Talk:Pascua Lama
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mining, a WikiProject which aims to improve all articles related to Mining. |
|
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale. [FAQ] | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance rating within Mining articles. | |
|
This article has not been rated for quality and/or importance yet. Please rate the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. |
||
It should be noted that the Atacama Desert and the mountains above it is literally the bleakest, least populated desert on earth. There are places where no rainfall has ever been recorded in the 130 years that there has been a weather station. In large areas there are no animals and no plants, not even desert weeds. People came there with the discovery of nitrates and copper in the late 19th Century. Other than the mining towns, there is one small town very high in the mountains, Putre, which has a few farms.
Chile has a good history with mining in the Atacama. Chile has the highest standard of living in Latin America, the highest literacy rate, the highest average number of years of education, the longest life expectancy and so on. It is the one country in Latin America that has a long and deeply rooted history of democracy (which is what made the Pinochet years especially shocking). It is widely understood that in part the basis for Chile's wellbeing and democracy has been the revenues from the nitrate and copper mining in the Atacama. Unlike Third World Countries, which Chile emphatically is not, the mineral wealth of the Atacama has largely benefitted the nation as a whole and not just a corrupt elite.
So the question of Pascua Lama comes down to numbers. What will surely harm the livelihood of a few farmers, indigenous or not, will just as surely benefit the Chilean people as a whole, who number more than ten million.
Contents |
[edit] Image for illustration
I have uploaded an image obtained from http://www.barrick.com/Default.aspx?SectionID=70599b39-cc27-490f-b691-6c6af644deb2&LanguageId=1:
Image:PlanViewPascuaLama.jpg
Barrick Gold Corporation needs to be asked for permission to use the image to illustrate this article. As of 12.22.2006, it is the most accurate portrayal of the proposed boundaries of the Pascua-Lama pits.
If they do not give permission, then we need to recreate a similar map using this as a guide. Earthsound 21:41, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
[edited: linked to image instead of inlining it, as per Wikipedia's fair use policy
Also, Barrick's legal and privacy page says:
Certain material found on this Website is protected by copyright. Certain names, graphics, logos, icons, designs, words, titles or phrases on this Website may constitute trade names, trademarks or service marks of Barrick or other entities. Trademarks may be registered in Canada and in other countries, as applicable. The display of trademarks on pages at this Website does not imply that a license of any kind has been granted. Except for non-commercial, personal or educational purposes, where the material is not modified and that copyright or trademark notices are not deleted, materials may not be copied, reproduced, modified, uploaded, posted, transmitted, or distributed in any way without Barrick’s prior written approval.
Since the image 1) represents their current proposed limits, and 2) using the image in the article would serve an educational purpose and 3) an accurate visual representation of the proposed boundaries would not be possible without using other copyrighted satellite imagery, I believe this image falls under fair use. For more info, see the rationale I lay out on the image description page Earthsound 07:35, 24 December 2006 (UTC)]
[edit] check this website also
http://www.miningwatch.ca/index.php?/Chile_en/Pascua_Lama_Background and http://www.aguavalemasqueoro.org/index_en.htm
i doesnt sound like a hoax at all.
[edit] Chain Letter
"To get to the minerals, it would be necessary to break, to destroy the glaciers - something never conceived of in the history of the world - and to make two huge holes, each as big as a whole mountain, one for extraction and one for the mine's rubbish tip. If the glaciers are destroyed, they will not just destroy the source of specially pure water, but they will permanently contaminate the two rivers running from glaciers so that they will never again be fit for human or animal consumption (because of the use of cyanide and sulphuric acid in the extraction process)."
This segment is taken entirely from the chain letter that is currently circulating. It breaks with the neutral POV of wikipedia, and comes across as sensationalist and poorly written. I removed it from the main section and added a short section about the chain letter itself. Shana 25 May 2006
First of all, according to Barrick and Chilean environmental authorities, the gold is NOT under any glaciers whatsoever. Barrick has been authorized to mine in the vicinity of three small ice fields, but as a condition of that approval, the ice fields (glaciers) must not be affected in any way. Likewise, Barrick has agreed to 400 conditions that regulate the environmental impacts of the mine, including a comphrehensive water quality monitoring program. The company had to commit to maintaining the baseline water quality and quantity in the surrounding areas. As for hurting the farmers, the 700 farmers of the Huasco Valley have actually passed a motion to support the mine, along with a group of 2,000 water users in the area. Mayors from four local municipalities have all thrown their support behind the project, and to date, Barrick has received 50,000 job applications for positions at the mine.
No rivers will be contaminated. There will be no operational discharges from the mine site, this is stipulated in the regulations governing the operation. In fact these regulations state the water must meet legal irrigation and drinking water standards at all times. Chilean authorities are confident in Barrick's ability to do this, as are the people of the region.'
South Africa, Andre Brink we have to be very carefull as to what we do to this planet, our home. we forget to often and to quicley that this planet respodes to what we do to it just as we respond when done to us, saying this, see it as a possibilaty that we are all one people objects air light ect. the outcome of such a desuster is catastrofic to say the least. it will be like removeing you own beauty phisicaly from you body, can you just emajine the hurt?....
Sou Portugês
Acho lamentável o que esytão a quer fazer, destruir um glaciar para exploração de Ouro, Mais vale matarem já os seus próprios filhos, porque é o que vãi fazer ás gerações vindouras.
Pedro Romão
[edit] This is completely false................
http://www.hoaxbuster.com/hoaxliste/hoax_message.php?idArticle=45672
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Soline (talk • contribs) .
What is false?
The above URL at hoaxbuster.com does not not address the truth or falsity of information on this page. It is concerned only with an ill-conceived chain letter "petition" which has been circulating since February. For those who don't know why email petitions are evil check out:
http://michaelbluejay.com/main/petitions.html
Ianji 15:36, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] ======
Google's English Translation http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=fr&u=http://www.hoaxbuster.com/hoaxliste/hoax.php%3FidArticle%3D45672&prev=/search%3Fq%3D%2522pascua%2Blama%2522%26num%3D100%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26safe%3Doff%26rls%3DGGLG,GGLG:2005-20,GGLG:en%26sa%3DG
[edit] ======
Hi
I have flagged this as POV neutrality disputed as there are significant assumptions made within the third paragraph of the text (usage of the word will in particular '...will permanently damage...'). At this point there is no conclusive proof. As a result, this paragraph paints the damage as being a foregone conclusion. I have therefore flagged this page as needing neutrality consideration, despite my belief that even a fool could see this mine will be damaging - as sometimes investigation makes fools of the wise.
Regards Adam Parker
good job, I have seen the same quote word for word in an email petition demanding that this development stops. Philbentley 02:35, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Urban Legends makes no mention of the chain letter in question, but the events going on in Pascua Lama are real and there're currently efforts to stop the mining efforts of Barrick Corp by environmentalist groups. http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/pascualama.asp MisterNi 04:28, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] South African Gold Mining
Who would have said in 1906 that the South African Gold Mines would permanantly damage the environment of South Africa? The fact is that the water spilling from the old closed mines has a pH of about 2 and this acid water is polluting our surface water and our underground dolomitic water. On the surface the local stream is devoid of aquatic life due to the oxidation of pyrites in the mine's rock to sulphuric acid. So I would say that it is quite probable that this Chilean mining will permanantly damage the Huasco river. The same sort of damage has been done elsewhere in the world. Obviously the environmentalists need to make this and all similar information available to the Chilian Government before any final decision is made. How one can say that no benefit will derive to Chile from the mining I don't know? Such mining requires enormous capital inputs which will benefit Chile greatly as they did and still do for South Africa. Add to that the employment(direct and indirect) and one has quite a cost benefit equation to balance before arriving at a conclusion as to the overall cost benefit of any project. Just remember the population will probably be paying for today's benefits far into the future. Is that a legacy we want to leave to our children? BernardCole 08:54, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm sure I don't need to point out that the above has no relevance to this discussion. Wikipedia has a duty to report in a neutral POV, and currently this topic is overwhelmingly subjective. Yes, it might well end up being a Bad Thing, and I PERSONALLY think it will, but the entry can't reflect opinion, unless it reflects all of them! Philosophicles 18:57, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] If this is POV who wants to represent the opposing view?
For this to be considered POV there has to be some other view right? Mathiastck 17:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
David Charlesworth, UK I think the article in question is fairly even handed. As it deals with both sides quite fairly how come it has a POV on it? I think if it was being overtly sensationalist then fair enough but it just appears to report both sides of the story. If I were the boss of the mining company involved I'd love to see articles like this considering how it completely glosses over the wholesale destruction of the local ecosystem that will occur - sorry to you above but this type of mining has been undertaken before and the evidence is there for all to see. We shouldn't be waiting to see if the same thing happens we should be protecting the local population and ecosystem against rampant greed - hows that for sensationalism!!! I just love all this debate about it being subjective etc... please tell me anywhere on this planet that this type of mining operation has been undertaken and there has been no or little neutral affects? Sound of silence!!!! Thought so, because you can not find any. IT IS A FOREGONE CONCLUSION. These companies are so deviod of any reason that they even did it in the rocky mountains, yes the rocky mountains. They destroyed and polluted parts of one of the most beautiful areas of this planet and in their own country - this is the type of company you are talking about - they care nothing about anything but the money.
If you want something to represent the opposing view point then why not use some of the infomation found at http://www.barrick.com/ In its projects section the company puts its response to the chain letter. I personally agree that the project presents environment hazards but wikipedia needs to represent unbiased and clear information. Therefore it is important both sides of the debate are represented so people can make up their own minds. -James Margeson UK
The snopes.com article is pretty NPOV. Use that as reference. I honestly feel I don't know enough about this to actually write anytihng up about it. DrIdiot 15:48, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] External link to petition?
On May 11th I added an external link to a petition at thepetitionsite.com. It seems someone deleted it, then someone else may have added it back and now it is gone again. The petition is at:
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/946839131
Could whoever removed it please explain their reasons. There is an external link to the official Barrick site, so I don't see how NPOV could preclude an external link to the petition. I would like to understand the policy. Thanks.
--Ianji 16:24, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Neutrality
The way to maintain neutrality is to ascribe opinions to those who hold them. As a byproduct of actually citing sources (The article cited no sources at all up until now.), the article should be more neutral now. Uncle G 01:20, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
A great improvement - and I see that my external link to the petition has been restored. Thanks. --Ianji 15:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- So, why hasn't the tag been removed? Gene Nygaard 12:35, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- I, for one, am waiting for comment from more editors. Uncle G 11:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
The New York Times has an article today (Sunday July 30, 2006) about the project, which perhaps could be used as comparison to ensure the neutrality of this entry. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/30/world/americas/30chile.html is the location of the article. -- Corene 16:55, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
The article seems to be NPOV now, and I have removed the POV tag. --Bejnar 23:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] The text of chain letter needs to be removed
For three reasons:
1) it doesn't add anything useful to the article, which is about the mine project 2) the text can be found in the analysis at snopes (mentioned in this article) 3) it includes an email address which no longer accepts email 4) it has misspellings and outdated information 5) the original circulation of this petition/chain letter gave an end date of January 2005
Unless someone can present some good reasons to keep it, I will be deleting it this week. Earthsound 18:47, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
The entire section on the chain letter and response should be reduced to a single sentence in the "controversy" section, perhaps with reference to the snopes article and 'official' response. Bendav (talk) 06:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
