Quimsacocha or Cristal: A Tale of a Noble Quest to Protect the Water, or One of a Devouring Bureaucracy Hiding Political Zealotry

When you hear about the “Quimsacocha” mining concession, also officially called as the ”Cristal Mining Area”, you might think about the impending danger to the Cuenca water integrity, or even the tough struggle of local Azuayans and Cuencanos against a “giant”; Dundee Precious Metals and their mining license to start operations in the almost 8000 hectares in the moors close to El Cajas National Park.

However, the devil is always in the details, and when you start reading the documents that are there to actually read, if you are sensible enough to concrete facts and evidence, you will start to see a reality hard to assess from a superficial standpoint. The environmental impact study done by Dundee Precious Metals is more than a simple administrative record; it is a profound and sobering case study in the pathology of modern bureaucracy. It is a testament to what happens when a reasonable desire for order becomes a daemonic force in its own right, one that actively consumes the very progress it was created to facilitate. The narrative is not one of a company sidestepping regulation, but of a company trapped within it, in a cycle of submission and revocation that has lasted for over 2 decades.

The journey began in 2003 with a mining concession. For years, the company followed the prescribed path, securing an initial Environmental Impact Study in 2006 and an updated Environmental Management Plan by 2009. The process, while complex, seemed to be working. But this is where the system's pathological nature reveals itself.

The entire edifice of approvals began to crumble in 2011, after a critical, seemingly minor detail was re-evaluated. After a previous certification had declared the project did not intersect with a protected area, a new analysis arrived with chilling administrative finality. It turns out the project did intersect with the "El Chorro" Protected Forest. This single contradiction nullified years of work, revoking the company's environmental license and forcing it to begin a new process, to justify its existence all over again.

This is the true cost of overregulation. It is not just the financial burden; it is the immense spiritual and psychological tax it places on those who wish to build, to create, and to produce. It teaches people that the primary challenge is not the difficult work of engaging with the physical world in a responsible manner, but the tedious, repetitive, and ultimately soul-destroying work of appeasing an ever-hungry bureaucratic Leviathan.

In the face of this meticulous, exhausting, and frankly absurd legal process, it is profoundly revealing to observe the parallel narrative presented by those who style themselves as environmental protectors. The rhetoric is one of emergency and high drama, yet the substance is often vague and speculative. We are told of "gravísimas declaraciones," (extremely grave declarations) of ministers "confundiendo el tema con algo político," (mixing up the topic—of water preservation—with a political stance) and of gold "mezclado con arsénico" (mixed with arsenic). The claims are about theoretical, potential risks, which are presented as certain, inevitable catastrophes.

This is the Don Quijote fallacy in action. The self-styled protectors are not attacking a real, concrete giant—a mining company that has flagrantly violated specific environmental regulations. The bureaucratic records show that no such thing has happened. Instead, they are swinging their swords at windmills: the exhaustive, over-taxing, two-decade-long legal and administrative process itself. They don't provide their own studies with clear evidence or point to specific flaws in the existing, state-approved plans. They simply rely on a generalized distrust of all mining activity. The very existence of this massive paper trail is the ultimate refutation of the idea that this is an easy or unregulated path.

This statement isn't a simple empty counter-narrative slogan. In the different sources of alleged advocacy for water protection, you can see constant vague and inaccurate claims. For example, the Guardian article establishes that 100,000 ha are set for mining concessions in the “Cajas”. This is quite inaccurate. The official land extension of the Cajas National Park is of 28,544 ha. How is it that a park that is 28 and a half thousand hectares can issue 100,000 ha for mining concessions. The Guardian is assuming that the entirety of the span of the typical moor ecosystem and vegetation of is part of the Cajas National Park, which is completely erroneous.

However, if we check even closer, we can see where this terrible misconception comes from. It’s due to the Guardian’s source for such a claim; a couple of anti-mining activists from the University of Cuenca, who also expanded their studies and became part the investigative team of FLACSO, a postgraduate social sciences institute from Argentina.

These last two researchers also cited a “estudio pericial” or “expert study”, valid for legal purposes, by James R Kuipers, and sponsored by the Kuipers & Associates institution. In their essay about Kuiper’s study, they cherrypicked multiple general statements such as the “affectation in the quantity and quality of the water due to the modification of the courses of superficial and subterranean water due to tunnel network construction”; “the release of arsenic and other heavy metals”; “high economic risk”; and finalized with the false statement that Kuipers concluded that the project was a “high risk” project due to the potential impacts on the soil and water.

The first statement about the affectation of the quality and quantity of water are a complete misrepresentation of what he said, as he did not specify range and reach of such lack of water (Kuiper stated a “localized impact”, which has little meaning except to know he was referring to the very immediate vicinity). It is virtually impossible for a mining operation extending less than 8000 hectares, just a fraction of the entire extension of that particular moor ecosystem, to compromise the entire underground water streams, including all those that feed the Cuenca municipal water system.

The “release of arsenic and other heavy metals” or the possible impact on the soil and water are warnings of what is known to happen in mining operations. These particular risks, among others, were to be considered as implicit in ANY mining operation, but there was no mention of a particular degree of affectation nor a claim that the affectation would extend beyond the immediate surroundings of the mining area itself. In other words, it's like simply stating that "by digging dirt will be displaced". Yet, no specific studies were made over the specific gold found in the Cristal mining area, nor an assessment over the amount of arsenic that could be released into underground water streams.

The “high economic risk” mostly fell onto the company, due to the constant need in investment in mitigation methods, especially the fact that the gold deposit in “Loma Larga” (Cristal Mining Area) is “not that big” and that pursuing its exploitation would not be economically viable. Not only did the Guardian (and anyone citing this study) fail to recognize that its main point for its disagreement with the Loma Larga (Cristal) mining operation was almost exclusively the economic viability, but also the newspaper failed to realize that both the expertise study and the essay by the couple of anti-mining activists are from back in 2016/2017, when the gold price was ranging between $1,100 to $1,300 per ounce. Now it’s ranging at around $3,355 per ounce, basically threefold. So, now the economic circumstances have changed.

This is just a very basic breakdown of the huge amount of conveniently cherry-picked, mischaracterized and misconstrued statements used by plenty of anti-mining activists. We all agree that risks need to be mitigated, and that it is important to preserve vital resources such as water for a healthy human consumption or use. However, presenting any mining operation as a potential Armageddon is rarely correct, and rarely not contradictory or hypocritical.

We all use and need to use all kinds of items that require mining to be brought into existence. In fact, for all readers of this blog post, these items that require mining in order to exist are a vital part of our daily life, and many of us would either lose all sense of comfort or even capacity to stay alive if we were to get rid of them. So, why would we oppose mining if it can be done responsibly?

Lost in this bureaucratic and ideological battle are the very real human and economic consequences of this paralysis. A fully operational mining project like this would employ well over 100 people—engineers, geologists, environmental specialists, administrators, and skilled laborers. These are not just abstract numbers; these are individuals with families to support, careers to build, and skills to hone. A thriving operation provides more than just salaries; it creates professional opportunities, spurs local economic development, and generates tax revenue for public services.

The economic movement derived from a thriving mining operation is not a fantasy; it is a predictable reality. It includes contracts for local suppliers, demand for goods and services in nearby communities, and a significant contribution to the national and regional economy. When a project is trapped for years in a state of suspended animation, all of this potential is lost. The system, in its endless self-justification, becomes the entire purpose, while the actual work it was meant to facilitate—the creation of wealth, jobs, and prosperity—remains on hold, perhaps indefinitely. It is a profound and disturbing demonstration of the triumph of process over purpose, and a tragic waste of human and material potential.