FMF - Friends of Minerals Forum, discussion and message board

[Paul S]

After having seen a documentary about illegal gold mining in the jungles of Brazil, I started wondering about the ethics surrounding mining for minerals in general. I'm not talking about the mining for valuable goods like gold, diamonds or oil, anyone who follows the news can get a good idea about the problems regarding human rights, the environment and politics.

What I'm wondering about are the circumstances regarding the mining for collectors’ minerals. What is the impact on the environment from a piece of quartz you bought from a dealer? Where any miners exploited, was it done legally (so not on someone else’s property).

I never thought about these kinds of things regarding the minerals on my shelves, but did any of you? Does anyone know of ‘bad’ mineral species or ‘bad’ mineral dealers? How could one know about these things before a purchase?

Or is this subject taboo? ( Is there any ‘hobby’ at all which thinks about these kinds of ethics?)

[alfredo]

I've thought about it sometimes... but came to the conclusion that the amount of dirt moved every year in mining for necessary resources (things other than specimens), and in construction projects, is so many MILLIONS of times greater than the total amount of dirt moved worldwide for specimen mining, that worrying about the environmental impact of specimen mining makes no sense whatsoever. It would be like a pilot dropping an atomic bomb on a city, and then worrying about the honey bee sucked into the jet engine of his plane.

I had someone tell me once it was unethical to keep a rock from Antarctica in my collection, because Antarctica was "protected". I responded that Antarctica is a c-o-n-t-i-n-e-n-t.... can our minds conceive how large that is? If every rock in every mineral collection on the planet had originally come from Antarctica (which of course is not the case) the continent would not be measurably shrunken.

[Les Presmyk]

This thread could get very interesting very quickly. One side of the argument is that any specimen that comes out of any mine is stolen and therefore contraband. However, if it is a gold mine and the occasional pocket of wulfenite is encountered, the wulfenite is not ore and therefore saving these specimens does not affect the ore stream. Further justification is that by the saving the specimen the miner is removing waste material that does not need to be processed. Flipping back to the other side, the act of stopping mining to recover the specimen has now robbed the mining company of production from the miner they are paying. But, what if it is a copper mine and malachite and azurite specimens are being taken. Even at $3.00 per pound for copper, a five poind azurite specimen at best represents about one pound of refined copper. It is not like stealing gold and silver specimens, or is it?

Some mining companies take the position that everything in the mine belongs to the mining company. Others take the view that as long as the miners are collecting during their lunch periods, and they are not taking diamonds, gold or silver, they are entitled to collect a few specimens. Others have philosophies that they will go out of their way to destroy specimens just so no one else can get them.

Finally, in dealing wtih specimen collecting on the surface or near surface, plenty of park rangers and environmentalists will decry how much gem or mineral collectors can ravage a hillside in pursuit of "riches". In the U.S. there are laws governing what can and what cannot be done and how a certain amount of reclamation has to be done.

[mmauthner]

Of all the hobbies that involve the collection of natural objects, I think mineral collecting is the only one that actually *preserves* the objects, which left alone would weather away or otherwise be lost/never seen. Entomological collections, botanical collections, zoological collections...all require the death or imprisonment of objects.
As for collecting from mines whose owners consider the unauthorized removal of "ore" theft and would prefer to send fine mineral specimens to the crusher, it is unfortunate that the law is on this perspective's side. There is a higher, albeit unwritten ethic or moral, that I feel must be observed. It should in fact be obligatory to preserve such things when they are encountered. The paleontological/archeological fields have made inroads that are not popular among construction companies, but someone in the future will thank them for the foresight. The same must be done with mining companies... There is a bumper sticker in my neighborhood that reads "Too slow? Too bad." Why is more production and faster, better?
There is obviously a lot more to the discussion but, man!, some of these "ethical" questions need to be turned around. We need to start changing some of the thinking here instead of playing into the law-makers' and bureaucrats hands.
The "it is law" logic is the same logic applied by the Taliban in the decision to obliterate archeological treasures.
Enough...I have a paper to finish..

mark

[Eduardoo]

Every human activity has some kind of impact on nature. Even photographing birds, where you take home nothing more than an image, can cause damage in the form of species disturbance, getting too close to nests, interrupting courtships of rare birds, etc.

In fact, you cannot even take a walk in the jungle without affecting the life and death of countless creatures.

The impact of mineral collecting seems to me negligible when comparing it to mining in general, where sources of water are affected, landscapes changed, dangerous chemical wastes poured into rivers, etc.

Collector mineral specimens come mainly from mines dug for other purposes. A landslide in a mountanous region will have far more impact in a few minutes than mineral collecting in many many centuries.

Besides, mineral specimens are preserved for science, knowledge or enjoyment. (if a chain of people make a buck or two in the process, that is an added bonus).

[Paul S]

I think we can all agree that a certain amount of destruction is needed to get our hands on minerals. Just like you need to break an egg to bake an omelet ;-)

But what about mining conditions? The mining conditions in for example China or Russia are appalling, with many miners dying every year due to the unsafety of the mines. One can argue that mineral specimens are not the primary target for mining companies and therefore are not the cause of the unsafety. That should make us feel not responsible, but aren’t there also cases where mineral specimens are the primary target? Are there any known species that are usually mined under bad conditions or with a lot of chemical waste spilling into the environment?

Then there is of course the problem of solving such issues. Normally consumers can take action against companies by not buying their products if they want to force a change within the company. But with so many people in between the sale of a mineral to the consumer market and the actual mining of a mineral, one cannot do anything about it as a consumer. Or is this just a bad excuse?

[David Von Bargen]

There are also cases where people have contracted with mining companies for specimen removal (something that can be economically beneficial to both sides - or at least that can give the mining company some good PR). Most of the Flambeau Mine specimens came via this route. Artisanal mining also gives work to many people who would have no other way to earn a living. With access to the net, even people in remote areas can get some (although often overinflated) idea of the value of specimens.

[James Catmur]

Following on from Paul's comment

I once saw the figure that each year 96,000 miners die in China (this rapidly vanished from the source I got it from and now the official figures are far lower). Many of these fatalities are in the small illegal or family operated mines which may produce the specimens that are in collections (although many are in coal mines).

So we are not just talking about destruction or theft - collecting the speimens will cause miners to take extra risks and cause some of these deaths each year.

James

[alfredo]

Ethically, it is the producer, not the consumer, who must take care that he is working in a safe manner, not unnecessarily endangering himself.

Should I stop eating crabs from Alaska because the fisheries industry there is very dangerous work? No, the crab fishermen do it voluntarily, earn lots of money, and are fully aware of how dangerous their job is. They make a judgement call: Is the risk worth it for them? Apparently they think it is. Not the consumers' problem.

I've spent a lot of time in mines in Bolivia. Very dangerous. Nobody pays much attention to safety regulations. The miners usually die young (mostly because they don't like using "uncomfortable" respirators, even when respirators are available). Of my friends there who mine principally for specimens rather than ore, one has died (falling down his own shaft because of a rotten wooden ladder) and another spent 2 months in the hospital when a stick of dynamite went off in front of his chest. Sad, but they knew exactly what they were getting themselves into, and they did it because they saw a chance to earn tens or perhaps even hundreds of times as much money in a year as their uncles and cousins who grow potatoes, sheep and llamas. I don't think it is the consumers' (collectors') business to be telling these men what they are allowed to be doing with their lives. I'm happy to buy their specimens. To say, "I like your crystal, but I won't buy it because I don't approve of your chosen lifestyle"? ...that seems to me awfully paternalistic, equivalent to my own government telling me I can't collect minerals anymore because it's too dangerous... the big brother Nanny State.

[mmauthner]

Hear, hear, Alfredo.
Bureaucracy is totally choking mining AND mineral collecting in this country. I was just told yesterday that many, many site are now off limits in Riverside county here in California and that one cannot even park there (I have to check this, but I have no reason to doubt my friend).

Mark

[Les Presmyk]

In the grand scheme of things, the collecting of gems and minerals improves the living conditions of those who are fortunate enough to be involved with these operations. From the Pakistani or Afghani who is lucky to earn $200 per year, with one find of crystals they can make many $100's or $1,000's in a summer collecting season. The same goes for miners in China, Bolivia, or even the more developed countries. We just need to enjoy the beauty of Mother Nature, knowing that if there were not collectors interested in spending money to buy these specimens, most would never see the light of day.

[Jesse Fisher]

This sort of "ethical" issue has nothing to do with minerals, but everything to do with human nature. Humans are by nature greedy and are inclined, given the chance, to acquire wealth and status in almost any fashion possible. Cutting corners (or perhaps completely ignoring) even the most basic safety and environmental concerns while pursuing personal gain has been a constant throughout the history of human civilization. Those of us in "developed" countries live in a fools paradise because the general level of wealth allows us to focus on such concerns.

This is not, however, the case in much of the rest of the world. Should we not purchase Chinese goods because many are manufactured in sweatshops where workers (with little alternative sources of employment) are subjected to harsh and dangerous conditions for little pay? Should we not purchase produce from places like Africa and Mexico because there are no laws to protect workers from dangerous agricultural chemicals that are illegal in our countries? We could boycott these things and make a political statement, but in the end, it is likely that we would actually hurt those we claim to want to protect by denying them even the basic living they earn.

[Les Presmyk]

At the same time denying our past in the United States when just over 100 years ago we were guilty of the same excesses and transgressions on our own citizens and especially our environment? All modern nations have gone through this metamorphasis and recognizing these issues. I think we simply must recognize that we are fortunate to live in a time when not only are minerals valuable enough to raise the living standards of many more people than they would have years ago, but the fact that a lot more of these collectors and dealers are able to travel to various shows and access the markets directly.

I am not putting my head in the sand but where do we draw the line? 100 years ago Bisbee specimens were probably collected in similar conditions as specimens from Africa or China today. Am I supposed to stop collecting these because of the perceived toll on the men who collected them? All I know is that the more interaction there is between people from each of these countries, the better it is for all involved. I believe the specimen market provides additional opportunites for this involvement and that is a good thing.

[Jesse Fisher]

Another perspective on this issue was told to me not long ago by a friend and mineral dealer, Dudley Blauwet. Dudley has traveled to Northern Pakistan (among other exotic places) on a regular basis over the past 20+ years in search of minerals. He said that when he first started visiting the Northern Areas of Pakistan where much of the pegmatite minerals come from, many of the villages he visited were extremely impoverished. With the development of the gem and specimen trade over the ensuing years many of these villages have become fairly prosperous (at least by local standards). It is his belief that the ability of many local residents to make a living from the gem and mineral trade is one of the reasons why religious fundamentalism, rampant in neighboring provinces, has not taken hold to any great degree in the Northern Areas. That sort of extremism has little hold on people who can make a living and provide for their families.

[mmauthner]

Interesting point, Jesse.

[Jason]

Jesse has the best point which many a world traveler who deal in gems an minerals echo, like Bowersox and Pardieu..many people survive on gems and minerals and mining them..it's easy for us in the West in our armchairs and slippers to say this or that about the environment and mining but many a family eats and has a roof over there head thanks to hard work they do for the few stones or minerals they take from the ground

[Ibrahim Jameel]

I have traveled to several countries to buy minerals, and have to agree with the previous couple posts. Selling minerals really does help the locals. Whether they are miners working for a corporation and illicitly recovering specimens to supplement their income (such as at Huanzala or Uchuchacua), or self employed individuals working under a cooperative-type system (Bolivia and most Pakistani localities), the extra income can be very beneficial (and quite substantial).

The miners at Uchucchacua are currently striking to have their wages increased-- there is a reason why they sell rhodochrosite on the side. Sure, removing these minerals from the mine technically is unethical, but perhaps the same could be said of their wages. I am not taking a side, but the relative losses to Buenaventura (the mine owner) from a few pounds of unrefined ore are insignificant compared to the benefits to the miners.

Also, I've been to northern Pakistan a few times, and I have to disagree with the statement that minerals have prevented radicalization. As much as minerals have helped the region, I think the reasons have more to do with demographics and geography. Northern Pakistan is primarily Shiite, ethnically Balti/"other", and the tribal structures are very different. The societal and religious structures afforded by Shiism, as well as the different tribal structure make that area much less susceptible to radicalization.

The areas that have seen the most radicalization are Sunni, and ethnically Pashtun/ Punjabi. These places are also much less secluded than the villages in the mountainous north, and have been exposed to years of chaos because of the wars in Afghanistan (which spill over into Pakistan thanks to a porous border).

In short, as much as minerals help, saying that they have prevented radicalization is probably giving them too much credit...