- This topic has 1 reply, 8 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 10 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Sweikert
when are you visiting costa rica again..
[quote=”sweikert925″][quote=”clayton”]Lighten up,Jeeesssshhhh![/quote]
I’m perfectly light, thank you.
Yes, we are all entitled to opinions on any possible subject under the sun. But in a situation where the subject is whose position is correct on a legal point concerning a contract between 2 parties then unless you are all of the things I referred to above the opinion isn’t particularly valid. My opinion is that I have absolutely no idea whether position of the government of Costa Rica or the position of Infinito is correct.[/quote]
[quote=”VictoriaLST”]I support the gold mining company. They had a legal contract. CR has a huge nation debt and resources in gold. The government can set up its own rules for reclamation and reforestation of the land when the gold mining is completed.[/quote]
A contract is a contract true Victoria… but when a company (a made up entity with no physical presence) is able to simple declare bankruptcy, disappear, and walk away from an environmental disaster we have a problem. Gold mining is a dirty, expensive, and environmentally unfriendly undertaking. All too often these companies do NOT honor their contracts when the reclamation is required… it’s expensive and isn’t producing income. They simply walk away or declare bankruptcy leaving the government or landowner holding the bag.
A small fish like Costa Rica would be an attractive target for such a company and scheme since the cost to pursue a claim against the company, should they default on reclamation, would be prohibitive and likely recovery by CR would be slim at best. But by then whatever gold is gone and the environmental mess is all that is left. Just look at all the “Super Fund” sites in the US that the government is stuck with cleaning up after companies do their thing, make a mess, take their profits, and disappear!
This is most likely why CR rethought the deal and is currently in this legal battle, the good news is with lower gold prices the company might be less likely to pursue this issue. Interesting point is the last legal battle Infinito had over a cancelled mine deal was in Venezuela… interesting parallel. BTW…. They lost!
Since the environmental problems with gold mining are well documented one must wonder why the original contract was even signed by the leader of a country that prides itself as being so environmentally friendly. Perhaps some oil or grease was involved? LOL
Long live Don Oscar…. sold out to the Chinese…. sold out to the mining companies!!!! How Nobel! I’m sure he’s enjoying a “healthy” retirement.
[quote=”Imxploring”][quote=”VictoriaLST”]I support the gold mining company. They had a legal contract. CR has a huge nation debt and resources in gold. The government can set up its own rules for reclamation and reforestation of the land when the gold mining is completed.[/quote]
A contract is a contract true Victoria… but when a company (a made up entity with no physical presence) is able to simple declare bankruptcy, disappear, and walk away from an environmental disaster we have a problem. Gold mining is a dirty, expensive, and environmentally unfriendly undertaking. All too often these companies do NOT honor their contracts when the reclamation is required… it’s expensive and isn’t producing income. They simply walk away or declare bankruptcy leaving the government or landowner holding the bag.
A small fish like Costa Rica would be an attractive target for such a company and scheme since the cost to pursue a claim against the company, should they default on reclamation, would be prohibitive and likely recovery by CR would be slim at best. But by then whatever gold is gone and the environmental mess is all that is left. Just look at all the “Super Fund” sites in the US that the government is stuck with cleaning up after companies do their thing, make a mess, take their profits, and disappear!
This is most likely why CR rethought the deal and is currently in this legal battle, the good news is with lower gold prices the company might be less likely to pursue this issue. Interesting point is the last legal battle Infinito had over a cancelled mine deal was in Venezuela… interesting parallel. BTW…. They lost!
Since the environmental problems with gold mining are well documented one must wonder why the original contract was even signed by the leader of a country that prides itself as being so environmentally friendly. Perhaps some oil or grease was involved? LOL
Long live Don Oscar…. sold out to the Chinese…. sold out to the mining companies!!!! How Nobel! I’m sure he’s enjoying a “healthy” retirement.[/quote
Oh, but he claimed it was in the…….”interés público”
Well, Sweigie, I did some thoughtful research. A contract is still a contract….
But. When is a company not a company? It seems that “Infinito Mining” is not a mining company. It is a holding company with a share value of $0.005. No assets. Which means that it is probably just a front for a parent company that doesn’t want to take the risk of being sued.
So, thanks all for making me do real research. Infinito can still sue, of course, but it would be interesting to continue to delve into who owns this ghost company…..
[quote=”sweikert925″]You are to be commended, Victoria, for keeping an open mind on this subject.
Almost all contractual disputes are complicated but this one is even more so than usual. Infinito did sign an agreement with the government of CR, but that contract has now been adjudicated fully by the highest court in CR. According to CR law, that is the end of it. Since the agreement was signed, Costa Rica has passed a law (as of 2010) banning the type of open pit mining that Infinito was originally granted a concession for. Does that bear on the case? Maybe.
Infinito isn’t suing in a CR court, they are bringing a case before a body called the [url=https://icsid.worldbank.org/ICSID/FrontServlet]International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes[/url], which is as I understand it an offshoot of the World Bank. So an entirely different set of laws apply than was the case when this was purely a Costa Rican contractual dispute.
One other intresting wrinkle to this: In American law (specifically the [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Corrupt_Practices_Act]Foreign Corrupt Practices Act[/url]), if a contract was not negotiated in good faith – such as for instance if bribery was involved – then the contract can be nullified, no matter what the terms of the contract state. [url=http://www.cba.org/CBA/PracticeLink/12-09-bc/PrintHTML.aspx?DocId=40077]Canada has a version of that law too[/url] which may be relevant if Infinito is a Canadian registered company. There are also UN and multilateral treaties concerning corruption that establish that same legal framework and therefore [b]may or may not[/b] also come into play when the ICSID hears this case.
Bizarrely, it may actually be in Costa Rica’s interest to furnish proof that bribery was involved in granting the original concession to Infinto as a way to evade any legal judgment against them.[/quote]
Perhaps they can call Don Oscar as a witness to have him explain it all! I’m sure he can explain how open pit mining and the chemical process of gold ore extraction is an environmentally friendly process and in the best interest of the good people of Costa Rica! Hence the reason he agreed with the concession in the first place!
Nothing more than another politician that sold out! Hopefully if this suit goes forward (not hoping it does) they can call Don Oscar on the carpet for this and other conduct during his term.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
