BajaNomad - Fury Acquires Cedros Mining Concession

Fury Acquires Cedros Mining Concession

Anonymous - 2-12-2005 at 07:07 AM

http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/February2005/09/c...

TSX Trading Symbol: FUR

VANCOUVER, Feb. 9 /CNW/ - Fury Explorations Ltd. (the "Company") is
pleased to announce the acquisition of a 28,430 ha mining concession on Cedros
Island, Baja California State, Mexico. Cedros Island is approximately 800 km
south of the US border and 120 km west of the town of Guerrero Negro on the
Pacific shore of the Baja peninsula.

The island is underlain by a series of Jurassic sediments and volcanics
intruded by several felsic to mafic intrusions. In two traverses completed by
Fury geologists, areas of strong oxidation and complex structure combined with
complex stratifgraphy were noted.

The mining concession was acquired by staking and covers at least two
historic gold and/or copper mining areas. The first area called the Wendlandt
Mine, was sporadically mined for gold during the late 1890's and early 1900's
by an American company, and yielded 130,000 tonnes of material at an
unspecified grade. During the 1980's, the Consejo Recursos Minerales (Mexican
govt. geology agency), reviewed and mapped the Mine area and located a total
of 13 openings from shallow excavations to shafts and adits. A total of
47 samples were taken from the adits and surface exposures and results of
25 of the samples returned values greater than 1.0 g/t Au with values up to
117.2 g/t Au and 852.1 g/t Ag. Copper values ranged up to 1.23%.

The mineralization in the Wendlandt Mine area occurs as epithermal
disseminations of pyrite and arsenopyrite with subsidiary silver sulphides,
silver and gold tellurides, and chalcopyrite in structurally controlled quartz
veinlets which are hosted by silicified rhyolite porphyry dykes, a rhyolite
porphyry plug, quartz diorite dykes and a silicified rhyolite breccia. Fury
geologists noted that an obvious surface oxidized area with a diameter of
approximately 300m surrounds the area of the old mines.

Additional mineralization noted in old literature includes reported gold
production from the central part of the island at the Mascara Hierro Mine. The
area was not inspected by Fury personnel and no production statistics
available.

The Company plans to map and sample the Wendlandt Mine area followed by a
drilling program. The remainder of the island will be mapped and prospected
guided by a study of satellite imagery. It is anticipated that the work
program will commence within the next month.

Mexitron - 2-12-2005 at 10:23 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Anonymous

The mineralization in the Wendlandt Mine area occurs as epithermal
disseminations of pyrite and arsenopyrite with subsidiary silver sulphides,
silver and gold tellurides, and chalcopyrite in structurally controlled quartz
veinlets which are hosted by silicified rhyolite porphyry dykes, a rhyolite
porphyry plug, quartz diorite dykes and a silicified rhyolite breccia. Fury
geologists noted that an obvious surface oxidized area with a diameter of
approximately 300m surrounds the area of the old mines.

Could you post this in English next time? :lol:

David K - 2-12-2005 at 10:33 AM

Where's GEOROCK??? :light:

Hey Suzanne!

Dave - 2-12-2005 at 01:51 PM

This concession is illegal. Amazing how the government ignores the constitution, especially when there is a profit to be made. :biggrin:

David K - 2-12-2005 at 01:53 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Dave
This concession is illegal. Amazing how the government ignores the constitution, especially when there is a profit to be made. :biggrin:

Just curious Dave... why is it illegal?

Dave - 2-12-2005 at 02:36 PM

There are certain areas of the economy which are constitutionally restricted from foreign participation. Mining is one of them.

David K - 2-12-2005 at 03:09 PM

So no foreign company can operate a mine in Mexico (create jobs, pay taxes, share gold revenues)? They really want to keep their people poor down there, huh?

If there was a Mexican mining company that was able to, I am sure it would have been done. There must be a way to extract the wealth with foreign help, rather than just let it remain untapped?

Before the new constitution, lot's of foreign mine companies operated in Mexico... El Boleo of France comes to mind. Las Flores, south of Bahia de L.A. didn't close because the gold and silver ran out, the 1911 revolution chased out the foreignors.

JESSE - 2-12-2005 at 03:25 PM

Article 27 of the Constitution

The legal framework for mining is set forth in Article 27 of the Constitution, which grants the ownership of essentially all minerals to the Mexican nation. The right to exploit those minerals, except for radioactive minerals, which are reserved for the State, is given to private parties through concessions issued by the federal executive branch, as may be established by law. (Article 73, Section X of the Constitution gives the federal Congress the right to enact laws on mining, confirming the federal nature of this activity). Such concessions may be issued to Mexican individuals, to companies incorporated under Mexican law, and to foreign individuals (subject to comments in Section 3.8. following), Provided, in the latter case, that they agree to what is known in Latin America as the Calvo Clause,8 under which a foreigner agrees to consider himself 9 as a Mexican and not to invoke the protection of his government regarding any rights that he holds in Mexico, under penalty, if he breaches such agreement, to forfeit said rights in benefit of the Mexican nation.

[Edited on 2-12-2005 by JESSE]

BajaNomad - 2-12-2005 at 03:42 PM

http://www.cardero.com/s/Mexico.asp
http://www.bajamining.com/projects/boleo
http://www.globeinvestor.com/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CNW/2...

Dave - 2-12-2005 at 04:43 PM

I stand corrected. Thank you Jesse.

Bob and Susan - 2-12-2005 at 05:00 PM

...and that's why he's Einstein :lol:

wilderone - 2-16-2005 at 11:46 AM

And check this out:
Watch out -- insidious little f___s

ETC Group
News Release
7 February 2005
www.etcgroup.org

Canadian Government to Unleash Terminator Bombshell at UN Meeting: All-out
push for commercialisation of Sterile Seed Technology

A confidential document leaked today to ETC Group reveals that the Canadian
government, at a United Nations meeting in Bangkok (Feb 7-11), will attempt
to overturn an international moratorium on genetic seed sterilisation
technology (known universally as Terminator). Even worse, the Canadian
government has instructed its negotiators to "block consensus" on any other
option.

"Canada is about to launch a devastating kick in the stomach to the world's
most vulnerable farmers - the 1.4 billion people who depend on farm saved
seed," said ETC Group Executive Director Pat Mooney speaking from Ottawa.
"The Canadian government is doing the dirty work for the multinational gene
giants and the US government. Even Monsanto wasn't prepared to be this
upfront and nasty. Canada is betraying Farmers' Rights and food sovereignty
everywhere."

Terminator technology was first developed by the US government and the seed
industry to prevent farmers from re-planting saved seed and is considered
the most controversial and immoral agricultural application of genetic
engineering so far. When first made public in 1998, "suicide seeds"
triggered an avalanche of public opposition, forcing Monsanto to abandon the
technology and prompting the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) to
impose a de facto moratorium on its further development. According to the
leaked instructions to Canadian negotiators at SBSTTA 10 (a scientific
advisory body to the CBD), Canada will insist on Wednesday (9 Feb.) that
governments accept the field testing and commercialization of Terminator
varieties (referred to as GURTS -- Genetic Use Restriction Technologies).
Canada will also attack an official UN report, prepared by an international
expert group, which is critical of the potential impacts of Terminator seeds
on small farmers and Indigenous Peoples. In stark contrast to Canada's
position, the expert report recommends that governments seek prohibitions on
the technology.

In Bangkok, civil society and Indigenous Peoples are calling on the Canadian
government to abandon its endorsement of Terminator and to join with other
governments to prohibit the technology once and for all. Many African and
Asian governments have called for Terminator to be banned and the European
Union has also been supportive of the existing moratorium.

"It is outrageous that Canada is backing an anti-farmer technology and
shameful that it will 'block consensus' on any other outcome. Governments
from around the world must not accept this bullying tactic," says ETC
Group's Hope Shand from the negotiations in Bangkok. "If Canada blocks
decision-making on this issue, the moratorium will be in jeopardy and
terminator seeds will be commercialized ending up in the fields of small
farmers."

The full leaked text of the Canadian government's instructions to its
negotiators on Terminator/GURTS follows.

Hope Shand and Jim Thomas of ETC Group can be contacted at SBSTTA
negotiations in Bangkok on cell phone +44 (0) 7752 106806 or by email
jim@etcgroup.org or hope@etcgroup.org
Pat Mooney (in Ottawa) +1 (613) 241-2267 etc@etcgroup.org
Kathy Jo Wetter (USA) +1 (919) 960-5223 email kjo@etcgroup.org
The Head of the Canadian Delegation in Bangkok is Robert McLean, Environment
Canada
email Robert.Mclean@ec.gc.ca tel +1 (819) 997-1303

***

"Advice on the report of the Ad Hoc Technical Expert Group on Genetic Use
Restriction Technologies (GURTS);

Canada has major reservations regarding the recommendations in the AHTEG
report. Canada notes that the experts were unable to reach consensus and
that while this is recognized in para. 15 of the report, this should have
been made clear in the recommendation section of the report. Unfortunately,
the report leaves the impression that consensus was achieved on all of the
recommendations when this was clearly not case and in particular in terms of
recommendation (b) which reads as follows, "In view of the current lack of
data, recommends that Parties and other Governments consider the development
of regulatory frameworks not to approve GURTs for field-testing and
commercial use."

Canada will suggest that the document clearly indicate in the Annex that
there is no consensus on for the recommendations. Alternatively, the AHTEG
report can be referred to as the "Chairs' report". Canada also believes that
the AHTEG report contains scientific inaccuracies and a lack of balance in
terms of reflecting both potential positive and negative impacts of this
technology, and these issues should be addressed before the report is
further distributed. We believe that it would be beneficial for Parties and
other governments to submit comments to the Executive Secretary/CHM to
represent national views to improve the accuracy of the document, and that
these be made available to both the 8j working group and COP.

Additionally, Canada will propose that SBSTTA adopt a recommendation for
decision at COP8 based on the revised wording of recommendation "b" below
and will propose this recommendation be incorporated for consideration at
the 8j meeting:

NEW WORDING for recommendation b) of AHTEG report
(b) In view of the current lack of data, recommend that Parties and other
Governments consider the development of domestic regulatory frameworks TO
ALLOW FOR THE EVALUATION OF NOVEL VARIETIES, INCLUDING THOSE WITH GURTS, FOR
FIELD TESTING AND COMMERCIAL USE BASED ON APPROPRIATE SCIENCE-BASED
ENVIRONMENTAL RISK/SAFETY ASSESSMENTS.

In Canada's opinion the revised wording we are suggesting, strengthens the
recommendation and provides for a strong scientific assessment of risk.

If we are unsuccessful in obtaining these additions (indication that
recommendations in the AHTEG report were not based on consensus OR agreement
to have national views submitted) AND changes to recommendation "B" --or any
other outcome which clearly addresses our concern over a defacto moratorium
on GURTS-- Canada is prepared to block consensus on this issue."

Mexitron - 2-16-2005 at 12:00 PM

It sounds bad but a couple things, to play devils advocate wilderone: Its probably better if the seeds are one generational since they've been genetically modified anyway, it'll keep the mutation risks down, than if the farmers kept using the GMS. Also, if I'm not mistaken, most farming is done with F1 Hybrid seeds, which if I recall from Genetics 101, don't produce reliable seed anyway.

wilderone - 2-16-2005 at 02:41 PM

GM seed is a worldwide issue. In Africa and Mexico, it is absolutely vital that the hundreds of varieties of corn that do well in regional micro-climates continue to do so in an unadulterated. And there remains the ultimate unknown about GM seed. But the consensus is that we shouldn't try to push mother nature around.