Pascua Lama - Environmental Consequences Controversy

Environmental Consequences Controversy

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. Nevertheless, 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. Opponents also contend that the project will affect the water supply of the 70,000 farmers in the Huasco valley, releasing cyanide, sulfuric acid (vitriol) 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.

The original scope of the ore body lay partially under two small glaciers which eventually feed into the rivers of the Huasco Province. Environmental reviews took place over more than two years and government authorities imposed 400 conditions on the company in order to mine. As a consequence, more than one million ounces of gold at the site will not be mined. However controversy is still rampant as to the real environmental impact, as mine exploration has already been linked to a 56 to 70% depletion in the three glaciers nearest to the mine site.

Extensive water management infrastructure is incorporated into the mine design to mitigate the effects of surface and sub-surface water migration across the operation.

The historical record of these types of projects in Chile and the companies' real-world ability to meet legal environmental constraints makes the processing of residual-waste a point of contention. The inability or unwillingness of local authorities to stand up to spills and breaches of environmental requirements is well known and another key point of disagreement with opponents to the project.

The recent approval (as of 2000-2009, during the Lagos and Bachelet presidencies ) of many controversial projects such as large mines, dams for power generation, huge salmon farms, forestry, etc. in spite of many legal and environmental concerns, again question the ability or willingness of the Chilean Government to address local communities concerns' when clashing with large corporations and perceived economic benefits.

These issues have recently even been criticized by the OECD as major impediments for Chile being able to join the 'elite club' of developed countries.

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".