Alberto, I think that is too simplistic an analysis and shows your bias.
"To anyone that has been following this saga closely for the last year or so, you must agree that this comment or assertion of PDG is certainly a departure (as another poster has already indicated)from the confident stance that PDG initially took, that they were 100% sure of their position."
I have followed this saga since day one "and don't agree".
Venezuela is attempting to repair a flawed structure within its judicial and managment systems of "mining" in one fell swoop. PDG and, I would presume KRY, donot want to be the "reason" for the judicial system to finally get even for blatant problems in the Energy & Mines division. PDG/KRY want a decision, not grandstanding, not politicing, not posturing, but a decision. The threat, by a "major" miner in the world, to pull out of "VENEZUELA"( not Las Christinas) "VENEZUELA" is a threat that will surely speed up the postering so far.
IMHO - Does this deminish their claim to ownership to 4&6 ? Not at all, it is a strategy to get some overfed, pompous bureaucrats off their collective butts a little quicker.
Appreciating this, can you think of any reason why PDG would spend more money on a property under dispute, in these conditions ? So the fact that they have stopped work, does not support your claim to title. At the moment Venezuela doesn't know who owns this property, how come you do ?
Lastly, any wholesale changes in the title,licensing, validating, or issuing of mining permits that is "retroactive" to the PDG/KRY debacle may, as a result of the ruling, put other companies who thought they had "title" in an extremely precarious position. So check your portfolio for other companies that hold Venezuelan land claims !!!
the Chief |
