Lat/Am Daily » mining

Kick some ass

Peter Krupa — Mon, 28 Jun 2010 22:35:48 +0000

Peru’s El Comercio is reporting that a reservoir holding chemical left-overs from a mining operation collapsed, contaminating the Opamayo River, killing a bunch of fish, and polluting god knows what else.

According to MineralMundi, the Caudalosa Chica mine is used for extracting silver, copper, lead, and Zinc. Government sources are estimating that 21,400 cubic meters of toxic material escaped the reservoir, though the article doesn’t specify what kind of toxic material is involved.

When an open-pit goldmine in Costa Rica was shut down in 2007 on fears that something similar was about to happen, the chemical causing concern was cyanide. Not sure if that’s the case here.

Supposedly the Caudalosa Chica mine has polluted things before.

It would be easy to jump all over whatever mining company is at fault, but let’s be honest, mining companies and any other profit-motivated corporations will go as far as you let them. We know this for a fact. It’s what they’re designed to do: pursue profit where they can get it.

At the heart of the matter, therefore, these environmental catastrophes are the government’s fault, for not requiring strict enough safety procedures, for not funding the institutions charged with enforcing those safety procedures, and for not having strong enough punitive measures in place to punish companies who dodge the rules and to make damn sure any clean-ups are well funded.

Post-disaster, the government usually attempts a neat responsibility dodge, a la Barack Obama’s declared desire to kick BP executive ass. But really, the asses that deserve kicking are seated in nice leather chairs located in a statehouse somewhere.

New kind of NIMBY

Dave Sherwood — Wed, 21 Apr 2010 12:43:46 +0000

Mining is a nasty activity, one that inevitably preys on countries with weak institutions and desperate populations, and with predictable results: environmental devastation, child labor, corruption, increased crime and prostitution, etc.

This advertisement, aired in Argentina, sums it up nicely.

Problem is, by my count, about half the people in this video are wearing jewelry. It’s black-and-white, so it’s difficult to tell exactly what variety – but my guess is that at least some of it is gold. These are movie stars, after all.

Countries like Argentina and the United States, with largely educated populations, relative wealth and abundant natural resources, are most prone to this kind of behavior. It’s a mutation of NIMBY-ism (Not-in-my-backyard) and not a particularly flattering one. You see, if we rich white folk (and anyone in the middle and upper classes of the very countries where such projects are proposed), are going to insist on wearing flashy jewelry, then we damn well better find a sustainable, socially-just way to mine precious metals in our own backyards, where we can keep a close eye on it.

Simply saying no to resource extraction in our home countries yet continuing to use them wastefully (Exhibit A: Petroleum), punts the problem to a less-developed country, where the very same issues take place with virtually no oversight and more extreme impacts (just a few examples here). We’ll give Argentina, and the folks in this video, the benefit of the doubt (Technically, it’s a developing country). But the United States, for example, sits atop the world’s largest gold reserves, yet in 2004, consumed 5 million ounces more than it produced.

What’s their excuse?

Crucitas: Loss or opportunity?

Dave Sherwood — Sun, 18 Apr 2010 17:40:23 +0000

Screwed?

Crucitas, a controversial gold mine proposed for a desperately poor region of Costa Rica that is also home to the critically endangered green macaw (why does that always happen?), has hopped the obligatory Supreme Court hurdle.

So what’s next?

The environmental lobby will keep pushing back, as it should, but it must be careful not to lose the forest for the trees. In the grand scheme, it’s not Crucitas that’s the problem. It’s Costa Rica’s mining policy and flimsy regulatory institutions. Win or lose, now is the time to reform, and force the government to stick to its supposed commitment to sustainable development. (Right, Dr. Arias?)

That’s not to say the environmental groups should just let the mining company plant “trees” to “replace” the complex green macaw ecosystem and call it a day. (Nice try, Crucitas.) What they should do is redirect their budgets and energy to lobbying for a serious review of the country’s mining laws, an increase in regulation and enforcement, and stipulations that ensure net environmental and social benefits to the country in the long-term.

There’s a reason Infinito Gold Ltd., the company in question, operates in such upstanding nations as Venezuela and Guyana, and it’s not because they have effective regulatory structures. Since this isn’t the first or the last time Costa Rica will face a proposal like this, dusting off the law book and pumping up Costa Rica’s wimpy Geology and Mines department is urgent.

This is not an endorsement of the political party in power or of gold mining, both of which are proven losers when it comes to the environment. Even Ortega’s ‘anything-goes’ Nicaragua is against mining, and there are plenty of good reasons not to mine gold here, despite the court’s insistence otherwise (No negative environmental impact? Did the judges really write that?).

But as with oil drilling and mining in the more heavily-regulated United States and Canada, the balance can be tipped towards sustainability, just at a much higher cost. And the corporation should be made to bear the brunt of that cost, or get out.

There is some credence to the argument that the wheels of capitalism will keep on turning, and sometimes it’s best to re-align the spokes rather than derail the thing. There is a lot of poverty in the swampy backwater where the Crucitas mine is located, a real need for jobs in a place where eco-tourism is unlikely to take hold and, according to the Supreme Court, more societal pluses than environmental minuses (the Costa Rican definition of public interest).

Tico’s have proudly and deservedly led the world in innovative ideas that temper business with environmental and social consciousness, and here they have an opportunity to do so again. If Crucitas goes forward, local environmentalists should look to the root of the problem, push for tough regulations, and help ensure they’re enforced. In doing so, it’ll send a clear message to Infinito Gold, Ltd. and set a precedent for everyone else.

(Original image courtesy Tony Hisgett, via Wikimedia Commons.)

Concessioning a town

Peter Krupa — Mon, 05 Apr 2010 00:07:02 +0000

I’ve heard of mining companies doing some brazen, awful things in Latin America, but this might take the cake. The concessions granted to Australian mining company BHP Billiton near the controversial Agua Rica mine in Argentina give it the right to expropriate the town of Andalgalá itself for metal extraction.

From the official document, via Página/12:

“The mining area includes the city of Andalgalá, a situation that is normal since, according to the Mining Code, two properties – both the mine and the surface property – can coexist. In this case, the mine’s purpose is prospecting and exploration, and in the event that it begins extraction, the corresponding compensation must be provided and the greatest public interest must be considered, giving priority to development.”

I’m not a natural resources attorney, but this sounds like a green light to expropriate the town for the greater good, and that’s how the residents of the 17,000-person town are taking it as well. Andalgalá was founded in 1658. Mining in the region first started in 1994, with Yamana’s Alumbrera project. In 2004 that company opened its Agua Rica mine 17 kilometers from Andalgalá. It was recently met with violent protests:

If that’s how these people respond to a mining project 17 km away, good luck trying to kick them out of their houses.

Displaced for gold?

Peter Krupa — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 16:54:49 +0000

After being strafed by the Colombian military, an indigenous group is claiming that a controversial mining concession is behind the harassment (story in English). A family of five was just getting ready to have breakfast in their home located on a 9,000-hectare indigenous safe zone in the Antioquia department when helicopters fired on them with rockets and machine guns.

Four family members were wounded, and it looks like one – 23-year-old José Rubiano Bariquira – is going to become a paraplegic. The Colombian military says it was all a misunderstanding, that they were going after some FARC guerrillas in the area. The Antioquian Indigenous Organization (OIA) says there are no FARC in the area due to a heavy military presence.

What there is instead is nice, juicy deposits of gold, copper, and molybdenum, for which the local municipality had granted several controversial mining concessions late last year. Community leaders say the attack was an attempt at “displacement” so the private companies can get at the precious metals.