By Micheal Wartovo
Landowners of the Simberi mine are upset about the proposed change of a new developer to replace Allied Gold Ltd (AGL), reports the Post Courier.
Spokesman of landowner group ML 136 Mr Henry Salin came out publicly on the clan leader’s position after learning that the Member for Namatanai and Minister for Mining Byron Chan and Simberi Mining Area Association (SMAA) are negotiating with a new developer to replace Allied Gold on Simberi.
A Spokes person of the ML 136 said the legitimate clan leaders and landowners are very angry and disgusted for not being consulted on the plan move to remove AGL from Simberi.
Mr Salin said that called on Mr Chan and the SMAA to respect the wishes of the clan leaders because they are the true leaders of the clans that that represent the area covering the ML 136.
He said AG Limited was granted the mining license after it met all legal requirements and questioned the grounds of such extreme action and also questioned the motives of Mr Chan and the Simberi Mining Area Association (SMAA) of their stance in replacing Allied Gold Limited.
The spokes person warned Mr Chan and SMAA continue to make decisions against the wishes of the legitimate ML 136 clan leaders and landowners, he fears it may result in an uprising such as in Bougainville.
A clear example was when Mr Chan used his Ministerial power to obtain the peoples royalty money over k164,000 held in trust by MRA despite the June 2011 Jointed Resolution.
According to the ML 136 clan leaders and landowners, Allied Gold Limited is doing all it can to assist the people of Simberi and Tabar as a whole and AG limited has a hand in the completion of a new double classroom and including renovation work on two existing classrooms at the Simberi top up schools, renovating of building infrastructure at the Simberi clinic.
Here is a classic example of the REAL cause of conflict between honest and transparent community focused developers ethically honoring their obligations under the MOA to all stake holders on Simberi and a CORRUPT LITTLE POLITICAL OPPORTUNIST ACTING QUITE IMPROPERLY AND IN BREACH OF HIS DUTIES AS THE MINISTER FOR MINING to the people of PNG, doing a corrupt deal with a party who seeks to obtain some on else’s property.
Chan should be the subject of immediate police investigation and a prosecution, clearly what he has attempted to do is completely against the national interest, not sanctioned by Law, and not sanctioned by his Office as Minister for Mining, and completely without justification or advice from the Mining Advisory Council and the MRA.
Chan is acting on a frolic of his own.
Chan is ostensibly corrupt and this is evidence of a conspiracy to defraud and act corruptly in Public Office.
This is sending a shocking message to the International Community, “Minister for Mining in PNG is corrupt”, and will now be seen internationally as a sign that O’Neil has lost control of the otherwise lauded publicly stated initiatives to stamp out corruption in PNG, particularly in the most critical sector of governance.
At the very least Chan should be immediately removed from the office as Minister for Mining and be subject to an immediate police investigation.
As a member of the international community, it is important to clarify that the Mining Minister is simply following the official steps recommended by the investigations by numerous government agencies that have detailed numerous violations of national law by the operator. The international community actually salutes those public officials who chose to uphold the law in the face of this type of character assault.
Sorry to say, David, but you are hopelessly mis-informed .
In the alternative, you are in the pay, service, and influence of Byron and Julius Chan.
Why?
The statement you make of “numerous government agencies” making “detailed numerous violations of national law” is MISLEADING and a FALSHOOD.
Why?
You say that the Minister “is simply following the official steps recommended by the investigations by numerous government agencies that have detailed numerous violations of national law by the operator”.
Firstly, there are only two “government agencies” responsible for ensuring compliance under the Mining Act, Mining Safety Act, and Environment Act.
There is only one body who could made such a recommendation to cancel the tenements and no such recommendation has been made.
There are NO “numerous government agencies” as you seem to optimistically but misleadingly suggest to the public responsible for investigation Mining Act matters.
Those only government agencies responsible for ensuring such compliance are (Mining Act and Mining Safety Act) the Mineral Resources Authority, and, (Environment Act) the Department of Environment.
Clearly, Byron Chan does not know this as Minister which, in itself is a very disturbing indictment on his capacity to function in Public Office.
Now, David, despite “numerous allegations” of “numerous violations” of the above referred legislation in response to these “numerous allegations” investigations (by highly experienced technical staff of the respective regulatory body given the obligation by the peoples of Papua New Guinea under the Laws of the Independent State of Papua New Guinea to ensure compliance) reveal no such violations of the Mining Act, the Mining Safety Act, nor the Environment Act.
It needs to be also said that the Government of Papua New Guinea, in investigating the “numerous allegations” of “numerous violations” retained world class consultants to do their bidding, flown in from the United States.
Those consultants also confirmed that there were no such violations.
That’s right David, NO VIOLATIONS.
One would have thought that the Land Owners would be the first to complain if here had been violations but they also confirm their objection to what Chan is trying to do and the fact that the company has done nothing wrong.
These alleged “violations” have also been unequivocally and very clearly refuted by the Mineral Resources Authority.
As for you claim to be a “member of the international community” it is important for the real international community to understand that in fact you are no such person and you simoly use this claim to conceal the fact that you are a PNG National, most probably in the paid employ of Byron Chan.
Dr David Martin,
Did a bit of research on your good self.
It appears that you have been in the service of Chan.
Read a bit more about you and discovered to my amazement this comment you published on your blogspot @ http://www.invertedalchemy.blogspot.com.au/
“Nautilus Minerals Continues to Ignore Provincial Wishes
Nautilus Minerals (AIM & TSX: NUS) has played the oldest trick in the book by making the government of Papua New Guinea believe it’s investing in a company only to find out it’s getting a piece of a shell corporation which, once again places the country at risk of instability and bankruptcy! The London and Toronto Exchanges should start overseeing the companies they list!”
“………. played the oldest trick in the book” ?
“………..by making the government of Papua New Guinea believe it’s investing in a company only to find out it’s getting a piece of a shell corporation”.
Dr. David Martin, how do you conclude either of the above two propositions?
Did you actually discuss this comment before pulishing it with the (former) Minister of Mines, Hon John Pundari ?
No!
Or, perhaps, you discussed the matter with the members of the Mining Advisory Council?
No!
Or maybe you discused the matter the Secretary of the Department of Mineral Policy and Geo Hazard?
No!
Prime Minister?
No!
Secretary for Treasury?
No!
Anyone who might know the internal process for determining that the Government of PNG should exercise the option to take up the equity in the project?
No!
Ok, Dr David, suck long and hard on this……….
The company’s position was that it was at an experimental stage only with huge sunk costs and told the PNG Gov this.
Company explained that investment was only with respect to the tenement and not the mining assets but the Government would be required to invest in a % of the sunk costs as is required under the Mining Act.
The PNG government was clearly warned that to seek equity in the project was not going to turn a profit.
That the assests used for mining would not form any part of the deal, and there was debit but no profit for the PNG goverment in the particular project.
Nevertheless, despite complete and open disclosure by the company against the PNG government taking up equity, advice supported by numerous KEY professional staff within the various relevant organs of the government of PNG, the Minister chose against the professional advice given.
You have stated that the company has in effect deceived the Government.
How do you justify this otherwise factually untrue and defamatory statement “………………………once again places the country at risk of instability and bankruptcy!” and ” The London and Toronto Exchanges should start overseeing the companies they list!”
Dr David Martin, knowing all the facts, if I was the company I would issue libel writes on you sweet cheeks.
…Dr David Martin
Here is another one of you (ever more typical) quotes
“……………..I was in town working with several landowner groups in our on-going effort to encourage the government of Papua New Guinea to stand-up to THE INNUMERABLE NATIONAL MINING, TAX, CUSTOMS, EMPLOYMENT, FIREARMS, AND INTERNATIONAL SECURITIES LAWS ABUSES RELENTLESSLY PERPETRATED by gold mine operators from Australia, Canada, and the United Kingdom………..”
“…………..innumerable national
mining,
tax,
customs,
employment,
firearms, and
international securities laws
abuses relentlessly perpetrated by gold mine operators from Australia, Canada, and the United Kingdom’
Really Dr David Martin.
And just what investigations did you conduct into these claims?
Nothing?
That would be correct, nothing.
The exploration license for gold mining in his home had lapsed and he wondered if there was any possibility that I would be willing to consider helping to sponsor his village’s effort to apply for, and obtain the license.
A naive gullible American comes to PNG to assist in what turns out to be an agreement to interfere with the legal relations between the Land Owners at Simberi and Allied Gold, and the National Interest, and, thereby implement a corrupt scheme to acquire a tenement in a manner contrary to the Law.
To do this they agree to maintain a series of false factual and mixed factual/legal claims.
In effect, probably a conspiracy to the pervert the due administration of the Law and there, right at the heart of the matter is Byron Chan, right up to his neck and in the middle of the cesspit.
Nice one Dr David Martin!
As I don’t have a context to know you nor your associations and sponsor(s) or sponsorship, I am delighted to afford you the decency of civil communication. I find that your tone is remarkably familiar to others we’ve encountered in similar situations around the world. Should you actually wish to engage in a civil inquiry into the actual economics of the deals that you refer to above, there is a comprehensive review that has been done on mining economics – a portion of which we have shared with the WEF Fair Mineral Development inquiry. Here’s a bit of one of the PNG reports which I’d be delighted to share and discuss in a true dialogue.
As the Provincial and National Governments in Papua New Guinea expand their review of the mining practices in the country, it is vital to realize that, to date, mining operator companies in PNG have received economic benefits in excess of 1,100% of the GDP of the country in the past 3 years. These benefits include Gross Profit of over 400% of GDP and Net Income of nearly 200% of GDP after paying royalties and fees to the local and national government interests. With over $14 billion in dividends paid against a reporting period total of $5.7 billion in gross royalties paid, it is clear that the beneficiary of PNG’s resources is NOT PNG.
More importantly, far from being restricted to revenue from sales, the real economic value for mineral and resource development in the country has been the use (and abuse) of government actions announced as press releases which have created international equity value in which PNG has received NO direct participation.
In the attached spread sheets, Table 1 demonstrates the proceeds of capital raises for PNG operators and demonstrates the over close to $101 billion of market valuation in public equities and international finance generating over $10 billion in gross proceeds to mining and energy operators in which PNG’s only reported participation came in the form of indebtedness and participation in illiquid and non-traded subsidiary equity for which the country has only debt an NO economic gain. While Provincial governments like New Ireland seek to clarify the unpaid royalties and economic disparities around assets like Lihir (Newcrest), they continue to be uninformed, silent, and oblivious on the real benefit to the operator and outside investors in the form of equity appreciation.
In the attached spread sheets, Table 2 demonstrates the economics being generated by the companies operating in PNG and the obvious fact that the MOAs under which these operators are currently practicing are explicitly set up to exclude the country and its people from participating in the Gross economic benefit of the mining and energy operations.
Finally, in the attached spread sheets, Table 3 provides evidence that shows that government announcements (like approval of mining licenses, renewals, etc.) actually are being used by companies to increase their stock value while providing no residual benefit to any PNG interest whatsoever.
David
What you have cut and paste above is, with the utmost respect, a nonsense in so far as it might infer that the Mining Industry in PNG has somehow precluded the Independent State of PNG and Land Owners from participating in profit-sharing from mining operations.
Ditto for your comments on MOA’s by virtue of that entitlement by the State and Land Owners in some instances, to take a 30% equity in any such project.
That pretty much renders any assumptions you would seek to make based on the stats in paragraph two, and matters in paragraphs three (3), four (4) and five (5) above as entirely otiose self-serving and mis-informed nonsense.
As to paragraph six (6) you, like the current Minister, obviously know nothing about prudential controls and regulatory practices in the stock markets of the world where the capital comes to finance these projects.
Companies are legally obliged to announce price sensitive information and the grant of a tenement in many cases, along with any discoveries, and approvals to mine, are very much part of that legal obligation.
What neither you nor the current minister seem to acknowledge is that the value of such an announcement is directly linked to the market cap of the company and generally this is calculated (with regard to gold mining companies) as 40% of the in-ground value of measures resources divided by the number of shares on the market.
However, to get to a point where, for example, a million oz has been (1) discovered, and (2) drilled out and moved into the “measured” category, the company will have been assumed to have spent somewhere between and 80-100 million dollars although this is by no means a hard and fast rule, and, you can add another 60-100 million on that to the point where production might start.
Generally, in PNG, exploration costs are anything up to 300% of those in other nations with established infrastructure and service bases such as Australia.
So it is silly and naive in the extreme to suggest that somehow such announcements bring some sort of windfall gain, they do not.
In many cases it is sufficient only to permit the company to remain liquid.
Nor do these announcements necessarily return those gains from the share market to the company, these funds remain in the hands of private investors.
We call this style of economics “capitalism” and it is a necessary part of the process whereby, for example, Xstrata will raise the $5,000,000,000 dollars required to establish the Frieda River Project which has remained dormant for the last 40 years and remains a relatively high risk project.
One must also remember that mining is cyclical, companies will make profits but they must also find capital to invest in other green field projects if they are to survive.
But the issue germane to mining in PNG is this and it is glaringly simple.
If the citizens of PNG want to participate in the profits and benefits of mining then they must compel their government to behave accordingly, engage responsibly with the industry, and carry their share (i.e. the nations obligations) in the burdens associated with raising risk capital, and, provide the infrastructural benefits the peoples of PNG and the mining industry have been denied by irresponsible inept governments of the past.
You have otherwise failed to respond to the comments made above in relation to the attempted cancellation and transfer of Allied Gold’s tenements at Simberi and that such would be both unlawful and unjustified under the Mining Act.
In other words, it appears to be an arbitrary abuse of office by the Minister, the Honorable Byron Chan
What do you say of this?
Daqvid
You also stated internationally that:-
” Nautilus Minerals (AIM & TSX: NUS) has played the oldest trick in the book by making the government of Papua New Guinea believe it’s investing in a company only to find out it’s getting a piece of a shell corporation which, once again places the country at risk of instability and bankruptcy! The London and Toronto Exchanges should start overseeing the companies they list! ”
Can you demonstrate the truth of these allegations?
I don’t think you can.
If you can, please explain here and now the curcumstance in which you discovered a factual basis for what are clearly otherwise defamatory assertions.
Thank you.
David, lastly, for today………you say
“…As a member of the international community, it is important to clarify that the Mining Minister is simply following the official steps recommended by the investigations by numerous government agencies that have detailed numerous violations of national law by the operator. The international community actually salutes those public officials who chose to uphold the law in the face of this type of character assault.”
You also say you have been in PNG
“ ………….working with several landowner groups in our on-going effort to encourage the government of Papua New Guinea to stand-up to the innumerable national mining, tax, customs, employment, firearms, and international securities laws abuses relentlessly perpetrated by gold mine operators from Australia, Canada, and the United Kingdom. “
From where did you source information permitting you to claim that there are such ‘innumerable national” [breaches of]
The Mining Act and associated legislation,
Tax law;
Customs Law;
Employment Law;
Firearms Law;
International Securities Law:
relentlessly perpetrated by gold mine operators from Australia, Canada, and the United Kingdom ? ? ?
Are you saying there have been prosecutions to that effecct which give rise to your claims of these matters occurring as a matter of fact?
Or are they merely allegations you make?
Thanks
From wher did you source information permitting you to claim that there are