RE: Jorge
I'm sure that anyone who has googled the name 'Jorge Lopehandia' as part of their dd has seen this type of literary comment before. It is in fact not unlike the type of internet comments that got Jorge into trouble with a libel suit against Barrick. All of that is public knowledge which up until now has not gathered much attention, and although this doesn't really surprise me, it has been my hope that we wouldn't be seeing this kind of thing anymore...... regardless of whether it was actually written by Jorge or not.
IMO, most ot the news in the string of NR's put out by MWR since the 'big3' news (Alaska, Nevada, & Chile announcements) has not been very positive; and in some respects makes the company appear somewhat disorganized and not exactly 'on the ball'. The direction of the share price is reflecting some of this as well.
I too agree that if Jorge is publicly commenting about Barrick, it would be best for these forum posts and comments to cease. If it's an imposter posting, then MWR should put out a statement indicating that fact. Either way, Brent needs to act on this because it's doing damage to the company's credibility which is not that great right now in any case IMO.
What this company needs in a big way is a positive, professional, meaningful, news release to restore some confidence in the investors that have been in for the long term.
On a different topic: Barrick has stated that of the 260,000 hectares of claims for what we know as Pascua Lama, the Chile court dispute with Villar (Lopehandia) involves only "8,600 hectares that are not in the area of the mine." A question for anyone who was at the AGM: did Jorge indicate that he has the title to just a certain portion of the Pascua claims, or is it the whole thing, or is it somewhere in between?
I'd very much appreciate some clarification on this. TIA.