Landowners hit back at Anderson and Gooding

Landowners affected by the Chinese State owned Ramu nickel mine have hit back at criticism of them by Greg Andreson of the PNG Chamber of Mines and John Gooding of Highland’s Pacific with a full page advertisement in PNG’s daily newspaper.



Filed under Environmental impact, Human rights

5 responses to “Landowners hit back at Anderson and Gooding

  1. Fed up

    Tenkyu tru ol papa na mama graun long tok aut na tok stret.

    so where is everyone who is paddling the CSIRO and whatever other DSTP reports are out there? can you come forward and state your position on the Lutheran report?

    khomkai, what is your position on this report? you boasted about knowing everything about this project so tell us now. sapos yu nogat toktok long mekim orait mi tokim yu nau long pasim displa liklik maus blong yu!

    for my peace of mind, can someone please DISPROVE what is being stated by the landowners, by people who have something to lose?

  2. Bruce

    Surely its your duty to look after your own state of mind Ms Fed Up.
    Don’t expect anyone else to do that for you.

  3. Bruce

    How about a bit of balance here by also publishing the statement appearing in the National newspapers by the many land owners in and around Medang who you do not act for and who object to what you are doing?

  4. Fed up

    Bruce aka tuffunay aka khomkai. Why do I know it’s the same person hiding under various pseudonyms? Just look at how you keep spelling our beautiful MADANG as Medang even when talking shit under various pseudonyms.

    Please respond to the Lutheran report and stop paddling nonsense.

  5. Basumuk Land Owners

    Basumuk Land Owners……….

    “A Bit of a Red Herring”: Deep Submarine Tailings Placement and the Basamuk Mine Site

    The Scottish Association of Marine Science Report is not a broad study of the impact of the Basamuk mine on the environment but a specific and very comprehensive study of the impact of Deep Submarine Tailings Placement (DSTP) on deep sea (benthic, or sea-bed) life at depths of 900-2000m for Lihir, 1000-1500m for Misima, and 1000-1400m for the Basamuk project. The improper use of this Report (see Post Courier, May 27 2010, p. 34) as evidence that the Basamuk mining site will be an environmental hazard is a distorted reading and “absolutely false”.

    1. The implication that there will be a general “wide dispersal” of tailings is dishonest because the actual quotation used refers specifically to “near bottom flows”, not surface or shallow impact (see p. 67, 2.5.4 Sediment sampling and sedimentology). In fact, the writers have doctored the quotation from p. 68 by substituting “resuspended” for “resedimented”!!!!

    2. The next quotation used by the writers referring to an “unambiguous demonstration” that DSTP has major impacts on life at very deep sea levels, is exactly that. It refers to deep sea benthic communities (see p.181, 5.1 Benthos). Did the writers go to the very next page of the report and consider this?

    “5.3 Plumes of particles from DSTP: how far can they travel and can we detect any ecological impacts?
    • The intensity of stratification in the WEP is so great that it is inconceivable that suspended material released below the thermocline (say 100 m) could diffuse back to the surface anywhere in the vicinity of a DSTP.
    • The strength of this stratification, coupled to the relative weakness of the Coriolis parameter and wind stress suggests that if any upwelling takes place it must involve only the surface 80 m at most (the depth of the thermally mixed layer) and not those depths at which the mine tailings come to rest.
    • The bottom line here is that it is simply not possible for waters of intermediate depth to return to the surface (say below 300 m).
    • A bigger problem (as evidenced from Lihir) is the impact of surface runoff in the vicinity of port operations. In fact it could be argued that discussion about the problems with a properly regulated DSTP is a bit of a red herring from an environmental point of view (once the tailings have safely dropped beneath the surface waters, however defined) and that the real focus should centre on shore based operations.”

    The Report states openly here that in terms of environmental impact what happens on shore may be more important than what happens deep-sea.

    3. In fact, the DSTP will behave in the same way as the 80million tons per annum of natural river sediment entering the Basin and settle on the sea floor at depths of around 1500m. Like the natural sediment, it will have no effect the on surrounding reefs and fisheries of the Basin.

    4. With respect to the writers’ claim that the waste “will not go to the bottom of the sea and stay there”, the Report says the opposite. Water of intermediate depth will not return to the surface (see p. 182, 5.3); reefs and reef populations will not be adversely affected; like the river silt, the tailings will remain at deep sea levels (see p.42, 2.4.2, Deep offshore waters, “most of the deep sea tailing material will quickly end up in the deep water of Astrolabe Bay” and will not affect outer islands and reefs.

    5. Like the eighty million tons of river sediment per annum (compared to the five million tons per annum of the mine), the tailings will enter the Basin through one of the V-shaped undersea canyons (the Basamuk Canyon) to a depth of 800m and then continue in flat floor turbidity channels into the Vitiaz Basin. “It has been estimated that the Vitiaz Basin contains deep-water sediments of approximately 2 km thick” (see p. 25, 2.2.1 Geomorphology) at depths of 1000-1600m; the tailings will form an insignificant portion of this sediment.

    6. The Report does state generally on p. 19 that: “None of the tailings disposal options currently available to the mining industry come without some risk of environmental impact” but this is a decision to be made by the traditional land owners and clan leaders and the relevant Government authorities. It is not a decision for migrant landowner groups (only one of the 13 signatories is from the Basamuk area), non-government organizations and other vicarious groups.

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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