Alisha's Economics Blogs!

This is from Alisha's Economic Blogs!, which you can find here:

Alisha's Economics Blogs!
JAN 23, 2010
Gold and Copper Mines in B.C.

Economics Blog #4
By: Alisha Tupchong

Gold and Copper Mines in B.C.

Summary of the Event

Taseko Mines Ltd.’s $800-million copper-gold Prosperity project was environmentally approved of by the British Columbia provincial government during the week prior to January 15, 2010. The Prosperity project, which pumps out copper and gold from the earth, is scheduled for construction this summer as it joins Copper Mountain Mining Corp.’s similar $440-million project. The demand for mining industries has increased recently, as there is more money to be made now than before. Copper is a metal highly demanded by China because it used widely in manufacturing. Back in the 1990s, the price of copper was less than $1 (U.S.) per pound; now, copper is around $3.40 a pound. While environmental controversy and poor relations with first nations communities have slowed development in the past, companies like Taseko Mines Ltd., who now have environmental approval by the provincial government, will be able to carry out their mining activities as demanded. The price of gold is also looking strong, according to the Energy and Mining Minister, breaking $1100 (U.S. per ounce). Now, all there is left to wait for is the approval of the federal government in the next several months.

I added the following comment to her blog:

Bill Layton said...
Hello Alisha,

I appreciate your economic viewpoint on minerals and strategic choices, but where do you account for the environmental impacts of mines like "Prosperity", and the effects they will have on those who live (and have lived) next to them?

I have been following this mine for some time, and created a simple blog to follow the issue: http://prosperity-mine-vs-fish-lake.blogspot.com/

I am amazed at how little the "outside world" cares about what this mine will do to the land, the lakes it is set to destroy, and the aboriginal people who have made use of both for at least 7500 years. It's all stock promotion and strategy, and the "indians" can go to hell because they are hypocritical anyways.

Any thoughts? and when Taseko has not had to make any accounting for how it will care for and repair the land, and ensure the toxic acid mine waste does not reach groundwater or streams, after the mine is finished, who accounts for those costs? What's a hundred million dollars when your tailings pond leaks, the dam breaks, and your downstream fisheries are "impacted"? Who accounts for the cumulative impact on an already threatened salmon population? Who accounts for the risk? And what about already-established rights and title of aboriginal people, especially here where the Xeni Gwet'in people have shown in court they hold title to this land?

January 24, 2010 11:00 AM