Fri, Aug 22, 2014, 7:34 AM EDT - U.S. Markets open in 1 hr 56 mins

Recent

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

Silver Wheaton Corp. Message Board

voodoo.three 1056 posts  |  Last Activity: Sep 30, 2013 10:22 AM Member since: Nov 5, 2010
SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Highest Rated Expand all messages
  • voodoo.three voodoo.three Sep 30, 2013 10:22 AM Flag

    Barricks ownership problems at Pascua Lama with the Chile side of the project is the reason for all of Barricks problems right now. The environmental issues is self inflicted by Barrick because ABX can't comply with the 2006 environmental permitting requirements because Barrick legally has no valid title to the chile side of the project. ABX doesn't want to remind investors of the 2001 Chile Court Injunction to the Pascua Lama Project and why Mr Lopehandia has legal domain to those properties with his restituted titles. ABX Is a mess and so is the Pascua Lama regulatory filings and SEC 6K and OSC 43-101 books.

    The following is excerpts from court documents filed by Labaton Sucharow LLP on August 2, 2013 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. These documents were related to a class action lawsuit filed on behalf of persons or entities who purchased the publicly-traded common stock of Barrick Gold Corporation on the New York Stock Exchange between May 7, 2009 and May 23, 2013.

    The excerpts focus on information related to the testimony of former employees of Barrick Gold acting as confidential witnesses (CW1 - CW5) in the case.

    Download the entire document here.

    *************************************

    Glossary of Abbreviations

    CW1: a former manager at the Pascua-Lama Project.

    CW2: a former operations manager at the Pascua-Lama Project.

    CW3: a former Barrick employee who took part in the Company's finacial reporting process during the latter part of the Class Period

    CW4: a labor relations employee at the Pascua-Lama Project during the years 2010 and 2011.

    EPCM: an estimate of development costs that Barrick sought in 2006 or 2007 from a prominent engineering, procurement, and construction management firm.

    RCA: environmental review process conditions No24/ February 2006).

    ORP: monthly report sent to Barrick's Toronto offices titled the Operational Readiness Plan

    *************************************

    CW1 stated that as early as 2010 the Project was not in compliance with critical environmental requirements relating to glaciers. The same former employee related that, at the same time that the Company was informing investors that the Project's cost would be between $2.8 and $3 billion, Barrick already had in its possession an engineering report estimating costs for the Project at nearly twice that figure.

    In 2010, CW1 learned that Barrick first sought an estimate of development costs in 2006 or 2007 from a prominent engineering, procurement, and construction management firm (the EPCM report), which concluded that developing the Pascua-Lama project would cost more than $5 billion. CW1 understood that the EPCM had been read by certain Project and construction directors at Barrick, and related that the EPCM report was known of and still discussed by the Company's staff between 2010 and 2011, but the company did not reveal these costs to the public.

    CW2, a former operations manager at the Pascua-Lama Project for much of the Class Period, corroborated CW1's
    assertions regarding the EPCM Report. According to CW2, the EPCM Report and its contents were known to senior Project directors and senior Company managers, including Potter, the Company's Senior Vice President for Capital Projects. CW2 further stated that he attended meetings in Chile with other managers and Ron Kettles, the Project Director at the time. After the meetings CW2 and other managers discussed the Project's cost projections and concurred that there was no way the Pascua-Lama Project could be completed for $3 billion.

    In October 2011, according to CW1, Barrick's operations at the Pascua-Lama Project were not in compliance with environmental requirements, including the requirement to keep roads wet to prevent dust from mining operations from settling on near-by glaciers.

    On Feb 18, 2011, Barrick indicated that the Pascua-Lama Project could exceed the initial cost estimate of $2.8 to $3 billion. However, CW1 indicated that at that time, estimates of the cost of operations at the Pascua-Lama Project for the remaining nine month of 2011 alone exceeded $1.05 billion - more than 30 percent of the publicly acknowledged cost estimate for the entire Project - and that the Project Director knew of these estimates. Additionally, CW1 stated that as late as March 2011, construction at the Pascua-Lama site had in fact only just begun.

    According to CW2, reports detailing problems at the Pascua-Lama Project were prepared each month, and all information regarding the Project was forwarded to the Company's offices in Toronto. Among these reports was a monthly report titled the Operational Readiness Plan ("ORP"). Additionally, CW2 stated that operations staff at the Pascua-Lama Project communicated with staff in Barrick's Toronto office frequently by telephone, leading CW2 to conclude that Barrick's Toronto personnel were "completely aware of what was happening at Pascua Lama."

    CW3, a former Barrick employee who took part in the Company's finacial reporting process during the latter part of the Class Period, reported that Defendants held monthly financial meeting at the Company's offices in Toronto, Canada, at which detailed information was discussed with respect to each operating mine and project, such as the Pascua-Lama Project. These monthly financial reviews on occasion led to calls to regional reporting units for clarification of unusual or unexpected expense items, sometimes to the level of identifying specific equipment that needed replacement as a source of cost overruns. Similar project-level financial information and reports were circulated to the Company's capital projects team.

    According to CW4, a labor relations employee at the Pascua-Lama Project during the years 2010 and 2011, by the end of 2011 the COmpany's management was well aware of numerous environmental violations at the Project related to the construction of a canal that was part of the Project's water management system. In connection with Barrick's responsibility to monitor and report on water quality, the canal included pH meters to detect contamination of the water. However, according to CW4, Project managers were attempting to rush Project construction, which led to water in the canal often being contaminated. CW4 further stated that senior Company managers held meeting during which employees were instructed not to bring cameras to work sites, not to speak to media representatives, and not to speak to government officials -- especialy environmental regulators -- because the Chilean officials could shut the Pascua-Lama Project down were they to learn of the environmental problems.

    CW2 noted that many of the Company's environmental problems arose from unapproved changes to the original, approved plans relating to water channels -- changes Barrick had made in an attempt to reduce Project costs. CW2 stated that these changes were in place by the end of the first quarter of 2011, and that they were implemented without any notice to Chilean regulators. CW2 further asserted that by the end of 2011, Project managers including Igor Gonzalez (then Barrick's President of the South America region; currently the Company's Chief Operating Officer) were aware of at least three ORPs that described how these changes presented material problems and risks for the Project and the Company over the life of the Project.

    CW5 is a former supply chain manager who was employed by Barrick at the Pascua-Lama Project during 2010 and 2011. According to CW5, in 2010 or 2011 the Company discovered that costs for the Project were bring[sic] manipulated after conducting it own internal investigation into the costs and progress of the Pascua-Lama Project. Based on the results of that investigation, the Company removed xxxx and his team.

    According to CW2, even the self-reporting by Barrick that did take place only began after the summer thaw in 2011, once the problems with the secretly modified and poorly constructed water treatment canals had become so severe that the Company had no alternative but to inform the Chilean government.

    According to CW2, reports detailing costs, progress, and problems at Pascua-Lama such as the monthly ORP were prepared regularly by Project personnel, and all information regarding the Project was sent to the Company's Toront offices. Additionally, operations staff at Pascua Lama communicated with Toronto frequently by telephone, leading CW2 to conclude that Barrick's Toronto personnel were "completely aware of what was happening at Pascua Lama."

    As described by CW3, Barrick's managers held monthly meetings in Toronto, Canada, during which detailed mine - and project-level financial reports were discussed for operations such as the Pascua-Lama Project. As a result, the Individual Defendants had access to a regular stream of information detailing the costs, timeline, and regulatory compliance of Pascua-Lama.

    According to CW1, at least as early as 2008 the Company was in possession of teh EPCM Report. According to CW1 and CW2, the EPCM Report projected a cost estimate of more than $5 billion for the development of the Pascua-Lama Project. According to CW2, multiple managers at the Project concurred that the Company's intially asserted cost projection of $3 billion was not possible."

    According to CW1, "senior Company management who visited the Project site were directly informed of the environmental compliance failures and chose repeatedly to turn down requests by Project-site personnel for additional funding."

    According to CW4, Barrick explicitly prohibited Project engineers and construction employees from bringing cameras to work sites and interactiong with media and government workers, in order to conceal environmental infractions from regulators. The Company specifically noted that the then-known environmental violations were sufficient for Chilean authorities to halt operations at the Pascua-Lama Project.

    According to CW2, Barrick was "unilaterally modifying the regulator-approved Project plans without notifying environmental authorities."

    According to CW2 and CW4, "by the end of 2011 Project managers -- including at least one senior company executive -- were aware of at least two internal reports describing ongoing environmental compliance problems due to the company's choices to cut costs rather than comply with the terms of the environmental approvals upon which the entire Pascua-Lama Project relied."

    CW1 "as a direct consequence of Defendants' refusal to provide funding for adequate water or dust suppressants over a period of more than a year -- operations at Pascua-Lama were continually being assessed fines for drawing excessive water from local waterways in knowing violation of their environmental agreements. CWI1 concluded that, regarding water use and dust suppression, "Barrick wasn't compliant from day one."

  • voodoo.three voodoo.three Sep 13, 2013 10:46 AM Flag

    Mtstack the poster asked about Barrick creditability once the Pascua Lama Protocol is deemed illegal. I should remind others that Mtstack2000 originally said Mr Lopehandia has nothing at Pascua Lama, now we are talking about Mr Lophandia owning titles to Pascua Lama and ABX facing class actions and another "delay" (LOL) and criminal charges and the extinguishing of the Pascua Lama Protocol. Seems Mtstack was wrong about mr Lopehandia and his legal rights to his titles for Pascua. Research mtstacks history and you will find a rampant defence for ABX that has failed as time went on. No we are talking about the real possibility of Barrick being kicked out of Chile for all the illegal ABX actions, any ABX political bribes the public should be aware of LOL?

  • voodoo.three voodoo.three Sep 13, 2013 10:31 AM Flag

    Due to the criminal activity by Barrick for including properties they never owned and Barrick being aware of including properties that have been subject to a chile court order 2001 injunction, Barrick will face many crimes for again breaking the law in Chile. The fact ABX has also included fraudulently the same injunctioned Pascua Lama titles into Barricks Pascua Lama SEC 6K and OSC 43-101 regulatory filings will cause further criminal problems in North America. Barrick is also facing 8 class actions lawsuits with Pascua Lama for securities violations, one would agree the legal problems and liability will be abundant for ABX, Bankruptcy is a major issue for ABX as well.

    For Barricks part in fraudulently using and misrepresenting titles that belong to Mr Jorge Lopehandia, I expect Barrick will need to deal with the liability to Mr Lopehandia and his partner MSX. MSX has sent Barrick a cease and desist letter outlining Barricks misrepresentation of Mountainstar Gold's position. Barrick's December 2011 news release about MSX misrepresented the facts to investors as both MSX and Mr Lopehandia do have an interest in the Tesoro 1 1/30 to Tesoro 12 1/5 concession. Mr Lopehandia is registered as property owner of the Tesoro concessions.

    It clear Barrick faces more then the loss of the Pascua Lama Protocol, as ABX doesn't own the titles to the deposit of Pascua Lama as proven by 3rd party expert technical reports from mining enforcement engineers recognized as experts by SERNAGEOMIN and Chile's Court of Appeals. Investor confidence in Barrick will reach very low levels when it be realized mtstack2000 prediction Barrick lost 2 million ounces of gold becomes clear Barrick hid from investors a lot more, just as Barrick hid the true facts about Pascua Lama's environmental works creating class actions.

    Will ABX get kicked out of Chile for Barricks repeated criminal and illegal activity? Bachelet helped fast track the project for ABX illegally, she is running to help ABX.

  • Reply to

    Barrick soon to loose Pascua Lama

    by bimotakb83 Sep 12, 2013 1:20 PM
    voodoo.three voodoo.three Sep 12, 2013 4:43 PM Flag

    LOL Mtstack already said Barrick lost the injunctioned Pascua land and removed 2 million ounces of Gold from the injunctioned land, yet Mtstack can't explain why Barrick still includes the injunction land and titles into Barricks SEC 6K and OSC 43-101 regulatory filings even though ABX doesn't even own Tesoro 1 1/30 to Tesoro 12 1/5 as proven in Chile court by Barricks own admission! Expert 3rd party technical reports place the deposit of Pascua Lama on the injunctioned land, so Mtstack2000 is being very gullible about just how much gold Barrick doesn't own.

    Mtstack2000 quote "When Barrick concluded its extensive exploration program in 1999, they could claim 20 million ozs of gold reserves, which included both the LAC original amount and their newly discovered deposits in the location of their current mine pit in Chile and Argentina. The injunction on the Amarillo/Tesoro claims was put in place in 2001, necessitating the removal of the LAC original 2 million ozs from their reserves leaving the 17.9 million oz to which they now attest. All of the resources that Barrick claims for Pascua Lama are from the, as Mr. Albanez terms it, "new project" in a totally separate location from the original LAC areas. "

    As we know Mr Lopehandia has already been granted certified domain to the injunctioned areas with his clean titles. What Barrick is doing is merely trying to tie up the issue in court for as long as possible while hiding under the excuse they are appealing and it's before the courts and Barrick whole issue is this environmental problem. LOL

    Lets talk about Barrick so called environmental problems at Pascua lama. ABX was given a list of required environmental priorities for building environmental systems including water management systems back during the permitting approval process in 2006. As we know from court documents dealing with Barricks 8 class action lawsuits by their own shareholders, ABX didn't even start building any of the water management systems at all, not did ABX build any infrastructure in Chile that was required based on the 2006 permitting, it wasn't till after Barrick couldn't hide the environmental problems with the project any longer that ABX was halted by the courts and found legally liable for disobeying chile law with the project that ABX then tried to plan and complete the environmental systems. This then resulted in another lawsuit against Barrick for building environmental systems on land Barrick doesn't own as per the 2001 injunction and certified domain of Mr Jorge Lopehandia.

  • voodoo.three voodoo.three Sep 7, 2013 3:07 AM Flag

    Translated:

    "TECHNICAL REPORT LOCATION: MINA PASCUA (PASCUA-LAMA) PROJECT, CHILE

    Catalino Albanez Vergara, Ingeniero Ejecución en Minas [T.N.: This appears to mean Mining Enforcement Engineer; hereinafter I.E.M.], Expert Mine Surveyor since 1980 and Court-accredited Expert for the Appeals Court of La Serena, domiciled at “Pasaje Los Olivos 955”, La Serena, hereby states:

    1.-Nevada Mining Company 1994 PASCUA-LAMA PROJECT THE AMARILLOS 1 THROUGH 3000.- This mineral deposit (PASCUA-LAMA project) is located inside of the AMARILLOS 1 THROUGH 3000 mining properties and it is in turn located within the groups of mining properties TESORO FIVE and TESORO SEVEN, where they are located as shown in the report presented to COREMA and the pertinent entities and public opinion for the purpose of obtaining the corresponding sectoral permits for the development of the mineral deposit denominated PASCUA-LAMA, which is complemented with photographs from “GEOGLE” [presumably “GOOGLE”] showing the whole yellow mountain (alteration deposit) which is also mentioned in the official Survey Record, in the chapter entitled “Acceso al HM” [Access to HM]; the same is described in later surveys of the TESORO FIVE and TESORO SEVEN groups.

    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."

    "The largest gold mining company in the world, Barrick Gold and its Chilean subsidiary, Nevada Spa Mining, could lose in the coming months the Pascua deposit worth millions after a series of frauds regarding mining property and repeated poor environmental practices. The deposit is known as the Pascua-Lama, with the name Pascua from the Chilean side, and Lama from the Argentine side.
    Barrick Gold is accused of illegally extracting gold minerals along with outlawed salt and nitrate concessions. The accusations include mining gold from Chile while ignoring a provisional Supreme Court measure that prohibits mining activity and securing new contracts, conducting business in the international bank with “phony” titles, and trying to obstruct justice using false testimony, among others. The accusations have been presented by Chilean mine owner, Jorge Lopehandía, who along with Mountainstar Gold Inc, were granted legal ownership of the Pascua mine in February.

    On February 1, 2013, Alan GS Hultman, the lawyer for Mountainstar Gold Inc, received the Pascua Mine Chile property titles and its mining concessions.

    On January 16, the titles were issued in Vallenar, Chile by the Mines Commissioner, Paulo Cortes Olguín. This grants sole legal jurisdiction over the Pascua Mine area concessions and titles, to Lopehandía, who has been threatened and pressured by Barrick Gold to waive his own rights.
    The titles were authenticated by the Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of Chilean Exterior Relations and have been validated by the Canadian Embassy in Santiago, Chile. This happened after Barrick tried to invalidate Lopehandía’s actions in Canada several times.

    This is a check or almost checkmate for Barrick, because in Chile the only person authorized to grant a valid mining property certificate, or for that matter, who can validate the right [to mining property], is the Mines Commissionar, who in this case is from the the jurisdiction of the city of Vallenar.

    The Mines Commissioner established in a legal document that the concessions of the Pascua Project in Chile: Tesoros Uno 1 al 30 through Tesoros Doce 1 al 5 are in Jorge Lopehandía’s name, making him the valid title-holder from 2013 onward.

    Thus this advance ruling underscores that Barrick Gold Corporation (ABX), or its affiliates in Chile do not have titles nor have they ever had titles for these concessions.
    Secondly, the Commissionar established through the work of Lopehandía’s mining agent, Mr. Villar, that “Amarillos North (12,850 acres) and Amarillos South (8,400 acres) have been Lopehandía’s property since 1996.

    Both Lopehandía and Brent Johnson, his partner from Mountainstar Gold Inc, reiterated their confidence in the Chilean justice system, adding that “all the false declarations made by Barrick executives and their affiliates in Chile in relation to these titles, have given way to criminal chrges, and a call for jail sentences against those involved with the case.”

    Barrick Paralyzed for Damaging the Environment
    In addition, Barrick Gold has been ordered to pay the sum of 2,000 UTM a Chilean currency unit to calculate taxes, fines, and custom duties, close to 120 million pesos or $254,400 USD], a fine issued for irregularities in environmental mismanagement and for not fulfilling its commitments and mitigation measures of the Environmental Ratings Resolution (RCA in Spanish).

    “All mining operations in Pascua Lama are paralyzed,” clarified Mauricio Pino, the Regional Ministerial Mining Secretary of Atacama.

    The above finding was a result of the Atacama General Direction of Waters’(DGA in Spanish) detection of particulate matter in the surrounding glaciers, which the company had unsuccessfully attempted to hide.

    Barrick is accused of failures in the handling of the mine’s wastewater plant, failure in the monitoring of the glaciers located in the Cordillera mountains of the Huasco valley in the Atacama region, and failures in its efforts to avoid transporting material over the glaciers, which threatens their conservation and the sustainability of the water flow in the basin.

    Barrick risks losing its environmental permit from the Environmental Superintendent if it continues to commit these serious infractions.

    It should also be added that in October 2012, work was already stopped by the National Geology and Mining Service (Sernageomin) after they detected that the mines caused pollution and health risks to the workers."

  • voodoo.three voodoo.three Sep 7, 2013 1:32 AM Flag

    Translated, Barrick has fraudulent SEC and OSC regulatory filings and a project without the Pascua deposit. Lopehandia has ownership and certified domain to the injunctioned areas that cover AMARILLO 1-3000, the deposit of Pascua Lama is located on AMARILLO 1-3000 which is on Jorge Lopehandia restituted titles and certified domain, ABX has no ownership of the deposit of Pascua, Lopehandia does.

  • In 1997 there was only The Pascua Mine (Chile). Lama (Argintina)never existed. Barrick was developing Pascua in 1997 and ready to start production in 2000 for $500 million.

    There is a long history, it goes back. This from 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."

  • voodoo.three voodoo.three Sep 6, 2013 2:25 PM Flag

    Translated:

    Declared admissible complaint against Barrick for mining the Pascua Lama

    As was declared admissible the criminal complaint for falsification and / or malicious use of false public instrument .

    As was declared admissible the criminal complaint for falsification and / or malicious use of false public instrument , that the attorney Barbara Salinas along with attorney Alejandro Muñoz presented to the 7th Court of Santiago Warranty , representing mountainstar Gold.

    The lawsuit is against Derek James and Laura Riehm Phyllis Mary Emery , both legal representatives SpA Nevada Mining Company , which in turn is the legal entity Chile Barrick Gold mining by the Pascua Lama project , now suspended for serious environmental offenses .

    Salinas was very satisfied with the resolution , since this first processing step welcomes the complaint and subsequent investigation by the North Central Office .

    According to the professional , " is another front that opens to Barrick , since according to the mining history would not have obtained the domain or the mining on a cloth major concessions that are located within the Pascua Lama " .

    It should be recalled that the State of Chile allows individuals access to the exploration and exploitation of minerals provided has been obtained by court order granting mining rights conferred for such purposes.

    But in this case , Salinas emphasized that as stated in a folder -initiated research and Complex Crimes Unit of the Attorney North Central , mineral property titles for Minera Nevada SpA ( Barrick ) do not exist and , consequently , this latter would have no domain or right on the mining Treasury calls One 1 to 30 to 1 to 5 Twelve Treasury .

    For professional is relevant - while serious - than in 2004 , subscribed by the State of Chile a Protocol Adequacy with the State of Argentina who sought to establish certain standards between the two countries in order to give a boost from the point of more pragmatic view , facilitate the initiation of this project and within that protocol , which is a public document between the two countries , Barrick incorporates and declared as own mining claims that are in dispute .

    However , they are subject to a lawsuit for several years and weighs about them - from the current 2001 to date - a measure that prohibits holding precautionary prejudicial acts or contracts on them , enacted by the 14th Court a civil court of Santiago , - since before the enactment and publication of Decree 179 of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. So not only would have falsified the decree ideologically , with subsequent malicious use until today , but also , it has to comply with a judgment given in a court of the Republic. Finally and to these facts , the lawyer Salinas wonders how any government official was able to warn earlier this prohibition prevented certainly incorporate such mining properties as part of the Pascua Lama and thus have signed the protocols.

    This new criminal action , coupled with the environmental problems of today , clearly show that Barrick did not act with attachment to Chilean law , diligence and transparency required .

    Original:

    Declaran admisible querella contra Barrick por pertenencias mineras del proyecto Pascua Lama
    Como admisible fue declarada la querella criminal por falsificación y/o uso malicioso de instrumento público falso.

    Como admisible fue declarada la querella criminal por falsificación y/o uso malicioso de instrumento público falso, que la abogada Bárbara Salinas junto con el abogado Alejandro Muñoz presentaron ante el 7° Juzgado de Garantía de Santiago, en representación de Mountainstar Gold.

    La demanda es contra Derek James Riehm y Laura Phyllis María Emery, ambos representantes legales de Compañía Minera Nevada SpA, que a su vez en Chile es la persona jurídica de Barrick Gold, minera a cargo del proyecto Pascua Lama, hoy suspendido por serias faltas ambientales.

    Salinas se mostró muy conforme con la resolución, toda vez que con este primer paso se acoge a tramitación la querella y su consiguiente investigación por parte de la Fiscalía Centro Norte.

    Según la profesional, "es un frente más que se le abre a Barrick, puesto que según los antecedentes recabados la minera no tendría el dominio o las pertenencias mineras respecto de un paño importante de concesiones que están emplazadas dentro del proyecto Pascua Lama".

    Es preciso recordar que el Estado de Chile permite a particulares acceder a la exploración y explotación de sustancias minerales siempre y cuando se haya obtenido por resolución judicial la concesión minera que le confiere derecho para tales fines.

    Pero en este caso, Salinas enfatizó que según consta en una carpeta investigativa ya iniciada por la Unidad de Delitos Complejos de la Fiscalía Centro Norte, los títulos de propiedad minera a favor de Minera Nevada SpA (Barrick) no existen y, en consecuencia, ésta última no tendría ni dominio ni derecho alguno sobre las pertenencias mineras llamadas Tesoro Uno 1 al 30 a Tesoro Doce 1 al 5.

    Para la profesional resulta relevante – a la vez que grave - que en 2004 se suscribe por el Estado de Chile un Protocolo de Adecuación con el Estado de Argentina que tenía por objeto establecer ciertas normas entre ambas naciones para poder dar un impulso desde el punto de vista más pragmático, facilitar la iniciación de este proyecto y dentro de ese protocolo, que constituye un instrumento público entre ambos países, Barrick incorpora y declara como propias las pertenencias mineras que están en disputa.

    Sin embargo, las mismas se encuentran sometidas a un pleito judicial desde hace varios años y pesa sobre ellas – desde el año 2001 vigente hasta la fecha – una medida prejudicial precautoria que prohíbe celebrar actos o contratos sobre ellas, decretadas por el 14° Juzgado de Letras en lo Civil de Santiago, - desde antes de la dictación y publicación del Decreto 179 del Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores. De manera que no sólo se habría falsificado ideológicamente dicho decreto, con el subsecuente uso malicioso hasta el día de hoy, sino que, además, no se ha respetado una resolución judicial emanada de un tribunal de la República. Finalmente y ante estos hechos, la abogada Salinas se pregunta cómo ningún funcionario de los gobiernos anteriores fue capaz de advertir esta prohibición que ciertamente impedía incorporar tales pertenencias mineras como parte del proyecto Pascua Lama y por ende haber suscrito los protocolos.

    Esta nueva acción penal, unida a los problemas ambientales de hoy, claramente muestran que Barrick no ha obrado con apego a la legislación chilena, diligencia y transparencia requerida.

  • voodoo.three voodoo.three Sep 6, 2013 12:19 PM Flag

    ABX with its BILLION$ of dollars only needed $22 to $29 million to complete the environmental management systems required by the 2006 permitting application. Since 2006, according to the legal evidence, Barrick did nothing at Pascua Lama until 2011. Even after 2011, ABX wasn't in compliance with the 2006 permitting!

    So why did Barrick choose to not build Pascua Lama and build any of the environmental systems they were required to finish and build first?

    With the Pascua Lama 2001 Chile Court injunction Barrick reported in their regulatory filings in 2005 shows why. Barrick claimed ownership of titles affected by the Pascua Lama 2001 injunction into Barricks Pascua Lama SEC 6K and OSC 43-101 filings, those areas have been recently awarded certified domain to Mr Lopehandia with his restituted titles that cover the injunctioned areas.

    Furthermore, the titles affected by the injunction of 2001 is AMARILLO 1-3000, which is superimposed by Tesoro 1 1/30 to Tesoro 12 1/5. Expert 3rd Part technical reports place the deposit of Pascua Lama on Amarillo 1-3000, the same property under the 2001 injunction which Mr Lopehandia now owns with his Certified Domain and restituted titles.

  • voodoo.three voodoo.three Sep 6, 2013 11:29 AM Flag

    Expert 3rd Party Technical Report by Albanez places the deposit of Pascua Lama on Amarillo 1-3000, ABX has no legal right to mine the deposit of Pascua Lama on the Chile side of the project with AMARILLO 1-3000 or the superimposed Tesoro titles. Those areas have been under a 2001 Chile Court injunction and are now the property of Mr Jorge Lopehandia with his restituted titles and Certified Domain. ABX has never owned those titles for the extraction of Gold, Silver and Copper.

    "TECHNICAL REPORT LOCATION: MINA PASCUA (PASCUA-LAMA) PROJECT, CHILE

    Catalino Albanez Vergara, Ingeniero Ejecución en Minas [T.N.: This appears to mean Mining Enforcement Engineer; hereinafter I.E.M.], Expert Mine Surveyor since 1980 and Court-accredited Expert for the Appeals Court of La Serena, domiciled at “Pasaje Los Olivos 955”, La Serena, hereby states:

    1.-Nevada Mining Company 1994 PASCUA-LAMA PROJECT THE AMARILLOS 1 THROUGH 3000.- This mineral deposit (PASCUA-LAMA project) is located inside of the AMARILLOS 1 THROUGH 3000 mining properties and it is in turn located within the groups of mining properties TESORO FIVE and TESORO SEVEN, where they are located as shown in the report presented to COREMA and the pertinent entities and public opinion for the purpose of obtaining the corresponding sectoral permits for the development of the mineral deposit denominated PASCUA-LAMA, which is complemented with photographs from “GEOGLE” [presumably “GOOGLE”] showing the whole yellow mountain (alteration deposit) which is also mentioned in the official Survey Record, in the chapter entitled “Acceso al HM” [Access to HM]; the same is described in later surveys of the TESORO FIVE and TESORO SEVEN groups.

    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."

    "The largest gold mining company in the world, Barrick Gold and its Chilean subsidiary, Nevada Spa Mining, could lose in the coming months the Pascua deposit worth millions after a series of frauds regarding mining property and repeated poor environmental practices. The deposit is known as the Pascua-Lama, with the name Pascua from the Chilean side, and Lama from the Argentine side.
    Barrick Gold is accused of illegally extracting gold minerals along with outlawed salt and nitrate concessions. The accusations include mining gold from Chile while ignoring a provisional Supreme Court measure that prohibits mining activity and securing new contracts, conducting business in the international bank with “phony” titles, and trying to obstruct justice using false testimony, among others. The accusations have been presented by Chilean mine owner, Jorge Lopehandía, who along with Mountainstar Gold Inc, were granted legal ownership of the Pascua mine in February.

    On February 1, 2013, Alan GS Hultman, the lawyer for Mountainstar Gold Inc, received the Pascua Mine Chile property titles and its mining concessions.

    On January 16, the titles were issued in Vallenar, Chile by the Mines Commissioner, Paulo Cortes Olguín. This grants sole legal jurisdiction over the Pascua Mine area concessions and titles, to Lopehandía, who has been threatened and pressured by Barrick Gold to waive his own rights.
    The titles were authenticated by the Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of Chilean Exterior Relations and have been validated by the Canadian Embassy in Santiago, Chile. This happened after Barrick tried to invalidate Lopehandía’s actions in Canada several times.

    This is a check or almost checkmate for Barrick, because in Chile the only person authorized to grant a valid mining property certificate, or for that matter, who can validate the right [to mining property], is the Mines Commissionar, who in this case is from the the jurisdiction of the city of Vallenar.

    The Mines Commissioner established in a legal document that the concessions of the Pascua Project in Chile: Tesoros Uno 1 al 30 through Tesoros Doce 1 al 5 are in Jorge Lopehandía’s name, making him the valid title-holder from 2013 onward.

    Thus this advance ruling underscores that Barrick Gold Corporation (ABX), or its affiliates in Chile do not have titles nor have they ever had titles for these concessions.
    Secondly, the Commissionar established through the work of Lopehandía’s mining agent, Mr. Villar, that “Amarillos North (12,850 acres) and Amarillos South (8,400 acres) have been Lopehandía’s property since 1996.

    Both Lopehandía and Brent Johnson, his partner from Mountainstar Gold Inc, reiterated their confidence in the Chilean justice system, adding that “all the false declarations made by Barrick executives and their affiliates in Chile in relation to these titles, have given way to criminal chrges, and a call for jail sentences against those involved with the case.”

    Barrick Paralyzed for Damaging the Environment
    In addition, Barrick Gold has been ordered to pay the sum of 2,000 UTM a Chilean currency unit to calculate taxes, fines, and custom duties, close to 120 million pesos or $254,400 USD], a fine issued for irregularities in environmental mismanagement and for not fulfilling its commitments and mitigation measures of the Environmental Ratings Resolution (RCA in Spanish).

    “All mining operations in Pascua Lama are paralyzed,” clarified Mauricio Pino, the Regional Ministerial Mining Secretary of Atacama.

    The above finding was a result of the Atacama General Direction of Waters’(DGA in Spanish) detection of particulate matter in the surrounding glaciers, which the company had unsuccessfully attempted to hide.

    Barrick is accused of failures in the handling of the mine’s wastewater plant, failure in the monitoring of the glaciers located in the Cordillera mountains of the Huasco valley in the Atacama region, and failures in its efforts to avoid transporting material over the glaciers, which threatens their conservation and the sustainability of the water flow in the basin.

    Barrick risks losing its environmental permit from the Environmental Superintendent if it continues to commit these serious infractions.

    It should also be added that in October 2012, work was already stopped by the National Geology and Mining Service (Sernageomin) after they detected that the mines caused pollution and health risks to the workers."

  • voodoo.three voodoo.three Sep 6, 2013 11:21 AM Flag

    Wrong, ABX included the AMARILLO 1-3000 and Tesoro titles into their Pascua Lama SEC 6K and OSC 43-101 as well as into Barricks Chilean regulatory Pascua Lama Protocol filings. Barrick is on AMARILLO 1-3000 and Tesoro properties until they remove those titles off of Barricks books. ABX doesn't want to remove those titles because they know that's were the deposit is located, just as Mr Lopehandia, MSX, Mr Lopehandia's mining experts and experts for Sernageomin and the Chile Court of Appeals have said. Barrick lawyers in Chile Court have also indicated the the greatest geological importance to the Pascua lama project is on title ABX doesn't own. Mr Lopehandia with his titles and certified domain cover Barricks defective salt and nitrate titles of Amarillo 1-3000, Tesoro 1 1/30 to Tesoro 12 1/5 is the property of Mr Lopehandia. The doposit is located on Amarillo 1-3000 and Tesoro. ABX needs to stop faking ownership of Tesoro 1 1/30 and Tesoro 12 1/5 and remove Amarillo 1-3000 off their book.

    With ABX faking ownership of those titles, ABX is sure on Mr Lopehandia properties. Tell ABX to remove those titles, ABX will not as they need to claim ownership of Pascua Lama deposit on the Chile side to keep the fraud alive and suck investors into the belief they own it, which they don't.

    Barrick has never owned those titles, Ask ABX about the 2001 Chile Court injunction, what titles pertain to the 2001 Pascua Lama injunction, and who now has certified domain to the injunctioned areas? Mr Lopehandia has the certified domain, how did that happen? Easy, ABX lost and Mr Lopehandia won, now ABX is facing lawsuits and class actions for lying to investors all due to ABX lying about title ownership.

    All it took was $22 million and ABX could have built the infrastructure for the environmental systems, ABX with their billions couldn't build anything, why? Seriously? Why? Because ABX has a 2001 Pascua Lama Chile court injunction and Mr Looehandia has the legal rights to those areas.

  • voodoo.three voodoo.three Sep 6, 2013 4:09 AM Flag

    Normal people can read it and see ABX is being sued again for building Pascua Lama on land they do not have the rights to build on. As an example to slow person I'm replying to: ABX claims exploitation titles for AMARILLO 1-3000 in Barrick SEC 6K and OSC 43-101 filings which is wrong, ABX can not mine Pascua Lama with AMARILLO 1-3000. Secondly, ABX claims ownership of Tesoro 1 1/30 to Tesoro 12 1/5 in Barricks SEC 6K and OSC 43-101 filings which is also wrong, ABX does not have any ownership of Tesoro 1 1/30 to Tesoro 12 1/5 titles, those titles are the property of Mr Lopehandia, ABX has never owned the Tesoro titles. Mr Lopehandia has also received certified domain for his exploitation titles that cover both AMARILLO 1-3000 and the superimposed Tesoro titles.

    So know you know why ABX is being sued for trying to build on land they do not own, oh ya, experts have provided a technical report on Pascua Lama that conclude everything I've said, as well as including the location of the Pascua Lama Deposit on land ABX does not have mining rights for the extraction of Gold, Silver and Copper.

  • voodoo.three voodoo.three Sep 6, 2013 3:50 AM Flag

    It's Barrick who has not mined this so called deposit of "Pascua Lama" in 17 years. Don't be a fool, realize ABX has a project away from the Pascua deposit on AMARILLO 1-3000 all of which is located on Mr Lopehandia's titles that have been granted certified domain from the mines commesioner in Vallenar. How Much cash does ABX have? And ABX couldn't start building the project or the environmental safeguards? ABX had to get shut down because ABX didn't want to spend $22 million on effectively building water management systems and dust management systems. Give it a rest, ABX had the $22 million to build the environmental systems, what they don't have is Mr Lopehandia's titles and certified domain or a deposit called Pascua. It has been expressed more then once that MSX, Mr Lopehandia, Mr Lopehandia's mining experts, expert mining enforcement engineers who is recognized as an expert by Sernageomin and the Chile Court of Appeals, all have reason to believe the deposit of Pascua Lama is located on AMARILLO 1-3000. ABX does not have any ownership of that land for mining gold, Mr Lopehandia does with his titles and certified domain.

    ABX has a project without ownership to titles of the Pascua deposit. Have fun ABX with "Lama" in Argentin, just as Mr Lopehandia and others have said multiple times.

    The problems for ABX is they included Mr Lopehandia's properties which cover AMARILLO 1-3000, in Barricks Pascua Lama SEC 6K and OSC 43-101. AMARILLO 1-3000 is defective salt and nitrate titles and are not exploitation titles as lied by ABX in their regulatory filing in an attempt to fake ownership of the Pascua Lama deposit in the chile side of the project. So ABX continues to lie and delay and make excuse after excuse year after year with Pascua, it's simple Mr Lopehandia owns it, ABX wants to own it but can not lift the injunction, and can't build anything as proven by the lawsuits and class actions.

  • voodoo.three voodoo.three Sep 6, 2013 3:21 AM Flag

    I guess you are to stupid to read all the paper work that backs up the statements by the ABX employees. I see you are an investors who would like to see criminals prevail so you can make a buck, get a life #$%$.

  • voodoo.three voodoo.three Sep 5, 2013 1:04 AM Flag

    Jorge never said that, why don't you post something to back up your statement, that's right you can't. As a matter of fact Jorge has said as well as his mining experts that his titles cover all of Pascua Lama on the Chile side.

    From the UNDERLYING CLAIMS BACKGROUND & HISTORY AGREEMENT between MSX and Mr Lopehandia (filed at SEDAR):

    "Recent Claims Cover all of Pascua Lama That is in Chile:
    (118) the Restituted Amarillo North and Amarillo South Mining Claims and the Recently Acquired Additional Mining Claims cover all of Pascua Lama that is located in Chile"

  • voodoo.three voodoo.three Sep 5, 2013 12:01 AM Flag

    More are coming forward to testify against ABX. How many lawsuits is Barrick facing with Pascua Lama?

    "Attention: Sybil E. Veenman
    Senior Vice-President and General Counsel
    Dear Sirs/Mesdames:

    Re: Barrick Gold Corporation and its subsidiaries, Cia Minera Nevada Ltda., Cia Minera Nevada SpA (together, “Barrick”): Pascua Lama Project (the “Project”), the “Pascua Lama Protocol”, the Securities Act of 1933 and Ontario Securities Act continuous disclosure requirements, related news publications

    We are the solicitors for Mountainstar Gold Inc. (formerly Mountain-West Resources Inc.). We are writing further to Barrick's numerous filings on SEDAR and EDGAR, and Barrick's December 21, 2011 Info Release respecting Barrick's Pascua Lama Project, which publications make false assertions of ownership over a portion of the mining concessions on the Chilean side of the Project.
    In particular, Barrick has asserted ownership of the concessions called Tesoro Uno 1 -30 to Tesoro Doce 1 - 5, inclusive (the "Tesoro Concessions"), as shown in the list of concessions included in the Pascua Lama Protocol, published on page 8 of the "Diario Oficial de la Republica de Chile".

    Barrick has also asserted ownership of all concessions included in Appendix A of Barrick's Technical Report dated March 31, 2011, specifically including:

    108 TESORO TRES 1 AL 30 109 TESORO CUATRO 1 AL 30 110 TESORO SETS 1 AL 20
    111 TESORO DIEZ 1 AL 20
    112 TESORO ONCE 1 AL 20

    These assertions of Barrick’s ownership of the Tesoro Concessions are manifestly false. The Tesoro Concessions are in fact owned by “Hector Unda Llanos”, not Barrick. There is no notation of Barrick’s interest in the Tesoro Concessions in the margins of the Tesoro Concessions’ titles.

    Moreover, the Tesoro Concessions have been encumbered with a Court-Ordered Injunction (the "Injunction") continuously since 2001, in a Chilean legal action having case No. C-1912-2001 (Villar-Compania) in the 14th Civil Court of Santiago; we are certain Barrick is aware of both the legal action and the referenced Injunction. The Injunction prohibits, inter alia, the sale, contracting, encumbering or commercial exploitation of the Tesoro Concessions, including the minerals contained therein.

    As regarding the Amarillos 1-3000 concessions ("Amarillo Concessions") which are super-positioned with the Tesoro Concessions, our client’s Chilean mining expert, Catalino Albanez, advises that the Amarillo Concessions are non-metallic (salts and nitrates) concessions, and as such cannot support exploitation of the metallic (gold, silver and copper) mining Project. Notwithstanding this inability of the Amarillo Concessions to support the Project, the Amarillo Concessions are included in Barrick's Project Technical Report and in the Pascua Lama Protocol, as published on page 8 of the "Diario Oficial de la Republica de Chile".

    Both the Tesoro Concessions and the Amarillo concessions are effectively super- positioned with the Amarillo Norte and Amarillo Sur concessions ("Restituted Amarillo"), which constitutes a portion of the mining concessions in which our client, Mountainstar Gold Inc., has obtained certain rights. These rights are set out in the Option Agreement filed on SEDAR May 28, 2012 (the "Option Agreement").

    Barrick's improper inclusion of the Tesoro Concessions and the Amarillo Concessions in the Project Technical Report and related publications is interfering with our client's ability to carry on its business described in the Option Agreement and accordingly, we hereby demand on behalf of our client that Barrick (and its employees and representatives) immediately cease and desist from repeating allegations of this nature. Mountainstar Gold Inc. takes its reputation extremely seriously and will take all necessary steps to protect that reputation. This includes, without limitation, commencing proceedings against Barrick for defamation and slander of title and/or filing a complaint with the applicable securities commissions. In any such proceedings Mountainstar will seek substantial damages, including general, aggravated, and punitive damages and Mountainstar reserves the right to share this letter with the applicable securities commissions."

  • voodoo.three voodoo.three Sep 4, 2013 11:53 PM Flag

    I hear ABX shareholders are a bit slow, the info has been out for a while now. As a matter of fact ABX reported the Pascua Lama 2001 injunction in 2005, ABX just forgot to inform shareholders of the outcome and the impact the injunction has had to the project. With the deposit on AMARILLO 1-3000, it no wonder ABX had delayed this project for the past 17 years and increased the budget from $500 million to close to $10 Billion.

  • voodoo.three voodoo.three Sep 4, 2013 11:47 PM Flag

    Dust suppression monitoring was to take place in the areas of pre stripping, the Pascua Lama deposit is obviously located on land ABX doesn't own just as the technical reports on Pascua Lama says. The deposit is located on AMARILLO 1-3000, which is the certified domain of Mr Jorge Lopehandia.

  • voodoo.three voodoo.three Sep 4, 2013 8:02 PM Flag

    LOL I didn't write the article, a news reporter did. As for proof of claims, ABX failed to show proof of their claims in chile court. In fact ABX is now facing criminal charges in Chile due to them not having titles.

    The ABX shareholders suing their own company in 8 different class action lawsuits for Pascua Lama are suing due to the fact ABX never was able to complete the Pascua Lama construction or the 2006 permitting requirements because ABX did not own the land and a 2001 injunction was in place against ABX.

    VANCOUVER, July 19, 2012 /PRNewswire/ - As set out in the Company's news release filed on SEDAR May 18, 2012, both Barrick Gold Corporation and Jorge Lopehandia claim ownership of the Chilean portion of the Pascua Lama Project claims. As reported on Barrick's website, "as at December 31, 2011, Pascua-Lama has proven and probable reserves of 17.9 million ounces of gold, with 676 million ounces of silver contained within the gold reserves". Further, "independent consultants to Barrick Gold Corporation have reported that 80% of the Pascua Lama ore body resides in Chile" [per: IRC (TSX) News Release dated Jan 12, 2007].
    By the Writ of Answer filed the Court in Santiago, Chile (file C-1912-2001) on August 27th, 2010 at page 2743, Barrick's lawyer, Gonzalo Nieto Valdes, stated "That the mining properties named TESOROS UNO 1-30 to TESOROS DOCE 1-5 are located in the zone of greatest geological mining interest of the Pascua Lama Project."
    The Company is pleased to report the following events that, in the opinion of MSX Management, would significantly negatively impact Barrick's geological interest in the Pascua Lama project:
    (1) The (administrative) cancellation in the Mining Registry of the Amarillos 1-3000 claims is projected to be Ordered by the Courts at Vallenar, Chile before the end of 2012; and,
    (2) In recent Court proceedings in Vallenar, Chile the lawyers representing Barrick's subsidiaries admitted to the Court that title (or certified domain) showing Barrick's subsidiaries as owner of the "Tesoros Uno 1 al 30 to Tesoros Doce 1 al 5" claims "does not exist". By their own admission in these Court proceedings, neither of Barrick's subsidiaries, CMN SpA nor CMN Ltda., possesses any documents of title proving their ownership of the Tesoro claims.

  • voodoo.three voodoo.three Sep 4, 2013 6:29 PM Flag

    Lawyers in Chile are picking ABX apart legally and exposed Barrick as running an illegal project with Pascua Lama. ABX is losing in Chile because ABX is on the wrong side of the law with an illegal project without title ownership to the deposit. 17 years and $10 billion is all ABX shareholder have seen from Pascua Lama, that because ABX hasn't been truthful about the 2001 chile court injunction and the results recently granting Mr Lopehandia certified domain to the injunctioned areas.

SLW
24.84-0.65(-2.55%)Aug 21 4:02 PMEDT

Trending Tickers

i
Trending Tickers features significant U.S. stocks showing the most dramatic increase in user interest in Yahoo Finance in the previous hour over historic norms. The list is limited to those equities which trade at least 100,000 shares on an average day and have a market cap of more than $300 million.