RE:111 petitories were presented for PLU's 9 concessionsjuanPeru wrote: (...)
2. Macusani Yellowcake has not (directly) participated As you can see in the table, nor Macusani Yellowcake nor Global Gold (PLU's local subsidiaries) directly presented any petitory on November 2nd. However, apparently Macusani Yellowcake has participated through its workers and those of its related company Minera Colibri (it seems both companies shares some of their staff). And the group (yellow lines in the table) would have been directed by nothing less that
Macusani Yellowcake's Head of Human Resources (holding the same position at Minera Colibri),
Mr. Guillermo Vergara Baca:
https://pe.linkedin.com/in/guillermojesus?trk=people-guest_people_search-card (...)
One more detail about this story. Right after Ingemmet published the 9 PLU concessions as to be retired from the Mining Registry, on October 1st, Mr. Guillermo Guevara hurried to Ingemmet's to present two petitories that combined cover the whole area of Ocacasa 4:
Guillermo 4:
https://cdn.ceo.ca/1fr95cl-guillermo%204.pdf Guilermo 4A:
https://cdn.ceo.ca/1fr95dd-guillermo%204A.pdf How is was he able to present these two petitories before Nov. 2nd? When I first saw them, two weeks ago, I didn't understand why they were presented in the first place. But, after further reviewing the regulation and the jurisprudence, I have just realized there is an exception in the law that
allows an expired area to be petitioned before it has been retired from the Mining Registry. Look at Article 6th of the Supreme Decree N° 025-2016-EM (1):
Article 6th. The WGS84 mining grids partially overlapped with expired areas of mining requests or concessions formulated before Law No. 30428, may be petitioned without prior notice of withdrawal of said areas. (bold is mine)
Law N° 30428 (2), issued on April 2016, is the law that changed the "grid system" from the old PSAD56 to the currently used WGS84. PLU's concessions were petitioned in 2005 - 2006 using the PSAD56.
So according to the quoted Article the "squares" of the new petitories (Guillermo 4 and Guillermo 4A) that overlapp with Ocacasa 4 should be granted to Mr. Guillermo Guevara, after cutting off the areas belonging to the valid sorrounding concessions (like Falchani). Look at the following figure:
https://cdn.ceo.ca/1fr96ap-traslape_ocacasa_4_guillermo_4.png The Guillermo 4 and Guillermo 4A petitories have black contours and Ocacasa 4 has a red contour. According to the quoted Article the yellow areas should be granted to Mr. Guillermo Guevara, and only the light blue squares should be auctioned between those who presented the simultaneous petitories on Nov, 2nd, including (Golbert I, Golbert II) and (Julian III, Julian IV) presented "on behalf of" Macusani Yellowcake.
But, will things happen according to the quoted Article 6? I'm afraid it won't be so simple. I have found two cases in which other companies tried to apply said regulation to get concessions and Ingemmet rejected them: Grupo Vol Company Union S.A.C. with their "Kolqueparque VII" petitory and Minera Yanacocha S.R.L. with their "Paulita 24" petitory. After being rejected by Ingemmet (on year 2016), both of them appeal (with a Recurso de Revision) before the Mining Council, who conffirmed Ingemmet's Resolution:
Kolqueparque VII:
https://minem.gob.pe/archivos/legislacion-899781r09u7gtra-RESOLUCION_546-2018-MEM-CM.pdf Paulita 24:
https://www.minem.gob.pe/archivos/legislacion-80026051z58uzz-RESOLUCION_064-2018-MEM-CM.pdf So, if both of them were definitely rejected (in the administratively channel), how the Guillermo 4 and Guillermo 4A petitories could be useful to PLU? Short answer: they buy more time. In more detail, I see things unfolding as follows:
1. In the next few days/weeks, Ingemmet will issue a Resolution rejecting/cancelling concessions Guillermo 4 and Guillermo 4A because, at the time they were presented, they overlapped with Ocacasa 4.
2. Guillermo Guevara will file a Recurso de Revision (appeal for reviews) before the Mining Council requesting the nulity of Ingemmet's Resolution.
3. The Mining Council will review the case and the jurisprudence and will undoubtely conffirm Ingemmet's Resolution.
4. The Mining Council will return the file to Ingemmet, who shortly after will declare its Resolution as executed.
5. Ingemmet will resume the application process with the simultaneos petitories that were presented in November 2nd.
Looking at the cases of Kolqueparque VII and Paulina 24 it can be concluded that steps (1) to (4) will take approximately 1 year, and only after that Ingemmet will be able to hold the auction for Ocacasa 4's area. But, ... will they? Not necessarily, as Mr. Guevara would pressumably go to the Judiciary, get a Medida Cautelar (restoring validity to Guillermo 4 and Guillermo 4A) and consequently postpone the auction for a few more years!
PS: I can confirm this strategy is being used only for Ocacasa 4, so the other 8 concessions retired from the Mininig Registry will indeed be auctioned in the short term.
(1)
https://www.minem.gob.pe/archivos/legislacion-zf677832z1-DS_025-2016-EM.pdf (2)
https://busquedas.elperuano.pe/normaslegales/ley-que-oficializa-el-sistema-de-cuadriculas-mineras-en-coor-ley-n-30428-1374461-1/