Miners tend to send conflicting signals

IT strikes me as incongruous, the companies that claim to hold such high value in the environment and human rights, are the same companies that do so much damage to both.
As Bougainville Copper ramps up plans to reopen Panguna, let us not forget that its parent company, Rio Tinto, is still fighting against Bougainville landowners in the courts in the United States, effectively denying them the right to have a voice outside of Papua New Guinea.
The case is set for hearing on Sept 20, some 10 years after the people first took legal action.
Rio Tinto is represented in this action against the people of Bougainville by Australian law firm, Allens Arthur Robinson.
Allens Arthur Robinson is representing the Mineral Resources Authority in its legal fight with the landowners of the Rai Coast against Ramu nickel mine, the joint venture between Chinese-owned MCC and Australian miner, Highlands Pacific Ltd.
The chairman of Highlands Pacific is an ex-partner and still an active consultant to Allens Arthur Robinson.
The law firm has wonderful credentials serving the mining industry in PNG. 
Allens Arthur Robinson describes its resources expertise on its website as thus: “Our strong relationships with governments and regulators mean we can help clients obtain important regulatory approval and, in some cases, even challenge and change legislation to benefit their interests.”
Indeed, they do.
In April, Highlands Pacific managing director John Gooding told miningnews.net that submarine tailings disposal (STD) or deep sea tailings placement (DSTP) disposal was the only viable solution for Ramu, and if it were forced to move to another tailings option, it would “probably break the project”.
STD/DSTP is banned in the United States and Canada, and the Australian government has stated it would never be approved for use here, so how on earth do these poor miners ever get a project off the ground without it?
But they do, don’t they?
Mining is one of the strongest sectors of the Australian economy, despite our stringent environmental protections.
PNG is in a unique position of strength to call the shots – to hold the miners to at least as high a standard with which they must and do comply in Australia – at the very least.
Mines come and go. Their fortunes wax and wane with the commodity cycles. 
They might have a life of 15 to 20 years and then, having taken everything they can from under the surface, they go.
What they leave behind in PNG is unforgivable.
The miners may huff and puff about pulling out, about their projects not being viable if they cannot do it on the cheap, inflicting the damage that will inevitably ensue to generations of indigenous landowners.
But they would not.
The value of the resources over the life of a mine is worth hundreds of millions of dollars, and in some cases billions.
Asking for them to invest a few million dollars in proper facilities to house and treat the waste is surely not so great an ask.
We expect nothing less in Australia.
Why not in PNG?

Alex Harris
Via email