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

Barrick Gold Corporation Message Board

  • pascuaforensics pascuaforensics Aug 5, 2011 9:59 AM Flag

    ABX Pascua PONZI= TSX-MWR confronted @ Pascua mine Chile

    Now ABX must sue TSX-MWR to recover PASCUA for their farcic PONZI SCHEEME - PASCUA LAMA

    Barrick's sale of Chile's Silver to SLW shall be disputed as selling stolen never owned assets.

    Barrick must now prove their mining property filings 2011 to SEC and Chile will issue NO VALID TITLES ARE HELD BY ABX in Chile. Non at 2011. never at MINA PASCUA CHILE areas.

    In fact BARRICK moved PASCUA LAMA to the boonies to escape MINING PROPERTY FRAUD as caught 2011 at their SEC filings @ NYSE and TSX.

    Welcome to the biggest mining fraud, bigger than BRE-X

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • Already posted 8 times,pasc and is land same person , what a FOOL, earning his bashing money.

      • 1 Reply to jcroberts18
      • Excuse me?

        The fools are BARRICK GOLD CORPORATION insider trading marauders...

        running this PONZI SCHEEME

        advertising themselves as pseudo owners of PASCUA LAMA worldwide in 100 magazines TV SEC Exchanges these boards...

        and you complaint because someone does REINFORCE the fact, that until BARRICK GOLD CORPORATION comes clean, its dirt shall be exposed?

        Take it from me...

        I saw peter Munk sue... faster than the sued party could finish his speech...

        Where is the crook now?

        wh6y was he silent to MWR in public? threatening by Barrick to sue MWR and now?

        TSX _ MWR - PASCUA?

        hey, ABX props itself thanks to bogus and intended fraudulent publications of record, included but not limited to ANDY LLOYD - STOCKWATCH.

        so, until ABX does come clean with its PASCUA LAMA PONZI SCHEEME & FRAUD...

        you may see frquent postings of that, as a warning to the public.

        no one makes money posting, unless you know it because you do it, eh?


    • Also, if Mina Pascau comes through in favour of MWR, I see no reason with what has been confirmed inside the mine that MWR would go to perhaps $50

      • 1 Reply to island_looker
      • I would really like to believe that, but something says that a Corp as large as ABX, will, or would not put themselves in the position for such a black eye. And if Mwr is in the position, to scoop this it, should have been headlines all over the world but , nada, IMO, therefore I think ABX is comfortable in their position and MWR is uncomfortable with theirs, ergo if a minor like MWR had this in their hands they would be all over it publicly, to embarrass ABX, in the public forum that is much cheaper than court

    • Bump Bump

    • Very disturbing, as now on the Ihub, investors are trying to find out, who MWR's lawyer is. Makes one wonder

    • You obviously need to do some more due diligence. The area in question which Barrick said they acquired from Lac Minerals via its Chile subsidiary, Campania Minera Nevada SA in 1994 was initially called the Pascua Mine. Below is a paragraph from Barricks 1997 Prospectus dated April 14, 1997. If you recall, the titles ABX acquired from Lac Minerals (Amerillos 1-3000) are concession for salt and nitrates and have expired due to ABX overlapping the claims with Tesoros claims to which they don't own and included in ABX SEC filings and Pascua Lama prospectus. This is confirmed by two expert Chilean mining surveyors reports that have been posted here many times.

      Not to confuse you any farther, I’ll just say this. ABX is in trouble in Chile and Mr Lopehandia and MWR look to benefit from Barrick’s Pascua Lama Ownership problems. I don’t care if you believe me or anyone else who has been talking about this issue, you can wait and see. BTW, ABX and SLW keep heading lower each step of the way.

      Interesting how ABX has pushed the Pascua project each and every year since 1997 while increasing its development cost from $500 million in 1997 to $5 billion to develop Pascua Lama in 2011. Yes, there is definitely something wrong going on in Chile with Pascua Lama. Something to think about.


      ABX 1997 Prospectus dated April 14, 1997:

      Pascua Mine Project

      The Pascua Mine Project is located approximately 30 miles to the north of the El Indio Mine complex and adjacent to the Chile-Argentina border. The Project is at an elevation of between 12,000 and 16,000 feet. Barrick holds an 80% interest In the Pascua Mine Project through its indirect subsidiary, Campania Minera Nevada SA At the time of Barrick 's acquisition of the Project in September 1994, proven and probable gold reserves were approximately 2 million ounces. Barrick 's discovery of The Quebrada de Pascua deposit in 1995 and its other exploration activities have resulted in an 8.1 million Ounce Increase in the Pascua Mine Project’s total proven and probable gold reserves, which stood at Approximately 10.1 million ounces as at December 31, 1996, of which Barrick's share is approximately 8.1 million ounces. Development work is continuing at the Project, with construction costs for the initial Project to develop the oxide reserve expected to be approximately $500 million. Commercial production is currently expected to commence in 2000, and the mine is expected to produce an average of 400,000 ounces of gold per year for a minimum of 20 years,

    • LOL Damned if they do. Damned if they don't.

      Have you ever considered that Mina Pascua and the Chilean portion of Pascua Lama are not the same? Have you considered Mina Pascua was similarly named to deliberately create equivocation?

      Just some things to think about.

    • little experience?

      extensions = demise or trouble?

      perhaps in the case of BARRICK GOLD CORPORATION you are 100% right...

      They have been extending MINA PASCUA into production from 1997, then contracted to open 2000

      They failed misserable and promised or extended the production date for 2003 or when Gold reached US300/oz

      They failed misserably

      extended to 2006

      failed again and extended to 2008

      failed again and called it 2009 for sure

      extended again to 2012 now extended again to 2013 ....

      and in the case of BARRICK GOLD - SILVER WHEATON Pascua Silver contract, production was extended to 2015...

      You are right... now I can understand why the word EXTENDED 45 DAYS at MWR Pascua owners deal... almost gave you the right to call extensions TROUBLE!!!

      Any ways you are right...

      You have the disastrous experience of BARRICK GOLD CORPORATION extending MINA PASCUA Gold production from 1994-2015...

      hence your stance...

      In my busness experience a healthy extension in consensus always brought about 100% fulfillment of the obligations by the agreeing parties...

      In the case of BARRICK GOLD CORPORATION - MINA PASCUA PONZI SCHEEME, the extensions were shovelled by force unilaterally by ABX down its shareholders throats and up their butts 1994-2011...

      only to find out that what Barrick Gold Corporation - ABX publishes at last as PASCUA LAMA, is a bunch of BOGUS TIOTLES to which Chile itself shall deny fresh 2011 title to BARRICK GOLD CORPORATION'S name.

      next time you try to find error in someone, please look at your own mammooth PASCUA PONZI SCHEEME 1994-2015

    • Thanks voodoo for the info re Pascua 2000

      It was MINA PASCUA CHILE only was it not?

      No Glaciers lies

      No LAMA farce

      <No VELADERO decoy

      Just Pascua mine fully permitted to mine Gold at USD40 per Troy ounce 1994-2001

      Why closed at 2011 DUE TO LOW GOLD PRICES Peter Munk undesirable financial terrorist?

    • Yes, but from their filings ABX, they actually give the areas in question which are exactly what forensics is saying is wrong
      they are all over the boards with various 1 - 3000 their SEC filings so I think there is no mistake of different areas, they are at war with only what is in question

16.65-0.24(-1.42%)Oct 26 4:01 PMEDT