Who Is the Real Villain the Mining Industry Is Fighting?

In my last article, I started a conversation about the role of minerals in the well-being of humanity. Everyone wants them, everyone needs them, but not everyone wants to extract them. Here is an excerpt:

“Therefore, although the minerals obtained from mining are the saviors of civilization (the hero), many consider that the activity that allows their extraction is evil, damaging to the planet, and that it must be stopped. Could it be that the villains are those who prevent or want to prevent the mining industry (and therefore humanity) from prospering? Would the same criteria apply to those who oppose agriculture or livestock? Would the anti-miners and the eco-hysterics then be the villains?”

Going back to my previous conversation, let me start by confirming that minerals and even mining are the heroes of humanity. Let's look around at what is happening in different parts of the world. Governments of all ideological tendencies have identified that minerals and mining are their economic salvation. Some countries channel this through nationalization, as has happened in Chile and Mexico, thinking about lithium and under the concept that government entities can do the job better. Chile even has its own mining company to take advantage of the demand for copper, but the entity is highly indebted because of bad administration, which is no surprise if the government has the last say.  We see how Saudi Arabia, although it is the king of oil, has already begun to promote private investment in mining.  In Niger, the new government has expropriated the uranium mines, which were managed by French companies, and now they want to do it themselves. In Burkina Faso, the government has also expropriated gold mines and is going to launch its first gold refinery by the end of 2024.  China has developed a successful nickel mining partnership with Indonesia, which supports China's electric car industry, and has managed to drive down the price of nickel on the international market, as well as the prices of its electric vehicles, to the point that they will only be allowed into the Canadian market with a 100% import tax, and many nickel mines have stopped operating because they cannot compete with the market price. These examples show that  governments now want to be involved in mining, even when they criticize private companies for being bad neighbors. 

Artisanal mining, which is sometimes illegal and is practiced in many countries, is another example of the value that everyone sees in minerals, and that everyone buys them regardless of their origin. Not so recently, even drug cartels started to get directly involved in mining in Mexico (Sinaloa), Colombia and Ecuador by force, taking away mines once operated by mining companies and in some cases with the complicity of the governments, by omission.  

There are different actors involved in the industry – corporations, governments, individuals, and cartels; the only bad actors are the cartels. It seems to me that all the other actors vary in their economic efficiency and in their level of environmental and social responsibility. We could continue another conversation about what the winning formula in this space is, whether it is a partnership between private companies and the government, as is already openly done in Cuba (Moa Nickel mine); the Kamoa-Kakula mine in the Democratic Republic of the Congo; and is planned in Pakistan with the “Reko-Diq” project, to mention a few examples, or another formula. This model has the potential to give governments the necessary incentive to stop thinking about nationalization, which would not lead to anything good, but which has the potential to make people feel ownership of the mining projects because it benefits them directly, and to share the profits with the local government. This model has disadvantages like everything, but the best configuration could be found.

Let us talk about the villain or villains in this situation. The anti-mining or eco-hysterical groups are possibly only the instrument – behind them are those who finance and direct. To mention some examples, in Costa Rica, the eco-hysterical forces have managed to prevent this industry from developing, and illegal mining has flourished, carried out with the law of the strongest, and without respect for the environment or neighboring communities, and the “environmentalists” are comfortable with this situation. Something even stronger is observed in Panama with the total prohibition of mining. Remember the slogan, “Panama is worth more without mining”? Now, the country faces claims for several tens of billions of dollars, added to the fiscal vacuum and the loss of jobs that this action has left; the main actors were environmental groups, some Catholic organizations, and unions; and it is not clear who has been the financier of this campaign. In Mexico, the agenda of the current and new governments includes a ban on open-pit mining, which is probably promoted by the Green Party that is part of the governing coalition; however, during the current administration, no new mining concessions were granted and operation permits faced barriers. One could ask for the reason to ban open pit mining, but the feeling is that the anti-mining forces want to test their strength, so they can later move to a stronger  position, with the aim of keeping the rural population poor.  These examples illustrate that these policies or actions against the mining industry affect the people and the finances of the country, so it could be said that the motives behind them are to harm the country and its population, by not allowing them to improve their economic conditions, with pretexts such as the damage caused to the environment or because the traditions and customs of Indigenous peoples are not respected, or some other similar pretext. 

The truth is that the latest expression of the anti-mining and eco-hysterical groups is manifested with the formation of green parties, which, under the banner of environmental protection, are dedicated to slowing down the development and people’s prosperity. We can observe in the geopolitical panorama how the Green parties in Europe, mainly in Germany, are leading the country to de-industrialization and economic deterioration. I imagine that in our minds we want our societies to prosper, to have employment opportunities to grow and to support a family. If the green parties are among  the problems that stop the economic development of our countries, what can we do? We already see what they can do if we do not intervene. Perhaps the conversation can be directed toward participation in these organizations to guide their strength so that it is constructive and not destructive. What do you think?