Talk:Roșia Montană

Comments

The section on the proposed mine seems to be particularly one-sided. It does not consider a number of factors:

• The fact that Roşia Montană's environment has already been significantly polluted by previous mining activities (the water in the town is the same color as Fanta, thanks to the previous state mining operations which operated with virtually no environmental safeguards) and Gabriel Resources has undertaken to clean this
• Romanian law does not allow compulsory acquisition of property, so the claim that people would be "involuntarily displaced" is at best tenuous. Gabriel Resources has already purchased approximately one-half of the residences in Roşia Montană and these purchases were in no way coerced.
• In Effects to the local economy, it is stated that "the Romanian state would get an insignifiant part of the profit: 2% of the $3 billion". This suggests that the author has a very poor understanding of basic macroeconomics: $3bn will flow into the Romanian economy, regardless of what percent the Romanian or EU Government decides to tax.
• The people of Roşia Montană are destitute and desperately need employment.
• The claim that the World Bank Group is opposed to the project is at best tenuous. The only evidence that I can find to support that is a letter stating an informal opinion from a member on a World Bank committee.

There's probably plenty more to discuss, but here are some things to start. Jackk 05:40, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

The article strikes me as suffering from a lack of research. For instance, if we follow the link on the claim that a majority of local residents support the mining project, the linked article does not actually make any sort of claims about the popularity of the opposing sides of the debate. It is shaded to give the impression that the poor residents are behind the project, and that those with sizable land assets are opposed, but never makes a majoritarian claim. Right now this entire section is composed more of rhetorical posturing than of facts. Cleanup and research are needed.146.243.4.157 18:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I see in the page also links to the websites of the mining company. How did you get to the conclusion that it was one sided?

re unsigned comments by 89.136.53.203 above: it's NPOV for the reasons stated above. When I get some time, I'll try to address the points I've raised above in the article... And I agree with 146.243.4.157, more research would help a lot here. Jackk 18:07, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

→One of the problems with mentioning the World Bank's withdrawal from the project is the general population's lack of knowledge regarding IFC loan decision making policies. To be fair, some discussion should be added regarding the fact that the IFC is a profit making entity that is, in theory, meant to provide loans to companies willing to take a business risk in under-developed areas of the world. In practice, however, 85% of IFC loans are granted to support business in areas of the world that will ensure a high rate of return to the IFC. It does consider the environmental and social impact of the project on an area, but primarily it functions as a real world lending unit of a bank. Its withdrawal may very well have been the result of a cost/benefit analysis and not a moral decision based on "mining is bad" sentiment. --Junne 17:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

→RE: effects to the local economy: Romanian Mining law 2003, specifies the tax structure for mining activity in the country. Mining companies have to pay a minimum annual tax plus a mining royalty (2%). Also, Romania has a 25% Corporate tax that, to my knowledge, the mining company would not be excluded from paying. All of this tax revenue is in addition to any profits earned out a 20% ownership by the Romanian government in the mining project. To be fair, Romania has a beleagured administrative structure that makes the collection of taxes difficult. Junne 20:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Anyone fancy doing a nicer map that shows both the location within Alba and where it relates to the whole country? A bit like the Abrud map perhaps? Although it's nice to have the detailed outline of the commune, to the uninitiated the map of Alba looks like India....

Having read the 2003 Academy report (unlike most people?) and quite a lot of primary material, I've completely redone the Mining Project and Environmental sections, and large parts of the Economy and Historic Buildings sections. Hopefully this has sorted out a lot of the previous objections, in conjunction with my edits of the gold cyanidation article which is where IMO the more general comments about cyanide pollution belong. I've left the {TotallyDisputed-section} marker in, and have quite a lot more primary sources to work through before I'm completely done, but I think it works much better now.

I've not done anything about public opinion on the mine, which is always going to be rather subjective. Plus the whole thing could do with a Romanian checking all the spellings and accents. FlagSteward 03:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The first paragraph of the "Effects on the environment" section seems a bit subjective, or at least has traces of a marketing campaign. It basically makes promises on how the project WOULD evolve, even though it has not yet been approved. And the source it cites at the end of the paragraph does not longer exist (404'ed). And the statement that the dam will be able to withstand "once-in-a-millennium rainstorms" sounds a bit exaggerated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.207.71.119 (talk) 10:01, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Dubious statement(s)

• The claim that the region has a "touristic industry" (sic: I revised to "tourist industry") is rather dubious: Roşia Montană is a mining town with utterly no income from tourits. In nearby towns such as Zlatna, residents smash the remaining walls of the former State-run mine against the ground in order to extract the steel reinforcements within which they can sell for scrap metal. This is NOT a tourist hotspot. Nor is it a beautiful mountaneous wilderness: thanks to the former State-run mine in Roşia Montană, the town's rivers run orange with pollution. It's a mining town, not a tourist town. Jackk 18:26, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

• "The method used for separating gold from cyanide is against EU environmental regulations" is highly dubious and needs to be verified. Jackk 18:43, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

• • The cyanide is used today for gold recovery in EU countries. Examples can be Spain [1], Sweden [2] and Finland ([3]).

• "...thus polluting the area around five mountains with cyanides (which would last in the environment for hundreds of years)" is highly dubious and needs to be both clarified and verified. What I think needs to be answered here is what specific environmental consequences would arise from the project, and what evidence is there to support those claims. A general "cyanide mining is bad" view doesn't help readers understand the specific impacts of Gabriel's proposal. Jackk 18:46, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

→I could find no EU Regulations that outlaw the use of cyanide. What I did find was Directive 2006/21/EC on the management of waste from extractive industries. This directive was the EU Parliaments response to Baia Mare. It's main objective is to make it easier, legally, to hold companies accountable when a spill occurs. It does not concern the regulation of cyanide use. The use of cyanide in the method proposed by Gabriel Resources is used in the US and Europe (outside of Romania). Junne 18:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Would it not be better to move all the stuff about the pollutant effects of cyanide residues to the cyanidation article to act as a central reference on that kind of thing? Then this article could concentrate on the facts and figures of the RM waste dumps, with a reference to local fears based on Baia Mare, taking part of the dispute out of this article? I guess the Romanian legal situation is relevant, but without being an expert on Romanian environmental law I'd assume that they will be implementing the relevant EU Directives which do allow (or rather, don't forbid) cyanide extraction. I'd withdraw the 'dubious' tag and say that the Academy claimed it was illegal, although they seem to be wrong on that.

Incidentally AIUI 'cyanide' dissipates pretty quickly, at least within a year - it's the less toxic compounds that it forms like isothiocyanates that persist for longer.

Splitsection:FânFest

I think that we should split the FânFest section into a new page -- FânFest. Any objections? Jackk 00:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't feel any pressing need for it, it fits in quite well with the mining stuff, but wouldn't violently object to a split. FlagSteward 03:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Need to edit the Frank Timis connection

The statement that Frank Timis "is a convicted heroin dealer" should be replaced with "is a controversial Romanian-Australian businessman," as is said in the opening line in the Timis article itself. Besides being inflammatory and one-sided, it is quite untrue, at least according to the other article and all that I can uncover. The courts found possession, not dealing. A big difference, I'd say. And it stemmed from 15 year old incidents. If there is no objection, I'll make the change. Rosecrans 18:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

BBC news

Romania 'set to reject' big Rosia Montana gold project

--Stone (talk) 08:56, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Roșia Montană. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120209050437/http://recensamant.referinte.transindex.ro/ to http://recensamant.referinte.transindex.ro/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:24, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Roșia Montană. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061115025127/http://www.jurnalul.ro/articol.php?id=828 to http://www.jurnalul.ro/articol.php?id=828
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928071202/http://www.rosiamontana.org/documents/english/secretfrank2005.htm to http://www.rosiamontana.org/documents/english/secretfrank2005.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130912092855/http://saverosiamontana.com/ to http://saverosiamontana.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:28, 5 December 2017 (UTC)