BajaNomad - Todos Santos Water Table Threatened

Todos Santos Water Table Threatened

CaboRon - 6-18-2009 at 07:05 AM

This article appeared in the BWO this morning :

Open Pit Gold Mine - Artosn, A.C. would like to make the Todos Santos community aware that a company known as Vista Gold has filed to open a massive open pit gold mine in the foothills of the Sierra de la Laguna mountain range between Todos Santos and El Truimfo. This mine will directly impact the environment of our community, the Sierra de la Laguna Biosphere Reserve and the Todos Santos aquifer. You can see more information at the following Vista Gold website. www.vistagold.com/property.php?pid=paredones

Below is the translation of an interview about this issue with Ing. Benito Bermudez, Director of the National Commission of Protected Natural Areas:

“Regarding the evaluation of the risks to the Todos Santos aquifer that are presented by the mining project known as Paradones Amarillos, the Director of the National Commission of Protected Natural Areas, Benito Bermudez, has confirmed that the project has not been formally presented to his federal commission because the company has not fulfilled the necessary requirements set forth for the environmental impact studies and for changing the zoning."

"In addition to the bureaucratic permits of the various levels of government, there also exists what is known as the social permit, which is given by the population living in the zone that would be impacted by the project."

"It should be pointed out that there is much speculation and suspicion from the people of Todos Santos and the surrounding areas regarding the ability of Vista Gold, the mining company, to preserve the ecological sanctuary of the Sierra de la Laguna. This lack of confidence is largely due to the bitter experience suffered in El Triumfo and San Antonio where the environment was irreversibly damaged."

"The federal government will do everything possible to safeguard the natural resources of the area, especially the Sierra de la Laguna, the key element to the environmental balance of Todos Santos, La Paz and San Lucas. Nevertheless, it is necessary that those who are directly impacted, in this case the people of Todos Santos, become involved and participate in the negotiations and actions so that they can guarantee that their ecosystem will not be devastated."

"There is a lot of work that has to be done to prevent the threat of irreversible damage. The experience with mining companies is that the gold goes to the rich, in this case in Colorado, USA, and the contamination remains with the local people and their future generations.”

Artosan, A.C., Niparaja, A.C., the water association of the Todos Santos Aquifer, as well as other Todos Santos businesses and environmental organizations are coming together in a coordinated effort to protect our community and the environment from this dangerous project. We will continue to publish updates and announce ways that the community can help to fight this mining operation. -

woody with a view - 6-18-2009 at 07:35 AM

there's gold in them thar hills!!!!

rpleger - 6-18-2009 at 07:49 AM

Lots of gold....

Geo_Skip - 6-18-2009 at 08:09 AM

OK lets all panic 'cause CaboRon (not a qualified hydrologist" pushes the panic button. IF there is any threat to the groundwater depends on many factors. None of which are presented here.

Although there MAY be some POTENTIAL long tern impacts, the location and LOCAL hydrology are the issue.

Don't panic. CaboRon is just having another of his emotional meltdowns on line. ''Please wait for some FACTS before panicking about the proposed mine development.

wilderone - 6-18-2009 at 08:17 AM

Not just the water table: IT'S A BIOSPHERE RESERVE

Sierra de la Laguna Biosphere Reserve
AND the contamination remains

CaboRon - 6-18-2009 at 08:27 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Geo_Skip
OK lets all panic 'cause CaboRon (not a qualified hydrologist" pushes the panic button. IF there is any threat to the groundwater depends on many factors. None of which are presented here.

Although there MAY be some POTENTIAL long tern impacts, the location and LOCAL hydrology are the issue.

Don't panic. CaboRon is just having another of his emotional meltdowns on line. ''Please wait for some FACTS before panicking about the proposed mine development.

Just reprinting an article ..... you took a shot just because I posted it .... go climb back in your hole :lol:

Geo_Skip - 6-18-2009 at 08:32 AM

Climb out of yours Cabo

CaboRon - 6-18-2009 at 08:34 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Geo_Skip
Climb out of yours Cabo

Quit taking shots and get involved in the discussion ...

I am looking to start a dialogue here ....

Instead you are joining the take a shot at CaboRon club...

You don't have a clue as to what is involved here ....

[Edited on 6-18-2009 by CaboRon]

David K - 6-18-2009 at 08:35 AM

By YOUR logic Ron (on the sea level thread), even if you personally observed the water table drop in the wells, that doesn't qualify you to post about it on Nomad! :lol:

Seriously, how about a stop to the hypocracy?

oldlady - 6-18-2009 at 08:48 AM

What is there to discuss without any facts except that a permit is sought?

Bajajack - 6-18-2009 at 08:51 AM

Ron, when are you gonna learn, if you ain't postin pics of Fat Frumps and Dog's on the Beach along with the obligatory Toyota truck it just ain't gonna fly.

The masses here are SOS.

:lol:

Corky1 - 6-18-2009 at 11:27 AM

You guys all sound like a bunch of grammer school kids.
If you don't like the post just skip over it.
Doug ought to bounce all of you for a month or two.

Rant over. :fire:

Corky

Russ - 6-18-2009 at 12:39 PM

I too wanted a discussion on the depleting water table. For awhile in this area every year the state would run around shutting down all the known wells on our aquifer and the next day re-measure the hight and salinity of a couple of wells. After a few years of this they felt it was a benchmark of how the aquifer was was doing. At San Marcos Tierra estuary there WAS an artesian well that feed the mostly sweet water lagoon. There were lots of ducks and robalo at that time and the sea water only came in for short periods after a hurricane. Now the mouth is open about half the time and all the ducks are gone. And no reports of rabalo but pangeros do net it a couple times a year. There are a lot of juvenile fish and lots of bait size fish in there now and, I suspect, some bigger fish under the bushes towards the back where the well was.

Quote:

Originally posted by Corky1
If you don't like the post just skip over it.
Doug ought to bounce all of you for a month or two.

Rant over. :fire:

Corky

Hook - 6-18-2009 at 12:46 PM

Russ. you're a brave man, having that new avatar. :lol:

BMG - 6-18-2009 at 12:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by CaboRon

"It should be pointed out that there is much speculation and suspicion from the people of Todos Santos and the surrounding areas regarding the ability of Vista Gold, the mining company, to preserve the ecological sanctuary of the Sierra de la Laguna. This lack of confidence is largely due to the bitter experience suffered in El Triumfo and San Antonio where the environment was irreversibly damaged."

What is the irreversible damage done to the environment in the El Triumfo/San Antonio area?

gnukid - 6-18-2009 at 12:56 PM

The Triunfo area reportedly suffers from long term pollution caused by arsenic leached into the water table which have cause long term health problems for the population.

http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=1514856

"Mine waste material produced during 200 years of mineral extraction area poses a risk of local groundwater pollution and eventually, regional pollution to the Carrizal (west basin) and the Los Planes (east basin) aquifers. "

References:

http://www.springerlink.com/content/2mblv6p7lldmbm4q/

http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=2389785

http://indy2.igeograf.unam.mx/aih/pdf/T4/T4-31.pdf

http://myais.fsktm.um.edu.my/1049/

http://www.springerlink.com/content/j518hq7n15781797/

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi...

[Edited on 6-18-2009 by gnukid]

Cypress - 6-18-2009 at 01:09 PM

Russ, You're a year 'round resident and know what's going on. Appreciate your honesty and understand your frustration with the commercial guys. Whether a panga with gill nets, trawlers, or purse sieners, they're all putting and end to the Sea of Cortez fisheries. Sure, the Dorado bite is on right now. Anybody and everybody can catch 'em. The reef fish are gone. Go fishing in Nov.

gnukid - 6-18-2009 at 02:11 PM

It's not about what's happening now by observation from locals, its about what's planned, what's permitted and the required mitigating actions to reduce negative impact.

Generally mining operations are very invasive, destructive and Mexico seems to historically have problems requiring companies to address responsibilities.

Based on the known history of mining, El Triunfo, and Mexico's track record, we can begin with some certainty in the position that the residents and ecologists should be relatively concerned that there will be a negative impact and that mitigation actions will not be sufficient and those agreed on will not be enforced resulting in a serious negative impact to the regions ecology and health of the people.

BMG - 6-18-2009 at 03:05 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by gnukid
The Triunfo area reportedly suffers from long term pollution caused by arsenic leached into the water table which have cause long term health problems for the population.

"Mine waste material produced during 200 years of mineral extraction area poses a risk of local groundwater pollution and eventually, regional pollution to the Carrizal (west basin) and the Los Planes (east basin) aquifers. "

What about the end of the paragraph you quoted? "Geochemical modeling (MINTEQA2 and NETPATH) and analysis of the regional geochemical evolution of the groundwater from the mining area towards the aquifer of Los Planes shows that the most likely hydrochemical processes include: dilution, precipitation of calcite, and adsorption of As onto surfaces of iron oxyhydroxides (ferrihydrite). These processes act as natural controls to the extent and amount of As pollution in the Carrizal and Los Planes aquifers."

I also used one of your sources and found this: "Concentrations of arsenic and fluoride above Mexican drinking water standards have been detected in aquifers of various areas of Mexico. This contamination has been found to be mainly caused by natural sources."
http://www.springerlink.com/content/v43462xt3106k827/

I am not disputing the fact that the mining activities in El Triunfo have added pollutants into the local ground water. I am questioning the statement made in the article that there has been "irreversible damage" to the environment. I tend to disbelieve arguments when they use such sweeping statements without concrete evidence. Therefore, I personally am not persuaded by the article.

Cypress - 6-18-2009 at 03:41 PM

"Don't drink the water."? Who said that?

David K - 6-18-2009 at 04:00 PM

Nature is sooo much more powerful than given credit for...

Last time I checked, the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were rebuilt right were atom bombs blew up... and I would think radiation from uranium isotopes would be more dangerous than "Concentrations of arsenic and fluoride above Mexican drinking water standards"... and harder to live on top of.

Silver has been mined in the San Antonio region since the 1740's... I would bet the miners of today are a bit more tidy with chemicals needed.

mtgoat666 - 6-18-2009 at 04:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by BMG
What about the end of the paragraph you quoted? "Geochemical modeling (MINTEQA2 and NETPATH) and analysis of the regional geochemical evolution of the groundwater from the mining area towards the aquifer of Los Planes shows that the most likely hydrochemical processes include: dilution, precipitation of calcite, and adsorption of As onto surfaces of iron oxyhydroxides (ferrihydrite). These processes act as natural controls to the extent and amount of As pollution in the Carrizal and Los Planes aquifers."

That was probably written by the consultant for the mining firm. You cite results of a geochemical model, but don't state whether they did a groundwater flow model in their study. Come back here and defend your statement witrh results from MODFLOW or FRACMAN flow model plus fate and transport modeling of chemicals.

mtgoat666 - 6-18-2009 at 04:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by David K
Nature is sooo much more powerful than given credit for...

Last time I checked, the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were rebuilt right were atom bombs blew up... and I would think radiation from uranium isotopes would be more dangerous than "Concentrations of arsenic and fluoride above Mexican drinking water standards"... and harder to live on top of.

actually, the radiation after blast is mostly short lived fission products, and significant activity is gone in a few years, decades at most.
i would be more concerned about long term exposure to elevated arsenic, toxicological affects are more sevre (or at least better documented) than post-bomb radioactivity

Quote:

Originally posted by David K
and I would think...

but sometimes not clearly :lol:

rocmoc - 6-18-2009 at 05:03 PM

Green Valley, AZ. sits next to/East of a huge open-pit mine for gold, silver & copper. The area also has a limit water aquifer. You can search and find all the articles you wish about how the water is at risk and a huge flume of toxic chemicals are moving towards the town from the mines. The same thing happen outside of Sac., CA./Folsom,CA. with chemicals that got into the water aquifer from Areojet Rocket Engine Plant. Neither has been successful in stopping the pollution once it was in place & on the move. Both Locations have/are bringing in water from a different source. Start looking for another water supply if this goes thu or enjoy your time there. Probably will not be a problem in your lifetime but will be in the future. The Green Valley Area, Tucson & Pima County are fighting over a current proposal for another open-pit mine West of the Green Valley Area. The pollution is only one of the issues. The other major issue is the need for water by the open-pit mine and Southern AZ DOES NOT have a surplus of water. IMHO, two options. 1. Successfully stop the mine and save the area as it is or 2. Mine opens, starting searching for more water supply and in time the area will change ALOT! Good luck, It has been a many year battle here dealing with the existing mine and now the new mine.

rocmoc n AZ/Mexico

[Edited on 05-25-2009 by rocmoc]

Geo_Skip - 6-18-2009 at 05:26 PM

My 20 years in the mining industry in the USA west, makes me agree with BMG. Yes there are risks...but WITHOUT FACTS, discussion of the impacts is pointless and inflammatory when presented to inexperienced persons for reaction.
Please CaboRon, either post FACTS or post a question. I suggest that posting, "Is the proposed mine likely to pose at threat to groundwater" ...instead of just knee jerk posting a medial inflammatory piece from a "news source".

We all know that the media is hardly unbiased.

Thanks again BMG, sounds like your background and mine are similar.

Edward Abbey

bajaguy - 6-18-2009 at 07:58 PM

maybe it's time for some "monkeywrenching"????

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Monkey_Wrench_Gang

BMG - 6-18-2009 at 08:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by mtgoat666

That was probably written by the consultant for the mining firm. You cite results of a geochemical model, but don't state whether they did a groundwater flow model in their study. Come back here and defend your statement witrh results from MODFLOW or FRACMAN flow model plus fate and transport modeling of chemicals.

If you read my post, you will see that I was only going a bit further in the article that gnukid cited, not me. So what statement that I made am I supposed to be defending?

gnukid - 6-18-2009 at 09:09 PM

If you read my post, I cited what was available as reference documentation in reply to the question from BMG, not me. So what statement that I made am I supposed to be defending?

Cambio?

gnukid - 6-18-2009 at 09:45 PM

Hey Geo and MG666, You guys are like mind readers? awesome can you review the short list of references to the long term issues in El Triunfo and help us contradict them?

Let's write about the actions to mitigate the negative impact of the Gold Mine on the ecology and population so we can tell these ecojerks to shutup.

DENNIS - 6-18-2009 at 09:47 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by bajaguy

Edward Abbey

Great author/naturalist. "Desert Solitaire"..... one of my constant re-reads.

Diver - 6-18-2009 at 09:53 PM

.
ARSENIC ANYONE ?

Personal Authors: Eisler, R.
Author Affiliation: U.S. Geological Survey, Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, 11510 American Holly Drive, Laurel, MD 20708-4019, USA.
Editors: No editors
Document Title: Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology

Abstract:
Arsenic sources to the biosphere associated with gold mining include waste soil and rocks, residual water from ore concentrations, roasting of some types of gold-containing ores to remove sulfur and sulfur oxides, and bacterially enhanced leaching. Arsenic concentrations near gold mining operations are elevated in abiotic materials and biota: maximum total arsenic concentrations measured were 560 µg/litre in surface waters, 5.16 mg/litre in sediment pore waters, 5.6 mg/kg DW in bird liver, 27 mg/kg DW in terrestrial grasses, 50 mg/kg DW in soils, 79 mg/kg DW in aquatic plants, 103 mg/kg DW in bird diets, 225 mg/kg DW in soft parts of bivalve molluscs, 324 mg/litre in mine drainage waters, 625 mg/kg DW in aquatic insects, 7700 mg/kg DW in sediments, and 21 000 mg/kg DW in tailings. Single oral doses of arsenicals that were fatal to 50% of tested species ranged from 17 to 48 mg/kg BW in birds and from 2.5 to 33 mg/kg BW in mammals. Susceptible species of mammals were adversely affected at chronic doses of 1-10 mg As/kg BW or 50 mg As/kg diet. Sensitive aquatic species were damaged at water concentrations of 19-48 µg As/litre, 120 mg As/kg diet, or tissue residues (in the case of freshwater fish) >1.3 mg/kg fresh weight. Adverse effects to crops and vegetation were recorded at 3-28 mg of water-soluble As/litre (equivalent to about 25-85 mg total As/kg soil) and at atmospheric concentrations >3.9 µg As/m3. Gold miners had a number of arsenic-associated health problems, including excess mortality from cancer of the lung, stomach, and respiratory tract. Miners and schoolchildren in the vicinity of gold mining activities had elevated urine arsenic of 25.7 µg/litre (range, 2.2-106.0 µg/litre). Of the total population at this location, 20% showed elevated urine arsenic concentrations associated with future adverse health effects; arsenic-contaminated drinking water is the probable causative factor of elevated arsenic in their urine. Proposed arsenic criteria to protect human health and natural resources are listed and discussed. Many of these proposed criteria do not adequately protect sensitive species.

Publisher: Springer-Verlag New York Inc.

OR MAYBE CYANIDE ??

US Geological Survey, Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, 11510 American Holly Drive, Laurel, Maryland 20708-4019, USA.
Cyanide extraction of gold through milling of high-grade ores and heap leaching of low-grade ores requires cycling of millions of liters of alkaline water containing high concentrations of potentially toxic sodium cyanide (NaCN), free cyanide, and metal-cyanide complexes. Some milling operations result in tailings ponds of 150 ha and larger. Heap leach operations that spray or drip cyanide onto the flattened top of the ore heap require solution processing ponds of about 1 ha in surface area. Puddles of various sizes may occur on the top of heaps, where the highest concentrations of NaCN are found. Solution recovery channels are usually constructed at the base of leach heaps, some of which may be exposed. All these cyanide-containing water bodies are hazardous to wildlife, especially migratory waterfowl and bats, if not properly managed. Accidental spills of cyanide solutions into rivers and streams have produced massive kills of fish and other aquatic biota. Freshwater fish are the most cyanide-sensitive group of aquatic organisms tested, with high mortality documented at free cyanide concentrations >20 microg/L and adverse effects on swimming and reproduction at >5 microg/L. Exclusion from cyanide solutions or reductions of cyanide concentrations to nontoxic levels are the only certain methods of protecting terrestrial vertebrate wildlife from cyanide poisoning; a variety of exclusion/cyanide reduction techniques are presented and discussed. Additional research is recommended on (1) effects of low-level, long-term, cyanide intoxication in birds and mammals by oral and inhalation routes in the vicinity of high cyanide concentrations; (2) long-term effects of low concentrations of cyanide on aquatic biota; (3) adaptive resistance to cyanide; and (4) usefulness of various biochemical indicators of cyanide poisoning. To prevent flooding in mine open pits, and to enable earth moving on a large scale, it is often necessary to withdraw groundwater and use it for irrigation, discharge it to rapid infiltration basins, or, in some cases, discharge it to surface waters. Surface waters are diverted around surface mining operations. Adverse effects of groundwater drawdown include formation of sinkholes within 5 km of groundwater drawdown; reduced stream flows with reduced quantities of wate available for irrigation, stock watering, and domestic, mining and milling, and municipal uses; reduction or loss of vegetation cover for wildlife, with reduced carrying capacity for terrestrial wildlife; loss of aquatic habitat for native fishes and their prey; and disruption of Native American cultural traditions. Surface discharge of excess mine dewatering water and other waters to main waterways may contain excess quantities of arsenic, total dissolved solids, boron, copper, fluoride, and zinc. When mining operations cease, and the water pumps are dismantled, these large open pits may slowly fill with water, forming lakes. The water quality of pit lakes may present a variety of pressing environmental problems.

gnukid - 6-18-2009 at 09:56 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by mtgoat666
Come back here and defend your statement witrh results from MODFLOW or FRACMAN flow model plus fate and transport modeling of chemicals.

So cool when mygoat said, "witrh results" implying "MODFLOW or FRACMAN flow model plus fate and transport modeling of chemicals" are like so totally scientifically relevant.

Dude we got this one

gnukid - 6-18-2009 at 10:02 PM

If 10% of what the goat and the other guy say is cool we are sitting on solid gold mi amigos!

Each of these links refer specifically to data about el triunfo-san antonio?

http://www.springerlink.com/content/2mblv6p7lldmbm4q/

http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=2389785

http://indy2.igeograf.unam.mx/aih/pdf/T4/T4-31.pdf

http://myais.fsktm.um.edu.my/1049/

http://www.springerlink.com/content/j518hq7n15781797/

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi... ;_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=e16e5f1a5929167c73790a2dd0cbb299

Everyone who visits triunfo knows only some of the people are still sick from contamination, and everybody who already died we do not need to count as being negatively impacted... I don't think. Don't look at the population reduction due to illness, that's the past? like the past is the past, right? And the way the people look in general when you visit and the obvious issues, we need more time.

[Edited on 6-19-2009 by gnukid]

gnukid - 6-18-2009 at 10:53 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by BMG...
I am not disputing the fact that the mining activities in El Triunfo have added pollutants into the local ground water. I am questioning the statement made in the article that there has been "irreversible damage" to the environment. I tend to disbelieve arguments when they use such sweeping statements without concrete evidence. Therefore, I personally am not persuaded by the article.

Exactly the consensus here, its only been 200 years with reported negative impact, these articles cite scientific journals and published data to the present so whats that, like only 200 years, no proof of "irreversible damage" cause we need more time to prove that point, right BMG? er DK? MGoat666? Geo

no te preocupes

BMG - 6-19-2009 at 07:42 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by gnukid

Exactly the consensus here, its only been 200 years with reported negative impact, these articles cite scientific journals and published data to the present so whats that, like only 200 years, no proof of "irreversible damage" cause we need more time to prove that point, right BMG? er DK? MGoat666? Geo

no te preocupes

You are not making me believe the argument of irreversible environmental damage. No where in any of the articles I read from your list indicated that any of the environmental problems caused by the mining are irreversible. In fact, I quoted one of the articles you cited that plainly states: "These processes act as natural controls to the extent and amount of As pollution in the Carrizal and Los Planes aquifers." This would indicate to me that the damage is being reversed.

It's also been pointed out that mining is different now than it was 100 - 200 years ago. The question is whether any current mining can be done with a minimum impact on the environment.

k-rico - 6-19-2009 at 07:52 AM

What's all the hubbub about whether or not the poisoning of the water supply is reversible or not?

"Don't worry you and your kids can't drink the water but maybe your grandkids can?"

Mining is a dirty business and to make it clean really eats into the profits. Not true?

When I read the topic of this thread I thought it was going to be about gringos switching from gin tonics to gin with tap water and draining the water supply.

Very "Tony Santos."

wilderone - 6-19-2009 at 09:13 AM

"I would bet the miners of today are a bit more tidy with chemicals needed."

David, you seriously need a reality check.

http://www.miningwatch.ca/index.php?/porgera/tulin_campusano...

http://www.minesandcommunities.org/article.php?a=441

http://www.miningwatch.ca/index.php?/AXMIN/Cdn_Cos_in_Ghana

wilderone - 6-19-2009 at 09:20 AM

http://www.tarsandswatch.org/will-canada-s-oil-boom-be-envir...

http://environmentalism.suite101.com/article.cfm/mining_crea...

http://www.canada.com/Technology/story.html?id=1237355

AGAIN - IT'S A BIOSPHERE RESERVE.

gnukid - 6-19-2009 at 09:21 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by BMG

Quote:

Your point that nothing is not irreversible (everything breaksdown or has a halflife) is well made, however alternatively the few data points I pulled in the short time I looked at it answered your original question, to note that at present there is a risk posed by the pollution to the region fro El Triunfo in far reaching ways to aquifers, yet more so in higher concentrations closer to the source, and it is remained polluted for a long time now after operations have ceased. So you point that "nothing is not irreversible" holds no bearing. Its a hollow point since people live only one lifetime not forever!

Let's not play this game of "prove the future" and attack each other.

The real question is, as always: Is there an agreement in the permit which monitors the negative impact and is there an agreement to reduce any negative impacts sufficiently to reduce risks posed to the population, so as to not increase the level of illness.

And to what degree will increased illnesses be monitored.

In general, with the data available, and you can find many specific studies for the region, and comparable studies, we as a population throughout the region, have reason to be concerned and we should be involved to ensure that adequate steps are taken.

It's all an ongoing process, with levels to be monitored and actions to be monitored.

There is risk, to what degree will those risks be alleviated and will Mexico's regulatory mechanism do the job? In general from experience, the region does not have a strong track record either in regulatory actions or in holding people responsible for negative impact.

It lies upon the population, as it should, to be responsible, be involved, find out for yourself, take care of the region for now and the future and participate in the process to ensure that the actions to mitigate risk posed is increasingly sufficient.

Please let's take our energies and put them where they have most impact, and focus on the ongoing actions that will rip into the mountains and use harsh techniques to extract metal while leaving a disrupted terrafirma.

[Edited on 6-19-2009 by gnukid]

David K - 6-19-2009 at 09:22 AM

Then what is your solution for extracting the needed minerals, if not a responsible mining company (which your links didn't show)? Perhaps the government observers were getting paid to look the other way?

gnukid - 6-19-2009 at 09:32 AM

DK I know this is futile.

I am not in a position to recommend techniques or corporations nor am I or anyone here somehow obligated to answer questions in this regard, we should ask general and specific questions to those who pose threats to the regions health.

Once more, this isn't some argument between surfers or campers. The methods to approach this issue have long been established.

Get involved in the process to ensure the negative impacts are reduced. Follow through, keep at it. Reduce negative impacts to the region.

Es Posible, Todo es posible, juntos contigo!

[Edited on 12-13-2009 by gnukid]

BMG - 6-19-2009 at 09:56 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by gnukid

So you point that "nothing is not irreversible" holds no bearing. Its a hollow point since people live only one lifetime not forever!

Let's not play this game of "prove the future" and attack each other.

You have completely misread my argument. The original article states: "This lack of confidence is largely due to the bitter experience suffered in El Triumfo and San Antonio where the environment was irreversibly damaged."

I asked what irreversible damage.

You posted a series of links that cited damage but none indicated irreversible damage. Most did indicate environmental damage caused by mining activities but some also indicated that it was being mitigated naturally over time, therefore not irreversible. There is also ample evidence that some of the problem is naturally occurring.

My point is, and has been this entire thread, that the article makes a broad sweeping statement that is open to debate. In addition, it bases most of it's argument on the reader believing that statement without question.

gnukid - 6-19-2009 at 10:54 AM

You are narrowing it down, and no I am not missing your point, "I asked what irreversible damage." which begs the question, prove the future?

There is serious damage to the water with increased levels of arsenic which is longstanding after the operations ceased, to date the damage has not been alleviated by natural forces nor mitigation.

For those of us who live near there, like me and you and lots of other Nomads, we are at risk as are the people who live closer.

Let's consider the people of El Triunfo who have suffered greatly and work to ensure that their families are not at increased risk. Perhaps a visit to El Triunfo is warranted, see the people and at least consider the impact. This topic really is about the health of the people and habitat.

So I am not sure why you would argue some undefinable point of minutia which has no logical end, while you are currently at risk and the project discussed in the article certainly will expose you to more risks. There is no question about that as we have data to support it.

Why are you obfuscating such critical issues while that angle certainly is a distraction to this discussion and adds nothing and has no end point.

Yes all properties have a half-life and eventually break down, true. I think you are being a bit facetiously defensive in order to avoid the actual issue. There is a permitted mining operation that will negatively impact the region, the question is will the negative impact to humanity and habit be alleviated. Prior comparable experience, says likely the operation will not alleviate the damage to the region and its people sufficiently.

So instead of arguing points of minutia that are irrefutable and therefore senseless e.g. all chemical properties breakdown eventually, why not focus on things you can change for the better? Especially those that have a high percentage chance of negatively impacting the water, the ecology, and therefore impact you?

Let's be clear, I am no expert on hydrology or mining or much really, I am only asking reasonable questions that really should be asked often.

[Edited on 6-19-2009 by gnukid]

wilderone - 6-19-2009 at 10:55 AM

and ain't this pretty:

http://www.dominionpaper.ca/articles/2036

Local and NGO opposition can be successful. How do I sign up?

BMG - 6-19-2009 at 12:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by gnukid
You are narrowing it down, and no I am not missing your point, "I asked what irreversible damage." which begs the question, prove the future?

Sorry, but you did miss my point and you are still missing it. I just don't know how to make myself more clear than I have already tried to be. I am not arguing for or against future, present or past mining.

JESSE - 6-19-2009 at 12:48 PM

I met one of the owners of that mine, probably the most obscene european i have ever met. Had to kick him out of the restaurant because he was so loud and obnoxious, he was dining right next to the secretary of tourism and a congressman. After he left, both tables started clapping. Not very friendly people.

Environmental Improvement

The Gull - 6-19-2009 at 11:22 PM

The clearest example of an improved environment around Todo Santos can be made by the recent departure of CabRon.

Vegas EIR was judged to be negative.

mtgoat666 - 6-20-2009 at 08:23 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by The Gull
The clearest example of an improved environment around Todo Santos can be made by the recent departure of CabRon.

Vegas EIR was judged to be negative.

hi gully boy,
nice to see your cheerful self back here and contributing all those good vibes. you were gone for a while. were you incarcerated?

gnukid - 6-20-2009 at 10:01 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by BMG

Quote:

Originally posted by gnukid
You are narrowing it down, and no I am not missing your point, "I asked what irreversible damage." which begs the question, prove the future?

You could try to make your point if it was important you can use references too.

For example do a search on el triunfo san antonio and aresenic or pollution and select references and quotes that make your point.

Here are some of the references previously noted and the salient points that note the increased risk to us in the future even the mine is no longer in operation. As = arsenic

http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=1514856

"The San Antonio-El Triunfo mining district, located at a mountainous region 45 km southeast of La Paz, Baja California, has been worked since the late 1700s. Mine waste material produced during 200 years of mineral extraction area poses a risk of local groundwater pollution and eventually, regional pollution to the Carrizal (west basin) and the Los Planes (east basin) aquifers. There are different types of deposits in the mining area. These are dominated by epithermal veins, in which arsenopyrite is an important component. Carrillo and Drever (1998a) concluded that, even though the amount of mine waste is relatively small in comparison to the large scale area, significant As in groundwater derived from the mine waste piles is found locally in the groundwater."

"The arsenic concentrations vary seasonally, especially after the heavy summer thunderstorms. "

http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=2389785

"Based on an estimated retardation factor (R), the travel time of the As plume from the SA-ET area to La Paz and Los Planes is about 700 to 5000 years."

toneart - 6-20-2009 at 10:52 AM

Why not drop the word "irreversible" in your discussions? That seems to be a sticking point that cannot easily be proven and is impeding the benefits of this discussion.

The other word being used is"damage". That its occurrence is in the past, present and future is irrefutable.

It should not be a political issue because it affects everyone. Unfortunately, the issue does break down over the philosophical attitudes of Laizzes Faire Capitalism without restrictions, and potential harmful risk to the general population.

Why condone the risk to the environment, unless you are an officer, shareholder or employee of the proposed mine? The acronym, NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) certainly applies here and in my opinion, should be the stance the people of Todos Santos should be taking.

Finally, a word about discussing politics: The back and forth discussions in this string have maintained civil questions and answers without labeling, name-calling or ridicule. The posts, while seeming to reach an impasse, remain objective. That is healthy! Civility allows the debaters the freedom to disagree or possibly even reach agreement.

:yes:

gnukid - 6-20-2009 at 11:17 AM

Yes, BMG is my next door neighbor!

Obviously there are those that benefit and those that suffer from heavy use of chemicals in mining. Historically, those that suffer the most from the pollution are least likely to have resources to research and promote their concerns while those that benefit from mining profitability have resources to do research to make their point, thereby reducing their responsibilities and increasing their profit, they actually increase profit from their studies.

Ultimately the issue is measured by how many more people per 100,000 would suffer increased illness. This issue also requires studies, funding and time to complete.

So you can see the deck is stacked against the people and the environment who would likely suffer the negative consequences the most. For example, the local population in el triunfo and the region of Todos Santos.

On the one hand you have corporate profits from gold mining and on the other hand you have people and the environment.

Consider that we should do everything possible to ask questions and put pressure often on the operation to reduce the likelihood pollution to groundwater.

BMG - 6-20-2009 at 11:30 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by gnukid

You could try to make your point if it was important you can use references too.

I am going to try one more time. I am sure everyone is getting bored with this bickering. I apologize.

The article claims that people don't believe that the mining companies and government officials will enforce environmental protections as promised. According to the article, the reason for this is purported to be the irreversible damage in El Triunfo: "This lack of confidence is largely due to the bitter experience suffered in El Triumfo and San Antonio where the environment was irreversibly damaged."

I questioned the above statement asking what irreversible damage.

You supplied links that indeed point to environmental damage although I did not find any mention of irreversible damage. In fact, one of the articles you cited indicated just the opposite: "These processes act as natural controls to the extent and amount of As pollution in the Carrizal and Los Planes aquifers."

Therefore, the argument that irreversible damage has occurred is debatable as per your own link. Again, I have made absolutely no argument for or against future mining. My entire argument has been against the use of a statement in the article that is treated as fact but indeed may not be. Some will think I am nitpicking, but whenever a statement is thrown out as if fact I have to question it. In my mind, this undermines the entire article does not help their cause, right or wrong.

Why would you question me about statement in the article, but not the fact that the statement is unsupportable? I am not the one who made the claim. Instead, you keep arguing against future mining as if I have taken a pro mining stance. To which I say, I HAVE STATED NO POSITION ON THE MINING ISSUE!

Quote:

Originally posted by toneart

Why not drop the word "irreversible" in your discussions? That seems to be a sticking point that cannot easily be proven and is impeding the benefits of this discussion.

You may have made my point better than all of my other attempts. The author of the article used the word "irreverible". That made the statement unsupportable. As well as I've seen you write, I believe you realize how this single word crippled the entire article. Or maybe it's just me.

Cypress - 6-20-2009 at 11:31 AM

Todos Santos. From an artistic expat haven to a booming mine town? Looks like a conflict. :?:

mtgoat666 - 6-20-2009 at 12:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by gnukid
On the one hand you have corporate profits from gold mining and on the other hand you have people and the environment.

on the third hand, mining is necessary to support our economies. we can't keep going without extracted natural resources. you just need to be proactive so when it occurs in your baclkard it is done in an acceptable manner.

gnukid - 6-20-2009 at 01:10 PM

I appreciate your interest in looking at the articles, reading some. And thx for the compliment.

There are stacks of articles about the regions water and about El Triunfo, but we keep referring to similar pieces and one paragraph thank goodness, interesting too, apparently there is something to be read and interpreted?

http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=1514856

http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=2389785

"Based on an estimated retardation factor (R), the travel time of the As plume from the SA-ET area to La Paz and Los Planes is about 700 to 5000 years."

As you pointed out, the arsenic pollutions progress to affect neighboring water sources will be retarded (R); the movement of arsenic from close to the source at El Triunfo to La Paz and Los Plannes will be slowed down by the type of soil, but it doesn't just disappear nor is lessened over time, just the movement of arsenic pollution from one water area to another presumably is slowed down over a longer time due to natural causes (rocks maybe), as compared to other locations in the study.

Despite this great news:

The people of EL Triunfo have suffered from devastating pollution that isn't going away. The polluted water table has higher concentrations of arsenic closer to El Triunfo. So people farther away may suffer less or perhaps it will be a long time before the pollution arrives to the next town, however the people of El Triunfo will also likely see an increased pollution to their watertable over time by this additional source of pollution at the new nearby mine. While we may see low levels of pollution at greater distance, there are areas which will suffer greater concentrations.

So you can see that there are many articles which cite the elevated pollution and its source in El Triunfo and note is history, path, progress, noting whether the affects are greater or lesser, now, later, closer or far away.

The point of this article seem to serve to alleviate our concerns, but you can see the data is also there to show the problem with polluted water isn't going away.

I quite honestly thought that you BMG were leading us to this point with a sophisticated question-response, of course?

gnukid - 6-20-2009 at 01:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by mtgoat666

Quote:

Originally posted by gnukid
On the one hand you have corporate profits from gold mining and on the other hand you have people and the environment.

on the third hand, mining is necessary to support our economies. We can't keep going without extracted natural resources. you just need to be proactive so when it occurs in your baclkard it is done in an acceptable manner.

We don't "need" a gold mine? we "need" food and health.

Modern mining uses machine techniques and does not significantly benefit local employment or the economy?

Why are you promoting the gold mine?

Cypress - 6-20-2009 at 01:30 PM

Most of the local folks lose when a big industry moves into town.

mtgoat666 - 6-20-2009 at 01:47 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by gnukid

Quote:

Originally posted by mtgoat666

Quote:

Originally posted by gnukid
On the one hand you have corporate profits from gold mining and on the other hand you have people and the environment.

not promoting it. just telling you to keep an open mind. you are a fool to think that a major mine is not an economic engine. economic prosperity can bring food and health.

mtgoat666 - 6-20-2009 at 01:56 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Cypress
Most of the local folks lose when a big industry moves into town.

that doesn't make sense when you look at flip side.

when big industry leaves town, most of the locals suffer. have you been to pittsburgh, detroit, etc. look at what is happening in tourist towns when the "big industry" (tourists)doesn't visit.
ever seen what happens when a big company leaves town?

anyhow, i am not supporting any project, i know very little about that area and the proposed project.

gnukid - 6-20-2009 at 02:00 PM

Like BMG I am not for or against the mine yet, I was just looking at the issue and discussing it.

Now I am beginning to look at Gold Mining and this project in particular to understand what is the risk?

I am sure there is a lot to know.

http://www.enviroliteracy.org/article.php/1120.html

"The most significant risk from use of cyanide solutions in gold mining is possible leaching into soil and groundwater. There exists the potential for catastrophic cyanide spills that could inundate an ecosystem with toxic levels of cyanide. In 2000, heavy rain, ice, and snow caused a breach in a tailings dam (tailings are the cyanide-treated ore wastes, from which gold has been removed) at a gold mine in Baia Mare, Romania resulting in the release of 100,000 cubic meters of cyanide-rich waste into the surrounding watershed. Drinking water supplies were cut off for 2.5 million people and nearly all of the fish in the surrounding waters were killed."

[Edited on 6-20-2009 by gnukid]

BMG - 6-20-2009 at 02:15 PM

I have read that the cyanide left in the tailings can be safely neutralized with a hydrogen peroxide solution.

gnukid - 6-20-2009 at 02:24 PM

More good news from the Gold Mining Industry

http://www.cyanidecode.org/cyanide_environmental.php

"There is no evidence that chronic cyanide exposure has teratogenic, mutagenic or carcinogenic effects."

gnukid - 6-20-2009 at 02:42 PM

Yep the problems I see with gold mining are the movement of all that soil and the remaining cyanide tailings, possibly noise and traffic should be considered. They usually claim they will move the soll back so what about cleaning up the tailings...

BMG mentions a technique with hydrogen peroxide to neutralize the cyanide tailings and there are other common methods.

http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/industrial/special/mining/tech...

pg4

"There are three fundamental approaches to the decommissioning of cyanide-contaminated ore heaps. The first is to leave the heap alone and allow the cyanide to degrade, perhaps slowly, but without any human intervention. The second is to dismantle the heap and treat the ore in smaller batches. This approach may be necessary when sections of the heap have become impermeable or when it is desired to reclaim the leach pad area for other uses. The third approach is to rinse the heap to flush out cyanide, with the rinse solution then being treated by any of the methods described below. Ore heaps may be rinsed with fresh water or with recycled rinse water that has been treated so that it contains little cyanide. The rinse medium may or may not contain chemicals designed to oxidize the residual cyanide
as it trickles through the heap. "

The hydrogen peroxide can only be used where a surplus of rinse water is available and is therefore not used in arid regions. It appears the gold mining process uses a great deal of water and the clean-up even more.

"Mines using cyanide heap leaching will already have equipment available to supply rinse solution. The same system used to apply the cyanide solution can be used for rinsing of the heap. At Echo Bay's Borealis Mine in Nevada, the heaps were rinsed at a rate of about 0.005 gals/min/ft (Schafer and Associates 1991b) using2 Rainbird sprinklers. At Brohm Mining's Gilt Edge on-off heap leach operation in South Dakota, a cyanide neutralization solution containing hydrogen peroxide has been applied at a rate of 0.0043 gal/min/ft (Damon,2 Smith, and Mudder 1992). Rinsing also may be accomplished, or enhanced, by natural precipitation; some facilities have included precipitation as part of their detoxification plans (WGA 1991b). However, many cyanide heap leach operations are located in arid areas of the western United States where precipitation rates wouldn't be sufficient to be a source of rinse water."

mtgoat666 - 6-20-2009 at 03:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by gnukid
Yep the problems I see with gold mining are the movement of all that soil and the remaining cyanide tailings, possibly noise and traffic should be considered. They usually claim they will move the soll back so what about cleaning up the tailings...

newkid:
potential impacts are noise, traffic, visual, air emissions, release to surface water (chemical or sediment), chemical release to groundwater, groundwater degradation or aquifer overdraft, increase or decrease of surface water flows, habitat loss, etc., etc.,

in USA current regulations generally require mine operators to post financial assurances to ensure funds are available for mine closure and land reclamation,... doubt that happens in Mex, but maybe it could,...