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

Barrick Gold Corporation Message Board

you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the posts
  • pascuaforensics pascuaforensics May 3, 2011 2:47 PM Flag

    TSX ought to halt ABX, until MWR evidence is verified

    Thanks again apartment.

    It is material fact that Barrick lost LAC 1978-1994 salt claims AMARILLOS 1-3000 as early as 1996 at law.

    First to Jorge Lopehandia 1996 AMRILLOS SUR + AMARILLOS NORTE
    8600 hectares covering most of AMARILLO 1-3000 salt concessions as metallic - all concessionable substances claimed concessions.

    Then Barrick lost LAC areas to itself via TESOROS of HECTOR UNDA LLANOS 1997.

    At 2001 Barrick should have reported as material the following:

    PASCUA LAMA PROTOCOL included LAC salt exploration claims, AMARILLOS 1-3000 illegally as back up for Gold exploitation at Dec 11, 2004 to date.

    PASCUA LAMA PROTOCOL included illegally the concessions TESOROS as those areas defending Mina Pascua camp on title, remain under C-1912-2001 injunction, with Jorge Lopehandia on title of TESOROS as legal beneficiary at 2011.

    So, what does barrick have of PASCUA LAMA PROTOCOL that is left at MINA PASCUA ore body, Camp and area of interest?

    Surface rights? that is funny!! ABX, what for, an EIS gives barrick surface rights?

    NOPE, not in Chile when PASCUA LAMA PROTOCOL and Barrick's mining property are flawed at 2011.

    not in Chile, never as disclosed by ANDY LLOYD via STOCKATCH as lies against MWR/TSX.

    ABX has a duty to report the truth to shareholders, not to keep deceiving by press via false advertisement.

13.07+0.05(+0.38%)May 1 4:00 PMEDT