ebear, I read it with less trepidation than you do. Others perhaps do also, and that is why there hasn't been much discussion.

As I see it, the two parts you underscore, "limited property right...." and "no natural or juridical person may maintain...." are linked. The govt must legally limit real property rights if they are to force those holding the concessions to actually work the concessions (i.e., make an investment within 2 yrs equivalent to $100/ha). Thus, the limitaton on property rights--they are limited, you have to work the concession or you lose it.

OK, since the orginal law defines a mining concession as distinct and independent from ownership of the land........

The mining concession is a real property right distinct
and independent from ownership of the land in which it
is found, although both belong to the same person.

......but considers that both belong to the same person, the issue could have been resolved by simply changing the wording to "may belong to the same person." I think a similar situation pertains in Canada, with legal means of obtaining surface rights from the original owner, along with adequate compensation. To me, this would have been the best course of action, with the "use it or lose it" clause creating a separate legal condition for holding the claim, without impairing the actual property right.

With real property rights, you could take a mining concession and do whatever you wanted with it, including doing nothing. One of the objectives of the mining mandate was to wrest away from previous owners those concessions that were not being worked (as well as those that or were behind in their royalties, taxes, etc.). The limitation on property rights in the draft mining law merely provides legal cover for this.

I think it goes further than that. Whether intentional or not, the conditions are there for administrative removal of property rights, as opposed to settlement throught the courts. Granted the intent is to reclaim inactive concessions, but that's just where the problem lies - it emanates from a political assumption that claims were either illegally obtained, or involved favoritism of some sort. No doubt that's true to some extent, but to me that would be an issue for the courts to settle, not an adminstrative body of govt. appointees. What happens when the govt. changes and new people with a different agenda are appointed to the agency? That to me is the key issue.

I still think it is all rather benign and will not cause hesitation among companies looking to buy-out FDN.

I certainly hope you're right. Anyone buying FDN will have to consider the legal ramifications of the new law not just in the present, but for the next 15 to 20 years. A solid foundation of strong property rights would have made the purchase more attractive.

I think the issue of inactive claims is a bit of a red herring actually. Did anyone have trouble accumulating concessions under the old law? Not that I'm aware of. Look at the size of our land package. Don't forget, the old law is what created the boom in the first place. How many of the present players would have come in under this new law? That's the question to be asked, and that will be answered in the upcoming year or two as we see if new claims are staked, and at what rate.

This is all just my opinion of course. I have no legal background, and I'm hoping someone who does have knowledge in this area will step up. I'll continue to look for information on this point, and will probably contact Otto at Inca-Kola to see what he makes of it.

At least we have something to work with now, which removes some of the uncertainly. I don't expect the final draft will look much different than the present one. If it did, we'd have another fiasco and I doubt the govt. wants that, having already seen the effect the mandate had. My guess is, apart from a few issues of phrasing and syntax, what we've got is pretty much it. I think friday afternoon's action speaks to this, and a gap up on Mon. wouldn't surprise me in the least. We will get selling into the strength though, as I think some players have already decided to move on, and who can blame them with everything that's happened? Nonetheless, I think we move up here, probably into the 5-6 range as we climb yet another tree of worry.

ebear