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 : Gold and Silver Juniors, Mid-tiers and Producers -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: marcos who wrote (58805)	4/19/2008 5:40:49 PM
From: loantech	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 78404

<but the resources belong to the country> Same as oil.

To: marcos who wrote (58805)	4/19/2008 6:10:21 PM
From: tyc:>	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 78404

Good posting M. ...."the resources belong to the country " . It's their right to establish whatever regime they want. If it doesn't attract the miners and investment they need, that's their look-out (or luck-out). >> "...especially where indians prefer to continue traditional lifestyles" That set me thinking about what happens if/when the rank and file of indian indigenous people reject the hardship of traditional lifestyles and side with the mining companies against traditional leadership, seeking the jobs and prosperity that development will provide. Who will be the anti-mining activists then ?

To: marcos who wrote (58805)	4/19/2008 11:56:10 PM
From: E. Charters	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 78404

What you are saying is ancient history. If you look at the modern mining industry of Peru, Chile, Guyana, and Brazil you don't see much in the way of confiscation of lands. Brazil is perhaps not a good case as they did not do much negotiation with the yanomami after a certain point, but there is no local or peasant objection to mining in the Matto Grosso per se. In fact the government has empowered the local Garimpeiro to mine. There are inequities in Argentina particularly, but it has little to do these days with peasant disenfranchisement and more to do with corruption. Much of the "local indigenous" efforts against mining upon closer inspection turn out to be autonomous politicians in the legislature stirring up trouble and going after what is decidedly a middle class green vote. The spectre that mining companies are bulldozing villager's houses willy-nilly despite the Greenstone Res. indcident is vastly exaggerated. There is much ballyhoo too about the farmers and Manhattan Minerals. Manhattan was made out to be the heavy. The real culprit. Government agitators who sought to make votes and brownie points even after it was proven that government irrigation practices had salinated the land and made it marginal were responsible. This made for a dissatisified voting block who could be exploited and brain washed. Before Manhattan had disturbed on square inch of ground they were evil. The truth is out there and as usual it lies between the political viewpoints. The money trail is a good one to follow and many populist politicos know it makes good sense to dive after the vote-dollar. Peasants who never had a sou, and never will are easier to stir up and polarize than a nest of bees. Now there are issues in government ineptitude that are perhaps germane to this discussion such as deforestation of the amazon etc.. which I will conceded need a close look. You can't say it is overexcitable peasants everywhere you go. But face it, mining has not caused all that much devastation in LA. If it had Peru and Chile would bea wasteland and so far so good. EC<:-}