Fri, Dec 26, 2014, 8:08 PM EST - U.S. Markets closed

Recent

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

Barrick Gold Corporation Message Board

  • pascuaforensics pascuaforensics Jul 23, 2012 3:44 PM Flag

    Demand TESOROS titles for ABX at AGM or be defrauded by Barrick

    Barrick filed TESOROS as property backing PASCUA LAMA via MINERA NEVADA SpA in Chile.

    MINERA NEVADA SpA has indicated not to have title, certified domain or Agreements with TESOROS titular HECTOR UNDA LLANOS (himself under injunction 2001 to date by Jorge Lopehandia Mina Pascua owner).

    HECTOR UNDA LLANOS sustained 2010 in Chile courts NOT HAVING A THING TO DO WITH Barrick's Chile subsidiaries.

    Why did Barrick list TESOROS as PASCUA LAMA asset, 6k, 2011?

    Barrick-X, a step away from becoming the next BRE - X.

    Peter Munk skunk of the markets, you are caught now Sir.

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • First it would be resonable for us investors to demand Barrick remove the Tesoro claim group from their books as well as any mineralization those claims represents.

      ABX has admitted under oath in chile courts that Tesoro is in the zone of greatest geological importance, then when asked for titles or proof of ownership of Tesoro, Barrick says the Tesoro claim group "does not exist".

      http://www.cnsx.ca/Storage/1467/134490_NR2.pdf

    • Good to see that the Lopehandia legal team and MSX have recently got ABX to admit to the Barrick fraud in Chile mining court. Barrick has obviously contradicted themselves about Pascua more then once in the last 12 years here in North America since they promised it would be in production.

      Remember, Pascua was being built in 1996, production in 2000. Barrick raised billions without even mining anything. In 1996 Pascua was to cost $500 million LOL

    • So mtstack you don't care that Barrick is holding the Tesoro claim group and any reserves from Tesoro in their books even though Barrick admitted in Chilean mining court that Tesoro does not exist for ABX? Is it not logical to have ABX remove Tesoro from the books so we can all as investors see what reserves ABX doesn't have rights of? The same goes for Barricks Non Mattalic Amarillo 1-3000 areas.

      Barrick legaly has to file a 6K and 43-101. Since Barrick has no proof of any ownership via certified domain, title, written contract over Tesoro, why are they including Tesoro as property of Barrick in the legal filings here in North America? Reporting you own something in a 43-101 or 6K to which you do not have any legal ownership is Securities Fraud.

      mtstack, are you saying you could care less about Barricks Securities Fraud at Pascua-Lama 6K and 43-101 filings?

      Also, as mtstack has discribed, Jorge Lopehandia has obtained a 3rd Party Technical Report by an expert mining surveyor and expert for the Chilean court of appeals. mtstack has pointed out that in that Technical Report it describes Tesoro claims having mineralization and is the location of the Amarillo Mountain with satellite documented evidence of mineralization provided in environmental reports to the Chilean Authorities. There is also additional reports presented to COREMA as well as the official Survey Record and title survay that discribes the deposit as being located in the Tesoro claim group. Ultimately, the reports says Tesoro and Amarillo 1-3000 is the location of Pascua which dominated by Jorge Lopehandia and his valid 2011 resitituted ownership of Amarillo Norte and Amarillo Sur titles.

      mtstack can you explain if you are interested at all with Barrick updating the public 6K and 43-101 filings to reflect properties and reserves that they actually have legal possession.

    • my_name_is_dick_fcking_cheney my_name_is_dick_fcking_cheney Jul 24, 2012 11:20 AM Flag

      In addition to no drilling, it's my understanding that neither the Vendor or Purchaser have even conducted any basic soil sampling/assaying of the property ... when the #### hits the fan, it will be interesting to hear why the BCSC allowed this fiasco to drain money out of BC.

    • you laughable wrote

      "It's extremely odd that MSX would agree to a major purchase price without a 43-101 report to substantiate the value of the property."

      And I retort.

      It is extremely odd that ABX would have a 43101 with proven reserves at MSX mining concessions areas in Chile.

      Well, not that odd as Barrick finally admitted not to have titles, domain or Agreements with area claims holders.

      See? MSX has titles, certified domain and is in the areas were the ore body is.

      Yes MSX areas were 43101 by Barrick and that data counts as propriety to the legal land concessions owner. Not ABX.

      Put it this way, anything done by Barrick at Pascua 1996-2012, was done in fiduciary Trust for Mr. Jorge Lopehandia and as of 2010 MWR and MSX.

      Peter Munk is title less to ABX largest SEC asset booked.

      Ready to walk the plunk? Peter the skunk Munk?.

    • my_name_is_dick_fcking_cheney my_name_is_dick_fcking_cheney Jul 24, 2012 11:08 AM Flag

      It's extremely odd that MSX would agree to a major purchase price without a 43-101 report to substantiate the value of the property.

      ATTN BCSC; How much longer are you going to allow this fiasco to drain money out of BC? IE: No 43-101, No drilling by either the vendor or the Purchaser to verify all these wild assumption by both the Vendor and Purchaser.

    • A Lopehandia issued 43-101 would answer all your questions and end any speculation. I suggest you ask JL your questions. I certainly don't have access to drill reports on the disputed claims.

    • LOL I'm well aware that it is difficult for some in these discussions to connect the dots. I just find it challenges me to draw bigger dots.

      Bless their little pointed heads.

    • go fook yourself

 
ABX
10.58+0.27(+2.62%)Dec 26 4:00 PMEST

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.