hearne Hill and Morrison between Booker Gold (now Pacific Booker Minerals) and Noranda Mining and Exploration (Now Falconbridge Ltd.) dated October 22, 1997.
2.
Agreement between the Company and KCC 167 Holdings Ltd. dated July 4, 1995.
3.
Agreement between the Company and Windbourne International Capital Management Ltd. dated June 15, 1995.
4.
Agreement between the Company and John Paul Stevenson dated November 23, 1998.
5.
Agreement between the Company and Rolland Joseph Menard dated July 9, 2001.
6.
Agreement between the Company and Noranda (Now Falconbridge Ltd.) on the Morrison Property dated April 19, 2004.
7.
2018 Stock Option Plan dated June 28, 2018
All of the Material Contracts were previously filed as exhibits to the Companys 20-F Registration Statement except the 2018 Stock Option Plan, which is filed as an exhibit to this fiscal 2019 20-F Annual Report.
EXCHANGE CONTROLS AND OTHER LIMITATIONS
AFFECTING SECURITY HOLDERS
Except as discussed in ITEM #9, the Company is not aware of any Canadian federal or provincial laws, decrees, or regulations that restrict the export or import of capital, including foreign exchange controls, or that affect the remittance of dividends, interest or other payments to non-Canadian holders of the common shares. There are no limitations on the right of non-Canadian owners to hold or vote the common shares imposed by Canadian federal or provincial law or by the charter or other constituent documents of the Company.
The
Investment Canada Act
(the
"IC Ac
t") governs acquisitions of Canadian business by a non-Canadian person or entity. The
IC Act
requires a non-Canadian (as defined in the
IC Ac
t) making an investment to acquire control of a Canadian business, the gross assets of which exceed certain defined threshold levels, to file an application for review with the Investment Review Division of Industry Canada. The
IC Act
provides, among other things, for a review of an investment in the event of acquisition of "control" in certain Canadian businesses in the following circumstances:
1. If the investor is a non-Canadian and is a national of a country belonging to the North American Free Trade Agreement ("NAFTA") and/or the World Trade Organization ("WTO") ("NAFTA or WTO National"), any direct acquisition having an asset value exceeding $179,000,000 is reviewable. This amount is subject to an annual adjustment on the basis of a prescribed formula in the
IC Act
to reflect inflation and real growth within Canada. This threshold level does not apply in certain sections of Canadian industry, such as uranium, financial services (except insurance), transportation services and cultural services (i.e. the publication, distribution or sale of books, magazines, periodicals (other than printing or typesetting businesses), music in print or machine readable form, radio, television, cable and satellite services; the publication, distribution, sale or exhibition of film or video recordings on audio or video music recordings), to which lower thresholds as prescribed in the
IC Act
are applicable.
2. If the investor is a non-Canadian and is not a NAFTA or WTO National, any direct acquisition having an asset value exceeding $5,000,000 and any indirect acquisition having an asset value exceeding $50,000,000 is reviewable.
3. If the investor is a non-Canadian and is NAFTA or WTO National, an indirect acquisition of control is reviewable if the value of the assets of the business located in Canada represents more than 50% of the asset value of the transaction or the business is involved in uranium, financial services, transportation services or cultural services (as set forth above).
Finally, certain transactions prescribed in the
IC Act
are exempted from review altogether.
In the context of the Company, in essence, three methods of acquiring control of a Canadian business are regulated by the
IC Ac
t: (i) the acquisition of all or substantially all of the assets used in carrying on business in Canada; (ii) the acquisition, directly or indirectly, of voting shares of a Canadian corporation carrying on business in Canada; or (iii) the acquisition of voting shares of an entity which controls, directly or indirectly, another entity carrying on business in Canada.
An acquisition of a majority of the voting shares of a Canadian entity, including a corporation, is deemed to be an acquisition of control under the
IC Ac
t. However, under the
IC Ac
t, there is a rebuttable presumption that control is acquired if one-third of the voting shares of a Canadian corporation or an equivalent undivided interest in the voting shares of such corporation are held by a non-Canadian person or entity. An acquisition of less than one-third of the voting shares of a Canadian corporation is deemed not to be an acquisition of control. An acquisition of less than a majority, but one-third or more, of the voting shares of a Canadian corporation is presumed to be an acquisition of control unless it can be established that, on the acquisition, the Canadian corporation is not, in fact, controlled by the acquirer through the ownership of voting shares. For partnerships, trusts, joint ventures or other unincorporated Canadian entities, an acquisition of less than a majority of the voting interests is deemed not to be an acquisition of control.
In addition, if a Canadian corporation is controlled by a non-Canadian, the acquisition of control of any other Canadian corporation by such corporation may be subject to the prior approval of the Investment Review Division, unless it can be established that the Canadian corporation is not in fact controlled by the acquirer through the ownership of voting shares.
Where an investment is reviewable under the
IC Ac
t, the investment may not be implemented unless it is likely to be of net benefit to Canada. If an applicant is unable to satisfy the Minister responsible for Industry Canada that the investment is likely to be of net benefit to Canada, the applicant may not proceed with the investment. Alternatively, an acquirer may be required to divest control of the Canadian business that is the subject of the investment.
In addition to the foregoing, the
IC Act
provides for formal notification under the
IC Act
of all other acquisitions of control by Canadian businesses by non-Canadian investors. The notification process consists of filing a notification within 30 days following the implementation of an investment, which notification is for information, as opposed to review, purposes.
TAXATION
The following summary of the material Canadian federal income tax consequences generally applicable in respect of the common stock reflects the Companys opinion. The tax consequences to any particular holder of common stock will vary according to the status of that holder as an individual, trust, corporation or member of a partnership, the jurisdiction in which that holder is subject to taxation, the place where that holder is resident and, generally, according to that holders particular circumstances. This summary is applicable only to holders who are resident in the United States, have never been resident in Canada, deal at arms length with the Company, hold their common stock as capital property and who will not use or hold the common stock in carrying on business in Canada. Special rules, which are not discussed in this summary, may apply to a United States holder that is an issuer that carries on business in Canada and elsewhere.
This summary is based upon the provisions of the Income Tax Act of Canada and the regulations thereunder (collectively, the "Tax Act" or ITA)and the Canada-United States Tax Convention (the Tax Convention) as at the date of the Annual Report and the current administrative practices of Canada Customs and Revenue Agency. This summary does not take into account provincial income tax consequences.
Management urges each holder to consult his own tax advisor with respect to the income tax consequences applicable to him in his own particular circumstances.
CANADIAN INCOME TAX CONSEQUENCES
Disposition of Common Stock.
The summary below is restricted to the case of a holder (a Holder) of one or more common shares (Common Shares) who for the purposes of the Tax Act is a non-resident of Canada, holds his Common Shares as capital property and deals at arms length with the Company.
Dividends
A Holder will be subject to Canadian withholding tax (Part XIII Tax) equal to 25%, or such lower rates as may be available under an applicable tax treaty, of the gross amount of any dividend paid or deemed to be paid on his Common Shares. Under the Tax Convention, the rate of Part XIII Tax applicable to a dividend on Common Shares paid to a Holder who is a resident of the United States is, if the Holder is a company that beneficially owns at least 10% of the voting stock of the Company, 5% and, in any other case, 15% of the gross amount of the dividend. The Company will be required to withhold the applicable amount of Part XIII Tax from each dividend so paid and remit the withheld amount directly to the Receiver General for Canada for the account of the Holder.
Disposition of Common Shares
A Holder who disposes of Common Shares, including by deemed disposition on death, will not be subject to Canadian tax on any capital gain thereby realized unless the common Share constituted taxable Canadian property as defined by the Tax Act. Generally, a common share of a public corporation will not constitute taxable Canadian property of a Holder unless he held the common share as capital property used by him carrying on a business in Canada, or he or persons with whom he did not deal at arms length alone or together held or held options to acquire, at any time within the 60 months preceding the disposition, 25% or more of the issued shares of any class of the capital stock of the Company.
A Holder who is a resident of the United States and realizes a capital gain on disposition of Common Shares that was taxable Canadian property will nevertheless, by virtue of the Treaty, generally be exempt from Canadian tax thereon unless (a) more than 50% of the value of the Common Shares is derived from, or from an interest in, Canadian real estate, including Canadian mineral resources properties, (b) the Common Shares formed part of the business property of a permanent establishment that the Holder has or had in Canada within the 12 months preceding disposition, or (c) the Holder (i) was a resident of Canada at any time within the ten years immediately preceding the disposition, and for a total of 120 months during any period of 20 consecutive years, preceding the disposition, and (ii) owned the Common Shares when he ceased to be resident in Canada.
A Holder who is subject to Canadian tax in respect of a capital gain realized on disposition of Common Shares must include one half of the capital gain (taxable capital gain) in computing his taxable income earned in Canada. The Holder may, subject to certain limitations, deduct one half of any capital loss (allowable capital loss) arising on disposition of taxable Canadian property from taxable capital gains realized in the year of disposition in respect to taxable Canadian property and, to the extent not so deductible, from such taxable capital gains of any of the three preceding years or any subsequent year.
UNITED STATES FEDERAL INCOME TAX CONSEQUENCES
The following is a discussion of material United States Federal income tax consequences, under the law, generally applicable to a U.S. Holder (as defined below) of common shares of the Company. This discussion does not cover any state, local or foreign tax consequences.
The following discussion is based upon the sections of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the Code), Treasury Regulations, published Internal Revenue Service (IRS) rulings, published administrative positions of the IRS and court decisions that are currently applicable, any or all of which could be materially and adversely changed, possible on a retroactive basis, at any time. In addition, the discussion does not consider the potential effects, both adverse and beneficial, or recently proposed legislation which, if enacted, could be applied, possibly on a retroactive basis, at any time. The discussion is for general information only and it is not intended to be, nor should it be construed to be, legal or tax advice to any holder or prospective holder of common shares of the Company. Each holder and prospective holder of common shares of the Company is advised to consult their own tax advisors about the federal, state, local, and foreign tax consequences of purchasing, owning and disposing of common shares of the Company applicable to their own particular circumstances.
U.S. Holders
As used herein, a (U.S. Holder) includes a holder of common shares of the Company who is a citizen or resident of the United States, a corporation created or organized in or under the laws of the United States or of any political subdivision thereof, an estate whose income is taxable in the United States irrespective of source or a trust subject to the primary supervision of a court within the United States and control of a United States fiduciary as described in Section 7701(a)(30) of the Code. This summary does not address the tax consequences to, and U.S. Holder does not include, persons subject to special provisions of Federal income tax law, such as tax-exempt organizations, qualified retirement plans, financial institutions, insurance companies, real estate investment trusts, regulated investment companies, broker-dealers, non-resident alien individuals, persons or entities that have a functional currency other than the U.S. dollar, shareholders who hold common shares as part of a straddle, hedging or conversion transaction, and shareholders who acquired their common shares through the exercise of employee stock options or otherwise as compensation for services. This summary is limited to U.S. Holders who own common shares as capital assets. This summary does not address the consequences to a person or entity holding an interest in a shareholder or the consequences to a person of the ownership, exercise or disposition of any options, warrants or other rights to acquire common shares.
Distribution on Common Shares of the Company
U.S. Holders receiving dividend distributions (including constructive dividends) with respect to common shares of the Company are required to include in gross income for United States Federal income tax purposes the gross amount of such distributions equal to the U.S. dollar value of such distributions on the date of receipt (based on the exchange rate on such date), to the extent that the Company has current or accumulated earnings and profits, without reduction for any Canadian income tax withheld from such distributions. Such Canadian tax withheld may be credited, subject to certain limitations, against the U.S. Holders United States Federal Income tax liability or, alternatively, individuals may be deducted in computing the U.S. Holders United States Federal taxable income by those individuals who itemize deductions. (See more detailed discussion at Foreign Tax Credit below). To the extent that distributions exceed current or accumulated earnings and profits of the Company, they will be treated first as a return of capital up to the U.S. Holders adjusted basis in the common shares and thereafter as gain from the sale or exchange of the common shares. Dividend income will be taxed at marginal tax rates applicable to ordinary income while preferential tax rates for long-term capital gains are applicable to a U.S. Holder which is an individual, estate or trust. There are currently no preferential tax rates for long-term capital gains for a U.S. Holder which is a corporation.
In the case of foreign currency received as a dividend that is not converted by the recipient into U.S. dollars on the date of receipt, a U.S. Holder will have a tax basis in the foreign currency equal to its U.S. dollar value on the date of receipt. Generally any gain or loss recognized upon a subsequent sale of other disposition of the foreign currency, including the exchange for U.S. dollars, will be ordinary income or loss.
Dividends paid on the common shares of the Company will not generally be eligible for the dividends received deduction provided to corporations receiving dividends from certain United States corporations. A U.S. Holder which is a corporation may, under certain circumstances, be entitled to a 70% deduction of the United States source portion of dividends received from the Company (unless the Company qualifies as a foreign personal holding company or a passive foreign investment company, as defined below) if such U.S. Holder owns shares representing at least 10% of the voting power and value of the Company. The availability of this deduction is subject to several complex limitations which are beyond the scope of this discussion.
Under current Treasury Regulations, dividends paid on the Companys common shares, if any, generally will not be subject to information reporting and generally will not be subject to U.S. backup withholding tax. However, dividends and the proceeds from a sale of the Companys common shares paid in the U.S. through a U.S. or U.S. related paying agent (including a broker) will be subject to U.S. information reporting requirements and may also be subject to the 31% U.S. backup withholding tax, unless the paying agent is furnished with a duly completed and signed Form W-9. Any amounts withheld under the U.S. backup withholding tax rules will be allowed as a refund or a credit against the U.S. Holders U.S. federal income tax liability, provided the required information is furnished to the IRS.
Foreign Tax Credit
For individuals whose entire income from sources outside the United States consists of qualified passive income, the total amount of creditable foreign taxes paid or accrued during the taxable year does not exceed $300 ($600 in the case of a joint return) and an election is made under section 904(j), the limitation on credit does not apply.
A U.S. Holder who pays (or has withheld from distributions) Canadian income tax with respect to the ownership of common shares of the Company may be entitled, at the option of the U.S. Holder, to either a deduction or a tax credit for such foreign tax paid or withheld. Generally, it will be more advantageous to claim a credit because a credit reduces United States Federal income taxes on a dollar-for-dollar basis, while a deduction merely reduces the taxpayers income subject to tax. This election is made on a year-by-year basis and applies to all foreign income taxes (or taxes in lieu of income tax) paid by (or withheld from) the U.S. Holder during the year. There are significant and complex limitations which apply to the credit, among which is the general limitation that the credit cannot exceed the proportionate share of the U.S. Holders United States income tax liability that the U.S. Holders foreign source income bears to his/her or its worldwide taxable income in the determination of the application of this limitation. The various items of income and deduction must be classified into foreign and domestic sources.
Complex rules govern this classification process. In addition, this limitation is calculated separately with respect to specific classes of income such as passive income, high withholding tax interest, financial services income, shipping income, and certain other classifications of income. Dividends distributed by the Company will generally constitute passive income or, in the case of certain U.S. Holders, financial services income for these purposes. The availability of the foreign tax credit and the application of the limitations on the credit are fact specific and management urges holders and prospective holders of common shares of the Company to consult their own tax advisors regarding their individual circumstances.
Disposition of Common Shares of the Company
A U.S. Holder will recognize gain or loss upon the sale of common shares of the Company equal to the difference, if any, between (I) the amount of cash plus the fair market value of any property received, and (ii) the shareholders tax basis in the common shares of the Company. Preferential tax rates apply to long-term capital gains of U.S. Holders, which are individuals, estates or trusts. This gain or loss will be capital gain or loss if the common shares are capital assets in the hands of the U.S. Holder, which will be a short-term or long-term capital gain or loss depending upon the holding period of the U.S. Holder. Gains and losses are netted and combined according to special rules in arriving at the overall capital gain or loss for a particular tax year. Deductions for net capital losses are subject to significant limitations. For U.S. Holders, which are not corporations, any unused portion of such net capital loss may be carried over to be used in later tax years until such net capital loss is thereby exhausted, but individuals may not carry back capital losses. For U.S. Holders, which are corporations (other than corporations subject to Subchapter S of the Code), an unused net capital loss may be carried back three years from the loss year and carried forward five years from the loss year to be offset against capital gains until such net capital loss is thereby exhausted.
Other Considerations
In the following circumstances, the above sections of the discussion may not describe the United States Federal income tax consequences resulting from the holding and disposition of common shares of the Company.
Foreign Personal Holding Company
If at any time during a taxable year more than 50% of the total combined voting power or the total value of the Companys outstanding shares is owned, actually or constructively, by five or fewer individuals who are citizens or residents of the United States and 60% (50% after the first tax year) or more of the Companys gross income for such year was derived from certain passive sources (e.g. from interest income received from its subsidiaries), the Company would be treated as a foreign personal holding company. In that event, U.S. Holders that hold common shares of the Company would be required to include in gross income for such year their allocable portions of such passive income to the extent the Company does not actually distribute such income.
The Company does not believe that it currently has the status of a foreign personal holding company. However, there can be no assurance that the Company will not be considered a foreign personal holding company for the current or any future taxable year.
Foreign Investment Company
If 50% or more of the combined voting power or total value of the Companys outstanding shares are held, actually or constructively, by citizens or residents of the United States, United States domestic partnerships or corporations, or estates or trusts other than foreign estates or trusts (as defined by the Code Section 7701(a)(31), and the Company is found to be engaged primarily in the business of investing, reinvesting, or trading in securities, commodities, or any interest therein, it is possible that the Company might be treated as a foreign investment company as defined in Section 1246 of the Code, causing all or part of any gain realized by a U.S. Holder selling or exchanging common shares of the Company to be treated as ordinary income rather than capital gains.
Passive Foreign Investment Company
As a foreign corporation with U.S. Holders, the Company could potentially be treated as a passive foreign investment company (PFIC), as defined in Section 1297 of the Code, depending upon the percentage of the Companys income which is passive, or the percentage of the Companys assets which is held for the purpose of producing passive income.
The rule governing PFICs can have significant tax effects on U.S. shareholders of foreign corporations who are subject to U.S. Federal income taxation under alternative methods at the election of each such U.S. shareholder. As a PFIC, each U.S. shareholders income or gain, with respect to a disposition or deemed disposition of the PFICs shares or a distribution payable on such shares will generally be subject to tax at the highest marginal rates applicable to ordinary income and certain interest charges, unless the U.S. shareholder has timely made a qualified electing fund election or a mark-to-market election for those shares.
A U.S. shareholder who elects to treat the PFIC as a Qualified Electing Fund ("QEF"), as defined in the Code, (an "Electing U.S. Holder") will be required to currently include in his income, for any taxable year in which the corporation qualifies as a PFIC, his pro-rata share of the corporation's (i) "net capital gain" (the excess of net long-term capital gain over net short-term capital loss), which will be taxed as long-term capital gain to the Electing U.S. Holder, and (ii) "ordinary earnings" (the excess of earnings and profits over net capital gain), which will be taxed as ordinary income to the Electing U.S. Holder, in each case, for the U.S. Holder's taxable year in which (or with which) the corporations taxable year ends, regardless of whether such amounts are actually distributed. A QEF election also allows the Electing U.S. Holder to generally treat any gain realized on the disposition of his common shares (or deemed to be realized on the pledge of his common shares) as capital gain; treat his share of the corporation's net capital gain, if any, as long-term capital gain instead of ordinary income, and either avoid interest charges resulting from PFIC status altogether, or make an annual election, subject to certain limitations, to defer payment of current taxes on his share of the corporation's annual realized net capital gain and ordinary earnings
The procedure a U.S. Holder must comply with in making a timely QEF election will depend on whether the year of the election is the first year in the U.S. Holder's holding period in which the corporation is a PFIC. If the U.S. shareholder makes a QEF election in such first year, then the U.S. shareholder may make the QEF election by simply filing the appropriate documents at the time the U.S. Holder files a tax return for such first year. If, however, the corporation qualified as a PFIC in a prior year during the U.S. shareholders holding period, then the U.S. shareholder may make a retroactive QEF election, provided he has preserved his right to do so under the protective statement regime or he obtains IRS permission.
If a U.S. shareholder has not made a QEF Election at any time (a "Non-electing U.S. Holder"), then special taxation rules under Section 1291 of the Code will apply to gains realized on the disposition (or deemed to be realized by reason of a pledge) of his common shares, and certain "excess distributions" by the corporation. An excess distribution is a current year distribution received by the U.S. shareholder on PFIC stock to the extent that the distribution exceeds its ratable portion of 125% of the average amount received by the U.S. shareholder during the preceding three years.
A Non-electing U.S. shareholder generally would be required to pro-rate all gains realized on the disposition of his common shares and all excess distributions over the entire holding period for the common shares. All gains or excess distributions allocated to prior years of the U.S. shareholder (other than years prior to the first taxable year of the corporation during such U.S. Holder's holding period and beginning after January 1, 1987 for which it was a PFIC) would be taxed at the highest marginal tax rate for each such prior year applicable to ordinary income. The Non-electing U.S. shareholder also would be liable for interest on the foregoing tax liability for each such prior year calculated as if such liability had been due with respect to each such prior year. A Non-electing non-corporate U.S. shareholder must treat this interest charge as "personal interest" which is wholly non-deductible. The balance of the gain or the excess distribution will be treated as ordinary income in the year of the disposition or distribution, and no interest charge will be incurred with respect to such balance.
If a corporation is a PFIC for any taxable year during which a Non-electing U.S. shareholder holds common shares, then the corporation will continue to be treated as a PFIC with respect to such common shares, even if it is no longer by definition a PFIC. A Non-electing U.S. shareholder may terminate this deemed PFIC status by electing to recognize a gain, which will be taxed under the rules for Non-Electing U.S. Holders, as if such common shares had been sold on the last day of the last taxable year for which it was a PFIC. If the corporation no longer qualifies as a PFIC in a subsequent year, then normal Code rules and not the PFIC rules will apply with respect to a U.S. shareholder who has made a QEF election.
In certain circumstances, a U.S. Holder of stock in a PFIC can make a qualified electing fund election to mitigate some of the adverse tax consequences of holding stock in a PFIC by including in income its share of the corporations income on a current basis. However, we do not currently intend to prepare or provide the information that would enable you to make a qualified electing fund election. Management urges US persons to consult with their own tax advisors with regards to the impact of these rules.
Controlled Foreign Corporation
A Controlled Foreign Corporation (CFC) is a foreign corporation more than 50% of whose stock by vote or value is, on any day in the corporations tax year, owned (directly or indirectly) by U.S. Shareholders. If more than 50% of the voting power of all classes of stock entitled to vote is owned, actually or constructively, by citizens or residents of the United States, United States domestic partnerships and corporations or estates or trusts other than foreign estates or trusts, each of whom own actually or constructively 10% or more of the total combined voting power of all classes of stock of the Company could be treated as a controlled foreign corporation under Subpart F of the Code. This classification would affect many complex results, one of which is the inclusion of certain income of a CFC, which is subject to current U.S. tax. The United States generally taxes United States Shareholders of a CFC currently on their pro rata shares of the Subpart F income of the CFC. Such United States Shareholders are generally treated as having received a current distribution out of the CFCs Subpart F income and are also subject to current U.S. tax on their pro rata shares of the CFCs earnings invested in U.S. property.
The foreign tax credit described above may reduce the U.S. tax on these amounts. In addition, under Section 1248 of the Code, gain from the sale or exchange of shares by a U.S. Holder of common shares of the Corporation which is or was a United States Shareholder at any time during the five-year period ending with the sale or exchange is treated as ordinary income to the extent of earnings and profits of the Company (accumulated in corporate tax years beginning after 1962, but only while the shares were held and while the Company was controlled) attributable to the shares sold or exchanged. If a foreign corporation is both a PFIC and a CFC, the foreign corporation generally will not be treated as a PFIC with respect to the United States Shareholders of the CFC. This rule generally will be effective for taxable years of United States Shareholders beginning after 1997 and for taxable years of foreign corporations ending with or within such taxable years of United States Shareholders. The PFIC provisions continue to apply in the case of PFIC that is also a CFC with respect to the U.S. Holders that are less than 10% shareholders. Because of the complexity of Subpart F, a more detailed review of these rules is outside of the scope of this discussion.
The amount of any backup withholding will not constitute additional tax and will be allowed as a credit against the U.S. Holders federal income tax liability.
Filing of Information Returns
. Under a number of circumstances, United States Investor acquiring shares of the Company may be required to file an information return with the Internal Revenue Service Center where they are required to file their tax returns with a duplicate copy to the Internal Revenue Service Center, Philadelphia, PA 19255. In particular, any United States Investor who becomes the owner, directly or indirectly, of 10% or more of the shares of the Company will be required to file such a return. Other filing requirements may apply, and management urges United States Investors to consult their own tax advisors concerning these requirements.
Statement by Experts
Not Applicable.
Documents on Display
All documents incorporated and referred by reference in this 20-F Annual Report may be viewed at the Companys Executive Office located at #1103 1166 Alberni Street, Vancouver, British Columbia.