OK, I finally got to see the CN3 interview with Silvia Santacruz, although not under the best of conditions, unfortunately. The sound was not very good, so it was hard to catch everything that was said. They also spoke very fast, which I guess is the Ecuadorian style. I'm more accustomed to Mexicans, in fact I don't think I've heard any Ecuadorians before this. A bit of a challenge, but I think I was able to catch the main points.

The interviewer mentioned that this was a huge opportunity for Ecuador, drawing attention to how much investment has gone into mining in Peru, in fact comparisons to Peru came up several times. He also mentioned how the rise in commodity prices and demand from emerging nations has increased the amount of mining taking place globally, and how this positively affects government revenues. He stated that previous Ecuadorian governments had done nothing to promote mining development, which kind of surprised me since it was the former govt. that opened the door to most of the companies that are there today. Has anyone actually come into the country since the new govt. took over? None that I'm aware of, unless you count Newmont's investment in CGP, or maybe Salazar, although he's a local.

Silvia put a good deal of emphasis on the uncertainty investors face with regard to tenure, taxation, NGO's, and of course, the windfall tax proposals. She pointed out that lack of clarity and constant flip-flopping on the part of govt. was causing individuals and companies to reconsider investing in Ecuador, citing her survey as evidence of that trend. There was some discussion of environmental issues, including claims that have been made about mining causing health problems leading to death in some cases. She answered those assertions by pointing out that the small artisan miners were to blame for much of the problem, whereas the larger companies took a more responsible approach. The interviewer countered with the point that deeper pockets were more likely to get the stamp of approval, even though their methods may not actually justify it. I think an allusion to corruption was being made, but I didn't get the entire sense of the exchange. A lot of unfamiliar terms scattered throughout, and I was struggling to keep up at some points.

All in all, I felt Sylvia did a good job of presenting the case for reasonable and consistent mining laws that will help get the industry started and the nation benefiting thereby. I felt she could have placed more emphasis on the employment aspects, and on the eventual development of an in-country industry, but there's only so much you can cover in a half-hour, and she had to follow the interviewer's lead. For his part, I felt he had a reasonable grasp of the issues and asked fair and relevant questions. How the interview played to an Ecuadorian audience is hard to say. At one point Sylvia mentioned the devisiveness surrounding the debate, and how people have chosen sides rather than seeking a middle ground that would be to the benefit of all. Hopefully that comment reached a few people.

Aurelian was mentioned a few times, as was Corriente and others. The point was made that the outside world is well aware of the rich potential for mining in Ecuador, and that a reasonable approach along the lines of Chile or Peru would lead to major economic opportunities, once that decision was made. In short, the world is waiting patiently, but it won't wait forever.

There was more, but I think I've captured the essential points, although like I said, I was struggling to keep up. My Spanish is not as good as it once was, and Ecuadorians speak really fast!

ebear