Espaniol Abajo
Ascendant’s Fourth Distorted Quarter Reports
Carlos Zorrilla Absolved in trumped-up gun charges
The 2006 Annual, Financial, and Management Discussion and Analysis reports were finally made public by Ascendant (see NEWS section on their web page: www.ascendantcopper.com
Here are some of the highlights:
Since it’s birth (48 months), the company has sustained losses of $ 9.751.463,00
Of that amount, an amazing $ 3,552,000,000 has, supposedly, gone towards “exploration” at Junin- even though in several other parts of both reports they admit no exploration has taken place. The accountants said the exploration costs constituted “the most significant component for the Company’s net loss for both 2006 and 2005”. On page 20 of the Management and Discussion report Ascendant, however, claims that “The Company’s short-term objective at Junin is to gain access to the property for commencement of exploration” (highlighting is mine)… Then they have the galls to state that “The primary reasons for the increased net loss are higher exploration expenditures and overall general and administrative costs as a result of increased exploration activity during 2006. On the following paragraph they contradict themselves by saying: The Company had no operating revenues in either 2006 or 2005, as it has not commenced mining operations.
Nevertheless, Some Really Great Wages. At the same time they were spending 3.5 million in not exploring in Junin, the board members and their friends have paid themselves 2.5 million dollars in wages and stock compensation. Another 1.089 million went towards “Management and consulting services”. $ 475,000 went into travel and accommodation expenses. Then there’s the $ 283,000 for office and administration and the 315 additional thousands to cover employment agreement with two of its own.
Not only that, but they were also leasing office space and furniture from other board members. There’s no end to their lavish outlays. The company, that has lost almost 10 million dollars in 2 years, has set aside $ 88,970 for office space for 2007. If its as is implied in the report, the company should name the company director who’s benefited by the leased space.
The company makes this claim on its Management and Discussion Report:
On November 27, 2006 the Company entered into an agreement with the Organization for the Development of Intag, Parish Council of Garcia Moreno and the Women’s Association of Garcia Moreno, representing over 90 local communities in support of Junin development…”
However, the company omitted to mention that:
the agreement was legally annulled on the 2nd of December (a week later), by the full Parish Garcia Moreno Council (the original agreement was signed only by the Council’s president.
the same Council stated in the annulment that ODI did not represent anyone, and that that ODI did not have legal representation.
and finally not only are there are nowhere near 90 communities in Intag, but ODI cannot represent any communities unless the community’s president has agree to such representation- which is the case in perhaps in only 5 or 6 communities. In fact, most people in Intag have never heard of ODI, and those who have, know it to be a front organization for the company
And, if the company was inferring they have the support of 90 communities- it might turn out to be one of their biggest distortion- if not their biggest lie- to date. And that is saying something!
As for their claim that they signed on the support of other governmental institutions mentioned (such as the equivalent of the Army Corps of Engineering), we followed up this claim a while back and it turned out that these institutions signed only as witnesses, implying no commitment to carry out any work.
In the Junin section of the company’s 2006 Annual Report, Ascendant makes one of it’s biggest understatements to date: “But clearly not everything has gone exactly the way we envisioned it as we have yet to make the gains in advancing the Junin project that we desire”.
Then, it goes on to identify the culprits:
“Our efforts are being hampered in part by non-governmental organizations (NGOs)…”
What the company again purposely fails to mention is the fact that every single one of the region’s local governments- nine in all- are opposed to Ascendant’s presence and the Junin project. This includes the Provincial, Municipal (same as County government), and all seven of Intag’s Parish Township Governments. Together with the firm local community opposition, archeological and environmental factors, the local government opposition is one of the most important issues influencing the state of, and outcome of this project- and one that is consistently not being reported by Ascendant.
The distortion of and omission of key information, however, continues. For example, the company doesn’t mention the December stop-work order from the Ministry of Energy and Mines, nor of the Ministry’s refusal to even process the company’s deeply flawed Environmental Impact Study (EIA). On this topic, the company merely says that it is responding to some observations made by the Ministry in November, and that they hope to resubmit it in the second quarter of 2007.
Ascendant’s report fails to inform the company’s investors that the Ministry pointed out some major problems in the EIA- such as the fact that it might impact the habitat of the critically endangered brown spider monkey, or that the ornithological studies were inadequate. Ascendant also has been frank to its investors about the unusually rich archeological sites within the Junin concessions. As we’ve maintained, and even as Ascendant has admitted, mining is prohibited in archeological sites.
We believe these are material omissions the company is keeping from its investors and Canada’s securities regulators.
No, there’s not a single word of the outrageous violence against the communities in December by the hired guns paid by Ascendant’s “exploration” expenses.
Carlos Absolved:,
And, while on the subject of guns, on April 3rd the Judge in Imbabura province absolved Carlos of any wrongdoing in connection with the trumped-up charges against him for illegal possession of a gun. The judge ruled there was no evidence of a crime being committed. This was the gun that a crooked police planted in my home on October 17th as a result of fabricated accusations by someone we believe worked for Ascendant at the time of the false charges being filed. The ruling is final- there’s no appeal.
This good news came right after a ruling by the public prosecutor in Quito who decided to abstain from indicting me in the case of the other trumped-up charges for robbery. According to the public prosecutor, the camera I was accused of stealing (by the suspected company employee), turned up in the hands of a criminal gang hundreds of miles away from the supposed site of the crime (Quito). One is left to wonder at the highly miraculous efficiency of the police in this particular case.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Nuevas Distorciones de Ascendant
Los Informes Financiero, y Debate y Analisis del 2006 fueron finalmente difundido por la empresa.
(Disculpas por las faltas ortográficas- este programa no blogea bien en espaniol…
A continuacion, algunos de los puntos mas destacados
Desde su nacimiento (48 meses), la compania ha sostenido perdidas de $ 9.751.463,00
De esa cantidad, un asombroso $3.552.000,00 supuestamente, fue invertido en la “exploracion” de Junin, sin embargo en varias otras partes de ambos informes admiten que no se ha realizado exploracion alguna.. Los contadores dijeron que los costos de exploracion constituyeron “el componente mas significativo para la perdida neta de la Compania para ambos 2006 y 2005”. En
la pagina 20 de la Direccion y el Debate la empresa reporta, sin embargo, que “el Objetivo de corto plazo de la Compania en Junin es acceder a La propiedad para el comienzo de exploracion” (el resalto es lo mio) .Luego indican lo siguiente: “Las razones primarias para la perdida neta aumentada son gastos superiores de exploracion y globales costos generales y administrativos como resultado de la actividad aumentada de exploracion durante 2006”. En el siguiente parrafo se contradicen, diciendo: La Compania no tuvo ingresos operativos ya sea 2006 o 2005, como no ha iniciado operaciones mineras”.
No obstante, unos impresionantes sueldos. Al mismo tiempo que la empresa gastaba 3.5 millones para no explorar en Junin, los miembros de la directiva y sus amigos han cobrado 2.5 millones de dolares en sueldos y compensacion accionaria. Otros 1.089 millones fueron gastados en “Direccion y Servicios Consultivos (asesores)”. $ 475.000,00 se destino para cubrir costos de viajes y estadia. Y, otros $ 283.000,00 para gastos de oficina y administracion; 315 miles adicionales para cubrir acuerdos de empleo que beneficiaria a dos de los suyos.
Es mas, tambien arrendaban espacio de oficina y muebles de otros miembros de la directiva. No hay fin para sus desembolsos generosos. La misma compania que tuvo perdidas de casi 10 millones de dolares en 2 anos, ha designado $ 88.970,00 para costos de arriendo de oficina. Si es como se sobreentiende en el informe, la compania deberia nombrar al director de la empresa que se esta beneficiado por la o las carisimas oficinas alquiladas (promedio de siete mil dolares al mes)
La compania dice lo siguiente en su Informe de Debate y Discusion:
En 27 de noviembre, 2006 la Compania entro en un acuerdo con la Organizacion para el Desarrollo de Intag, Concejo Parroquial de Garcia Moreno y la Asociacion de las Mujeres de Garcia Moreno, representador a mas de 90 comunidades locales que apoyan al desarrollo de Junin “
Sin embargo, la compania paso por alto esto:
El acuerdo se anulo legalmente en 2 de diciembre (el acuerdo original fue firmado solo por el presidente del Concejo (una semana mas tarde), por el pleno del gobierno Parroquial de Garcia Moreno.
El mismo Concejo manifesto que ODI no representa a nadie, y que ODI no era una organizacion juridica.
Y finalmente, no solo que no existen 90 comunidades en Intag, pero la ODI no puede representar a ninguna comunidad a menos que el presidente de la comunidad haya accedido a tal representacion, lo cual es el caso en quiza solo 5 o 6 comunidades. De hecho, la mayoria de personas en Intag no han conocen nada de la ODI, y esas que conocen algo, la conocen por ser una organizacion de la empresa.
la empresa no menciona el hecho que todos los gobiernos locales de la region- en total nueve- se oponen a la presencia de Ascendant y a su proyecto. Estos incluyen el gobierno Provincial, Municipal, al igual que todos siete gobiernos Parroquiales de Intag.
y, si la empresa esta infiriendo que cuenta con el apoyo de 90 comunidades- es posible que, hasta la fecha, este sea su mayor distorsion- y posiblemente mentira. Y eso si es algo!
sobre su aseveracion que cuentan con el apoyo de varias otras instituciones gubernamentales (como la ESPE), le dimos seguimiento y nos enteramos que estas instituciones solamente firmaron como testigos de honor- lo cual no implica compromisos institucionales.
La distorsion y la omision de la informacion clave continua. Por ejemplo, la compania no menciona la orden de paro de trabajo de diciembre del Ministerio de Energia y Minas, ni de la negativa del Ministerio a tramitar el defectuoso Estudio de Impacto Ambiental de la compania (EIA). La compania meramente dice que estan respondiendo a algunas observaciones hechas por el Ministerio en noviembre, y que espera resometerlo en el segundo semestre de 2007.
El informe de Ascendant no le informa a los inversionistas que el Ministerio identifico varios serios problemas en el EIA- incluyendo que el proyecto podria impactar el habitat del mono arana cabeci-cafe, en peligro critico de extincion, o que los estudios de aves eran inadecuados. Ascendant tambien no fue franco con sus inversionistas sobre la inusual riqueza arqueologica dentro de las concesiones del proyecto Junin. Como hemos mantenido, y como hasta Ascendant ha admitido, la mineria es prohibida en areas arqueologica.
Por supuesto, no mencionan la violencia en contra de las comunidades en diciembre.
Carlos Absuelto:
El juez responsable en el caso de posesion ilegal del arma me absolvio hoy de todos los cargos. Baso su decision en el hecho que no hubo evidencia demostrando que un crimen haba sido cometido. No hay recurso de apelacion. La sentencia es final.
