• The Best of All Possible Worlds, A Story of Philosophy, God, and Evil by Steven Nadler
• Breaking the Spell by Daniel C. Dennett
• Otello (an opera) by Verdi
• La Barbiere di Siviglia (an opera) by Rossini.

I have also talked with many in mining, admittedly all from the northern reaches of Canada mining oil sands and diamonds.  A Sunday conclusion: religion is a belief, a practice, a way of thinking, and a guide to decent behavior.   It has no scientific validity that informs us of how to proceed in technical matters.  But it may help us make more rational and reasonable judgements.  Let me explain.

Nadler asks:

Can God’s will serve as the source of, or even as a guide to what is moral? Or is morality, good and bad and right and wrong, something completely independent of any religious or theological doctrines? Does God will something because it is independently good, or is it good for the sole reason that God wills it?

The book is long, readable, and a terrific introduction to the difficult problem that I phrase thus: Did God pre-will the way we are & what we or did he give us free will to choose to do good or evil?   Because God made this world, is it the best possible, or did He, simple set loose a collection of rules and let it happen, thus creating a world in which evil is possible?  Is evil part of God’s plan and we cannot see why evil exists, of is evil a concomitant of a world of freedom and free will?

Here is what one reviewer says of Nadler’s analysis of  these questions:

The centerpiece of this intellectual history is a vicious late-17th-century debate between three unlikely combatants: Leibniz, an amateur metaphysicist and German secret agent; Malebranche, a gentle French priest and theologian; and Arnauld, an ill-tempered and opinionated monk. The differences in their positions were slight but important: at stake was the very concept of God with potential implications for the territorial wars between various Catholic Church sects. Although the three men were concentrating on questions that had long been the subject of philosophical inquiry, new scientific discoveries were beginning to challenge the power invested in church and monarchy in what became a watershed moment. Nadler (Rembrandt’s Jews) demonstrates why the contentious discussions between the three intellectuals remain relevant: “To the extent that one believes that there is a universal rationality and objectivity to moral and other value judgments, and that the foundations of ethics have nothing to do with what God may or may not want, one has followed in certain seventeenth-century footsteps.”

  (Keep in mind Candide by Bernstein)

Today, these questions remain valid as we face the central issues of mining:

1. Is mining necessary, a part of the good life, a part of survival and the success of offspring?
2. Is mining an evil, necessary, unnecessary, sustainable, or simply a one-time rape of the earth and its resources (put there by God?)
3. Is mining simply a reflection of the greed of capitalists and their exploitation of native people’s happy to live in short, brutal, bloody ways?
4. Who owns the resources that make mines: First, Second, Third, or Forth Nations (I think of First Nations as those who have been there for a very long time, but not for-ever; Second Nations as those who came centuries ago and prevailed; Third Nation are people like me who emigrated and immigrated; and Forth Nations as those who come as Junior Mining Companies to countries not the one of their birth.)

Turning to Dennett, we have a completely different perspective.  Dennett is one of my heroes, but many attack him for his ideas.  Here is why:

In his characteristically provocative fashion, Dennett, author of Darwin’s Dangerous Idea and director of the Center for Cognitive Studies at Tufts University, calls for a scientific, rational examination of religion that will lead us to understand what purpose religion serves in our culture. Much like E.O. Wilson (In Search of Nature), Robert Wright (The Moral Animal), and Richard Dawkins (The Selfish Gene), Dennett explores religion as a cultural phenomenon governed by the processes of evolution and natural selection. Religion survives because it has some kind of beneficial role in human life, yet Dennett argues that it has also played a maleficent role. He elegantly pleads for religions to engage in empirical self-examination to protect future generations from the ignorance so often fostered by religion hiding behind doctrinal smoke screens. Because Dennett offers a tentative proposal for exploring religion as a natural phenomenon, his book is sometimes plagued by generalizations that leave us wanting more (“Only when we can frame a comprehensive view of the many aspects of religion can we formulate defensible policies for how to respond to religions in the future”).

The point is that Dennett sees religion and hence modern western morality, the morality that underpins mining, as a construct of the western intellect, and a Darwinian push to maximize conditions conducive of survival and making many off-spring.  If I can mine, and get the goods that make my survival to breed more likely, why then I will mine, even if lesser tribes and their strange religions are displaced.  The only morality of mining, is survival, for mining is access to the things necessary to life, procreation, and the nurturing of off-spring.  With eight grandkids by blood, and even by marriage, I see his point.

Verdi in Otello by way of Iago’s credo reminds us however, that there are some people who are simple evil.  We know not and care not if their evil is by birth, upbringing, nature or nurture, God or the Devil.  The fact is we all know there are some who are just evil.  Sometimes they become miners.  We cannot allow them to prevail.  They will kill Desdemona and may other innocents besides.  They will rape and pillage.  They ignore nature and people in a simple quest to make real their evil natures.  I believe the only defence is good laws promulgated and enforced by moral people.  Maybe NGOs have a role in this defence against the Iagos of Mining.

  To bring all this week’s musings on mining and morality to a rational conclusion, I turn to Rossini and his perennial barber of Seville (Siviglia in Italian.)   Here is pragmatism; the rule of what can be; the achievement of the practical; the power of love; the urge to get a decent partner to breed with; all to music and merriment.   No religion; just love, energy, and music.  Maybe that is why so much glorious music was written for the mass, the requiem, the credo, and the hymn.  Let us celebrate Sunday and avoid the messes on Monday mining.

   This morning’s e-mail was full.  Chock-a-bloc with ads, information, and promotions.  I guess much like anybody else who has a computer linked to e-mail.   I am pretty ruthless.  First order of business if to scan and delete those from unfamiliar sources.  Then to those from known source that are probably just fun.  Then to those from known sources that involve work.  Scanning those from unknown sources, I came across this one: 

I have been reading your blog and find it to be very informative and interesting.   I am currently working on a conference called Water Management in Mining, and considering your blog is about bettering mining and its services, I think you should take a look at the website.   It talks about securing sounds water management strategies in the mining industry. Considering water is such a precious resource and water in the mining industry is crucial, it is important for the mining industry to manage water in a responsible way. This is main gist of the conference.   If you see fit to blog about it – that would really make my day!  Thanks, Jeanette Bouche .  

    I am not likely to go to Perth in December for another conference.  I am told it is too hot then there.  But we can use this conference announcement to think a little on water in mining.  While in Fort McMurray there erupted the great debate: are the oil sands mines affecting the quality of the water in the Athabasca River.  Competing groups of scientists come to different conclusions.  A young engineer with whom I discussed this asked “How is it possible that the same data lead to different conclusions? Is one or the other group lying?” 

    I reminded her of the debate raging on our project, where nice PhDs are debating last year’s conclusions that are probably wrong:  we believe they forgot to take rainfall into account.   But their focus is on trying to prove they were right, not on advancing absolute scientific-engineering truth.  Thus always is human nature.  And that is the eternal problem with conferences:  seldom is pure fact explored–too frequently it is an opportunity to beat the communal drum, circle the wagons, and invent new dogma.   On which topic, I long ago decided never to attend a conference or read a magazine that promises to explore issues of sustainability.  You know they are propaganda-drum focussed.  Sadly the Perth conference is tainted; they promise to discuss “Initiatives for sustainable water resource management for optimal environmental, social and economic outcomes.”   I knew not one could pack so many clichés into one sentence. 

   Not that I deprecate the fact that mining is a water user and impactor.  And probably more so in Australia.  Mines are appoint czars of water; filter pressed tailings are becoming popular; water treatment plants are being planned; regulators are ratcheting down the standards; BC First Nations are vowing to die in defence of sacred waters; and even MSHA is asking how to make tailings dams safe so they do not spew stuff into river on failure.    There is action aplenty out there.  And probably about time.  

A few good consultants would help solve things.  So I leave you to enjoy the weekend deliberating whether to brave Perth in the heat or implement the advice of your consultant.

I have never copied and posted a large amount of test on this blog before.  Yet below I do.  I do this because the issue is fascinating and the information a trifle tedious to find. 

The topic is a call from MSHA for comments on ways to make mine tailings dams safer. 

I urge you to comment if you can.  My first comment is that you need but two things to make safe tailings dams:

1. A Professional Engineer of Record (PE) who personally inspects the dam at least twice a year and who has trusted subordinates record and report on conditions every month.
2. A Peer Review Board that meets at least twice a year to review conditions.  The peer reviewers must be totally independent of the professional engineer and his firm and must report to the highest possible level of mine management.  There should be at least three peer reviewers, all from different organizations and of varying, but relevant disciplines. 

My second comment is that no tailings facility is safe unless it is like those Cahokia Mounds.  These are 1,000-year old soil mounds just east of St. Louis, Missouri. 

The only modern tailings disposal facility I know of that meets my criterion for stability and safety is the Greens Creek, Alaska tailings disposal facility. 

The fact is that only way to achieve safe tailings disposal is to dry, filter press, or ammend the tailings to become a solid as Suncor is doing in Alberta.  As long as we insist in discharging liquid tailings, we risk failure.  This, I believe, is true regardless of the robustness of the embankment dam that may be constructed to retain the liquid tailings.  For earth dams or embankments fail.  The record of such failures is long.  If the retained slimes are fluid, they will, and have, flowed out and caused incredible environmental impact and death.   

Maybe the way we did it on the UMTRA Project is another example, another way to ensure safe tailings dams.   At least, UMTRA is an example of the best way to close a tailings impoundment.  It will take a genius to incorporate its principles into the design and operation of a new tailings facility.

I strongly recommend against more volumes of guidelines.  There are enough of those already and they add nothing.  They are mostly the product of consultants who have never managed a tailings facility, and they are generally no more than out-of-date checklists.  Avoid them completely, whatever their proponents may claim.   I personally cringe when I read them or hear them cited as examples of good tailings practice.

Maybe at the Conference in Vail in October on Tailings & Mine Waste we should spend a whole session talking about this.  We have a paper in the conference on this very topic which pretty much says what I say above.  In our paper we reject all the fallacious theories of why slimes dams fail.  It all boils down to the failure to have responsible PEs, very frequent intelligent inspections, and independent peer reviewers.  Just think how many taxpayer dolloar could be saved, if our paper were read and our recommendations implemented. 

The paper will appear in the conference proceedings, but if you want a copy now, e-mail me at jcaldwell@infomine.com. 

Now if you click the text saying continue reading, you will be able to read the totality of MSHA’s statement.  And it is worth reading.

This message of support appears on the InfoMine Careers page.   We replicate it here to reinforce our empathy.

The story is well known:  thirty-three Chilean miners trapped below ground; a long wait as those on surface bore down to them; a small passage through which they are receiving food; and an heroic demand on them to work and remain calm. 

This is the situation that arouses our instincts to sympathy: miners; like people we know; trapped in a situation that sometimes occurs in nightmares; hope yet despair; anger yet relief.  The instinct is to do something; but what?  Writing about it seems so small an act.  Yet we do, because it is all we can do. 

It is trite to recount the litany of miners in similar and worse situations.  How can one tally the mining disasters?   Dierks Bentley sings of conditions in a mine, and one listens in chilled silence as the home-bound traffic whizzes past. 

This situation floods me with memories of analogous times when as a kid on the East Geduld mine, the house would fall silent as my father, a miner, would come home late ,or not at all, because of accidents and deaths, because of the need to dig someone out, staunch an underground flood, or suppress a fire in the timbers.   A tension would envelop the mine and the houses in which we lived.  Neighbors would desist from chatting, kids would refrained from gamboling, and we would all go somber until the worst had past. 

No matter the number of accidents, life would have to go on.  For there was no alternative.  Bread had to be gotten, bills paid, school uniforms purchased.  But why, today does this have to occur with such regularity?  Technology has advanced. Management systems have improved.  We know and demand more.  It is unlikely mining will ever be as safe as flying; but it can and must be made safer than current averages. 

We can blame complacent government, rapacious mine owners, and prancing politicians.  We cannot blame the miners, even though we are now taught that safety is a personal responsibility and the company has but to provide the means for us to work safely.  All too often a social and/or political system turns a blind eye to conditions in which even the most committed worker cannot work safely.   Indeed some mines should just be shut down and abandoned.  Some mines will never be able to be operated safely.  But there will always remain a great number where management action or inaction, regulatory pressure or complicity will make for safety or negate it. 

I propose that in the time it takes to rescue the Chilean miners, every mine should undertake an honest assessment of their practice, shut down, or change.  Afterall there is sadly time to do that.

The provincial government has signed two revenue-sharing agreements with two first nation communities in the last two days for specific mining projects within the areas the groups claim as traditional territory.   On Wednesday in Victoria, the province unveiled an agreement to share mineral-tax revenues generated by Terrane Metals Corp.’s Mt. Milligan copper and gold mine being developed northwest of Prince George with the McLeod Lake Indian Band.   That follows from a similar deal signed Tuesday regarding the sharing of mineral-tax revenue from New Gold Inc.’s New Afton gold mine being developed just outside of Kamloops with the Stk’emlupsemc community of the Secwepemc Nation.    Randy Hawse, the government’s Minister of State for mining, characterized the arrangements as economic and community development agreements to support community development in keeping with the province’s New Relationship with first nations and meets the goals of its Transformative Change Accord.

The Association for Mineral Exploration British Columbia (AMEBC) applauds these agreements in these words:

“The best indicator of success for mineral explorers is the construction and development of new mines,” said AME BC President and CEO Gavin C. Dirom. “While short on detail, these agreements increase certainty that First Nations will directly benefit from the tax revenues that government receives from these mines. Resource revenue sharing from forestry tax revenues has existed since 2003, and we are pleased that the government has developed the means to distribute future taxes from the New Afton and Mt. Milligan projects to local First Nations.”

The McLeod Lake Indian Band, or the Tse’Khene Nation (People of the Rock) have a website at this link.  When I checked there was no comment on this event.   Same for the website of the Secwepemc Bands of the Shuswap Nation.  Maybe they have not gotten around to updating yet, leaving it to the Vancouver and Toronto press to broadcast the news.  Thus it is difficult to fully probe the meaning or import of these agreements.

Although sometime after, I found these statements reported:

In a news release, Randy Hawes, BC’s minister of state for mining, said, the agreement “sends a signal to the mining industry that B.C. is a stable and progressive place to invest. B.C. wants to work with other First Nations to develop mining projects that meet some of the highest environmental standards in the world for the benefit of all British Columbians.”

Chief Shane Gottsfriedson of the Tk’emlups First Nation said, “With this agreement we are building and strengthening our government-to-government relationships on venture that benefit us all.”

Chief Rick Deneault of the Skeetchestn First Nation said the New Afton agreement “will bring other economic opportunities and employment for our communities and stability for future generations.”

In a statement, the Association for Mineral Exploration British Columbia Vice President Laureen Whyte said, “This is a game changer for our sector and the First Nations in whose traditional territories we operate. I hope that the First Nations in BC now will look at mineral exploration as an opportunity to help enable them to build stronger, healthier communities, and strengthen their cultural foundations.”

   The legal theory behind the rights of the First Nations to receive tax revenues is complex.  The simplest explanation I have heard goes thus: The First Nations entered into valid treaties with the British Crown.  Thus two sovereign nations were making a valid treaty.  Those treaties, or their derivatives, are still in effect.  Thus the traditional lands of the First Nations on which mines may be developed, are still subject to treaty provisions.  In this case taxation.  Thus the BC government must share the tax revenue from the mines. 

To me this is eminently reasonable and fair.  More: it is the law, a proper enforcement of old treaties.  I am sure the details would and have delighted lawyers for a long time, but as a potential investor in BC mining, it is good to know new mines are coming on stream and with these first two agreements in place, maybe many more will come on stream too, and we will see more and more mining in BC.   That will be good for all, First Nations, Vancouver yuppies, mining consultants, investors, and the many others who benefit from mining done well.

And that is where we hope the Nations entering into these agreements will now focus their attention: make sure the mining is done with proper respect for the land.  The technologies exist; you just need a bit of pressure on the miners to implement them.   No more Giant Mine, no more Faro, and no more Britannia Beach.  For if htere is then the First Nations may have to cough up their share of excessive taxpayer money to clean up the mess left behind.

   On a closing personal note: I will know all is lost if we hear the Nations talk of sustainable mining and/or corporate social responsibility.  Let us hope we get only the truth: this is our land; we are deriving tax revenue therefrom; and we are making sure the mining is done well, for the benefit of all now and in the long-term.

PS>  Not everybody is happy.  Here is a copy of a rumination that shows the envy that arises when some get rich and others stay poor:
British Columbia’s first agreements to share mining revenue with three First Nations are being hailed as “game changers” and “the new standard for participation.”

These are indeed important agreements to be celebrated, and the leaders of the Stk’emlupsemc and Tk’emlups First Nations and the McLeod Lake Indian Band who negotiated the Economic Development Agreements should be commended for their efforts and the benefits they are bringing to their communities. First Nations communities and their members deserve to benefit from an industry that generates more than $300 million a year in tax revenues and royalties in British Columbia.

However, the agreements touted by the Government as “historic”, should not necessarily represent the new standard.

In fact, there is a serious flaw in the system.

Bands Rewarded for Supporting Projects

Bands who don’t support a project, or who don’t have the resources required to negotiate an agreement, run the risk of being denied a share of the economic benefits of projects operating in their territories, while Bands who support projects are rewarded with lucrative agreements.

Last week’s announcements provide a case in point.

The McLeod Lake Indian Band will be getting a share of provincial revenues generated by Terrane Metals’ Mt. Milligan mine project, which lies just inside the western boundary of the Band’s recognized consultation territory. Although they have raised concerns, McLeod Lake has generally supported the project. Not surprising, as many of the Band’s members hard hit by slowdowns in the lumber industry stand to benefit through employment and contracting opportunities as the mine is built.

However, the Nak’azdli Nation is not party to a revenue sharing agreement, even though they too will be impacted significantly by the project. Why is this? Perhaps because the Nak’azdli leadership is not supportive of the Mt. Milligan project, citing concerns over negative environmental, social, health and cultural impacts. Further, although the company estimates that the project will employ 600 people during construction, and create 300 permanent positions during operations, a
2009 socio-economic impacts and opportunities review showed that in reality fewer than 10 Nak’azdli members will have the experience and education required to even apply for the majority of project’s jobs.

Clearly there is the potential for the Province to employ a double-standard whereby First Nations who support projects are invited to negotiate revenue-sharing agreements, while those who oppose or voice concerns of a project’s impacts are left out of the talks.

Worse still, there is a danger that revenue sharing agreements could become the Province’s sole negotiating carrot, rather than focusing on constructive and proactive engagement. This sort of negotiating magic bullet could seem very appealing to members of the government’s overburdened and under-resourced public sector.
And in an absolute worst-case scenario, these agreements can be used to drive a wedge in public opinion, fanning the flames that First Nations are out to extort money by delaying or opposing projects.
This appeared to be the case last month, when BC’s Minister of Energy and Mines suggested he would publicly disclose the value of a revenue agreement that would have been available to the Tsilhqot’in National Government had they supported the Prosperity Mine.

Sharing Revenue Fairly Can Help Build Positive Relationships

To be absolutely clear, the revenue sharing agreements announced in August are important and the First Nations deserve the recognition and revenue these agreements will bring. But as I’ve said before, money typically is not the primary objective for First Nations concerned about negative impacts of development in the territories that have sustained them for generations. Factors such as cultural sustainability, social fabric, health, access to traditional foods and medicines, safety and education will almost always be of greater concern than money.

Unfortunately, most of Canada’s First Nations communities are in desperate need of funding and economic opportunities, and turning down a revenue sharing agreement may appear too great a risk – economically, politically or socially – for many community leaders.

There’s something unfair about this.

If the Province is serious about sharing the economic benefits of mining and other resource development with First Nations, then it should do so in a way that is fair to all First Nations. Here are some high level approaches that should be part of the process:

1) The province should seek to negotiate revenue sharing
agreements with all impacted First Nations, not just those who express support for a project;

2) The revenue sharing formula should be based on the level of
impacts on the First Nation members, with the greatest possible level of participation of the First Nations members;

3) Social and cultural impacts should be considered along with
environmental, health and economic impacts, and should be determined
- as much as possible – by the First Nations themselves.

Sharing tax revenue has no negative impact on companies, and in fact can go a long way towards improving relations and negotiations between the Provincial and First Nations governments, creating greater harmony and building strong and sustainable communities.

Today my son is in the U.S.A. navy and travels for work.  He has seen India in crisis, launched missiles from the Gulf, sought deserters in Thailand, and done surveillance off Somalia.  His job is travel.  He talks longingly of the silence of the open sea on a dark night as they sail in hostile waters.  He comes from ancestors who were smugglers travelling from France to Cornwall with valuable but illegal goods.  He comes from people who fled Dresden as student protestors.  He comes from men who left Ireland to defeat the British in South Africa and who hoped to defeat the Empire and bring freedom to Ireland.   Travel in his ancestors’ time was a way to better their state, get freedom, and to maybe provide for a family.  Today he and his family travel to strengthen family ties, to promote the interests of the U.S.A., and to make life better for the oppressed. 

It is said that travel broadens the mind.  In this posting, I explore this idea and conclude it is a myth.  This posting is prompted by a recent criticism that I am narrow-minded and should travel more.

    “Do you enjoy travelling?” I was asked.  The truth is that I hate security lines, immigration grilling, and customs control as I try to smuggle booze, cigarettes, and assorted nick-nacks.  I enjoy settling down in an airplane seat, putting on the Boise noise-cancelling ear-phone, and turning on the iPod.  I love the thrill of a new city, strange hotel rooms, and the offices of a foreign client, a mining client.  I love flying into a new mine and seeing the vast vista of open pit and tailings impoundment.  I love the intimacy of new people, their views, perspectives, and concerns.  I love solving a new mining problem and setting things astray with an insightful comment or suggestion.  Most of all, I love returning home from a trip and smelling the forest and trees of a wet Vancouver spring or fall.   Of going into my own bedroom and the comfort of a soft bed and old sheets and towels.   I love cogitating on a long trip and replaying the scenes and impressions of foreign places, customs, and problems.

I have traveled extensively to mines around the world.  Having being born, brought up, and worked in South Africa until I was thirty-two, I have seen many mines from the gold to the platinum to the diamond in South Africa.  I worked on mines in Botswana.  True, I never went to Zambia or Zimbabwe.  But I did complete a Master’s thesis on a mine in Swaziland.   I had many trips to Spain to consult on closure of their uranium mines, and along the way visited the uranium mines of the former East Germany.  I have visited Australia, but seen none of their mines.  I have consulted and visited mines in Guatemala, Chile, and Peru.  No visits to Costa Rico, although I would like to.  Obviously I have visited many mining states in the United States from Texas to Alaska, from Oregon to Pennsylvania.  In Canada, I have been on mines from BC to Quebec, from Saskatchewan, through northern Alberta to the far parts on the Northwest Territories.

By any definition of travel, I should be most broad-minded.  I confess however that I am not.  My prejudices are the same as when I was a student.  I still love my country, but distrust the politicians.  I still love my church, but distrust the priests.  I still believe all people deserve an equal opportunity and that it is crazy to imprison people because they think differently from you.   I still judge people on first impressions, like some, and hate some, trust some, and am wary of some.  I still know Darwin was right and D. H . Lawrence was a great writer.  I still love opera, blue grass, and folk.  In most ways, travel has changed me little. 

I have seen different societies and ways of life. I have seen topography from the stunning to the mundane.  I have met and worked with every color, race, and orientation.   I have judged them all on the basis of intelligence, ability, and humanity.   I have liked and hated on the basis of first impressions, not on the basis of origins and the learnings of my travels. 

     Travel has convinced me of my first impressions that people are the same everywhere, at least in a statistical sense.  There are geniuses and idiots everywhere.  There are balanced folk and fools everywhere.  There are dictators and tyrants in every politician and some political systems are much, much worse than others, from apartheid South Africa to present day Cuba.  

In spite of vast miles traversed, I remain convinced most people seek the benefit of their family, procreation, and nurturing of off-spring.  Those who cannot or choose not to for reasons of orientation are still decent and honorable—they simply will not breed and thus it has always been.   I pity them, but they do not need my pity, only my interaction with them as human beings.

     You could say that all my travels has been to mines and that is a narrow and distorted perspective; hence I am still narrow-minded.   That accusation I reject.   For en route I have been through many countries and their various societies and life styles.  I have seen the intimate workings of companies and mining operations.  I have met people of all walks and persuasions of life.  They are all different but all the same: flawed, self-interested, self-motivated, and at basics fun to be with, trusting if you deserve and inspire trust, and all seeking  family, off-spring, or ego-support.  They are all trying to cope and prosper.

I have seen enough to know I should reduce my personal carbon foot-print.  I have seen enough to know global warming is real—but have learnt enough to know that the earth’s climate has changed in the past and will change in the future and humans will wax or wane as the environment stresses them. 

I have seen enough to know humans will fight and kill, will exterminate and eliminate others.  I have no illusions about silly ideas of human goodness.  Having seen East Germany soon after the fall of the wall, how could I conclude otherwise?  Having grown up in a world of privilege and position, how could I conclude otherwise?

Most of my travels have been paid for by mining companies.  Most of my foreign hosts have been mining employees.  Most of my time has been spent going to and returning from mines.  Along the way I have seen cities, countries and communities impacted by mining.  I have seen examples to be proud of, and examples to deplore and criticize.   I have learnt that society cannot do without mining.  But I have seen enough to know that mining done badly is bad for society.  I have tried to contribute my bit to making mining better, for I have benefitted from mining and I have seen enough to know that others too can benefit from mining done well. 

Thus I must reject the critic who says I have no perspective because I have not travelled enough.  To the extent I have not travelled enough, I have had plenty of opportunity on planes to read about the things that make what I have not seen and that happen where I go not. 

As you travel, you take your prejudices with you; for you interpret what you see in the light of past impressions and perspectives, and you carry away only reinforcement of your existing ideas.  Seldom does a trip change you as a person, make you more informed, more broad-minded, a better person in short.  If you liked Castro before you went to Cuba, all the interaction in the world with his political prisoners will not change your prejudices.  If you thought X an ugly place, all the sunsets in the world, however spectacular, will not change your mind.  If you fear South African violence, no visit to the game reserve will alter this conclusion.

   People travel for other reasons, I acknowledge.  There is the fellow who travels to consult in distant lands with amazing frequency.  His sons are convinced he has other families in the places he travels to with such frequency and urgency.  I do not believe this; I suspect it is simply escapism that propels him to inordinate travel.  Away from the office, the backyard, the nagging, and the demands, he is at peace. 

   Then there is the lady whom I find most sensuous and exciting.  I have but chatted with her in various dull gatherings.  But together we have formulated a travel plan, the end product of which would be a book called Geriatric Travels and Sins.  The idea is that we will go to five cities and do everything we were too poor or to timid to do as youths.  A way to cash in on travel as books; an all too frequent excuse to leave home.

All of which makes me wonder if travel is not just another way to spread your genes, to sow your wild oats, young or old, vigorous or senile.  Are we not simply the off-spring of people who have moved on, gone far from their birth place, and who have peopled the whole world?  Is it possible that travel is in our blood because it was in those who in the past lived to procreate?  Is travel merely a search for a better place to breed and raise a family?  Is the so-called romance of travel merely Cupid in disguise?  Zeus had no reason to travel from Olympus other than this; and Hera had no reason to travel other than to catch him in the act.

Thus my advice to any young person: travel, travel as a miner, and broaden your mind, or at least reinforce your better convictions.  You will be a better person for it, or at least find opportunities for fun and diversion.  Go Mining Travel.

In yesterday’s blog posting (see below) I write of the fact that the glory that was Athens was actually a product of 20,000 slaves working the silver mines. In the case of Cuba, it is in effect, a captive population working the nickel mines.  Let us face the horrible fact that unless you are prepared to flee Cuba on a boat, you are as good as a prisoner.  And if you want to eat, you will have to work for the state—and many people do work, for pitiful wages, in the nickel mines so proudly run by Canadians.  

Keep in mind that the nickel mines are the mainstay of the Cuban economy, however much you would like to believe it is the product of happy people working for one another in a communist ideal.  Thus we must conclude that Cuba is but a modern manifestation of the glory of Athens.  And those who write about and celebrate the glory of this pathetic place are as much misguided as those who write the panegerics to Greece and Rome. 

This link in a learned fashions discusses the mines of ancient Greece.   Roger Backnell writes:

Modern discussions of the ancient world tend to emphasize the many advances the Greeks contributed to civilization. These were indeed impressive, but it must not be forgotten that these advances rested on wealth and on economic development. All wealth comes at a cost to people and environment; it is not free. The Greeks knew this, at least to some degree. But the upper-class gentlemen who wrote the classics of Greek literature considered the details of moneymaking beneath them and outside of their concept of history.

Let me quote this link:

Athens was the only Greek polis (city-state) with the ability to dig its own wealth straight from the ground. Laurion was an area near the east coast of Attica rich in silver-bearing ores which had been exploited since the Bronze Age. In 482 BC a new vein was discovered which led to a massive increase in activity. Themistocles persuaded the Athenians to spend this new revenue on building a fleet of triremes which were used to defeat the Persians at Salamis in 480 BC.    There were about 350 mines producing 1000 talents a year, worked by 10-20,000 slaves. Mining rights were owned by polis, but leased to individuals by 10 annually elected poletai.

 Another insight into the reality ( nastiness) of the times, more or less, comes from the book Sailing the Wine Dark Sea by Thomas Cahill.  In this he writes about mining in ancient Greece:

Worse than torture or death was to find yourself a slave in the privately administered silver mines of Laurion southeast of Athens, source of much of Athens’ prosperity, where miners were routinely starved, savagely beaten, and, seldom seeing daylight, worked to death.

    The first link quoted above says:

All the miners were slaves. Numbers were large: Thucydides mentions 20,000 deserting to Decelea (encouraged by the Spartans to put economic pressure on Athens).  Factories were designed to minimise risks of slaves getting hold of silver. “Trusty” slaves were given incentives (own houses). Slaves would be owned by wealthy Athenians (like Nicias) and hired out to the lessees of the mines. They were usually prisoners-of-war, not criminals. Their life expectancy was short and they lived and worked in conditions of indescribable squalor.

This link provides the most intelligent analysis I found.  Of environmental impacts the writer notes:

Mining and refining had environmental consequences. The Athenians were perfectly well aware of them. In Xenophon’s memoir of Socrates, the philosopher says to Glaukon, “I know that you have not gone to the silver mines so as to be able to say why the amount from them now is less than formerly.” Glaukon admits that this is true. “The place,” says Socrates, “is said to be ‘heavy.’” “Heavy” in this context (the Greek word is baru) means unpleasant, distasteful, distressing. Gentlemen of means would avoid such a place, leaving it to managers and slaves. The environmental costs were numerous. The dumping alone was considerable: mine tailings, the dross removed from the ore, and the litharge (lead oxide) cast off in smelting. In addition, we must reckon with deforestation, noxious fumes from the smelting, and smoke from the combustion. In modern times, this region has not seen much farming, and there is little evidence that things were any better in antiquity. This wasn’t great farmland anyway, but the results of silver production must have finished it off

    This from our trusty friend Wikipedia: 

Deposits of metal ore are common in Greece. Of these, the best known are the silver mines of Laurium. These mines contributed to the development of Athens in the 5th century BC, when the Athenians learned to prospect, treat, and refine the ore. Fortuitously, the composition of the earth below the mines rendered drainage unnecessary, an important provision given that ancient mine drainage techniques did not allow for excavation below the level of subsoil waters. The passageways and steps of Greek mines were dug out with the same concern for proportion and harmony found in their temples. The work was extremely difficult, due to the tunnels’ depth—they were sometimes more than Template:Convert100. The miner, armed with his pick and iron hammer and hunched over in two, labored to extract lead ore. The Laurium mines were worked by a large slave population, originating for the most part from Black Sea regions such as Thrace and Paphlagonia. With these metals, Weapons, armor tools and a variety of other goods were created.

Thus we can start the week, cogitating on the biases of histroy and a classical eduction.  Or take a cruise and imbibe the bullshit fed to you as a tourist to the crumbling buildings.   Rather go out of town and see the mines where it all was made possible.

There is the obligatory ballet, as this work was prepared for the Paris stage and they demanded a ballet in the third act–probably because by that time the audience was sufficiently inebriated as to need relief from serious stuff and more singing. 

As you would expect, there is conflict between the ideals of Isis & Osiris versus Jehova.  Much darkening of the sky, plague, and opening and closing seas done to impressive stage effect.  The production I watched places a very Catholic organ at stage center in the first act.  You are confused about whose religion is being sung about: Isis, Jehova, or Jesus.   Is the opera a celebration of paganism, Judaism, or Catholocism?   Moses makes a pretty fine case that his very angry god is top dog and can perform all sorts of nasty things to the Isis followers, including their final drowning in the fake waves of the Red Sea. 

The high priest of the Egyptians very much reminded me of the brimstone and hell fellow who preached to us in a tiny Anglican Church in Springs, South Africa.  His certainty that his gods were better than other people’s gods was impressive and indeed scary.  He maintained this conviction to include exclusion of all Blacks from his Church.  This rather nasty attitude was what first set me questioning the convictions of the followers of Henry VIII.   My mother veritably worship this nasty priest and threatened to have me excommunicated when I sent some money to Desmond Tutu, newly elected bishop in Cape Town. 

Another religious act this weekend was to listen to Philippe Jaroussky on his new CD Stabat Mater.   This CD is a collection of motets to the Virgin Mary.  Stabat Mater refers to Mary standing at the cross, grieving for her son, now crucified.   All Catholic in origin; but who can resist these words, sung in Latin:

Ave Regina coelurum (Hail, Queen of the heavens)
Ave domina angelorum (Hail, mistress of the angels)
Salve radix, salve porta (Salvation/greetings origins and gateway)
Ex qua mundo lux est orta (through which light is risen on the world)
Gaude Virgo gloriosa (rejoice glorious virgin)
Super omnes speciosa (beautiful above all others)
Vale o valde decora (hail most noble)
Et pro nobis Christum exora (and pray to Christ for us.)

Or the words of the Stabat Mater itself:

Stabat Mater dolorosa/ Justa crucem lacrimosa/  Dum pendebat filius.

(The grieveing mother weeping besides the cross where her son was hanging. )

Daniel J Levitin in The World in Six Songs devotes a full chapter to music in religion.  I reread this chapter which ends with a discussion of the question: If God is so great that he created the entire universe, why would he care whether we praise him or not—why would such a powerful being be so phychologically needy that he wants us to sing to him?

Levitin’s answer “He is not vain, He doesn’t need us to tell Him He is great.  But because He designed us, He knows what we need.  He dictated that we should sing songs of religion and belief because He knows they help us to remember; they motivate us; and they bring us closer to Him.  He knows that they are what we need. ”

The first discussion went thus:  His wife left him, taking the two kids with her.  He is a welder and is pretty devastated by this marriage breakup.  I told him to pull himself together, leave Dodge City, head north to the oil sands, and get a job here.  With his skills, he will get a job fast, make some money, regain his self-respect, and be a man again.  

This is as good an example of the events that propel folk to this town and its opportunities.   

    The second conversation went thus:  With my PhD and the load they put on me to test and come up with practical answers, I really need technical help.  Maybe an educated technician who can do the repetitive manual labor involved in running multiple tests.  The person should be smart enough to learn (train) fast, able to do accurate work, and smart enough to respond independently to varying conditions—that seems to occur when you are doing science for engineers. 

They have been looking for such a person for a while, and no suitable candidate is found.

   The third discussion:  He has a degree from a South American university in agricultural engineering.  Do you think you could find him a job in the oil sands?  Aren’t they doing a lot of reclamation there which could employ a person who knows how to make things grow, even though the climate is different from his home country?

We will try to help.  But if you can, let me know.

   A fourth conversation went thus:  My wife now has a company truck.    Her department which deals with health and safety has lost three people recently and so she has to be ready to come up to site at a moment’s notice.  You know how that occurs on a mine. 

Which brings me to comments on an article on the oil sands in the September issue of the magazine Discover.  They report:

Oil sands development has begun to pick up, with a projected $13 billion in new investments in 2010, a $2 billion increase from 2009.  A recent industry report estimates that oil sands production, which currently stands at around 1.5 million barrels a day, could jump 46 percent by 2015.  The United States now import 22 percent of its oil from our northern neighbor, and China has also shown interest in Canada’s sands, taking a $1.t billion, 60 percent stake in two new projects in northern Alberta.  In short, the tar sands—like deep oil—will probably remain an important part of the energy picture for the foreseeable future.

Another way of looking at the future of jobs in the oil sands is to read the Calgary Herald which in a newly posted article asks:

As the oilsands continues to be whipsawed by environmental groups generally unencumbered by the facts, one question is consistently being asked around town: Who is the face of the oilsands?

   In essence, the article is suggesting this should be a new job with a new person taking on the task of being the spokesperson for the industry.  That will be a hard job, but surely well-paid.   Not sure how you get the job though. 

The point is, however, that there are still great opportunities in Fort McMurray and the oil sands, from protester to president, from technician to engineer.  I suggest consulting the websites that list such jobs, and seeking out old friends to help.  I tried CareerMine and found a list of 212 jobs.