The Markham river petition

 

5 Comments

Filed under Environmental impact, Human rights, Mining, Papua New Guinea

5 Responses to The Markham river petition

  1. Bill Jenkins

    Just out of curiosity – what happens if the mine is found to not be at fault for the fish kill? Can they ask for compensation from these people?

  2. wesely

    Bill
    I suppose you noticed that the main thrust of this petition seems to be for recognition and inclusion of the completely unrelated communities to the operations at Wafi/Gopu/HiddenValley within the MOA.
    This highlights the complete contradiction and fallacy of the absurd proposal by Namah recently for the devolution of state interests in minerals to land owners.
    Most of this petition is concerned clearly with an attempt to gain a commercial advantage without regard to rectification of a possible problem in the riverine system.
    Clearly the cause of the problem is yet unidentified.
    No doubt this will become yet another one of those endless claims.
    On your comment, I note that the costs in the cause in relation to the Ramu matter are yet to be paid, least ways that’s how it seems.
    Difficult to find any credible response from a community that thinks that a mining company is an endless source of money.
    Would they the milk the cow without feeding it?
    And when there is no more milk would they kill it and eat it?

  3. Juergen Mueller-Wolff

    Hold on not to take the concerns of the people seriously.
    Sooner or later you will wake up or more likely get waken up.
    Your comments are fairly ignorant and arrogant as your livelihood depends not directly on the natural enviromental resources like the Labu people.

  4. wesely

    Juergen
    You comments are noted.
    Now, as I was saying……………..
    I suppose you noticed that the main thrust of this petition seems to be for recognition and inclusion of the completely unrelated communities to the operations at Wafi/Gopu/HiddenValley within the MOA.
    This highlights the complete contradiction and fallacy of the absurd proposal by Namah recently for the devolution of state interests in minerals to land owners.
    Most of this petition is concerned clearly with an attempt to gain a commercial advantage without regard to rectification of a possible problem in the riverine system.
    Clearly the cause of the problem is yet unidentified.
    No doubt this will become yet another one of those endless claims.
    On your comment, I note that the costs in the cause in relation to the Ramu matter are yet to be paid, least ways that’s how it seems.
    Difficult to find any credible response from a community that thinks that a mining company is an endless source of money.
    Would they the milk the cow without feeding it?
    And when there is no more milk would they kill it and eat it?

  5. Minna Tenkanen

    You can’t just distroy people’s environment without any responsibility.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s