Cases.

Recently, several large-scale mining projects have been experimenting

alterations in their environmental assessment processes and few of them
were stopped by judicial authorities.
The origin of these conflicts lays on the difficulties of implementing the new
environmental regulations. In addition to that, most of emblematic mining
projects carry complex relationships with their stakeholders.
Among the most significant cases of mining projects that have faced this
kind of problems, we can highlight:
1. Minera Los Pelambres.
Los Pelambres, owned by Antofagasta Minerals Mining Company, is located
on the fourth region of Coquimbo, about 200 kilometers from Santiago,
Chiles capital.
In 2008, leaders of the community of the town of Caimanes (were the tailing
dam is located), filed a suit against Los Pelambres, claiming that the tailing
dam interrupted the natural flow of the Pupo creek and also affected the
underwater reserves of the Pupo Valley.
The Supreme Court ruled in October 2014 that the dam wall should be
demolished. If Minera Los Pelambres would like to maintain the dam, the
company would have to perform the necessary works to allow the river to
return to its normal course.
On Monday 9, March 2015, the Tribunal in the town of Los Vilos ordered the
demolition of the Mauro tailings (toxic waste) dam at the Minera Los
Pelambres copper mine in Chile. This process is still on going.
Additionally, at the beginning of 2015, organized communities from de
Choapa Valley (where the mining project is located), initiated a series of
protests and demonstrations against Los Pelambres. The reason for the
protests was the alleged environmental violations and excessive use of the
water of the valley by the company.
The conflict ended with the signing of an agreement between Minera Los
Pelambres and community representatives.
2. Pascua Lama
Pascua Lama is a Bi-National mining Project located in the center north of
Chile, specifically in the upper Huasco Valley. The projects consist of the gold
and copper mine exploitation.
This has been one of the most controversial mining projects in Chile's
history, as originally envisaged the relocation of major glaciers, which
allegedly constituted the main source of water supply in the Valley. In

{C-0548967/MSD/v.1}

addition, the project is located in an area used by diaguitas ancestral

indigenous communities to practice transhumance.
The bi-national project Pascua Lama, property of Barrick Gold, is located in
the Huasco Valley, 600 kilometers north of Santiago. The project considers
the exploitation of a mine field with important gold and copper reserves.
This has been one of the most controversial mining projects in the history in
Chile, for in its original conception it included the relocation of important
glaciers, which allegedly constituted the primal source of the Valleys water
supply. More so, the project site is located in an area traditionally used by
ancient Diaguita communities for the exercise of transhumance.
The approval of the project was subject of criticism by the communities and
a major part of the public opinion.
Eventually, the authorities environmental approval determined that the
company was not allowed to remove glacier parts (or ice bodies), being
mandated to build a complex water management system.
Diverse communities and indigenous communities associations filed
requests before the environmental authorities and the ordinary courts of
justice, many of which are still pending.
By the end of 2012, many of the pre-striping works provoked dust
generation, contaminating the surrounding environment. Besides, due to a
climatic effect, their water management system was proved insufficient, as
vegetation near to the project was polluted with contacted water.
In May, 2013, the Superintendence of Environment fined Pascua Lama with
U$16 million for a series of breaches of the Environmental Authorization
Resolution (RCA for its Spanish acronym) regarding the water
management system of Pascua Lama. Even more, it was determined the
stoppage of all its activities.
More recently, in March 2015, the Environmental Court absolved CMN of the
suit for environmental damage filed against it, for alleged prejudice to the
glaciers, determining that there is multiple and consistent probationary
evidence, valued according to the rules of reasoned judgment () which
allows to considered as proved that the historic tendency of mass loss of the
glaciers within the area of influence of the Project has not been altered.
3. El Morro mining project, owned by Goldcorp.
Several communities and indigenous organizations, filed protective actions
against the RCA N 232/2013 that approved El Morro project.
On October 7, 2014, the Chilean Supreme Court issued a final ruling that
invalidated RCA N 232/2013.

{C-0548967/MSD/v.1}

The Supreme Court determined that during the Indigenous Consultation

Process severe illegalities and irregularities were evidently made.
Specifically, the authority responsible for carrying out the Indigenous
Consultation Process (ILO Convention N 169), the National Corporation of
Indigenous Development (CONADI for its Spanish acronym) excluded, with
insufficient reasons, several communities from the consultation process.
4. Teck Carmen de Andacollo.
The Superintendence of Environment has brought charges against
Compaa Minera Teck Carmen de Andacollo (CMTCA), a coal mining
Project operating in the Coquimbo Region, Chile, with occasion of several
infractions to two of the RCA that were initially issued for its setup,
notwithstanding the violation of other environmental law dispositions.
The charges, which followed a series of allegations filed by neighbors of the
communities located near the mining site, were also brought after the
presentation of an environmental inspection report (referred mainly to the
analysis of favorable or unfavorable wind criteria pertaining to the projects
blasting), prepared by the Sanction and Compliance Division of the
Superintendence, and inspection visits of regional authorities to the project
site. As expressed by a resolution issued by the Superintendence (Res. Ex.
No. 1/Rol D-24-2015), and after having considered the aforementioned
reports and neighbor compliances, the CMTCAs actions that are considered
as infractions are the following:
a)
Blasting conducted with unfavorable wind conditions to the
community located nearby to the mining site (between January 2013 and
December 2014)
b)
Partial aperture of an area of the dome for mineral collection
purposes.
c)
No waterproofing of some of the areas containing tubes for the
transportation of leach heaps irrigation solution
d)
Absence of construction of surface waters interception works in the
tailing basin area.
e)
Absence of installation of signage in areas of protection of flora in
conservation state and fauna presence.
While most of these charges are qualified by the Organic Law of the
Superintendence of Environment as minor infringements, charge (a),
regarding blasting, is qualified as a serious infringement, and may result in
the revocation of the projects environmental qualification resolution,
closing or a 5.000 Annual Tax Units (UTA) fine.

{C-0548967/MSD/v.1}