Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Paramount Ventures & Finance -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Yorikke who wrote (3167)	9/4/1999 5:18:00 AM
From: Don Richards	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4884

Yorikke,these are just some thoughts and questions of mine that I have wrote concerning the EIS.It got to be pretty long!In it I'm basically just wondering aloud if perhaps some of my ideas may have reflected the attitude of the jv's somewhat,and why they may have expected to receive a full mining license-because I also think this was an unplanned screw-up! Today's clarification that the EIS recommendation came about as a result of a "public hearing" sort of told me that. Y'days news omitted this fact and I was wondering how could the jv's have not known that an EIS was required by the Gov't. in order to get the permit.Now I see it was the peoples choice.So that's democracy and that's fair and only right imo. What I have wondered about though is how an accurate EIS could be carried out without having the big dredge actually in operation for a period of time so that accurate info.could be accumulated,before the issuance of the full mining permit.Perhaps there are already other such dredges operating elsewhere in the country-I don't know.However,if there is,then the Environ.Impact should be a known factor.If there are not any operating,how else to know for sure what impact the machine will have except by trial operations on a temporary permit I wonder. The issuance of a temporary work permit for a reasonable amount of time would have seemed to be the most logical way to proceed imo.It would seem that a full one year temp.permit would make the most sense,because the unit would have the chance to work thru all seasons and provide them with the most complete data,before they issued a full mining license.By proceeding in this manner,any concerns could be dealt with on an ongoing basis,so that a satisifactory mining plan could be developed.Also,as dredging ops.were progressing,the reclamation work would be in progress,and then after some operational time had passed,a true EI could be assessed. Something else with regards to the EIS is that if a river has all settled out and the water is running clean,the addition of some muddied and dirty water into it looks real bad.However,during flooding times with topsoil and trees and everything else that gets in it, the water is so dirty that it seems unlikely that dredging could make it look worse.Plus,active river channels are always changing courses during flooding,so I'd almost bet that after the first rainy season where some flooding occurred,it would be real hard to even determine where the dredging had occurred. Anyways,these are just some of my thoughts,and I realize they mean diddly-squat.Whatever they decide to do down there in Brazil is what we will just have to wait to find out.Just thought I'd share some thoughts while we wait! I'm having a hard time accepting the fact that we waited all spring and summer away for this!...but accept it I must!