Mountain-West Resources Inc
Symbol C : MWR
Shares Issued 51,741,710
Close 2011-12-08 C$ 0.65
Recent Sedar Documents
View Original Document
Mountain-West insists Barrick doesn't own Mina Pascua
2011-12-08 22:04 ET - News Release
Mr. Brent Johnson reports
PROGRESS REPORT ON MINA PASCUA, CHILE
Mountain-West Resources Inc. is providing a further report to shareholders regarding Mina Pascua, Chile. Experts in Chile have provided reports that Barrick Gold Corp. has no registered ownership to the Amarillos 1-3,000 or Tesoros concessions that it claims in the Pascua Lama protocol.
The Amarillos 1-3,000 salt concessions as filed in 2011 with the Securities Exchange Commission and Ontario Securities Commission are dead at law and in legal process of annulment. The Amarillos 1-3,000 were overtaken by the Tesoros concessions without opposition. Barrick had four years at law to oppose the overtaking. No opposition means abandoning your rights.
Barrick's SEC and OSC filings on Mina Pascua are fraudulent for that reason.
Regarding the Stockwatch articles dated Dec. 7, 2011, Mountain-West affirms there is nothing inflammatory in its statements. The company can prove what we say is correct.
So does ABX own Amarillo 1-3000 and Tesoros 1 to 12?
You must be some kind of bad politician. Stop side stepping and answer YES or No.
If you want to involve yourself in this topic you will be getting more facts from those 2011 expert 3rd party Technical Reports whether you like it or not.
LOL I already told you what I thought. Please reread my last post until you actually understand it. And I do not respond well to demands. I also notice that you have avoided addressing the questions that I thought would be interesting to know and have resumed copy/pasting the mining engineer's report ad nauseam as if it were your personal mantra.
It seems like you are looking for assurance of some kind from me. I can't give you that because my opinion is irrelevant. All I can report and cite is what is available on the web, and you said you've already done your own DD, although you might have omitted finding out exactly where the property that MWR has optioned from JL is. Just trying to point you in a relevant direction for your continued DD.
I'm sure that all your questions will be answered sooner or later. I'm willing to wait for clarity even if it takes years. However, if you actually want the assurance that you know what you think you know, you should ask someone who is in a position of authority and not an anonymous person on a message board.
MTSTACK2000, please answer if ABX has claim to AMARILLOS 1-3000 and Tesoros 1 to 12? A Yes or No will do. (FYI a 3rd party technical report from a expert says NO).
Do you agree Amarillos 1-3000 claims and Tesoros are not owned by ABX? Do you agree these claims have a Precautionary measure since 2001, rol No. C-1912, which includes a prohibition on carrying out acts and executing contracts affecting these properties?
Like I said, I'll have no problem commenting on the location of Mina Pascua once we clear up the above question. PS third party technical report says the Amarrilos 1-3000 is dead and the Tesoros is listed as property of Mr. Jorge Rodrigo Lopehandia Cortes. ABX does not own them, DO YOU AGREE mtstack?
Technical Report from MWR Sept 21, 2011 news release at sedar.com:
Also mentioned are the TWELVE groups of mining properties TESORO ONE through TESORO TWELVE, comprising a total surface area of [blank] hectares; their status has also already been described and they belong to Mr. HECTOR UNDA LLANOS according to a document granted by the Vallenar Registrar of Mines and bearing the date June 15, 2011, and on its margin appear the words property of Mr. Jorge Rodrigo Lopehandia Cortes.
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.
From what I read on IHub, the disposition of the Tesoros and Amarillos claims are not a high priority with Barrick at this time. And since there has been no overt reaction from Barrick, I would assume that Barrick currently isn't interested in the ownership issues surrounding these claims.
As to actual ownership that I don't know. Does JL claim the 50% that has not been optioned to MWR or does the other 50% of the claim reside with Infinex Ventures, Inc per their agreement entered into in 2006 with JL. I do not know the answer to that question, but would be interested to find out. Until MWR exercises the option for close to $2 billion, I am assuming that JL has at least the 50% interest in the Tesoros claims that he has optioned to MWR.
As to the location of the claims (which is quite important regardless of your seeming nonchalance and marginalization of the subject), they seem to be up Barriales Creek without a means of propulsion (see my previous post for the directions to the Tesoros claims and relevant map) and not close to the Barrick Pascua Lama mining pit that is currently under development, evidenced by Barrick's complete indifference to the press release issued by MWR.
If you disagree about the location, then I'm sure that I can not convince you, but it should become evident in the ensuing months or years. What I don't understand is how MWR intends to monetize these claims. They have gone out of their way to antagonize the obvious buyer, Barrick, so I would think that is off the table. MWR is not a mining company and do not have the expertise to develop the claims themselves. As to other companies, do they want to become involved ?? <shrug> But that is another thing that should become evident given enough time.
I still suggest that you verify the location of the Tesoros claims for yourself. Maybe MWR has a map.
Firstly, let's talk about ownership. (then I'll comment on to your illogical attempt of why ABX moved the Pascua project of 1997) Can you explain why ABX included these claims which is shown not owned by ABX BY expert 3rd party technical reports but is shown by Barrick own filling as owned by ABX in Barricks SEC Form 6-K?:
LOS AMARILLOS 1 /3000
TESORO ONE 1/30
TESORO TWO 1/12
TESORO THREE 1/30
TESORO FOUR 1/30
TESORO FIVE 1/25
TESORO SIX 1/20
TESORO SEVEN 1/25
TESORO EIGHT 1/12
TESORO NINE 1/12
TESORO TEN 1/20
TESORO ELEVEN 1/20
TESORO TWELVE 1/5
Catalino Albanez Vergara, Ingeniero Ejecución en Minas, Expert Mine Surveyor since 1980 and Court-accredited Expert for the Appeals Court of La Serena, domiciled at “Pasaje Los Olivos 955”, La Serena.
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.
Yes, what don't you understand about the current pit (the new project)is not located within the Amarillos claims ("this would be not the original project presented to COREMA ATACAMA located within the AMARILLOS 1 THROUGH 3000 mining properties")?
The Tesoros claims and the Amarillos Claims overlap and were once considered to be the project center ("AT THE START OF THIS PROJECT; its CAMP as well as the PROJECT CENTRE was located in the Amarillos mountain which is located in WHAT IS TODAY the TESOROS 5 AND TESOROS 7 properties, and putting all the other properties comprised of TESOROS 1-30 THROUGH TESOROS TWELVE 1-5 respectively in as part of the PASCUA LAMA PROJECT. The mineral deposit subject of the environmental assessment lies within the boundaries of mining properties AMARILLOS 1 THROUGH 3000, once again being the origin of this project and nowadays said space is jointly occupied, according to the OVERLAP MAP"), but that is no longer the case. Please note carefully the use of the past tense "was located" not "is located" in the mining engineer's report.
Even PF says that Barrick has moved PL, as he so colorfully puts it, to some "burro pasture". I am assuming he refers to the current mining pit where all the exploratory drilling and construction has been done according to Barrick's maps.
IOW, this "was" the case "AT THE START OF THIS PROJECT", but to all evidence, especially the mining engineer's report, Barrick is not mining on the Tesoros or Amarillos claims. According to the 2006 directions to the Tesoros claims, they are well north of the present pit. Given that we consider the mining engineers report is correct, and the directions given for the Tesoros claims, which were quoted from the claims themselves, are correct, then the present day Barrick Pascua Lama mining pit lies well to the south of the Tesoros and Amarillos claims. These claims are not located at the present day mine, but are "in the vicinity" of Pascua Lama as reported by Barrick and all concurrent news articles.
I would suggest, if it interests you, that you verify exactly where the Tesoros and Amarillos claims lie. I am relying on a news article because that is the only location that I found publicly available for the claims. As always, if the public information is incorrect, I am incorrect.
This by an 3rd party technical report by an expert Chilean mining surveyor with 31 years of experience and court accredited expert for the Chilean Court of Appeals.
These mining properties were 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; its CAMP as well as the PROJECT CENTRE was located in the Amarillos mountain which is located in WHAT IS TODAY the TESOROS 5 AND TESOROS 7 properties, and putting all the other properties comprised of TESOROS 1-30 THROUGH TESOROS TWELVE 1-5 respectively in as part of the PASCUA LAMA PROJECT. The mineral deposit subject of the environmental assessment lies within the boundaries of mining properties AMARILLOS 1 THROUGH 3000, once again being the origin of this project and nowadays said space is jointly occupied, according to the OVERLAP MAP [“Plano de superposición”] provided by SERNAGEOMIN, A CHILEAN STATE ENTERPRISE and the sole entity charged with administering mining properties in Chile, whose official document is in my possession and which I have before me and which indicates the said status of both mining properties. According to figure 3-2 of the Pascua-Lama Protocol area, the mineral deposit under consideration here lies between UTM coordinates North 6,755,000 metres to 6,757,000 metres and East 400,000 metres to 402,000 metres, approximately. However, if we look at the MAPS in question CURRENTLY reported by BARRICK GOLD CORPORATION, we find that in the detail corresponding to the AMARILLO 1 THROUGH 3000 mining properties they do not quite cover the area indicated as PROJECT in this sheet (image) and they 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 as has been published, studied, traded and protocolized and under which BONDS AND FUTURE COMMODITIES SALES have been placed and other agreements signed, such as the PASCUA LAMA PROTOCOL between CHILE and ARGENTINA, in which both properties are included in the official documents issued by the OFFICIAL GAZETTE OF THE REPUBLIC OF CHILE, which is in my possession and which I have before me, DOMINION TITLES AND CURRENT OWNERSHIP CERTIFICATES, which not only have a PRECAUTIONARY INJUNCTION AGAINST CARRYING OUT ACTS AND EXECUTING CONTRACTS under an order of a COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF CHILE, but also on said title deeds, the name of Mr. JORGE R. LOPEHANDIA is shown on the margins as the current dominion holder.
WE ALSO ARE FACED WITH THE CLAIM BY BARRICK GOLD CORPORATION THAT IT IS THE OWNER OF THE PRECEDING TITLE DEEDS, WHICH DOES NOT CONFORM WITH THE EVIDENCE I HAVE IN MY POSSESSION AND HAVE HAD BEFORE ME ISSUED BY THE PERTINENT CHILEAN STATE ENTITIES, [AND THAT] IT IS THE OWNER OF THESE AREAS, AS THERE ARE NO REGISTRATIONS OF PROPERTY TITLE IN THE NAME OF BARRICK GOLD CORPORATION FOR THESE TITLE DEEDS AND AREAS.
MOREOVER, I HAVE IN MY POSSESSION AND I AM CURRENTLY READING A MAP ISSUED BY BARRICK GOLD CORPORATION DENOMINATED PASCUA LAMA MINING PROPERTY 2009, PROVIDED TO THE PROVINCE OF SAN JUAN, ARGENTINA, AND [T.N.: fractured syntax] THE THIRD REGION OF CHILE, WHICH SHOWS THE PASCUA LAMA PROJECT, KNOWN AS SUCH, OUTSIDE OF THE AREA AS BOUNDED AND UNDERSTOOD IN CHILE AND THE WORLD OVER.
Documentation filed by MWR at sedar.com Sept 21, 2011 news release.
In 2006, Infinex Ventures, Inc. entered into an agreement to purchase 50% of the Tesoros 1-12 mining claims. (See the link above.)
Per the referenced link, the location of the Tesoros claims are as follows: "The Claims are located 150 km southwest of the Chilean City of Vallenar, in the Province of Huasco. As literally stated in all the judicially seized Tesoro's Titles: "In order to reach the survey monument of these Mining Claims, one leaves the City of Vallenar and travels west on the highway towards Alto del Carmen and the Conay Carabineers Check Point. From that location, one continues on the road to Quebrada del Rio Chollay and Rio del Estrecho up to the Pascua mine camp of the Compania Minera Nevada. One drives three kilometers in the northeast direction to the crossing of the Quebrada Barriales which must be done on foot, where the survey monument is found."
Now please examine Barrick's Map of Mine and Mill Facilities at Pascua-Lama on Page 16. http://www.barrick.com/Theme/Barrick/files/docs_ehss/ERM%20Report%20on%20Barrick%20Pascua-Lama.pdf
If you follow the directions given, north following the Rio del Estrecho (upper left corner of the map) then northeast crossing the Quebrada Barriales (both are clearly marked on the map) you will find that the survey marker for the Tesoros claims is well away from the pit area of Barrick's Pascua Lama mine.
But Shareholders own Barrick. I am betting you have zero stake in it. Now shareholders can start a class action against you out side of Barrick. Is that what you want? You seem way dumber than most. You come across as an "Obsessed deranged Fool" Sorry you are 100% sad and pathetic.