MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Soaring costs delay Barrick-Gold Andes mining project delayed a full year
Barrick Gold, the world’s biggest gold miner, says its capital costs to develop a giant mine high in the Andes could reach 8 billion dollars and has delayed production until 2014. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesI guess that Barrick want to carry on business in Chile and Argentina in dollars. Pesification will kill off a lot more industries than this.
Jul 30th, 2012 - 11:14 am - Link - Report abuse 0Still, the gold will always be there - in both Chile and Argentina - until companies are re-engaged to extract it.
Next time it might be wise to set up two independent mines, one in each country.
With the help of our national Bank and san juans unemployed I would be digging for gold and paying taxes on profits already. I am sure barrick has already mined gold in Argentina, they are just testing to see if the Argentine government is aware.
Jul 30th, 2012 - 01:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The Kolla people will find their fight for their rights more difficult now.The need for gold is so crucial in everyone's sad lives.Its such a pretty metal,isn't it
Jul 30th, 2012 - 01:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Their costs could not have risen, because the Argentina government denies a rise in costs. It says everything is wonderful in Argentina.
Jul 30th, 2012 - 02:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Some little facts about San Juan and Pasca Llama -
Jul 30th, 2012 - 04:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Only 2% of San Juan is cultivatable, 18% is desert and 80% is Mountains. We dont have wheat, we dont have corn, we dont have cows and we dont have industry. All we have is minerals and as such mining is vital to the San Juan Economy. 35,000 San Juanians are employed either directly or indirectly as a result of the Pasca Llama mine and its investment has enabled many improvments in the city here. San Juanians need Mining and with the announcment of Xstrata are to invest in the next phase of the El Pachon mine, we will have it.
I would love to see the mines owned and operatied by the government of San Juam,however neither the local or federal governemnt has the investment needed to impliment or run these project, hense the need for foreign investment.
@3 “Its such a pretty metal,isn't it ” You do understand gold is a vital metal for telecommunications, electrical circuits, currency reserves etc and not just a metal used in jewellery dont you? If you want to be anti-mining I suggest you stop being a hypocrite and do not use your computer as it is full of metals mined from the earth including gold. If you argue about water use then go and do some reserch as only approxiamtly 1% of the water used is extracted from ground supply boreholes with the rest being supplied by snow/melt and water recycled from the tailings storage facility.
#5 typical approach to this.I have a computor and a mobile phone and no gold came from Pasca.I am fully aware of both,it's uses and my position as a consumer,but I don't see how you reconcile that with the situation with Pasca-Llama.
Jul 30th, 2012 - 05:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Do you believe that gold is an essential material or is it the economically and technically preferred?
Do you think that the environmental impact is justified(but not in your house)
@6
Jul 30th, 2012 - 06:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0What I am saying is it is hipocritcal to use electronics if you are opposed to mining. Maybe the Gold did not come from Pasca Llama but it was mined from somewhere wasnt it? Or do you believe it just appeared one day? Again, it does not really matter wether gold is the option prefered (and give gold prices $1623 /oz vs other metal prices, say copper $2-4 /oz) I find it hard to believe that the choice of gold is being done for an economic reason. I would argue it is actualy your attitude that it is you who has the NIMBY attitude and is happy to use items derived from mining as long as they are not comming from Pasca-Llama.
What I do know about the enviromental situation is that millions/billions of pounds are spent of environemntal impact studies which analyses every aspect of the issues (flora/fauna/water supplies, glacies et etc) these studies have to be completed by independent consulatants as part of the liscense application. These studies are analyses by the agencies granting the liscences (as well as posisble 2 or 3 further independent consultants) the mine is not granted a liscence untill the authoristaies have satisifed themselves as to the environment impact and the procedures which will be put in palce to mitigate these.
If there is an issue therefore it is not with Barrick but with the authorities. The mining work must then be completed in accordance with the lisence or the authraties have the right to fine the operator or revoke the licsense. For instance, I am sure you are aware that gold mininf requires the use of arsnic to extratc the mineral from its ore, the arsenic ladden water is treated in a detoxification plant before being stored in a facility designed to international standards to ensure that pollution of ground water does not occur.
As for me not caring if it is in my home. I live in San Juan, and therefore it is my own potential war supply (San Juans water is supplied from the Andes).
One of many labor intensive or import dependent business that are giving up on Argentina.
Jul 30th, 2012 - 06:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0There is no need to be there when PROFIT is illegal and the threat of capital confiscation is high.
Maybe the dumb Rgs will learn or maybe they won't.
I hope they like barley soup and barley bread,
San Juan a fruits and grape garden of eden. Needed to be protected from water polluting industries destroying glaciers and polluting large amount of water soo badly needed for irrigation and human consumption. Clean gold can let more people share in the wealth, I wonder how much gold does san Juan province have in the bank while dealing with barrick, my guess is 0.0 anyone else cares to guess?
Jul 30th, 2012 - 07:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@9. San Juan is certianly not a garden of eden the majority of the province is semi arid desert. Only 3% of the land is cultivatable and this is used to produce grapes for wine production as you well know. San Juaninians are benefitting from the mining industry (35,000 jobs created or maintained as a result of Barrick alone, and this does not include the extra jobs which will be created by Xstrata at El Pachon). If there is no money in the local governments pockets (and given the Govenor here is an ex mining engineer and supporter of CFK, I do not believe the city is benfiting) it is because the local government did a bad deal. Also the influx of engineers into the city of San Juan as well as the local towns has seen a boom to the construction of modern hotels, resturants etc, so many of the people here are seeing a real benefit from the mining industry, I tell many San Juaninians I met I am in Argentina for mining and they are genuianly pleased there city is attracting modern investment and improving the city. As for water pollution Pirat-hunter Do you actualy have any evidence to back up this claim or are you jumping on the anti- mining band wagon which absoutly no clue as to how the industry works or the work which is done before a mine even starts operations. Barrick have not destroyed a single glacier in fact the galaciers are identified and mining in the areas prohibited as aprt of the concession liscense.
Jul 30th, 2012 - 07:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Boycott barrick gold join us.
Jul 30th, 2012 - 10:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0www.facebook.com/groups/156956424327692/#
Boycott UK jion USA's CFK did and many olimpians did.
www.facebook.com/groups/406831156008806/
Nice to see you back, Yul.
Jul 31st, 2012 - 08:30 am - Link - Report abuse 0You have certainly brought out the best in Engineer Abroad.
I agree with him, when the Authorities make it impossible for a company to work, and work with profit, the company must be expected to withdraw.
We have seen this with Repsol and, this week, in the Puntas methane plant.
Who suffers most?
It is a judgement call
- employment, services and facilities for the regional society = 'development' ..
.. and/or a degraded environment.
We can export manufacture .. and the associated pollution with it (= China);
but we cannot export extraction of raw materials. It is here, and to extract it involves environmental degradation.
The judgement call is the role of Government.
Sometimes they make the wrong call.
Thanks Geoff.Some of the problems here are
Jul 31st, 2012 - 01:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 01/The fact that San juan needs employment should not mean that people who have inhabited this remote region should have to surrender what they have.
2/Barrick are not being honest with anyone.Their word is not a bond worth accepting.
3/The law is written.San juan cannot,of it's own free will,break the law and is therefore not the player that they want to be(in fact the people of San juan could be viewed as as incidental as those of the Diaguitas)
4/Not very reassuring that Engineer quotes Barricks statements on water and glaciers,while accussing others of jumping on the environmental bandwagon.That method of debate is assuming what is not proved.One can jump on to that bandwagon and be correct but Engineer would have dismissed everything without any thought.
As I understand the gold is under the glaciers and some damage has been caused and shown to have been the fault of Barrick,who using the method of debate used by engineer,claimed it was global warming.
There is more to this matter than jobs(for 20 years) and demand for gold.
There is no point in sustainability,Kyotos,UN debates and resolutions ect if they are all sidelined when convienience requires.Neither do I think that developing countries must make all the scarfices.Barrick can start making some at the Shoshone site
@13
Jul 31st, 2012 - 02:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0These issues have not be dismissed without a thought they were fully analyses as part of a whole range of enviromental and human impact assesments. As I have stated these analyse all aspects of the effect on human life and enviromental damage. What you are completly ignoring is the work and cost that goes into carrying out mining operations in a way that is as sustanable as possible (sustanability is a three headed issues, enviromental, social and economical). You potray the issue as extremily black and white i.e. enviormental damage is wrong but do consider the impact that these jobs are having on the population of San Juan. For instance the money the local government recieves from taxes etc from Barrick could be reinvested by the local govement on improving enviromental problems in the region for instance the poor state of the cities land fill operations which (unlike the facility at Pasca Llama, conists of a hole in the ground overlying high permability sands and gravel which provide diret path ways for leachate (a liquid which occurs once water filters througth waste) to permeate the aquifier and pollute supplies.)). As I stated before the responisbility to ensure that a companies proposed methods are sutible lies with the government before they grant the liscense. By the way only 5% of the gold and silver reserve is located under glacier and these areas cannot be mined as stated in the cocnession liscense and are therefore protected.
Unless we all want to return to a pre-industrial age lifestyle then mining is a vital operation for the advancement of human kind. Are there things that can be improved? Yes of course there is. However, what I object very strongly to is the way people (who are ignorant of the mining indsutry) suggets that these companies do not consider the enviromental impact of their operations which I am afraid is completly ignorant of the facts. Mining compaines in San Juan are supported by the majority of the people and the government.
I also object to people who ignore the people who currently live at this place,and the effects mining is and will have on their lives.
Jul 31st, 2012 - 03:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Barrick are spending money on trying to win these people over and,as you know,knowing the mining industries,they very little for the people.They are acting falsely.
If they recognise them enough to spend money,why do you ignore them and preach about'progress' as you see it.Anyone who is bothered can find about Barricks commitment to progress in their annual reports.Perhaps you can focus more on the people who are expected to give up their way of life ect,and how Barricks care for them in all the sites that they mine.
It is most certainly not black and white but you sound like it is.Who cares about what San juan thinks Barricks bring them,when they got the gold they'll be gone and so will other things.Irretrivably
“ ... even prior to approval of the mining project, the DGA had found that the glaciers in the area were retreating as a result of years of prospecting and exploration by Barrick.”
Jul 31st, 2012 - 03:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://www.ipsnews.net/2009/05/environment-chile-activists-try-to-block-start-of-pascua-lama-mine/
The more recent climate change research on the Andes' glaciers shows the retreat is a widespread phenomenon across the many miles of the Andes chain. It is unlikely to be the local effect of 'years of prospecting and exploration', though this cannot be entirely discounted. Local documented and photographic evidence show the way, but focussed research is the 'luxury' of finding out the underlying truth. Costly: time and money.
... just a small point, but it exemplifies that we can't take all statements at their face value.
Good debate.
@15
Jul 31st, 2012 - 05:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0From what I have read the local people have been compensated and a number of local communities have even stated they support the mine and are likely to the main beneficaries of jobs.
http://www.barrick.com/Theme/Barrick/files/docs_csr/2007.08%20-%20CommunitySupport-PascuaLama.pdf.
Yes this is from Barricks website but unless the letter is a fake then its contents are valid.
Your answer is slightly contradicatory in that you state Barrick are spending money to engage with the people but also ignoring them (if they are enagging then they can not also be ingoring them). If they are spending money on trying to win them over is this a bad thing? You suggest it is. I would suggest it will bring huge advantages to an isolated community. I have included the link to Barricks website which includes details on the application process as well as the steps which have to be udnertaken in granting a mine liscense.
http://www.barrick.com/Theme/Barrick/files/docs_csr/2007.08%20-%20CommunitySupport-PascuaLama.pdf.
The very fact that Barrick are willing to engage with communties is the sign of a pro-active and reposible mining company. Of course the minerals are still there so if a large scale responsible mining compnay does not mine it, you have the risk (as we see in Africa) or illegal mining without concession and therefore without any protections what so ever. For instance the mining liscense for Paca-lama has over 400 conditions attached to it. If you believe these have been breached please present the evidence to the mining minitry who have the power to revoke the liscense.
To also adress your comment that they are explotitng the developing world. Only 31% of BArricks operations are in South America and Africa the majority 69% is mined in the USA and Australia.
BTW the concesion life is 25 years and with the nearby however this does not include the potnetial disocovery of further consessions and therefore future expansion. The success at the near by Veladero mine lead to Pasca Lama.
#16-In true Engineer mode,I ask,if the glaciers are melting and it been shown to be the consequence of Barrick operations should that operation be stopped.
Jul 31st, 2012 - 07:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0If it is global warming does that not highlight the problem of thinking that we can continue to exploit limited resources( meaning more than gold but other material which is pre-existing and cannot be manufactured) as we require them with justification.
#17-Engineer.The company is merely trying to get some support to allow them to get what they want.That could be expected but it also highlights that it is known that their operation is not wanted by these people in the first place.I would claim also,that if they get sufficient of them to support them for the money,they will not concern themselves with the others.There is nothing contradictory to say that they are not interested in them but are trying to use small amounts of money of divide them.We all know what most people think of dispossessed indigenous people begging for a few pesos.(why don't they work?)
Quoting what Barrick,who have a monetary gain to make,is hardly going to convince me of anything.They are not in the business of social welfare,they are on the business of making money for the shareholders.These shareholders want the highest gain possible on their investment not a better world for everyone at their expense.In fact,they would be the first to say, not only must everyone work for a living but they must make money out of their work.
The discussion however is good(especially if it is considered)
The discussion is good unlike other boards on here I dont think I have been sworn at once. lol
Aug 01st, 2012 - 02:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Surely if Barrick are willing to invest money in securing the support of the people then this is a good solution. They are using profits from other projects in order to convince people in the area of the benefits of the mine and if the local people are happy with this involvment, the money they recieve in compensation etc etc then this is an ideal situtation not the bad situation you potray it as. I would argue only a responsible company would spend profits from other projects (Pasca Lama has as of yet not made a penny in money) to apease the locals and gain their support, this is certainly the opposite to your previous argument that the lcoals are being ignored.
I agree that the company is there to produce a profit for their shareholders however the point is that they are doing this in a responsible way thereby reducing the profits they return to their shareholders, I am afriad this is how an open free market capitalist model works. An irresponible company would completly ingore anyone and everyone and use bribes to govenment officals to open the mine and return much larger profits.
Whilst I agree people may have been apprehensive surely you are not arguing that it is wrong for a company to use money, publiscity, education and community interaction in order to show their side of the story and winm over the local people to the cause.
I would arguee that the indeginous people are supportive (the letter was on behalf of 6,600 indeginous people) of the mine because for many years they have been forgotten about by their own governments who have failed to invest any money in their communities which lead to a sustaniable future. i.e. manufacturing indsutry, farming. Instead they expect these people to move to larger cities and work. However with pasca lama they see an oppurtunity for the investment they need to work, live and get something back from their resources
When I said Barrick ignored the people it was in the context of what they were saying(the indigenous people),they(Barrick),are trying to split the community with various gifts ect,but thankfully not infected blankets.
Aug 01st, 2012 - 06:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0What the people of the Diaguitas have to gain by being treated like westernised people, for want of a better word,is beyond my comprehension in this instance.They have chosen to live in this harsh area for so many years in the peace of their way of life.They have refused to be assimilated,like others have been forced to,to the life that mainstream society wants to impose on them.
If the state of Argentina upholds it duty to protect its people,guarantees the rights of indigenous people and takes upon itself the responsibility to decide on what the state requires from mining companies,then this project is not possible.But of course thankfully,there is an electorate.However there is also the 70,000 People in chile whose livelihoods are also in danger.
There far more to Pascua Lama than demand for gold,there's plenty still in Sevilla,and there is also the question of sustainability.Wine production is far more sustainable but it's loss would have an impact in San Juan
#1 “Still, the gold will always be there - in both Chile and Argentina - until companies are re-engaged to extract it”
Aug 01st, 2012 - 08:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Or states. Hopefully left wing governments, responsible to their people not to shareholders, will take sustainable and ethical methods of extraction more seriously than corporations. Its a fantasy of course that we will leave vital resources in the ground and return to a pre-industrial age, but that doesn't mean mining companies have always been paragons of virtue!
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!