Shuar people facing COVID-19 crisis due to mining company

Canadian mining company Solaris Resources has been criticised by multiple organisations for its irresponsible conduct in sending seven members of the Shuar communities of Warints and Yawi to the Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada (PDAC) where they were exposed to COVID-19. Subsequently several members of their families have died, with many more sick.

Shuar Arutam President Josefina Tunki

Indigenous tribes are particularly at risk of pandemics. There have been waves of epidemics since the area was first colonised, killing up to 90% of the tribespeople. More recently, polio killed around two-thirds of the Waorani in the 1950s, and the Shuar did not fare much better. When mining operations are allowed to continue in areas where there are limited health resources, workers and local populations are put at grave risk.

What compounds the issues in this case is that the members taken were not officially elected representatives of the Shuar Arutam, which indicates the mining company was bypassing official Shuar authority over their land, a move that could have fractured the community, even without the threat of the virus.

Several attendees contracted coronavirus while attending the conference. PDAC put out a media statement here.

Official statement of solidarity below in English and Spanish.

Solidarity with the Pueblo Shuar Arutam Facing COVID-19 emergency | SOLIDARIDAD CON EL PUEBLO SHUAR DEL ECUADOR, EN EL MARCO DE LA CRISIS DE COVID-19

[español abajo]

We, the undersigned organizations express our solidarity and support to the authorities of the Shuar Arutam People (PSHA), to the Shuar People in general, and to all peoples and nations of the Ecuadorian Amazon, currently facing a possible outbreak of COVID-19, in their communities.

Background

On April 13, the Shuar Arutam People (PSHA) together with dozens of Ecuadorian allied organizations sent an alert to the President of the Republic of Ecuador, the Ministry of Health, and the IACHR demanding that urgent measures be taken regarding a possible outbreak of COVID-19 provoked by the irresponsible actions of a Canadian mining company, Solaris Resources (whose main shareholder is the Canadian mining company Equinox Gold).

In March, the PSHA leadership condemned the participation of seven members of the Shuar communities of Warints and Yawi, invited by Solaris Resources, to the annual conference of the Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada (PDAC). Specifically, they condemned their participation because the seven indigenous people who participated in that conference were not duly elected representatives of the Shuar Arutam People's Assembly. The PSHA also noted that they were ignoring the assembly's decision to categorically reject mining in their territory. It is worth noting that in days before the conference in Canada several warnings were issued about the risks it posed to participants as a possible outbreak point for the COVID-19 virus. As expected, it was released after the event that the virus had been contracted by several participants, including the Burkina Faso deputy minister of mines. This then heightened concerns about a possible infection in the territory of the PSHA.

On April 2, the president of the PSHA received the news that the mother of one of the attendees died with symptoms similar to that of the coronavirus and asked the authorities to investigate the case, given its direct link with the conference, a known transmission point. After ridiculing the statement of the Shuar leader, the Governor of the province of Morona Santiago affirmed, without any evidence, that the death was not related to the PDAC conference or COVID-19, and rather congratulated the mining company Solaris Resources. Then, one more person died, this time the father of another of the attendees, and 8 other members of the Warints and Yawi community have presented symptoms similar to those of COVID-19.

As organizations and individuals of the international community,

We express our profound concern about the lack of attention and response by the Ecuadorian authorities to this serious health emergency. Furthermore, we are concerned that the Ecuadorian government has allowed mining and oil companies to be exempt from quarantine controls imposed nationally, which puts workers and populations living in the vicinity of their operations at greater risk. These peoples already face limited access to health to deal with the pandemic.

We condemn Canadian mining company, Solaris Resources’ permanent interference in Shuar indigenous territory as well as its disdain for the decisions of the self-determination of the PSHA, the same government who, March 30, 2019, in a general assembly, declared its territory free of mining and demanded the immediate exit of extractive companies from the territory. The actions of this company and its subsidiary in Ecuador (Lowell Minerals) constitute serious threats to peace and health in the Amazon region as a whole. If the cases of COVID-19 are confirmed in the Shuar communities of Warints and Yawi, this is because the company exposed them to the risk of contracting the virus.

We condemn the ongoing destruction and risks to the public health of these communities caused by foreign mining companies Aurania Resources (Canada), CRCC-Tongguan (China), SolGold (Australia), Luminex Resources (Canada) - BHP (Australia), Lundin Gold ( Canada) / Newcrest (Australia), Fortescue Metals Group (Australia) and Solaris Resources (Canada) in the Ecuadorian Amazon. Their activities are causing irreparable damage and putting the indigenous social fabric and the Amazonian ecosystems in all their mega-diversity, at grave risk. Their mere presence in the region, due to the possibility of coronavirus transmission, may exacerbate these impacts. Similarly, we condemn any attempt by these companies to wash their image by taking advantage of the crisis to position themselves by offering social and sanitary works.

We condemn the permanent militarization of the indigenous territories of the Ecuadorian Amazon. The presence of military personnel not only represents an immediate threat due to the possible spread of COVID-19, but represents yet another attempt to impose a development model that is both destructive and violent.

We stand in solidarity with the government of the Shuar Arutam People and with the other Indigenous and traditional peoples living in the Ecuadorian Amazon. Their self-subsistence food and economic activities are already negatively affected by mining and oil extractive activities, making them even more vulnerable to a possible outbreak of COVID-19.

We support the call of the PSHA to demand that immediate attention be paid by the relevant government authorities and we demand the immediate exit of the extractive companies from the territory of the Shuar Arutam People and from the other Amazonian indigenous territories so that the epidemic of COVID-19 does not continue to spread, thereby increasing the likelihood of these vulnerable populations, to become infected.

[This statement has the official approval of the Shuar Arutam Peoples government (PSHA)]

SOLIDARIDAD CON EL PUEBLO SHUAR DEL ECUADOR, EN EL MARCO DE LA CRISIS DE COVID-19

Las organizaciones abajo firmantes expresamos nuestra solidaridad y apoyo a las autoridades del Pueblo Shuar Arutam (PSHA), al Pueblo Shuar en general y a todos pueblos y nacionalidades de la Amazonia ecuatoriana, los mismos que actualmente enfrentan un posible brote de COVID-19, en sus comunidades.

Antecedentes
El 13 de abril, el Pueblo Shuar Arutam (PSHA) junto a docenas de organizaciones aliadas ecuatorianas enviaron una alerta al Presidente de la República del Ecuador, Ministerio de Salud y a la CIDH, exigiendo que se tomen medidas urgentes con respecto a un posible brote de COVID-19, provocado por la irresponsabilidad de una compañía minera canadiense, Solaris Resources (cuyo accionista principal es la empresa minera canadiense Equinox Gold).

En marzo, la dirigencia del PSHA condenó la participación de siete miembros de las comunidades Shuar de Warints y Yawi, invitados por la empresa mencionada, a la conferencia anual de la Asociación de Prospectores y Desarrolladores de Minas de Canadá (PDAC). Concretamente, la censura se dio por cuanto los siete indígenas participaron en esa conferencia por no ser representantes debidamente elegidos por la asamblea del Pueblo Shuar Arutam y por desacatar la decisión de la asamblea de rechazar categóricamente la minería en su territorio. Vale destacar que en días anteriores a la conferencia, en Canadá se generaron varias advertencias sobre el peligro de llevarlo a cabo por el riesgo de ser un punto de contagio para el virus COVID-19. Tal como se había previsto, se dio a conocer después del evento que hubo contagio del virus de varios participantes, incluyendo el viceministro de minas de Burkina Faso, y ahora ha generado preocupación ante una posible infección en el territorio del PSHA.

El 2 de abril, la presidenta del PSHA recibió la noticia de que la madre de uno de los asistentes murió con síntomas parecidos a lo del coronavirus y pidió a las autoridades investigar el caso, dados los contactos con la conferencia, un punto de transmisión conocido. Luego de ridiculizar la declaración de la dirigenta Shuar, el Gobernador de la provincia de Morona Santiago afirmó, sin evidencia alguna, que la muerte no estaba relacionada con la conferencia PDAC o COVID-19, y más bien felicitó a la compañía minera Solaris Resources. Luego, otra persona más murió, esta vez el padre de otro de los asistentes, y otros 8 miembros de la comunidad de Warints y Yawi han presentado síntomas parecidos con los de COVID-19.

Como organizaciones y personas de la comunidad internacional,

Expresamos nuestra preocupación por la falta de atención y de respuesta por parte de las autoridades ecuatorianas ante esta grave emergencia sanitaria. Además, nos preocupa que el Estado ecuatoriano haya permitido que las empresas mineras y petroleras estén exentas de los controles de cuarentena impuestos al nivel nacional, lo cual pone en mayor riesgo a los trabajadores y las poblaciones que viven en las cercanías de sus operaciones, y que ya enfrentan un limitado acceso a la salud para enfrentar la pandemia.

Denunciamos la injerencia permanente de la empresa minera canadiense Solaris Resources, en territorio indígena shuar así como su desdén por las decisiones del autodeterminadas del PSHA, el mismo que el día 30 de Marzo del 2019, en asamblea general, declaró a su territorio libre de minería, a la vez que exigió la salida inmediata de las empresas extractivistas del territorio. Las acciones de la empresa y su subsidiaria en Ecuador (Lowell Mineral) constituyen serias amenazas a la paz y a la salud de la región amazónica en su conjunto. De confirmarse casos de COVID-19 en las comunidades Shuar de Warints y Yawi, éstas estarían relacionadas con la empresa que les expuso al riesgo de contagio.

Denunciamos la destrucción y riesgos para la salud de las comunidades que están provocando las empresas mineras extranjeras Aurania Resources (Canada), CRCC-Tongguan (China), SolGold (Australia), Luminex Resources (Canada) - BHP (Australia, UK), Lundin Gold (Canada)/ Newcrest(Australia), Fortescue Metals Group (Australia) y Solaris Resources (Canada) en la amazonía ecuatoriana. Sus actividades están causando daños irreparables y poniendo en riesgo al tejido social indígena, al ecosistema amazónico y su megadiversidad. Su mera presencia en la región, por la posibilidad de transmisión de la coronavirus, puede exacerbar estos impactos. De igual forma, denunciamos cualquier intento por parte de estas empresas de lavar su imagen, aprovechando de la crisis para posicionarse con trabajos sociales y sanitarios.

Denunciamos la permanente militarización de los territorios indígenas de la Amazonia ecuatoriana. La presencia de efectivos militares no solamente representa una amenaza inmediata por el posible contagio de COVID-19, sino que representa un intento más de imponer un modelo de desarrollo destructivo y violento.

Nos solidarizamos con el gobierno del Pueblo Shuar Arutam y con los demás pueblos Indígenas y campesinos que viven en la Amazonía ecuatoriana, cuyas actividades de auto-sustento alimentario y económico ya se encuentran negativamente afectadas por las actividades extractivas mineras y petroleras, haciéndoles más vulnerables aún, a un posible brote de COVID-19.

Apoyamos el llamado de la PSHA a exigir la atención inmediata de las autoridades gubernamentales competentes y exigimos la salida inmediata de las empresas extractivas del territorio del Pueblo Shuar Arutam y de los demás territorios indígenas amazónicos a fin de que la epidemia del COVID-19 no se incremente en estas poblaciones vulnerables a la infección.

[este pronunciamiento tiene el aval del Gobierno del Pueblo Shuar Arutam (PSHA)]

Signed:

Accion Ecologica (Ecuador)
Asociación para la Promoción y el Desarrollo de la Comunidad CEIBA
AID/WATCH
AmazonWatch
Beyond Extraction (Canada)
Bios Iguana A.C (Mexico)
Brod Ecological Society-BED
Caminantes - Ecuador
CDHAL (Canada)
CEDENMA
Centro de Documentación en Derechos Humanos "Segundo Montes Mozo SJ" (CSMM) (Ecuador)
Christian Peacemaker Teams Canada
Climate Action Hobart
Collectif Causse Méjean - Gaz de Schiste NON
Colectivo de Geografía Crítica Ecuador
Colectivo Lluviacomunicacion
Colectivo Voces Ecológicas- COVEC
Comision Ecumenica de Derechos Humanos - CEDHU (Ecuador)
Comité para los derechos humanos en América Latina (CDHAL)
Common Frontiers (Canada)
Community Empowerment and Social Justice Network (CEMSOJ)
Consejo Shipibo Konibo Xetebo
CooperAcción (Peru)
DesBorde Ec
Earth Thrive
Earthworks (USA)
E-Tech International
European Network on Indigenous Peoples
Extinction Rebellion Tasmania
Forest Network
Fundacion ALDEA (Ecuador)
Fundación UVIA (Ecuador)
Friends of the Earth Australia
The Gaia Foundation
Gobierno Territorial Autonomo de la Nacion Wmapis
Grupo Kanaka
Grupo de Pesquisa e Extensão Política, Economia, Mineração, Ambiente e Sociedade (PoEMAS)
ICCA Consortium
Igapo Project
Institute for Policy Studies - Global Economy Project
International Accountability Project

The International Indigenous Peoples Movement for Self Determination and Liberation (IPMSDL)
Jubilee Australia
KAIROS: Canadian Ecumenical Justice Initiatives
Kohtuus vaarassa (Finland)
London Mining Network
Melbourne Rainforest Action Group
Mineral Policy Institute
Mines, minerals & PEOPLE (mm&P)
Mining Injustice Solidarity Network (Canada)
Mining Justice Action Committee (Canada)
MiningWatch Canada
Natures Heart Intentions (Australia)
North East Dialogue Forum (NEDF)
Observatorio Latinoamericano de Conflictos Ambientales- OLCA (Chile)
Otros Mundos AC/Chiapas, México
People & Planet
Philippines Australia Union Link
Plenty Canada
Procesos Integrales para la Autogestión de los Pueblos
Red Eclesial Panamazonica. Ecuadored Mexicana de Afectadas/os por la Minería (REMA)
Rainforest Information Centre (Australia)
Rights Action (Canada)
Salva la Selva
Save Our Sperrins (SOS)
Servicios en Comunicación Intercultural- Servindi (Peru)
Students for Mining Justice (UBC, Canada)
TerraJusta (former project of The Democracy Center)
Terra Nuova
TreeSisters Australia
UBC Environmental Law Group
UNIMOS (International)
Unite Community
The United Church of Canada
War on Want (UK)
Yasunidos Piñas (Ecuador)
Yes to Life, No to Mining- Regional Coordinators

HPPL offer for Llurimagua

Hancock Prospecting Pty Ltd. (HPPL) put in an offer in 2017 to buy ENAMI stake in the Llurimagua project in northern Ecuador, according to Via Minera.

Full article here (in Spanish) with explosive commentary on situation at Llurimagua as well as information on issues with ENAMI/Codelco partnership, the collapse of copper, and interest from both BHP and Chinese mining companies in the project. Below is an excerpt from the Via Minera article.

Garry Korte, CEO of Hancock Prospecting Pty Ltd., HPPL, sent a letter on October 16, 2017 to then-Enami CEO Raúl Brito, saying that he wanted to buy the Ecuadorian state-owned company's stake in the Llurimagua project. HPPL has a long history of working with governments to establish and grow mining industries, exploring and carrying out mining projects through development and operation, the letter said in its opening lines.

At some point the local press circulated a story that Hancock wanted to partner with Enami to make the Llurimagua project a reality, but the truth differs. Hancock wanted to get Enami out of Llurimagua, buy their 51%, and ally  with Codelco. It is also not true that Rinehart was willing to pay US$400 million for Enami's share of the project.

Image credit: Via Minera

That is clearly written in the documents. Hancock boasted a lot of financial capacity and offered to pay not only what they considered Llurimagua to cost, but to buy, almost in cash, all the concessions that the Ecuadorian state mining company had at that time.

"Although HPPL does not yet have the initial exploration data on which to accurately base a bid, HPPL is pleased to make this formal bid to acquire all (Enami's) interests under a multi-tiered compensation structure, starting with a baseline of US$102 million based on the results of drilling completed to date, plus additional payments if increased resources are demonstrated.”

In other words, HPPL what it offered in 2017 and continues to offer, as we will see later, is a first payment of $102 million.

In addition, the letter indicates the willingness of HPPL to allocate US$5 million annually in each of the six Enami projects, up to a total of $30 million; and to pay a royalty of 2% of the net profit after taxes. It also explained that the basic offer for 51% of Enami, of $102 million, has been formulated on the basis that Llurimagua contains 10 million metric tons.

In the first letter to the president of Enami, HPPL indicated that in the event of an agreement, the purchase would be made by its Ecuadorian subsidiary, Hanrine Ecuadorian Exploration Mining. Hanrine insisted on the purchase again in March last year. President Lenin Moreno was addressed directly and, simultaneously, to other authorities, in almost the same tone, that is, boasting of its economic strength. The proposal, pointed out by experienced people, if received, jeopardizes the country's credibility as a partner of foreign companies to which it is attracted by ensuring legal stability.

It is not just a matter of prestige as they generate discomfort, the fact is that Codelco has achieved the signing of Enami and could demand compliance with the agreements, here or in some international court.

Read the full article here.

 

Australian company offer for controversial Llurimagua project

A major Australian company has reportedly put in a US$420 million offer for the controversial Codelco-ENAMI Llurimagua project in the Intag region of Ecuador according to mineral expert lawyer.

Minerals expert lawyer Stevie Gamboa Valladares said in Prensa Minera on April 10: "Llurimagua is a mining project located near the Intag forest, an area of enormous conflict. It is a strategic alliance between the National Mining Company of Ecuador ENAMI and CODELCO, which is the National Copper Corporation of Chile. This project, which is part of a binational agreement, has been suspended for several months as both countries have failed to define the appropriate conditions for their alliance and association."

Twenty three reasons why Codelco should stay out of Intag

By Carlos Zorrilla | Nov 11, 2019

Originally published here.


This then, is an attempt to draw attention to some of the hurdles Codelco, or any mining company, would face if they tried to open up a mine in Intag.

Cloudforest. Image credit: Carlos Zorilla

Studies and more Studies

To justify their existence in certain projects, mining companies, when  they can afford it, hire hot-shot NGO’s to carry out interviews and studies to ascertain popular perception on mining, identify key players, and confirm that they are loved. Then they actually go ahead and base their decisions on the study’s results!  Even though they know they are lies at worst, or at best, written to please the funders.  As if an area’s complexity and attitudes could be studied in a few days or weeks.

A Brand New Century

If there’s anyone interested in investing in Intag’s mining project reading this, you probably know- or should know- as all responsible mining companies can attest to (as well as key players like the World Bank), that support from the Executive Branch of government is not nearly enough guarantee a project’s success. You need genuine (not manufactured or self-delusional) social license issued freely, without pressures or intimidation.  In fact, national government support is no guarantee at all the project will succeed. So, do NOT bank on the government’s enthusiastic endorsement.  You’ll lose. Big time.

I am positive that if most INVESTORS were find out about all the risks and obstacles facing mining in this corner of Ecuador, they would pull out.

This, then, is one more attempt to try to inform of the reality behind the lies and distortions being generated around the Junín mining project, and just 21 of the reasons why this project, as BN Americas pointed out, is bound to fail (click here).

 IMPACTS

Equipment installed in Junin by Codelco.

A. Based on the Bishi Metals Environmental Impact Assessment of mining in Intag, and on a small (450,000 ton) copper mine (a couple of years later they inferred the existence of 5x more copper)

1. Intag is no like the Atacama desert, where Codelco has its copper mines. Besides being super biodiverse, there are communities all over the place. According to the Study, the mining project would relocate hundreds of families from four communities.  Afterwards, the Japanese found more five times more copper, which could increase the number of communities affected by two- at the very least. Relocation of communities is more than enough to stop most extractive projects.

2. It would impact primary cloud forests.  What’s so special about cloud forests?  Less than 2.5% of the world’s tropical forests are cloud forests. They are not only exceptionally biologically diverse- as well as severely threatened-  but they play an outsize role in protecting important headwater watersheds.

3. The project would cause massive deforestation (in the words of the experts preparing the Study). The small mine would directly impact 4,025 hectares.

4. The deforestation, according to the Japanese, would lead to drying of local climate, affecting thousands of small farmers (the EIA used the word desertification). You think communities will let this happen once they truly get the picture???

A rare frog from the Intag region. Image credit: Carlos Zorilla

5. Intag’s forests belong to the world’s top Biodiversity Hotspot; the Tropical Andes. The scientist working on the study identified 12 species of mammals and birds facing extinction that would be impacted by the project, including jaguars, spectacled bears, mountain tapirs and the brown-faced spider monkey. (Based on incomplete studies, Decoin identified more than 30 species of threatened or endangered plants and animals, and there could be dozens more).

Every year new species are found in Ecuador’s cloud forests, and this includes the spectacular Prince Charles frog, as well as the only carnivore discovered in the Western Hemisphere in the last 35 years.  In addition, the area has several other endemic species, such as the recently discovered Shape-shifting frog (Pristimantis mutabilis), and the Black-breasted Puffleg Hummingbird, which exists in only two patches of high altitude cloud forests- one of them located in Intag.

6. There are pristine rivers and streams everywhere within the concession.  The EIA predicted they would be contaminated with lead, arsenic, chromium, cadmium and other toxic substances.

7. The project would, unquestionably, destroy pre-Incan Yumbo archeological sites.  This is one of the least studied cultures in Ecuador.

8. It would impact the Cotacachi-Capayas Ecological Reserve (one of the world’s most biologically diverse protected areas and the only large one in all of western Ecuador).

Besides these very worrying impacts identified in the Study (for a mine a fraction of what it could end up being)…  there are other significant hurdles.

B. Legal hassles

9. Large-scale mining would violate the legally-binding Cotacachi County Ecological Ordinance created in 2000.  Only the Constitutional Tribunal can rule on the validity of the Ordinance in light of the new Constitution. And the Tribunal has not.

10.  Ecuador’s new Constitution demands that communities be consulted before any project impacting their social or natural environment takes place; a Constitutional guarantee that has been disregarded from day one. The Constitution also grants nature rights, and the people right to Sumak Kawsay, or a Good Life (also translatable as Harmonious Life) .  Good luck trying to convince a decent government and world opinion that open pit mining will not violate these two fundamental rights (no matter how obscenely the government decides to define the indigenous concept of a “Good Life”).  Just because a government does its best to distort the Constitution does not mean a future one will do the same.

Waning political support

11.  One of the things the government likes to underline is that it has the area´s political support. As of February 2014 this is no longer true, as the president’s party, Alianza País, lost badly in local government elections in Imbabura province, site of the mining project.  In fact, Imbabura was one of the provinces where Mr. Correa’s party lost more municipalities (5 out of 6) than anywhere else in the country. One of those Municipalities is the Cotacachi, which encompasses the Llurimagua mining concession. The new Mayor, Jomar Cevallos, is firmly opposed to mining.

Protests in the capital, Quito. Image credit: Carlos Zorilla

C. Opposition

There is widespread opposition to the Intag mining project. This includes:

12. The Parish township governments the concession is located at, plus County-wide indigenous and campesino organizations. The new threat has actually mobilized more organization at the local, county and national level, than ever before.

Community Opposition. Most communities surrounding the mining project are still, after all these years, opposed to the project. Eighteen years of resistance has honed their skill in resisting (the right to resist is now a right protected by the Constitution). In fact, on November 2013 the government tried to carry out an environmental impact study were stopped by the communities- in spite of heavy police presence, and military in the area..

D. Human Rights

13. After years of stopping dozens of attempts by government and private companies of accessing the mining concession that overlap communal land in order to carry out the environmental impact study and begin exploration, the government and Codelco only succeeded in carrying out the study in May of 2014 with the help of hundreds of police that terrorized the area for two months and violated rights, such as the right to freely circulate. To intensify the intimidation, a month earlier Javier Ramírez, president of the Junín community was arrested and jailed under highly irregular circumstances, which have been denounced by human rights organizations such as Amnesty International, and The International Human Rights Federation, as well as several national human rights groups. Javier was released after being sentenced in February of 2015 but only after serving 10 months in jail. His brother Victor Hugo remains in hiding accused of sabotage, the same criminal offense as his brother, for putting up resistance to the presence of Enami employees in their territory.

14. 90% of NGO’s in Cotacachi County and Intag oppose the project. In late 2012, the most important civil society organizations in Intag wrote a letter to Chile’s president to make sure he understood that the organizations would again rise to defend the area if Codelco or anyone went ahead and tried to revive the project.  .

Looking at contaminated waterfalls. Image credit: Carlos Zorilla

E. Exaggerated Copper Claims

15. In 2007, Micon International, the entity contracted by Ascendant Copper to evaluate the Junin copper deposit, said that it could not confirm their earlier estimates due to degradation of samples. Copper Mesa had been saying all along that the Junin copper deposit had four times more copper than what the Japanese inferred after years of exploration.   In all, 2.26 million tons were inferred by the Japanese, which is a little less than 1/10th of what the world consumes annually (and it would take decades to mine it all out).

The pristine waters of Intag, under threat. Image credit: Carlos Zorilla

F. Further environmental challenges

16. The area receives between 3000 and 4000 millimeters of annual rainfall. Heavy rainfall, abundant underground aquifers, and heavy metals in the ore make for a deadly mix.  Not only that, but they raise the price of mining considerably, while greatly increasing the risks of man-made disasters, such as landslides.     For an idea of what a landslide can do in an open pit mine, go here:

17. The ore contains toxic heavy metals and sulfur (which will cause Acid Mine Drainage).

18. There is a superabundance of underground water (according to Japanese EIA). This is bad news for mining companies and even worse news for the environment.

19. The area where they found the copper is exceptionally steep and mountainous, making mining much more difficult and expensive than most mines.

20.  There are clear indications that Junín’s copper is very deep, making mining much more environmentally destructive and economically risky.  Emphasis on Economically risky.

21. The Toisan Range has many geological faults, posing significant earthquake risks.

22 & 23. The 2019 discovery of the two endemic frogs (see above) that will, without a doubt, become extinct if mining is permitted. An issue ripe for the equivalent of the Supreme Court to decide if it violates the Constitutional Rights of Nature.

There are, in fact, more than 23 reasons for Codelco to stay out of Intag. But these should suffice for any company that considers itself responsible and to realize that Intag’s forests and inhabitants should be a no go zone.  https://youtu.be/QRinnhejBIw

Further Reading

BnAmericas article here http://www.bnamericas.com/news/mining/codelco-enami-exploration-project-in-ecuador-faces-bumpy-future-possible-failure

www.codelcoecuador.com

www.decoin.org

www.codelcofueradeintag.blogspot.com

Cornerstone Resources illegally exploring at Rio Magdalena?

Cornerstone Capital Resources announces high potential Porphery targets at Espejo and Rio Magdalena, but fails to mention that Rio Magdalena is subject to a stop work order issued by the Provincial court in Imbabura in June 2019 due to the area's high environmental significance.

N. manduriacu, an endemic glass frog threatened by drilling at Rio Magdalena. Image credit: Jose Vieira

For the past eight months, local environmental groups have been denouncing ongoing operations by ENAMI and Cornerstone employees on the Protected Forests covered by Cornerstone Resources' Rio Magdalena concessions. Judges had revoked the environmental license for the companies to explore in June last year, ruling that there had been a violation of mining-impacted communities' right to be consulted. The judges had also forced the Ministry of Environment and Water to publicise the ruling and formally apologise to the impacted communities.

Despite the court order, employees continued to explore illegally in the species-rich area, as Cornerstone's latest news proves.

Ecuador environmental group OMASNE denounced Cornerstone's announcement that it would start to drill in the second half of 2020, saying, "It is outrageous to see the vulnerability to which nature, communities and territories threatened by extractive activities are subject. On June 19, 2019, the Provincial Court of Justice of Imbabura hosted the Protection Action in favor of the Los Cedros Protective Forest, verifying the breach of the right to environmental consultation of the communities. However, since the ruling of the sentence, little or nothing have been done by the state institutions 'competencies', to repair the damages and comply with it."

"We reject the disrespect for human rights, national laws and international agreements as well as the sovereignty of Ecuador by the mining company CORNERSTONE S.A. of Canadian capitals, which despite having been withdrawn the environmental license by order of the judge of the Provincial Court of Justice of Imabura for its operation on the Rio Magdalena mining project that occupies 60% of the Los Cedros Protective Forest - Intag, has not stopped its activities within the forest and communities surrounding the project."

Los Cedros Biological Reserve is an internationally famous scientific reserve, consisting of 17,000 acres of premontane wet tropical and cloud forest in Northwestern Ecuador. It is home to over 297 species of bird, 900 species of moth and thousands of other species, many endemic to the area.

Developing a mine in this sensitive area would destroy forever one of the most biologically diverse and endemic habitats on the earth.

The news illustrates the impunity with which international mining companies continue to operate in Ecuador, with no concern for legal or environmental constraints.

BHP’s divide and conquer

First published in The Ecologist
By Liz Downes

21st February 2020

BHP is putting pressure on vulnerable ecosystems and communities in a mega-biodiverse region of Ecuador despite flaunting its commitment to environmental sustainability.

Toisan Forest. Image credit: Elizabeth Downes

The world’s biggest mining company is publicly committing to a clean, green transition: promising to shift from one of the world’s biggest carbon polluters to a top provider of resources for the renewable energy sector.

Andrew McKenzie, BHP’s CEO, proudly unveiled the company’s new climate investment program in July 2019: a US $400 million commitment to reduce Scope 1, 2 and 3 emissions. Shareholders at their 2019 London and Sydney AGMs were regaled with reports of how well BHP is sticking to its coal reduction targets, and with its investment plans in copper to meet the world’s growing demand for renewables.

What BHP left out of these reports is where all this copper is going to come from, and how the mining of it will impact on some of the world’s most vulnerable ecosystems and communities.

Illegal

BHP is currently reliant on production from the world’s largest copper mine, Escondida in Chile, and from other big projects including Australia’s Olympic Dam. But it is also interested in ‘greenfields’ explorations in one of the world’s emerging copper hotspots, Ecuador.

This small country is one of the world’s most biodiverse.  The Andes runs like a spine down the middle, creating a diversity of altitudes, rainfall patterns and temperatures where endemism is unparalleled. These mountains are the primary source of water for the Amazon and Pacific Coast river systems. They are actively volcanic, high-rainfall and prone to frequent earthquakes. Ecuador is the last place anyone with any sense should put an open cut copper mine.

Unfortunately, over 2 million hectares of the country are plastered with mining concessions, predominantly owned by transnational companies. This land covers protected forests in the megadiverse Tropical Andes Biological Hotspot and almost a million hectares of indigenous territories.

Concessions were sold by the Ecuadorian government in 2016-2018 with zero public consultation, in a bid to save the country’s stalled economy following an irreparable downturn in crude oil investments and diminishing reserves.

Now companies are beginning to explore the country’s mineral assets. But they are meeting organised resistance from communities who are not only angry about the violation of their constitutional rights to consultation, but concerned about forced relocation, impacts on food production, water contamination, environmental damage and increased threats of illegal mining and organised crime.

Rock samples

In the northwest of the country, tensions are escalating as BHP’s subsidiary Cerro Quebrado aggressively pushes into the long-embattled rural region of Intag, in efforts to begin copper exploration on schedule.

BHP owns five concessions in these parts: Santa Teresa 1 and 2, and slightly west, Sabaleta 1, 2 and 3. These cover agricultural communities, headwaters systems, and the last remnants of the megadiverse Chocó Andean cloud forest belt. The Sabaleta blocks take in part of two protected forest reserves, Los Cedros and Cebu, while the Santa Teresa concessions cover sections of the Toisán mountain range. In the region’s forests, 279 species of  animals in danger of extinction have been reported.

Ken MacKenzie, the chairman, was questioned at the AGMs about their activities in Intag - given the region’s extreme ecological and social vulnerability. He assured shareholders that explorations were in early, low-impact stages in Ecuador and that the company was following the law and due diligence with regard to community consultation and environmental risk.

In August 2018, BHP shut down the website and social media pages of local activist Carlos Zorrilla. He accused the company of taking part in activities in Intag which were not properly or fully explained to shareholders through the Canadian Stock Exchange. The company denies Zorrilla's allegation. 

In October that year, two unmarked cars were seen driving into the community of Puranquí. When pulled up by locals, the occupants of the car said they worked for Cerro Quebrado and were there to take rock samples. They said they had spoken to the community president. This was denied by the staunchly anti-mining president.

Threatened

In the same community, one year later, a signed letter from BHP’s Ecuador operations manager, Benjamin Mace, was delivered at a closed-door meeting. Most of the community, including the president, were not invited. Only a few pro-mining residents even knew about the meeting. The letter indicated that a license had been granted by the State Water Secretariat approving the commencement of explorations in the area. Under Ecuadorian law, a water license requires no environmental impact assessment.

In September 2019, a regional assembly of 1,500 people unanimously rejected mining in the area.  In December, despite the assembly’s outcome, BHP attempted to hold a closed-door meeting in the community of Cazarpamba. Some concerned residents of nearby communities found out about it and attended. On seeing the visitors, the BHP representatives promptly packed up and left.

In mid-January, community residents of Cazarpamba and Irubí, both situated in BHP’s Santa Teresa 2 concession, got fed up with unauthorised night-time access by BHP vehicles and installed a chain across access roads into the communities. They prevented the entry of three BHP employees who arrived unannounced in the company of thirty police. The blockade remains in place, and police have vowed to return with reinforcements.

At a regional assembly on 18th January, representatives from the six communities in BHP’s Santa Teresa 2 concession drafted a formal document of resolutions. This declares the Intag zone free of mining, demands the immediate exit of mining companies and their representatives, and requests support for development of local economies such as ecotourism and sustainable agriculture in place of mining.

A couple of days after these resolutions were passed, the Ecuadorian Vice Minister of Mines, Enrique Gallegos-Anda, invited the Apuela Parish government council to Quito to discuss the mining situation. During this meeting the Vice Minister allegedly threatened to take the Apuela and Cazarpamba presidents, president, Nelson Vetancourt,and Christian Gomez respectively, to court for ‘opposing the development of the nation’.

Embattled

Residents have vowed to continue preventing blockading roads against BHP until their voices are heard and all resolutions are addressed. But there are fears that militarisation of the region may be inevitable, as the government arms up to force mining companies in.

People in Intag know what it’s like to live in a militarized zone. The region has a 25-year history of opposing mega-mining projects. Their peaceful resistance is possibly the longest in Latin America. In 1997 they kicked out Japan’s Bishimetals, and in 2010, Canadian Copper Mesa had to quit, stopping what would have been Ecuador's first open pit mine. But more companies kept coming.

Local leaders such as Carlos Zorrilla, who helped found the grassroots environmental organisation DECOIN, have lived through times where death threats and attacks on activists and their property were a regular occurrence. They anticipate the same things happening again as the mining crisis escalates.

“It’s a David versus Goliath-on-steroids situation,” Zorrilla says.

In the next couple of years, a major copper mine, Llurimagua, is set to open for business in the embattled area of Junín, unless it is stopped. Llurimagua is jointly operated by state company ENAMI and Chilean copper giant Codelco. The project’s history is riddled with conflict.

Money

In 2014, the companies began exploring in Junín, in forests where locals were running a successful ecotourism project and had resisted mining for fifteen years. They were escorted to the mining concession by hundreds of special police units and military personnel. Ecuador's government imposed a de-facto state of emergency on the entire Intag region.

Over the next several years, communities denounced violations of permits, licenses and the environmental impact study, and presented evidence of serious human rights violations, contamination of the Junín river, illegal logging, unauthorized land-use, and impacts to the community tourism business. Authorities, with their hands in corporate pockets, rejected or ignored the denunciations.

In early 2019, an investigation by the National Ombudsman produced a damning report of the project. It found deficiencies in regulation and control of the mining operations by government entities, resulting in serious long-term environmental consequences. Using this evidence, locals are now preparing for a legal battle against Codelco, based on violations of constitutional laws around prior consultation and the rights of Nature.

With all this going on, it is not surprising that communities are resisting newcomers like BHP.

BHP could learn from Llurimagua’s history and the impending legal showdown if it really wanted to. A failure to ‘socialise’ resistant communities isn’t the company’s only problem in Intag. It could repeat Codelco’s mistakes in Junín, if it decides to follow the money rather than be accountable to its own environmental policy.

Forest

All five of BHP’s concessions lie within the Cotacachi-Capayas Ecological Reserve Buffer Zone as identified in Ecuador’s national 2007-2017 Management Plan for National Parks. But due to weakened environmental laws, the Ecuadorian Government does not explicitly prohibit mining in these parts or in any other concession that covers protected areas.  

BHP should though. The company’s environmental policy states that it will not explore or extract resources within or adjacent to the boundaries of International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Protected Areas. That is, unless a substantive plan is implemented “that meets regulatory requirements, takes into account stakeholder expectations and contributes to the values for which the protected area is listed.”

In other words, if they can work around the laws, they will. But accountability still applies: if anything goes wrong in a protected area, such as a contaminated waterway or a species extinction, they are not only required by law to tell their shareholders, but are exposed to litigation based on Ecuadorian constitutional laws.

BHP also declares it will “not operate where there is a risk of direct impacts to ecosystems that could result in the extinction of an IUCN Red List Threatened Species in the wild.” In spite of this promise, the company is at risk of demonstrating just how easy it is to eliminate a species in Ecuador.

In 2018, a new frog was discovered in Intag: the Manduriacu glass frog. Its only known habitat is a few square kilometres in the Río Manduriacu river catchment, a piece of remnant cloud forest close to the biologically intense Los Cedros Protected Forest, and Cotacachi-Cayapas National Park. BHP’s Sabaleta 1 and 2 concessions overlap this area, and rock sampling is already taking place there. Citing the mining risk, scientists recommended the frog be IUCN-listed as critically endangered.

Collateral

The area is the only home for another critically endangered amphibian, the Tandayapa Andean Toad. To highlight the area’s extreme vulnerability, in the nearby Llurimagua concessions, two other endemic frogs were recently discovered. One of these, the Longnose Harlequin Frog, was deemed extinct until its unexpected rediscovery. The other, the Confusing Rocket Frog, is so rare the IUCN does not even list it. Even preliminary mining exploration activities have been found to pose serious risks to species with such limited range.

At the 2019 AGM in Sydney, members of the Rainforest Action Group spoke to a BHP board member about the perilous situation of the two amphibians living near the Sabaleta 1 and 2 concessions. The board member admitted that BHP can’t always easily access this kind of information from the ground.

The problem with this statement is that information about both species is easily accessed through published scientists’ reports, and in the case of the toad, a glance at the IUCN Red List. It is not hard to seek information if a company is truly concerned about its accountability.

The same criticism applies to BHP’s socialisation process in Intag. The OECD’s corporate guidelines lay out best practice standards for multinational corporations with regard to community consultation. If a company is only able to enter under the protection of military police, this indicates that consultation process has failed to follow best practice protocols.

When it comes to mining, local communities and environments are stakeholders; they should not be collateral damage in the race for profits. BHP needs to not just tell its investors it is doing the right thing by people, climate and the environment; it needs to prove it.

About this author

Liz Downes is a member of the Rainforest Action Group who is running a campaign investigating Australian mining companies’ involvement in social conflicts and environmental damage in Ecuador. The Ecologist contacted BHP for comment at 9am on Thursday, 20 February 2020 but there has not been a response as yet.

Timeline of BHP’s divide-and-conquer tactics in Intag, Ecuador

Tensions are escalating quickly as BHP aggressively pushes into communities in the farming and rainforest region of Intag, Ecuador, in their efforts to begin gold and copper explorations on schedule.

RAINFOREST ACTION GROUP BHP CONCESSIONS NORTH ECUADOR
BHP concessions in Intag in North Ecuador. Image credit: Rainforest Action Group

BHP owns two concessions (Santa Teresa 1 and 2) in this region of northwestern Ecuador. These concessions were granted by the Ecuadorian Government with zero public consultation in 2017, along with others covering nearly 2 million hectares. A total of 129 concessions across Ecuador are owned by Australian companies.

BHP is currently asserting to its shareholders that “explorations are in very early, low impact stages in Ecuador” and “we are following all relevant laws and due diligence with regard to community consultation and environmental risk.” (statements taken verbatim from BHP’s AGM in Sydney, November 2019).

Below is a timeline of events and community resistance since October 2019, based on extensive communication with, and reports from, residents living within the Santa Teresa concessions.

Oct 2019: A letter from Benjamin Mace, BHP’s Chief of Operations in Ecuador, was delivered at a closed door meeting in the small community of Puranquí. Most of the community, including the mayor, were not invited to this meeting – in fact, only known pro-mining community residents even knew about it. The letter indicated that a water license had been granted by the State Secretariat of Water (SENAGUA) for the imminent commencement of explorations in the area. This licence, under Ecuadorian law, requires no environmental impact statement.

23 Nov 2019: A massive regional assembly of 1500 people in Apuela unanimously rejected mining. Read more...

15 Dec: BHP held a meeting in Cazarpamba community. Some people from surrounding affected areas attended. On seeing the visitors, the BHP representatives promptly packed up and left. Read more here and here.

17 Dec: BHP representatives tried to do the same thing in the neighbouring community of Irubí, but the residents wouldn’t let them leave. So they were forced to present their spiels. They offered ten jobs to residents, without specifying details; they also offered support from an apocryphal “foundation” which they wouldn’t name and which still is yet to be identified. Finally, they left bags of ‘Christmas presents’ for three pro-mining residents and their families.

27 Dec: BHP-affected communities travelled to nearby Junín, the site of a highly controversial and contested gold mining project owned by Codelco and state company ENAMI. They toured the site and witnessed evidence of environmental destruction caused by exploration and construction stages of the mine.

11 Jan 2020: Representatives from six communities in BHP’s Santa Teresa 2 concession met up in Cazarpamba to support residents who, fed up with unauthorised night-time access by BHP employees, had installed a chain across the road. At the meeting, BHP was unequivocally denounced: “¿Cuantas veces no BHP?”

Image Credit: DECOIN. Police attempt to force communtiies to allow BHP to enter

14 Jan: Cazarpamba residents prevented the entry of three BHP employees who arrived unannounced in the company of 30 police. Later residents heard that police were waiting for reinforcements to push through to Irubí. More roadblocks were subsequently set up at Irubí, with support from surrounding communities, and company representatives and police were again repelled. Read more...

16 Jan: A combined community forum was held for Apuela and Cazarpamba. Again, there was unanimous rejection of BHP by those attending (over a hundred).

18 Jan: A regional assembly was held for all six mining impacted communities in Santa Teresa 2 at Cazarpamba. 320 people attended. Again, there was unanimous rejection of mining. Local environmental organisation DECOIN's report with photos is here.

20-25 Jan:  the Ecuadorian Vice Minister of Mines invited the Apuela Parish government council to Quito to “discuss” the mining situation on the ground. The invitation included several council persons, but excluded the vice president, who is staunchly anti-mining. Only the president of the Parish government showed up to the meeting.

26 Jan: The Apuela president met with the president of Cazarpamba and told him that the Vice Minister of Mines had threatened “to take them both to court for opposing the development of the nation”, based on obstructing BHP’s plans to begin exploration.

More developments are expected in coming weeks as the Vice Minister has made it clear that he plans to meet with all community presidents in the area. Meanwhile residents have vowed to continue blockading and preventing company representatives from entering.

The full list of resolutions made at the assembly at Cazarpamba, 18th January, is now available for distribution to any interested parties who wish to support Intag residents and local organisations with regard to human rights and environmental issues posed by BHP’s actions. See below for the Spanish version (English will be available shortly).

RESOLUCIONES DE LA ASAMBLEA DE COMUNIDADES AFECTADAS POR LAS CONCESIONES MINERAS REALIZADA EL SÁBADO 18 DE ENERO EN LA COMUNA CAZARPAMBA, PARROQUIA APUELA

Cientos de Comuneros y Comuneras de las Comunidades Afectadas por las Concesiones Mineras ilegalmente entregadas por el Gobierno Nacional del Ecuador a la Empresa BHP Billiton – Cerro Quebrado, de las parroquias Cuellaje, Plaza Gutiérrez y Apuela, reunidos en Asamblea el sábado 18 de enero de 2020 en la Comuna de Cazarpamba, considerando los atropellos, amedrentamiento a la comunidad e intento de ingreso por la fuerza con la complicidad de la Policía Nacional, y ante el inminente riesgo de afectación a las fuentes de agua de consumo humano y la alteración de la paz social y los sistemas de producción y de vida familiar comunitaria, en forma legal y legítima, ejerciendo su Derecho a la Resistencia, consagrado en el Artículo 98 de la Constitución Política, Códigos y Leyes Vigentes del Ecuador, tomamos las siguientes Resoluciones, para ser entregadas a las autoridades e instituciones competentes, así como a los medios de comunicación locales, provinciales y nacionales:

  1. Solicitarle al Municipio de Cotacachi aplicar las ordenanzas vigentes que protegen el agua, bosques y comunidad; incluyendo la Ordenanza que declara a Cotacachi Cantón Ecológico; la Ordenanza del Área de Conservación y Uso Sostenible, Manduriaco - Intag; La Ordenanza de ríos y riberas; y que asuma su competencia de uso y regulación del suelo en todo el Cantón para prohibir la minería metálica.
  2. Apoyar incondicionalmente las medidas de hecho adoptadas por las comunidades afectadas por las concesiones mineras, y responsabilizar de cualquier consecuencia negativa a los Directivos de las empresas mineras y a las Autoridades que permitan o faciliten el ingreso a nuestras comunidades.
  3. Crear y fortalecer el Sistema Intercomunitario de Vigilancia y Coordinación Inmediata para evitar el ingreso de las Empresas Mineras a las ilegales concesiones o para el Desalojo de sus Campamentos si fuera necesario.
  4. Solicitar y exigir mediante oficio, un Pronunciamiento y Resolución Oficial de las Autoridades, Parroquiales, Cantonales y Provinciales sobre la Minería Metálica en todas sus fases dentro de sus Jurisdicciones; para lo cual se invitará al Consejo del Gobierno Provincial y al Concejo Municipal en pleno, para que se trasladen a la Zona de Íntag y Sesionen formalmente en el mes de febrero de 2020, a efectos de que en el orden del día o agendas se trate, se debata y se concrete sus pronunciamientos sobre los temas ambientales y mineros.
  5. De ser necesario, se promoverá y organizará una marcha masiva al Municipio de Cotacachi, Prefectura Provincial y Gobernación de Imbabura, con el apoyo y solidaridad de las organizaciones sociales de Cotacachi, Imbabura y el País.
  6. Gestionar e Impulsar de manera indispensable un Programa de Comunicación Radial y Educación Ambiental sobre los impactos de la minería en las Comunidades afectadas.
  7. Fortalecer, ampliar y complementar la Organización Zonal de Íntag para la defensa íntegra de todo el territorio frente a la amenaza minera, para presionar el abandono de ENAMI, CODELCO, BHP, Cornerstone y otras empresas, incluyendo el desalojo si fuera necesario.
  8. Exigir a todos los niveles de gobierno (nacional, provincial, cantonal y parroquial) la priorización de la inversión y desarrollo de actividades agropecuarias, turísticas y emprendimientos productivos sustentables.
  9. Exigir al Gobierno Nacional la revocatoria de las concesiones mineras en la Zona de Íntag, en razón de haber sido entregadas incumpliendo la Consulta Ambiental de las comunidades, derecho consagrado en el Artículo 398 de la Constitución.
  10. Respaldar la representatividad de la Vocera actual de la Asamblea de Unidad Cantonal dentro del Concejo Municipal, con el legal y legítimo derecho a voz y voto.
  1. Proponer al Municipio de Santa Ana de Cotacachi, que en cumplimiento de su responsabilidad de Gobierno Autónomo del Territorio, realice la consulta popular a nivel Cantonal, para que el pueblo ratifique la posición antiminera tomada en el cantón desde 1996 a través de sus asambleas parroquiales, zonales y cantonales .
  2. Exigir la eliminación de cualquier de cualquier forma de extractivismo minero metálico en los Planes de Desarrollo y Ordenamiento Territorial (PDOT) y PUGS Provincial, Cantonal y Parroquiales, en atención a innumerables resoluciones parroquiales, zonales y provinciales de rechazo rotundo a la minería y en concordancia con la Ordenanza de Cantón Ecológico, Ordenanza de Riveras, Ordenanza del Área de Conservación y Uso Sustentable Municipal – Íntag Toisán y otros cuerpos legales y Resoluciones Municipales.
  3. Impulsar la elaboración y aprobación de una Ordenanza Municipal Específica para declarar al cantón Santa Ana de Cotacachi Libre de Minería Metálica.
  4. Ratificar el compromiso personal, familiar y comunitario de cuidar y conservar EL AGUA FUENTE DE VIDA, priorizando su uso para el consumo humano y prohibiendo su utilización en procesos o actividades mineras.
  5. Exigir a la Gobernación y diferentes entes nacionales que desistan de utilizar la fuerza pública como guardaespaldas de las empresas mineras.
  6. Crear una organización zonal para de manera más directa enfrentar y buscar alternativas a la minería metálica

BHP AGM 7 November 2019

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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. Ecuador is classified by the IMF as ‘high investment risk’ due to political instability, popular resistance against extractive industries, and recent history of uprisings.
  5. 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?
  6. 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:

https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/shareholders-at-bhp-agm-vote-to-stay-in-industry-lobby-groups-2019-11-07

https://www.australianmining.com.au/news/bhp-shareholders-opposed-to-cutting-ties-with-coal-lobby-groups/

 

Investor risk alert for Cascabel

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.”

Colonel Mario Pazmiño, the country’s former director of military intelligence.
The Guardian, 24 October 2018

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:

  1. Paramilitary groups which continue to defend the interests of drug traffickers and landowners, even though the AUC no longer exists.
  2. Dissident groups of the FARC now turned criminal and related to drug trafficking.
  3. Colombian drug traffickers allied with Mexican cartels.
  4. The armed forces (the army and the police) of Ecuador and Colombia.
  5. 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.”

SolGold AGM 20 September

SOLGOLD AGM 20 SEPTEMBER 2019

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

Environmental concerns at Cascabel

ENSA CEO Jason Ward. Image credit- El Norte

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.

Copper spill. Image credit: The Conversation

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.

Bridge over Rio Mira. Image credit- Andreas Kay

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.