Talk:Mining industry of the Democratic Republic of the Congo

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Where did this article come from?[edit]

This appears to be a paper which has been pasted here from another source, written for another purpose. It's potentially useful but needs to be edited and revised to integrate it properly into Wikipedia. Rexparry sydney 03:24, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Based on this source:
Coghlan, Benjamin, et.al. (2006). Mortality in the Democratic Republic of Congo: a nationwide survey. The Lancet. Vol. 44, 367-375.
which has an incorrect volume and page number based on this [1] I began to wonder where the error had come from. A search for "The Lancet. Vol. 44, 367-375." turns up this [2] other encyclopedia entry. Most if not all of the original incarnation this article (wikipedia) is verbatim identical to that one (nationmaster). I was not able to determine the date of origin of the NationMaster article, but based upon this source:
United Nations. (2001) Report of the panel of experts on the illegal exploitation of natural resources and other forms of wealth of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (S/2001/357). Submitted to the UN Security Council by Kofi A. Annan,12 April, 2001. United Nations, 1-49. Retrieved May 1, 2007, from http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/rwb.nsf/db900sid/OCHA64C8EN?OpenDocument&cc=cod
(my bold)
from the original version of this wiki article[3], dated June 6, 2007 I infer that Wikipedia is not where this article was originally posted. We do not know whether the author wrote this and then posted it to two places, or if someone else plagiarized the work found at NationMaster, or what. The account was single purpose and has not responded to a question on their talk page in the almost 2 years since the article was created.
I intend to continue improving this article, which will ultimately involve a rewrite of many passages. I'd also like to find more accessible sources for some of the statements. Mishlai (talk) 07:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nationmaster is one of many sites that copy wikipedia content. Look at Resource Extraction in the Democratic Republic of Congo - you will find it is a redirect to this page. Nationmaster is not an original source - is is an echo of wikipedia. Wizzy…☎ 08:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thank you, I didn't know that. Nationmaster may not be the original source, but the time stamps still lead me to believe that this Wikipedia article isn't, either. Plus if you look at the way the article was put up, and the lack of other contributions by that user, it really has the sense of being written somewhere else first and then copied here. Mishlai (talk) 04:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite to encyclopedic style[edit]

There is nothing wrong with the writing of the article per se, but it is in the style of an academic paper or essay, not an encyclopedia entry. Several sections set context and background which should be replaced by links to that material already on Wikipedia. Rexparry sydney 03:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Material removed from article[edit]

These paras of general info duplicate other wiki articles and should be integrated there:

To gain a clearer understanding of the situation in the DRC, geographic basics, political history, and Congolese society and culture will be presented. Following will be a discussion of the economic, environmental, and socio-cultural impacts of resource extraction. Finally, proposals for enhancing sustainability in the DRC will be offered.
== Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) ==
===Geography===
The Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) is the third largest country in Africa with 2,344,510 square kilometers (CIA World Fact Book 2007); roughly the size of the United States east of the Mississippi river. It is located in Sub-Saharan Africa with the equator bisecting the country. The Eastern border of the country is lined by the Rwenzori Mountains with peaks of over 5,000 meters. Much of the country lies within the watershed of the Congo River and spans across some of the tallest peaks in Africa to highland and lowland plains and river valleys giving it a diverse geomorphologic composition. The climate ranges from hot and arid to tropical and moist. Three major ecoregions can be found throughout the region; Savannah woodlands, grasslands and tropical moist forests (Wolvekamp 1999). These factors have contributed to the biological richness of the DRC.
===Biodiversity===
For some time, the DRC has been well known for its biological diversity, with the Congo River basin remaining as one of the three major tropical wilderness areas left in the world (Draulanis & Krunkelsven 2002). Within the DRC there are over 10,000 species of plants, many of which are thought to be endemic (only found in that area). Additionally, there are over 400 species of mammals, 1000 species of birds and 80 species of amphibians, 51 of which are endemic (Wolfire et al 1998). Of these species, many are endemic, and a large number are considered to be threatened or endangered. The DRC has 30 species of primates of which 19 are endemic such as the bonobo (Pan paniscus), the mountain and lowland gorillas. Other large mammals that can only be found in the DRC are the Okapi (Okapia johnstoni) and white rhino (Ceratotherium simum cottoni) (Hart & Mwinyihali 2001). The biological richness is in part due to the shear size of the country, but even within small areas, the diversity found is greater than in most areas of similar size (Wolfire et al 1998, Hart & Mwinyihali 2001).
Many national parks and reserves were created during the 1970’s and 80’s when the country was under the rule Mobutu Sese Seko. The area of protected areas within the DRC totals 180,000 km2; roughly about 7 percent of the country's total land mass (Wolfire et al 1998, Hart & Mwinyihali 2001).
To better understand the links between society, culture and the environment, it is first necessary to explain what is meant by “society” and “culture.” Generally speaking, the term “society” refers to social systems, and institutions such as family, education, religion, politics, and economy. The purpose of a social institution is to meet the persistent needs of a society (Ferrante 2003). The term “culture” can generally be summed up as the non-biological aspects of a social group’s way of life (Klopf 2001), and includes everyday perceptions (beliefs, moral codes, and values) and practices. Cultural practices include such things as family and religious traditions, language, and food production and preparation.
The 60 million-plus citizens of the Congo live in rural areas, cities and dwell in forests. Since Congolese societies and cultures are so diverse, it would be an injustice to attempt to cover the nuances of each unique group; instead, a sampling of some of the diverse groups will be presented. However, one thing all Congolese people have in common is resiliency: Despite their many hardships, the Congolese people continue to carry on many of their rich cultural traditions.
The majority of Congolese people live in rural areas (Heale 1999). Though often very poor, it is typical for the Congolese rural dweller to greet visitors warmly and share what food and drink they have, which might include “roasted groundnuts, grilled corn, or elephant meat” (Heale 1999, pp 73). Women typically tend to farming while men leave in search of wild game. Where communication is concerned, phones are not available, “so people shout the news down the village street” (Heale 1999, pp 73).
Kinshasa, the nation’s capitol, and largest city of the DRC, is the main metropolitan center, and Kinshasa’s city dwellers have their own unique lifestyles. Like other cities in the DRC, Kinshasa has its share of poverty. There is much evidence that Congolese city dwellers have adopted a number of cultural traits, including artifacts, from Western material culture. Aside from that, one can see that in Kinshasa, for example, some women favor more traditional Congolese dresses and head coverings. But, whether one lives a rural or urban lifestyle, disease from insects is a concern. One cultural practice which may have originated in the West has special importance for Congolese women: Ironing. Cosmetics aside, the Congolese are aware that damp clothes are a breeding ground for tumba fly eggs. If the eggs are not destroyed by heat, then they will grow into larvae which end up painfully burrowing into the wearer’s skin (Heale 1999).
At the other end of the spectrum, the Congo still has a number of forest dwelling peoples. Among these are the Efe. The Efe live in the Ituri Rainforest. Although the name given to these people is “pygmy,” for the most part, these tribal groups would rather be identified by their correct tribal names. In fact, many consider the term “pygmy” to be derogatory (Siy 1993).
Other ethnic groups which live in the Ituri region are the Lendu and the Hema. The Hema, who are largely nomadic, pastoralist herders, culturally identify with the Tutsi tribe. The Lendu are primarily sedentary farmers who align themselves with Hutu tribe —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rexparry sydney (talk • contribs) 03:38, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reference Spam[edit]

For future evaluation

  • Proposed U.S. House bill in 2001 [4]
  • Tantalum-Niobium International Study Center [5][6]
  • As a blog this is unlikely to be a source but it looks well done with serious and detailed coverage of North Kivu since 2008, probably very mine-able for other sources - news stories, etc.. [7]
  • Difficulty finding the Umoren reference. This [8] at least confirms that it exists.
    • It appears to be a book. ISBN-10 is 0599967846[9], ISBN-13 is 9780599967847[10]. Neither turns anything up on an ISBN search. The Hong Kong University Library link claims to have electronic access but membership is for students/staff.
  • MMSD for S. Africa [11]

Proposal to reverse merge of Canadian mining in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (CMDRC) into Mining industry of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (MIDRC)[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was No Consensus. About one month after its creation, Canadian mining in the Democratic Republic of the Congo was nominated for deletion. The AfD ended with a consensus to merge, and this subsequent discussion seems to basically uphold that decision. But for some reason, the merge was never performed. Since there has been no discussion of the matter in over three years, and the article has been dramatically changed since that time, I'd say the consensus is now outdated. If there is still good reason to merge the article with this one, the merge proposal should be renewed.NukeofEarl (talk) 20:39, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion, up to Turgan (05:47, 28 Feb) has been copied from the original article's Discussion. According to administrator Bearcat (19:00 26 Feb 11), the {{mergeto}} tag by administrator King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:13, 16 Feb 11 was incorrectly altered.

I propose that the debate be re-opened on the status of this article, following the response given by administrator King of Hearts for his decision to close it: "I felt there was substantial consensus at the AfD to merge rather than keep. However, if you disagree, you can start a discussion on the talk page of the article, and if you get consensus there to not merge, then you can reverse the decision. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:46, 14 February 2011 (UTC)". Essentially, I contend that the article now meets Wikipedia criteria and warrants retention as a separate page, based on new information added since most of the previous debate ended.[reply]


By way of summary, the previous debate received ten "votes" over the Feb 5-13. debate period, the raw results of which were:

  • two recommendations to "Delete" (Bearcat 00:47, 5 Feb); Robofish 14:19, 9 Feb)
  • one "Delete or Merge" (Nomader 06:08, 7 Feb),
  • three "Merge" (Ravendrop 04:12, 5 Feb.; Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû (17:35, 7 Feb); SanchiTachi 22:05, 7 Feb.) and
  • four "Keep" (Zachlipton 01:45, 5 Feb.; Ret.Prof 02:26, 5 Feb; 86.132.54.90 14:59, 5 Feb.; victor falk 01:35, 13 Feb).


However, there were an additional two "votes" prior to this discussion being initiated:

  • my "keep" recommendation in my message directly to Bearcat's Talk page on Feb 4
  • an anonymous "keep" recommendation via Edit 14:32, 4 February 2011 78.124.56.42 (talk) who wrote: "This reader does not agree that this extract be deleted. It is a useful and factual addition to knowledge about mining in the DRC and the companies thta are present there, whether they be restricted to canadian companies or not. It is a very valuable source of knowledge about the role of Canadian companies and institiutions in the DRC. add other companies." This comment remains in the History tab for that date.


So, in raw voting terms, it was "Keep": 6, "Merge": 3, "Merge or delete": 1, and "Delete": 2.


However, according to a Wikipedia page, a "consensus" by count of raw votes isn't necessarily the deciding factor: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_democracy "Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy or any other political system. Its primary but not exclusive method of determining consensus is through editing and discussion, not voting. Although editors occasionally use straw polls in an attempt to test for consensus, polls or surveys sometimes impede rather than assist discussion."


Accordingly, I will try to summarise accurately the substance of the arguments in the closed debate. The two "Delete" votes cited "fail[ure to] constitut[e] a uniquely encyclopedic class" (made by the deletion proposer, Bearcat 00:47, 5 Feb) and "original research" (Bearcat; Robofish 14:19, 9 Feb), both points which were countered with supporting evidence by "keep" voter Zachlipton (01:45, 5 Feb; 04:48, 5 Feb) and seconded, citing Zachlipton's arguments, by "keep" voter (Ret.Prof 02:26, 5 Feb). The third "keep" voter, identifying themselves as a "mining correspondent" also countered the "original research" argument (86.132.54.90 14:59, 5 Feb). Merge proposer Ravendrop (04:12, 5 Feb) cited failure to establish uniqueness and the neutrality arguments. That it was a directory, and lacks of neutrality and encyclopedic value were cited by "delete or merge" proposer, Nomader (06:08, 7 Feb), and lack of Canadian uniqueness was cited by merge proposer Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû (17:35, 7 Feb). The third "merge" proposer, SanchiTachi (22:05, 7 Feb) offered no reasons for their decision.


On Feb 8, to address the lack of uniqueness criticisms, I added to the article's introduction section four reasons why Canada's DRC presence is unique (the number of Canadian mines and their production volumes exceed all other countries' by a significant margin; numerous controversies & Canadian/DRC legislation; Canadian Paul Fortin's management of Gécamines). The fourth "keep" argument in the debate appeared following these changes, showing there to be 212 articles (as of 15 Feb) in Google News about Canadian mining in the Congo (victor falk 01:35, 13 Feb). On Feb 15, I added a fifth uniqueness reason: employment of a former Canadian head of government, Joe Clark, by First Quantum Minerals from 1997 to 1998, during which time Clark served as an advisor to DRC's president, Laurent Kabila. Since its creation date, other edits have been made by LDJr. on information pertaining to Kinross Gold, and several minor spelling corrections have been made by others.


In terms of the "original research" arguments, I concur with Zachlipton: "What it prohibits is research not backed by reliable sources and synthesizing sources to make a point. I don't see either happening here" (Zachlipton 01:45, 5 Feb).


There is a potential precedent for this discussion. In 2009, I created the page Canada–Mali relations, one-third of which is devoted to mining issues. In 2010, an editor added a tag suggesting the article was too long to be easily read, and recommended sub-division into component articles. If this issue were to be addressed, and it has not so far, a logical outcome might be a sub-article entitled "Canadian mining in Mali". Which leads us back to the present discussion!


So, I appreciate all constructive criticism contributed to date, as this has certainly helped improve the quality of the article. I acknowledge there is no precedent for a Wikipedia article of the class "(Country X) mining in (Country Y)" and therefore an administrative decision to raise this discussion is justified. Of the ten comments recorded in the Feb 5-13 debate, eight were made prior to the substantial article modifications made on Feb 8, and therefore the new information warrants a discussion renewal. I assert that the justification for article uniqueness issue has now been addressed by the revised introductory paragraph, and by the supporting Natural Resources Canada data on country-level and company-level assets in Section 3. And I assert there is no "original research". Allegations that the article is only a directory can be refuted by the sections on social, environmental, political and legal aspects; the tables, previously lacking text, have had commentaries added. Finally, I share Zachlipton's concern that a merger of the present article into Mining industry of the Democratic Republic of the Congo may compromise the former's integrity in order to conform to the latter's balance.


I welcome suggestions, particularly from those conversant with this subject, for where specifically the article lacks a neutral point of view, as I have tried to represent the published record in direct proportion to each viewpoint. For example, I have listed the three extant books I'm aware on this subject, all of which happen to be critical; if there are any other books, they should certainly be included. At the article's end, the cautiously optimistic quotations by Garrett, Bafilemba, Shelwa, Stratos and Smith are counterbalanced by five others, more pessimistic. However, I do concede that the article at present relies largely on English-language, Canadian-based sources, and requires more French-language, and DRC-based sources. I agree that there should be a brief summary section on Canada added to Mining industry of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, while the main article should stand alone owing to its length and complexity. Similarly, if ever in the future an article "Canada-Democratic Republic of the Congo relations" is created, it need only summarise mining aspects and point to the present page under discussion.


I would particularly encourage Wikipedia mining subject specialists to contribute to this discussion. I mention this because, half a month following the article's creation date, this discussion page's quality and ratings from WikiProject Mining, along with WikiProject Canada, and WikiProject Africa, remain pending.

Thanks! IVX8O8XVI (talk) 23:45, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the AfD was merge, notwithstanding the IP address whose only edit ever on wikipedia was to vote keep (whilst claiming to be an expert on the subject). I do not see that the original problem has been resolved at all. I am sorry that you do not agree with the consensus, but adding more large volumes of text will not change that. bobrayner (talk) 20:57, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I feel this article is better split and merged with the relevant existing articles on the Congo, as was the consensus in the AFD discussion. The strongest (not loudest) arguments have been for this option. Remember, AFD discussions are not votes. The merit and source of the arguement are more important than raw numbers, which are easy to artifically inflate. In my opinion, some sections, such as pension plan contibutions, etc, are not needed at all in an encyclopedia article. I decline to rate this article on behalf of WP:Mining pending a merger. Turgan Talk 05:47, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]


As there have so far been only two contributors to the post-Wikipedia:Articles for deletion discussions, both of whom cite the AfD consensus, I feel I must reiterate that, of the original ten commenters to the AfD discussion (5-13 Feb), resulting in the decision to merge on 13 Feb. made by King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:01, 13 Feb, eight of them, including all four who recommended "merge", were submitted on or before 7 Feb. On 8 Feb., in response to the administrator and AfD nominator Bearcat's fairly unequivocal advice to me on 4 Feb: What you would need to do, to justify keeping the article here, is to demonstrate that there's something uniquely notable about "Canadian mining companies in the DRC" that makes them a distinct topic from "American mining companies in the DRC" or "British mining companies in the DRC" or "French mining companies in the DRC", I expanded the introduction of the article with five reasons why Canadian mining is really distinct from other countries in the DRC (with verifiable sources), and buttressed them with supporting company assets data collated by Natural Resources Canada. So it's fair to say there has not been any specific discussion of that additional information, which I gather forms the basis of such matters (e.g. "If you wish for an article to be kept..." paragraph of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How to discuss an AfD). Briefly, that new information added from 8 Feb. forward was: a former Canadian prime minister was employed by First Quantum Minerals in 1997-98 as an advisor to the DRC president, and that company in 2009 reported an overall contribution amounting to three percent of DRC's total GDP, substantially more than any other foreign company; FQM's income taxes alone that year were independently estimated to be equivalent in magnitude to the DRC's entire health budget; two-thirds of the DR Congo's entire industrial copper and cobalt production derives from Canadian-owned mines; a Canadian mining lawyer headed the DRC's Gécamines parastatal from 2005-2009; Canadian mining companies in the DRC presently outnumber those from all other countries; related litigation in the DRC, Canada and elsewhere. I argue that these reasons collectively satisfy the uniqueness, notability, or "encyclopaedic value" criterion cited by the original deletion nominator, and echoed by the three "merge" contributors who specified their reasons: Ravendrop 04:12, 5 Feb; Nomader 06:08, 7 Feb; Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû 17:35, 7 Feb. Before a consensus to merge or retain the original article, or otherwise can be reached, I would respectfully urge contributors to read the revised article and that the discussion proceed from there. Concerning the public pension plan figures, I would argue that these offer further evidence of national uniqueness: it's not only privately-raised investment capital raised on Canadian stock exchanges (inputs derived from multiple countries), but the combined contributions of all working Canadians which are supporting these firms. The 2008 Economist article referenced from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion repeatedly mentions Google indexing counts as a valid criterion for Wikipedia:Notability, and the last contribution ("keep") in the original AfD, from victor falk (01:35, 13 Feb) showed there to be over two hundred stories in the Google News Archives, two-thirds of which were published since 1997. Lastly, given that this article concerns two countries, Canada and the D.R. Congo, it seems to me that to form a statistically representative consensus will require perspectives from both the mining and human rights communities, from both Canadians and D.R. Congolese who are familiar with this subject, and obtaining the latter may take longer than the usual discussion period, given the primary DRC languages are French, Swahili, and Lingala. IVX8O8XVI (talk) 19:31, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]


I support this Wikipedia article on Canadian mining companies in the Democratic Republic of the Congo as it confirms to Wikipedia's standards: no original research, neutral point of view, and verifiability. I vote for the article to be kept and the decision to merge to be overturned.Blizzard87 (talk) 01:52, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I should remind you of two things:
  1. It's not a vote.
  2. Sockpuppetry is very bad.
If you don't agree with the consensus, you have my sympathy, but the Canadian mining in the Democratic Republic of the Congo article needs serious work. With an axe and a shovel. That cannot be avoided by creating huge volumes of new text on the talkpage or by creating new users who suddenly appear at obscure locations to argue that the article should stay. bobrayner (talk) 10:54, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

People benefitting most of (cobalt) mining In DRC[edit]

According to Snoecks 2007, a miner (creuseur) attains 60$/ton and a comptoir attains 54000$/ton, so if the comptoirs were targeted by organisations, the industry could be vastly improved/regulated. 91.182.110.88 (talk) 17:05, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Mining industry of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:25, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Mining industry of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:46, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mining industry of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:28, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Congo River[edit]

I think it might be helpful to add that the Congo river is the world's second largest river by Water Volume.

Jhood82 (talk) 14:58, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

24 Trillion in resources[edit]

The article states that Congo sits on 24 trillion of untapped resources. While this number is widely circulated on the internet and indeed mentioned in the two citations, I can't find any real source for it. It's always, economists estimate that, etc. I would drop the number. Also the claim that Congo DR has the largest reserves of Coltan seems unsubstantiated. According to this https://aei.pitt.edu/58455/1/beep23.pdf the TIC says it is Australia and Brazil. Can't find a primary source though DOsinga (talk) 15:04, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

deleted the section 4.78.163.159 (talk) 17:31, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mining_industry_of_the_Democratic_Republic_of_the_Congo&oldid=1204014965"