New Diamond Suppy---NOT

[DKanger]

I just read an article that kimberlite has been found in Antartica and is sure to contain diamonds It was discovered recently when a huge iceberg broke off the shelf.

However, mining has been banned there by 50 signatory countries until 2041.

 

[monk]

hmm, lets see-- i'm already 71 yo. i'm not gettin my hopes up too much for that one !

 

[mitch]

they find enough of something worth a sufficient amount of money and a majority of those 50 countries will decide to change their minds...

 

[sonofagraver]

not if its Antarctica

 

[mitch]

not if its Antarctica

acts of men can be, and often are, undone by acts of men.

 

[craigcis]

Other mineral riches of greater value and easier to extract than diamond have already been found there, and to date there has been no excavation of these deposits, so I think that the diamonds are safe for now. However, I believe that it is just a matter of time and need before the world begins to tap into them.
Consider this; If ecologically diverse, rich and sensitive areas like the Santa Rita mountains in Arizona are not safe from destructive exploitation, what makes you think that an area like Antarctica, which is relatively biologically barren will remain safe forever? I'm 60, so I won't see it but our grand children most likely will.

 

[craigcis]

One last thought...
There are 50 signatory countries in the world out of a total of169. 50 against and 119 for.....Hmmmm?

 

[mitch]

One last thought...
There are 50 signatory countries in the world out of a total of169. 50 against and 119 for.....Hmmmm?

when the "50" includes the US, UK, Canada, Russia, China, India, Germany, France, etc., and the remaining 119 are Togo, Trinidad & Tobago, Mali, Nauru, et. al., then the "50" will have their say. It's not just economic might, either. The "50" probably have about 80+% of the world's population, too.

 

[Marrinan]

Business who are based outside the fifty can do as they wish. I think when the profit out ways the cost they will go get what the want. Whales, penguins tourism etc.

 

[mitch]

yes, Fred, i suspect these sorts of treaties on Antarctica are largely symbolic. do we really believe anybody is going to send their navy to stop mining? maybe, but more likely, it'll be the Klondike all over again...

 

[DKanger]

"That does not mean Antarctica will soon see its own diamond rush. Antarctica is not only forbiddingly cold and remote but also protected by a treaty that preserves the continent for scientific research and wildlife, from penguins to seals. The 1991 environmental accord banned mining for at least 50 years.

Others geologists doubted the find held much commercial value. Less than 10 percent of the deposits of similar kimberlite are economically viable, said Teal Riley of the British Antarctic Survey. "It's a big leap from here to mining," he told Reuters.


The Antarctic Treaty is binding only on its 50 signatories, but it has the backing of major powers, including the United States and China. Many expect the ban on mining to be extended in 2041." (article on AOL)

Most small nations are dependent on economic support from the larger nations. A simple withholding of these funds would force them to comply. As does the parent, so goes the child. Coupled with the harsh conditions that exist there, it is highly unlikely a full scale mining operation could long be supported.