A new movie ‘Mine Your Own Business’ details how environmental campaigner have stopped development in parts of the world that crave development. How they have denied poor people opportunity.
The same activists have also run campaigns against foreigners who have dared develop projects in remote and environmentally sensitive parts of the world. In the case of Richard Ness they are destroying his life.
As his son Eric explains at RichardNess.org, a website dedicated to his father:
“My father, Richard Ness is currently on trial in Indonesia for a crime that never happened and is currently facing ten years in prison and a US$ 60,000 fine. He is accused of polluting the environment and causing illnesses when over 30 independent studies* have repeatedly confirmed that there is no environmental damage and most importantly medical analysis have established that there is no incidence of arsenic or mercury poisoning among the local community.”
I wrote about the case a year ago in a blog piece entitled ‘Did Newmont Do It?’.
Just the other day I received an email from Richard Ness:
“Jennifer,
I found your article of November 16, of last year very interesting (sorry it took me a year to find it on the web). While missing a few details which are hard to figure out in this part of the world, your write up is very close to reality. Your blog is one of the best short analysis I have seen on the subject.
With regard to your comment : “In many ways it is a pity the case is not going to trial, so all the evidence could be laid out. But then again, who gets a fair trial in Indonesia?”
For your information, the case did go to trial and the trial is still continuing after over one year in court. What you picked up on as the bases for your story was a civil charge for which Newmont basically agreed to form a foundation to fund a scientific panel to conduct independent monitoring for 10 years to prove to the world Buyat Bay was not, nor is polluted.
What has came out so far in court has been a sad story of manipulation of people and communities funded by a political party through select NGO’s. Even the baby the group was using as a “poster child” was blocked from proper medical treatment so they could parade her around as a banner of pollution.
That poor baby died as a result of lack of care and treatment from a dermatitis and upper respiratory infection. After the babies death, it was found that the prescribed medications for a common illness were never administered.
What has come out from court ordered resampling of the bay was that the Waters of Buyat are cleaner then on average, the Atlantic, Pacific and English Channel.
My oldest son, Eric who lives in the USA has created a blog to keep friends and the public up to speed on the latest case developments. The site he created is at www.richardness.org. You may find it interesting reading if you have the time as it bridges the time period of your last Novembers blog until now of ongoing developments in the case.
All the best,
Richard Ness
President Director
Newmont Minahasa Raya”
I am reminded of some words from Phelim McAleer:
“Remove the collar from the man with the evangelical zeal and make him a member of an environmental organisation and suddenly we start paying serious attention to these modern day prophets of doom.
Once, according to our religious leaders, it was our sins that were leading us to damnation. Now, according to our environmental leaders, it is polluting actions of man that will lead to our damnation.
How little we have all progressed and how we still love to listen to harbingers of doom would be mildly amusing if it were not for the pernicious effects of such beliefs on the poorest people in some of the poorest countries in the world.”
…and Richard Ness.
—————————————————–
* Including reports from the United Nations World Health Organization, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation of Australia and National Institute for Minamata Disease. The CSIRO report can be downloaded from RichardNess.org, but beware it is 16MB.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Jennifer,
About two years ago I received an e-mail from an ordinary Indonesian guy. He had found my e-mail adress on the net.
This guy, Fajar S. complained to me how Indonesia was destroyed by illegal logging and by other environmentally unfriendly companies.
He asked me to visit his country and bear witness to the landslides etc. that were caused by illegal logging activities etc.
So in many cases the people by themselves seek up NGOs as in this case.
I have asked this guy to write down his history, maybe he will, but he is afraid that his English is even worse than mine.
What are you trying to say Ann, that anecdotal evidence from unverified sources are to be accepted as factual?
Rog,
I can give you the e-mail adress to this guy, right now ! Just ask Jennifer or check the net for my e-mail adress.
Ann/Rog,
I will send an email with addresses to you both off line – so you can talk to each other directly.
It would be great if you could together get this story written up with some evidence to back it, and I will publish it.
Ann,
Just a comment. I am impressed by your patience and good humour with those who unkindly, and unfairly, attack you. You remind me of Bjorn Lomborg. Perhaps it is a good Scandinavian trait. It is a triumph of rationality and humor over emotional silliness. As I age, I see more clearly that bullying is one of the worst of human traits. Let’s laugh the bullies off the court. Jen makes a very constructive suggestion. I have found that local information, which some dismiss as ‘anecdotal’, is often of great value.
You miss my point Ann, you appear to uncritically accept a good story if it goes against “environmentally unfriendly companies”.
Perhaps we should apply the same principle to GreenPeace, I hear stories about how they are criminals laundering drug money through lotteries and think they should be closed down and thrown in gaol, immediately.
i just typed, but deleted, an account of a recent experience I had talking to locals, incl loggers, in those parts who were trying to balance modern life with their traditional values, and the pressures from each, but then I thought, why bother? I don’t expect constructive conversation to result – probably vacuous put-downs, unlikely any fruitful outcome.
whereever you have people, you have all the traps and weaknesses of human fallibility. No ‘group’ or moral position can escape that
Davey, thanks for the support…
Rog, I know there are people against Greenpeace out here and there, even my dear old Auntie is not especially found of GP until she found out yesterday that they had prevented another environmental catastrophie in Estonia.
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/news/estonia-seizes-probo-koala-060927
Yes, I’m going to try this Fajar to document his story…
Rog,
This Fajar’s story was not so much about environmental unfriendly companies, OK they were mentioned as well, what he really wanted was help from foreign NGOs.
He had also big concerns that illegal logging was destroying the orangutans habitats.
I have another e-mail as well from the Philippines from a guy who is seeking help from foreign NGOs( this was about the big oil spill recently).
Hmmm…
There was a meeting a few years ago on logging and the NGO anti loggin types were there presenting their case and they had a few photos of clear felling and despoilation…some of the guys there recognised the spot, it was their own “log camp” (where you bring the logs to a central point and it is sorted and graded and despatched)…greenies got the short shift
Another time there was this display at a field day about revegetating wetlands, this greenie group had all these photos showing their projects….they were mine….I remonstrated and they just shrugged their shoulders.
Why would you believe them?
help from foreign NGOs = $$$
But getting back to Newmont and NGOs, the case against Newmont had failed on numerous counts yet the NGOs are still able to pursue their goal by playing the man, there is something obscene by the way these NGOs are allowed to continue to push their false and unsustainable lies whils\t maintaining the ‘moral high ground’.
I know where you are coming from Rog. There was a case in southwestern Australia of a media photo of a logging coupe with some creative airbrushing to remove all signs of a tree. A local forester took a photo from the same point, and it showed quite a lot of trees left. Don’t think I am anti-forestry. There is an interesting article on the web about problems in Japan’s forests due to withdrawal of human management. Search on japan+rotten+woods+newsweek. I sent copies to the WA Conservation Council and our Minister for the Environment. I suspect I will get no reply.
the point Ann is that rog appears to uncritically accept any old criticism of environmentally friendly organisations, without caring if it’s valid. He will bully you into spending lots of time answering his taunts but he won’t oblige with a considered or reasonable response so by all means, explore the case, but don’t waste too much time responding to rog’s endless taunts. If I’m wrong, rog will himself get some evidence to back up his attacks on Ann rather than just pulling vague criticisms out of his dark nether regions
Try to stay with the thread stinky without continually indulging us with your (growing) list of petty gripes.
“I hear stories about how they are criminals laundering drug money through lotteries and think they should be closed down and thrown in gaol, immediately.” … really? But then you’d have to be let back in the RSL?
got confused with his own dealings with the nigerians no doubt
You bickering ninnies are becoming a pain in the posterior. Here’s a couple of suggestions.
Read what others are saying, and respond to that, not some other attitude you think they might have.
Grow up a bit and knock off the cheap jibes. There’s people who come here for information, and there’s an increasing amount of crap that has to be scrolled through to find it.
Interesting,
I have read some of the for and against arguments now and make the following observations.
1. There are high levels of arsenic and mercury in the sediments of the area where seabed dumping of tailings has occurred.
2. These levels are much higher than those observed at control sites.
3. It’s not possible to identify the source/s of these and other metals, but by implication it is the tailings and may well be.
4. high concentrations of metals and other contaminants in seabed sediments are often of no concern, on the contrary it is typical in the case of fine colloidal sediments underlying warm, brackish water.
5. Cannot find a detailed description of the tailings site sediments, but as the CSIRO controls were collected in nearby Totok Bay, and the name Totok refers to a common species of bivalve (Geloina erosa) that inhabits very fine estuarine muds, and the aim of selecting control sites is to replicate the physical conditions in every respect except the presence of tailings, then by inference the sediments at the tailing site are also fine, colloidal sediments and would be expected to be actively stripping metals from the overlying water column -ie they are a sink.
6. Assuming the sediments are fine, then the bay is relatively sheltered with little wave action, and the decision whether to permit the seabed dumping of fine sediments with little chance of mixing and rapid dilution means the conclusion was the pile of contaminated material would be relatively stable.
7. However, with a relatively stable pile of contaminated material on the seabed, it can be expected that at the water column/sediment interface there would be movement (flux) of metals into the water column and out of the water column binding to the sediment (CSIRO observed this).
8. These fluxes are normal, and the width of the zone of transfer between water column and sediment is dependent on a variety of factors.
9. there are two potential problems with this direct exposure of contaminated sediments to the water column – first the flux is not equal in both directions and contaminants leach from the material into the water column, however, given the nature of the sediments they are much more likely to strip material from the water. The second, and much more likely problem is that benthic organisms living and feeding in these fine muds will accumulate metals and other contaminants and the contaminants then make their way up the food chain, concentrating as they go. At present there is no good evidence this is occurring now.
As a standard parctice in disposing of fine contaminated material into a sheltered environment you would examine this potential for bioaccumulation and modify the treatment methodology accordingly. In this case you would typically prescribe digging a trench on the seabed, filing it with the contaminated material and/capping with a pile of clean material.
The question then is whether or not the mining company has met its permitting requirements exactly. If not, then it may well be liable. If it has, then the finger of blame should be realistically be pointing at the Indonesian government for not insisting on capping of the material.
The above sounds fine until you read the account by Eric Ness where the first recorded pollution event was before the Newmont mine was started.
FOTE Indonesia give an account of an NGO copping a big fine for defamation and an account of a village moving because of pollution in the area.
http://www.eng.walhi.or.id/kampanye/cemar/industri/050729_buyatpeople_cu/
Newmont run a FAQ which is compelling, included is this;
Q: what was the mine’s impact on human health?
A: three agencies have determined that there are no harmful health impacts in the communities of buyat bay:
*The indonesian ministry of health;
*The international seminar on mining, environment, and sustainable development; and
*The world health organization in conjunction with japan’s institute for minamata disease.
You would expect WHO to be impartial:
“The hair mercury levels are similar to those in the Japanese population.” [p.8]
“The mercury levels in fish were within the normal range.” [p.8]
Mercury levels are found to be lower at the seashore, than in the rivers, “indicating that a large gold mining company is not contributing greatly to mercury contamination in Buyat Bay.” [p.9]
“Results suggest that both of the areas are not polluted by cyanide.” [p.9]
The villagers were tested for 17 metals [Table 7, p.21], including arsenic.
“All of the metal concentrations in hair of villagers living near Buyat and Totok Bays showed within normal levels.” [p.9]
http://www.buyatbayfacts.com/faqs/index.html
Is this evidence of a deliberate campaign by green groups against mining and forestry?
*The question then is whether or not the mining company has met its permitting requirements exactly. *
Newmont say that they did and provide copies of the agreements;
Q: WHY DID THE COMPANY USE STP IN INDONESIA?
A: BOTH LAND AND SUBMARINE PLACEMENT WERE PROPOSED IN THE PERMITTING PHASE. THE INDONESIAN GOVERNMENT CHOSE STP
Click here for the AMDAL, Executive Summary
Click here for the AMDAL, Part 1 of 5
Click here for the AMDAL, Part 2 of 5
Click here for the AMDAL, Part 3 of 5
Click here for the AMDAL, Part 4 of 5
Click here for the AMDAL, Part 5 of 5
……………………………………………………………………………………….
Q: DID PTNMR HAVE PERMITS?
A: YES.
Click here for the AMDAL, Executive Summary
Click here for the AMDAL, Part 1 of 5
Click here for the AMDAL, Part 2 of 5
Click here for the AMDAL, Part 3 of 5
Click here for the AMDAL, Part 4 of 5
Click here for the AMDAL, Part 5 of 5
Click here for the STP Permit
and more…
To cure disease, keep NGOs away from Buyat Bay
By: Dorothy Kosich
Posted: ’30-MAR-05 04:00′ GMT © Mineweb 1997-2004
RENO–(Mineweb.com) A recently-translated study by an Indonesian university research team urged the government of Indonesia to isolate the Buyat Bay residents from NGOs and other people who “would intentionally cause conflict among community members.”
The Research Team Social Aspect Study of the Research Institution, State University of Manadao (UNIMA) concluded that the alleged environmental problems stemming from the disposal of mine tailings at Buyat Bay originally were borne from local communities’ dissatisfaction regarding compensation for their lands by PT Newmont Minahasa Raya (PTNMR).
The report by the 10 UNIMA researchers included data and interviews of residents in the Buyat Bay are in August 2004. The research team included professors of biology, economics, physics, environmental sciences, organic and analytical chemistry, anthropology and sociology.
Their study found that a number of illnesses attributed to pollution from the tailings actually pre-dated the commissioning of the PTNMR gold mine in northern Sulawesi. The research team also asserted that environmental issues involving the bay community of Ratatotok “are exploited lies for the necessity of certain parties.”
Sanitation in the area has also been a long-time problem because people would use the beach or the river as a toilet. PTNMR actually went in and tried to establish a pattern of public health sanitation in the community. From September to October 2004, the government of the Province of Sulawesi Ultra provided free assistance and medical care for Buyat Bay community in response to the allegations that environmental pollution was caused by PTNMR.
However, the researchers determined that many folks in the surrounding villages took advantage of the free medical care and medicine provided by the government even though their illnesses were not related to alleged environmental pollution stemming from modern mining. For instance, Buyat and Ratatotk villagers were found to be suffering from illnesses which pre-dated the beginning of PTNMR. Meanwhile, several villagers asserted that they were encouraged by NGOs to report their illnesses as related to industrial pollution from PTNMR.
The study found that the presence of LSMs (NGOs) at Buyat Bay “at the present time is influential and have influence the people’s mind so that the local community has high hopes from the LSMs.” One LSM held regular meetings and each member of the community who attended these meetings was given money, food, soap, and other bonuses.
“The loyalty given by the Buyat Bay community to LSMs are not only because they are given money each month by the LSMs, but they (the pro-LSM group) were also promised huge sums of money by the LSMs” apparently as much as Rp27million per household if the Slum’s claims against PTNMR were successful, according to the study.
“From a social perspective PTNMR did not fail in its obligation towards the surrounding community,” asserted the report. The mining company handed out fishing rods, trained households in sewing and cooking, provided business credit, and helped expand small fishing fleets. It also constructed a water treatment plant and build roads.
However, problems arose when some landowners received far more compensation than others for their lands from PTNMR. Those who were not compensated went to court and won their case, which, in turn, upset the members of the community who were previously compensated by the mining company. They then formed associations which eventually became aligned with NGOs.
A December 2004 report by the Australia-based Institute of Public Affairs claimed that local anti-mining NGOs in Indonesia receive most of their funding from Western activists in the developed nations. “What gives the NGOs’ agendas away is the fact that they only campaign against foreign ventures. They leave local mines alone,” the report asserted.
“For example, WAHLI, a leading Indonesian anti-mining NGO which was involved in the campaign against NMR, received funding from CARE, Oxfam, Netherlands Organizations for International Development Corporation, AusAID, Belgium’s National Center for Development Cooperation, and the Canadian Development Agency,” according to the institute.
The UNIMA team revealed that the poverty at Buyat Bay is an historical legacy of fishermen who have struggled to earn a living in the area for generations. Their poverty has evolved into a complexity of structural and political issues. However, the saleability of fish caught in the bay apparently has been an issue that dates back before the time PT Newmont Minahasa Raya commenced production, according to the research team. When erroneous reports spread claiming that residents of Buyat Bay were poisoned by mercury from mine tailings and had contracted Minamata disease, the fishermen could no longer sell fish.
The team also performed chemistry tests and research on samples of water, sediment and sea biota in Buyat Bay, the Totok and Buyat Rivers, the village of Buyat, and the Ratatotok Village in Minahasa. Their tests found the levels of heavy metals in those areas were far below the limits set by regulation.
—————
The Controversy of Heavy Metal Pollution in Buyat Bay, North Sulawesi, Indonesia
Daniel Limbong 1,2,3
1 Yayasan Bina Cipta AquaTech, Manado 95262, Indonesia.
2 Sam Ratulangi University, Manado 95115, Indonesia.
3 International Coastal Research Center, Ocean Research Institute, The University of Tokyo, Akahama, Otsuchi, Iwate 028-1102, Japan.
Buyat Pante is a small village in the coastal of Buyat Bay of North Sulawesi Province, Indonesia. Both the village and the bay had been headlines news in North Sulawesi Province and even for national news of Indonesia since July – September 2004. The issue was the health problem of Buyat Pante peoples that considered as a direct effect of heavy metal pollution from a gold mining processing plant which located in the hill side of the area.
The gold mining was operated by an American company, Newmont Minahasa Raya (NMR). The company started an open pit mining in July 1995 and subsequent gold processing began in March 1996. Mining was closed down in October 2001 which produced about 8.21 million tonnes of ore. In October 2004 gold processing plant was terminated with total production 192,975 kg of gold and 5.6 million tonnes of detoxificated mine tailings. The tailings were released into the sea-bed of Buyat Bay via a discharge pipe that terminates in the depth of approximately 82 m below sea level. NMR provides routine and quite comprehensive reports on their operations. A mine close program which set to begin in June 2004 was submitted to all competence parties which expressed the company full confidence that they did the works properly according to the mine agreement and Indonesian Regulations.
Since the very beginning of the NMR mine plan, protests to the Submarine Tailing Disposal (STD) system had came from several Non Government Organisations (NGO). The NGOs made several efforts to push Indonesian Government for not allow the implementation of STD in Buyat Bay. However, at last of the mining authorization process, Indonesian Government approved the NMR mine plan. While NMR proceeds with construction, mine, and processing plan the NGOs keep going with their protest. They use any opportunity to convince public and government that NMR operation generates problems such as pollution, cultural violation, human rights abuses, social dislocation, poor health and safety standards, and economic losses.
In fact the complaint to NMR is part of a global NGOs movement against mining activities any where. This movement is well organised world wide. In April 23-30, 2001 representatives of this movement conducted an International Conference on Submarine Tailings Disposal at Hotel Gran Puri Manado, North Sulawesi, Indonesia. Subsequent meeting was held in London, May 18 – 23, 2001 in which twenty four representatives from Asia-Pacific, Africa, India, South and North America confirmed “The London Declaration” which explains the strategies on how to confront the large scale mining industry.
The NGOs then have lent support to one and other for the initiatives of advocate and work together with local people in gathering information to prove the arguments against NMR STD. Milestone for the movement occur in early January, 2004 when a baby born with scabbed skin and bump in the whole body. On March 30, 2004 the baby was staged in a demonstration at Governor Office to declare that the communities are now facing serious health problems. They submitted a statement to NMR and the Provincial Government of North Sulawesi demanding :
• Compensation to the people for their land.
• Environmental rehabilitation in the villages.
• Economic compensation for the loss of livelihoods suffered by the communities.
• Health services for the communities for the next 30 years.
Then the news on this issue was widely spread which increase local, national, and international public pressure on NMR.
Culmination of the circumstances occurs following the dead of the baby in July 3, 2004. Public seem to have strong prove that health problems of Buyat Pante community is a direct result of heavy metal pollution from NMR STD. People become scare to eat marine fish and fishermen along the coast neighbour to Buyat Bay be another victim of this issue, because their catch was rejected in local market. In response to this issue NMR denies any wrongdoing said the amount of heavy metals in Buyat Bay is no higher than most maritime environments and conforms to international standards.
Indonesian Government (local and national) were triggered by the issue and several investigations to provide scientific clarification on the issue are conducted by Department of Marine and Fisheries, Department of Health, Office of Environmental Ministry, and Government of North Sulawesi Province. In August 2004, on behalf of Buyat Pante villagers a number of Indonesian NGOs sent an official letter of legal action to national police of Indonesia and filed a lawsuit against NMR for US$550 million. Then police investigate allegations by the villagers. After tests at forensic laboratory Indonesian police decided on August 13, 2004 that the results confirmed the heavy metal pollution in Buyat Bay cause by NMR STD.
A different picture however, is revealed by scientific reports of the other investigation groups mentioned above. The investigation reports together with a number of related scientific papers were presented in August 21, 2004 seminar hosted by Universitas Sam Ratulangi, Manado. Then Indonesian Environment Minister publicly insists that the bay is free from contamination. In addition, Indonesian Health Minister inferred that the Buyat Pante people were suffering from nothing worse than common skin diseases due to malnutrition. But police have said their own testing showed levels of mercury and arsenic in tailings well above Indonesia’s standards, and announced in September 2, 2004 that the official suspect in Buyat Bay pollution case is NMR. This contradict led to summons of NMR Director, Indonesian police, ministries of environment, health and mineral resources on a parliamentary hearing which resulted an urging of the parliament to the police for immediately act on its findings. In order to facilitate the completion and further process to judicial court police arrested five executives of NMR since September 22, 2004. Such detention is unnecessary said NMR spokesman because its officials were giving police their full cooperation, and also US ambassador for Indonesia asked why they should be detained.
In further effort, Indonesian Ministry of Health arrange collaboration with World Health Organization (WHO) and National Institute for Minamata Disease (NIMD) Japan. The examination was conducted from August 8-11, 2004. The results were presented in a report of the WHO stated that the level of mercury in the hair of residents of Buyat Bay far lower than the threshold level set by WHO. It asserted that the mercury content in the bodies of Buyat Bay villagers was not high enough to cause mercury poisoning. The average level of mercury in fish was also far below the average level of Minamata Disease would be diagnosed. They concluded that the mercury levels in fish found in the bay didn’t indicate hazardous level of pollution, and health problems faced by villagers were not caused by mercury poisoning. Ministry of environment also conducted further comprehensive research in September 2004 by an integrated working group comprising 14 research institutes and universities. Again, the results of this joint team announced in October 19, 2004 were contrary to police findings, in which they concluded that heavy metal in Buyat Bay is not in appreciable levels of contamination.
The above Buyat Bay story may be regarded as an example of the complexity of industrial environmental pollution problems which we all may currently face. There are at least three interesting aspects should be high-lighted for further discussion.
1) The effectiveness mechanism performed by the world mine watch NGOs to bring the pollution issue into public and government attention.
2) So many major media outlets seem willing to accept misinformation without question, even real experts and scientists advice those media that they are being used to spread irresponsible campaign.
3) Approach taken by the government agency which lead them into controversy and how they will solve it.
Besides of its disadvantages, Buyat case would provides an opportunity to evaluate whether our valuable learnings obtained from past experiences such as Minamata case are well applied, worked properly, perhaps contain any disadvantages or need adjustment to encounter new problems such as the impact of the larger effort by world radical environment NGOs to damage the reputation of mining industry round the world.
rog,
From my further readings of the data available, and the information in your posts, it appears that Newmont has done all that was required of it to meet its permitting obligations.
Therefore the level of contamination in the seabed sediments, and the method of disposal and storage has effectively been approved by the Indonesian government, who have the statutory responsiblities. The level of background contamination and the evidence for other sources of contamination is not really an issue as long as Newmont discharged their obligations under their permitting arrangement.
There does not appear to be a problem with bioaccummulation at the present time, and may never be, but the current method of storage suggests there is some risk, and therefore the risk of this should be examined in some detail -and maybe it was during the AMDAL? If the risk is genuinely high then perhaps a capping operation could be the best option -however I do not know enough about the local physical conditions to determine whether this would be effective. Given that Newmont has met its permitting obligations, then the responsibility for those investigations of the current and future risk, and the cost of remediation is squarely the responsiblity of the Indonesian government not the mining company.
On the basis of the evidence the NGO’s cannot make the claims they are making. They are also focussing on the wrong culprit if indeed there is now a significant risk to be dealt with. The real culprit is the Indonesian government. Therefore it is perhaps not surprising that the government has played along with the misguided attempts of the NGOs to implicate the mining company. It shifts the blame away from them.
On the issue of the NGOs targetting this mining company, yes that is clear, and whether this is part of a wider campaign, yes that seems likely too.
However whether that means the people engaged in the campaign are deliberately and maliciously bending the information to suit their own ends? There is no hard evidence for that. They may just be well meaning individuals who are misinterpreting the results.
on the issue of the lessons learned? Difficult to say what this case really might show other than to examine whether the Indonesian government does have the technical capacity to properly set permitting conditions for disposal of contaminated sediments to minimise the environmental risks. My own experience suggests they do not.
rog; AMDAL or ANDAL??
Russell I think yr right, the technical and monitoring and enforcing capacity is lacking
you say the level of background contamination is not really an issue as long as Newmont discharged their obligations under their permitting arrangement.
Narrowly speaking, yes. However, due to situations like this MNCs investing in developing countires are learning to apply broader CSR considerations, even encompassing historical occurances pre-dating their financial involvement for a couple of reasons (no-one wants a Bophol): the direct costs and reputational costs of dealing with situations like this, and because common human decency requires concern for the livelihoods and environmental condition of the area from which you extract commodities and profits.
Knowing the prevalence of NGO activists and the fact that mining in Indonesia will attract such actions, a mining company needs extend its consideration of responsibility to the locals by accepting the flow-on effects of activism that results from their economic venture. That should have been factored into their risk assessment pre-involvment.
A few cases like this do not prove that all NGOs/NFP’s/lobby groups aren’t just raving environmental lunatics. Some focus predominantly on social issues. Many have learnt that social and environmental issues are intertwined. As I said above, you have human weaknesses in any activities so situations like this, and quotes (unbiased sources?) from mining groups or IPA (another lobby group) don’t show that all NGOs are evil manipulators for narrow individual gains. In many developing countries they can sometimes play an important role in helping poor and vulnerable people to get heard – roles that local organisations cannot perform for a variety of institutational reasons.
Note general nature of my observation. I did not defend the NGOs in this situation so please don’t suggest same.
AMDAL and/or ANDAL
The NGO version
http://www.minesandcommunities.org/Action/press346.htm
————————–
Playing the man and not the ball has not been totally successful so allegations of judicial corruption were made by environmentalists – without evidence.
Jakarta Post
Ness causing pollution
National News – September 02, 2006
Jongker Rumteh, The Jakarta Post, Manado
An executive of Newmont Mining Corp.’s Indonesian subsidiary took the stand for the first time Friday since his trial began over a year ago, denying all pollution charges against his company during a full day of questioning.
The president director of PT Newmont Minahasa Raya, Richard Bruce Ness, refuted prosecutor’s charges that his company dumped dangerous levels of mercury and arsenic-laced waste into Buyat Bay.
But the session was marred by an environmental official’s allegation that the chief judge had been bribed by the U.S. firm.
Earlier Ness firmly said no when asked by judges and prosecutors whether waste rock or tailings dumped into the Buyat Bay by the now-defunct mine on Sulawesi island exceeded standards outlined in a 2000 permit.
He told the panel of five judges, presided by Richard Damanik, that “for the most part we only discharged roughly 10 percent of the allowable mercury and 7 percent of the permitted arsenic”.
Before a packed courtroom that included his wife, Newmont officials and reporters, Ness testified that company always obeyed the law, including on the environment.
The company’s environmental impact analysis (Amdal) was approved by the Amdal commission, comprising representatives from the central and local governments, mining experts, universities, NGOs and resident representatives, Ness added.
He insisted there was no pollution in Buyat Bay because the company was committed to conducting professional mining based on highest international standards and according to clear operational procedure standard.
“I think it’s very clear the prosecutor has no reason to indict Richard Ness or the company since there’s no criminal violation,” said Newmont lawyer Luhut M.P. Pangaribuan.
“All experts and facts presented have clearly said there is no pollution at Buyat Bay and the company’s operation has no negative impact toward the surrounding environment.”
Ness faces up to 10 years in prison if convicted and his Denver-based company, Newmont Mining Corp., a possible fine of US$68,000.
“I’m very sad at being accused of doing criminal acts that neither I nor the company ever committed. The court proceeding all this time have shown there is no evidence whatsoever that supports the prosecutors’ charges,” Ness said.
“The past two years have been hard for me and my family and we hope there will be a fair decision.”
A verdict is not expected for several months.
The trial, which lasted from 9 a.m. to 6:45 p.m., included the accusation of bribery by Rosa Vivien Ratnawati from the Environment Ministry’s criminal justice division.
“If the judge acts this way, he’s been bought,” she said after Damanik agreed to let Ness’ expert staff David Sompie help him answer the prosecutor’s question on the detailed process for obtaining the Amdal for the dumping of tailings in the bay.
The government has accused Newmont of violating environmental laws by dumping toxins from its mine into the bay between 1996 and 2004, when operations ceased, but conflicting test results on the water have convoluted the case.
A police report showed that mercury and arsenic levels in the nearby bay were well beyond national standards, but tests by the WHO, government agencies and several independent groups found that pollutants in the water were within normal limits.
Increasingly NGOs are coming under pressure to be transparent and accountable, at least as accountable as the objects of their criticism.
Rog,
I hope this isn’t disappointing news–to most, it won’t be surprising. Greenpeace, Oxfam and other groups have signed on to an “International Non Governmental Organisations Accountability Charter.”
http://www.greenpeace.org/australia/resources/reports/general/international-non-governmental-2
The charter was announced December 20, 2005 and the NGOs have not changed their behavior. Obvious and explicit violations of the terms of this charter continue apace.
The NGOs are under pressure, but their response is to issue a document which they have no intention of respecting.
I wish I had better news, rog. Let’s all be chins up though!
I’m still awaiting (rog and Schiller’s) master plan on how to end poverty and vulnerability (which includes achieving and maintaining a reasonable state of environment that can support the population) in the less developed countries (the 3rd world countries, pls don’t quibble over the label or deny extreme poverty again). Given the extent of your criticism of the NGOs (do perfect standards apply to any organisation or industry?), you must have a plan B you’d like to share with us (other than ‘free markets for all will resolve all ills’ cos rapid liberalisation measures haven’t improved poverty yet – where they have eg in the rapidly industrialising nations, it’s been within a framework of careful govt management and constant intervention). Awaiting Plan B
Pinxi,
For someone who often complains about bullying at this blog – you seem to specialize in it! Rog, Schiller don’t have to have a Plan B or explain it to you.
Everyone,
What might the NGO’s now do to help Richard Ness?
Trials are interesting events, as one lawyer advised me, after a period you lose control and it develops “a life of its own”.
Clearly this trial has developed a life of its own.
The comments made by the Environment Ministry smack of desperation, unable to destroy the evidence they then seek to destroy the credibilty of the court by smear and innuendo.
As they say, when the flag drops the bullshit stops.
Sorry guys, but I have not had the opportunity to read through all the comments here…
But generally, who can we trust? Well, honestly we can’t trust either the NGOs, the companies or in this case the Indonesian GOv’t.
The Indonesian Gov’t is notoriously corrupted.
Two years ago I did a research on furniture companies in Scandinavia who bought garden furniture made from hardwood from Indonesia and Malaysia.
It was scary to notice how widely spread the corruption was from Indonesian authorities up to European suppliers.
I have documents that are clearly falsified, no understatement, I believe even the CEO for this furniture company that I investigated , admitts today this.
Just a comment on metals in sediments or tailings in Buyat Bay. The mercury compound in tailings is cinnabar and the arsenic compound is ferro arsenate HgS (Cinnabar) is NOT EQUAL TO MERCURY (Hg) FeAsO4 (Ferro Arsenate) is NOT EQUAL TO ARSENIC (As)
My understand from looking at the Minamata Institute website…. http://www.nimd.go.jp/archives/english/tenji/c_corner.html is that HgS is Insoluble in water, Ferro Arsenate is also a very stable compound in water. It is incorrect to look at laboratory results without the understanding that in order to measure sediments or tailings, those elements have to be separated form their original compounds under extreme acidic conditions like a pH of 1. The sea is basic with pH of 8, this level can never be greater or lower due to well known process of carbonate buffering. Therefore take the compound cinnabar as an example, Hg is not going to separate from S in sea water. That’s why if you look at sea water in the CSIRO report, mercury in sea water is very low and in fact almost nonexistent, and is measure in nanograms per litre range (a nanogram is a billionth of a gram or just about as close to nothing as you can get).
Ann,
Best to trust noone and ask for the available evidence.
And when the available evidence indicates that someone has been wrongly accused … what does Greenpeace do?
And when the available evidence indicates that someone has been wrongly accused … what does Greenpeace do?
Well, the only case I recall right now is the Greenland case.
Greenpeace opposed the seal hunt and this caused economical loss for the indigenous people.
Greenpeace has made an official excuse…
And now we help the Greenland and other indigenous people as best as we can.
Jen,
If Ness is innocent, then presumably his well-paid legal team will provide suitable evidence that will convince the judiciary.
What I find much more interesting is the race, wealth and power dimensions involved in the Newmont mine saga. For example, your headline is “The Campaign to Jail Richard Ness”. The three brown- skinned Indonesians who were arrested along with the wealthy, well connected and white Mr Ness don’t rate a mention.
I also query why the trial is your sole focus. Why not, for instance, also focus on the “nameless” brown-skinned folk who claim they haven’t been adequately compensated since they were dispossessed as a result of the Newmont mine?
*Sorry guys, but I have not had the opportunity to read through all the comments here…*
…all dewey eyed and innocent, then launches into another op-ed on Greenpeace.
C’mon Ann, to you this is a hobby, something to fill the day in.
There are many things the NGOs could do for Richard Ness, but they will of course not do them. For instance, the NGOs could point to the Accountability Charter, apologize for violating it, and assist in Richard’s defense.
This would have some very unwelcome aftereffects. First, it would lend some authority to the Accountability Charter, which was meant only to be window-dressing. If NGOs were actually held to the standards of the Charter, it would severely hamper their activities–which would, in turn, decrease their visibility and the money they get.
Second, it would be an embarassment–which would likely be bad for their future income.
Third, there’s no percentage in it. People won’t donate as much money to save Richard Ness as they will to “save” villagers from “rapacious corporations.” Actually, NGOs can make a good deal more money by seeing him taken down, by any means necessary.
So to answer your question, Jennifer, yes, the NGOs could do something for Ness, but they won’t.
Thanks Schiller. What do you think Ann? Could Greenpeace do something to help Richard Ness? It would make a difference.
And it would show that Greenpeace cares about the truth, a fair go, and about individuals regardless of their nationality.
Ahhhh…. it is good to breathe the air of the Gestapo!
Just thought I’d pop by and see how things are going. Everyone looks well, all tanned and sleek and loving those sheckles courtesy of The Public Affairs Institute.
Has that august institution ever declared where it gets its funding? Has anyone ever bothered to check who bankrolls this puff piece for agri-business?
Good how some things remain the same. Reliability is comforting. If things had changed here, where else would we go for a free laxative?
Cheerio must dash for the toilet. You keep muddying those waters Jennifer!
If varp is what we see coming to the rescue of Ann, she’s defenseless. Gestapo, funding and laxatives?
The reading of Richard Ness’s predicament and the issue of mercury, reminds me of an situation that occurred here in Victoria, some years ago under Joan Kirners green Gestapo. I probably will deviate here a bit here and there but what the hell, sometimes you need background perspective……and I am not promoting a personnel cause.
“Losses of metallic mercury from gold mining activities since the 1850’s in the Great Dividing Range has been estimated at 950 tons”. (Bacher, G.J., 1987. Mercury in Freshwater Fish. Position Paper.)
This is an excerpt from a 1991 Victorian Parliamentary Inquiry into the use of eductor gold dredges (EGD).
I was at the time an operator of an EGD, while at the same time doing a Natural Resource Management course to fulfill my aspiration of becoming a park ranger. It was not long into the inquiry, that I no longer wanted to be a park ranger, as I learnt the true state of our environment and the disgusting politics that runs it. In fact these departments seemed to be on an agenda that we in the public were not aware of. The bad science alone, indicated an alarming underlying reliance on scaremongering, ill conceived perceptions and downright lies.
Eductor gold dredges (EGD) are a portable, one/two person operated gold recovery device that vacuums stream bed material through a hose, into a sluice box, where the gold is trapped and later recovered with a gold pan. The operator uses a hookah diving system and most rocks are moved by hand. The bulk of the material, after processing in the sluice box, falls straight back into the river behind the operator. Subsequent high water events, automatically re-sort/ classify this material into a natural, uniform profile.
An appreciable amount of this historic mercury loss, was in the Goulbourn River area. This was highlighted by the jars of metallic mercury that EGD operators bought to the inquiry as evidence, which they had removed from the river. Some of the operators had many kilos of metallic mercury which they had found using EGD’s, along with many more kilos of lead, in the form of fishing sinkers and lead shot.
As mentioned EGD’s have sluice boxes on them which trap gold in them, due to gold’s high specific gravity (it’s heaviness). Metallic mercury is also heavy and also gets trapped in the riffles of the EGD’S sluice box.
As I understand it, metallic mercury is somewhat benign, in fact you can swallow it and it will pass through your system and be “ejected’ later. It is the methylated forms that are nasty, very nasty.
As I came to learn of the dangers of the methylated forms of these two elements, I was interested to see what the departments were going to do about this ‘historical’ pollution, especially after this inquiry highlighted the alarming amounts uncovered by EGD operators. I had discovered a newspaper article, from the Herald dated 1983, which said how the department of ‘many name changes’, was seeking to have trout fishing banned from Lake Eildon, due to the extraordinary high levels of mercury found in trout tested. Especially the bigger trout.
Were the departments going to use modern day gold miners (EGD operators) to systematically remove this nasty stuff?
Of course not. This would be a HUGE environmental brownie point for the EGD operators. Instead the department ‘experts’ decided that EGD’s did not even capture it. They came up with a load of goodeleygook. Outrageous claims, no evidence, no explanation and no discussion.
When they were told that EGD could be slightly modified to capture close to 100% of the metallic mercury, silence. They refused to partake in demonstrations.
They went on to say that EGD activity stirred up and dispersed the mercury, although, they wouldn’t explain if they meant the metallic or methylated (in the sediment or water soluble) forms but either way, they lied.
When I said they lied, I mean they refused to give a true perspective of the situation and rather deliberately clouded the issue.
EGD is best suited to mountainous river systems where the rivers structure is one of course sediment overlying bedrock. The course sediment in the form of rocks and stones, are often moved in huge volumes during a high level, high velocity flood, only to settle back into its original bed profile due to the shape of the underlying bedrock. The coarseness and combined weight of this material sees it automatically lock into place. The gaps between the course material are filled with finer sediments, thus ‘cementing’ the lot together.
Metallic mercury is found on the bedrock (along with the gold), while the methylated mercury is found in surface sediments and the water column.
Metallic mercury requires oxygen (aerobic conditions) to methylate, along with certain microbic activity. In a river system as just described, the locking of the bed material sees the presence of microbic conditions and aerobic conditions present in only the top few centimeters of the bed material. (BTW. It is not only the lack of oxygen that dictates the microbic activity be limited to the surface material but also the fact that the little critters will get ground to a paste in any ensuing flood disturbances, which can happen anytime of the year.)
So therefore the metallic mercury at the bottom of the bed material is stored under anaerobic (no oxygen) conditions with little or no microbic activity. It cannot methylate.
EGD sluice boxes capture the metallic mercury, where it is removed from the river environs for good.
The methylated/water soluble mercury is found in the surface sediments.
I suppose you would have to say (theoretically) therefore, that EGD operators create localized disturbance of methylated mercury present in the surface sediment, as do wading fisherman, swimmers, canoes and of course fish, frogs and field scientists. None of these disturbances however, come close, to the disturbance caused by even the most minor increase in water velocities, due to rain.
Since 1991 I have periodically been in contact with certain departments to see if anything was being done to remove this pollution, especially after the alarming amount of metallic mercury (and lead) that was shown to the committee.
Answer. Nothing, except for in recent times (apparently), some signs have gone up warning people not eat to many fish out of Lake Eildon.
This debacle of an inquiry saw the Precautionary Principle applied, to cause the cessation of licences being issued. No long term environmental damage could be found, in fact 15 years and a few floods later, sees no sign of previous operations, anywhere in Australia, having ever taken place. These machines were a perfect way of extracting gold from such river environs and yet Joan Kirner and her phlukeys showed how natural justice and true ecological threats can be ignored for the green vote, while hard working Aussies (and future generations) are kicked out of environmentally sustainable streams of employment.
No other country has placed a ban on EGDing. In Australia they call such a decision ‘world’s best practice’.
Interesting to note, one of the main groups ‘opposed to EGD’s was a group of elite trout fisherman, lead by Rex Hunt. The claims they made against dredges were outrageous, with a classic by Hunt himself on his 3AW fishing show 3 days before the decision was to be made. He claimed that one dredge could ‘destroy’ 20 km’s of river, the ministers were thinking of allowing EGDing to continue and that his listeners should write in and complain (by Friday).
Consequently, after Rex’s claims, dozens of letters were received by the minister. EGD was later banned.
When, however I went and observed these letters of complaint it turned out they were mostly pro-forma, a lot using the same pen and a lot, it seemed, written by the same hand and were illegible (fakes). It was this ‘community consultation’ incident that seemed to tip the minister towards the decision of complete cessation of EGD.
And here’s a sad irony I discovered.
Rex went on to become a fishing media star (making piles of money) and yet
• It is the fisherman who have caused immense ecological damage through the loss of lead sinkers. Methylated lead is bad. EGD removes lead.
• EGD operators reported seeing time and time again platypus dead, after becoming entangled in discarded fishing line. One operator found 3 juveniles in one entanglement. EGD operators can remove fishing line.
• Rex and none of the environmentalists involved have said anything since of the mercury that was presented at the inquiry. EGD removes metallic mercury.
• The prized sporting fish, trout, is an introduced species that has decimated our native fish and frog populations. The trout has probably caused the extinction of some species. Rex campaigns for the release for more trout. The release is done by the departments that banned EGDing.
• I found a reference to sediment being found several kilometers downstream of a EGD operation. This did not make sense, as it just did not happen. Was this where Rex got his ammunition from?
I chased the ‘scientist’ up. He turned out to be a dept. staffer working with threatened species. I put it to him that this sediment movement was impossible. His reply was I agree. He went on to say that he was referring to a 4WD crossing and that this was a personnel communication in the office that had been misquoted. (In fact the 4WD crossing could not even cause this sediment movement).
While EGDing is dead in the water, this inquiry highlighted the extraordinary way in which the departments not only pervert justice but ignore serious ecological threats, the case in point here being mercury. Then there is feral animals, wildfire, bad science, bad politics,…….
And then there’s your media stars ……….
Meanwhile, the mercury and lead continue to methylate, the wildfire fuels continue to build, the feral animals continue to breed, forests continue to succeed to ecologically unsustainable management practices and the greens continue the lies.
As for Richard Ness, I could imagine the situation he is in.
How do we stop this crap?
stewie, one way to stop this crap used to be to get it in the press. Which as usual doesn’t work because they won’t publish it. But you’ve actually done something. Blogs like Jennifer’s *will* publish and I for one applaud you.
I used to know a few charter/fishing boat skippers who also did a bit of dredging, all dead now, they took a whole heap of dept heavies including the Minister (NSW) on a boat trip up the Hawkesbury for a day out. Both the upper reaches of the Hawkesbury and McDonald and the branches are heavily silted, particularly the McDonald which has all but disappeared under a bed of sand. When the idea of dredging was broached the Minister quickly said “no way”
It must be very political, dredging would have improved the river and improved the land around. When we worked it out, the cost per m3 of material was attractive, landholders could have offset much of the costs.
“Thanks Schiller. What do you think Ann? Could Greenpeace do something to help Richard Ness? It would make a difference.
And it would show that Greenpeace cares about the truth, a fair go, and about individuals regardless of their nationality. ”
Jennifer and Schiller,
As far as I know , Greenpeace has never been involved in this action so I’m quite sure that they can’t be in any help in this case.
Greenpeace has neither an office in Indonesia.
You know there are SOOO many environmental issues in this world and Greenpeace can’t be involved in all, of course this is also a bit frustrating but it would weaken the organisation if too many campaigns were involved.
As far as I have understood the biggest enviro organisation involved in this case has been Wahli, so it’s up to them to show any goodwill..
Jennifer, with your wee band of merry supporters, grab isolated bits of info to attack and genaralise about those you perceive as a threat to your agenda. IPA has a mandate to discredit and cripple NGOs/NFPs. Some NGOs perform some very important work to help poor communities – would you like to see them all disbanded? Which do you support?
Constructive criticism has an important place, but what constructive contributions do you, rog or schiller make? If you don’t have a (Plan B) alternative to propose than what are hoping to achieve?
I challenge you to consider your inherent biases. I ask what alternatives are suggested other than armchair criticisms. In asking these questions, dare I compare myself to some old dead philosopher as you love to? I suggest you apply the same standards of independent professionalism to yourself as you regularly do to others. Why am I bothering? This is a biased, politically weighted forum mostly for people who defend the power bases of their vested interests and don’t care about the poor and vulnerable majority.
WAHLI is Friends Of The Earth Indonesia and apparently instigated the court case against Newmont Mining (source: US Agency for International Development, Toward an Environmental and Natural Resources Strategy for ANE Counties in the 1990s, USAID, Washington, D.C., 1990.)
FOTE International is a big business receiving money from many sources and redistributing to local groups. In a nutshell – they are anti capitalism.
Since Greenpeace has nothing to lose in the Ness case, it is in an ideal position to come to his defense.
That would be outside the group’s remit, however. As Greenpeace has pointed out in the past, it’s an environmental group and is therefore not involved in humanitarian concerns.
Perhaps Amnesty International, another signatory to the Accountability Charter, could step in on behalf of Ness. It would be quite instructive and enlightening to see a humanitarian NGO go up against an environmental NGO.
The only notable humanitarian NGO willing to go up against environmental NGOs is the Congress on Racial Equality, which is consistent in protesting the poverty, hunger and disease caused in Africa by environmentalist incursions. This would happen more often and involve other humanitarian groups, but it doesn’t, for the simple reason that most NGOs are anti-capitalist first and foremost. The environment or humanity are subsidiary concerns.
Accordingly, Amnesty International would only step in on behalf of Ness if he were a Marxist.
Schiller :”As Greenpeace has pointed out in the past, it’s an environmental group and is therefore not involved in humanitarian concerns.”
Well Schiller, that is not really a correct statement.
Greenpeace’s ship the Rainbow Warrior helped out “Doctor’s without Borders” first during the tsunami catastrophie in Indonesia and recently during the Lebanon-Israel crisis.
Right now Greenpeace have won a big victory in Europe. The death ship Probo Koala has been detained in Estonia and an investigation is going to be carried out what really happened in the Ivory Coast , where the ship dumped its toxic cargo and caused the death of 7 people and injured tens of thousands people who inhaled the toxic fumes.
Schiller,
Amnesty Inernational’s website is closed down in China…
There was a scandal some years ago in Sweden where Amnesty International was involved, the Director embezzled a huge sum of money.
That was why I mentioned, can we really trust organisations and different NGOs.
I have been involved in NGOs for many years, and I can point out scary examples from own experience… mostly it’s about money….
This odd thread in its development has been most interesting. It sheds light on some individuals, their motives and certain aspects of mining. Like many on many blogs though few have here really have a good handle on this subject. I’m here to tell another story.
Let’s say from the outset; although I have been fascinated with rocks and minerals over a lifetime, all mining that I have been associated with is a very dirty business indeed. From the quarry to the blister ingot whatever stage we are in it’s a messy slimy often dangerous business. But let’s put this in some perspective.
After working with hundreds in various hazardous industries, workmates usually die prematurely from self inflicted harm like tobacco or alcohol related illness in the longer term if it was not more abrupt for some unfortunates.
I suggest this even applies to NGO’s wherever they are too.
We can thank rog for listing the background stuff early on, I got stuck into the flow charts and realised it was a modern mining operation from its conception. Note; at one time I actually worked with guys from AMDAL (not ANDAL) from Adelaide uni who at that time were probably the best process analysts in the world. Note too the best laid plans of mice and men are just plans.
Our modern plant redesigned twice after decades of early ore treatment failures was still in trouble when I left. Sudden dumping of the entire automated grinding circuit was common. Cleanup below with any sized drott took days. Much went to tailings. What is recovered from tailings depends on the recycling planed from day one. We worked and lived in one of Australians highest rainfall areas. One major dam washed away. It tore out forests and killed fish for miles downstream.
What killed those fish we don’t know as it was too remote for testing, no NGO’s either. Our ore bodies contained up to 30% arsenic, sulphides, a bit of copper and lots of other things by the time it all got to tailings despite our best intentions.
Regarding our tailings loss; this was a worst case scenario and not typical of good dam management today. Back then we expected to reprocess all again as our technology improved. AMDAL were the experts in recovery below 1% and managed mines all over, Russia, Chile etc. This leaves wondering why any mine or government would deliberately dump either tailings or roastings at sea.
A mate used to mind one process roasting sulphides to produce acid, the fumes burnt the neighbourhood and the coke was barged out to sea (no NGO’s there either). Naturally the fumes also rotted the plant. That is what stopped it in the end. Gary never had colds or flu there but his health is not so good now.
I worked in mercury, chlorine, H2S, lead, asbestos and other nasties associated with big name manufacturing and live to tell tails, a bit slow perhaps………..these days.
Who knows what takes us out?
We each live by our wits every day regardless.
An Australian company, Dolomatrix, have a process which converts toxic mining waste into an inert form
http://www.dolomatrix.com/index.htm
Clever man is Doumbos
..After applying their biased version of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to the most recent Lebanese War Amnesty International have proved their true intent, they are inherently anti west and pro left.
10,000 plus words of mostly gibberish and still not one brown-skinned person has been given a name and a face.
Sigh.
Steve,
If you would like to tell us something about the Indonesians also accused in the case against Newmont – please post as much in a comment or send me some stuff for a new thread.
I have written about Richard Ness here because Richard contacted me and later said it was OK to post the text from that email. Also his son has a great website.
Please desist from making racist innuendo. Its insulting including to my daughter.
Rog; that Dolomatrix ref on the www looks interesting.
But given that the Dolocrete process exists here now for sites like we had under say Orica in Sydney and more particularly arsenic trioxide in places like WA recently; what happened at Newmont or any other similar operation before Dolocrete came to the rescue?
Seems like an epoxy type fudge finally made the grade with the EPA or was it concrete?
At a glance there is not enough info posted to convince an old industrial skeptic like me.
Volumes of treatments, continuous volumes 24/7 please.
Some of that stuff mentioned on your Dolo Matrix ref has been in the too hard basket for decades. And guess what industry everywhere did with it?
Recall; I had some experience with that liquid “Santobrite” (note it has a dozen other trade names). PCP was used quite widely like organic mercury to kill slime build up and I can say hardly anyone around us thought either were particularly dangerous; and the simple reason for that? Nobody was told early on.
Squeaky clean processes don’t exist yet.
I write about glib governments too.
Only Steve Munn has the time to count all the words..
Ann,
Leave it to Greenpeace to come up with anecdotal evidence!
Greenpeace aren’t humanitarians. They’re content to see millions of humans die of malaria because of the mythical qualities of DDT. Greenpeace is content to see millions of children go blind rather than allow the cultivation of Golden Rice. Greenpeace is content to see malnutrition across Africa rather than to allow Africans to eat the same GM corn that Westerners consume routinely.
Floating a few doctors around in a boat doesn’t make Greenpeace humanitarians. And if you want to tally up the score, environmentalists have killed more humans than Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and Hitler.
Interesting that the biggest killers on the list are Marxists, but I digress.