"I have also attempted to explain the dangers in using mercury to illiterate villagers who mine gold and use mercury. At least cyanide will oxidise very quickly in an open environment, whatever it may do to you if you swallow it. And the local people do a terrific amount of damage with deforestation, burning off every year and causing consequent siltation of their streams among other things-I've seen it." (HenryVIII)

Thank you for your interesting post, Henry and I have no doubt of its accuracy and it is pleasing to hear that you are attempting to advise the villagers on the dangers of mercury. It would be very difficult for illiterate people to realise the extent of the health and environmental damages they incur from their own actions.

Please advise why you appear to suggest that the imprudent actions of uneducated villagers excuses "enlightened" foreign mining companies who trash other countries' eco systems, leaving one hell of a mess before returning home where they are revered as the "Big" Australian?

To make this debate more meaningful, could the author Andrew Hewett advise what dialogue he and Oxfam have attempted to open with the Chambers of Minerals and Energy in each state of Australia and with the equivalent body at the federal level? These bodies exert useful influence over their member companies and can have them thrown out, something that affects their fund-raising abilities and hence is an action that allows the Chambers to wield some power over their activities, both here in Australia and overseas. Or is Oxfam just kicking the mining can, a headline-grabbing technique effective for at least the last 20 years?

As for Dr Alan Tingay, I know him well and would be happy to spill the beans on him but I fear he would sue me. In my eyes, Tingay is not a credible person and his findings and conclusions should be treated with extreme caution. His links to the Brian Burke government in WA during the 1980s may give you a clue as to why I do not accept him as being credible.

Hello there Bernie

"His links to the Brian Burke government in WA during the 1980s may give you a clue as to why I do not accept him as being credible.

Bernie

I am confident that if Alan Tingay was attempting to ingratiate himself with the likes of Burkie, the last thing he would be doing would be to indirectly expose the unethical mining practices of Australian mining companies. After all, until recently, these companies (or similar ones) were Burke and Grill's favoured clients.

It's not hard to realise that the very least concern for Burke and Grill would be our fragile environment.

In addition, the following preface to Tingay's report states:

SCOPE

• THIS REVIEW IS BASED ON A REVIEW OF MUCH
OF THE RESEARCH CARRIED OUT BY BHP AND
OTML OVER THE PAST 20+ YEARS
• AND
• MEETINGS WITH PEOPLE FROM MORE THAN 35
VILLAGES WHO LIVE ON OR NEAR THE OK TEDI
AND FLY RIVERS BETWEEN TABUBIL AND PARAMA

Judging by the comments here, the entire point of this article has been missed. This isn't a call to arms against mining companies, rather it is a plea for reasoned and equitable mining and exploration activity.

The initial attitude of BHP towards the Ok Tedi mine was fairly woeful, the situation has seen marked improvement in recent years but ultimately this was due to the behest of the Australian government and population, who were quite rightly disgusted with the previous BHP response to mass environmental degradation (caused by tailing, which IS toxic...ever heard of science?)

While harm is inevitable, it can be minimised, a clear set of business policies, that take harm minimisation as the guiding principle would add an infine amount of benefit to mining practice.

Yes, the local communities have a lot to gain from these mines. However, the ultimate goal should be sustainability, when the mine goes, and if the local environment is destroyed with no long lasting economic development then future generations will be left far worse off.

So in short, there does NEED TO BE a commitment to sustainability and harm minimisation, that should be enforced from government downwards. There is such a thing as intergenerational responsibility.

"Judging by the comments here, the entire point of this article has been missed.

Scarlett Manuka

I agree with the details of your post, with the exception of the above statement.

I assure you we have not missed the point of this article at all. I have spent almost my entire life in a mining town.

You advise: "While harm is inevitable, it can be minimised, a clear set of business policies, that take harm minimisation as the guiding principle would add an infine amount of benefit to mining practice."

I assure you Scarlett Manuka, that "harm minimisation as the guiding principle" in mining is not practised sufficiently in Australia. The documented evidence is there - tonnes of it! One need only peruse an emissions' report from any mining company, assuming you are conversant with the national and international "guidelines" for stack emissions (guidelines are unenforceable.)

Australia emits more mercury than some 95% of all of North America and one gold mine in WA emits the largest amount of mercury in all of Australia. There is no capping on stack emissions of PCDDs (dioxins)or the majority of other hazardous emissions.

Monitoring of emissions is not the same as controlling them. I have emissions' reports revealing that one small company (some 12 employees) constantly emitted dioxins nine times in excess of the international guidelines and without fear of any restrictions, regardless of the number of community appeals.

Despite most people's perceptions, the mining industry is self-regulated and self-regulation is not working - particularly in view of the dire state of our eco-systems, not least the rampant mining practises which have greatly contributed to this dire state.

Why would one believe that Australian mining companies would choose to operate more ethically in developing countries?