Eco and social responsiblity of mining companies

[cu@thetop]

Not wanting to troll many of the forumites who abide by mining as the new religion but I came across this item today:

http://www.news.com.au/national-new...-hanrahans-creek/story-fncynjr2-1226597988909

Followed by the revelation that I earned more than Nathan Tinkler last year:

http://www.news.com.au/business/coa...e-9834-in-201011/story-e6frfm1i-1226598478485


So when a mining company damages the environment they either fly off into the sunset carrying bags of money never to be seen again through the mists of time or if you can catch one it turns out they have no money- wooshka!

I think the government should up any mining royalty tax to provision for future clean ups for future generations.

I'm sure everyone will tell me this doesn't happen with current mining practices cause Darren Lockyer says so in that TV ad and a sporting hero would never lie to us but I think we need to see how things are in 50 years time.

Karl Marx is attributed to having said words to the effect of " Why should we do anything for future generations? What have they done for us?".

I expect the Marxists will shout me down about making miners financially responsible for ecosytem repair and reconstruction.

So what's your view? Miners give us jobs and money so they should be able to cut and run? Or perhaps Miners should be made to clean up their own mess?

 

[datto]

Followed by the revelation that I earned more than Nathan Tinkler last year:

http://www.news.com.au/business/coa...vidend for every ten years without a problem.

 

[Angel]

They can start by cleaning up all the asbestos they've left behind, which is still cladded to half of suburbia.

Since when have the mining companies been land developers and building companies building cheap housing in western Sydney?

 

[The Fence]

Yep, nothing to see here.

 

[weg]

I think the government should up any mining royalty tax to provision for future clean ups for future generations.

Somehow I don't think the government would be that interested in spending any mining royalties on clean ups, when they can use the money to fund election promises/buy votes .

Not quite mining pollution, but employing this guy to put together the The Garnaut Climate Change Review, is proof of how committed the government is when the contradictions are glaringly obvious.

http://ramumine.wordpress.com/2012/09/28/ross-garnaut-extends-his-links-with-pngs-mining-polluters/

Sorry, could have posted a far better link but due to a paywall posted this instead.

 

[datto]

Since when have the mining companies been land developers and building companies building cheap housing in western Sydney?

What are you going on about. Asbestos is mined . Miners are therefore complicit..

 

[Angel]

Consumers didn't have to buy it.

 

[topcropper]

What are you going on about. Asbestos is mined . Miners are therefore complicit..

This is hilarious. I'm assuming your joking?


See ya's.

 

[topcropper]

So what's your view? Miners give us jobs and money so they should be able to cut and run? Or perhaps Miners should be made to clean up their own mess?

I'd have thought that there would be pretty strict codes of practice that apply to mining in this country. For example when coal is mined, the top soil is put in one spot, the next layer put in a different spot, the rocks another. Then 30 years later when the coal mine is done it's all supposed to go back the way it came out, plus with fertilizer, plus with vegetation planted etc. I'm sure it's never as good as original, but at least they've tried.

No doubt there are some horrific bad examples of bad mines and what they've done, but hopefully it is the minority.



My opinion is that all primary industries are damaging to the environment in some way or another. Even agriculture. Farming is way less damaging than mining of course, however agriculture uses probably one thousand times the land area, so it adds up.

Perhaps you could show your disgust and boycott all primary industries? Yes? That would be the way to show these environmental vandals? Don't buy any food, fibre, plastic, metal, building materials, and then anything else made from this nasty stuff, also gas, fuel, and stop using electricity. Yep, that would be an honerable thing to do.

See ya's.

 

[Dazz]

So what's your view?

My view is family lawyers should be responsible for the anguish and heart-ache and future costs of all children's lives they mangle, as they fully encourage their parents to fight ad nauseum in court.

 

[lizzie]

Farming is way less damaging than mining of course, however agriculture uses probably one thousand times the land area, so it adds up.

Only have to watch "The Dust Bowl" on (I think) SBS to see that farming just be just as savage.

Unfortunately, if we want our way of life at the price we pay, then we have no other choice but to intensively work primary industries ... and I wouldn't encourage giving the government another cent until it can spend it's current budget wisely and without waste

 

[cu@thetop]

I'd have thought that there would be pretty strict codes of practice that apply to mining in this country. For example when coal is mined, the top soil is put in one spot, the next layer put in a different spot, the rocks another. Then 30 years later when the coal mine is done it's all supposed to go back the way it came out, plus with fertilizer, plus with vegetation planted etc. I'm sure it's never as good as original, but at least they've tried.

No doubt there are some horrific bad examples of bad mines and what they've done, but hopefully it is the minority.



My opinion is that all primary industries are damaging to the environment in some way or another. Even agriculture. Farming is way less damaging than mining of course, however agriculture uses probably one thousand times the land area, so it adds up.

Perhaps you could show your disgust and boycott all primary industries? Yes? That would be the way to show these environmental vandals? Don't buy any food, fibre, plastic, metal, building materials, and then anything else made from this nasty stuff, also gas, fuel, and stop using electricity. Yep, that would be an honerable thing to do.

See ya's.

I'm not big on the protesting- usually economic boycott is as far as most of us could go in a practical sense. I use the resources and have no intention to stop - i just want a bit more accountability for actions. You talk of remediation 30 years later but the players have long since exited the game by that time so compensation has to be grabbed now so the rest of the community isn't left holding the bucket in the future.

Agriculture is a different debate altogether although here in Qld we are seeing problems with coral die off partially due to chemical contamination by fertilizers used upstream by farmers.

My view is family lawyers should be responsible for the anguish and heart-ache and future costs of all children's lives they mangle, as they fully encourage their parents to fight ad nauseum in court.

Lolz. Usually by the time they get to the lawyers the parties are far from rational in their thought processes. I agree that some lawyers will press buttons in that regard which is poor form but how do you pull up suh miscreant behaviour let alone quantify the loss?

Only have to watch "The Dust Bowl" on (I think) SBS to see that farming just be just as savage.

Unfortunately, if we want our way of life at the price we pay, then we have no other choice but to intensively work primary industries ... and I wouldn't encourage giving the government another cent until it can spend it's current budget wisely and without waste

That's the rub. I'm a bit cynical about setting it aside as a "future fund" as it will only be raided by future governments for short term political expediency.

 

[Ideo]

Disclaimer. I do work for coal mines.

Most of the approvals put in place require quite onerous requirements regarding site rehabilitation after mining is finished up on the site. This is a requirement of the operation of the site as a coal mine. Not a requirement for the group that lodges the application.

View it the same as a DA for a house. It is transferred from one owner to the next.

Personally, I'm not a fan of coal. It's outdated and inefficient. But as it is the default choice I will continue to assist in gaining approvals as I have nothing against it and don't feel that personal moral views should shape professional work.

Nuclear, on the other hand, is a different story. It's the only feasible large scale option at this point in time.

 

[datto]

This is hilarious. I'm assuming your joking?


See ya's.

I dont get it?

European studies in the FIFTIES showed asbestos was dangerous to your health.

I'd like to see pictures of victims pasted on fibro houses.

 

[topcropper]

I dont get it?

European studies in the FIFTIES showed asbestos was dangerous to your health.

I'd like to see pictures of victims pasted on fibro houses.

If mining companies are responsible for deaths from asbestosis, then as I'm a farmer, I'm responsible for deaths from obesity and heart disease because people eat too much. Same thing. Thats why I thought you were joking as I thought no one could be so silly.

We could continue on.
Woodside is responsible for car crashes as they produced the oil that was made into fuel that went into the car.
Fosters is responsible for the drunken bloke who beat up his wife as they made the beer. And so's the farmer who grew the barley.

Just ridiculous.


See ya's.

 

[datto]

If mining companies are responsible for deaths from asbestosis, then as I'm a farmer, I'm responsible for deaths from obesity and heart disease because people eat too much. Same thing. Thats why I thought you were joking as I thought no one could be so silly.

We could continue on.
Woodside is responsible for car crashes as they produced the oil that was made into fuel that went into the car.
Fosters is responsible for the drunken bloke who beat up his wife as they made the beer. And so's the farmer who grew the barley.

Just ridiculous.


See ya's.

LOL. Eat and drink responsibly. Drive carefully.

Unfortunately with asbestos, there is no safe exposure.

 

[HiEquity]

LOL. Eat and drink responsibly. Drive carefully.

Unfortunately with asbestos, there is no safe exposure.

Yes but the main asbestos mining and manufacturing company of the time, James Hardie, is already paying a decent proportion of the cost (finally). Directors like Hellicar et al have taken it all the way to the High Court and lost.

What more do you propose (other than the pictures)? Expert report after expert report has stated it's not worth removing asbestos if it is left undisturbed...

Back to the topic, Hanrahan's creek is an isolated incident with its own set of circumstances and should definitely be cleaned up. The company has no money so the thing should be shut down and remediated by the government, in my view FWIW (ie nothing).

Equally though, there is no evidence of widespread environmental contamination from the mining industry. Mining companies do often have to stump up money for remediation up front and have to exhaustively demonstrate their operations have an acceptable impact. By and large the system works without widespread contamination - even in CSG country where everyone is fretting about the groundwater! Tony Windsor got a good result there recently anyway, in case anyone was genuinely worried about it.

If you let science govern public policy, as it has in this area now for a couple of decades at least, you generally get sound results for the long term, notwithstanding one or two failures. If you don't then you know a train smash is only a matter of time...

 

[Waldo]

Fosters is responsible for the drunken bloke who beat up his wife as they made the beer.

Worse that that - Fosters is guilty of more important things. Like making aweful beer!

On a serious note - the new article in the OP the issue is in the size of the environmental bond the government is holding for the minesite. The bond should have been set at an amount that would cover the environmental rehabilitation if the company suddenly decided it couldn't afford (or be bothered) with the clean up work required to fix up the site. If the bond was sufficient there would have been no issues (and if the mining company couldn't afford the bond, well they can't afford to do the mining).

I personally won't comment on mining methods that involve major subsidence or widespread fracking over a large area as they are not my area. They both have potential to lead to significant environmental issues that cannot be undone easily in my opinion.

For every ten good mine closure & rehabilitation projects there will always be one shocking one (same as in any industry really).

As to rich people not paying their share of taxes? I don't think you'll find that is restricted to mining magnates!

 

[BayView]

There was that movie..."The man who sued God".

I think Slater and Gordon handled his case; no win, no fee.

 

[BayView]

As to rich people not paying their share of taxes? I don't think you'll find that is restricted to mining magnates!

Oh, please.

Rich folk pay plenty - I mean frikkin plenty - of tax.

Maybe their % is down compared to the check-out dudes etc with no deductions and so forth, but what risks in life are those folk taking?

The mere fact that someone is rich means they are generating way more dollars indirectly and directly for the rest of the society to benefit from than any average income wage earner.

Give 'em a break.