Post by
digingdeep on Jun 18, 2019 2:34pm
Mining Council and OEFA
Huarituna and Chacaconica where seems PLU was doing exploration without the duly permits seems that are properties that are on the list of the 32 mining properties under litigation.
Somebody can confirm it?
What PLU doesnt mention and the PLU is not clear is if they already get the exploration permits on such properties. Seems not, and the reason I guess is due to such properties are under litigation status and Mining authorities will not grant any permits until litigation is over, and thats why PLU decided to take the risk to start exploration without the permits. That makes more sense to me.
Juan you get my point.- As a consequence of the above mentioned, 4 targets that has been explored and drilled are under risk …
If the Mining Council denies the claim this June and PLU has to appeal to a Peruvian Court to find a positive resolution, those 32 properties will be under "litigation status" and in the meantime, the consequence of it I think, is that it won´t be possible for PLU to get any permits for more exploration, drilling or exploitation stage on those properties as long as are under "litigation status". I dont see any mining authority granting a permit in those properties that are under litigation until judicial procedure is finished. So, if the Mining Council rules against PLU, then I think this is a real “Material Event” for a junior like PLU.
Lets wait for the Mining Council resolution by next week and hope this issue is finished...
Regarding the OEFA ( the Environmental entity) such entity has started an "infringement procedure" against PLU and if confirms that PLU has been doing exploration and/or drilling without the duly permits and some level of pollution is confirmed, such breach of an obligation is considered as a "very serious infringement" and fines can be as hard can be in the USA or Canada. So lets see what OEFA have to say regarding it ...