ed_ Just watched the hearing proceedings and it doesn't look good for Coeur on this one. The question being acted on regarded the appointment of a Special Master to oversee the case. In the principle a SM can be appointed by a Nevada county prosecutor in cases that are especially difficult and beyond the technical knowledge expected at that level of government. The panel of judges hearing this case was particularly troubled that the county judge in appointing the Master did not spell out the specifics of why this case was so exceptionally complex so as to warrant the action . They cautioned that strict adherence to the requirement for a detailed explanation for such an appointment is necessary to avoid judges statewide from taking this easy route to avoid doing their jobs
It was the Coeur attorney's task to defend the judge's decision by citing a number of references that indicate the criteria was met by the obvious huge number is issues placed in the record by both parties. In my opinion, he didn't satisfy the panel. How serious a setback this is to Coeur is in my opinion up in the air. There is no question from statements made by the appointed SM that he saw flaws in the Rye Patch claim staking procedure. He even went so far (I believe) as to say the RP claims were invalid (might be?) because claim law requires that an economical ore body be substantiated before a claim can be staked. How could this have been done without illegally trespassing on Coeur property.? No doubt if this decision goes the way it looks, the road is a little rougher for Coeur. However, I remain convinced that the ownership of those humungous tailing piles and leach pads are guaranteed by permits granted by the BLM, administrator of the federal land used by Rochester. Rye Patch will probably be pleased with a win on this one if for no other reason that it will eliminate the $500/hr the SM charges for services. This may be a long haul for them if we have a conflict in federal mining law.