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.
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.
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.
surface rights and mining rights are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Two parties can each own one or the other.... or both, and then there would be only one party. The last man standing wins. If each party owns a part of the action, a compromise will certaainly evolve since the stakes are pretty high.
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?
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!
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?