adamyax, I lived in the Canadian Arctic for 8 years. I know what is going on at BHP and Diavik and the other new places that will be opening up soon.
Many former clients of mine work for BHP. I personally know the Canadian VP of Ops at the site. My Aunt, who I shared a house with while I lived there most recently, worked at Ekati mine.
The impact on the environment is being very carefully monitored. There are dozens of people (if not more) dedicated simply to studying impact. Misery pit at BHP Ekati (the first diamond mine at Lac De Gras) was not begun until the impact was very carefully studied at the main pit. For five years.
If you are concerned about the environmental impact that Diamond Mining is having on the Arctic, contact the Government of the Northwest Territories or the Government of Nunavut. There are people who are more than happy to discuss your concerns with you. I can provide names and addresses if you so desire.
I’ve never held diamonds in esteem, because they aren’t very interesting. A topaz is nice. Maybe it’s not as hard, but have you EVER seen anyone use a diamond ring to scracth anything with?
Even more valuable to me are the intriguing, albeit cheap stones like tiger’s eye and hematite.
If I inherit any diamonds, I would immediately liquidate.
A large amount of antedilevial diamonds were discovered in the remote north or Western Australia. They’re called Argyle diamonds, after the lake I think (it also is the mining company’s name), and have an amber or pink hue to them. Argyle the company was doing pretty well out of these, marketing them as “champagne coloured diamonds”. De Beers often got irritated with this, and would from time to time flood the market with diamonds to rein in Argyle, and would publicly denounce Argyle diamonds as flawed because of the colours. Recently, De Beers took a majority stake in Argyle (or perhaps it was Ashton mining, its sister company). De Beers’ control spreads.
It was noted earlier that “some bizarre tradition” has us thinking diamonds are cool. Other people may feel that it is a late-20th century consumerism phenomenon, but it’s not.
For thousands of years, people has sought to adorn themselves with shells, ornaments, pigments, textiles, precious metals and gems. That practice seems to pervade most, if not all, cultures, including hunter-gatherers.
So I guess that my buying gems today could be vain and self-serving and morally wrong, but hey- I’m following in a great tradion of self-glorification!
True enough. But how many ornaments, gems and metals are linked to one specific life event the way diamonds are linked to marriage. I know it is actually engagement, but marriage is a cross culture event, where engagement may not be.
Ok adam, maybe diamonds are not a cross-cultural wedding item. But don’t most cultures have something specific attached to the marriage ritual, be it an ornament, ritual marking, animal, or other symbolic item?
Our item is just the result of a brilliant marketing campaign instead of a religious or tribal tradition, that’s all.
Cubic zirconium? Pah. If you want a stone that really looks like a diamond, you should look into MOISSANITE. Synthetic moissanite was introduced only a couple years ago, and is apparently much harder to distinguish from genuine diamonds than zirconium is.
Very interesting. My only comment would be that all this has to do with the diamond as a gem, it also has many very important industrial applications. Of course it is the diamonds that are inferior in grade that are used for this purpose.
Of course, moissanite is more expensive than zirconium – but a moissanite stone is still only about one-tenth the price of a diamond with equal color, clarity, cut, and carat-weight.
