Sat, Oct 25, 2014, 12:33 PM EDT - U.S. Markets closed

Recent

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

Barrick Gold Corporation Message Board

  • voodoo.three voodoo.three Jul 17, 2013 5:37 PM Flag

    Barrick & The 2001 Pascua Lama Chile Court Injunction

    Barrick why are you not reporting anymore with the events dealing with the 2001 Chile Court Ordered Injunction against the properties Barrick fraudulently included into Barricks Regulatory Filings?

    Barrick lied, the injuctioned areas from 2001 cover the deposit of Pascua Lama on the Chile side. Barrick lied again, Mr Lopehandia has domain over those areas covered by the 2001 injunction. The 2001 injunction has prevented ABX from mining Pascua Lama for the past 12 years. ABX does not have the legal rights to mine the deposit. This is why the delays and Barricks recent self inflicted water flow landslide that destroyed the Pascua Lama mountain side and rivers. Mr Lopehandia has the Certified Domain against his clean titles through Lopehandia's mining agent Villar.

    2005 SEC Form 40-F ( Filed 03/31/05 for the Period Ending 12/31/04 ) @ EDGAR Online

    "In 2001, an action was filed in Chile by Rudolfo Francisco Villar against Barrick’s Chilean subsidiary, Compania Minera Nevada Limitada (“CMN”), claiming that it had failed to fully honor an agreement to purchase certain mining claims of Villar located near the Pascua Lama project. Villar’s suit seeks to rescind the purchase agreement with CMN or, alternatively, damages of approximately US$ 1 million. At the outset of the litigation, Villar obtained an ex parte injunction barring CMN from selling or encumbering the claims while the suit is pending before the Chilean courts. Barrick intends to vigorously defend the action."

    Pascua Lama Technical Report 2011

    "TECHNICAL REPORT LOCATION: MINA PASCUA (PASCUA-LAMA) PROJECT, CHILE

    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 PASCUA-LAMA PROJECT 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.

    FINAL CONCLUSION 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."

    TRANSLATED CHILE MEDIA REPORT 2013:

    "The largest gold mining company in the world, Barrick Gold and its Chilean subsidiary, Nevada Spa Mining, could lose in the coming months the Pascua deposit worth millions after a series of frauds regarding mining property and repeated poor environmental practices. The deposit is known as the Pascua-Lama, with the name Pascua from the Chilean side, and Lama from the Argentine side.
    Barrick Gold is accused of illegally extracting gold minerals along with outlawed salt and nitrate concessions. The accusations include mining gold from Chile while ignoring a provisional Supreme Court measure that prohibits mining activity and securing new contracts, conducting business in the international bank with “phony” titles, and trying to obstruct justice using false testimony, among others. The accusations have been presented by Chilean mine owner, Jorge Lopehandía, who along with Mountainstar Gold Inc, were granted legal ownership of the Pascua mine in February.

    On February 1, 2013, Alan GS Hultman, the lawyer for Mountainstar Gold Inc, received the Pascua Mine Chile property titles and its mining concessions.

    On January 16, the titles were issued in Vallenar, Chile by the Mines Commissioner, Paulo Cortes Olguín. This grants sole legal jurisdiction over the Pascua Mine area concessions and titles, to Lopehandía, who has been threatened and pressured by Barrick Gold to waive his own rights.
    The titles were authenticated by the Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of Chilean Exterior Relations and have been validated by the Canadian Embassy in Santiago, Chile. This happened after Barrick tried to invalidate Lopehandía’s actions in Canada several times.

    This is a check or almost checkmate for Barrick, because in Chile the only person authorized to grant a valid mining property certificate, or for that matter, who can validate the right [to mining property], is the Mines Commissionar, who in this case is from the the jurisdiction of the city of Vallenar.

    The Mines Commissioner established in a legal document that the concessions of the Pascua Project in Chile: Tesoros Uno 1 al 30 through Tesoros Doce 1 al 5 are in Jorge Lopehandía’s name, making him the valid title-holder from 2013 onward.

    Thus this advance ruling underscores that Barrick Gold Corporation (ABX), or its affiliates in Chile do not have titles nor have they ever had titles for these concessions.
    Secondly, the Commissionar established through the work of Lopehandía’s mining agent, Mr. Villar, that “Amarillos North (12,850 acres) and Amarillos South (8,400 acres) have been Lopehandía’s property since 1996.

    Both Lopehandía and Brent Johnson, his partner from Mountainstar Gold Inc, reiterated their confidence in the Chilean justice system, adding that “all the false declarations made by Barrick executives and their affiliates in Chile in relation to these titles, have given way to criminal chrges, and a call for jail sentences against those involved with the case.”

    Barrick Paralyzed for Damaging the Environment
    In addition, Barrick Gold has been ordered to pay the sum of 2,000 UTM a Chilean currency unit to calculate taxes, fines, and custom duties, close to 120 million pesos or $254,400 USD], a fine issued for irregularities in environmental mismanagement and for not fulfilling its commitments and mitigation measures of the Environmental Ratings Resolution (RCA in Spanish).

    “All mining operations in Pascua Lama are paralyzed,” clarified Mauricio Pino, the Regional Ministerial Mining Secretary of Atacama.

    The above finding was a result of the Atacama General Direction of Waters’(DGA in Spanish) detection of particulate matter in the surrounding glaciers, which the company had unsuccessfully attempted to hide.

    Barrick is accused of failures in the handling of the mine’s wastewater plant, failure in the monitoring of the glaciers located in the Cordillera mountains of the Huasco valley in the Atacama region, and failures in its efforts to avoid transporting material over the glaciers, which threatens their conservation and the sustainability of the water flow in the basin.

    Barrick risks losing its environmental permit from the Environmental Superintendent if it continues to commit these serious infractions.

    It should also be added that in October 2012, work was already stopped by the National Geology and Mining Service (Sernageomin) after they detected that the mines caused pollution and health risks to the workers."

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • On June 21, 2006, a Chilean court returned two of Barrick Gold's Pascua Lama mining leases to prospector Rodolfo Villar, who had agreed to sell them to Barrick but had been paid only 10,000 pesos ($20 CDN). The ruling could have serious consequences since the leases are listed as Barrick's property in a 2004 Protocol to the Chile-Argentina "Treaty of Mining Integration" which could be invalidated as a result. This analysis by Lucio Cuenca, National Coordinator of the Latin American Observatory of Environmental Conflicts (OLCA) was first published in El Mostrador on June 26, 2006

      Pascua Lama exists as a binational mining project because in the year 1997 the governments of Argentina and Chile signed a "Treaty of Mining Integration" whose ambit of application is the border region along the Andes and which constitutes the legal framework governing the development of the mining business. Before this treaty, it was not possible to mine deposits located in this mountainous region because they were in "borderized zones" in the case of Chile, and in Argentina, "border zones" and/or "security zones", spaces which in both countries were subject to restrictive laws.

      The transnational mining companies, Barrick Gold in particular, pursuaded the governments of both countries that it would be beneficial to create a legal instrument to facilitate the mining business in the border regions.

      The recent ruling of the 14th Civil Court of Santiago (case #1912-2001), which overturned the sale of mining claims carried out in March of 1997 in which Rodolfo Villar García ceded to mining company Minera Nevada -- subsidiary of Barrick Gold in Chile -- the rights to properties where the project Pascua Lama is being constructed, brings the thorny problems of this complex conflict to a forefront. The judge completely nullified the contract of sale between Villar and Barrick Gold and ordered the return of the rights of ownership which existed previously in the Amarillo Norte and Tesoro properties (Pascua Lama being located in this last property), returning them to their previous state when the prospector Rodolfo Villar was the owner of these mining rights.

      But what certainly could constitute a bigger obstacle for Pascua Lama are the implications of the ruling regarding some of the legal points generated by the Mining Treaty with Argentina to concretely facilitate the development of the binational project. The Mining Treaty establishes that under petition from investors to establish operations along the border, the parties must sign Additional Specific Protocols, where the "area of operations" and the procedures will be determined for each project.

      In the case of Pascua Lama, this protocol was signed and set into law by the Decree of the Ministry of Mining on December 11 of 2004. In this protocol -- among other things -- the "area of operations" is detailed, its limits set, and Nevada Mining Company Ltd.'s 193 mining claims "already constituted" and the 8 "in process" are identified. In this list figure "Amarillos" at 3,600 hectares and "Tesoros" at 2,100 hectares. These mining claims are those the recent ruling returned to Rodolfo Villar, and one could conclude thus that the decree contains serious flaws and should be itself nullified.

      It is painfully obvious that the Chilean government has enacted this Decree containing these defects. One might think that the government didn't know. But this case has a long history which the authorities could not ignore. For example, in this case a precautionary order was decreed over the disputed claims which "prohibits the signing of acts and contracts and/or encumbrences and/or transferrals over each of the aforementioned mining properties." Therefore, it was sufficient to request a certificate of ownership valid in the mining district of Vallenar. Our authorities, when they want to make things easier for the "big investors", let themselves be easily carried off and act above the law.

      Focusing on the principle of invalidation, Article 53 and subsequent articles of the Administrative Procedures (Law 19.880) which regulate the acts of the authorities that dictated the Decree, states that this same should be nullified administratively on account of a serious flaw. This could be the moment to start to rectify a series of other irregularities and illegalities which have been denounced, but which the governments in power, ceding to the pressure of the transnational mining company, have systematically ignored.

    • You are making a fool of yourself!!!!!

      • 1 Reply to bigdoginvestor
      • Looks like Barrick is making fools out of themselves with all the lies at Pascua Lama. Barrick had all the money in the world to build Pascua Lama and the water treatment facilities yet did not build what was already planned. Barrick could build it because they don't own it. The 2001 injunction Barrick decided to stop reporting on didn't just go away, Barrick lied and Mr Jorge Lopehandia has the domain to the titles that cover Pascua Lama on the Chile side. Welcome to Barricks fraud at Pascua since ABX announced they were building Pascua in 1997 for $500 million with production set for the year 2001. Pretty hard to build a mine when you don't own the properties.

    • Voodoo doo,
      Thanks for the info.
      I was about to buy some blocks 10-20k each, but, now you have informed me. Great you are here. Big institutions and hedge funds should have hired you. You would have saved them lots of $.
      Those guys dont't have a clue. You are unbelievably wise. Doo doo

      Sentiment: Hold

    • Since the 2001 court injunction does not cover the UTM coordinates of Barrick's Pascua Lama mine, any actions involving those concessions are immaterial to Barrick.

      You keep stating that the PL deposit is located in the Tesoro/Amarillo concessions. JL's mining expert described those mining properties as "the origin and start of the PASCUA LAMA PROJECT according to background information included in the Environmental Impact Assessment study project presented to COREMA ATACAMA AT THE START OF THIS PROJECT".

      Still Hopeful just posted a link (in IHub post 16896) to a 1999 article from "The Northern Miner", which may shed some light on your confusion. The article describes an extensive drilling program by Barrick. Before the program, the original resources were approximately 2 million ounces of gold. After the program, the estimate of the amount of gold grew to 20 million ounces. At the present time the amount of "ounces of proven and provable gold reserves" equals 17,900,000.

      JL's mining expert also states that Barrick's Pascua Lama project is currently located not at the original LAC location on the Tesoro/Amarillo claims, but at another location within the PL Protocol. He writes " they [Barrick Gold] now locate the new PROJECT, that is to say, this apparent OTHER, or NEW PASCUA LAMA mining project, already individually shown in the PROTOCOL AREA; this would be not the original project presented to COREMA ATACAMA located within the AMARILLOS 1 THROUGH 3000 mining properties".

      So let's do the math. The original property purchased from LAC contained 2 mil oz. By 1999, Barrick's extensive exploration expanded the reserves to 20 mil oz. After the injunction of 2001 and to the current date, Barrick claims gold reserves at the PL deposit of 17.9 mil oz. This leaves 2 mil oz in the "original" deposit on the Amarillo/Tesoro claims, which are not part of Barrick's reserves or part of the Pascua Lama mine.

      • 2 Replies to mtstack2000
      • Well here are my thoughts "Stackerounee".
        You say there are now 20M ounces of gold discovered by Barricks extensive drilling program over these last few years and Barrick has not to my knowledge pulled a single declared ounce of gold from Pascua Lama over these 17 years of deferred production, What they have done though is to extricate Billions of forward financing from Royal Gold, Silver Wheaton ,The Deutsch Bank of Germany and who knows who else??
        Now when things are getting sticky and people(read legal firms) are asking significant questions Barrick decides to pull the plug and create an environmental disaster that will likely end any possibility of actually mining and creating value for their shareholders!
        Seems to me, just seems that if Barrick had a jewel such as this, they would have protected it to their deaths and be the caregivers of their project on behave of their valued shareholders....... This is not evident in anyway shape or form. I believe Barrick to be criminal in this regard .
        Currently I am taking all bets that the Pascua Lama project will be Barrricks undoing and end their financial plundering once and for all.
        There will be class action law suits in Biblical proportions, Satan will be pleased as Barrick people leap from their windows to their dooooooms in shame for their actions,,,,,,,,,,

        SHISH....... I coulda been a preacher

        Mackstaker your good but soon you too will be fodder of the Pascua Lama fiasco!

        Sentiment: Strong Sell

      • Sorry mtstack2000 but you are wrong and are misleading investors. Experts say this:

        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.

        The Deposit of Pascua Lama is located on titles covered by the 2001 injunction. Mr Lopehandia has recieved Certified Domain to those areas.

        Barricks whole issue with Pascua Lama for the last 17 years has been the fact they have not legally had the mining rights or domain. Mr Lopehandia has the legal rights and domain thanks to the legal victories over the last 12 years which Barrick stopped reporting.

        The events are very material to investors, so much so ABX provided the Villar lawsuits and 2001 injunction into their SEC 40-F filings in 2005 and again a News Release in 2007 which indicated theo going legal battle. What Barrick hasn't said is they lost and have not got the titles back, as such Barrick has never owned the titles ABX registered as owned in Barricks Pascua Lama SEC 6K and OSC 43-101 regulatory filings. Barrick needs to remove a bunch of fraudulent titles off their Pascua Lama books, and YES they do cover the deposit of Pascua Lama as this whole project is nothing but an ABX fraud.

        "TECHNICAL REPORT LOCATION: MINA PASCUA (PASCUA-LAMA) PROJECT, CHILE

        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 PASCUA-LAMA PROJECT 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.

        FINAL CONCLUSION 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."

    • voodoo do that voodoo you do so well.......Barricks will rise from the mountain of gold an take it to the bank. Chile needs to pay back the money they fraudulently took from Barricks. Long live the king!!!

 
ABX
13.52+0.07(+0.52%)Oct 24 4:03 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.