Thu, Aug 21, 2014, 2:12 AM EDT - U.S. Markets open in 7 hrs 18 mins

Recent

% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

Barrick Gold Corporation Message Board

  • madeoff@rocketmail.com madeoff Apr 13, 2011 11:28 AM Flag

    Silver Wheaton never seen Pascua Mineral Concessions

    Several years ago, Silver Wheaton made a deal with Barrick to purchase 600 million ounces of silver from Pascua Lama ($4.50/ounce). According to the NI-43-101 filed by SLW in 2009, as per SRK Consulting,

    ***notice the lack of verification on the Pascua (Chile) titles:

    "Barrick, through its wholly owned subsidiary BEASA (including EMASA), owns: (i) 90% of the
    surface property and (ii) 100% of the Argentine legal concessions for mineral exploration and
    exploitation of the Project in Argentina. The Land Title and registration of mines and minerals
    has been detailed in a report by Argentine counsel.


    Barrick, through its wholly owned subsidiary CMN, owns the surface property and the legal
    concessions for mineral exploration and exploitation of the Project in Chile. The mineral
    concessions have not been independently reviewed and verified by SRK. SRK have relied upon
    legal opinion supplied to Silver Wheaton for this information.

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • Lama (Argentina side):
      ----------
      "The Land Title and registration of mines and minerals
      has been detailed in a report by Argentine counsel."


      Pascua (Chile side)
      ----------
      "SRK have relied upon
      legal opinion supplied to Silver Wheaton for this information."


      Looks to me Barrick doesn’t have land title or registration in Chile of the claims they included in its Pascua Lama protocol. If they had proper Pascua claims they wouldn't have to rely on legal opinion.

      Thanks for the heads up. Good find!

      • 2 Replies to voodoo.three
      • madeoff@rocketmail.com madeoff Apr 13, 2011 1:49 PM Flag

        SKR Consulting made it crystal clear in the report that they didn't see the documentation stating that Barrick has the Mineral Concessions on the Chile side of Pascua Lama. They were very clear that Silver Wheaton took responsibility for this, because they relied on SLW legal opinion and said so in the report.

        So, did high ups in SLW know Barrick didn't have the mineral concessions and chose to proceeds with a deal, hoping, like Barrick, that the dispute would eventually end in Barrick's success?

    • What do surface rights (to hot dog stands) have to do with legal mining rights at Pascua, which covers the minerals below the surface?

      As Minerals come from the ground, the inherited right to mine, does alone guarantee the right to surface.

      hence barrick has nothing there.

      Poor Silver Wheaton, they did not heed to Pascua legal ABX reality, did they?

    • Public warning, ABX owns nothing at Pascua area to its name, what it owns via Minera Nevada Limitada ex Minera Nevada S.A, is questionable or non existent rights.

      perhaps surgface rights as they say, however that even is far fetch if you do not own the mineral rights that grant you the right to surface, when conducting mining activities and mining.

    • A reminder on DD. Silver Wheaton, as per their own report, state they never saw the mineral concessions title for Pascua Lama on the Chile side - hence, Royal Golds DD can be brought into question.

 
ABX
18.72-0.11(-0.58%)Aug 20 4:00 PMEDT

Trending Tickers

i
Trending Tickers features significant U.S. stocks showing the most dramatic increase in user interest in Yahoo Finance in the previous hour over historic norms. The list is limited to those equities which trade at least 100,000 shares on an average day and have a market cap of more than $300 million.