Canadian mineral operations

The Guardian: WikiLeaks cables reveal Shell’s grip on Nigerian state

operationwatch — Thu, 09 Dec 2010 01:14:48 +0000

I haven’t written anything for quite a long time. I’m still around although I’ve been busy. A friend of mine brought to my attention an interesting article and so I thought I’d post it here. I’m guessing it will be a topic that people will be discussing tomorrow. According to the Guardian, Wikileaks has revealed some claims by a Shell executive in Nigeria that the company had inserted staff into all the main ministries of the Nigerian government. The article is here.

While we’re on the topic of Nigeria, I’m thinking now might be an appropriate time to look back on some history and to remember Ken Saro-Wiwa and the execution of the Ogoni 9. Or to read through some of the information that Amnesty International has presented about the petroleum industry in Nigeria. That second link is a bit long and I can’t say I’ve read all of it myself, but you don’t have to read all of it to get something good out of it. It’s worth a perusal.

Here’s a link from the Goldman Environmental Foundation with some information on Ken Saro-Wiwa who won their Goldman Environmental Prize for Africa in 1995.

Vancouver Sun: Renner dismisses oilsands toxins report

operationwatch — Thu, 02 Sep 2010 23:54:20 +0000

Here’s an article dated Sept 1/2010 from the Vancouver Sun that’s titled Renner dismisses oilsands toxins report.

According to that article, Alberta’s environment minister Rob Renner has dismissed the study by David Schindler et al. about the environmental impact on the Athabasca River of the oil sands industry. Dr. Schindler has pointed out that theirs is the only such study that has been peer-reviewed and published in a credible scientific journal. Rob Renner had not read Dr. Schindler’s article.

Let’s look at that again. Alberta’s minister of the environment did not read the only credible peer-reviewed scientific study that discusses the environmental impact on the Athabasca River of the oil sands industry but disregarded the conclusions of the study anyway.

If this blows your mind, then if you haven’t done so yet, listen to Fred Kuzmic claim that there is no conflict of interest in simultaneously working for Shell and being spokesperson for the Regional Aquatics Monitoring Program (RAMP) which submits data to the provincial and federal governments for assessment of the environmental performance of the oil sands industry. That begins at 2:45 of the CBC video that I posted yesterday which I also link to here.

Note that RAMP points out on their website that human health is not their responsibility [1]. I wonder what’s up with that.

[1] Here’s the full entry regarding that point from their FAQ: “Is water quality testing for human health part of the RAMP program? Human health is not within the mandate of RAMP, but is the responsibility of Health Canada, Alberta Health and Wellness and the Northern Lights Health Region. Representatives from these organizations sit on the RAMP Steering Committee to keep informed on results of the environmental monitoring, particularly with respect to issues that may influence human health.”

Oil Sands Development and Pollution of the Athabasca River

operationwatch — Wed, 01 Sep 2010 06:33:35 +0000

Yesterday some scientists from the University of Alberta, Queen’s University and Oceana, Juneau published a peer-reviewed paper about our oil sands. The paper, which was published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences [1] unequivocally makes the statement that the oil sands industry is polluting the Athabasca River in a way that violates Canada’s and Alberta’s environmental guidelines. In their conclusion, the scientists state that “contrary to claims made by industry and government in the popular press, the oil sands industry substantially increases loadings of toxic [pollutants] to the [Athabasca River] and its tributaries via air and water pathways.”

In particular I’d like to bring attention to their statement that their observations do not support the claim that contamination of the Athabasca River and its tributaries is only from natural erosion. They state clearly that instead their results indicate that the source of the concern was oil sands development.

The CBC wrote a news article on this issue yesterday and presented a video in which they interviewed Fred Kuzmic of the Regional Aquatics Monitoring Program who argues that the pollution of the Athabasca River is due to natural erosion. I’d like to make one point about the interview. The interviewer asks about the fact that pollutants were more concentrated upstream than downstream of the oil sands. To be clear, the scientists looked at four separate tributaries that were affected by oil sands development. On each of these four tributaries, they compared three sites: one that was upstream of oil sands development and the McMurray Formation, one that was within the McMurray Formation but upstream of development, and one that was downstream of development. They did studies of comparable sites on two other tributaries that were not near oil sands development and which they used as a reference. They also did separate studies at the mouths of streams before confluence with the Athabasca River, looking at tributaries with and without upstream development.

Feel free to continue by reading the CBC article and watching the interview at this link. Another CBC article, including links to video interviews with David Schindler from the University of Alberta, is available here. There’s also a Globe and Mail article here, a blog entry from Discover Magazine here, an article from the Winnipeg Free Press here, and an article from Reuters here.

[1] Erin N. Kelly, David W. Schindler, Peter V. Hodson, Jeffrey W. Short, Roseanna Radmanovich, and Charlene C. Nielsen,
Oil sands development contributes elements toxic at low concentrations to the Athabasca River and its tributaries,
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America,
www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1008754107

Another email to the Prime Minister’s office

operationwatch — Wed, 21 Jul 2010 01:36:33 +0000

To read communication previous to what’s given in this post, please click here.

I sent a short email to the Prime Minister’s office on the 18th of July. In that email I sincerely thanked them for the communication that I had received from them and mentioned that I’ve been checking my spam folder regularly and haven’t received any reply to my email of Feb. 23, 2010. I requested that if their reply was sent but lost to please resend it, or if they didn’t know which Feb. 23 email I was talking about to please let me know so that I could resend it. I sent them some more information about myself so that if they wish to verify who I am they can do so. Up to that point I hadn’t told them much about myself. I also made clear my opinion that the concerns that I and others have expressed regarding the issues in my emails are not being addressed by their government.

I want to explicitly tell my readers now, in case there was any doubt, that this email exchange is not something that I’ve made up. Sometimes bloggers like to make things up in the interest of getting attention, hoping to use some loophole later that it was “for entertainment purposes” or “satire” or whatever it may be. For the sake of avoiding as many doubts as I possibly can, I’m telling you now that this correspondence did take place. It has not been invented. If anyone doesn’t believe me, have them send similar emails to the Prime Minister, and then let them see what kind of a reply comes back.

La Jornada: Rejection of Canadian mining operations in their communities, indigenous pact in Chiapas

operationwatch — Sat, 05 Jun 2010 03:23:37 +0000

What follows is an English translation of the article Rechazar operación de minera canadiense en sus poblados, pacto indígena en Chiapas by Hermann Bellinghausen that was published in the Mexican daily newspaper La Jornada about half a year before Mariano Abarca Robledo was killed outside of his home in Chicomuselo, Chiapas.

This article is property of DEMOS, Desarrollo de Medios S.A. de C.V. The original version is available here. I’m the one responsible for this English translation.

Rejection of Canadian mining operations in their communities, indigenous pact in Chiapas

HERMANN BELLINGHAUSEN
Periódico La Jornada
Thursday 21^st of May, 2009, p. 18

San Cristóbal de las Casas, Chiapas, May 20th. The communities of the Sierra Madre, in the municipality of Chicomuselo, reject the presence on their land of the voracious Canadian mining corporation Blackfire Exploration, to whom the governments of Pablo Salazar Mendiguchía and Juan Sabines Guerrero granted — on this date in 2005 — 2,352 hectares in this municipality alone.

The majority of the inhabitants of the Huanacaste, El Terronal, Loma Bonita and Cuatro Caminos communities, in coordination with the municipal authorities and the supervisory council of the district of Monte Sinaí, approved their “objection”, previously expressed, “with regard to the exploitation of the mines” on their land.

Today they revealed that, convened in assembly on the fourteenth of this month, in Cuatro Caminos, they had declared that “at no time will we give way to the mining company so that it can destroy our lands. Because the place where the mine is located is land for growing coffee, with natural springs where the four communities obtain drinking water; we protest so that they will not destroy the land where we work, because that is where we raise our families, and furthermore, we do not want pollution of our health, of the trees, of animals and of our crops.”

And so they warn that “if the mining company were to come to the communities to negotiate, we will not allow for it, and if it were to come into force, we will be obliged to take other measures, because we have the right to defend our land, our heritage and that of our children, and as members of a cooperative. The land that we own is cooperatively owned, for which we pay property taxes, where no outsider can come and destroy what is ours.”

Rivers converted into garbage dumps

The Canadian mining companies like Blackfire extract water in stratospheric quantities (even the municipal headquarters do not have adequate water supply, although the mountains of the region are abundant in the liquid); the rest they pollute, as is already occurring with the Tachinula and Yayahuita rivers, and in consequence also the Grijalva from upstream of the Sumidero canyon (which, promoted today by the government as a “wonder of the world”, seems more like a garbage dump).

The philosopher Heraclitus, in addition to knowing something about rivers, wrote in one of his fragments: “Gold prospectors dig very deep in the land and find very little.” Let him tell that to these communities. Arsenic, cyanide, lead, mercury, and sulphuric acid invade the air, ground and water so that the miners can obtain gold, silver, barite, or whatever may be there, and they take it away from under the noses of the true owners of the land. The open-pit mining plague extends throughout Chiapas, in particular in the mountainous border region: Comalapa, Motozintla, Mazapa de Madero, Chicomuselo.

The resistance of the people, especially the indigenous people, extends to the forested regions, the highlands, the northern region and the Sierra Madre. On the past 8th of March, women from these areas protested in Tuxtla Gutiérrez against the multinational mining corporations Linear Gold and Blackfire, “that only offer a few poorly-compensated jobs of very high risk,” but “intend to pillage our resources while leaving in their place serious ailments, depletion of the reserves and the water sources, along with total devastation of mountains.”

The floods, landslides and burials that were brought on by hurricanes Mitch and Stan demonstrate that devastation brings more, and more will come in the future if the annihilation of land and mountains in the Sierra Madre continues as it does.

I updated this post on Nov. 6/2010 to fix a typo in the name of Mariano Abarca Robledo.

Acid drainage, heavy metals and the North Mara mine

operationwatch — Sun, 25 Apr 2010 09:24:49 +0000

I’m going to post another link to an article from The Daily News which is a popular English-language national daily newspaper in Tanzania. This article takes on a bit of a different twist from the last ones but is also related to the incident at the North Mara mine.

Barrick Gold’s explanation of what happened at the North Mara mine is that water from a waste rock storage area was released to the environment. Waste rock is rock that must be removed in order for a mine to operate, but which cannot be processed for economic benefit [1]. The problem is that rock, when disturbed and broken up and allowed to interact with the elements, can release toxins. If we’re dealing with large amounts of rock of the right (or should I say wrong) composition, this can become a serious problem. Now if we read the report titled Submission to the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development by Barrick Gold Corporation, dated November 26, 2009, then we can find the following statement [2]:

In May 2009, an environmental incident occurred when water seeped from a mine rock storage facility into the Tigithe River. The situation was caused by high rainfall during the spring rainy season, which resulted in run-off from a temporary mine rock storage facility located on the property, near the river. The run-off water passed through rock that contained an elevated amount of naturally occurring sulphur, making the water acidic – a process known as acid rock drainage (ARD).

Now on to the newspaper article. It begins with the explanation that Barrick Gold has spent somewhere around a million dollars (1.4 billion Tanzanian shillings) to replace liners that were allegedly stolen from a waste rock storage site and that it was allegedly this theft that gave rise to the release of acidic water to the environment. So we’re aware right from the get-go that we’re dealing with this issue of ARD (which in the context of mining is also sometimes referred to as acid mine drainage or AMD).

The article quotes Teweli Teweli who is in charge of public relations at Barrick Gold Tanzania:

[Mr. Teweli] also refuted claims by activists that the mine had polluted River Tigite with heavy metals, saying that the mines including North Mara did not use mercury which is likely to be the source of heavy metals allegedly found in the river.

“There is no a single mine using mercury. We are using cyanide. How come that the activists were accusing us of polluting River Tigite with heavy metals when we don’t use mercury”, Mr Teweli argued.

Mr. Teweli then blames the possibility of heavy metal pollution in the area on artisanal miners, and the article mentions that Barrick is contributing to a program to support artisanal miners.

It makes a lot of sense to consider that artisanal gold mining can contribute to pollution, but there’s still a very crucial point that needs to be made here. People are concerned that Barrick Gold may be polluting the area with heavy metals for a simple reason. I’ll quote the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency which I think does a good job of explaining what that reason is [3]:

In addition to the acid contribution to surface waters, AMD may cause metals such as arsenic, cadmium, copper, silver, and zinc to leach from mine wastes. According to the Forest Service, the metal load causes environmental damage, and is of greater concern than the acidity in environmental terms.

I don’t know how to explain the fact that Mr. Teweli did not seem to be aware that ARD is readily associated with heavy metal pollution. The newspaper article was published at the end of October 2009, and according to Barrick they observed pollution from the spill (water with a low pH downstream of the mine) in May of 2009. Even assuming that there was no briefing on environmental hazards before May of 2009, there was still a period of five months that went by during which Barrick Gold Corporation had the opportunity to inform their head communications representative in Tanzania that ARD is readily associated with heavy metal pollution.

The Daily News article can be found here. It’s titled Barricks spends 1.4bn/- for rehabilitation of linners and was published on October 29, 2009.

[1] For example, National Resources Canada defines it in their Mining Information Kit for Aboriginal Communities here.

[2] This is one of the reports that I referred to in my email to the Minister of International Trade.

[3] In a document titled Technical Document: Acid Mine Drainage Prediction, December 1994, from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, which is available here

Some opinions in Swahili of Barrick’s take on Bill C-300

operationwatch — Sat, 24 Apr 2010 07:01:06 +0000

Earlier this week I came across some candid opinions expressed in Swahili about Barrick Gold’s take on Bill C-300. They can be found here on Issa Michuzi’s blog which is a very popular Tanzanian blog with a very wide and general readership. My Swahili’s far from perfect, but I can read it well enough to be able to translate the contents of that discussion.

The blog itself isn’t associated with Barrick Gold or mining, but that particular post provides an item titled Barrick Gold Yatoa Msimamo kuhusu Muswada nambari C-300 na Kueleza Ukweli: Barrick Gold Gives Stance on Bill C-300 and Explains the Truth. In other words, it’s the Swahili version of the press release that I mentioned here! [*] It doesn’t say anywhere that Barrick Gold were the ones that translated it, but it’s written carefully, it’s a faithful translation of the original, and at the end it gives the contact information for company representatives in Toronto. Your guess is as good as mine as to who considered it worth the time.

I didn’t really go out of my way to find that link; after entering kampuni Kanada (“company Canada” in Swahili) into Google, it was on the first page of results. After entering kampuni Kanada madini (company Canada mineral), it was the second result.

Here’s what follows in the comments section at the bottom.

Tarehe Mon Nov 30, 08:01:00 PM, Mtoa Maoni: Anonymous

hawa barick juzi tu hapa wananchi wa mgodini huko Argentina waligomea uchimbaji wa dhahabu kwa kudai jamaa wanawaua kwa sumu na taarifa yenyewe mbona haipo wazi imekaa kimipasho zaidi

Date Mon Nov 30, 08:01:00 PM, User: Anonymous

these barick people just two days ago here people from a mine in Argentina protested gold mining claiming that they’re poisoning people and please tell me why the article is insincere things have become more kimipasho [kimipasho here might mean something along the lines of in-your-face deceitful or spiteful]

Tarehe Mon Nov 30, 09:30:00 PM, Mtoa Maoni: Blogger masssaiboi

SASA ANKO HII YATUHUSU NINI, MBONA MAAZIMIO YANAYOTOLEWA NA WANASIASA PAMOJA NA NGOs ZETU HUWA HAWAZITOLEI UFAFANUZI.

Date Mon Nov 30, 09:30:00 PM, User: Blogger masssaiboi

NOW WHAT HAS THIS GOT TO DO WITH US, I REALLY WANT TO KNOW WHY DECLARATIONS ARE MADE WHILE OUR POLITICIANS TOGETHER WITH OUR NGOs TEND TO EXPLAIN NOTHING.

Tarehe Mon Nov 30, 11:57:00 PM, Mtoa Maoni: Anonymous

HILI TANGAZO LINAPASWA KUWA INTERNAL MEMO KWA WANABARRICK WALA HALIKUPASWA KUWEKWA HAPA HALINA MAANA KABISA KWA WATANZANIA, IT’S A JUNK!!

KUNA OUTSTANDING ISSUES NYINGI TU ZINAZOHUSU BARRICK AMBAZO WATANZANIA HAWAJAPATA MAJIBU.

TUNGEWAONA WA MAANA SANA KAMA ANGALAU WANGETUONYESHA HATUA MBALI MBALI WALIZOCHUKUA KUHAKIKISHA HAWACHAFUA TENA MTO TIGHITE NA MASUALA MENGINE YANAYOHUSU KUHIFADHI MAZINGIRA.

POLE.

Date Mon Nov 30, 11:57:00 PM, User: Anonymous

THIS ANNOUNCEMENT SHOULD BE AN INTERNAL MEMO FOR THE PEOPLE OF BARRICK AND SHOULD NOT BE PUT HERE IT HAS NO MEANING WHATSOEVER FOR TANZANIANS, IT’S A JUNK!!

THERE ARE MANY OUTSTANDING ISSUES INVOLVING BARRICK FOR WHICH TANZANIANS HAVE NOT RECEIVED A RESPONSE.

WE WOULD TAKE THEM SERIOUSLY IF AT LEAST THEY WOULD SHOW THAT THEY HAVE TAKEN STEPS TO ENSURE THAT THEY ARE NOT POLLUTING THE TIGHITE RIVER AGAIN AND OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ISSUES.

I AM SORRY.

Tarehe Tue Dec 01, 06:02:00 AM, Mtoa Maoni: Anonymous

Is Barrick the center of the universe?
Mwananchi wa kawaida nitajulia wapi C-300? Ina maana ndio maji ya mto Tigithe yamekuwa safi kwa C-300?

Date Tue Dec 01, 06:02:00 AM, Useri: Anonymous

Is Barrick the center of the universe?
Where can a common citizen like myself look into C-300? Does it mean that in fact the water of the Tigithe river has been made clean by C-300?

Tarehe Tue Dec 01, 06:15:00 AM, Mtoa Maoni: Impokochole

Kwa hamu nimekuwa nikisoma kwa haraka pengine nifike mahala ambapo wanatoa pia maelezo na misimamo yao juu ya yale wanayotuhumiwa au kuwajibika kwayo katika jamii ya Watz lakini sikuona chochote.

NAJUUUUUUTA KUSOMA ARTICLE HII!

Date Tue Dec 01, 06:15:00 AM, User: Impokochole

I read anxiously and with haste to arrive at where they would also give an explanation of their stance on what they are accused of or on meeting their responsibilities to the Tanzanian people but I did not see a thing.

I DEPLOOOOOORE HAVING READ THIS ARTICLE!

Tarehe Tue Dec 01, 05:53:00 PM, Mtoa Maoni: Anonymous

sasa hawa waswahili wenzangu watafanyaje zaidi ya kutekeleza amri toka kanada? pole teweli & co, mradi hela zinaingia mifukoni ila mkiulizwa mnafanya nini, hakuna jibu.

Date Tue Dec 01, 05:53:00 PM, user: Anonymous

now what more can these fellow swahili people do to carry out orders from canada? i’m sorry teweli & co [Teweli Teweli is in charge of public relations for Barrick Gold in Tanzania], money enters pockets but when you’re asked what you’re up to there’s no reply.

Tarehe Tue Dec 01, 09:28:00 PM, Mtoa Maoni: DMK

MSWADA NAMBA C-300 UASEMA HIVI:

If passed, Bill C-300 will:

•put in place human rights, labour, and environmental standards that Canadian extractive companies receiving government support must live up to when they operate in developing countries;
•create a complaints mechanism that will allow members of affected communities abroad, or Canadians, to file complaints against companies that are not living up to those standards;
•create a possible sanction for companies that are found to be out of compliance with the standards, in the form of loss of government financial and political support.

HUU MSWADA WA SHERIA UNAOJADILIWA KANADA KWENYE KAMATI YA BUNGE YA MAMBO YA NJE NA MAENDELEO YA KIMATAIFA NI MUHIMU SANA KWETU NA UNATUHUSU MOJA KWA MOJA. ANONY WA KWANZA NA WENGINE MLIOSEMA HAUTUHUSU MMEKOSEA.

TAARIFA ZINAZOTOLEWA NA NGO ZETU HAWAZITOLEI UFAFANUZI KWASABABU HAZINA MADHARA KWAO, TUNAPIGA KELELE TUNANYAMAZA, LAKINI MUSWADA HUU WANAUTOLEA MAELEZO KWASABABU WANAUPINGA USIPITISHWE UKAWA SHERIA KANADA, MAANA WANAJUA SHERIA KANADA ZINAFANYA KAZI. MFANO, KAMA MUSWADA HUU UNGEKUWA UMESHAPITISHWA NA KUWA SHERIA, WANANCHI WALIOATHIRIWA KATIKA MTO TIGHITE WANGEWEZA KWENDA MAHAKAMANI KANADA NA WAKISHINDA BARRICK INGELAZIMISHWA NA SERIKALI YA KANADA KULIPA FIDIA.

ANGALIA HILI, WAKANADA AMBAO HAWAATHIRIWI NA SHUGHULI ZA HAYA MAKAMPUNI YAO YANAPOFANYA KAZI NCHI ZA DUNIA YA TATU WANATUNGA SHERIA KUTUSAIDIA, WATU HUMU WANASEMA HAITUHUSU!!!

NATABIRI KWAMBA SIKU ZA MBELENI, WATATUNGA SHERIA NYINGINE ZITAKAZOYALAZIMISHA MAKAMPUNI YA MADINI KUTULIPA KODI ZAIDI NA PIA KUGAWANA FAIDA PIA KWA VIWANGO VINAVYOKUBALIKA.

KWA MFANO, MADINI HAYA YA DHAHABU YANATOKA KWETU YANAUZWA DUNIA NZIMA, HASA NCHI TAJIRI. SHARES ZA KAMPUNI KAMA HII ZINAUZWA KWENYE SOKO LA HISA LA NEW YORK NA TORONTO. KWA HIYO WENYE HISA WENGI(AMBAO WANAGAWANA FAIDA KWA NJIA YA DIVIDENDS) WAKO HUKO ULAYA NA MAREKANI. SISI TUNABAKI NA KODI AMBAYO KWA MIAKA MINGI KWANZA TUNAISAMEHE ALAFU PILI WANATUMIA MBINU ZA ACCOUNTING KUZIPUNGUZA MNO. PIA TUAPATA MRAHABA AMBAO KAMA NI 3% NA UNAMLIPA ALEX STEWART 1.9%, BASI TUNABAKI NA 1.1%. OFCOURSE KAMA TUNAKUBALI UJINGA HUU WAO SI WATAKAA KIMYA TUU?

KWA HIYO SIKU ZA MBELENI WAKATAPOTUNGA SHERIA YA KUTUSAIDIA(KWASABABU SISI HATUTAKI KUTUNGA), WATASEMA KWANZA HAKUNA MISAMAHA YA KODI.PILI WATASEMA TUPATE SEHEMU YA FAIDA EITHER KWA KUKUBALIANA KIMKATABA AU KWA KUUNGANISHA, TO LINK NA PERFORMANCE YA SHARES KWENYE MASOKO YA HISA HUKO NG’AMBO. NATURALLY, WATATOLEA UFAFANUZI SHERIA YA AINA HIYO WAKIIPINGA KWAMBA WAO WANATOA MTAJI MKUBWA NA SKILLS, KWAMBA HAKUTAKUWA NA FAIDA, NA KWAMBA WAO NI WAWEKEZAJI LAZIMA WAPEWE VIVUTIO. WATASEMA PIA KU LINK FAIDA ZA MASOKO YA HISA NJE NA GAWIO LETU LA FAIDA HAITAWEZEKANA KWASABABU WANAFANYA BIASHARA(MACHIMBO) NCHI NYINGI DUNIANI.

KIPINDI HICHO TUTAKATAA(AU TUSEME BUNGE LA KANADA NDIO LITAKATAA, SI NDIO LITAKUWA LINATUNGA HIYO SHERIA!). TUTASEMA HABARI YA KUSEMA UNA MTAJI NA SKILLS ILIKUWA NI SABABU YA KARNE YA 20. KARNE YA 21 HATA MADINI YETU AMBAYO HAYAJACHIMBWA NI MTAJI TOSHA NA TUNAWEZA KUYATHAMINISHA. PILI TUTASEMA SKILLS NA TECHNOLOGY ZAMANI ZILITOKA MAGHARIBI PEKE YAKE, LAKINI KARNE YA 21 ZINATOKA KILA KONA YA DUNIA HIVYO SI SABABU. MWISHO TUTAWAAMBIA KWAMBA KULINK SHARE PERFORMANCE NA GAWIO LETU LA FAIDA INAWEZEKANA, NI MAHESABU TU YA KIFEDHA AMBAYO SI MARAHISI LAKINI YANAWEZEKANA.

HAYA TUTAKUJA KUYAONA NI MUHIMU KWASABABU TUTAONA(AU WAO WATUNGA SHERIA WA KANADA) WATAONA KWAMBA INGAWA SHARE PRICES ZA GOLD ZINAENDELEA KUPANDA KWENYE MASOKO YA HISA, NA INGAWA WENYE HISA HUKO ULAYA NA MAREKANI WANAPATA GAWIO ZURI KILA MWAKA(DIVIDENDS), HUKU KWETU ZINAKOCHIMBWA HAKUNA KINACHOBADILIKA ZAIDI YA MAZINGIRA KUZIDI KUHARIBIKA NA VIJI CSR PROJECTS HAPA NA PALE!

KWA HIYO HUU MUSWADA NAMBA C-300 WANAUTUNGA KWA AJILI YETU NA UNATUHUSU MOJA KWA MOJA.

Date Tue Dec 01, 09:28:00 PM, User: DMK

BILL C-300 SAYS THE FOLLOWING:

If passed, Bill C-300 will:

THIS BILL WHICH IS BEING DEBATED IN CANADA IN A PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT TO US AND IS RELEVANT TO EACH AND EVERY ONE OF US. THE FIRST ANONY[MOUS] AND OTHERS WHO SAID THAT IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH US ARE MISTAKEN.

THE REPORTS THAT THEY AND OUR NGOs PUT OUT DON’T EXPLAIN ANYTHING BECAUSE IT’S NO HARM TO THEM, WE MAKE NOISE OR WE SHUT UP, BUT THEY’RE EXPLAINING THIS BILL BECAUSE THEY WANT TO PREVENT IT FROM BEING PASSED AS LAW IN CANADA, IN OTHER WORDS THEY KNOW THAT CANADIAN LAW WORKS. FOR EXAMPLE, IF THIS BILL WERE PASSED, PEOPLE AFFECTED AT THE TIGHITE RIVER WOULD BE ABLE TO GO TO COURT IN CANADA TO FIGHT BARRICK AND IF THEY WON BARRICK WOULD BE FORCED BY THE CANADIAN GOVERNMENT TO PAY A PENALTY.

LOOK, CANADIANS WHO ARE NOT AFFECTED BY THE BUSINESS OF THIS COMPANY OF THEIRS THAT IS DOING BUSINESS IN THIRD WORLD COUNTRIES ARE DRAFTING LAWS TO HELP US, BUT PEOPLE HERE ARE SAYING IT DOES NOT CONCERN US!!!

I PREDICT THAT IN THE FUTURE THEY WILL CREATE OTHER LAWS THAT WILL FORCE MINING COMPANIES TO PAY US MORE TAXES AND TO SHARE THE PROFITS AT AN AGREEABLE LEVEL.

FOR EXAMPLE, THIS GOLD LEAVES OUR COUNTRY AND IS SOLD THROUGHOUT THE WORLD, ESPECIALLY IN RICH COUNTRIES. SHARES OF COMPANIES LIKE THIS ONE ARE SOLD ON THE STOCK MARKETS OF NEW YORK AND TORONTO. SO THOSE WITH MANY SHARES (WHO SHARE THE PROFITS BY WAY OF DIVIDENDS) ARE OVER IN EUROPE AND AMERICA. WE ARE LEFT WITH THE TAXES WHICH FOR MANY YEARS NOW FIRST OF ALL WE FORGIVE AND SECONDLY WHICH THEY USE ACCOUNTING STRATEGIES TO REDUCE BY AN EXTREME AMOUNT. WE ALSO GET ROYALTIES OF AROUND 3% AND THEN YOU PAY ALEX STEWART 1.9%, SO WE’RE LEFT WITH 1.1%. OF COURSE IF WE AGREE TO THIS SILLINESS ARE THEY NOT GOING TO JUST KEEP QUIET?

THEREFORE IN THE FUTURE WHEN THEY CREATE LAWS TO HELP US(BECAUSE WE DON’T WANT TO CREATE THEM), THEY WILL SAY FIRST THAT THERE IS NO FORGIVENESS OF THE TAXES. SECONDLY THEY’LL SAY THAT WE SHOULD GET PART OF THE BENEFITS EITHER BY AGREEMENT THROUGH SOME TYPE OF CONTRACT OR BY LINKING TO THE PERFORMANCE OF THE SHARES IN THE STOCK MARKETS OUT THERE. NATURALLY, THEY WILL GIVE LEGAL EXPLANATIONS OF THIS TYPE EXPLAINING THAT THEY PROVIDE LARGE AMOUNTS OF CAPITAL AND SKILLS, THAT THERE WILL BE NO PROFIT, AND THAT THEY AS INVESTORS NEED TO BE GIVEN INCENTIVES. THEY WILL ALSO SAY THAT TO LINK THE PERFORMANCE IN FOREIGN MARKETS TO OUR SHARE OF THE BENEFITS IS NOT POSSIBLE BECAUSE THEY DO BUSINESS (MINING) IN MANY COUNTRIES AROUND THE WORLD.

AT THAT POINT WE WILL REFUSE(OR RATHER LET’S SAY THAT IT WILL BE THE CANADIAN PARLIAMENT THAT WILL REFUSE, AREN’T THEY THE ONES WRITING THE LAW!) WE WILL SAY THAT THIS BUSINESS OF TALKING ABOUT CAPITAL AND SKILLS WAS THE REASON OF THE 2OTH CENTURY. IN THE 21ST CENTURY EVEN THE MINERALS THAT WE HAVE THAT HAVEN’T BEEN MINED ARE CAPITAL ENOUGH AND WE KNOW WHAT THEY’RE WORTH. THEN WE WILL SAY THAT SKILLS AND TECHNOLOGY USED TO COME FROM THE WEST ALONE, BUT IN THE 21ST CENTURY THEY COME FROM EVERY CORNER OF THE GLOBE SO THAT ISN’T A REASON. FINALLY WE WILL TELL THEM THAT TO LINK SHARE PERFORMANCE WITH OUR SHARE OF THE PROFITS IS POSSIBLE, IT IS JUST A MATTER OF ACCOUNTING WHICH IS NOT EASY BUT POSSIBLE.

SO THEN WE WILL SEE THE IMPORTANCE BECAUSE WE WILL SEE(OR THOSE WRITING THE LAWS IN CANADA) WILL SEE THAT ALTHOUGH GOLD SHARE PRICES CONTINUE TO CLIMB IN THE STOCK MARKETS, AND ALTHOUGH THE SHAREHOLDERS IN EUROPE AND AMERICA GET THEIR GOOD SHARE EVERY YEAR(DIVIDENDS), AROUND HERE IN OUR COUNTRY WHERE THE MINING HAPPENS NOTHING CHANGES EXCEPT FOR THE ENVIRONMENT TO BE RUINED FURTHER AND A FEW LITTLE CSR PROJECTS HERE AND THERE!

FOR THIS REASON THEY ARE CREATING THIS BILL C-300 WITH US IN MIND AND IT IS DIRECTLY RELEVANT TO US.

Tarehe Thu Dec 03, 05:29:00 AM, Mtoa Maoni: neema

asante mdau DMK. Umetufumbua macho wengi. Michuzi ungeiprint tena hili fafanuzi la mdau ili watu wengi wafaidike, Asante sana.

Date Thu Dec 03, 05:29:00 AM, User: neema

thank you fellow blog reader DMK. You have opened the eyes of many of us. Michuzi could you print that reader’s explanation again so that many people can benefit, Thank you very much.

[*] If you want to read the original version of that press release, then try typing its title into Google: “Barrick Gold Sets Out Position on Bill C-300 and Provides Facts”.

You can also go to http://www.sedar.com, choose English or French, click on Company Profiles, select “B” under “Public Companies”, select “Barrick Gold Corporation”, say that you want to view the company’s public documents, and then click on the news release that’s dated November 26, 2009.

BBC audio slideshow: South African miner

operationwatch — Mon, 19 Apr 2010 15:53:21 +0000

Here’s an interesting slideshow shown from the perspective of a South African gold miner. It’s provided by the BBC, with some content from the company in charge of the mine. The company is Anglogold Ashanti which has headquarters in Johannesburg.

A Response to the Minister of International Trade

operationwatch — Sat, 27 Feb 2010 21:19:10 +0000

To read communication previous to what’s given in this post, please click here.

On February 23, 2010, I sent a response to our minister of international trade. By that time, Minister Day had moved on to his current position as President of the Treasury Board, and his previous position as Minister of International Trade has now been occupied by the Honourable Peter Van Loan.

I don’t necessarily believe that the email that I received from Minister Day was written exclusively to me. Regardless of anything though, I should make clear the gratitude that I feel for the fact that my government is willing to involve me in this discussion and to put a single degree of freedom between me and one of their ministers. Before reading my response to Minister Day’s email, please understand that he deserves serious respect and credit for acting in such a way that the communication of an ordinary Canadian was responded to, especially since in doing so he was associating himself with a liability-laden political issue. Also, keep in mind that the opinions that he expresses are on behalf of the government that he’s representing.

That said, I can’t help but be disturbed by the fact that my government wrote a response of that nature to concerns I had expressed about the possibility that people, livestock and wildlife are having their water and soil rendered toxic. At a time when nothing short of condemnation should be acceptable, it seems that perhaps they were trying to sweep the issue under the rug.

My email to the Honourable Peter Van Loan follows.

February 23, 2010

Dear Minister Van Loan:

I’m writing to you today in response to an email that the Honourable Stockwell Day sent to me on January 11, 2010. His email was written in reply to some concerns that I had expressed to the Prime Minister and to the Minister of Foreign Affairs regarding an apparent lack of control that Canadians have over the environmental and human rights impact of companies that are registered in Canada. At the time that Mr. Day sent me his email, he was occupying your post of Minister of International Trade, but has since moved on to a new position where I wish him great success. If you’re interested in reading the rest of the communication that has taken place between our government and me on this matter, then you may find it attached at the bottom of this letter.

I’m writing to you now since I feel that Mr. Day did not address in a meaningful way the concerns that I had expressed. In the previous emails that I had sent to the Prime Minister and to the Minister of Foreign Affairs on this subject, I mentioned two examples that had caused me concern. The first example was regarding a failure on the part of Barrick Gold Corp. of Toronto to contain waste at their North Mara mine in northern Tanzania. The second example was regarding a mine in central Mexico that’s run by a subsidiary of New Gold Inc. of Vancouver. The mine in Mexico is in the process of demolishing the small mountain of Cerro de San Pedro, the emblem that supports the patron saint of San Luis Potosí on its coat of arms. San Luis Potosí, a city of a million people, is mentioned on Mexico’s Tentative List of UNESCO World Heritage sites where Cerro de San Pedro, which is located about twelve kilometers outside the city, is mentioned as being of specific historical significance. I also referred to the fourteenth report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade [1] which indicates clearly that Canadian companies are being allowed to operate in a fashion that is in violation of human rights and environmental standards, and specifies unequivocally that action should be taken to ensure that such standards are respected.

In his letter, Mr. Day expressed an appreciation for the importance of improving Canada’s competitive position in a global market and offered the opinion that the best way to respond to concerns of the kind that I had addressed was through the promotion of voluntary initiatives. He listed some examples of the action that his government had taken, and expressed the opinion that in taking this action his government had responded to the points discussed in the aforementioned report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade. You are probably already familiar with the initiatives that he referred to. I won’t list them here, but have attached Mr. Day’s letter to this one, so that you may read it if you wish.

First and foremost, I would like to thank Mr. Day, and those who worked for him in the post that you currently hold, for recognising the importance of Canada’s competitiveness in a global market. This issue is obviously one that we do not want to lose sight of. I would also like to thank Mr. Day for recognising, and to some extent addressing, the failings that the Committee has referred to in their report. Finally, I would like to thank Mr. Day for not only sending me a reply, but for also involving me and other ordinary Canadians in a discussion on this issue.

Now I would like to explain why I feel that Mr. Day’s letter did not address my concerns in a meaningful way. I believe it’s likely that some Canadian companies, their subsidiaries, and the local communities and governments that host them, may end up improving their operations by voluntarily taking advantage of the services that were discussed in Mr. Day’s letter. However, it’s my belief that voluntary initiatives do not go far enough when dealing with the kind of issues that we’re talking about.

Having read through the Committee’s report, it’s clear to me that they are not simply asking for an encouragement of voluntary initiatives. For example, they state that their Subcommittee on Human Rights and International Development was concerned that Canada does not yet have laws to ensure that the activities of Canadian mining companies in developing countries conform to human rights standards, and had urged our government to establish clear legal norms in Canada to ensure that Canadian companies and residents are held accountable when there is evidence of environmental and/or human rights violations. This doesn’t sound to me like a question of voluntary initiatives. As such, I’m not convinced that the initiatives that Mr. Day mentioned respond to the Committee’s concerns. I would encourage anyone who reads Mr. Day’s letter to also read the Committee’s report and to decide for themselves.

Regarding the specific examples that I have mentioned previously, I won’t refer any more in this letter to the Cerro de San Pedro mine, except to point out that it is still in operation. Regarding the North Mara mine, let me be clear that I do not myself know how the containment failure happened or what the extent of the damage was. Like most Canadians, I have to rely on second-hand accounts of what took place and what the possible consequences might have been to the local people and to the environment. The account available from Barrick Gold is that there was an incident in which heavy rains led to a failure to contain acid rock drainage from a waste rock storage area [2], and that this failure was exacerbated by vandalism. They explain that the failure was detected in May of 2009 [3] in the form of decreased pH levels at a section of river located a kilometer downstream of the mine.

As may be expected, there have been conflicting reports regarding what occurred and what its impact has been on the local environment. What is troubling to me is not that there have been conflicting accounts, but rather that we do not seem to be watching what’s going on. Independent of this concern, it’s my understanding that the risks associated with acid rock drainage and accompanying toxic metal contamination are sufficiently important to alert our concern, and remain a concern for a considerably longer period of time than other contaminants such as cyanide [4].

With this last thought in mind, let me bring to your attention a study led by a research scientist from the Norwegian University of Life Sciences. The study is published in the form of a report titled IPM-Report 2009: Investigation of Trace Metal Concentrations in Soil, Sediments and Waters in Vicinity of "Geita Gold Mine" and "North Mara Gold Mine" in North West Tanzania [5]. In this report, it’s indicated that the North Mara spill likely gave rise to severe toxicity of water, and to some extent degradation of soils and sediments nearby, particularly due to high arsenic content. Barrick Gold have expressed concerns regarding the conclusions of this study [6]. I respect their right to defend themselves and to express their opinion. Let me express my own opinion that the concerns expressed in a study led by a qualified research scientist from a Norwegian university is sufficient reason for us to seriously consider paying more attention to this issue.

To add to the two examples that I provided in my two previous emails, I would now like to mention another situation that has caused me some concern. In January of 2009, the Norwegian Ministry of Finance issued a press release stating that they had decided to exclude Barrick Gold from their government pension fund [7]. This decision was based on a conclusion made by their council on ethics [8] which explained that it had conducted an extensive review [9] of the environmental issues associated with the Porgera mine in Papua New Guinea, 95% owned and operated by a subsidiary of Barrick Gold. The council provided the assessment that investment in Barrick Gold entailed an unacceptable risk of their pension fund contributing to serious environmental damage. Central to the Council’s judgement was the fact that the Porgera mine practices riverine tailings disposal, a waste management practice that the Council understands as being in breach of international norms.

Barrick Gold discusses the issue of waste management at the Porgera mine on their website. I would like to bring your attention to a particular paragraph on that site [10]:

Porgera Joint Venture operates based on a stringent, government-approved Environmental Management Program. Prior to disposal, the tailings undergo treatment. This includes neutralizing the tailings in the processing plant neutralization circuit, cyanide destruction of the carbon-in-pulp tailings, and extraction of dissolved metals through the addition of lime. The mine conducts extensive biological testing to determine the impact of the discharges on the aquatic environment. All discharges are within the water quality limits established by permit. Monitoring results are sound and the mine has never exceeded its compliance levels.

At the webpage were I found that paragraph, I didn’t find any information to alleviate my concern that the government-approved Environmental Management Program that Barrick Gold refers to might not be appropriately referred to as stringent. With that in mind, please read the following extract from the Council’s report:

Applicable as long as the mine is in operation, a concession has been granted by the authorities for the use of and discharge to water. In 1991, [the Porgera Joint Venture] was given permission to discharge tailings into the Maiapam River, a tributary of the Porgera River. The government requires that the water quality of the river, measured some 165 km downstream of the discharge point, does not exceed certain limits. These refer to concentrations of cyanide, ammonium, dissolved metals, as well as pH. The area from the discharge point to the compliance point (i.e. 165 km) is defined as a mixing zone where no requirements are made regarding discharge or water quality.

In other words, the Council determined that there is no government control on what contaminants are present in the river for an entire 165 km-long stretch of river downstream of the mine. In addition, the Council mentions that, even at the so-called compliance point, there is no compliance level for mercury. The location of the compliance point and the egregious absence of a compliance level for mercury are independent of concerns that the Council expressed regarding an increased sediment load on the river, and the fact that the compliance levels for toxic metals do not take into account total metal content since they are based only on dissolved metal content.

Finally, I would like to bring attention to the following two paragraphs that have been extracted from the Council’s report:

Barrick Gold is a Canadian mining company, which, in several countries, has been accused of causing extensive environmental degradation. The Council has investigated whether riverine tailings disposal from the Porgera mine in Papua New Guinea generates severe environmental damage, and finds it established that the mining operation at Porgera entails considerable pollution. The Council attributes particular importance to the heavy metals contamination, especially from mercury, produced by the tailings. In the Council’s view heavy metals contamination constitutes the biggest threat of severe and long-term environmental damage.

The Council also considers it probable that the discharge has a negative impact on the population’s life and health, including both the residents of the actual mining area and the tribal peoples who live along the river downstream of the mine. The environmental damage that riverine disposal may cause are well known, but the company has not implemented any appreciable measures to prevent or reduce this damage. Neither has the company been willing to present data to underpin its allegations that environmental and health damage does not occur.

It may also be worth making note of the Council’s view that Barrick Gold demonstrated a "lack of openness and transparency in the company’s environmental reporting" and that they found "reason to believe that the company’s unacceptable practice will continue in the future."

In his reply to my concerns, Mr. Day expressed the opinion that voluntary initiatives are the best way to advance principles of corporate social responsibility in a flexible, innovative and effective fashion while improving the competitive advantage of Canadian companies operating abroad. He did not, however, mention whether corporate irresponsibility may in some cases be voluntary. He also didn’t state whether he thought that the possibility for life-sustaining water supplies to be rendered toxic is acceptable.

I would therefore like to ask if you could provide me with the answers to two questions. First I’d like to ask whether, with Canada’s competitive position in the world duly considered, our government considers an allowance for the harmful and voluntary pollution of the environment to be beneficial, acceptable or detrimental. Second, I’d like to ask whether or not our government believes that there’s validity to the concern that we’re currently allowing for a harmful and voluntary pollution of the environment to occur.

I realise that you and the people in your office work very hard at a difficult and important job. You clearly address many issues in addition to the ones that we’ve been discussing. I’m nonetheless very interested to know what answers my government can provide to the two questions that I’ve posed in the previous paragraph. If you can find the time to reply then I will be very grateful. As usual, please understand that I plan to share all correspondence on this matter with fellow Canadians and with other people who care about and are affected by the issues that I’m addressing. You’ll notice that I’ve copied this email to some human rights and environmental organisations so that they can be aware that I’ve been communicating with my government on this issue.

Before I close, I want to be clear that although I have discussed some mining operations that have caused me some concern, I do not consider mining to be an inherently bad thing. Mining clearly offers economic benefits to many people around the world. Although I don’t work in the extraction industry myself, it’s clear that much of what I benefit from on a daily basis is made possible by the exploitation of natural resources. Furthermore, there are clearly many good people who work in the mining sector, and mining is not by any means the only industry that can have both negative and positive impacts.

I look forward to receiving a reply on this issue.

cc:		The Rt. Hon. Stephen Harper, Prime Minister of Canada
		The Hon. Lawrence Cannon, Minister of Foreign Affairs
		Amnesty International Canada
		Human Rights Watch, Toronto office
		Oxfam Canada
		Sierra Club Canada
		Canadian Wildlife Federation
		World Wildlife Fund Canada

[1] The report is this one.

[2] See the reports by Barrick Gold Corporation titled (i) Barrick Gold Corporation’s response to allegations that leakage from the North Mara gold mine has contaminated water sources in the Mara district of Tanzania with arsenic and other metals which is available from a link dated Dec 15 2009 here; and (ii) Submission to the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development which is available here:
http://www.barrick.com/CorporateResponsibility/KeyTopics/
Bill-C-300-Submission-to-the-Standing-Committee/default.aspx

[3] Towards the end of Tanzania’s long rainy season which typically lasts from March to May.

[4] Clearly if the heavy rains of early 2009 gave rise to a separate incident involving a release of cyanide to the environment, then that would also have also been a serious problem. Barrick Gold, however, states in report (ii) from footnote [2] that no cyanide was released into the environment.

[5] This report, by Åsgeir R. Almås, Charles Kweyunga and Mkabwa LK Manoko, is available from the website of MiningWatch Canada here.

[6] They express these concerns in report (i) from footnote 2.

[7] The press release may be found here.

[8] Referred to fully as the Council on Ethics for the Government Pension Fund — Global

[9] The Council’s report recommending exclusion of Barrick Gold from Norway’s government pension fund may be found here.

[10] You may read this paragraph and the full context that it appears in here:
http://barrick.com/CorporateResponsibility/Environment/
WasteRockTailings/default.aspx
More information from Barrick Gold on their tailings management at the Porgera mine may be found at their website here:
http://barrick.com/CorporateResponsibility/KeyTopics/PorgeraJV/
TailingsManagement/default.aspx

To read the communication that follows, please click here.

Daily News: Tarime still worried by mine pollution

operationwatch — Sat, 23 Jan 2010 06:57:50 +0000

Here’s another article from Tanzania’s Daily News newspaper discussing the toxic spill at Barrick Gold’s North Mara mine. The mine is located in the Tarime district just outside of Serengeti National Park in northern Tanzania. The article is titled Tarime still worried by mine pollution and is dated January 1, 2010.

Read the article here.