A bit late in the day, but OK Tedi are looking at better ways of disposing of mine tailings to reduce pollution if the life of the mine is extended.

MD Alan Breen says, "As part of the study though, we are looking at designing and constructing a stable waste rock dump at the mine which would prevent that waste flowing into the river system so quite a substantial change from our current practices."

http://www.radioaustralianews.net.au/stories/201009/3019015.htm?desktop

The Scottish Association of Marine Science draft report sponsored by the European Union is not a broad study of the impact of the Basamuk DSTP on the environment.

It is a specific and 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 the Report by self claimed landowners and NGOs’ to mislead the general public and the government that appeared in the Post-Courier of 27 May 2010 [p. 34] as evidence that the Basamuk DSTP will be an environmental hazard is a distorted reading and absolutely false.

Though the report is still in draft form and has not been considered by responsible authorities, certain elements went ahead distorting the essence of the report by telling fat lies. We feel obliged to clarify those:

1. The implication that there will be a general wide dispersal of tailings is dishonest because the actual quotation used by the report - “…it can become subsequently resedimented by the strong contour currents present in the Vitiaz Strait” - refers specifically to near bottom flows, not surface or shallow impact.

In fact, the writers have doctored the quotation 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 by cheaply assessing Lihir and Misima. 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 80 million 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 on the 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; reefs and reef populations will not be adversely affected; like the river silt, the tailings will remain at deep sea levels, “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” at depths of 1000-1600m; the tailings will form an insignificant portion of this sediment.

6. The report does state generally 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.

We condemn in our strongest words possible the nature of distorted and false information sent out by elements claiming to be landowners and supported by NGO’s. The Report they continuously rely on is still a draft and does not stand any credibility to be relied on.

However, we are thankful that the good God has given wisdom to our Government to see our plea and made compulsory changes to the Environment Act to cater for our needs.

We thank the Somare-Temu government and assure that we will support the developer, MCC to ensure Ramu Project is not unnecessarily disturbed.
___________________

I do not know what it is with defenders of the Ramu nickel project that they never feel able to use their real names. Readers should take this into account when evaluating the claims made in this comment - KJ

A similar disturbance re mining outcomes upon local populus areas arose in Mt Isa. The people believed, rightly, that lead etc was affecting them.

The Queensland government was drawn into the fray to investigate the matters and provide some remedy for the affected people.

Blood test were conducted with varying results both negative and positive.

The problem with data compounded from normal blood test results in toxicity testing is that results are determined upon testing benchmarks set within ranges that don't always drill deep enough to gauge the levels of toxicity in the body.

Toxins are not stored in the bloodstream but in the subcutaneous fatty tissues.

I would suggest that concerned action groups in the PNG mining areas insist upon sampling being done prior to, during, and after mining operations.

I would say however that the better testing methodology be forensic hair analysis which actually tests for and reveals the levels of toxins in the fatty tissues out of which it (the hair) grows.

Simple, non invasive, and very easily administered, I believe this method to be the most revealing way for the populous to gain an enduring insight as to the existing and ongoing community health.

Paul - Comments about the "secret government report” need to be understood against what is actually stated in the SAMS report.

There is a considerable body of evidence that demonstrates the simple marine tailing disposal (MTD) is inherently a bad practice.

The concept of Deep Sea Tailings Placement (DSTP as opposed to MTP) is not controversial because what is known about the process, or that it is comparable to MTS (it is utterly different in concept and practice), but rather what is not known in a given environment in which DSTP is proposed.

The impact of DSTP at both Lihir and Misima has been the subject of extensive studies which have not indicated any adverse effect on the pelagic stratum of marine life outside the very limited mixing zone.

Much has been said about "secret government report” (the SAMS report confirming that the proposed DSTP is fatally flawed. The report makes not such finding.

Indeed, the SAMS report makes no real and/or definitive findings at all.

The SAMS report was never commissioned to make findings of the nature referred to by the many critics of DSTP.

Rather, it was commissioned to set out the baseline parameters to determine what regulatory framework was required to effectively manage DSTP at Ramu so that any possibility of environmental damage would be mitigated.

A practical analogy to DSTP can be found in air travel.
There are from time to time tragic aircraft accidents where a plane crashes from the sky and all passengers and crew on board are killed.

Those who object to DSTP continue (no doubt) to fly in planes notwithstanding the potential for disaster. However, if the critics of DSTP followed the same logic they would not fly on airplanes.

The critics of DSTP continue to fly because they believe there are regulatory processes and controls that they can rely on which will ensure that the plane they fly on will not simply fall from the sky.

The whole point of the SAMS report was to determine just what was required by way of regulation to ensure that environmental damage would be avoided.

The plaintiffs in the Ramu case present the argument that because of what is not known about DSTP it is therefore inherently destructive.

This argument is fatally flawed as it presupposes that the will be no regulatory monitoring or framework in which such practices will occur.

It’s a bit like saying that planes don’t have pilots therefore its dangerous to fly. Most people would agree with this proposition. However planes do have highly trained pilots.

What is proposed by the SAMS report is a foundation for a complex monitoring and regulatory process that would ensure there could be no significant if any damage to the marine environment in the Ramu case.

Having said all of the above, one might not be unduly cynical of a government who, when faced with a simple issue of conflict arising from a lack of dissemination of information, responds by purporting to change the goal posts to legislate away litigation brought by its citizens in such circumstances.

The problem for the public when reading the extraordinarily emotional and often quite deceptive and misleading statements about what the SAMS report says is that the public is simply unable to ascertain where the truth lies.

It's heartening to see the PNG people successfully challenge their government on this issue. It might also give some miners a wake-up call.

Environmental impact studies must be able to stand up to real independent scrutiny. Otherwise potentially billions of sunk development dollars are at risk.

Just because you're in a developing country, doesn't justify short-cuts that wouldn't be accepted elsewhere. I sincerely hope the industry and govenment learn from this.