To: gary ochsner (8547 )
From: gary ochsner
Tuesday, Oct 21 1997 1:32AM EST
Reply #8554 of 8554
ALL: diane thomas(dayton mining) told me the "churumata" property mentioned in the np energy news release is a completely different property from dayton's churrumata claim. it is to the north.
the "churumata" property is/was owned by a local when dayton started negotiating to access the minerals under the surface. the local wanted to much money(in daytons opinion) so they ended up in court over rights to access the minerals. the courts ruled that dayton
did indeed own the MINERAL rights, but the local owned the surface rights, therefore dayton must stay off the land unless a deal is negotiated to access the minerals.
now, the local wanted $200,000 (two hundred thousand dollars) to grant dayton access rights, but dayton thinks that is very high and they are not interested in doing any work on it for at least a year, anyway, so they are asking the court to rule on a fair valuation(at
least that is the way i interpreted this part of it) and they are currently waiting for a hearing date to be set.
this dispute has no effect on daytons proven reserves and/or the land they are currently working.
dayton has not seen any documents showing a change of ownership for the "churumata" property. they are not sure if the land is owned by the local or sierra la plata. their lawyers have not been able to find any evidence of a change, but are staying on top of it. this is my take of diane thomas's spin on the churumata property. the thing that got my
attention was the value of the "churumata" property for sierra la plata/np energy/medinah(or the local owner). we are not talking about a great deal of money here, i.e. at most $50,000 to $200,000. at least that is what dayton is saying.
diane says they had 30 analysts down there after the np energy news release stating dayton had been denied access to the property and NONE of the analysts were concerned about it impacting daytons current operations or proven reserves after they were shown the
property in question, along with the rest of the operation. in fact, none of them even mentioned the dispute in their reports because they didn't think it important.
as i already said, this is my interpretation of what diane thomas told me. i believe it to be accurate, but take no responsiblity for any errors.
later gary |
