Tag Archives: Misima

Kingston seeks to reboot gold mining on Misima Island

Work on Misima. Source: Kingston Resources

Sarah Byrne | Business Advantage | 18 March 2019

Drilling new targets and locating starter pits are the key focus for junior miner Kingston Resources, as it seeks to revive gold mining on Papua New Guinea’s Misima Island. Managing Director Andrew Corbett reveals the company’s plans to Business Advantage PNG.

With positive drill results to date, Kingston Resources Managing Director Andrew Corbett is confident further exploration will lead to finding new gold resources on Misima Island in Louisiade Archipelago, Milne Bay Province.

‘This year is about following up on the targets we identified through our successful geochemical exploration program in 2018. Identifying near-surface ounces at these targets will allow us to recover capital expenditure, reduce the pay back period and therefore, decrease risk.’

The company is ramping up exploration and plans to drill a range of targets across at least four areas within a few kilometres of the original Misima open pit mine, which operated between 1989 and 2004.

‘We aren’t looking to extend the current resource, we are locating new targets in areas with no previous exploration,’ he says.

Locating starter pits will be the key to reviving the project, according to Corbett.

‘We are ramping up exploration and from what we’ve seen so far, there is great potential at Misima, which is exciting for the team.’

Funding

Kingston’s interest in Misima is driven by the project’s potential to become a large, long-life project, which Corbett says is rare for a junior company.

Juniors have great capacity to take risks by developing new and interesting projects that larger, more risk-averse companies don’t pursue, he adds.

While confident in the outlook for mining projects in Papua New Guinea, Corbett says access to funding is always a focus.

‘At the moment, a lot of the activity is coming from the major players, and it can be difficult for juniors to secure funding.’

In a bid to lessen its need for external funding, the company’s Livingstone project in Western Australia is seen as a potential funding source for Misima.

‘We are continuing to advance Livingstone, this has always been seen as a great option to help fund Misima, through either cash flow or selling it if needs be,’ he says.

‘Funding will always be a challenge, but we are in good stead with having the Livingstone asset and a significant resource base at Misima.’

‘If we continue to deliver operationally, the funding will follow.’

Community support

Corbett says operating in Papua New Guinea has generally been a positive experience, with great support from the Mineral Resources Authority, other regulatory groups and the local community.

‘One of the most important things for us is the support we’ve received, particularly from the local community.

‘We do our best to listen to and work with the community and offer employment where possible because these relationships are key.’

Bright future

As exploration at Misima continues to advance, Corbett says instability around industry regulations is a worry for the company.

‘If the rules change, it is difficult for everyone, from the major players right down to the junior miners.’

As the mining industry in Papua New Guinea continues to strengthen, Corbett says Misima remains a great opportunity for Kingston.

‘I’ve great confidence in mining in Papua New Guinea, with the outlook for gold, copper and nickel in great shape,’ he says.

With the Wafi-Golpu project looking set to get the green light this year, and a number of other projects going ahead or looking to expand, Corbett says things are looking good for the sector.

Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under Exploration, Financial returns, Mine construction

Who benefits from the exploitation of our natural resources?

Lester Seri

Last week the Sepik River People published a Public Announcement Advertisement, making clear their stand, “Ban Frieda River Mine”.  This is a repeat of their previous announcements to ban the mine.

Interesting to note that the Governor of the East Sepik Province rightly seem to be responsible and cautious by allowing for proper consultation and hearing everyone out in order to take a collective decision, but there are other MPs that seem to want the process fast tracked and give the green light for the mine development to take place quickly.

One wonders why the rush considering the enormity of the mining tasks involved of the planned project, the rugged geographical setting, and the likely social and environmental implications that might  arise out of it affecting the multitude of the people in the area, as we have seen in the other mines such as, Ok Tedi, Pogera, and Bougainville to name a few?

It seems like we have never learnt any lessons from these other mine projects to do a better job in order to minimize social and environmental impacts while improving on just and equitable sharing and distribution of the benefits from the proceeds of the mineral exports?

For whatever number of years that Ok Tedi and Pogera Mines have been in operation and the billions of revenue these mines have generated, it is beyond belief that little if any has change in the lives of the landowners and the surrounding communities, I mean basic necessities such as improved income,  electricity, water supply, hausik and medicines, schools, and better constructed road network, and business opportunities for the people in the region. How does one explain this real hard reality situation that we are experiencing in Papua New Guinea, after 42 years of political independence and billions of dollars of revenue generated?

The same could be said about our people on Bougainville Island, after how many years of the Panguna Mine and the many many millions of Kina that it generated, and after the mine closed due to civil war, what is there to show for, in terms of “development”, in real terms? The same could be said of the Misima mine and the people too?

I guess the question that needs answering is, who has and is actually benefiting out of the exploitation of our precious natural resources? More precisely, how are our own people, especially in the rural areas of these multi-billion dollar project areas, really benefiting? The fact that as citizens, we barely scrape through every year despite billions of Kina annual budget being handed down, and effectively there is nothing to show for, is quite troubling to live with.

May be, as a People and a Nation, we should acknowledge the stand taken and the call made by the Sepik River People, this time, and take a step back and critically look at our natural resources extraction policies, laws and strategies again by identifying those serious issues and problems that we have had and faced in the last 42 years, and answer the question, why have we not done well and made any real progress in our development endeavour, in order to do what might be the right thing or way to do to realize that collective desired progressive difference? This challenge should not be that difficult to do as there have been and continue to be scores of scholarly papers / books that have been written about PNG experience over the years relating to our developmental challenges that should guide us to do the right thing, for once!

One problem for sure, in my humble view, is that, in the course of the 42 years of our independence, we have had all the time and opportunity to take a bold stance and make major policy shift to make a big  and better difference but we just did not have that, bold, strong, honest and responsible leadership to do it, and our situation and sufferings today is a testament, that we had quality leadership failure. We need good, strong, bold, determined and responsible leadership with moral authority committed to doing the right thing by their people for now and into the future. 

It is my greatest hope that the Governor of East Sepik and the Leaders responsible for this major mine development will take heed of the our peoples’ call and do what is proper and right by all and guide the nation along a more prosperous developmental path into the future, a better one than what we have been through thus far?

Leave a comment

Filed under Environmental impact, Financial returns, Human rights, Papua New Guinea

PNG miners to present in Sydney

Drilling at Edie Creek

RAPID-FIRE presentations by four companies with interests in Papua New Guinea will be delivered in Australia on Thursday at the inaugural ResourceStocks Sydney conference.

PNG Industry News | 14 May 2018

Kingston Resources is first up at 11.45am, followed by Geopacific Resources, Kalia and Niuminco Group. Each company has a 15-minute slot at the event, which is to be held at the SMC Conference and Function Centre over two days, May 16 and 17.

• Kingston Resources has the advanced exploration Misima gold project which has 2.8 million ounce resource which Kingston aims increase. Misima Island is 625km east of Port Moresby in the Solomon Sea and was operated as an open pit gold mine from 1989 to 2004, producing 3.7Moz gold at an average cost of $218/oz. Kingston owns 49% of Misima and is earning in to 70% and the joint venture partner PPC, is owned by JX Nippon Metals and Mining (66%), and Mitsui Mining and Smelting (34%).

• Geopacific Resources has the advanced exploration Woodlark Island gold project in Milne Bay Province. Geopacific recently released a prefeasibility study on the project which indicated that Woodlark has the potential to be a robust, low-cost, low-stripping ratio open pit operation that can deliver an average of 100,000 ounces of gold per annum over 10 years. Highlights of the study include: an initial head grade of 1.63 grams per tonne gold; an all-in sustaining cost of $A990 per ounce for the first five years and $A1110/oz over the life of mine; capital cost of $A180 million; and a reserve of 34.7 million tonnes at 0.99gpt gold containing more than 1.1 million ounces.

• Kalia describes itself as an exploration company targeting energy metals across a range of mineralisation styles – and one of the company’s areas of interest is Bougainville Island. Kalia says that from the preliminary work completed, including the re-processing of the data collected in 1986 by Fathom Geophysics and the analysis of raw data from other studies, sufficient sites have been identified to begin exploration. 

• Niuminco Group has the brownfields Edie Creek gold project in Morobe Province 120km south of Lae. The mining leases cover nearly four square kilometres and lie in a valley between high slopes. Since becoming involved in the Edie Creek project, Niuminco has upgraded existing buildings and power supplies and constructed service roads in the lease area. Edie Creek ore is currently being processed at an average 15.0 tonnes per day – an increase from the previous 12 month averages of 6.4tpd. With new infrastructure purchased, it is anticipated Edie Creek will scale up to run at more than 40tpd – a three-times increase over recent production rates (13 to 15tpd).

1 Comment

Filed under Financial returns, Papua New Guinea

Canadian courts decide fate of Misima islanders?

Way cleared for Misima restart

THE Supreme Court of British Columbia has granted final approval for the merger between Kingston Resources and WCB Resources.

WCB’s key asset is the Misima gold project on an island of the same name in PNG’s Milne Bay Province.

Historically, Misima has produced more than 3.7 million ounces of gold. It holds a recently completed NI43-101 resource of 2.3 million ounces.

Kingston managing director Andrew Corbett said the merger represented a transformational step for both KSN and WCB shareholders.

“We would like to take the opportunity to thank the WCB management and shareholders for their support during the merger process. The KSN board and management team welcomes the new KSN shareholders and we look forward to starting  work on Misima this month [November].”

The court approval follows overwhelming support from WCB shareholders for the merger with KSN. The process is under way to delist WCB and to issue new KSN shares to WCB shareholders.

“We are immediately starting work on Misima which includes completing a JORC resource, and re-establishing a field team incorporating current and new operational personnel who will be restarting geochemical field work shortly.

“Historical data completed on Misima has enabled Kingston to rapidly identify priority drill targets on Misima. The KSN management team aim to submit drilling approvals in the new year with a target of mobilising a drill rig in the fourth quarter of financial year 2018,” Corbett said.

Kingston said it was already working with the established field team to restart exploration work on the island.

A review of historic data has highlighted four key target areas. Each of these areas has been underexplored in the recent history of Misima as exploration work subsequent to the 2004 mine closure has focused on deep copper targets.

“Kingston is excited to return the focus to these anomalies, the initial aim will be to add shallow, higher grade tonnes to the existing resource,” the company said. The four target areas are:

  • Umuna East: Mineralised structures on southeast side of Umuna that are up to 1.8km in strike with evidence of high grade, shallow mineralisation. 
  •  Misima North: Which has more than 3km untested strike open to the north supported by historic mining and geochemistry.
  •  Umuna extensions: The existing resource is open along strike and down dip, with additional potential from both shear-hosted and skarn mineralisation which may add to the resource with drilling.
  •  Quartz Mountain: To the west of Umuna, Quartz Mountain is an area of higher grade mineralisation where the average hole depth to date is only 90m. The mineralisation remains open at depth. 

Leave a comment

Filed under Exploration, Mine construction, Papua New Guinea

Desperately seeking legitimacy: Reducing the social impacts of extractives in PNG

Loss of control over your own land and future is a direct challenge to and erosion of self-determination; a right that should be defended and upheld by government…

Charles Roche | Mineral Policy Institute

The people of Papua New Guinea have a complex and varied relationship with the predominantly transnational extractive industry in PNG. At a national scale, the industry is as famous for it’s highs, with the wealth generated by extractives evident in Port Moresby, and for its lows, evidenced by mining related disasters at Panguna and Ok Tedi to name just two. At a more local scale, extractives bring positives in the form of benefits, opportunities and infrastructure balanced against the negatives of environmental harm, social and cultural fragmentation, entrenched gender discrimination and loss of agency. While this tale of impact and benefit at local and national scales raises many questions, this article, responding to a recent book chapter, responds to just one – how well do we monitor, evaluate and ameliorate the impacts from mining?

This is not a new question. Twenty years ago a National Resources Institute (1996) report into the social impacts of mining, based on fieldwork at Misima, Porgera, Ok Tedi and Lihir, found a number of common impacts. These included: (1) resource scarcity and over population; (2) influx of outsiders; (3) breakdown of law and order; (4) unequal distribution of income; (5) subordination of women; (6) power struggles with community; and (7) project dependency syndrome. Though not wholly or solely attributed to the extractive industries, this early identification certainly demonstrates a long-term awareness of and acknowledged responsibility to identify, measure and overcome these impacts. Nor is it a stale question, with the UNDP (2014) noting the ‘historically under-resourced’ Department of Conservation, which left environmental governance in the hands of mining companies. The assessment of monitoring of social impacts is even worse. For example, the UNDP (2014) reports that: “…SIAs and subsequent social monitoring programmes are typically the poor cousins of the EIA process, and are rarely able to deal with social and political complexity associated with the mines.” (p.66) These failings leaves PNG with only what can only be described as poor governance of environmental and social impacts especially in relation to reporting and data transparency.

mine papua new guinea

This awareness of the importance of responding to social impacts was reinforced by the Asia/Pacific workshop on Managing the Social Impacts of Mining, also in 1996. There, Cook-Clarke (1996) outlined the centrality and importance of community information (data), which would identify and track positive and negative impacts from mining related socio-cultural issues. Cook-Clarke identified three distinct uses of the data; (1) impacts to be identified, defined and assessed, (2) development of mitigation plans, and (3) to inform negotiations between parties. Though in asking who acquires the data – a question which could also be extended to who owns, holds and uses the data – we need to understand that there are different perspectives and reasons for acquiring community data, whether it be for government, community or company purposes. What was already understood in 1996 was that the data collection needed to be transparent and allow for the substantive input of all parties (I would emphasise communities). This would allow the information to be used by communities to make informed decisions and maintain control over development decisions affecting, more than any other group, their own future.

The same seminar also identified a number of additional and specific impacts from the mine on Misima, which shares a matrilineal culture with Bougainville and Lihir. The impacts included: the disruption of the environment, social organisation and cultural values, unresolved issues of land access, and a loss of control by local people over major decisions (Clark & Cook-Clark, 1996). The last of these – ‘loss of control over your own land and future’ – is a direct challenge to and erosion of self-determination; a right that should be defended and upheld by governments and respected by transnational mining companies. At best, in 1996, this could be considered paternalistic colonialism. In 2015, however, such impacts could be more accurately seen and experienced as corporate imperialism. In sum, the identified social impacts represent a potential for significant, massive and long-lasting disruption to local communities affected by the extractive industries. This represents a significant and severe, if not catastrophic risk that should inform decisions and be featured in any environmental and social management or monitoring system.

These reflections and reminders of issues raised twenty years ago set the scene for an examination of Pacheco Cueva’s (2016) book chapter entitled From transnational trends to local practices: Monitoring social impacts in a Papua New Guinea mining community. While accompanied by a range of very interesting chapters focusing on the impacts of transnational capital, it is the only mining focused article in the aptly titled Globalisation and Transnational Capitalism in Asia and Oceania (Sprague, 2016). The article explores the impact of transnationalism on social monitoring through a Lihir Island case study, identifying many related issues to those outlined above. Pacheco Cueva starts by identifying three main functions that socio-economic monitoring fulfils for mining compliance; (1) comply with legislation, (2) to demonstrate the project is globally competitive, and (3) to legitimise the existence of the mining project. Limited by size and concerned about the applicability of competitiveness as a positive driver of better socio-economic monitoring in PNG, the following discussion will focus on two of these, legislative requirements and legitimacy.

In a short history of mining in PNG, Pacheco Cueva reminds us of some of the past crimes, excesses and impacts of the mining industry, and the disjunct between the potential benefits from extractive industries and PNG’s Human Development Index ranking of 156. He then outlines the regulatory requirements under the Mining Act which requires a ‘development forum’ to be convened to address land holder issues, including a system of monitoring and evaluating social impacts, as well as the requirement by DEC for proponents to produce a social impact statement (SIA). Clearly the structure is there, though its implementation is flawed, with Pacheco Cueva describing a situation where “(d)espite the development of a more complex legislative framework for mining and increased knowledge about the social impacts by the industry, many communities continue to be adversely affected by resource extraction in PNG” (p.231). This is followed by a discussion of the effect of global trends, which depicts PNG with a neo-liberalised regulatory regime consisting of uneven development and few local linkages between the extractive industry and local communities, thus rendering PNG politics and economy dominated by transnational companies.

mine compound

From this base, Pacheco Cueva brings a different perspective to the examination of the social impacts from the extractive industry in PNG, grounded in his work on Lihir Island from 2010-12. During that time Pacheco Cueva was employed by the Centre for Social Responsibility in Mining (CSRM) at the University of Queensland (UQ) which had been providing research support for Newcrest’s impact monitoring program since 2007. Pacheco Cueva worked with the company’s Assurance and Impact Monitoring (AIM) section to undertake an economic study which analysed the flow of funds from Newcrest to the local economy. This research also involved conducting interviews to gather data on employment, household consumption, expenditure patterns, entrepreneurial behaviours and informal economic activities. The focus of Pacheco Cueva’s article is not on the data collected, however, but on the collection, use and distribution of the data.

Having already told us that Newcrest “…despite the fact that it possesses, arguably, the largest repository of local socio-economic information about the community in which in operates, makes very selective choices about the type of information it releases to the public” (p.234), Pacheco Cueva then sets out the numerous issues that undermine the purpose and intent of social impact monitoring and management. Though too many to discuss here, some of the key issues identified include: (1) Newcrest’s focus on reducing risk and tensions while securing legitimacy for the project – an approach echoed by Australia’s Export Finance Insurance Corporation (EFIC) (2) the defacto status of Newcrest’s AIM section as a statistical agency; (3) the lack of access to and transparency of the data; (4) comparative resources asymmetry, with the community not having the resources to analyse or maintain data leading to further information asymmetries; and (5) the weak government presence on Lihir.

Pacheco Cueva is not alone in these observations. Asymmetries in power, information and resources underlie almost every mining venture. This leaves experienced capital-intensive and politically influential enterprises interacting and negotiating with inexperienced, predominantly subsistence based communities often alienated from the regional or national polity. In short, transnational extractives operate in a state of inequity that produces ongoing tensions and sub-standard outcomes that cannot be defended from either an ethical or efficiency perspective. Nevertheless, this is the basis for most, if not all multinational operations in PNG, including Lihir, despite the communities’ ability to challenge and even temporarily shutdown mining operations.

Of most relevance to the discussion above and Newcrest’s ongoing operations at Lihir and in Morobe, however, are those relating to control over data collection, storage, analysis, use and distribution. This is a situation where “…as a result of different roles between the company as data manager and other stakeholders as data users, the data generated by the company is much more in line with the company’s conception of development in Lihir than that of landowners’ and/or the government, even if the data fulfils the IBP agreement” [Integrated Benefits Package – the mandated company-community agreement]. Pacheco Cueva describes the Lihir data as biased, which he regards as common practice in the PNG mining industry and beyond. Returning to Cook-Clarke’s three uses of social data, helps perpetuate asymmetries of power and knowledge and undermines community control and self-determination.

Perhaps of equal interest to Pacheco Cueva, is the impact this corporate dominated culture has on the future of Lihir. Certainly the mining operations have contributed to a limited and declining state presence on Lihir, leaving communities more distant from the State than ever. This encourages the increasingly capitalist based Lihir communities to look to the company for solutions, effectively making Newcrest a surrogate State. A situation which rather than delivering power to the company generates further and ongoing social claims against them, creating the tension and risks they sought to avoid by tight control of social monitoring and management.

Finally, Pacheco Cueva describes a shift in corporate social monitoring objectives overtime, from regulatory compliance to risk reduction and the seeking of legitimacy. This evolution, however, doesn’t change the constant difference in motivation and development aims between communities, State and company. These differences become critical to the outcomes on Lihir and elsewhere in the extractive industry, where the obsession with corporate control over data undermines the very benefits sought through legislative requirements and even the corporate quest for legitimacy. This presents a depressing picture of the approach to monitoring of impacts on Lihir; made all the worse when compared with Cook-Clarke’s observations in 1996. If this is indicative of a transnational trend as Pacheco Cueva suggests, then it seems the industry needs a new approach, with motives that align with community rather than corporate interests. Only by prioritising local community interests in the social monitoring process will Newcrest and other companies secure the legitimacy they require to operate.

Clark, A. L., & Cook-Clark, J. (1996). The Misima mine: An assessment of social and cultural issues and programmes. Paper presented at the United Nations conference on trade and development – Managing the Social Impacts of Mining, Bandung, Indonesia.

Cook-Clark, J. (1996). Data requirements for social-cultural impact assessment in mining. Paper presented at the United Nations conference on trade and development – Managing the Social Impacts of Mining, Bandung, Indonesia.

National Research Institute. (1996). MRDC Draft PNG Mining Social Impacts

Pacheco Cueva, V. (2016). From transnational trends to local practices Monitoring social impacts in a Papua New Guinea mining community. In J. Sprague (Ed.), Globalization and Transnational Capitalism in Asia and Oceania. London: Routledge.

Sprague, J. (2016). Global capitalism and transnational class formation in Asia and Oceania. In J. Sprague (Ed.), Globalization and transnational capitalism in Asia and Oceania. New York;London;: Routledge.

UNDP. (2014). 2014 National human development report Papua New Guinea: From Wealth to Wellbeing: Translating Resource Revenue into Sustainable Human Development.

Leave a comment

Filed under Environmental impact, Human rights, Papua New Guinea

Will EITI improve mining outcomes – or just more corporate greenwashing?

View of the Ok Tedi mine workings

Ok Tedi mine (Credit: ABC licensed)

Papua New Guinea has been admitted as a ‘candidate’ country under the international Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative. This means PNG has committed to being more open about the revenues it receives from mining, oil and gas. PNG must produce its first detailed report on the income it receives by March 2016.

But there are serious questions to be answered about whether EITI is just another example of corporate greenwashing or whether it will be effective in helping improve the benefits to the people of PNG from large-scale mining and oil and gas production. 

 

800px-EITI-logo

 

Lester Seri | ACT NOW!

The importance of the environment and peoples rights should be given equal weight and need to be addressed along with the transparency of money involved or movement of money proceeds from any extractive industry in PNG.

Without taking anything away from EITI, the PNG Chapter, and the good members of the civil society involved, I have my concerns. EITI might have a role to play, no question but….

We have a bulk of the population that live off their environment and natural resources – that is what sustains their livelihood, in fact, their whole existence. The environment is fundamental to their long term existence, destroy their environment and you will find that you can’t eat money after all.

All those landowners (for example from Bougainville and Misima) that have been affected by mining through loss of their land and environment but still have gone back to live a life off their land and environment with no subsidy, compensation or support whatever from either the company or their government – this is how important and dependent our people are on their land environment!

EITI is an outside agenda

Just because EITI is an international mechanism set up by particular interest groups most probably wanting to protect their economic interest does not mean that Papua New Guinea’s interest and concern about the health of our environment and the people should not become part of the agenda. No doubt, transparency and accountability regarding the money involved in extractive industries matters because it is important to the health of the country’s economy, industry and good governance BUT our Environment and the lives of our people do matter too.

So why are we dancing to the tune of an outside interest and their agenda and therefore not allowing for our serious local concerns that matter most to us to be seriously included? Why are we subjecting the interest and safety of our people and environment to these institutions stupid long processes and Grievance mechanisms that are also cumbersome and slow and which wont effectively deal with the our sufferings?

I look at the USA owned copper mine in West Papua where there is now massive environmental damage – even more than from our own OK Tedi mine and Fly River. Yet the USA as a country is involved in EITI and but there is no solution to the destruction of the environment for the people of West Papua.

Someone needs to explain how EITI is going to seriously address the environmental problems that have been inflicted on us by these international companies with the support of our Government?

PNG government not addressing the real issues

Look at Ok Tedi and the Fly River destruction, Strickland River destruction, Misima Island Destruction, Bougainville’s Jaba River Destruction, Destruction from mining in the Morobe Province, Gang Rape of women in Pogera – aren’t these issues more important than transparency in the money flow from a mine?

The fact that, our Government does nothing about these issues and concerns and yet it has the ultimate duty and responsibility and authority to address them is of great concern.

It is beyond comprehension that our Government is ready to chip in public funds to get EITI up and running in PNG but it cant do the same to address the environmental and peoples rights abuse?

Civil society distracted by the money

As a result of the EITI movement, PNG civil society is now being dragged into worrying about the transparency of the “blood money” from the industry more than the health and the well being of our peoples and our environment. This is unacceptable and I cannot believe that we Papua New Guineans in civil society are even facilitating and promoting it. We have obviously got our priorities wrong in failing to address issues of fundamental concerns for the sustainable development of PNG!

The suffering of our people in Porgera, OK Tedi, Misima, Bougainville, and Morobe remains to this day as a very sorry aspect of our developmental history and yet no civil society groups (with a very few exceptions) has raised a single voice or made a noise about them and try to get our government to correct the wrong.

EITI is just like RSPO

I see EITI as being like the RSPO in the Oil Palm industry where industry players are members of RSPO and agree to a process for grievance mechanisms to address environmental and peoples rights issues. But it has taken more than three years for RSPO to address a complaint from Collingwood Bay communities registered with RSPO because of its industry members involvement in illegal SABL land grabs and illegal logging. We are still fighting to get a just resolution. I am told that RSPO has yet to penalize any of its members found to be in wrong.

Just how are we going to hold OK Tedi or Barrick Gold accountable for their wrong actions?

Can some of our colleagues involved in EITI show us how this will actually happen in PNG?

2 Comments

Filed under Environmental impact, Financial returns, Human rights, Papua New Guinea

Alluvial mining to gain recognition

Edwin Fidelis | EMTV

Alluvial mining in Papua New Guinea is seen as the poor cousin to hard rock mining. Over the years, little attention has been given to this sector.

alluvial_mining_png_At a convention today in Lae, hosted by the Mineral Resources Authority, Mining Minister Biron Chan said the contribution of alluvial mining to PNG’s economy has not been given the recognition it deserved.

“The government usually thinks about the big mining industry but the small alluvial miners of our country contributes up to K400 million,” the Mining Minister said.

While the government plans to support the alluvial mining sector, the Mining Minister said the government has another backlog of mining issues to deal with.

One such issue is the Misima gold mine in the Milne Bay province whose economy is now driven by alluvial mining.

Twenty years of mining operations on the island has left little for the Misima people.

“We are assessing the Misima mining issues and hopefully we’ll send over a team in the near future,” Chan said.

Mr Chan fell short of commenting further on Misima but said the issue is a sad story.

The Mineral Resources Authority, meanwhile, wants to make sure that those who are facing the impact of mining operations are at an advantage, even at the end of mining activities.

While only a few landowner groups are gaining the recognition they deserve, there are many others like the Misima people whose stories remained untold.

1 Comment

Filed under Financial returns, Human rights, Papua New Guinea