العربية
中国
Français
Deutsch
Ελληνική
हिन्दी
Italiano
日本語
Português
Русский
EspañolPASCUA LAMA
'Pascua-Lama' is an open pit mining project of gold, silver, and copper in the Andes mountains, south of Atacama, straddling the border between Chile and Argentina at an altitude of over 4,500 metres. Toronto-based Barrick Gold, the world's largest gold mining company, is developing the project. Due to the proximity to glaciers, Pascua-Lama has caused controversy and public protest in Chile, including demonstrations and petitions presented to the Chilean government. However, Chile and Argentina have both approved the project, following thorough environmental reviews in both countries.
Pascua-Lama contains deposits of 17 million ounces of gold and 635 million ounces of silver, Gold Mining Project Threatens Andean Glaciers with 75 percent of the deposits in Chile and 25 percent in Argentina. Conflict Over Andean Glaciers Heats Up
The project became possible with the adoption by Chile and Argentina of the Mining Integration and Complementation Treaty[1], signed by the presidents of Chile and Argentina in 1997 and ratified by their legislatures in 2000. This treaty permits investors to explore and exploit mineral deposits that straddle the border between the two countries. "Yes" to Gold Mine, but Don't Touch the Glaciers In 2000, an appeal was filed with the Chilean Constitutional Court to rule the treaty unconstitutional. Alcayaga, Luna, and Padilla, analyzing the treaty, have concluded that, "both in terms of content and form, [it] contains provisions that violate Chile's constitution". Pascua Lama Gold Mine, a Threat to Sustainability Pascua Lama Background — this in turn cites However, nothing came of the law suit, and Chile's National Environmental Commission (CONAMA) issued its final approval for the Pascua Lama project on 13 June 2006.[2]
The mining project is organized by the Barrick Gold corporation, which plans to invest US$1.5 billion over 20 years in it Barrick responds to Pascua-Lama Chain Email and projects an annual output of 750,000 ounces of gold and 30 million ounces of silver in the first five years.
Barrick has been planning the project for several years. It performed its first studies of the glaciers in 1991, purchased the Chañarcillo estate at the location via an affiliate (Empresa Nevada) in 1997, and published an environmental impact report in 2000, which was approved by COREMA, the regional environment authority, in 2001.
Barrick's plans for the project have changed over time. In June 2005, Barrick intended to commence building in January 2006, after responding to a questionnaire put to it by CONAMA, Chile's National Environmental Commission. However, in November 2005, the company published a report stating that it had scrapped its original plans, presented in December 2004, for "transplanting" three glaciers in order to gain access to the deposits beneath them, moving them to another glacier with which they were to bond. This change was publicly supported by Fernando González, the chairman of the council of Huasco Valley farmers.
Barrick now intends to commence construction on the mine in late 2007.
Those protesting the project contend that it will involve the removal of 20 hectares of ice, a volume of 300,000 to 800,000 cubic metres, and that this will cause serious environmental harm. However, the EIA and IIA approvals in both Chile and Argentina specifically preclude this from happening, and Barrick has confirmed it has no plans to move any ice or glaciers. To do so would be a violation of the permits granted by the relevant authorities.[3] Opponents also contend that the project will affect the water supply of the 70,000 farmers in the Huasco valley, releasing cyanide and mercury into the valley's rivers, that the company has bought the support of the farmers with "social assistance" and promises of US$60 million for infrastructure work, and that the Mining Integration and Complementation Treaty was adopted under pressure from Barrick. In November 2005, a petition of 18,000 signatures was presented to the Chilean government by the Anti Pascua Lama Front, a coalition of environmentalist groups.
Barrick Gold contends that the project is environmentally friendly in terms of water treatment, and that the project will create 5,500 direct jobs during the mine's construction phase. It contends that underground mining methods are not economically feasible for the mine, only open pit methods. It states that its US$1.5 billion investment "would be directly invested in the Huasco province in Chile and San Juan province in Argentina", that it has "identified more than 600 potential suppliers from Chile’s Region III" in pursuance of its policy of sourcing local goods and services, and that "sustainable development projects have been and will continue to be a priority for funding to the tune of millions of dollars focused in the areas of education, health, infrastructure and agricultural improvement".
This project was the subject of an online petition, circulating as a chain letter by electronic mail, imploring the Chilean government to prevent the project from obtaining authorization because of the environmental and social consequences of the mining operation. According to analysis by Snopes, the main point of the petition was valid, but it did contain some misleading passages. Pascua-Lama Barrick published a response countering many of the statements made in the chain letter.
1. Mining Integration and Complementation Treaty between Chile and Argentina The Republics of Chile and Argentina
2. Wolfe, Pamela (2006) "Water conflicts threaten violence on local level: Chile's National Environmental Commission (CONAMA) issued its final approval for the Pascua Lama US$ 1.5-billion, open-pit gold mining operation that once included plans to remove three glaciers" ''Water and Waste Water International'' 21(3): p.3
3. Pascua-Lama Update – Questions & Answers
★ Canadian company gives it all for glacier mining site
★ Barrick Gold Corp. to Stop Killing Glaciers
★ Barrick Pascua-Lama Shareholder Report - Final Report
★ Campaign against Barrick Gold's Pascua Lama project
★ Say "No" to the project "Pascua-Lama". Gabriela Puig — an electronic petition
Pascua-Lama contains deposits of 17 million ounces of gold and 635 million ounces of silver, Gold Mining Project Threatens Andean Glaciers with 75 percent of the deposits in Chile and 25 percent in Argentina. Conflict Over Andean Glaciers Heats Up
| Contents |
| Legal background |
| History of the project |
| Controversy over the project's environmental and economic consequences |
| Electronic mail chain letter |
| References |
| Further reading |
| External links |
Legal background
The project became possible with the adoption by Chile and Argentina of the Mining Integration and Complementation Treaty[1], signed by the presidents of Chile and Argentina in 1997 and ratified by their legislatures in 2000. This treaty permits investors to explore and exploit mineral deposits that straddle the border between the two countries. "Yes" to Gold Mine, but Don't Touch the Glaciers In 2000, an appeal was filed with the Chilean Constitutional Court to rule the treaty unconstitutional. Alcayaga, Luna, and Padilla, analyzing the treaty, have concluded that, "both in terms of content and form, [it] contains provisions that violate Chile's constitution". Pascua Lama Gold Mine, a Threat to Sustainability Pascua Lama Background — this in turn cites However, nothing came of the law suit, and Chile's National Environmental Commission (CONAMA) issued its final approval for the Pascua Lama project on 13 June 2006.[2]
History of the project
The mining project is organized by the Barrick Gold corporation, which plans to invest US$1.5 billion over 20 years in it Barrick responds to Pascua-Lama Chain Email and projects an annual output of 750,000 ounces of gold and 30 million ounces of silver in the first five years.
Barrick has been planning the project for several years. It performed its first studies of the glaciers in 1991, purchased the Chañarcillo estate at the location via an affiliate (Empresa Nevada) in 1997, and published an environmental impact report in 2000, which was approved by COREMA, the regional environment authority, in 2001.
Satellite view of the project area showing the Pascua-Lama open pit in red
Barrick's plans for the project have changed over time. In June 2005, Barrick intended to commence building in January 2006, after responding to a questionnaire put to it by CONAMA, Chile's National Environmental Commission. However, in November 2005, the company published a report stating that it had scrapped its original plans, presented in December 2004, for "transplanting" three glaciers in order to gain access to the deposits beneath them, moving them to another glacier with which they were to bond. This change was publicly supported by Fernando González, the chairman of the council of Huasco Valley farmers.
Barrick now intends to commence construction on the mine in late 2007.
Controversy over the project's environmental and economic consequences
Those protesting the project contend that it will involve the removal of 20 hectares of ice, a volume of 300,000 to 800,000 cubic metres, and that this will cause serious environmental harm. However, the EIA and IIA approvals in both Chile and Argentina specifically preclude this from happening, and Barrick has confirmed it has no plans to move any ice or glaciers. To do so would be a violation of the permits granted by the relevant authorities.[3] Opponents also contend that the project will affect the water supply of the 70,000 farmers in the Huasco valley, releasing cyanide and mercury into the valley's rivers, that the company has bought the support of the farmers with "social assistance" and promises of US$60 million for infrastructure work, and that the Mining Integration and Complementation Treaty was adopted under pressure from Barrick. In November 2005, a petition of 18,000 signatures was presented to the Chilean government by the Anti Pascua Lama Front, a coalition of environmentalist groups.
Barrick Gold contends that the project is environmentally friendly in terms of water treatment, and that the project will create 5,500 direct jobs during the mine's construction phase. It contends that underground mining methods are not economically feasible for the mine, only open pit methods. It states that its US$1.5 billion investment "would be directly invested in the Huasco province in Chile and San Juan province in Argentina", that it has "identified more than 600 potential suppliers from Chile’s Region III" in pursuance of its policy of sourcing local goods and services, and that "sustainable development projects have been and will continue to be a priority for funding to the tune of millions of dollars focused in the areas of education, health, infrastructure and agricultural improvement".
Electronic mail chain letter
This project was the subject of an online petition, circulating as a chain letter by electronic mail, imploring the Chilean government to prevent the project from obtaining authorization because of the environmental and social consequences of the mining operation. According to analysis by Snopes, the main point of the petition was valid, but it did contain some misleading passages. Pascua-Lama Barrick published a response countering many of the statements made in the chain letter.
References
1. Mining Integration and Complementation Treaty between Chile and Argentina The Republics of Chile and Argentina
2. Wolfe, Pamela (2006) "Water conflicts threaten violence on local level: Chile's National Environmental Commission (CONAMA) issued its final approval for the Pascua Lama US$ 1.5-billion, open-pit gold mining operation that once included plans to remove three glaciers" ''Water and Waste Water International'' 21(3): p.3
3. Pascua-Lama Update – Questions & Answers
Further reading
★ Canadian company gives it all for glacier mining site
★ Barrick Gold Corp. to Stop Killing Glaciers
External links
★ Barrick Pascua-Lama Shareholder Report - Final Report
★ Campaign against Barrick Gold's Pascua Lama project
★ Say "No" to the project "Pascua-Lama". Gabriela Puig — an electronic petition
This article provided by Wikipedia. To edit the contents of this article, click here for original source.
psst.. try this: add to faves
