Yesterday afternoon, a friend point me at this link which is the document file for the tribunal case between plaintiff Bear Creek Mining (BCM.v) and the defender State of Peru. It’s all over the Santa Ana project, which BCM says was cancelled illegally and because they’re protected by the Peru/Canada Free Trade Agreement and stuff, are claiming a quarter of a billion dollars compensation.
At first I browsed a little, but the reading material quickly became fascinating and I read all the documents available (and there’s a lot to read). It’s not possible to provide even a brief summary of the body of work, but this post exists for two reasons.
1) To tell the esteemed readership of IKN that the Bear Creek Santa Ana case is an excellent case study and now, with the company on record as to its movements and what it did for community relations development. It also shows that BCM didn’t have a clue as to what it was letting itself into and when it did, it was too late to undo the mistakes it had made with its limited plan of action.
2) To tell the esteemed readership of IKN that in the firm opinion of your humble scribe, Bear Creek Mining (BCM.v) doesn’t stand a chance of winning. Not one, forget it, goodbye Swarthout, no soup for you. For the hack on that, go to the documents dated October 6th.