To the editor:
In regions of sprawling wildlands, as occur in Aroostook County, astute prospectors are not uncommon. However, in Aroostook and other wildland areas of Maine, prospectors are virtually nonexistent due to the longstanding inequity in the mineral-rights system.
As a native Mainer, I am relatively certain that most Mainers have little understanding of the injustice that has long pervaded mineral rights ownership in the Maine wildlands. In the adjacent provinces of New Brunswick and Quebec, long ago the Crown decreed that ownership of the surface lands (e.g. timberlands) did not carry with it ownership of the subsurface mineral domain. Rather, it was decreed that subsurface minerals belonged to the people, such to be administered by the Crown. Mineral rights became the property of individuals by staking one or more claims on which a fee was levied by the provincial government, such amounting to a fair “tax” on mineral rights. These rules clearly established that even if valuable minerals had not been discovered, those holding mineral rights must pay to hold those “rights.”
I have had extensive on-the-ground experience in these matters in both New Brunswick and Quebec. Years ago in Quebec, less than a mile from the Maine-Canadian border, my group claimed hundreds of acres of subsurface mineral rights. Although the surface timberlands were owned by a major multinational corporation, the corporation did not have any rights to our metal discovery. Also, in the past my group claimed large acreages of mineral rights in southern New Brunswick, where similar to Quebec, the timberland owner within the claim area did not have “rights” to our mineral claims. The system generated significant expenditures, as the exploring groups were not subservient to the major landowners, as is the case in Maine.
In stark contrast to the above, in the distant past the granting of large tracts of land in Maine apparently included mineral rights. However, the fact that neither undeveloped nor developed minerals in the wildlands were ever subject to annual assessment by the state, in conjunction with the failure of the landowners in the wildlands to undertake primary mineral inventories, establishes that the surface owners in the wildlands have abrogated their “right” to the mineral domain.
Long ago, had the state ruled that mineral rights were to be assessed based on acreage and mineral status, then it is evident that most of those “rights” would have reverted to the state. Such a situation would have amounted to a “windfall” to the state in both claim fees and mineral exploration expenditures.
If the multibillion-dollar Bald Mountain deposit in Aroostook County were located in J.D. Irving Ltd.’s native land (New Brunswick) simple ownership of the timberlands, whether acquired before or after minerals were claimed, would not entitle the Irving group to reap benefits form the mining of the deposit by others, whereas in Maine, Irving’s post-discovery ownership of timberlands enables Irving Ltd. to “take all.”
J. S. Cummings
Grand Prairie, Texas
