MercoPress, en Español

Montevideo, June 3rd 2023 - 00:32 UTC



Chile Gained 1.2 Square Kilometres Following the Earthquake

Wednesday, May 12th 2010 - 00:06 UTC
Full article 7 comments

The Chilean territory expanded 1.2 square kilometres into the Pacific following the February earthquake that ravaged the centre and south of the country, according to Sergio Barrientos, head of the University of Chile Seismologic Institute. Read full article


Disclaimer & comment rules
  • Rhaurie-Craughwell

    careful Chile! Your neighbor might start claiming those new 1.8 Km as an integral part of it's national territory!

    May 12th, 2010 - 11:08 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Gianni

    LOL maybe they will but now we have another issues with them, we have “ undefined” borders with them so first we solve those border problems and then they can make another claim. I´m just tired of borders problems is like a endless story

    May 12th, 2010 - 02:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Bubba

    I thought Perito Moreno defined the border a long time ago..

    May 15th, 2010 - 09:05 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Rhaurie-Craughwell

    The Andes Icefield is still undefined I think and few snippets here and there....

    May 15th, 2010 - 09:40 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Gianni

    Rhaurie is right

    May 15th, 2010 - 04:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Tte Estevez

    Careful. uk will claim Argentina and Chile and Antartica together.
    May be they can use the pile of debt they have accumulated to pave the way!

    May 17th, 2010 - 10:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Argie

    Oh, no, Rhaurie-Craughwell on #1! I'm afraid it may well be the other way round. All problems with limits we had with our neighbours were, to this date, solved by mediation (King of England, Pope, &c) and in each we were given the wrong end of the stick! God however compensates us by slowly sinking the subcontinent in the Pacific Ocean and raising it on our side of the Andes.

    To Tte Estevez: Debt accumulates because when there's one side that asks there's another that would (greedy?) lend, despite all the background and statistics collected along one hundred years. Who can be naive enough as to imagine there are no risks upon lending money to paupers (for whatever reason they've got to that point)? If the lenders can assume it, they have to stick to their decisions. Hypocritical? Who, me? Yes, but not the only one on the field.

    May 18th, 2010 - 02:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0

Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!