3 ms·

> The ultimate cost of this landslide is likely to be many multiples of the money saved on mining operations through inadequate construction and/or operation of

• Aurornis 3y ago
  > Ah, but who are the people who profited from cutting corners, and who are the people who will bear the cost of the cleanup? If these are not the exact same set of people, then it was a net profit to collapse this mine and kill these men. The profiteering will continue apace, because the system incentivizes it. It’s a mine. The cost of the cleanup refers to what it will cost to remove the collapsed dirt and get back to the layers at which they were mining. So to answer your question: The cost is borne by the mine operators if they want to resume mining. > The article does mention that some people were arrested, but that seems to be for direct negligence, not systematic negligence. If the highest-ranking person who sees consequences from this is merely a single VP, then it sounds like the rest of the executive parasites might be in the clear. Kind of wild that a country throws people into jail before an investigation can even be performed, yet people are out for blood and demanding that, what, the entire company leadership is thrown in jail? Everyone who might possibly be involved? There are countries where governments will use their power to throw large numbers of people in jail to seek revenge for problems, but they aren’t the workers’ paradise you imagine. They’re just terribly oppressive regimes. It’s also unlikely that these situations would only result in executives going to jail, because the people on the front lines (who are not entirely free from involvement in decision making) tend to get blamed too. Reactionary jailing feeds people’s revenge fantasies, but it’s actually a really terrible and scary way to have to live for everyone. There are a lot of extremely cynical assumptions in this comment.
  • michaelt 3y ago
    > The cost is borne by the mine operators if they want to resume mining. In my country the tradition is: 1. Mine operators get a mining permit by swearing they'll clean up all the pollution and restore the site to its original condition once the mine is exhausted. 2. Mine operates for years, paying out $$$ to bosses and shareholders 3. Mine gets exhausted or becomes uneconomic to operate, company declares bankruptcy, tax payer has to fund the cleanup
    • gruez 3y ago
      That's a serious problem, but in this particular case it's unlikely to happen. This mine is currently in use, so presumably there's still left in the ground to extract. Therefore the mine owners are still incentivized to clean up the landslide. Moreover, let's not forget this landslide happened entirely inside the of the confines of an open pit mine. The land is already fucked. The landslide was unlikely to have made it worse. There's a lot of issues with how mining is done, and how owners are held to account, but kneejerk calls for immediate punishment and/or commenting is entirely not constructive.
      • deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
    • 8organicbits 3y ago
      Funds for cleanup should go to an escrow account before any profit is distributed.
    • doodlebugging 3y ago
      Sounds like the USA. The oil and gas industry has an extra twist in #3 which would read: 3. Producing field get exhausted or becomes uneconomic to operate, company sells field to smaller less-capitalized operator who reworks some wells in an effort to pay back their investment. 4. Smaller operator eventually sells to a mom-and-pop operator who operates a series of stripper wells in the field. Once production from these wells decline to the point where this under-capitalized operator can no longer profit the field is abandoned and tax payers are left to fund the cleanup. All of this can take decades before abandonment and any technological advance during that time could make the field more attractive to large operators who would then buy these fields from the mom-and-pops and mid-size operators so they could squeeze even more profits before cycling back into the later steps of the loop. Over a long enough time period you have a Texas which is dotted with tens of thousands of orphaned or abandoned wells. Many of these wells leak oil, natural gas, or brines into shallow surface aquifers when the old production strings inevitably rust away. The problem is worse when new tech maintains production in an area since wells that were abandoned years or decades ago but never plugged are effectively open to atmospheric pressure and when a technique like hydraulic fracturing is used downhole, it repressurizes formations and can force fluids up thru unplugged wellbores to the surface where, if controls are not in place, fluid spills are inevitable. When that happens in an area that had been abandoned the operator responsible for the increased pressure would argue that cleanup is not their responsibility since the previous owner was responsible (had paid a bond to the state) for the plugging and abandonment of the leaking well. It's more complicated than this but you get the idea. It's never their problem and the wrong people tend to get stuck with remediation expenses.