SOUTH AUSTRALIA: Olympic Dam Uranium Mine
BHP Billiton aims to dig a new open pit mine within its Olympic Dam Mine in Roxby Down, South Australia, despite opposition from Kokatha and Arabunna Traditional Owners and environmentalists. BHPB proposed an increase in water consumption from 35 million litres daily from the Great Artesian Basin (GAB), to 42 million litres from the GAB and an additional 218 million litres from local aquifers and a proposed desalination plant at Point Lowley.
WESTERN AUSTRALIA: Yandi and Area C
In Western Australia, conflict has developed between Aboriginal people and BHPB regarding land use. Rio Tinto constructed the Hope Downs mine on a site sacred to the Martidja Banyjima people, which has also impacted the region environmentally. Now BHPB plans to lease 200 square kilometres of their traditional land. In response, the Martidja Banyjima launched a legal campaign to protect remaining land.
Despite being upheld as a working model of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), First Nations communities near BHPB’s Ekati diamond mine are concerned about the lack of good jobs, barriers to full participation in planning phases of the mine, decreases in populations of wildlife and pollution due to spills and mine waste. Now, given the evidence that global warming trends appear to be already impacting northern expanses of tundra, local Indigenous communities have raised the issue that there is no mitigation plan in place to deal with the impacts of the thawing of the ground.
COLOMBIA: Cerrejon Coal Mine
BHPB is a 33% owner of Colombia’s Cerrejon Coal Mine, the largest opencast coal mine in the world. Alongside a history of forced relocations of Indigenous and Afrocolombian communities, conflicts continue with communities currently facing displacement and those already-displaced. Meanwhile, Cerrejon mine workers and local communities complain of coal dust which causes skin and respiratory problems.
CHILE: Minera Escondida
Since its construction in the early 1990s, there have been periodic spills from the pipeline taking copper concentrate across the Antofagasta region from the mine in the mountains to a pier in Coloso Bay south of the city of Antofagasta. Additionally, competition for scare water sources near the mine site has led to conflicts with local farmers.
Democratic Republic of Congo: Inga 3 Hydro-Power Project
BHP Billiton is planning to develop a 2,000 MW aluminium smelter in the Democratic Republic of Congo, contingent upon the construction of the Inga 3 mega-hydropower site and a deep sea port. The DRC Government has neglected to fulfil its compensatory agreements with communities displaced by two existing dams at the same site for more than 40 years. Today, 9,000 people who have resided in the former construction workers’ camp for decades have been threatened with eviction due to pressures for development of the Inga hydropower site.
PAPUA NEW GUINEA: Ok Tedi Copper
The Ok Tedi Copper and Gold Mine which BHP Billiton formerly controlled is located near the Ok Tedi River in western Papua New Guinea. Mining wastes dumped into the river have ravaged the environment and reduced access to food and drinking water for nearby communities. Several lawsuits were filed against the Ok Tedi Mining Limited Company which resulted in compensation to the affected population, though little of the money makes it there. The mine continues to operate and discharge more than 80,000 tonnes of refuse into local rivers daily.
PERU: Antamina Mine
An Ancash Health Administration report found that mining sediment spills had led to levels of lead, copper and zinc in the Juprog River which were over the limits established by law, implying a risk for livestock and other agricultural use, as well as human health. Meanwhile, local newspapers reported that clashes with mine security seriously wounded 7 people who were protesting the company’s failure to fulfill agreements concerning relocation of farming communities.
The PHILIPPINES
Sibuyan
Sibuyan, dubbed the Galapagos of Asia, is a small island in the central Philippines of just 44,500 hectares threatened with mining. After Armin Marin, an environmental activist, won a seat in a local council, he lobbied for the cancellation of mining permits in Sibuyan. Shortly after, he was shot dead during a protest against mining on the island. At the time of Marin’s death, BHP Billiton had an agreement for a loan of US$250,000 for exploration activities in Sibuyan, in exchange for 500,000 tonnes of nickel of the companies heading the exploration.
Pujada (Hallmark) Nickel:
The residents of Macambol are facing serious environmental threats, specifically the destruction of adjacent protected areas and their source of sustenance and livelihoods, due to mining exploration initiated in part by a BHPB subsidiary.
SOUTH AFRICA: Samancor’s Smelter
BHP Billiton’s subsidiary, Samancor Manganese, owns and operates a manganese alloy plant in the Vaal Triangle in the Gauteng province. In 1999, medical tests were carried out on hundreds of Samancor workers. Most were found to be suffering from manganese poisoning, including neurological disorders, chronic dizziness, paralysis of limbs, kidney failure and cancer. Instead of publishing the results of these tests, Samancor fired 509 workers. According to the Samancor Retrenched Workers Crisis Committee, a community group organizing in response to this scandal, more than 700 smelter workers have died over the last 10 years from causes connected to the toxic manganese residues in the air, soil and water.
USA: Resolution Copper mine
The San Carlos Apache Tribe of Arizona publicly opposes the Resolution Copper Project on their traditional lands proposed by BHPB and Rio Tinto. They assert that the proposed Resolution Copper mine at Chich’il Bildagoteel would destroy many particular ecosystems and would be a violation of their civil and religious rights. Tribe chairman Wendsler Nosie Sr. has requested the the Federal Government proceed with a full admininstrative review through an Environmental Impact Statement, so that they can fully analyze and discuss these impacts with the tribe.
WEST PAPUA: Raja Ampat
Raja Ampat’s biology has earned it a place at the top of the global short list of UNESCO World Heritage marine sites, but Gag Island, the site where BHPB had hoped to develop a nickel mine and a site previously listed as within this area, was excluded –under BHPB’s watch – from this nomination. Additionally, destructive small-scale mining on Manuran Island within the Raja Ampat archipelago has been rewarded by BHP through import sales.
4 comments
Comments feed for this article
February 5, 2010 at 11:03 am
Roger Moody
An excellent initiative.
I notice that there are regions (such as Kalimantan, China) which you don’t, as yet, appear to be covering, and identified projects (such as the Rseolution JV with Rio Tinto) on which you don’t have much detail.
That’s inevitable, given you’ve only recently started up. I’m sure you’re aware that Mines and Communities, as well as London Mining Network, carries background articles on many such issues, as well as offering regular updates.
It would be good if you could incorporate specific links to these articles, and a general LINKS page.
Best wishes
November 18, 2010 at 10:44 am
underminingsustainability
hi Richard,
Sorry it has taken so long to respond. Sakura who helped pull the BHP Billiton report last year put the website together then and no one has managed it since. I am going to make all attempts to do that (although I currently manage about 6 websites) … I have put up a links page http://bhpbillitonwatch.net/links/, please let me know what other links could go on this page … and yes there is still many more BHP Billiton operations that need to be covered.
regards
Natalie Lowrey
natalie.lowrey@foe.org.au
natalie.lowrey@gmail.com
September 8, 2010 at 12:01 am
João
NEED HELP TO STOP MOZAL, ALUMINUM SMELTER SUBSIDIARY OF BHP BILLITON, FROM OPERATING IN BYPASS FOR A PERIOD OF 6 MONTHS!!!!
HELP!
HELP!
HELP!
February 16, 2012 at 3:41 am
Wesely
With rising copper prices BHPbilliton World Exploration Inc based out of Canada (wholly owned by BHPbilliton) are attempting to revisit the scene of one of BHP’s most celebrated environmental disasters, Papua New Guinea.
The OK Tedi River environmental catastrophe is ongoing today and is likely to have profound consequences on the Ok Tedi and Fly River systems of Western Papua New Guinea for the next two centuries, at least.
After an international outcry over the disaster in the late 90’s (few people realize just how profound that ongoing environment catastrophe really is) BHP departed the nation, tail between legs, slamming the door on fingers of the citizens of that nation by, in effect, extorting from the cash strapped government of Papua New Guinea a total indemnity for their hideous social tort and profound and overt breach of social license.
BHP achieved this by announcing the closure of the mine.
The effect of the closure of the OK Tedi Mine would have completely destroyed Papua New Guinea’s economy, and, of course, BHP was at all material times well aware of the consequences of such a declared intent.
At the same time BHP offered an arrangement whereby the Papua New Guinea government would give a complete indemnity and total immunity from prosecution over the OK Tedi disaster in exchange for BHP handing the disaster (and the OK Tedi Mine) to the PNG government.
The reasons for this disaster are complex.
The original plans included an Environmental Impact Statement (done by an Australian Consultancy) called for a tailings dam to be built near the mine.
This would allow heavy metals and solid particles to settle, before releasing the clean ‘high-water’ into the river system where remaining contaminants would be diluted.
The plan was seriously flawed.
In 1984 an earthquake (common in the area) caused the half built dam to collapse.
The company continued in developing operations at OK Tedi without any dam.
This was initially because BHP argued with the PNG government that it would be too expensive to rebuild it.
Subsequently, the cash-strapped PNG government, under huge economic pressure from the closure of the Angina Copper Project on Bougainville, was compelled to agree with BHP or face economic collapse.
In 2010 BHP decided to re-enter PNG and applied for a massive area of exploration license in the Central Highlands of PNG with riverine systems running off in a northward direction into the Sepik River system.
The story, about these applications is rather interesting but to cut a long story short the applications for grant of the tenements were forwarded to the then Minister for Mining, the Honorable John Pundari in mid 2010.
The Minister is on the Public Record as having stated, under parliamentary privilege, and in response to matters raised in parliament, “I personally find it very difficult to allow the return of BHP Billiton into this country, given its legacy with the Ok Tedi mine project” and, the “environmental problems of the Ok Tedi river systems were real and huge, and the company should have looked for remedial solutions instead of making a decision to walk away from them”.
The Honourable Minister went on to say that the failure (by BHP) to provide “real large tangible projects and programs” in the Western province, where Ok Tedi was located, was “an act of cruelty, and we must not continue to condone this type of conduct in this country”, he said.
Clearly, like the rest of the nation, and right thinking people throughout the international community, the Minister was of the view that BHP was, and is not, a good corporate citizen.
There after the Minister rejected BHP’s applications, as he was lawfully entitled to do under Section 20(1) of the Mining Act.
Thereafter as a matter of Law, the matter was closed, finished, end of story, etcetera.
What then happened in the latter part of 2010?
Firstly, there was a change of government and an attendant change of Mining Minister.
BHP then threatened to litigate with the PNG government over the rejection of the tenement applications.
BHP made this threat conditional on the applications not being granted.
The threat was made notwithstanding that BHP had no legal basis for such litigation.
In the context of Section 20(1) of the Mining Act the rejection of the applications was entirely valid under the broad discretions given to the Minister for Mining.
Then, apparently, under the threat of litigation BHP brought improper influence on the Chairman of the Mining Advisory Council, the administrative body responsible for making recommendations to the Minister on matters of grant.
An agreement was reached under color of the threat of litigation and other matters, that the Chairman of the Mining Advisory Council would simply ignore the Ministers decision to reject the applications, and that thereafter they would wait for another person to be appointed as Minister for Mining to, and try again.
This conduct is, OBVIOUSLY, both illegal under the Mining Act, a clear abuse of process, and, a corruption of the independence of the Mineral Resources Authority.
It is also action displaying a completely disrespect and disregard for the lawful authority of the office of the Minister for Mining and due process thereunder.
Needless to say, the Minister for Mining is the only office legally entrusted by parliament with the decision to grant or not grant.
In this case, once the Honorable John Pundari made his decision, and directed that to the Chairman of the Mining Advisory Council, as a matter of Law, that was the end of the matter.
The Chairman was then obliged to simply communicate the Ministers determination to the applicant, BHP.
It needs to also be stated that there is NO review process available to either BHP, nor to the Mining Advisory Council who themselves now have NO JURISDICTION under the Mining Act to re-consider the matter of BHP’s applications under eh doctrine of .
Nor can the Chairman of the Mining Advisory Council ignore the Ministers decision, which he clearly has, apparently, under pressure from BHP.
In so far as the purported applications have been purportedly re-submitted under pressure by BHP to the office of the Minister for Mining the applications are void, they do not exist, and they are a legal fiction under the doctrine of Functus officio.
However what does BHP care about the law in PNG?
Clearly, BHP cares naught for the Laws of the Independent State of Papua New Guinea!