the mining industry

Letters

Fact and fiction about the mining industry

Sir,

Tales of the behaviour of mining companies in Papua New Guinea have reached legendary status among sections of the Australian media and environmental movement, and now have graced the pages of your magazine (“Porgera’s pollution”, March 1996).

Unfortunately, the mythology is start ing to lose any resemblance to reality, and facts are fast losing any relevance to the debate. Despite this, there are some facts which need to be straightened in relation to the article. A full critique of the claims made would take pages, but I will confine myself to the more obvious errors.

Firstly, the MPI document purports to discuss the impact of the mine tailings on the Strickland River and the commu nities which live along it.

According to the research carried out for the WWF (World Wildlife Fund for Nature), the population living in this area is around 800 people along the over 400 km of river.

The document is not a report on the environmental and social impacts of the mine on the approximately 15,000 peo ple who live in the Porgera Valley.

At Porgera, the mine has paid over K4O million (SUS3I million) in com pensation for bush, gardens, and houses; it has built over 500 permanent-materi als relocation houses; it has constructed schools, aid posts and a hospital; and has a very good relationship with the 5500 people who live within the mining lease.

Secondly, a few words about tailings and metals because your article seems to be confused about such things - in one breath it says that “these elements are not terribly soluble” and then a cou ple of lines later quotes the WWF source as saying that their “solubility is just about assured”.

Tailings are the leftover ground-up ore from which the gold is extracted.

At Porgera, the ore body has traces of other metals, such as mercury, arsenic and lead; these elements are not ‘pro duced’ by treatment. Cyanide is added as part of the process.

Tailings at Porgera are put through a

‘neutralisation circuit’ which binds the bulk of the cyanide and the trace metals into a particulate (or insoluble) form which poses no threat to the environ ment (in the same way as mercury is used in fillings).

Independent testing (by internation ally regarded laboratories) have shown that these tailings are not ‘toxic’ in the sense that the levels of dissolved (solu ble) metals do not cause harm to humans or fish.

The WWF and MPI concern that par ticulate metals may dissolve (turn into a soluble form) within the river system is certainly not backed by the evidence to date.

Environmental monitoring and inde pendent studies by reputable internation al research agencies (such as the Australian CSIRO) show that this is not happening. The areas affected by sedi ment (and this is largely a natural pro cess - the mine adds under 20 per cent to the Strickland’s sediment load) are not “mostly gardens” as claimed by the WWF, and research they have funded shows this.

The findings of all the independent studies done to date are that Porgera is not seriously damaging the river system, is not threatening the human population, and does not pose a long-term threat to the natural environment.

The notion of miners in Papua New Guinea meeting Australian standards is contentious, and could occupy a letter all by itself. Suffice to say that it is per haps a more appropriate question to ask whether Australian standards are appli cable (environmentally and socially) in Papua New Guinea.

The current standard of living in Australia (which has facilitated the growth of environmental concerns) was achieved through the massive degrada tion of the natural environment because of mining, pastoralism and forestry, all of which caused much greater environ mental damage than the current mines in Papua New Guinea. An alternative to mandatory codes of conduct is the notion of “environmental best practice” which takes in to account the physical and socio-economic environment in

which the mine iis operating, allowing local aspirations to be met while still ensuring adequate environmental pro tection. The call for significantly high er levels of local control in relation to Porgera is ironic - the Porgera landowners were the first in Papua New Guinea to become direct shareholders in the mine.

They now own five per cent of the equity in the mine (as does the Enga

Provincial Government).

Since 1989 mineral-resource owners in Papua New Guinea have been receiving “substantially higher returns” compensation and royalty arrange ments are significantly higher than in Australia, for example.

Indeed, many commentators in Papua New Guinea, not just those in the industry, believe these communities now receive too many benefits, creating enclaves of ‘haves’ in a sea of ‘have nots’.

And finally the law suit against the PJV. The focus of concern of the action is the loss of access to alluvial gold in the Porgera river (immediately below the mine) as a result of the covering of these by tailings.

Discussions between the landowners and the company relating to this issue have been on-going since 1989, and the writ is largely an attempt by one group to usurp an agreement which was made in 1994 in relation to the issue. It does not relate to the Lower Strickland, which is where the MPI and WWF work has focused.

In summary, mining companies quite simply cannot operate in Papua New Guinea without the support of the local communities in which they oper ate - Bougainville illustrated this clear ly, and the industry now reflects this.

The article finishes with the state ment: “It is untenable that large compa nies continue to behave with the same disregard for local environments and communities they have shown to date.”

I would suggest, rather, that it is unten able that the media continue to portray mining companies in this way with as little understanding of the realities and the issues as they have shown to date.

Glenn Banks

Canberra Australia