My point regarding this type of assertive militaristic activity is that it makes large, found, largely de-risked* projects in politically stable/secure settings, like Schaft Creek, all that more special in terms of an asset.

Globally, the sharks (governments and the big major miners) are circling more aggressively given the evidence of significant M & A and the increases in military spending.

I did not mean to imply that Canadian nationalism would put Schaft Creek at risk. I dont' think SC faces this type of risk at all...

I don't know how the Canadian government would react to a foreign interest in Schaft Creek. I dont' think it meets the definition of a strategic asset. Given that there is a Canadian bill being tabled to allow foreign control of uranium mines (energy, nuclear security) supports my notion. (http://www.ipolitics.ca/2011/12/14/sask-mps-bill-would-allow-foreign-ownership-of-uranium-mines/).

The increasing level of foreign ownership in the Can. oilsands project (a strategic oil energy asset only second to Saudi Arabia) does not appear to have ruffled any feathers.

A very recent example of some significan foreign ownership is Mitsubushi's Feb 17th $1.45B purchase of a 40% stake in a BC "gas field that may hold enough fuel to sustain Asia’s No. 2 economy for 37 years" didn't raise any alarms.
http://www.vancouversun.com/Mitsubishi+rises+prospects+from+billion+natural/6180057/story.html I

Mitsubushi announced this in the same day as purchasing the $890M Quellaveco mine stake!!! This is a 'shark' we have not talked about.

What about BHP Billiton?

The BHP Billiton bid for Potash Corp was refused because it was to be the biggest takeover in Canadian corporate history and perhaps because of the stake involved in the little bit of economic potash resources in the world. Schaft Creek is not on that scale.

What does the Law say?

Have a look here at the Canadian Foreign investment law:http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/LOP/ResearchPublications/2011-42-e.htm

Depending on the degree and nature of the potential foreign stake involved, SC would likely be 'reviewable' (under Scenario 1) by the Minister of Industry under Canadian Law since more that $312M is likely to be involved for any significant stake in this project.

From the Can Foreign Review Process (link above, my comments in bold):

"...Such foreign investments can be approved only if the minister of Industry is satisfied that the transaction is likely to be of “net benefit” to Canada. Factors that are considered in the net benefit test as set out in the Act are:

(a) the effect of the investment on the level and nature of economic activity in Canada, including, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the effect on employment, on resource processing, on the utilization of parts, components and services produced in Canada and on exports from Canada; [I score SC ++]

(b) the degree and significance of participation by Canadians in the Canadian business or new Canadian business and in any industry or industries in Canada of which the Canadian business or new Canadian business forms or would form a part; [TBA!}

(c) the effect of the investment on productivity, industrial efficiency, technological development, product innovation and product variety in Canada; [SC +]

(d) the effect of the investment on competition within any industry or industries in Canada; [SC Neutral]

(e) the compatibility of the investment with national industrial, economic and cultural policies, taking into consideration industrial, economic and cultural policy objectives enunciated by the government or legislature of any province likely to be significantly affected by the investment; [ SC fits well with Fed & BC policies of resource development in the near and far north, cultural (FN) policy issues part of the EA process] and

(f) the contribution of the investment to Canada’s ability to compete in world markets. [ I dont see SC having any measurable effect]

In making a determination under Scenario 1, the minister consults with provincial governments, other federal departments and the Competition Bureau. Also, the minister examines in detail the foreign investor’s future plans for the Canadian business. The foreign investor may point to its legally binding undertakings (e.g., job creation, research and development activities, and new investments) to demonstrate a net benefit to Canada. Box 1 explores ways in which the minister of industry can ensure compliance with written undertakings and the Act in general....

*de-risking with respect to SC: PFS, RE2 - expecting RE3 in Q2, NTL, low enviro footprint, FN relationship, longevity of the deposit, exploration potential, Stewart port facility, EA application package, etc, etc.

jmho