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 : ECHARTERS -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: riversides who wrote (3580)	7/16/2011 2:02:00 AM
From: E. Charters	1 Recommendation Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 3744

Lima has put Puna under study partly because of the illegal miner's issue and partly because of the uprisings, which resulted in deaths. They believe the province needs this cooling off period to get things back on track. I believe they intend to find a way to restore BC's concession rights but right now the situation is just too volatile. Fuentes' demands are totally posturing and unrealistic. ON one hand he demands is more tax sharing from Lima, similar to the CDN cities and provinces. In many ways his stance is correct, as Lima does not care about Puna. But it also cannot afford a G8 style social program. the economy is only 150 billion per year. If Fuentes wants the icing, then he had better accept the industrial cake, of oil and gold. He can get that and a protected environment too, but his rhetoric is no mining, etc, etc. Look, Peru cannot afford to kill or scare mining. It needs the $40 billion from Canadian explorers and miners like ducks need water. We don't spend that much at home on mining. Peru gets 40% of its GDP and 60% of its foreign exchange from mining and related industry. Can it afford to send foreign money packing? Canada did that with Trudeau and the CIDC, and CIRA in the 60's and 70's. we and dick nixon closed the US border to investment in Canada. The CDN mines, then some 300 went to the 75 mines there are today. At one time 38% of our forieeign exchabnge was metals and 11% workforce was mining or related industry. I am proud to say we killed it. If Peru does this, people in Lima will be eating grass in ten years. Peru does not have the infrastructure, or trade or development to replace mining and probably won't have this for a 100 years. Saner heads must prevail. Peru cannot afford to chase away money for the simple fact that social change will never happen by snapping fingers. Cuba got social change by being supported by the SU. They cannot keep it going today, as people there are starting to suffer. Vz the same thing. I sympathize with people who want to control their own industry etc, but they had better look at the cost of reinventing the wheel. Canada is too small an investment base to develop her own mines. If she is, then for sure Peru had better use foreign money. And wisely. I think investment will go on in Peru. Puna is one province with a long history of troubles. There are protest groups elsewhere to be sure. And they are not right by a long shot. Tambo Grande was one big fat lie. There was zero danger to the water table of the region. The mine was sourcing water from 20 miles away. What that was all about was a ten year history of farmers getting irrigation from the government which was put in wrong headedly and was causing salination. This was their fault. So we have commie agitators and broke farmers with no solutions. If TG did not go ahead they were still losing their farm land and their water. So TG was a focal point for their unrelated suffering. It was a cesspool the agitators exploited for their own ends. The TG people did not mishandle the situation, they walked into a hornet's nest. At the end of the day, Peru is going to have to learn to handle its roving bands of anti mining forces, which have sprung up all across LA. You get them in all countries except Brazil and Chile it seems. When the socialists forces start to predominate there rises up these luddite forces. They are not always entirely wrong in their take on iniquities in the industry, but their solution is to throw out the whole barrel, and this is not workable in developing countries whose chiefest need is to get industry going in a sustainable manner so the poor can climb out of their morass. It worked more or less in North America while we learned our lessons on the environment as well. Where it never worked was in the purist socialist states which can neither mine safely and environmentally responsibly, nor make it pay. Ironic. EC<;-}