Pascua-Lama has been subjected to one of the most rigorous approval processes in Chile’s history. The Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) in Chile was approved in February 2006. Following a similar process, the EIA in Argentina was later approved in December 2006. It was a comprehensive and transparent review involving environmental authorities, government agencies, independent experts and community stakeholders.
The EIA in Chile was submitted in December 2004 and was under formal review for 14 months. The amount of information and supporting documentation was extensive: the 2004 EIA and three Addenda comprised 5,336 pages in 13 volumes. The cost of this work amounted to approximately US$15 million in Chile alone and involved some 200,000 man hours by various professional and technical personnel from 10 major internationally recognized engineering and environmental consultancies as well as four local ones and five universities who worked on the preparation and submissions of the EIA....
a) Barrick does not own TESOROS as to be owner of something, yu have to be registered owner.
b) The only registered owner at TESOROS was, HECTOR UNDA LLANOS, however the titular at 2011 is mr. Jorge Lopehandia.
c) It is a crime to impersonate business as done by Barrick Gold Corporation, specially when a Court order impeached barrick from calling TESOROS its property.
Thus, criminal activity and criminal charges are a fact.
Barrick did not win any legal actions, mr. lopehandia is on record as sayinmg that 2010 Judgment gives him the TESOROS claims as he is the titular 2011.
Barrick has no business defrauding SEC and Banks with bogus TESOROS titles included in its financials.
More laughable still is the inclusion of the SALTS & NITRATES AMARILLOS 1-3000 claims
That is showing sheer desperation in barrick's circles.
Going public with fake license plates to fake owenrship of a car?.... jai;l time in my books!
My crystal ball reads.... BARRICK NEVER OWNED ITS MINA PASCUA - a.k.a. PASCUA LAMA PONZI SCHEEME
It is also interesting that today, PF agrees that the Testoros claims are in the name of Hector Unda Llanos and not JL.
I agree that there is an injuction against HUL from transferring the title to anyone, however since JL agrees that it is common practice for mining claims to be registered in the name of the mining engineer (as he did with Villar), I don't see a problem with Barrick including the claims registered by HUL in their SEC filing.
"Lopehandia advises that it was a common mining business practice to hold one’s mining claims in the name of his mining engineer or in the name of his lawyer."
A public rebuttal can be problematic for any company engaged in issues, for example over land title. The contents of said response can be used against them _especially when said content can be shown to be false. Such a response would be a massive treat for any lawyer opposing them. I would assume that Barrick is remaining quiet due to following the directives of their legal consel.
MWR has no fear in making public statements regarding the ownership of pascua lama and their dealings with LP. This, in my opinion, demonstrates who is in the defensive position and who is in the offensive position.
I have given you references to where I have obtained my information.
AS to your Supreme Court question, I got my information from wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascua_Lama
"The Court case is now moving to a final conclusion at the Supreme Court level in Santiago's 14th District Court."
I am assuming that this is JL's appeal. However, the fact that JL is appealing comes from MWR's press release on the option agreement as of June 6, 2011. I didn't say it, MWR did. A direct quote follows:
"Various appeals and other hearings have since occurred. Lopehandia and Barrick agree that the last decision was not in Lopehandia's favour. Lopehandia says that he is appealing that decision. He says that the appeal should be heard shortly."
If Barrick did not win the "last decision", I have no idea why JL would agree that they had and he would appeal.
As to the Tesoros claims, that is not what the MWR press release says. As I follow the situation, the Tesoros claims were originally Barrick's filed by HUL their mining engineer. The Tesoros claims overlapped the Amarillos claims, and according to MWR (direct quote follows:
"Lopehandia relies on a 2006 Judgment of the 14th Civil Court (this was a trial judgment). The judge did not believe that the written price of 10,000 Chilean pesos was the agreed upon and proper purchase price. Further, she found the purchase and sale agreement to be null and void and that certain mining claims be restituted to Villar. Lopehandia states that the Court ordered that the Tesoros mining claims be struck from the register in favour of the Amarillo North and South Mining Claims."
If the Tesoros claims were declared void by the trial, then JL never owned them even after the 2006 trial.
I have seen no independent confirmation (outside of JL's website) that says that the Tesoros claims had been given to JL. If anything, they would need to be declared void per the 2006 court decision if that would be upheld and the 2007 court action of giving the claims back to Barrick be denied.
As of May 2011, Barrick still listed the Tesoros claims as theirs in their Form 6-K filed with the SEC. If they had actually been given to JL in January, I think Barrick should have been informed.
As far as MWR reports, the legal action is ongoing and has not been concluded.
"The legal issues, including the Chile litigation, may take years to be resolved. This is supported by the fact that the Chile litigation between Villar/Lopehandia and Barrick has been ongoing for approximately 10 years and it is still not resolved."
"The mining property and mineral rights issues of the underlying mining claims may not be resolved in favour of Lopehandia."
Both of the above statements are from MWR's option agreement. Obviously, if the claims were in JL's name, MWR would have stated that in the option agreement. That they did not and indicated that litigation and any resolution may take years speaks to their knowledge that JL does not have clear title to the claims.
It is a very murky case indeed.
Interesting comments but what you didn't rely on is those Tesoros claims are injuctioned by the Chile courts due to the original 2006 Villar Judgement. Barrick can't include those Tesoros claims as theirs as they are not.
Also, I'm Courious as to where you are reading this issue is going to the Chilean Supreme Court? ABX nor MWR or JL have stated anything of the sort? MWR did say in it's March 2nd news release that the August 2010 judgement you mentioned as a ABX win was in fact not a win because it disobayed the 2008 Supreme Court ruling which upheld the original 2006 judgement in favor of Mr Lopehandia.
It would be important for you to read these comments from that expert Chilean surveyors report. You should be aware that the Registrar of Mines in Chile already granted JL legal rights to Amerillos and Tesoros claims.
"In accordance with the Title Deeds and the Ownership Certificates current as at 2011, the deeds do not register any dominion valid in Chile as at January. 2011, which hands over dominion or property to BARRICK GOLD CORPORATION. BARRICK CHILE or MINERA NEVADA L1MITADA. This legal privilege corresponds. To today's date. to Mr. Jorge R. Lopehandia. according to current Title Deeds and Ownership Certificates. which are before me and which am attaching to this Report having been granted by the Registrar of Mines with jurisdiction over the areas of the Mina Pascua project in Chile."
I've read what you posted. It is complicated, and I'm unsure that I've understood on the first or second reading. I don't know the law in Chile about "marginal notations". In the US when a piece of property changes hands, a new deed or concession is issued. You just don't write in the margins.
I do see however, that the Tesoros claims are in the name of Hector Unda Llanos. That is Barrick's mining engineer, and as JL has said that it is common practice to file claims in the name of the mining engineer. It also says that "These properties, as the record shows, are currently registered and in good standing."
As I said, I'm unsure of the legal standing of any marginal notes. That is what the ongoing legal case with the Supreme Court of Chile is supposed to decide. It is not obvious to me who is going to prevail as I do not have adequate knowledge of Chilean laws.
It does however seem strange that PF didn't know that Barrick was listing these claims. That is public information.
I think because he wants you to find it so it becomes obvious to you. The laws in Chile have to be respected by ABX.
Have you found the claims in question?
TESOROS ONE 1-30 to TESOROS TWELVE 1-5
Did you read the two expert Chilean mining surveyor reports submitted in MWR's March 2nd news release?
"5. The deeds "AMARILLOS SUR - AMARILLOS NORTE" [Yellow South - Yellow North] do not show any marginal entries on any valid property deeds or certificates of dominion in the name of BARRICK GOLD CORPORATION or of MINERA NEVADA S.A. or of MINERA NEVADA LIMITADA, they only show a legal marginal annotation concerning the litigious rights over these concessions in favour of Mr. Jorge R. Lopehandia. "
6. The deeds "TESOROS UNO 1-30" through "TESOROS DOCE 1-5" do not show any marginal entries on any valid property deeds or certificates of dominion in the name of BARRICK GOLD CORPORATION or of MINERA NEVADA S.A. or of MINERA NEVADA LIMITADA, they only show a legal marginal annotation concerning the litigious rights over these concessions in favour of Mr. Jorge R. Lopehandia.
Then why is it Mr Lopehandia has claims in his name to which ABX included in the SEC Pascua Lama Technical Reports you yourself looked at mtstack?
If Tesoros are listed, then Barrick is in deep trouble, do you have a link to the direct page where is mentioned please?
I would love to see that.
Is almost like Barrick saying they own the Christ of Rio de Janeiro in Brazil or the many moons of Jupiter.
Barrick has zero, zilch, no legal link, outsiide of the legal loop, impersonating, defrauding the world and Chilean system, should they have included TESOROS in any of their Annual reports 2001 to date.
Criminal charges will immediately be sought in all North America, should that criminal falacy that Barrick owns TESOROS is published in North America or any jurisdiction worldwide.
So would you please be so kind as to show a link to whereat BARRICK GOLD CORPORATION brags to have a stolen asset being peddled at any world exchange, called TESOROS.
Thanks for the link.
Justice shall be served and Police alerted worldwide as soon as the link is provided.
Wow, how low has Barrick gone in their fraud, as to empty their bowels in the lawmakers of Chile, Barrick has earned an eviction from that jurisdiction.
Your hours of fredom are counted Peter Munk, should barrick in so much has published that TESOROS is one of its assets in Chile.
Warning to the public.
If Barrick published to own TESOROS concessions, PETER MUNK is a thief!
ABX is in deep trouble out of Chile very fast as result.
Barrick has tampered with Justice, outlaws, criminal character assassins of Mina Pascua owner and project.
TESORS your jumped invention that killed LAC'S 1994 concessions for which Barrick paid 1.7 Billion US, shall be your death nail Barrick, if you published that as yours, you just drank pure cyanide Peter Munk.