Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Gold and Silver Juniors, Mid-tiers and Producers -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Veteran98 who wrote (58842)	4/20/2008 4:38:30 PM
From: marcos	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 78424

'ARU is clearly exploiting its property, as understood by the word “explotación” in Spanish.' Um, not that clear to me at all - mina en explotación means 'producing mine', not 'potential mine property being explored', or even 'potential mine property under development', as is the case with dmm.to explotar = 'to exploit', or in mining, 'to operate', i.e. be currently extracting metal Some may find it amusing, under the circumstances, that explotar can also mean, 'to explode' Do you have the original text of the mandato, Vet? ... only thing i've seen is the pdf file of thursday, don't even have that now, and wording may have changed anyway ... much could depend on context of the word explotación

To: Veteran98 who wrote (58842)	4/20/2008 6:06:24 PM
From: E. Charters	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 78424

They are NOT exploiting their property by law. They were exploring. So they are suspended, sans doot. I don't think the 3 concession law applies to them as the wording indicates that it was concessions granted to persons, and not legally held by companies. Now this is sweeping! Article 12 The dispositions contained in this constitutional decree (mandate) are obligatory. As such they are not open to complaint, contestation, holding orders, demand, claim, recourse or any other administrative or judicial action. Neither does it give space to any ‘indemnification’.

To: Veteran98 who wrote (58842)	4/20/2008 9:22:09 PM
From: Proud Deplorable	Respond to of 78424

"However, it does raise the question of whether ARU will decide to take advantage of this loophole. There are many permutations, but three basic scenarios are: 1) ARU plays hardball, continues work on site, points to article 8 clause as justification. Government accepts this position. 2) ARU plays hardball, continues work on site, points to article 8 clause as justification. Government cries foul, begins to make life difficult for ARU. 3) ARU does not want to antagonize things and stops work for next 180 days." ------------------------------------------ add 4).....ARU management has malaria and rigamortis sets in and former investors are too shell shocked and scared to jump back in wondering what Crystallex style event will happen next.