|
GWP - COPPER |
|
|
|
May - Feb 2007: Information about Pascua Lama (Spanish)
April 2004
About copper, royalty and Bolivian gas
| The immediate
future - Bolivia needs to sell its gas (if it doesn't it would be "a beggar sat in a golden throne"). Then, a rational behaviour is that this gas goes to the Pacific through Ilo (Perú) - That's why Bolivia is going to provide gas to Argentina but demanding imperatively this gas couldn't be addressed to Chile. If Chile wants bolivian gas, it must address to Bolivia (a triangle is not possible) - If the Chilean energetic matrix (fossil and hydroelectric) doesn't change, by 2006 (when Argentina couldn't even cover its own demand of gas) the KWh price is going to increase 10 times (marginal present cost: 2.2 cents) - ACERA, Chilean entreprenuer association that develops projects about renewable energies, stated to be ready to install 200 MW of clean energy in the next 18 months as thet are allowed to enter to SIC and at the same time they are given a payment in the same conditions to the actual CEDEC's partners. ¿Who are the ones that avoid this to be concrete? |
Iraq's occupation shows us how the wealth of
a undeveloped country acts as a fish hook to make the transnationals use
their political nets to take possession of it. In the case of Chile, we
have a that the territory claimed by Bolivia (to the North of the parallel
24) has very attractive resources: The Pacific Ocean including the 200 miles
of Exclusive Economic Zone, the Chuqicamata mine, the Chungará lake,
several salt deposits, the Loa river, etc. When the discussion about the
Royalty started, the transnationals of minning began to search alternatives
to the exit of its products through the Pacific Ocean and at the same time
it started a Bolivian demand of a "sovereign sea exit". It's told
that this demand was shot by the popular discontent of the possibility to
export Bolivian gas from Tarija through a chilean port. The powerfull demand
had to be listened by the anglo Presidents of Bolivia (Jorge Quiroga and
Gonzalo Sánchez de Lozada) and by the actual Carlos Mesa. The Chilean
proposition was assimetrically better to Bolivia:
- The gas pipe would by managed by a bolivian staff
- The chilean territory would have a cost of cero to the Bolivians
In spite of this and of the possibility to increase the Bolivian PIB in
a 15% (from MUS$ 8900 to MUS$ 10200) the bussines was broken due to the
requirement that the gas had to go to the Pacific through a Bolivian port.
We must notice that the main beneffitted with that port will be those transnationals
that have the resources to exploit the Bolivian and Chilean wealth and those
that aspire to make it in a low cost (for instance without a royalty). Isn't
strange that the Bolivian PIB is the lowest in southamerica while in Bolivia
there are zinc, gold, silver mines and aboundant natural gas? What has happened
with the millionaire contributions made by England to Bolivia? WHERE IS
ALL THAT MONEY? Is it possible that almost 40 minning "Chilean"
societies became "charity societies" with more than 20 years of
loss (as they want us to believe)? On the other side, the Bolivian ports
would allow the exit to of Brazil to the Pacific Ocean. It wouldn't be a
sovreign exit, but that (almost) nobody matters. The old wars started to
take the wealth of the losing country, but now the same effect can be made
"legally" without prohibition to the sovereignty nor to the pride
of the vassal country.
Finally and as we said in February the Chilean dependence of Argentinian
gas was very dangerous. Argentina didn't modernize its exploitation and
distribution system of gas and now we are in the threshold of the cutting
of supplies from. But Bolivia is still the country that has gas in excess...
while Chile wants to sell it and not change it for territory.
If you don't still notice, we look like pawns in gigantic chess game.
June, 2003
With Respect to the E-mails Against the Royalty
The anti Royalty point of view is the following
one:
i) The imposition of Royalty increases the "Country Risk" in Minning,
what takes away foreign investors.
ii) No tributes mus be imposed to minning, because it provides work to many
chilean people
Our point of view is the following one:
i) As the case is that (almost) none mine pay taxes, the mainbenefit to
the country corresponds to employments that are created (engineers, mine
operators, employees, secretaries, consultors, managers, etc.). Then, minning
gives work to 1.7% of the active population. The salary of the activity
is about Ch$ 450.000. So, monthly the benefit to Chile is 450000*(0.017*6000000)
= 45900 M$ = 61.2 MUS$. This number is truly laughable compared to the monthly
sales. They are really "consuming out our main resource in exchange
for absolutely nothing"
ii) Minning is a unsustainable activity. In effect: every minning is projected
in terms of its useful life. The resource is non renewable it runs out.
Are we gonna allow that our patrimony be destroyed for free?
iii) Just a 1% Royalty on the sales could be seen in schools, more resources
to fight against delinquency, hospitals, highways, research centres, etc.
A 1% Royalty does not turns a positive profit in negative. We know that
some investors will look with displeasure the Royalty because they don't
like that Chile changes from a servile attitude to other where what is fair
is demanded. But the rule of any businessman is "If the bussiness still
generates profits..."
