Mining

During a career in the mining industry, I lived and worked in Australia, PNG, Canada and the US; I also worked for months at a time in New Zealand and South Africa and for weeks at a time in Alaska, Mexico and Indonesia. I only had to move around with my eyes open to see that people living in industrialised and mineral-intensive communities enjoyed better health and welfare, more individual freedom and greater opportunity for personal development than those in non-industrialised, less mineral intensive communities.

However the debate on the value of mineral-intensive industrialisation seems to have remained at a tactical level, conducted in terms of flora and fauna versus jobs and tax revenue. Flora and fauna have won. The two vital strategic drivers of human behaviour are not flora and fauna; they are survival and caring for the young. These drivers are conveniently quantified as life expectancy and infant mortality rate (IMR). The intrinsic civilising value of industrialisation and mineral use is found not in tactical economic factors but rather in the beneficial strategic contribution they make to reducing the rate of infant mortality and increasing life expectancy.

My reference is “The State Of The World’s Children”, an annual publication of the United Nations Children’s Fund. The table below is an extract from Table 1 in the 2005 issue.

I have concentrated on IMR because it is quantifiable and “bulletproof”; every rational person agrees that a high IMR is bad and a low one is good.

A low infant mortality rate does not happen without industrialisation.

Industrialisation does not happen without a reliable supply of metals and energy minerals.

The connection is also transparently causal. Industrialisation has been driven by electricity for the last 100 years. The generation, transmission and distribution of electrical power are essential to industrialisation and social development. Copper, aluminium, steel, energy minerals and concrete are required in large amounts to provide these services. It is also self-evident that the life-sustaining benefits of industrialisation require intensive mineral use, such benefits as a reliable supply of food and water, hot water, refrigeration, hygienic waste disposal and modern medical facilities. Widespread access to such facilities, a privilege available only to industrialised communities, requires large amounts of metals and other minerals.

A lower IMR has not been restricted to the industrialised (wealthy) countries. Since 1960 the infant mortality rate has fallen by 84% in the industrialised countries, 42% in the least developed countries and 55% in the whole world. During this interval the population of the least developed countries has increased almost 200%, that of the industrialised countries 25%. Less developed countries derive “slipstream” benefits from the more industrialised countries in the form of trade, technology transfer, foreign investment and aid in various forms including family planning and education assistance, especially the education of girls and women.

An encouraging aspect of the slipstream effect is that countries today are achieving a reduction in the rate of infant mortality with a lower degree of mineral intensity than was required in previous decades. For example, Argentina in 2003 had an IMR of 19 and a copper use of 1.2 kg per head. The Netherlands in 1960 had a similar IMR but with a copper use per head of 2.8 kg. This phenomenon is widespread and persistent.

The potential sources of extra minerals are numerous. The crust of the Earth is 30km to 45 km thick under the continents. Almost all metal production to date has been extracted from the top one kilometre. Much remains to be found and extracted below this. Extensive resources also will be recovered from more accessible deposits in South America, Central Asia, Africa and elsewhere. Mineralised nodules on the sea floor might also be recovered. Extensive coal and gas reserves exist currently; exploration in deeper water will discover more oil and gas and increasing prices will increase oil reserves.

Jack Sturgess is a Fellow of the Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy.

—————————
Thanks Jack for sharing your thoughts and analysis with us.

Last week the US President, George Bush, visited Indonesia to discuss amongst other things “investment”.

No doubt some radical environmentalists along with some Islamic fundamentalists don’t want foreign investment in Indonesia. Like the activists in the new documentary ‘Mine Your Own Business’ they would perhaps like the many Indonesians still living a subsistence existence to remain “happy peasants”.

Activists are also behind the campaign to jail Richard Ness.

There are miners who have done the wrong thing and impacted the Indonesian environment. Just last week, more deaths were reported from the mud flow in East Java associated with gas exploration by Santos.

But to quote Andrew Wilson, president director of Australia’s BHP Billiton-Indonesia, in the case of Richard Ness,

“This is Indonesia at its worst in terms of picking the wrong guy and saying: you are a criminal. You couldn’t get a person who has given more back to Indonesia. He’s community oriented. He looks for the long-term good rather than taking short cuts.”

Then last week, following the visit by George Bush, the US Ambassador B. Lynn Pascoe was reported in the Jakarta Post to have commented:

“A lack of legal certainty remained a major problem for Indonesia in attracting foreign investment, pointing to the prosecution of Newmont Minahasa Raya president director Richard Ness, an American, who is facing three years imprisonment if convicted in a North Sulawesi court of causing pollution, as setting a bad example.

“What we want is Indonesia to become a competitive place … one thing you don’t do … is bring court cases against somebody where you don’t have any evidence. This is exactly what has happened in the Ness case.”

I recently summarized the case against Richard Ness in a piece for On Line Opinion entitled ‘The Campaign To Stop Mining’:

“New York Times journalist Jane Perlez championed the case for the activists in a feature “Spurred by Illness, Indonesians Lash Out at US Mining Giant” in which she suggested the waters of Buyat Bay had been polluted by the gold mine with villagers developing “strange rashes and bumps”.

The article relied heavily on an interview with a member of a team of public health doctors flown in to investigate. Dr Jane Pangemanan was quoted claiming symptoms exhibited by the local villagers were consistent with mercury and arsenic poisoning.

Another key accusation in the New York Times article is that Newmont Mining was illegally and inappropriately disposing of the mines tailings into Buyat Bay and a police report showed mercury contamination.

…The same day the New York Times published its feature, the World Health Organisation published a detailed technical report (pdf 4.01MB) which concluded that Buyat Bay was not contaminated by mercury or cyanide and that levels of mercury among villagers were not high enough to cause poisoning and that the health effect of mercury and cyanide poisoning were not observed among Buyat Bay villagers.

This was the first of several reports, including a detailed report by Australia’s CSIRO and another by the Indonesian Ministry of Environment, which directly contradicted the Indonesian police report and found the bay to be unpolluted.

Of the six executives initially incarcerated, only the president of Newmont Mining in Indonesia, Richard Ness, was eventually charged. His son, Eric Ness, established a website dedicated to the trial, and in October last year reported that under cross examination, Dr Jane Pangemanan denied she ever told the New York Times that the illnesses observed in the villagers were caused by arsenic or mercury poisoning.”

On 10th November as part of the post trial phase the prosecution asked the court impose a three-year jail term on Richard Ness.

Richard Ness has responded with comment that,

“These ridiculous recommendations by the JPU make a complete mockery of the legal system. It seems like whoever wrote these charges never sat in the courtroom, or does not understand the substance of the overriding evidence that Buyat Bay is not polluted. For one, the prosecutors charged us for not filing environmental reports since 2002 while in fact, their own witness from the Ministry of Environment, Sigit Reliantoro, testified that he evaluated completed sets of reports up to 2004.

“With such unfair, unsubstantiated claims against innocent parties, this is yet another roadblock to the government’s efforts to attract much needed investments back to the country, investments that will create jobs and improve the quality of life. I have lived in this country for 30 years, love its people and have adopted many of its ways but this is a profound travesty and a disappointment to all who hope for a society based on the rule of law.”

It seemed incredible to me that the case is proceeding at all. Then again, as Phelim McAleer documents in ‘Mine Your Own Business’, unsubstantiated accusations from environmentalists can appear compelling. Their claims may be false, but they command the moral high ground. Yet sadly in the end, by hindering or stopping development and investment, they contribute to a vicious cycle that condemns the world’s poorest to a life of subsistence.

Richard Ness will be back in court next week on Tuesday 5 th December. The final judgment is likely to be handed down some time in January.

This trial is about more than the destiny of one man, it represents the struggle between development and poverty – the struggle between opportunity and radical environmentalism.

I have never met Richard Ness. But I have got to know him a little through this blog and through his son Eric who has a blog dedicated to his Dad’s trial.

Like many readers of this blog, Richard has a keen interest in the environment and like some of us is a collector of wildlife photographs.

On behalf of the many readers and contributors to this blog, I wish Richard Ness all the best for next Tuesday.

“Using an old cream separator with local villagers to try see if we could increase the production of coconut oil,” Richard Ness, Buyat Bay in Indonesia.

I’m in Perth at the moment, at the end of the Australian tour of a new documentary ‘Mine Your Own Business’. In the film, British journalist Phelim McAleer meets up with an unemployed 23-year-old Romanian miner Gheorge Lucian and together they explore a mine site in Rosia Montana before travelling together to Madagascar and Chile where environmental campaigining by western activists has prevented other mines going ahead. An underlying theme is that misguided environmental activism has stopped mining projects that would have brought jobs and opportunity to impoverished communities.

The film, produced by New Bera media in conjunction with the Moving Picture Institute in New York (a not for profit dedicated to advancing liberty through the medium of film), will go to film festivals next year and then hopefully into the cinemas. But this last week the Institute of Public Affairs (IPA) sponsored the film’s Australian preview with one-off screenings in Melbourne, Hobart, Sydney and Perth.

After each screening there has been time for questions and discussion with Phelim and also Ann McElhinney, his partner and the film’s executive producer. In every city there have been some angry environmentalists in the audience letting us know that they disapproved of the documentary.

In Sydney a woman said that mining was a 200 year old technology that should be abandoned. Phelim followed up with comment that it was actually atleast a 2,000 year old activity and that mining technologies had changed and improved dramatically including over the last 20 years.

Ann followed on with comment that any one who lives in Sydney and is against mining is “living a lie”. She explained how mining provides the infrastructure and energy that we all use everyday.

Was the woman, who clearly stated as part of the discussion that she was “against mining”, living a lie or plain ignorant?

I know educated Australian women who are against logging, but use paper. I know women who are against mining, but couldn’t live without their gold jewellery. I know women who are against irrigation but expect an abundance of fruits, vegetables and affordable wine.

While in Sydney Phelim McAleer caught a bus, watched a movie and logged onto the internet. All activities that couldn’t happen without mining.

Here’s Phelim in front of the Sydney Harbor Bridge – another product of mining.

It is generally assumed that mining companies are bad and green groups are good. This general impression is so well entrenched within western civilization that many environmental activists have got used to being able to tell stories about mining, logging, fishing and farming operations that are misleading, exaggerated or simply wrong. They have got used to professional journalists just repeating their propaganda.

Of course, not all environmentalists mislead, just like not all mining companies are bad. But gee it can be hard getting people to accept this. Most environmentalists are seen as angels with absolutely no vested interests.

It can also be hard getting people to understand that “making poverty history” is about more than attending a rock concert or making a donation. Development and industry are real solutions to poverty and they often involve some environmental harm. Miranda Devine makes some comment on this issue and also gives the new documentary ‘Mine Your Own Business’ a plug in her column in today’s Sydney Morning Herald:

“AT U2’s Sydney concerts last week, Bono urged the audience to text their names to a Make Poverty History phone number. Later he flashed the names on a big screen and sent a thank you text to all those mobile phones in Telstra Stadium. As an act of charity it doesn’t come much easier, unless you count wearing wristbands.

This is not to sneer at Bono for raising consciousness of the world’s poor, or his audience for making a gesture.

But as protesters and green activists gather in Melbourne this weekend to lay the usual blame for poverty on the greed of developed nations, a powerful new documentary shines light on a different villain.

Mine Your Own Business, which opens this week, shows that the “powerful group telling the world’s poor how to live, how to work, even how to think” are not the world leaders gathered in Melbourne. They’re not even wealthy multinational corporations, but wealthy multinational environment groups such as Greenpeace.

Read the complete article here: http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/make-poverty-history-first-by-getting-rid-of-the-greens/2006/11/18/1163266827937.html

—————
For information on when and where the documentary is screening this week in Australia visit: www.ipa.org.au

Hi Jennifer,

I’m sure you have heard the old saying that rules are made to be broken. In most instances this is a relatively harmless idea if you are talking about a group of middle school children who fail to follow the instructions of their English teacher—at worst you might get a bunch of kids who can’t write well. However, what happens if the custodians of law in a country start to follow the same maxim? Unfortunately, you might get the Buyat case.

A justice system can fail in many ways. For instance, if a real criminal is not prosecuted or a criminal gets away with a disproportionately lenient sentence. But what happens when you are talking about a justice system that deliberately targeted an innocent man with the single minded determination to basically destroy his life, in this situation you are not talking about a justice system at all. However, this seems to be the situation exemplified by my Dad’s ongoing legal battles in Indonesia.

A friend of mine once said that you start having human rights issues when you stop following the rule of law. In the same tone it becomes pointless to continue talking about scientific facts because they have been made irrelevant in the absence of rule of law. As the Buyat case has proceeded it has truly revealed the personality of the justice system and we find ourselves facing some of these concerns.

Please read the rest of the blog entry at:

http://richardness.org/blog/ruleoflaworlawlessnessofrulers.php

Thanks,
Eric