Pax Silica could give the PH a seat at the global table, environmental planner says

Viral defense of the proposed industrial project draws technical rebuttals over water use, power needs, governance, and environmental safeguards.

An environmental planner from Tarlac is making the case for the controversial Pax Silica project, arguing that the proposed semiconductor and critical minerals manufacturing complex should be viewed not as an environmental threat but as a once-in-a-generation opportunity to transform the Philippines into a strategic industrial and geopolitical player.

The lengthy Facebook post by Rance Miguel Peralta has drawn thousands of reactions and hundreds of shares, with supporters praising its detailed arguments and critics offering equally extensive technical rebuttals covering water consumption, power requirements, environmental safeguards, and governance.

Peralta introduced himself as “an environmental planner domiciled in the province where the project is to be situated,” adding that his family has lived in the area for generations and that his work as a policy coordinator involved extensive consultations with Indigenous Peoples in Central Luzon.

“I am one of the few in my echo-chamber who are pro Pax Silica,” he wrote at the start of his post, stressing that he wanted to present a case that is “as nuanced as possible” and goes beyond the usual promise of job generation.

Indigenous communities and industrialization

One of Peralta’s first arguments centered on the project’s impact on Indigenous Peoples, saying development should not automatically be equated with displacement.

He cited the experience of Aeta communities around New Clark City, claiming that industrialization has already created employment opportunities while improving roads and market access for farmers.

Quoting Aeta leaders, Peralta said the communities have welcomed the economic opportunities brought by previous developments in the area.

“Integration and economic development, even for IPs, is not always a bad thing,” he wrote.

He also pointed to government investments in the Ayta Ethno-Botanical Center, saying these demonstrate that “credible institutions and reliable systems” already exist to protect Indigenous livelihoods.

“Farming is no longer being done in the area”

Addressing concerns about displacement and agriculture, Peralta argued that the proposed 1,620-hectare site has long been intended for industrial use.

He noted that the property was never covered by a Certificate of Ancestral Domain Title and was classified as public land for industrial development under the BCDA Charter in 1992.

He also argued that decades after the Mt. Pinatubo eruption, traditional farming has largely shifted away from the project’s location because lahar deposits fundamentally altered the landscape.

“In other words, farming, for the past two decades, is no longer being done in the area,” he wrote, adding that existing farming communities are located in higher areas outside the proposed industrial complex.

Water consumption “blown out of proportion”

Perhaps the most discussed portion of Peralta’s post involved environmental concerns, particularly claims about water consumption.

“From a technical point of view, I want to first establish that the comparative consumption rates have been blown out of proportion,” he wrote.

Peralta cited estimates placing the project’s water consumption at around five million gallons per day and compared it with Metro Manila’s daily consumption of approximately 1.5 billion gallons.

“On scale, that’s simply 0.4% of the total consumption rate of Metro Manila,” he wrote, adding that the project would account for only “0.1% of the daily water consumption rate of the Philippines.”

He also sought to place artificial intelligence’s environmental footprint into context, claiming that “a single ChatGPT search or query uses only about 0.3 milliliters of water,” while posting a single Instagram Story consumes considerably more because of the energy and cooling required by digital infrastructure.

“In fact, more water was spent posting our long discussions regarding this topic on Facebook than what AI users consume daily,” he wrote.

Peralta stressed that the Philippines already operates 44 data centers, arguing that concerns over water consumption are not unique to Pax Silica.

“The problem is not the existence of AI and the need for data centers,” he wrote. “The problem is irresponsible utility.”

Instead of rejecting the project, he proposed mitigation measures including treated wastewater, rainwater harvesting, and closed-loop cooling systems.

From raw minerals to high-value products

Peralta also argued that Pax Silica would allow the Philippines to finally move up the value chain instead of remaining a supplier of raw minerals.

He noted that Philippine nickel ores are currently exported largely to China for processing because the country lacks sufficient downstream manufacturing facilities.

“The difference is that right now, we are partnered only with China,” he wrote.

Using Indonesia’s nickel processing strategy as an example, he argued that local processing dramatically increased the country’s position in the global minerals industry.

“Pax Silica can be for the Philippines what the HPAL operation was to Indonesia,” Peralta said.

“A geopolitical fortress”

The final section of Peralta’s post focused on geopolitics rather than economics.

He argued that the proposed industrial ecosystem would strengthen alliances with the United States, Japan, Australia, the United Kingdom, and other partner countries amid increasing tensions in the West Philippine Sea.

“Pax Silica is not merely an industrial center,” he wrote. “It is a geopolitical fortress strategically positioned in Central Luzon.”

He argued that hosting the facility would strengthen the country’s strategic relevance while helping diversify mineral partnerships beyond China.

“Pax Silica gives us a seat at the global table,” Peralta concluded. “We would be stubborn not to work towards it.”

Critics call for transparency and stronger safeguards

While many users praised the post for presenting a more comprehensive defense of the project, others responded with equally detailed critiques.

Among them was policy expert Paolo Perez, who emphasized that he was “not totally against Pax Silica” but questioned whether enough information has been released for the public to make an informed judgment.

“I do understand both the economic and political necessity of such facility,” Perez wrote. “However, there are concerns regarding this issue na di maiwasan maging concerned ang tao.”

Perez argued that the first question should be governance.

“What will be the legal framework behind such facility? Who shall have operational control and security control over the facility?” he asked.

He added that supporters and critics alike are still debating largely without access to the actual agreements.

“As of now wala pa silang nirerelease so speculation pa lahat,” he wrote. “Napakahalagang malaman ano at kaninong batas ang maggogovern diyan.”

Water figures challenged

Another detailed rebuttal came from Joshua Daniel Cruz, who questioned several technical claims made in the original post.

“The first is the water figure,” Cruz wrote. “The post puts Pax Silica’s projected consumption at five million gallons a day… That number comes from GMA’s explainer… It was never a Pax Silica projection.”

He argued that BCDA has yet to publicly release an official water consumption estimate and cited another estimate placing potential water demand at roughly 130 million liters per day.

Cruz also argued that comparisons with Metro Manila’s water consumption are misleading because the proposed facility would rely on Central Luzon water resources rather than those supplied by Angat Dam.

“The real question is irrigation in Angeles, Capas and Tarlac during an El Niño year,” he said.

“This is not a data center”

Cruz also challenged comparisons between Pax Silica and existing data centers.

“The third is that the post defends a data center but DTI says this is not one,” he wrote, quoting a government official who described the proposal as a manufacturing facility for semiconductor components.

He argued that semiconductor fabrication plants require different analyses because they consume water differently and produce industrial wastewater that data centers typically do not.

He also pointed to another issue that he said received little attention in the original post.

“Reported requirement is around three gigawatts, roughly 16% of Luzon’s grid,” Cruz wrote, saying electricity demand deserves as much scrutiny as water use.

He concluded by urging the government to release the project’s governing framework before any final agreements are signed.

“Publish the framework before November. Put the water allocation in writing with households and irrigation ahead of industry. Set the effluent standards before the concrete goes down.”

Debate continues

Questions were also raised by other commenters, including Peter Geronimo, who noted that conventional data centers and AI facilities have different cooling systems and resource requirements.

Peralta acknowledged the distinction but maintained that technologies such as water recycling, rainwater harvesting, and closed-loop cooling are already being used in existing facilities and could likewise be adopted by Pax Silica.

The discussion has since evolved into one of the most detailed public exchanges surrounding the proposed project, with supporters emphasizing industrial modernization and geopolitical strategy, while critics insist that transparency, environmental safeguards, water allocation, electricity demand, and regulatory frameworks must be fully disclosed before the project moves forward.

READ: