Claim Doesn't Pan Out
A Canadian gold producer fails to overturn a California mining regulation.
The American Lawyer
August 01, 2009
California seems to be a magnet for NAFTA arbitrations. Following the earlier Methanex claim, Glamis Gold Ltd. was the second Canadian company to bring a complaint against the U.S. government for policies introduced in the Golden State. In its 2003 claim, Glamis objected to new California rules that required open-pit metal mines to be refilled and regraded. The state cited environmental protection as a reason for the regulations, as well as respect for the Native American sacred sites that dot the California desert. Glamis protested that the requirements destroyed the profitability of a gold mining venture that it operated east of San Diego.
However, in 2009 arbitrators ruled unanimously that the California measures did not amount to an expropriation of Glamis's investments. After examining financial figures submitted by the company, arbitrators determined that the project would remain profitable even with the added regulatory burden. The arbitration panel also stressed that there was a high threshold for finding that a state had failed to provide the "minimum standard" of protection owed to foreign nationals under NAFTA.
Glamis v. United States, Decided June 2009
For claimant Glamis Gold Ltd. (Vancouver): Crowell & Moring For respondent United States: U.S. Department of State, Office of the Legal Adviser
