Barrick Gold has contributed enough for Porgera

 I WRITE to raise my concerns over the misleading information by Lagaip-Porgera member, Nixon Mangape, regarding the illegal mining and land relocation issues (The National, Jan 3). 

Firstly, Porgera landowners have failed to reach negotiations with Barrick Gold due to their unrealistic demands. 

As a result, instead of relocating residents within the  SML,  Barrick  Gold  has taken a more strategic approach by building a metal fence around the mine and the SML. 

Secondly, why can the landowners  not  finalise the  mining  review, which is well overdue? 

If the member and the landowners are truly concerned  and  would  like  Barrick Gold  to  accommodate  the  local hire in camps, stop pointing fingers and start taking some responsibilities by reviewing the mine agreement and  include everything that  would  be beneficial for everyone. 

Thirdly, the member suggested that BarrickGold should introduce an identification system to scrutinise people travelling in and out of Porgera and the SML. 

Why not the member, with the assistance of the Porgera Development Authority, set it up? 

Barrick Gold has done enough  and this  ID  system can go hand-in-hand with the biometric system for the  2017 elections. 

Last but not least, about the 24 security contracts to be issued; why can  it  not  be implemented in the new mining agreement too?

Concerned Porgeran  

Porgera