had enough of this. Sent following to SLW investor relations. Let the attorneys figure it out one way of the other...! Will advice if I get any communications back.
Dear Mr. Kopp.
I am a long term SLW inverstor since the days when GG acquired title and SLW was spun off into it's own entity.
Lately, actually for some time now there are reports by a certain poster regarding fraud at ABX Chile Pascua Lama mining concessions.
Here are some of the postings / links
http ://www . marketwatch . com/story/notice-to-barrick-abx-2012-08-02-518300
and here is a summary of posts at the Yahoo Finance SLW board from this person:
http : //search.messages. yahoo. com/search?.mbintl=finance&q=pascuaforensics&action=Search&r=Huiz75WdCYfD_KCA2Dc-&within=author&within=tm
The poster / author is a pascuaforensics and has been posting this sort of information for quite some time. Also at the ABX investor forum. Quite disconcerning I may add. Seems to me that this should be investigated and would appreciate your comments relating this matter.
I believe all the contested Titles lie outside the mineralization zone anyway.
ABX is the one to ask about this as Pascua is not an SLW mine and only a fraction of the silver stream is headed to SLW.
Local jurisdictions have constantly and consistently found in favor of ABX.
If you run a translate program or better yet read spanish there is no shortage of news and court findings published about this available on web.
Long after (2016?) ABX is sending 9M ounces of silver a year to SLW these internet knuckleheads will still be trolling the web in anonymity spewing their foul detritus to all.
Barrick lies. Don't shoot the messenger.
The Amarillo 1-3000 and superimposed Tesoro claim group areas is the location of the Pascua deposit. ABX included these injuctioned areas in Barricks OSC 43-101 and SEC 6K books in order to claim the mineral reserves. If they were not important ABX would not have included them. The Pascua Lama that is being built is not covering the Pascua deposit and the location of the Chile Gold, thats why the delays to production.. ABX knows they have title issues to the Pascua ore. You are all being duped by ABX twisting of the truth.
ABX lost all the court action in Chile, this is why Tesoro titles remain injunctioned since 2001 and are not in the name of ABX and why they are facing criminal action and have yet to mine Pascua for 20 years. ABX admitted recently in Vallenar Chile Court under oath to not owning titles in order to mine Pascua and admitting to not owning titles ABX included in the boundaries of the Pascua Lama Protocol.
Technical Report can be found at the CNSX website, symbol MSX.
"Catalino Albanez Vergara, Ingeniero Ejecución en Minas [T.N.: This appears to mean Mining Enforcement Engineer; hereinafter I.E.M.], Expert Mine Surveyor since 1980 and Court-accredited Expert for the Appeals Court of La Serena, domiciled at “Pasaje Los Olivos 955”, La Serena, hereby states:"
"1.-Nevada Mining Company 1994
THE AMARILLOS 1 THROUGH 3000.-This mineral deposit (PASCUA-LAMA project) is located inside of the AMARILLOS 1 THROUGH 3000 mining properties and it is in turn located within the groups of mining properties TESORO FIVE and TESORO SEVEN, where they are located as shown in the report presented to COREMA and the pertinent entities and public opinion for the purpose of obtaining the corresponding sectoral permits for the development of the mineral deposit denominated PASCUA-LAMA, which is complemented with photographs from “GEOGLE” [presumably “GOOGLE”] showing the whole yellow mountain (alteration deposit) which is also mentioned in the official Survey Record, in the chapter entitled “Acceso al HM” [Access to HM]; the same is described in later surveys of the TESORO FIVE and TESORO SEVEN groups."
"CONCLUSIONS REGARDING LEGAL TITLE AUTHORITY AS AT JUNE 15, 2011.
To this date there are no valid marginal annotations on these title deeds in the name of Barrick Gold Corporation-ABX of Canada, Barrick Chile or Minera Nevada Limitada, according to an original copy of same which I have before me. The original 2011 copy DOES certify by means of a marginal annotation the litigious rights of Mr. Jorge R. Lopehandia Cortes as the first-claim legal right to title.
The properties LOS AMARILLOS 1 through 3000 and TESOROS should not have been included in the list of mining properties as being the property of BARRICK GOLD CORPORATION-ABX of Canada, due to the fact that these properties have not been nor are they now registered in the name of said firm at the Registrar of Mines of the City of Vallenar, in the Atacama Region, Republic of Chile, in conformity with Chilean law. Moreover, these title deeds could not have been transferred or sold or contracted in any manner whether in Chile or abroad due to the fact that a prohibition is in place, granted by a Chilean Court which prohibits the carrying out of actions or execution of contracts."
The most shocking of all is that YDM was starting to get spooked by the pacua spam. I can not describe the horror I felt while reading his post on the spammers claims! Oh, the horror, the horror! It was like being in the heart of darkness itself!
I would find it hard to understand SLW not doing proper due diligence on ownership, rights, titles, etc..., before inking a $650 million deal. Nothing will come of this. ABX will finish building the mine and make billions.
As far as the spammers, they went to ignore land long ago! As far as YDM goes, still the best of the best on this board. Long YDM!
Ask SLW and ABX to do something? ABX has been in court since 2001 trying to lift the injuction from the titles of the Pascua deposit and can't. Barrick has no ownership of Tesoro and no rights to the Silver at Pascua, the same titles SRK said they did not see in SLW 43-101 and the same titles that cover the deposit. ABX has no silver at Pascua that they sold to SLW, they never did.
16 years and no Pascua Lama for ABX, only excuses why it's not being opened. Yes, get angry SLW shareholder, direct it at ABX who deceived you all.
Make sure you forward all these links:
This is a most interesting history of whether or not modern claim jumping is involved. The charges and counter charges are complex, to say the least. If anyone can devote a couple of weeks to weed through all the links and legalese, more power to them. Barrick’s CEO does respond that it considers the whole issue an attack on the company’s integrity, but without being specific on what it counters in its defense.
Whether or not Barrick has any fault, it seems this harks back to early gold rush days in California where large mining firms regularly took over small mining operations where small operations, sometimes consisting of a single miner (in this case Barrick's and SLW's investors), could not mount the opposition to a large mining corporation or group of miners. Back then “frontier justice” was the order of the day until new mining laws were enacted.
This all seems to bring forth the hint of the political risk involved to PM investors in mining companies, already seen in Hugo Chavez’ Venezuela. How do we know that the involved court systems will not favor those among their own, who might be well connected to their political system? It would seem that Barrick has to be a lot more forthcoming, publicly, in its own defense, or suffer the conclusion that they have no legal rights to the involved properties.
Finally, could it be that the poor performance in PM mining companies, despite the advance in PM prices, could, in part, be due to inherent political risks that may be involved here. Many mining companies have operations in Latin America. Certainly many North American mining companies are not performing in sync with PM prices with typical leverage.
Antel Fekete has summarized, at the following link from 2007 the mismanagement at Barrick of their hedging policy:
gold-eagle . com / gold_digest_05/fekete100307 . html
Fekete, previous to the above link, had a number of in depth discussions of the inadvisability of Barrick’s hedging policies. At the time some suggested that Barrick was a conduit for the Fed and the US Federal Government for PM price suppression.
If this doesn’t suggest continued sloppiness by management to the details of mine ownership as well, then documents, provided to the public that completely validate their ownership, should be provided by Barrick to support their rights in a court of jurisdictional venue. This should be accompanied as a request for Barrick to do so, along with the suggested contact to Barrick by others in this topic. Any response by them to such a request would be appreciated by others to this topic.
With your permission can others copy paste your letter and email to SLW also?
Also, report this poster to Yahoo as abusive and a spaming scumbag and request they block him/her.
ps I wonder if a big bank has a leak on a bad employment report tomorrow ergo QE3?
Hi, anybody can contact the company here:
Senior Vice President,
Toll Free: 1-800-380-8687
I have an email confirmation that my email was "confirmed Received" and read.... will advice if anything comes back.
I actually got phone calls from EXK management before on other inquiries and when I congratulated them on keeping silver back in their treasury instead of exchanging for FIAT...
yes I will. If there is a problem I want to know about it. I have owned SLW shares from 2K shares all the way up to 20k + shares at various times. SLW has been very good to me, family and close business associates. Made a lot of money. I only own about 3.5k shares of SLW presently under water. Ditto EXK my largest holding presently with over 21K shares. But basically had enough.