A community assembly in Intag on the 23rd November – an area BHP touts as being its Ecuador stronghold – ended with the almost unanimous rejection of mining in the area. The meeting was held only the day before rumours surfaced that BHP would be increasing their stake in SolGold.
Apuela Assembly November 2019. Image credit: DECOIN
The assembly held in the Parish of Apuela, Intag, was attended by nearly all the communities in the Parish, with local leaders begging the Parish Government to help them prevent mining companies from entering their communities. Despite being formally invited, BHP representatives did not attend the meeting.
‘At the assembly several community presidents denounced BHP’s entry into their respective communities, and called for measures to be taken at a higher level to impede future entry. The absence of representatives from BHP seems at odds with their socialisation attempts, and was not viewed favourably by locals who wanted to know the company’s plans for the region,” says Liz Downes, a member of the Rainforest Action Group.
“No representatives of the Cerro Quebrado-BHP company went to the Assembly to appear before the communities, and to share information about their plans and projects for mineral exploration within the Santa Teresa and Santa Teresa mining concessions 2, which affect not only Apuela, but also two neighboring parishes (Plaza Gutierrez and Cuellaje),”[1] says Mr Carlos Zorilla, environmentalist and co-founder of local environmental group DECOIN.
Representatives from the Ministries of Environment, the Ministry of Energy and Non-Renewable Natural Resources, the Mining Regulation and Control Agency, the Secretariat of Water, and Ecuadorian state mining company Enami also failed to appear.
Assembly in Apuela. From left to right on the board: Pablo Duque, Ombudsman, Parroquo de Apuela, and representative of the Provincial Government. Image credit: DECOIN.
The assembly was addressed by the Ombudsman of Imbabura, Doctor Katherine Andrade, a representative of the Provincial Government of Imbabura, and expert geologist Pablo Duque, retired dean professor of the National Polytechnic School. Pablo Duque informed the community as to the risks of mining in the region, and explained why large-scale mining could not happen in this area without irreversible environmental damage.
Apuela sits in the middle of the Santa Teresa 2 mining concession, which belongs to BHP’s South American subsidiary Cerro Quebrado. Residents of Intag, a farming region with a history of strong resistance against large-scale mining due to widespread concerns about social and environmental impacts, have expressed concerns over what they consider to be a lack of community consultation and transparency by Cerro Quebrado during the process of gaining permits.
“The Intag region experiences high rainfall and earthquake risk, making mining infrastructure and tailings dams inordinately risky. It also contains the last remnants of mega-biodiverse cloud forests within the Chocó Andes belt, which are habitats for critically endangered species such as the Andean Spectacled Bear. Any disturbance or contamination of rivers would gravely affect the environment as well as the lives of people and endangered species in the region,” Ms Downes said.
According to Mr Carlos Zorrilla, a formal resolution and list of demands are expected to be officially announced by the Assembly this week. These will include a demand for the revocation of the mining concessions in the Parish over the lack of environmental consultation; a barring of mining companies from entering the communities; and a request for a full consultation over the entire Intag area.
“There has been persistent and ongoing resistance from locals to mining companies exploring on their lands. To access the Santa Teresa 1 and 2 concessions for exploration activities, BHP employees must use a private road, which the owners have now vowed to bar them from using,” says Liz Downes.
BHP’s announcement regarding SolGold comes only six weeks after Ecuador erupted in widespread protests over IMF austerities, which caused the IMF to classify the country as a high risk for foreign investment, particularly in extractive industries.
It also comes amid ongoing concerns over serious security issues at the Cascabel project site, where explorations are underway. Cascabel came under fire earlier this year in an intensive investigation by the National Ombudsman, who stated in his report that environmental and other risk assessments done by the company in order to obtain exploration licenses were inadequate.
“BHP regards Ecuador as being a promising investment due to its potentially large reserves of high-grade copper deposits, which the company considers essential to its plans to supply the global renewable energy sector. We are gravely concerned about rumours concerning BHP increasing their shares in Solgold, despite our warnings to the company at the AGM about the security concerns of Cascabel and other concessions in Ecuador. It is a bitter irony that renewables risk gravely impacting the environment and water supply of such biodiverse forested areas,” says Liz Downes.
[1] Quote from email. Full email can be forwarded on request.
More details on security concerns at Cascabel can be found here.
A protest outside BHP's AGM, in Sydney on November 7. Photo: Zebedee Parkes
BHP held their 2019 AGM in Sydney on November 7. A small, peaceful protest was held outside by climate groups wanting to draw public focus to the debate around BHP leaving the Minerals Council. Two Rainforest Action Group members flew to Sydney from Hobart and Melbourne to ask questions as proxy shareholders.
The Rainforest Action Group’s first questioner asked:
“My questions concern social and political risks when operating in Ecuador, and our company’s due diligence and transparency to shareholders when managing these risks. In particular I am concerned about our company’s activities in the Santa Teresa 1 and 2 concessions in Imbabura, and in the Luminex/BHP concession in Tarquí, Morona Santiago. Given BHP’s significant investments in these areas, and given BHP’s strong goals and values around social and environmental conduct that the Chairman highlighted in his report, I would like to highlight that:
Both regions feature strong anti-mining sentiments, with communities mobilising against mining due to concerns about water, environmental damage, and lack of adequate consultation or consent to the selling of their lands.
There have been recent complaints against BHP’s conduct in the community of Puranquí, in Santa Teresa 2, involving lack of adequate consultation in the obtaining of exploration and water permits that were acquired two weeks ago. The main complaint was that meetings were held only with a pro mining minority of the community, ie two families, and excluded the Council and Mayor, who were against mining.
The Tarquí concession is close to the controversial Mirador project in Shuar territory, where there has historically been significant unrest. Social and political risk factors for BHP include civil dissent, weak government laws regarding community consultation, a history of human rights abuses in the area due to mining, and the use of military forces to suppress peaceful protests. We have testimonies from this area which I don’t have time to read out, saying that BHP has been operating in this area for over a year with little or no community consultation.
Ecuador is classified by the IMF as ‘high investment risk’ due to political instability, popular resistance against extractive industries, and recent history of uprisings.
My first question is: Given the company’s significant stakes in Ecuador, and the issues outlined above, how does our company plan to use due diligence when working with people who don’t want mining, who feel that their land has been sold from under them, and who have limited recourse to exercise their civil rights within Ecuador under current laws without risk of violent retaliation?
My second question is:Given BHP’s company values, how will the company maintain transparency to shareholders in situations where there is evidence of civil or political conflict or environmental damage directly or indirectly caused by mining activities?”
The Chairman’s reply (roughly) was this:
“For the benefit of shareholders let me give you an overview of the Ecuador situation. We are in very early stages of exploration here; we’ve done very little in these areas. We’re going in slowly and we are aware of the sensitivities. We are only doing very low impact activities in these areas. We are talking to communities and can assure you that we are following FPIC (free, prior and informed consent) and all local laws; we have strict standards for consultation and our conduct when entering new areas. So there is not a lot we can say in answer to this question."
The Rainforest Action Group’s second questioner spoke about BHP’s relationship with SolGold and the dangers and risks of the Cascabel project, including Colombian paramilitary activities, illegal miners and crime in the area. The questioner read from a summary which took about 3-4 minutes to read. The gist of the summary can be found here. Halfway through the presentation, the Chairman started to interject, before finally turning off the questioner’s microphone.
BHP Think Extinction Manduriacu Frog. Image credit: Rainforest Action Group
The Chairman’s reply was as follows:
“I don’t know where these details came from and I am not familiar with most of the issues mentioned. Again, as before, for the benefit of shareholders let me explain what the situation is in Ecuador. We are in very early greenfields stages of exploration here, we’re doing very low impact activities, and we can assure you we are doing sovereign risk analyses around Ecuador as well, and of course, you know, we will continue to monitor that situation. Our shareholding in SolGold is quite small, it’s around 11% of the company, we have a ‘watching brief’ over that. So it’s very early days, and we have due processes in place about all that. What we won’t compromise on is following the law, complying with local regulations and applying our global standards which are well articulated, for example in the ICNN, in terms of how we’d like to survey … and we may very well decide that this is not a place where we want to participate.”
The Board were clearly rattled by some of the more pointed questions from shareholders. Someone who spoke about lung diseases from iron ore micro dust from inhalation in Port Hedland lost his microphone as well, as did someone from the Australasian Corporate Accountability Network who was part of the shareholders’ group that had put forward the motion for BHP to exit the Minerals Council. A Colombian human rights defender raised concerns about Cerrejón and was addressed by the CEO, who said that BHP only owns about 33% share in the mine and therefore is only able to monitor impacts of operations from within a limited jurisdiction. In other words, BHP couldn’t be held to account for the complaints the questioner was bringing forth.
Samarco was mentioned by a shareholder, who commended the Board on how well BHP has handled the situation. The CEO said that the AGM of 2015 was 'emotional', people were 'very cross', and BHP was moved to ensure it was accountable and take the necessary remedial steps. He said he felt BHP had done ‘very well.’ Four questioners raised climate change issues. Two trade unionists also asked questions.
A Chilean asked questions regarding the recent troubles in Chile, particularly in regarding to BHP workers from Escondida mine striking in solidarity with the protesters, and reports of under-remuneration and poor conditions for BHP workers and contractors at Escondida. The questioner also eluded to issues regarding the status of BHP assets in Chile, if the Government fell. BHP’s CEO responded that he was receiving daily reports and in communication with people on the ground in Chile, and was aware of everything the questioner was saying. He said:
“I’ll stick my neck out and say that (the workers) are probably better remunerated and have better conditions than the average Chilean. But … within our contractor community there may be some that feel less advantaged, and we’re conscious of that, and we’ll work through that; we understand the pressure of change.”
The CEO said he had not been aware of the threat of renationalisation of copper, but that he’s focused on raising revenue and reducing Chile’s debt, which he said would pay for better healthcare and education, and possibly increase wages in the long run. He finished by reiterating that Escondida, Spence and other mines in Chile are ‘some of the best in the world’ and that BHP is committed to running a productive and well-remunerated workforce.
A member of the Australian Conservation Foundation, also asked the Board about concerns about radioactive tailings at Roxby Downs in South Australia, particularly in light of impacts on birds and the local environment.
Two Board members came and spoke to RAG’s two proxies at lunch. Chief geophysicist Laura Tyler said she felt that the Chairman hadn't answered their questions, and that she was here to talk but further and give them some reassurances about their concerns. She made some elucidating comments. The first was (roughly):
“We have a policy manual with rules for entering new countries, which we follow carefully. We try to gain as much information as possible about the political situation and about environments in the areas before we start working.”
RAG’s representatives said that with regard to environments at risk from operations, Ecuador was a completely different situation to the desert regions that BHP is mining in Chile, due to the cover of biodiverse rainforests etc. Ms Tyler agreed.
Carolyn Cox, BHP’s Secretary also spoke with the two representatives and gave the contact for the chief of operations in the Americas, suggesting that they write him an email expressing concerns about Ecuador. She agreed that it is important BHP receives feedback from communities on the ground, as they can't keep track of everything otherwise. The representatives mentioned the Manduriacu Glass Frog, a critically endangered species which is thought to now be extinct due to BHP’s preliminary exploration activities in its only habitat. Ms Cox said she hadn’t known about this and appeared to be very surprised as BHP’s environmental goals clearly state they will not conduct operations in any area where there is known to be an IUCN Red List species. She agreed that this concern is worth pursuing further.
Below are links to some media coverage of the AGM, including the decision by BHP shareholders to stay in industry lobby groups:
Cascabel is an investor nightmare. Located in close proximity to the Colombian/Ecuadorian border, in an area the Australia’s Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) advises not to travel
SOLGOLD CASCABEL CONCESSION
“This border is out of control. Its inhabitants are left to their fate.”
The location of SolGold’s Cascabel concession is an investor's nightmare. Cascabel is located in close proximity to the Colombian/Ecuadorian border, an area where Australia’s Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) advises DO NOT TRAVEL. “We advise against all travel here due to the very high risk. If you do travel, you should typically seek professional security advice. Be aware that regular travel insurance policies will be void and that the Australian Government is unlikely to be able to provide consular assistance.”
Around 26% of SolGold is owned by BHP and Newcrest Mining. SolGold have never built a mine and do not have the capacity to raise the billions of dollars to build a mine at Cascabel, so will most likely sell the concession. The buyers then will inherit all the risks associated with building and operating the mine. SolGold will effectively wash their hands of the operation.
SolGold are anticipating that the Alpala mine in the Cascabel concession will be active for 50-60 years. It will also produce copper, gold and silver from 2.4 billion tonnes of ore. It is the opinion of MRAG that not only will the mine be built in a politically unstable and dangerous region, but infrastructure required for the mine, could come under attack or even sabotage, as could the mine itself.
In their 2019 Preliminary Economic Assessment (PEA), SolGold suggested that mining material will be transported, via pipeline, 60 km north west towards San Lorenzo. San Lorenzo is a known organised crime hot spot, located near where 3 journalists were murdered in April 2018. The murders shocked Ecuador. The police station at San Lorenzo was also car bombed (the first car bombing in Ecuador) in January 2018 by Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) dissidents. As a result, the President of Ecuador, Lenin Moreno, declared a limited State of Emergency in the cities of San Lorenzo and Eloy Alfaro to enhance police and military authority.
In August 2019 when the FARC guerrillas announced that the 2016 peace deal had failed and that the re-established armed revolution in Colombia. The Ecuadorian press reported widespread concern in Ecuador regarding the potential impact that the FARC could have in the north of the country. “Return to the FARC weapons causes alarm in Carchi…Tobar Donoso is one of the areas disputed by the FARC, because, according to residents, it is a corridor used by Mexican drug cartels and the front of the disappeared alias Guacho.”
Tobar Donoso is located 50km north-west of Cascabel.
From San Lorenzo, the pipeline will then continue 100km south west to the port of Esmeraldas. San Lorenzo has also been a hot bed of illegal mining activity for many years. Gold mining is now seen as being as lucrative as coca growing by organised crime syndicates in Colombia, with Ecuadorian paper El Comercio saying: “…But military information warns that Colombian criminal groups, linked to FARC dissidents or drug traffickers, are also behind the illegal mining that is registered in the two cantons, due to their proximity to the Nariño department."
Another active group in the region is Colombia’s National Liberation Army (ELN). Reports suggested in early 2019 that the ELN was targeting border areas inside Ecuador including “facilities and units in the municipalities of Mira in the province of Carchi and San Lorenzo in Esmeraldas as potential targets”.
Both the FARC and ELN have targeted energy infrastructure inside Colombia over the years. Up to April 2019 there have been around 20 attacks on Colombian pipelines in 2019. The 485-mile (780-km) Cano Limon pipeline was kept offline for most of 2018 because of more than 80 bombings. An attack in April 2019 occurred in the Province of Narino, just north of the Ecuadorian border. Narino is also a hotspot for illegal mines and coca growing where the ELN and another criminal group, the Urabeños have made millions of dollars in recent years. Reports suggest that the gold sourced from illegal mining from Narino is transported into Ecuador.
SolGold also state in the PEA that workers at Alpala will most likely be bussed in each day from Ibarra. This probably means that the Alpala mine site itself will have few people staying at the mine overnight, except security staff. Given the precarious location of the mine, it is apparent that the mine itself (and pipeline) could be a target for groups wanting to cause problems such as armed robbery. The mine will most likely be a magnet for many people throughout the region. Power for the mine is also suggested to partially come from Colombia.
The Cascabel mining site at Alpala is ~10km from the DO NOT TRAVEL zone, with entry into the proposed mining through Roca Fuerte almost located on the boundary of the DO NOT TRAVEL zone. Illegal mining in close proximity to the Cascabel concession has occurred at El Cielito (approx. 5-10km north of Cascabel) between 2017 and 2019. SolGold has apparently employed the services of security firm G4S to look after its Cascabel security.
Military police entering Gina Rinehart's concession in Ecuador.
The largest illegal mining operation in Ecuador in almost 30 years, occurred north of the village of Buenos Aires, on a mining concession called Imba 2, owned by Australian mining magnate Gina Rinehart between November 2017 and July 2019. The main illegal mining area, at a place called El Triunfo, was located only 10km south of Alpala. At this location over 10,000 illegal miners operated. They miners were eventually evicted after the Moreno Government sent in 2000 troops and hundreds of police officers.
The mining operations inside Imba 2 were rife with organised crime and mafia influence. A number of brutal murders occurred near the mines. Drug trafficking, prostitution and other criminal acts undermined the security of the existing township of Buenos Aires, with organised criminals from Colombia and Venezuela being pinpointed as key organisers. In August 2018 12 hooded men stole 18 cubic metres of confiscated gold material that had been stored by the local police. Police officer and mining officials have also been implicated in corruption as have officials in the judicial system.
An illegal transport network was established which allowed for the transportation and storing of rock from the mine sites. Between $50,000 and $150,000 was required by truck drivers to “oil the road” and pay bribes on the way of moving illegally sourced materials to processing sites in the south of the country. Destinations of the illegally mined rock included: Azuay, El Oro, Camilo Ponce Enriquez, Zaruma and Portovelo. After processing, the gold was then illegally transported out of the country. It is clear then, that an organised crime syndicate associated with gold mining is operating inside Ecuador, with gold also being funneled in from Colombia. Developers of Alpala mine will have to build their mine on shaky grounds indeed. The following summary by Open Democracy accurately describes the powder keg.
“Under different names … the actors operating on the Ecuador- Colombia border remain the same:
Paramilitary groups which continue to defend the interests of drug traffickers and landowners, even though the AUC no longer exists.
Dissident groups of the FARC now turned criminal and related to drug trafficking.
Colombian drug traffickers allied with Mexican cartels.
The armed forces (the army and the police) of Ecuador and Colombia.
State presence of both nations.
There is also a new actor: the illegal miners who operate in Imbabura, Carchi, Esmeraldas and Sucumbíos, who generate problems for the local populations.”
Protesters at international mining conference acting as human smoke alarms
6 November 2019
The aftermath of a week of blockades against the International Mining and Resources Conference (IMARC) continues to reverberate, with Prime Minister Scott Morrison now threatening to outlaw future boycotts against mining businesses.
IMARC Protesters. Image Credit: Rainforest Action Group
“Given mining extraction and refinement generates 20% of global emissions, the basis of the IMARC Blockade last week was a desire to get a conversation on the table about the pressure on the environment we are all facing. Prime Minister Scott Morrison argues that boycotts of resources companies are a threat to the economy. We would argue the impending threat of climate change is a greater threat to the economy,” says Rebekah Hayden, a spokesperson for the Rainforest Action Group.
“When numerous groups have exhausted all traditional legal options in the last few years in calling for greater action on the part of the government in recognising and acting on climate change, then protesting becomes our legitimate – and constitutional right. We are acting as Australia’s smoke alarm,” says Rebekah Hayden.
“We do acknowledge the incredible amount of physical and emotional resources expended by both the police and protesters. We would much rather see both sides working together against what may well be one of the most significant challenges humanity has faced, rather than risk entering a pattern of ongoing violence and disruption such as is currently occurring in Hong Kong and Chile.”
“With 70% of Australians believing Scott Morrison should have been present at the UN Summit on Climate Change it is clear that the majority of the country is concerned about potential impacts of climate change and our government’s complete lack of action,” Ms Hayden says.
“Given Australia is increasingly seeing record temperatures with several towns already running out of water, giving mines in the Galilee Basin the go-ahead to take an unlimited amount of water for the next 60 years seems like madness. What will happen if a city the size of Adelaide runs out of water? What will happen if the Great Artesian Basin is contaminated with mining waste?” Ms Hayden says.
Regarding claims that protestors restricted the ability of organisations offering alternatives to mining to attend IMARC, the Rainforest Action Group says:
“We are certainly not closed to dialogue with businesses that offer genuine alternatives to mining or promote technologies which reduce reliance on extracting minerals, and we apologise to those groups if their opportunity to operate at IMARC was restricted. We invite any such groups to make contact with us and we’ll gladly share information about their technologies with stakeholder groups both here and in other countries negatively affected by mega-mines,” Ms Hayden says.
“However, we need to affirm that we completely reject the actions of mining companies who continue to mine in Latin America, Papua, Africa and Australia against the wishes of the majority of landholders, often with coercive military support and repression, taking huge environmental risks and trampling on human, cultural and civil rights. Too many mining companies continue to act with impunity regarding the disastrous ongoing environmental and social impacts of their mines.”
The Rainforest Action Group was one of about 23 affinity groups who joined Blockade IMARC to draw attention to the mass destruction caused by extractive industries across the globe and the harm they cause to communities and ecosystems.
A week of blockades against the International Mining and Resources Conference (IMARC) continued yesterday (Tuesday) at the Melbourne Exhibition and Convention Centre, where more than 500 anti-mining protestors attempted to shut down the conference.
Speaker at IMARC, Tjiwarl woman Vicky Abdullah. Image credit: Rainforest Action Group
Boon Wurrung Elder Carolyn Briggs welcomed protestors onto her country, and encouraged all to be respectful of the land they walked on. She was joined by Gunnai-Kurnai and Gunditjmara woman Lidia Thorpe. Walpiri elder Uncle Ned Jampijinpa Hargraves and Tjiwarl woman Vicky Abdullah who spoke about their fight against mining companies, along with West Papuan activist Porobibi and a speaker from Chile. Lee Rhiannon from the Greens, Colin Long from the Trades Hall Council and Liz Ross from the Textile Union also spoke in a display of solidarity between First Nations people, trade unionists, activists and environmentalists.
The Ecuadorian Minster of Mining was believed to be one of those barred from entry into the conference. Newcrest Mining Chief Development Officer Mike Nossal was also reported to have had to run the “protest gauntlet”. Newcrest Mining are active in Ecuador at the present time, through their shareholding in Fruta del Norte (FDN) and exploration company SolGold. FDN begins operations this year, despite objections of indigenous people. SolGold’s Cascabel project is also of grave concern to a number of people in the north of the country.
“Australian mining companies have had a key role in the recent political unrest and instability in Ecuador and Chile, among other places, where increased extractivism has not had flow-on jobs or wealth to local communities. In Ecuador, the presence of mining companies is increasingly angering communities who say they were never consulted or gave consent to exploration Rainforest Action Group spokesperson Anthony Amis says.
“Lack of consultation over mining was a major factor in the recent uprising in Ecuador and has been a major flashpoint for indigenous people all over the country” Mr Amis added.
IMARC Protester hurt by horses. Image Credit: Rainforest Action Group
The peaceful blockade was marred by outbursts of police brutality which saw protestors receive a number of injuries including that of a young woman who broke her leg when mounted police drove their horses into the backs of unsuspecting protesters and she went flying. Horses who were used to control the crowd were visibly spooked by the tactic, their wide eyes showing fear and a lack of willingness to trample the protestors.
“We were disappointed to see excessive police force used to control the crowd, particularly when it was done without warning. Protestors were exercising their legitimate rights to demand greater accountability for the actions of mining companies. These mining companies not only emitaround 20 per cent of global emissions, but they also are responsible globally for land grabs, military protection of their assets and the pollution of water ways and river systems from mining waste – some of which will never recover,” says Anthony Amis.
The Rainforest Action Group was one of about 23 affinity groups who joined Blockade IMARC to draw attention to the mass destruction caused by extractive industries across the globe and the harm they cause to communities and ecosystems.
PROTESTS AT IMARC CONCLUDE
Thursday 1 November
A week of blockades ended peacefully yesterday with more theatrical antics at the International Mining and Resources Conference (IMARC). Protestors dressed up as Gina Rinehart and Scott Morrison espoused the benefits of coal, with “ScoMo” holding up a black lump to illustrate.
IMARC protestors face police over barricade. Image Credit: Rainforest Action Group
The theatre was a softer tone after a week of brutality from the police including on Wednesday, where a number of protestors who had been pepper sprayed, had to lay on the ground, unable to breathe for almost an hour. Ambulances were called but did not arrive, and in the end it was a police medic who assisted them.
“The Rainforest Action Group is shocked but not surprised by the level of violence in Melbourne this week. Mining companies use less visible means of violence across the world every day. Military force and police oppression are habitually used by mining companies to enforce control over communities that resist mining on their land,” says Anthony Amis, a spokesperson for the Rainforest Action Group. “Indigenous people have been resisting these onslaughts for many decades, mostly beyond the gaze of international media or ENGO’s. Governments are complicit in these purges.”
“In July in Ecuador, more than 10,000 local and international miners were evicted by military personnel on concessions owned by Gina Rinehart, where illegal mining operations were purportedly run by various militia groups – with Colombian, Venezuelan and Mexican crime cartels vying for control. Paramilitaries funded by mining companies are also a major concern in South America, with nearly thirty anti-mining campaigners being killed in Colombia this year alone,” Mr Amis said.
The IMARC Blockade continued at the Australia-Latin America Business Council Dinner on Thursday evening where the Ecuadorian Minster of Mining was one of those Latin American visitors feted by big Australian business. Speakers from Chile, Colombia, Australia and Walpiri elder Uncle Ned Jampijinpa Hargraves shared stories on mining and human rights abuses. Speakers also explained how the recent uprisings in Ecuador and Chile, have in part, been caused by the often unaccountable activities of mining companies.
The Rainforest Action Group was one of about 26 affinity groups who joined Blockade IMARC to draw attention to the mass destruction caused by extractive industries across the globe and the harm they cause to communities and ecosystems.
Members of the Rainforest Action Group attempted to raise their concerns about investing in Ecuador at the SolGold AGM in September 2019 as we believe SolGold has not been transparent with shareholders as to the nature of their concessions. Below are our questions and concerns.
We are concerned that correct consultation processes have not taken place, especially given the Ecuadorian constitution which requires prior and informed consent by communities, and which enshrines the rights of nature and Indigenous people in the constitution. This is particularly important given recent legal wins, for example in April 2019 where the Waorani won a landmark case protecting their land from oil concessions, and in the case of Rio Blanco last year, where the Chinese-owned mine was forced to close over claims communities were not consulted about mining on their land. A case won in the Provincial Court of Imbabura in June barred BHP/Codelco from entering concessions at the Manduriacu Reserve without permission.
What does SolGold say about statements that say authorisation has been falsified and communities have not been consulted? What does SolGold say about territories that have been entered illegally, or explored without permission by SolGold employees? What does SolGold say about permissions being falsified or been obtained with force or coercion, or obtained from someone who does not live in the area? What does SolGold say about aerial magnetic explorations that took place without consent or authorisation of the community?
Security issues
Car bomb in San lorenzo. Image credit: Sputnik news
In August 2019, guerrillas from the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) announced that the 2016 peace deal had failed and armed revolution was re-established in Colombia. The criminal group has been spreading its actions down into Ecuador ever since the deal was established in 2016.
Cascabel is located in close proximity to the Colombian/Ecuadorian border, an area the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) advises as a DO NOT TRAVEL area, where regular travel insurance policies are void and the Australian Government says it is unlikely to be able to provide consular assistance. The Cascabel mining site at Alpala is ~10km from this zone, with entry into proposed mining through Roca Fuerte almost on the boundary of the DO NOT TRAVEL zone.
In its 2019 Preliminary Economic Assessment, SolGold suggested that mining material will be transported via pipeline, 60 km north-west towards San Lorenzo. This route goes through an area of significant risk where organised militia with links to FARC conducted a number of bombings in 2018. The police station at San Lorenzo was car bombed in January 2018. A trap bomb loaded with shrapnel killed three and wounded eleven Ecuadorian marines on 19 March 2018. A few weeks later, a second car bomb exploded under a police car.
In April, three journalists were found murdered by dissidents, a bridge was bombed near Viche, and several bombs were placed in transmission towers. As a result, the President of Ecuador, Lenin Moreno, declared a limited State of Emergency in the cities of San Lorenzo and Eloy Alfaro to enhance police and military authority. There were also attacks on civilians and military patrols at the border town of Mataje – now a ghost town with civilians fleeing the embattled area.
This is the area that SolGold have proposed as a route for the pipeline. How will SolGold protect 60 kilometres of pipeline carrying valuable mineralised ore in such dangerous terrain?
SolGold has suggested power for the mine will partially come from Colombia. Both FARC and Colombia’s National Liberation Army (ELN) have targeted energy infrastructure inside Colombia over the years. Up to April 2019 there were about 20 attacks on Colombian pipelines in 2019. The 485-mile (780-km) Cano Limon pipeline was offline for most of 2018 because of more than 80 bombings. How will SolGold safeguard electricity coming from Colombia?
SolGold states in the PEA that workers at Alpala will be bussed in each day from Ibarra. This means that the Alpala mine site itself will have few people staying at the mine overnight except security staff. Given the precarious location of the mine, it is apparent that the mine could become a magnet for criminal groups and armed militia in the region.
We are concerned that not only will the mine be built in a politically unstable and dangerous region, but the pipeline and mining infrastructure, could come under attack or be sabotaged, as could the mine itself. How does SolGold plan to protect such a risky investment?
SolGold has employed the services of security firm G4S to look after its Cascabel security.[1] G4S is facing a raft of lawsuits from staff who have alleged they were forced to work in unsafe conditions on Manus Island, among other places, with security guard Gregory Wisely alleging that after suffering a head injury during a riot, G4S did not allow him to stop work, and that he was not provided with any equipment to radio for help. Documents from a separate legal case allege G4S employed “incompetent and malicious security staff, who escalated the violence at the premises during the riots and contributed to the death of one transferee and the injury to other transferees”. The killed man was asylum seeker Reza Barati.
Can SolGold assure us that G4S will not put staff in similar danger at Cascabel if there is to be an altercation with illegal miners, criminal gangs or armed militia? Can SolGold ensure that G4S will not employ ex-FARC militia, individuals or groups with links to cartels, or guards with military training who might exacerbate the situation at Cascabel? Are G4S responsible for SolGold’s security across Ecuador, or will military or police be used at other concessions? What will the security costs be for all 72 concessions?
[1]Anna Legge, Public Relations for Solgold told us that SolGold was using G4S at Cascabel at the 2019 Prospectors & Developers Association of Canada (PDAC) 3 March 2019.
Illegal mining
Illegal mining in close proximity to the Cascabel concession has occurred at El Cielito (approx. 5-10km north of Cascabel) between 2017 and 2019; and the largest illegal mining operation in Ecuador in almost 30 years, occurred on a mining concession called Imba 2, owned by Australian mining magnate Gina Rinehart. The illegal mine, called El Triunfo, is only 10km south of Alpala. At this location over 10,000 illegal miners operated between November 2017 and July 2019. The miners were eventually evicted after the Moreno Government sent in 2000 troops and hundreds of police officers, however miners are starting to return to the area. Gina Rinehart and the Ecuadorian government are now purportedly in negotiations over who pays for the involvement of the military, with the Government saying it is the responsibility of mining companies to pay for security on their concessions.
How is SolGold safeguarding its concessions from illegal miners? What do you plan to do if a gold rush occurs at Alpala or its other concessions? How will SolGold afford to evict thousands of miners off its concessions in these instances, when there is already so many other factors that are delaying mining at the site?
SolGold’s links to Ecuadorian Military Pension Funds through BHP
In March 2019, BHP signed a US$82M Non-Binding LOI with Luminex Resources for the Condor Project in the south-west of Ecuador, located 55 km south of Ecuacorriente’s Mirador mine and 31 km south of Lundin Gold-Newcrest’s Fruta del Norte mine. Key elements of the deal give BHP the right to earn up to 70% ownership interest by investing an aggregate amount up to US$75M, with BHP making cash payments to Luminex up to US$7M.
The Condor Project is 10%[2] owned by the Instituto de Seguridad Social de las Fuerzas Armadas ("ISSFA"), which is the pension fund for Ecuador's armed forces personnel.
On 5th August 2019, the local Shuar community held a non-violent protest against the Luminex/BHP Tarqui project. The military coincidentally turned up at the same time to conduct a “gun control operation”.
"First the police came. They left after talking to people and seeing that it was peaceful action. Now the army arrives saying they want to do a gun control. #noalamineria #fueradelostitulosglobales #consultaprevia " Tarimiat on Twitter.
What does SolGold think about the ethics of one of their key investors being involved with the Ecuadorian military? Seeing as BHP is a major investor in SolGold can we expect the military to coincidentally turn up when communities protest against other SolGold, BHP and Liminex projects? Or does the military only protect Luminex projects?
[2]Luminex’s level of ownership on the Condor concessions varies between 90% and 100%; 6,900 ha of the 10,101 ha are 90% owned by Luminex.
Environmental impact
In Pallatango, Chimborazo, the Chillanes concession is on top of the biggest geological faultline in Ecuador. The Pallatanga fault (PF) is a prominent NNE-SSW strike-slip fault crossing Central Ecuador. This structure is suspected to have hosted large earthquakes, including the 1797 Riobamba event which caused severe destructions to buildings and a heavy death toll of more than 12,000 people, as well as widespread secondary effects like landsliding, liquefaction and surface cracking.
A mine in the region would be extremely unsafe and a tailings dams in the area at risk of collapse were an earthquake to occur. What will SolGold do to ensure the safety of mines and tailings facilities in this area, and how will SolGold protect local communities from harm if earthquake damage to a mine impacts water sources or causes a threat to life?
Most of southern Ecuador’s cities and towns are already experiencing growing water shortages due to rapid population growth. In Gualel, where there are major water sources, locals are concerned about water contamination by mining activity. These sources not only provide water for the region but are considered sacred. Mining in this area could endanger both their livelihood and their way of life. What is SolGold planning to do to combat any risk to water? What will SolGold do in Bolívar to safeguard both communities access to water, and contamination of these sources? How will SolGold protect against the impact on forest and wildlife in the region?
Cascabel
How deep are the ore deposits at Cascabel?Previous studies indicate they are located at around 2000 metres but this is not being reported to shareholders. A mine 2 kilometres deep in an area of high rainfall and earthquake risk is likely to have significant impact and risk. The depth would also complicate extraction of the ore, and the cost of mining in the area. We are concerned that SolGold does not have the capital to build such a mine, particularly when it has so many other priority projects on the go. Will SolGold sell off Cascabel to another company? What will the impact be on SolGold shareholders if this is the case?
The Cascabel concession is part of the Mira River basin, and is surrounded by mature primary and secondary forests that house endangered species, and protect pristine microbasins. The entire Cascabel concession is part of the catchment for the Mira River which then runs through Colombia. Any contaminants that put this river system at risk could cause an international incident.
We are concerned about the impacts of the mine and related infrastructure on the local ecosystem, as well as the toxic waste generated by mining activities.
SolGold itself has said that it will extract 2.4 billion tonnes of ore from the mine. Based on that figure, we estimate the tailings generated by this mine would amount to at least 1km3 (1,000,000,000 m3), and could possibly exceed 2km3 over the life of the mine. To put these figures in perspective, the capacity of the largest lake in Ecuador – Lake Quilotoa is 0.35km3, making tailings produced enough to fill the lake three times over, at a conservative estimate.
In their preliminary reports, SolGold states that decisions regarding the management of tailings are still in preparation. Can SolGold guarantee that the mined rocks do not contain pyrites or monosulphides, and can you guarantee that SolGold/ENSA will maintain tailings dams in the Cascabel concession for hundreds of years to ensure the toxicity of this waste is safely contained?
Given that the mine is in an area of high rainfall and earthquake risk, can SolGold guarantee that the structure of tailings dams built on the Cascabel concession will be sound and will not be vulnerable to earthquakes, overflow from heavy rain or increased waste volumes, as occurred with the Vale/BHP disaster in Bento Rodrigues in November 2015, or that of Brumadihno, where 300 Brazilians died when the tailings pool collapsed in January 2019?We understand that SolGold have very limited experience in mine construction. The approval of a record-height tailings dam at Mirador leaves us highly concerned that similar foolhardy constructions will be approved at Cascabel.
We are concerned that Alpala will not be the only mine constructed in the Cascabel concession. From SolGold’s reports, we are given to understand that there are several other ore bodies that ENSA/SolGold are exploring within the concession. Can SolGold disclose if this is the case, and if these ore bodies will be block cave mined individually, or absorbed into one large supermine several kilometres in size?
MRAG gathered testimonials from Indigenous and campesino communities in Ecuador who claim that SolGold are exploring illegally on protected forests or indigenous lands, and have falsified authorisations. They say that SolGold has “no social license, have done almost no socialisation, and have done no consultation whatsoever”.
TESTIMONIES FROM COMMUNITIES IMPACTED BY SOLGOLD OPERATIONS
200 protestors at the head office at BHP today blocked entries to doors this morning amid demands for BHP to take greater accountability of its mining operations globally.
Blockade at BHP 11 October 2019. Image Credit: Melbourne Rainforest Action Group.
The protest comes as Ecuador goes into a state of emergency with hundreds injured and at least 5 killed in one of the most serious uprisings Ecuador has seen in recent years. The unrest arose from resistance to IMF-mandated austerity measures that also allow greater freedom for foreign interests operating in the country, making mining companies such as BHP complicit in the use of military force to protect their business interests.
"Protesters were informed about recent uprisings in Ecuador at the rally. Many were shocked to hear about the violence being perpetrated on the Ecuadorean people by the state. Many in the crowd were also shocked about the extent of mining interests in Ecuador by Australian companies. Of particular concern was the activities of BHP in the Intag Valley and their investments in SolGold," Melbourne Rainforest Action Group member, Anthony Amis.
The blockade was targeted as a “dress rehearsal” to a week of blockades planned at the International Mining and Resources Conference (IMARC) from 28 October.
BHP has seven concessions in Ecuador – many of these on Protected Forests and Indigenous territories, as well a Joint Venture in Indigenous territory Tarquí which has been hotly contested. In June, a provincial court in Imbabura revoked the environmental license for ENAMI/Cornerstone and BHP to conduct explorations on their concessions in these areas, barring them entry, however BHP employees continue to illegally conduct exploration in these areas.
The current uprising in Ecuador is led by Indigenous organisation CONAIE which denounced the government and corporate interests in a statement today, saying:
“The business class, who has sold the country and is pro-imperialist, wants to secure the funds from the IMF for their own debt, their crisis. We the working classes, Indigenous peoples and the popular sectors, are paying [for their crisis]. This struggle isn’t for today, nor is it only for the price of gasoline. It is to prevent them from auctioning off our future. What we are unsuccessful of stopping today, two or three generations of us will be forced to pay with hunger and poverty.”
CONAIE ECUADOR
To our bases and the Ecuadorian Peoples
(Original statement in Spanish attached, Espanol adjuntado)
(Quito, October 10, 2019) We have seen days filled with agitation. We have been surprised by our own capacity to fight and resist, and we have demonstrated to the world that the Indigenous movement and the Ecuadorian peoples are one single force, and, from the place that history has granted us, we have made the power tremble. We have stated our position: this does not end until the IMF leaves Ecuador.
Like all governments who have been debilitated and delegitimized, the only response that Lenin Moreno has given is violence and repression. [the government] Has treated the people as its enemy, without a shred of respect to the simplest norms of respect for human rights. They did not respect the zones of humanitarian protection, instead throwing tear gas bombs towards our children and our elders. They prevented us from creating humanitarian pathways so that the injured could reach hospitals. And, they have massacred our fallen brothers with bullets to their bodies, impacts of gas cannisters, collisions by horses, being beaten and even thrown off of a bridge. What we are living in this country does not have a name, there is no memory of such atrocious and violent repression in recent history against a people who are reclaiming their rights.
For those who sustain this government so that they feel empowered to throw themselves in a war against the people: the same who are protecting them in Guayaquil. The business class, who has sold the country and is pro-imperialist, who wants to secure the funds from the IMF for their own debt, their crisis. We the working classes, Indigenous peoples and the popular sectors, are paying [for their crisis].
This struggle isn’t for today, nor is it only for the price of gasoline. It is to prevent them from auctioning off our future. What we are unsuccessful of stopping today, two or three generations of us will be forced to pay with hunger and poverty.
We have tears of rage but we have learned from our mothers and fathers that those who die in battle are honoured by multiplying them. The dialogue that Lenin Moreno is proposing is a farce. This is why, comrades, we will radicalize our actions. There is no dialogue with this assassin government unless the minimum requirements are met: the exit of Maria Paula Romo and Oswaldo Jarrin from the government and the abolition of Decree 883.
Until then, our homework is to struggle., to rejuvenate our strength and sustain the road blockades and the take-overs of the departmental offices and public buildings, to hold assemblies in all of the communities and to build alliances with all of the sectors of the people.
No one will take the words of the Indigenous movement to speak with this assassin government until these demands are met. The only official voice is the leadership of the CONAIE. It has been said, leaders who do not comply with the mandate of the people will be subjected to popular and indigenous justice.
Not one step back!
IMF Out of Ecuador!
This Strike does not End!
[signed]
For the council of the government
Jaime Vargas
President of CONAIE
[translated from original statement by Kirsten Francescone, MiningWatch Canada]
The Rainforest Action Group is deeply concerned about the implications of the State of Emergency declared by Ecuadorian president Lenin Moreno on October 3rd. The action gives police and military the power to use extreme force to repress the widespread mobilisation of the populace occurring throughout Ecuador after the implementation of austerity measures known as the “paquetazo” (package) on October 1.
Alicia Cahuiya, leader of the Waorani women's organisation (AMWAE) standing beside the crowd in the central square of Quito
The US $20 billion fiscal reform package includes axing fuel subsidies – a move that saw diesel prices rise from US$1.03 to $2.30 per gallon, and petrol rise to US$2.39 from $1.85. Public service wages were cut by 20 per cent, and workplace security and job security safeguards removed. Thousands of public-sector employees were also dismissed and education and healthcare spending slashed. The resulting protests have seen hundreds injured and at least one dead, with police shooting unarmed protesters and the government leaving the capital over safety concerns. Hundreds of people have also been arrested.
“The reforms by the Ecuadorian government are part of IMF mandates that seek to open Ecuador further to international investment, and pave the way for widespread copper and gold mining despite resistance from the population. Austerity measures in a country where the level of structural poverty sits at 25.5% and extreme poverty levels of 9.5% is unfathomable. Given the isolated terrain of much of Ecuador, the fuel price rises will see the poorest Ecuadorians and small-scale farmers hit the worst,” says Rebekah Hayden.
“The move directly implicates Australian mining companies in the repression of the populace, who overwhelmingly voted last year against mining in Indigenous territories and protected forests in the Amazon and Andes. Despite this, the government continues to move ahead with plans to increase mining concessions, axing taxes so that mining companies can operate with lower overheads, and providing armed forces to ensure the security on the sites of these proposed mines. The IMF loan was provisioned on foreign investment, particularly the strategic mining projects such as SolGold’s proposed Cascabel mine which acts as collateral for the loans.” Ms Hayden added.
Australian mining companies are leading investment in Ecuador, holding almost 30% of mining concessions across the country, totalling 536,101 hectares in early 2019.
“Australian mining companies like to promote mining as an opportunity to provide jobs and increase local wealth, however these austerity measures by the government indicate that local communities will be far worse off after foreign investment than they were before,” Rebekah stated.
Protesters occupying Ecuador's National Assembly. Click for video.
The Confederation of Indigenous Nations of Ecuador (Conaie) released a statement in mid 2018 denouncing the Government’s selling of around 2 million hectares of Indigenous territories and protected forests to mining companies, and declaring a unilateral stance against all industrial foreign investment projects, including mining, oil and hydroelectricity, in indigenous lands. Last week, in response to the release of the austerity package, indigenous people apprehended and detained around 50 police and military personnel trying to enter communities in the Andean provinces of Chimborazo and Imbabura. To date, many of those held have not been released. In a statement on 3rd October, Conaie declared: “Military and police who approach indigenous territories will be detained and subjected to indigenous justice.’
Meanwhile, also on 3rd October, protestors burned down a mining camp at Río Blanco in the province of Azuay. Río Blanco, owned by Chinese company Ecuagoldmining, has been for several years a social and political flashpoint. Sustained community resistance against the gold mine resulted in a legal case which in June 2018 forced the project to shut down. However, as part of his swathe of new enforcements following the signing of the IMF deal, President Moreno promised to do whatever it took to re-open Río Blanco.
In recent months there have been a number of other declarations released by communities denouncing moves to mine their land. They say they were not consulted about plans to mine. An assembly in the province of Intag on August 20th was attended by 1500 people, who released a statement giving mining companies, including BHP (five concessions in the area) and Gina Rinehart’s Hanrine, two months to withdraw from their communities.
On August 23rd, the Shuar Arutam Indigenous People’s government declared itself free of mining, demanding the exit of mining companies which include Australian companies SolGold, Andrew Forrest’s Fortescue Metals Group, Newcrest (who part-owns the flagship gold mining project Fruta del Norte) and BHP. More than 50% of Shuar territory is covered with mining concessions, and nearly 100% is concessioned to oil companies. At this moment, Shuar Arutam demonstrators are being harshly treated by the military, being gassed, shot at and beaten.
“Australian companies are naively pushing ahead with mining in communities that do not want them to operate on their land, in an environment that is increasingly fraught, and at a time when global concerns about climate change require deeper scrutiny of any new mines – particularly in such vital forests as the Amazon. Any mining in Ecuador can only go ahead with increasing force against the populace – making Australian companies directly responsible for any fatalities that result.” Ms Hayden concluded.
As this is being written, Ecuador is in lockdown due to a nationwide strike and escalating unrest. Citing security fears, the government has temporarily moved from the capital, Quito, to Guayaquil.
Latin American Church Synod. Image credit: Redamazonica
On Sept 14th this year, as the disastrous fires in the Amazon Rainforest continued to hit international headlines, Ecuador’s new Holistic Ecology and Panamazon Synod released a bulletin entitled ‘Our Mother Earth is Dying.’
This came as a result of a congress of Catholic bishops in Quito, and will serve as a key document informing the much more important gathering of bishops next month at the Vatican, which will announce a new direction for the Catholic Church, towards a ‘holistic ecology’ rooted in respect for ‘our common home'.
The document, inspired by the teachings of the Gospel and on the encyclical Laudato Sí, declares:
“1. Our commitment to continue marching in the struggle and transformation as builders of justice, prophecy, and defence of life and diversity.
2. Our commitment to live on the planet, respect and value it, especially those large, threatened ecosystems: oceans, rivers, forests, highlands, glaciers.
3. Our commitment to insist that authorities of the Amazon basin stop the ecocide, genocide, and ethnocide resulting from the expansion of the agriculture/livestock frontier, extractive activities, and megaprojects.
4. We demand that governments declare a moratorium on all mining concessions and hydroelectric projects.
5. Our commitment, as members of the Catholic Church, is to report to local and international judicial entities violations of Human Rights and the rights of First Peoples, of uncontacted peoples, of campesinos, and of the rights of nature.
6. Our commitment to act, together with collectives and organizations, to promote and defend the Human Rights or all vulnerable groups.
7. Our commitment to continue along this road, listening to and building, with other civil society actors, collectives, and especially with young people, actions in defence of, sensitivity to, positive impact on, and commitment to defending out Common Home, turning our processes of resistance and struggle into ways of defending the rights of life, nature, and peoples.
8. Our commitment to accept and report that the destruction of nature is a capital social sin.
9. Our commitment for an alternative that promotes life, that respects nature at the personal, community, and institutional levels.
10. Our commitment, as academics, to academic proposals that recognize the value of the cultural heritage and the resignification of our major activities of teaching-training, researching, and connecting in order that these activities be oriented to the valuing, defense, and promotion of the care of our Common House.
11. Our commitment to incorporating into the courses of study at all educational levels and in training programs Holistic Ecology based on the Laudato Sí encyclical.
12. Our commitment to continue to recognize, in the dialogue among the fields of knowledge, ancestral cosmovisions and visions, the Kawsak Sacha, the Living Forest.
Ecuador is a country comprising 14 different indigenous nations, which form nearly a third of the total population. The combined political and cultural influence of indigenous peoples helped create, in 2008, one of the world’s most progressive constitutions. Ecuador’s constitution provides the basis for a law and policy framework called ‘Buen Vivir’ or ‘ Living Well’, which guarantees the rights of not only all humans, but also nature, to exist and thrive in a state of wellbeing.
In spite of this, a crippling international debt and austerities have forced Ecuador to allow unprecedented amounts of land to be sold to transnational companies for development of oil, hydroelectricity and mining projects. These concessions cover the world’s most biodiverse forests, Amazon headwaters, and indigenous lands. Most recently, in 2017, almost 2 million hectares of land was sold for copper and gold mining.
“Almost universally, people living within concessions have not given consent for industrial development in or near their communities. In several cases, communities have been forcibly displaced to make way for companies, and there have been many documented human and nature rights violations,” says Liz Downes, member of the Rainforest Action Group.
“The Church’s strong stance demanding a moratorium on mining and hydroelectricity comes not only as a result of increasing dissent from communities, calling for their rights to be respected, but because of the severe risks of these projects. Ecuador is highly geologically unstable, has the greatest biodiversity and endemism of species in the world, and supplies much of the water for the rivers which run through the Amazon Basin,” says Liz Downes.
Other churches across Latin America have in recent weeks called for immediate and urgent action with respect to the Amazon fires, with the Pope himself declaring the situation as an emergency. The movement is not new, though: in 2014 a Pan-Amazonian Network was publicly launched in Lima, Peru in conjunction with the Climate Summit. It apologised for colonial atrocities in the Amazon and called for a ‘church with an Amazonian face’ to represent the rights of people and ecosystems, saying: "The exploitation of the Amazon through mining, the expansion of farming and ranching, road construction, hydroelectric dams and timber companies demand that the church take a more prophetic stance".
The Cascabel concession is part of the Mira River basin, and is surrounded by mature primary and secondary forests that house endangered species, and protect pristine microbasins. Our primary concerns with mining in Cascabel hinge on the ecosystem impacts of the mine itself and related infrastructure, as well as the toxic waste generated by mining activities.
SolGold itself says says that it will extract 2.4 billion tonnes of ore from the mine. Based on that figure, MRAG estimates the tailings generated by this mine would amount to at least 1km3 (1,000,000,000 m3). To put these figures in perspective, the capacity of Laguna Quilotoa is 0.35km3, making a conservative estimate of tailings produced enough to fill Laguna Quilotoa three times over.
This is a phenomenal amount of toxic waste to dispose of that no amount of “green talk” by Mr Ward can hide away.
Tailings vary but may contain or produce cyanide, radiation, alkalinity (high pH) or acidity (low pH), arsenic, high salinity in pore water (pore water is in the spaces between particles of sand, rock or tailings). They can also produce sulphides which creates acid that dissolves any heavy metals in the tailings, like mercury, lead or arsenic into a liquid can be washed away into rivers or streams. Toxic gases may be released due to chemicals within the tailings. Some tailings remain highly contaminated for at least 1000 years. Some facilities may need a longer time to be considered safe.
In their preliminary reports, SolGold states that decisions regarding the management of tailings are still in preparation. Can Jason Ward guarantee that the mined rocks do not contain pyrites or monosulphides, and can he guarantee that SolGold/ENSA will maintain tailings dams in the Cascabel concession for hundreds of years to ensure the toxicity of this waste is safely contained?
Given that the mine is in an area of high rainfall and earthquake risk, can Mr Ward guarantee that the structure of tailings dams built on the Cascabel concession will be sound and will not be vulnerable to earthquakes, overflow from heavy rain or increased waste volumes, as occurred with the Vale/BHP disaster in Bento Rodrigues in November 2015, or that of Brumadihno, where 300 Brazilians died when the tailings pool collapsed in January 2019? We understand that SolGold has a limited experience in the construction of mines - to date it has not built a single mine. The approval of a record-height tailings dam at Mirador leaves us highly concerned that similar foolhardy constructions will be approved at Cascabel.
Given the entire Cascabel concession is part of the catchment for the Mira River which then runs through Colombia, contaminants that put this river system at risk could cause an international incident. Additionally, it is probable that contaminants would affect the thousands of users who live downstream of the mine, including municipalities that depend on the river to provide drinking water to their citizens, farmers, ranchers, aquaculturists, among others. Will all downstream communities and users who rely on the Mira River be consulted and compensated in the event of a disaster?
If tailings dams are not built, the other recourse for waste disposal is to dump mine waste into waterways. This is the case at the Ok Tedi mine in Papua New Guinea where 80 million tons of contaminated tailings and materials from mine-related erosion are dumped each year into the Ok Tedi river system after the tailings dam collapsed in 1984. Established by Australian mining company BHP Billiton, the terrain of the Ok Tedi mine is similar to that of Cascabel.
The river is now effectively unable to sustain life, affecting the lives of 50,000 people who relied on the river for fishing and drinking water. They have experienced numerous health issues, including high rates of cancer and birth defects. More than 1,588 square kilometres of forest died as a result of the disaster. Given Solgold's limited experience with mining in places with such high rainfall, can Mr. Ward ensure that this will not happen in Cascabel?
Can the Ecuadorian state even guarantee that it will have the economic resources and human capital – and political will – to regulate and control the mining of this magnitude, in view of the numerous and proven irregularities reported by the Comptroller General of the State in this same project, as in the case of the Llurimagua mining project?
Our organisation is concerned that Alpala – ENSA/SolGold’s main area of interest – will not be the only mine constructed in the Cascabel concession. From SolGold’s reports, we are given to understand that there are several other ore bodies that ENSA/SolGold are exploring within the concession. Is Mr Ward able to disclose if this is the case, and if these ore bodies will be block cave mined individually, or absorbed into one large supermine several kilometres in size?
SolGold touts block cave mining as a more environmentally friendly option. However, it could be argued that block caving is virtually no different from an open cut mine as the mine falls in on itself after resources are extracted. Block sinking mines are also notoriously complex to build.
As Australians, we can see the incredible beauty of Ecuador’s natural resources, and we feel ashamed that Australian mining companies are exploiting local people’s needs for jobs, health and education, in an exchange that will leave Ecuadorians dealing with the environmental consequences of mining for hundreds of years to come.
El Norte published our concerns in an article here.
