Read the Supreme Court decision on the Ramu mine toxic waste dumping

The Supreme Court has ruled Chinese mining company MCC can dump 100 million tons of toxic waste from the Ramu nickel mine into the sea – read the Judgement from SCA 84 of 2011 (1.7mb)

Amazingly, Justice Hartshorn and Sawong needed only 5 pages to dismiss the appeal, while dissenting Judge Justice Davani has taken 33 pages to carefully explain her decision


Filed under Environmental impact, Human rights, Papua New Guinea

14 responses to “Read the Supreme Court decision on the Ramu mine toxic waste dumping

  1. sandy daisley

    It is a disgrace, to think that dumping that amount of tailings won’t effect the enviroment & coral in the sea is a joke, it’s time the rest of the world became aware of what’s happening in PNG. It would not be allowed anywhere else.
    To contaminate the waterways is a serious problem, it needs the Human Rights Court in The Haig to make a decision.

    • j kross

      Where is The Haig, sandy, if I may ask? Is it anywhere near Baghdad?

      We never p%ss toxic propaganda into The Hague and they will never be allowed to over here.

      • Wesely

        No, its not “Amazing” at all.
        Its so so obvious.
        The reason why the majority of the court in the Ramu matter only needed 5 pages of comment to explain their reasons was because the Respondent’s Appeal was so poorly conceived that all it took was just that.
        Obviously, that also reflects on very poor legal thinking the trail judge’s decision in the first instance.
        Davani got it wrong hence her ramblings and non sequiter logic, which took 35 pages of confused non legal reasoning to explain her (illogical) position.
        Putting in in simple words, nearly all of the argument put by the Plaintiff’s Lawyer at trial in the first instance was wrong.
        The trial judge, being, apparently, an emotional man, and seeing himself as something akin to the Lord Denning of The Islands, compounded the problems, but no one is perfect.
        So for over a year we have been listening to Tiffany Twaddle crowing like a demented little rooster over this matter but in reality there never was anything to crow about.
        No toxic waste has been proven.
        No public nuisance.
        No basis for an injunction.

  2. This is intersting – What’s the Oniel-Namah government say on this?

  3. Wesely

    PNG’s own Court has pronounced on the matter. Whats going on here?

  4. j kross

    The courts have reviewed the case and have allowed the operation to commence.

    There is no nuisance to people or the environment. Its all in the heads of scaremongers.

    We have several DSTP in PNG, and others around the world.

    I have absolutely nothing to gain from MCC and its operations.

  5. Ken the Miner

    The tailings disposal is NOT TOXIC.
    Who wrote that they are toxic is deliberately trying to misinform the public.
    They are similar to naturally occurring sediments that flow into the Vitiaz basin and only about 6% of the volume and contain no toxic chemicals. They are pH 8.2 same as seawater and they are channeled to well below the mixing depths that are used for commercial fishing.
    This project was always fully permitted and used the best international advice, with every opportunity for legal landholder participation.
    It is a disgrace that commissioning this project has been delayed for more than two years at huge expense to the companies that built it, by a few malcontents that have now exhausted every avenue of the law have been now fully rebuffed.

    • Wesely

      No Ken, your wrong.

      The stuff proposed to be dumped in the DSTP is NOT THE SAME as the natural sediments that flow into the Vitaz Basin.

      The stuff that flows naturally into the Vitaz Basin contains nickel.

      The stuff that will flow through the Ramu plant into the Vitaz Basis will contain NO nickel.

      The Ramu plant is good for the environment.

  6. Wesely

    Trust an irresponsible dishonest mentally unbalanced lawyer to spread malicious dishonest crap like this around.
    Tiffany should have her balls cut off for what she’s done.

  7. Ken the Miner

    She will, when she has to pay the costs of this frivolous action.

  8. Wesely

    I heard that Tiffany’s friends have closed up shop in Australia about a day after the Ramu decision came out.
    Seems they don’t want to be around when it comes to pay their debits as the fall due.
    Good thing the Lutheran Church is still in business in the area.
    They can show their commitment to the Ramu cause by passing around the hat to pay for the State, Ramu and Highlands legal fees.

  9. My under the mother law of the land, it states if can quoute ” look after the land or sea and it will look after you”, hence there are better ways if the government can review the mining and environmental act on waste disposal at the sea. Neutralize the waste before disposal 1000 km deep in the ocean….!!!! this decision is biased based on critically logical thinking… second if possible then recycle the waste into useful substances….

  10. Pingback: Papua New Guinea Supreme Court opens floodgates for 100 million tonnes of toxic waste

  11. Pingback: Reflections on Medaing Vs Ramu NiCo MCC: A great day for legal academia, a sad day for PNG | Papua New Guinea Mine Watch

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