The Chamber of Deputies has accepted the report produced by a commission that is studying the contract between the Dominican State and Barrick Gold, recommending a revision of the contract. This is practically the same group of legislators that originally passed the contract. Many deputies later admitted they did not even read the contract.
As reported in Listin Diario, at the same time, the legislators accepted President Danilo Medina’s proposal that a new tax should be created on the profits of mining.
They agreed with the President that the application of the proposed tax was both urgent and could not be delayed.
Meanwhile, environmental newsletter ANA reports that Dominican director of mining Alexander Medina, during his participation in the Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada said that the discussions for the contract were “normal between partners” and that “there will be a friendly political solution.” During the event, the Dominican Republic hosted a “Dominican Night” for mining companies. As reported, all the companies that seek to exploit mines in the Central Mountain Range were there, including Unigold, Goldquest, Barrick Pueblo Viejo, Perilya, Everton, Marvex. Deputy Pelegrin Castillo was also present. As reported, Andrew Cheatle, president of Unicold said: “mines such as Falcondo, Pueblo Viejo and Cerro Maimon make the Dominican Republic a site of world class mining.”
During his 27 of February state of the nation address, President Danilo Medina described the Barrick Pueblo Viejo contract signed in the previous Fernandez administration as “unacceptable.”
Today’s Diario Libre, Tuesday 13 March, runs a feature reporting on the “abysmal differences” that mainly work against the Dominican state between the original Placer Dome contract, signed in 2002, and the Barrick Pueblo Viejo contract passed in 2009.
www.listindiario.com/la-republica/2013/3/12/269214/Camara-de-Diputados-acoge-informe-sobre-el-contrato-de-la-Barrick
www.diariolibre.com/sociedad/2013/03/13/i375018_placer-dome-barrick-gold-dos-contratos-arrendamiento-con-diferencias-abismales.html