The first set of comments – translated…

———————————————————————————————————————————————————–

Carolina Albornoz:

Why s it absurd to allow such a fragile ecosystem to deteriorate to the point of elimination out of economic interests.  If the true interest of the government were to find a clean low-impact energy source, the first action would be to make certain that the appropriate measurements are taken to ensure the sustainability of the ecosystem.  Second, they would make sure that any studies performed (sap), had been performed by experts in environmental preservation – not by experts in geothermal activities who only look at the area where they claim there is sufficient pressure for activities.  Third, they wouldn’t spend money in contracting consultants who only a few years ago were working in the gas lines, which had a history of reducing the importance of archaeological sites so as to run operations through the area and thus destroying it  In the end I feel that there are many arguments, what’s missing is the POLITICAL WILL

Javier Rowe:

I would like to add that in addition to all of the patrimonial arguments and the legitimate claims which have been voiced by the people of the original townships I would like to add mine. As has been explained previously, I assert that the exploitation of Tatio for Geothermal energies is a terrible business.  The project of exploration and exploitation of .geothermal energies is not designed with inputs to the existing public energy nets nor to offer clean energy to the poor and needy of this country.  The project only demonstrates the contruction of one set of power lines – and that is towards Chuquicamata.  Additionally the companies making up the society currently running activities in Tatio is made up of CODELCO norte (a state-run mining company) and ENAP.  The damage to tourism and the touristic projection for the province of El Loa is much greater than those benefits which will be gained through sending this energy to the mining industry.  And if it just for this, it is already consuming all of the resources of our desert.  I aoopse and fight against the intervention in Tatio for all the ecological reasons and ancestral reasons already present; and also because is is a terrible business proposal for the province of El Loa.

Marcela Dias Arce:

The ecological damage in such a fragile ecosystem is irreversible and will take many years to recover.  Let’s not forget about a similar project, also developed by the company geothermica del norte, in puchuldiza.  There the experts realized that the energy obtainable from the site was not sufficient for the project to economically sustainable.  They left the drilled holes open, and through these both energy and water could escape, thereby drying out high altitude wetlands and endangering to the point of n recovery all of the flora and fauna of the region.

The water resources of this part of the country IS NOT A RENEWABLE RESOURCE.  Each day we have less rain.  To reinject water into the aquifers will only serve as a superficial make-over..  The children today and of the future all deserve to have a beautiful spot to live.

The day that the unscrupulous businesses understand that the money can’t be eaten no drunk, will realize the scale of the damage which has occurred.  Why don’t we use solar energy???  From that we have an excess…  or aeolic energy?

Amalia mamani charcas:

We address our pleas to everyone from town: indigenous and non-indigenous Chileans and our foreign friends who have come and visited the geysers and everyone else who is with us in defense of the geysers of tatio and those who in Calama and/or in Antofagasta have signed our petition against the exploitation of the “grandfather who cries.”  Here live our ancestors and as indigenous people, the mother earth calls for us to fight.  It is our right to defend her to our death, should it be necessary.  We have collected 27,000,000 signatures representing he support from different indigenous and non-indigenous organizations.  We will continue collecting signatures to continue fighting against international organizations in defense of our cause and to definitively stop the interventions occurring in the geyser field.  This we also to every one of you who have signed.  We represent you as well.  And that we have defended the geyser to the last consequences will be the reason why god and the mother earth will help us to leave behind a legacy to our children and grandchildren.  We thank every one of you who have showed confidence in us.  We greet everyone and show our infinite gratitude.

Victor:

Hello and good day.  I find the defense of the ecosystems and the environment and noble cause.  I am actually quite in favor of these initiatives.  What seems wrong to me are these criticisms about the ecology.  It is easy to criticize and say that we should not do things.  But the idea is to offer solutions.  And for this reason I would like to contribute from my knowledge gained through my career as a construction engineer for geothermal projects.

In her commentary, Miss Carolina Albornoz asks why the studies are made by experts from the geothermal enterprises.  What occurs is that, as in any multi-disciplinary project, there are not only experts in the Geothermal operations, but also international experts and professionals specializing in these studies and who have spent year working in the problem of investigating the environmental impact accosiated with geothermal plants.  To say that placing a geothermal plant in an area will decrease the touristic attraction of said area isn’t all true, because these projects are developed specifically in the framework of a sustainable development.  Sustainable construction means: Try to satisfy the need of the existing society without compromising the necessity of satisfying the needs of future generations.  As a result it is an attractive touristic point to see a geothermal plant operating in harmony with this natural paradise.

Mr Javier rowe mentioned that the business proposal is a bag deal in that the benefits therefrom wilnever reach the poorer population because all of the energy will be routed to Chuquicamata and Codelco.  All of the social politics in this country are financed for the most part from the copper industry.  Lowering the cost of the insumos and the generation of energy for Codelco then does return directly benefiting the politics involved in overcoming poverty in the country.

Miss Marcela Diaz gave us a very good explaination of the road which we should follow towards evolving the environmental policy, which is the fiscalization and to impose penalties for not complying with regulations.  The situation which occurred in Puchuldiza is unfortunate, but we need to continue investigating and improving on our techniques.  In contradiction to her statement, the water is a renewable resource as far as the geothermal plant operations are concerned.  The reasons why geothermal would be a preferred energy source, over other alternative energies, is because unlike for solar and aeolic energies the geothermal energy is a constant and continuous energy source.

Mrs Amerlia Mamani has demonstrated her proposal in defense of the perspective indigenous and the geysers.  But one needs to do much more than say that they don’t like something, that something is bad or that I don’t want something.  We need to look for alternatives instead of just object.  It is q noble cause to defend the environment.  I support that, but my support in itself doesn’t close the discussion.  This I a topic which we need to work out.

I don’t wish to be poorly understood.  I am not defending the geothermal plants, nor doing any less. I just would like to contribute with informed opinions and basic facts.  We only need to look at other countries to see the development of this energy in other parts of the world: 23 plants were installed in 1960 in the Geysers of California and Yellowstone in the USA.  These parks maintained operations and the geysers have not died.  Tourismo continues in full force.  So, we should try to proceed in good sense and try to contribute to the decontamination and sustainability without denyng ourselves everything.  On the other side we should worry about maintaining under control the sulfuric acid and the associated bad small of emissions which are emitted by these plants.  But factors such as these can be controlled, and that is the idea – to evaluate the pros and cons with the necessary information.  Greetings and thanks.

Victor Gonzalez:

What a shame to see people who cannot accept commentaries and posts which are not 100% in agreement with theirs.  I wrote this post with much care and with the intention of helping.  I see that the dictadura and imposicion is found at all levels – including the ecologists.  What a great thing that the new generations will not be full of prejudice.  Lotsa luck and god, I hope that growing like this wl be the only way to save Tatio.

JOSSY:

Why do we have to save the ecosystem?  It is the only thing we have to leave for our future generations…  As well, we have enough foreign intervention..  This is the other face of imperialism which has not been overcomed by the capitalists..  the European imperialism which has done nothing more than harm us in Latin America..  No to the geothermal operations in Tatio…

Tatio in its natural state is god, is a part of Chile, part of the Chileans and the world

admin:

We should think wisely before attacking, Mr Gonzalez.  Or is our only urge to discredit the iniciative?  Your interlligent comment si where you yourself made the comment a couple of lines above.

Carolina:

Victor:

First of all I believe that your point of view is out of date.  Today there exists an awakened conciousness in which those reside in environmental risks don’t continue searching out the road to economic development no sustainability in such.  The system as you present it is admirable.  It is that today we have a Latin America acting as a supermarket for the large powers.  Why should we admire a geothermal plant in Yellowstone?  Personally, I prefer to see pure wilderness, which nowadays, for the reasons of developmental projects such as those which you mentioned, is difficult to come by.  The geothermal energy has many environmental benefits.  One is that it permits the coexistance of microbacteria which only live in high temperature environments and which also absorb high levels of arsenic in the water, lowering this risk for the community of San Pedro.  I believe that there is no credibility in the good intentions which are promoted by the principles as basic as the development of projects for the sustainability.  This planet is in an energy crisis, but also an environmental crisis. M conclusion is that there is no sustainability involved in anything which originates from outside of Latin America.  More clearly is the example today of tatio.  Everyting is in an interconnected system, Codelco = copper for the price of an egg (reponsability of another piñera)  Why?  For whom?  For the sustainability of what?  Who has always been searching out our riches?

Victor  open your eyes!!!  The environmental law by which we abide today is siposible.  The SAP (responsibility of the Piñera candidate) is created so that we don’t generate awareness f the environmental impact studies..  I don’t want to make the story poliical, but that wich you admire is that which you are told to admire.  With all respect.

Carolina Albornoz

Maruiziani:

It is very simple.  We are in front of a giant which opposes us.  We are underdeveloped in ecological concerns.  In the webpage of the ministary of mining and energy you can see the barros arana range, located between San Pedro and Calamam as an ideal spot to develop and install an aeolic energy facility in areas with contact winds and in areas there already exist windmills.  We have overstepped our bounds.  Why don’t we build a large solar panal park and connect the erngies into the national net?  Why are other lands with lower solar capacity are using this energy, and we are not?

Admin:

I was not aware of the idea of putting up aeolic gernators;and I feel that this is a step in the right direction.  Of all the forms of producing clean energy should all be evaluated with respect to their environmental impact.  The idea of putting an array up in the Barros Arana pass s a good one.  And it is the ideal location to do so, as no birds pass trough there.  Aditionally, as a pilot, I can assure you that it is the windiest section in the area.

NAN:

Don Victor, contruction engineer:  regarding the defense of the environment and ecosystems, you are right that we “don’t know anything”  Day in and day out we are seeing a diminuation in the activity of the geysers.  Finally this project is about water for the mining companies.  I have always passed by this spot and I have seen drillholes fro the same company extracting water from the northern side of the mountain El Sombrero.  Tey are drying out the little lake which is in Cuesta Chica.  Is more proof necessary for this to be the end of the few streambeds which supply water to the local populations near tatio?  Or, Sir Victor, do you believe that the Rio Loa is dry and that the water hasn’t been rerouted?  The Eolic energy has been placed in Chilean townships which know how to take advantage of their natural resources without intervening in the Ecosystems.  Let’s learn from this and support thus cause.

Carolina:barrik

Now,while we talk, the pressure of the water reserve drilled into by the geothermal project is being ejected into the air just like the gold in Puchuldiza..  The damage is irreversible.  THANKS TO ALL THOSE RESPONSIBLE..  THE DEMONSTRATIONS AGAINST THE GEOTHERMAL ENERGY HAD DIMINISHED..  WE DON’T HAVE ANY RESOURCES TO CLOSE THE HOLE..  WILL THE CONTRACT THE MACHINERY AND FOREIGN ASSISTANCE TO PLUG THE HOLE?  WHEN?  WHEN THEY DIE..  BUT DON’T WORRY BECAUSE SERNAGEOMIN and LA COREMA WILL SOLVE THE PROBLEM..  JAJAJAJA