Sulong Rapu-Rapu Mining!

A Protesting View

2009-05-20T18:54:00.000+08:00

I found this blog, dunno who wrote it but he/she has very interesting views about some of the issues faced by Rapu-Rapu Mining Inc. Read on..

Disclaimer: The opus herein is a personal view of the author and does not necessarily reflect the views of the RRPP, its officials and employees, et. al. As a Political Science graduate, the article cannot escape my romanticism to logic and reason. Hence this product. This paper does not stand to be RRPP’s stance to the issue at hand.

A Political Scientist Speaks Up!

COMMENTS TO THE ARTICLE LISTED IN BUSINESS MIRROR DATED MAY 11, 2009:

Rapu-Rapu Mining resumes under Korean operators

The Philippines is a democratic and republican State. Sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority emanates from them. Freedom of expression is hence guaranteed so as not contrary to law, norms and public moral. Hence the confluence of diverging opinions from these organizations is taken cognizance. This is upheld in the 1987 Constitution: Article XIII to wit:

ROLE AND RIGHTS OF PEOPLE'S ORGANIZATIONS

Section 15. The State shall respect the role of independent people's organizations to enable the people to pursue and protect, within the democratic framework, their legitimate and collective interests and aspirations through peaceful and lawful means.

People's organizations are bona fide associations of citizens with demonstrated capacity to promote the public interest and with identifiable leadership, membership, and structure

Section 16. The right of the people and their organizations to effective and reasonable participation at all levels of social, political, and economic decision-making shall not be abridged. The State shall, by law, facilitate the establishment of adequate consultation mechanisms.

Likewise it is also acknowledged that the State shall encourage non-governmental, community-based, or sectoral organizations that promote the welfare of the nation. (Article 2, Sec 23) Further it is a fact that the State shall protect and advance the right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology in accord with the rhythm and harmony of nature. (Article 2, Sec 19)

The Other SIDE

The arguments and statements in the article listed in Business Mirror dated May 11, 2009: Rapu-Rapu Mining resumes under Korean operators can be described in the following: preposterous, biased, lousy, flimsy, unfounded and unflinchingly incredulous and fallacious.

Figure 1

Figure 2

Figure 1 states that the environment group‘s commission is verifying reports of alleged marine pollution however the Figure 2 (last statement in the article) has concluded the alleged continuance of pollutive operation of open-pit mining.

Argument

It is illogical to conclude whereas they are still on the verge of verification.

Question

What tool/s of verification will they have to employ? Interviews with local constituents? Water sampling?

In research, in order to arrive in a most nearly accurate data, triangulation should be employed, i.e. community, regulators and the party involved (the company). Myriad repertoire of information should be exhausted. A mission is not commissioned to do research/ verification where the end result is the preconceived”truth‘that it wishes to uncover.

Water sampling. Okay. But how is the water sample ensured free from adulteration if the sampling was done unilaterally, i.e. no company representative to witness it was actually got in the premises (samples should be properly countersigned). This would ensure the integrity of the results free from adulteration. Laboratory should also be likewise concurred by both parties.

Figure 3

Figure 3 tells us that the person cited above is identified staunch anti-mining personality. Hence it is posited that the entire person‘s pronouncement will always be anti-mining (in local parlance lutong macaw).

Any result to be culled by the verification of the fact-finding mission will always serve the interests of this identified person. Please take note that there is no personal attack hurled to this person.

According to this, reports say that a ship was seen getting mine tailings from the dam.

Question

How can a gargantuan or even a liliputian ship or boat come closer even in inches or meter to the dam?

Fact

The reports can be referring to the concentrates loaded at the conveyor at the wharf.

Argument

This is extreme ignorance of the issue at hand. In logic this is classified as argumentum ad ignorantiam: proving the proposition under dispute without any certain proof.

It is preposterous to think that the loaded concentrates which is the precious end product of the company will be dumped into the Pacific Ocean.

Figure 4

Figure is therefore a fallacy of false cause or non-sequitur: incorrectly assumes one thing is the cause of another.

The statement cited by the above person is inaccurate–by way of saying “probably‘. Such pronouncement is therefore not backed up by scientific and valid reasons.

Figure 5

Figure 6

Figure 7

In the very first place, it is not sea urchins that are being collected and buried in the shores. They might be referring to the crown of thorns which is a threat to the coral reef ecosystem. Indeed it is true: but crown of thorns and NOT sea urchins.

Again another unfounded truth posited by the Mission.

Figure 8

These fact-finding missions appear themselves to be messianic: that they are the savior of these localities with mining. It is unfair to compare Rapu-Rapu Project t o other projects (with all due respect to these cited above) since these have unique differences e.g. cultural aspect: the RRPP does not affect any cultural minority in its locale.

The last sentence in the article implies that the communities are so downtrodden with economic, social, cultural and basic human rights. The universality of this sad truth can be found in other respects of human existence. However fact of this in a single person or group of persons cannot stand for the whole.

Figure 9

Figure 10

The last statement stating the word ”plunderers‘ aside from a verbal fallacy which malapropism, is a malicious pronouncement and goes beyond ethics. The Mission has no right to label these ”people‘ as plunderers without due cause and proof.

IN SUMMARY

These comments are executed in an academic fashion, in the tenets of logic and reason and amalgamation of facts. Further, these are presented for the sake of argument, fair play, norms and critical judgment.

Arguments cited do not in any way discriminate any persons, organization or entities. All comments are performed in an objective manner.

End

Rapu-Rapu mining resumes under Korean operators

2009-05-19T14:19:00.000+08:00

Regions

Written by Jonathan L. Mayuga / Correspondent

Monday, 11 May 2009 19:59

AS mining operations resume in Rapu-Rapu, Albay, a fact-finding mission commissioned by various environment groups is now verifying reports of marine pollution and degradation in one of the country’s richest marine habitats and diving sites.

The International Solidarity Mission (ISM) hopes to uncover fresh reports related to the resumption of mining operations by a Korean-owned firm in Rapu-Rapu Island from May 10 to 13.

The fact-finding mission was organized by the Kalikasan People’s Network for the Environment (Kalikasan PNE) and the Center for Environmental Concerns Philippines (CEC Phils) along with international and local delegates from the Church, health professionals, scientists, youth and members of the media.

Among the environmental problems the ISM is probing are community reports of possible dumping of mine waste into the waters fronting the island.

Tony Casitas, spokesperson of Sagip Isla Sagip Kapwa, a grassroots organization which has been at the forefront of the antimining struggle since the Lafayette ownership, said some of the residents reported that a ship was seen getting the mine tailings from the dam and which they believed to have been dumped in the Pacific Ocean.

“This is probably the reason why the tailings dam doesn’t overflow even if it has been raining often for the past six months”, said Casitas.

Casitas also said residents have seen divers from the mining company as they collect sea urchins and bury them near the coasts. Their first concern was that their children might step upon the spikes of the urchins because they are being buried shallowly. Only later did they realize the crucial role sea urchins play as indicators of the level of contamination or pollution in the water.

“The action of the mining company to remove the urchins really invites suspicion,” said Casitas.

ISM participants also noted that most of the land area of the small island is already reserved for mining. Along with the resumption of mining activities, the new Korean owners are eyeing to expand operations in the area. They have invested $40 million to $50 million to upgrade the facilities of the mine site and are targeting annual productions of 10,000 tons of copper ore; 50,000 ounces of gold; 600,000 ounces of silver; and 14,000 tons of zinc, said Bautista.

“More than 90 percent of the total land area of the island is targeted for expansion. Under the new management, the mining company was reported by residents to be giving away goods such as soap and toothpaste to woo local residents into approving expansion toward their communities. Every household was reportedly given 10 kilos of rice in December and February amounting to P270,000. The amount however, is just 0.032 percent [3.2 percent of 1 percent] of the total annual revenue of the mining company,” Bautista said.

“ISM is also looking into how the negative environmental, economic and social impacts of mining in the island outweigh the little and dubious economic benefits that the project has promised the people. According to the report of the Mines and Geosciences Bureau (MGB) Region 5, the company has earned P847 million in 2008. This only shows the huge disparity of the profits of mining companies and the actual benefits [of their operations] the community [gets], which proves to be only superficial,” said Clemente Bautista, ISM organizer and national coordinator of Kalikasan PNE

Kalikasan PNE and CEC Phils. and other partner-organizations have been conducting a series of solidarity and fact-finding missions (FFMs) in selected mining areas on the impact of ongoing mining projects in the country. Previous missions were conducted last December 6 to 10 at the indigenous community affected by OceanaGold in the province of Nueva Vizcaya, as well as an FFM in Lobo, Batangas, early this year. The missions reported that there is an overwhelming need for mining-affected communities to be heard and supported by other organizations in their struggle for economic, social, cultural and basic human rights.

The Rapu-Rapu mine is one of 63 priority large-scale mining projects of the Philippine government and is a pet project of President Arroyo. It opened in 2005. Five months later, two massive mine-tailings spills occurred on this typhoon-stricken island.

Previously owned by Australian firm Lafayette Mining Ltd., the project’s ownership was transferred in early 2008 to a consortium of Korea Resources Corp., LG International and Malaysia Smelting Operations after Lafayette declared bankruptcy from the project. Local residents continue to oppose the project, which resumed operations last year.

“These new developments in the struggle against mining in Rapu-Rapu are the primary focus of ISM. New information coming from the communities related to the environmental impact of continued large-scale mining needs to be verified. Also, documenting social issues that confront the residents of the island, including possible violation of human rights, need to be looked into,” said Bautista.

“The case of Rapu-Rapu is one of the most popular and dynamic of the mining struggles in the Philippines. The relentless campaign of the local organizations and residents with their supporters from local, national and international organizations has led to a bittersweet victory when the previous major shareholder of the project, Lafayette Philippines, Inc. [LPI] with its wholly foreign-owned joint venture company Lafayette Mining Ltd. caved in to the protests of the people and declared bankruptcy in December 2008.

“However, this victory is bound to be trivial with the entry of the new plunderers,” said Bautista.

“Adding insult to injury, the Department of Environment and Natural Resources , backed up by President Arroyo [allowed the transfer of the] project to the Korean investors. The Korean owners, who were immediately allowed to resume operations, are feared to continue the destructive and pollutive operation of open-pit mining in the island,” said Bautista.

(http://businessmirror.com.ph/home/regions/10108-rapu-rapu-mining-resumes-under-korean-operators.html)

im back!

2009-05-17T14:31:00.000+08:00

holla!

it's been a year since i've last updated this blog..

i guess a lot has happened and much greater improvement done in RRMI..*smiles*

im gonna be updating you soon enough..stay tuned, ayt?

Mine Firm Resumes Medical Mission

2008-05-27T18:38:00.000+08:00

Press Release (May 23, 2008)

With Health and Sanitation as one of the priority programs under the Social Development Management Plan (SDMP), the Rapu-Rapu Minerals, Incorporated (RRMI), resumes its regular Medical Missions this month in its six host communities.

"The amount of P135, 000.00 is allotted for this month to cover free medicines for patients including food, accommodation, transportation and honoraria for the medical team," Vice Preside for Industrial and Community Relations Joey Cubias said
.
"The Medical Mission beneficiaries rose to about 80% compared with the previous records," Medical Mission Team Leader, Dr. Domingo Vergara said. Dr. Vergara cited the school vacation period, inaccessibility or lack of government health services, poverty and the season as probable reasons for the increase in patients’ availment of the Company’s health initiatives.

A total of 784 patients availed of free consultation, treatment and medicines. Of these, 214 are residents of Brgy. Malobago, 158 from Binosawan and 89 form Pagcolbon, all part of the Direct Impact Areas (DIAs). Meanwhile, 137 patients are from Tinopan, 123 from Linao and 63 from Santa Barbara, all compromise the Indirect Impact Areas (IIAs).

Prior to the mining operation of the Company, there were no regular medical missions in the Rapu-Rapu Island except form Brgy. Poblacion, a local resident from Malobago said in an interview. (with reports from Jason Barruga, OJT BU Journalism)

Mine Firm Supports OJT Programs of Bicol Schools

2008-05-25T15:19:00.000+08:00

Press Release (May 22, 2008)

In pursuit of harnessing and enhancing human potentials, the Rapu-Rapu Minerals, Incorporated (RRMI) recently established partnerships with one university, two colleges and one technical school in the Bicol Region for the implementation of their respective On-the-Job Training Programs.

The Bicol University (BU) in Legaspi City fielded 13 students, 10 are Journalism Majors and three are Audio Visual Communications students at the Community Action, Relations and Education corporate communication assignments. The Aemilianum College, Incorporated (ACI) in Sorsogon City sent two students who are RRMI scholars; Glory Jintalan, Office Administration Major and two students from the Computer Systems Institute (CSI) in Legaspi City were assigned at the Information Technology Section (IT). Meanwhile, the Company’s food and housekeeping service provider, the Southern Sentinels Allied Services, Inc. (SSASI) accommodated four RRMI scholars, Vivian Madrano, Charlie Firmanes, Arvin Beralde and Francis Galan, all taking up Hotel and Restaurant Services at the Technical Education and Skills Development Authority – Bulusan National Vocational Teaching School in Bulusan, Sorsogon for their internship duties.

"This is part of our Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Program to provide the youth and the students with necessary job – related competencies and experience in preparation for their integration in the workforce," Vice President for Industrial and Community Relations, Joey Cubias said. Aside from the free food and accommodation enjoyed by the students assigned at the RRMI Camp Site, the Company gives P150 daily allowance for the student – trainees, CARE Department and OIC Human Resource and Administrative Services Manager, Rene Castro revealed.

"Previously, (our) internship program has been coordinated with agencies in Metro Manila. However our College has deemed it necessary to expand our program to include local resources," BU Journalism Department Chair, Mia Agu said. The opportunities and linkages offered by the local agencies are beneficial for students’ training and relevant-benefit for community service, Agu added.

Earth Day '08: footprints in the sand

2008-05-24T17:45:00.002+08:00

well it's not actually footprints but installation art made by the local kids.

they were the same kids who made the flags.

it wasn't exactly part of the program for the earth day celebration but since the kids were also there sir totep took the opportunity to teach them how to appreciate the things they see everyday and taught them how to make an installation art.

in definition ---> Installation art uses sculptural materials and other media to modify the way a particular space is experienced. Installation art is not necessarily confined to gallery spaces and can be any material intervention in everyday public or private spaces.

Installation art incorporates almost any media to create an experience in a particular environment. Materials used in contemporary installation art range from everyday and natural materials to new media such as video, sound, performance, computers and the internet. Some installations are site-specific in that they are designed to only exist in the space for which they were created.
(source: http://www.wikipedia.com/)

in there case, the experience was the beach..*smiles*

and here are there masterpieces. enjoy..

Earth Day '08: Awarding Ceremonies

2008-05-21T14:51:00.000+08:00

with the march of the flags on its way, lafayette also awarded the different participants who took part in making them at their respective barangays.

future artists in the making..hehe..

Earth Day '08: March of the flags

2008-05-18T09:18:00.000+08:00

remember the flags i told you on the previous article?

"i joined the group who was to clean the shores at barangay pagcolbon. we were also the group who was to carry the flags made by the local kids from the host communities..it was part of they're summer art workshop sponsored by lafayette.."
(Earth Day '08: beach clean-up)

the flags were actually streamers/banners/logos/posters, i don't know exactly what you call them, made by the local kids from the different host communities. the theme was there interpretation of this year's earth day celebration, "Tubig- buhay natin. Ating pagyamanin".

those 10 streamers/banners/logos/posters were put back to back by the lafayette employees and made 5 flags out of it.And it was actually included in lafayette's program for earth day to showcase the flags made by those incredibly talented children.

to showcase there artwork, lafayette employees decided to have a sort of march for the flags and station them at there place of honor along the shoreline where the different beach clean up activities were supposed to take place.

the march started from the camp site to brgy. pagcolbon to brgy. malobago and finally at brgy. binosawan

i didn't get to take pictures of the flags enroute to brgy. binosawan as my digicam went all dead on me at brgy. malobago..too bad right?

but anyway, the march hit two birds at the same time in a sense that the residents got the chance to appreciate the talent the local kids have and also it was a chance for the residents to be aware what that day, meaning earth day, was intended for. it was a nice way of informing people that there is an earth day celebration and people, like from lafayette, do take part in this global environmental awareness movement.

enroute to brgy. pagcolbon

flags at brgy. pagcolbon

enroute to brgy. malobago

flags at brgy. malobago

sidetrack: malicious rumours

2008-05-16T13:43:00.000+08:00

remember this pictures?

(posted: Earth Day '08: beach clean-up)

well, do they look like an uprising? or a protest?

this was a classic proof of how vicious malicious rumours can be..

while we were at pagcolbon beach for the clean up..one of the local kids who was also one of the artists of the "flags" came up and asked sir totep, one of lafayette's employees, about the so-called protest that happened earlier on..she said word got around that the camp site was infiltrated by outsiders/leftists/militants, she wasn't quite sure, and gathered/protested in front of the camp offices...

tsk..tsk..tsk

if a simple gathering of employees for an opening program for the earth day celebration can instantly be seen as an uprising from the eyes of an outsider or a local resident how vicious could the next one be?

let's say this is the scenario..

scenario: more or less a kilo of shrimps or small fishes died due to natural circumstances from a fishing trip and a resident throws it at pagcolbon river/creek then it winds up at the shores of pagcolbon beach and another local resident sees it then quickly broadcasts that there has been another round of MASSIVE fish kill..

possible right?

it makes me now doubt whether the previous reported "fish kills" during the previous years where actually fish kill incidents. i mean were they actual fish kill caused by toxic wastes from lafayette or just another case of exaggerated or assumed versions of the true story.

it's a point that should be taken into consideration..

simple matters turning into nasty rumours..how many of us have been a victim of this same kind of situation? .i know i have..and maybe true to you too..

so let's not point our fingers so fast..let's give them the benefit of the doubt..

who knows maybe just maybe those "fish kills" were actually just THROWN dead fish into the sea..hehe..

Earth Day '08: beach clean-up

2008-05-14T01:03:00.005+08:00

With this year's theme, "Tubig- Buhay natin. Ating Pagyamanin.", Lafayette and its staff and employees were all set to take part on this year's Earth Day celebration last April 22, 2008.

I got the chance to join there activities 'coz my camp visit was scheduled the day before and i was booked to stay there for 2 days and two nights. lucky me! hehe.

they're celebration started with a simple opening program just outside the camp offices. They offered a prayer first then they also explained why they started participating in this international green protest and the intineraries and programs they planned for that day..

I didn't get much of the itineraries they planned for that day 'coz it was kinda early and I was just a tad bit sleepy still so my brain was not yet functioning at full speed but from what I remember they had a beach clean up planned for the three host barangays and they also have a coral clean up scheduled that day..hehe..

I joined the group who was to clean the shores at Barangay Pagcolbon. we were also the group who was to carry the flags made by the local kids from the host communities..it was part of they're summer art workshop sponsored by lafayette..

it was fun! we trekked along a nature path from the camp site to brgy. pagcolbon and along the way we started sticking our pointed-bamboo-sticks-for-picking-up-trash along the way..it was really fun 'coz you get to mix pleasure with business..hehe.. you get to trek along beautiful sceneries while doing what we were supposed to do..*smiles*

when we got there at pagcolbon beach..the view was breathtaking..(i think i got some good pictures of the beach i'll post it next time..=) )

we didn't get much trash as they expected 'coz the beach looked pretty litter free..but i heard one of the employees saying that before when they did pagcolbon beach there was much to clean-up but i guess it was nice to see that even the locals there were becoming aware and conscious of the "mess" they're doing.

after the clean up we trekked back the path and let one of lafayette's man haul pick us up at one of the baranggay roads since almost all of us were pretty tired already..

our next destination was to meet with the group who volunteered to clean up at brgy. Malobago. when we got there they were pretty much done and taking they're rest at one of the stores with a video-karaoke machine..mixing pleasure with business again..hehe..

after meeting up with the malobago group we were to meet up with the group at brgy. Binoswan. the boat ride was nice except from the scorching sun above our heads..hehe..

all in all the beach clean up was a success. i didn't know exactly how many trash bags were collected but it was a nice way of showing how important it is to have clean water/sea water and for us to achieve that we should start at the shores where we and the sea meet..*smiles*

Earth Day? Mining? Uhh..connection please?

2008-05-06T10:30:00.000+08:00

My friend asked me this question when I told him I was invited at Lafayette in Rapu-Rapu just in time too for their Earth Day celebration last April 22.

His initial reaction was quite funny but it also made me think isn’t earth day a celebration of environmental awareness? And where does mining, or should I say Lafayette fit into all that?

To better understand things I googled earth day for some background.

According to www.wikipedia.com ; the very first earth day was held on April 22, 1970 which was proposed by US Senator Gaylord Nelson as a nationwide environmental protest to thrust the environment onto the national agenda. It was a huge success, influencing other countries to join the succeeding years making it an international grassroots activism.

Up until now, countries from all over world still continue this green protest making their message loud and clear for a healthy, sustainable environment. (Here’s the link for the full article: Earth Day )

Back to my question, where does mining or Lafayette fit into all that?

Earth day is a celebration or a protest for environmental awareness. The keyword here is awareness.

Awareness for the effect each and every process in mining can have to the environment.

Awareness for the responsibility that the mining industry has to keep with the environment.

Awareness that someday everything must be renewed at their rightful place.

And that is how Lafayette fits into the equation.

Remember one of Lafayette’s mottos is sustainable development through responsible mining. And by commemorating earth day and by taking part in this world wide protest, they are acknowledging there responsibility not just for the environment but also with their host communities.

Now you can see the connection..=)

i'll post in my next blog what they did for this year's earth day. so keep tuned...hehe

oops! sorry..my mistake..

2008-05-02T10:48:00.003+08:00

i just have to correct my previous blog..

this is one of lafayette's environmental ponds. "mr. tour guide" said it's one of lafayette's treatment for rain water that passed through PAF materials from the mine site. it's also a settling place for run-off materials that came with the rain water.

i had a feeling that this was not really the pond, it doesn't even look like a pond..haha. but anyway, i checked it again and looked at my copy of the presentation Engr. Pacis gave us during the chem week and i even checked it with "mr. tour guide" it turns out to be a portion of the gulley where lafayette's treated water discharges..

pix..pix..pix..=)

2008-04-28T11:11:00.001+08:00

Here are some pictures I took during my tour of the rapu-rapu mine.

the open mine pit..

this is a photo of lafayette's tailings dam. i don't know if you can see it in the picture but surrounding the tailings dam are compact clay. according to "mr. tour guide", it's part of the design of the dam to ensure that no Potential Acid Forming (PAF) materials may pass through. the upper clay core is near the dam itself and the lower clay core, well, yeah you guessed it, the lower part of the dam..haha. below is a picture of the lower clay core..

if i remember it correctly, the compaction of the clay is not less than 98%.

do you see the plant growing amidst the grasses? it's part of lafayette's project on planting vegetations on areas covered only by grasses even before the rapu-rapu project started. Speaking of grasses, I remember "mr. tour guide" saying that they also used vetiver grasses for siltation. don't ask me why vetiver grasses? 'coz i really don't know why that particular kind of grass is used just google it if you want added information..hehe..

Anyway I have more pictures on my stay there...i'll be posting it just after I'm done editting them..so keep posted ayt? =)

the beginning..=)

2008-04-26T11:36:00.000+08:00

After 3 weeks and 2 cancellations, I finally managed to land at Lafayette shores in Rapu-Rapu, Albay..=)

Just in time too for their earth day celebrations last April 22. But I was just a tad bit early coz I arrived there a day earlier but since I was staying there for two nights I still got the chance to immerse myself in their activities for the said date.

After the necessary security checks and safety reminders inside the premises, I had the privilege to tour the mining site. I was accompanied by two “tour guides”, who were actually employees from their environmental department so if ever I had any questions it was best answered by them.

The tour was definitely a “blast”! (get it? mining-blast? Haha! I know, I know..cheesy!! haha!)

Anyway, the tour was such an eye-opener! It was like what I had in theory and what I pictured in my mind was actually put into reality, I mean, I could see it right before my very eyes. It was such a breather ‘coz I had seen a lot of pictures and heard lots of stories about Lafayette and it was nice to be able to be there and really see it for myself.

The camp site had a welcoming atmosphere. The accommodations were also very comfortable. I didn’t get the feeling of being harassed or “detained” as what others are saying that Lafayette employees can be rude to visitors. On the contrary, I felt like I was staying in a hotel. They even provided me with toiletries and some basic necessities. Hehe.

All in all, my stay there was very fulfilling. I recommend it to people who have great doubts and questions about Lafayette and their rapu-rapu mining project.
You will see for yourself that almost all of the stories you’ve heard are really just hearsay, pure tales. Their so-called facts where not really based on facts.

Anyway, I’ll explain more on my next blogs..this is just part one..so stay tuned ok? Hehe!

my first time: a sequel

2008-04-25T22:43:00.002+08:00

Flashback: “At the end of the day, my “first time” went pretty well, I had my questions answered and my skepticism reduced to pulp. It even got me more interested in mining and to their mining project as well. And you know what? I’m even considering a site visit at Lafayette to experience things first hand..=)”
(my first time..=) posted: 02/09/07 )

would you believe that Lafayette called me up and invited me for a camp visit?? They came across my blog recently and thought it would be a nice idea for me to actually go there and like what I said before “experience things first hand”. I didn’t pass up the opportunity so I readily agreed since I had nothing better to do here at home this summer. hehe

well, after a few mishaps I finally managed to step foot at Lafayette shores.haha!

I’ll give you a blow by blow on my stay there for 2 days and 2 nights!

It’s definitely one of the most interesting highlight I had so far this summer!=)

Albay No To Mining? it makes me laugh! =)

2008-03-15T21:30:00.002+08:00

Our local government is making a stand, “ALBAY NO TO MINING”. You can see these banners in front of the Albay capitol and at the fences of Albay Park. It’s good to see that the local government are conscious of the social and environmental issues we are facing.

So why not promote it?

If our local government unit is making a stand against mining then the LGU should ban everything and I mean everything about mining.

If you are firmly saying NO then don’t you think we should stop supporting and making use of the things we get from the mining industry to finally get rid of it?

Like in the law of demand and supply in economics. If they are no consumers then there wouldn’t be any producers. No demand, No supply.

Let’s start at the government offices and all offices in that matter:
• BAN computers
• BAN air conditioners.
• BAN copy machines
• BAN printers
• BAN projectors
• BAN fax machines and telephones
Instead of using computers why don’t the employees just use typewriters? Oh wait! Typewriters also have metal parts. What about just using pen and paper? But a pen also has a metal tip! Then just use a pencil. But isn’t the lead in pencil also a product of mining?

What about inside the church? Lafayette or generally the mining industry has a lot of critiques and protesters that are persons of the cloth. If they are so strong in their conviction against mining shouldn’t they also campaign in prohibiting mining products?
• BAN metal communion trays
• BAN metal chalices
• BAN metal offering plates
• BAN metal censers, thuribles and boats
• BAN metal ciboriums
• BAN metal flagons and decanters
• BAN metal candle holders
• BAN metal church bells
The church should resort in banning metal church ware that they are using. In its place, they should just use wooden chalices, wooden trays, wooden bells, wooden everything. And to really get with the theme, they should hold masses in a cave or underground then that would coincide with the wooden theme. Hehe!

Just curious, isn’t it at the time of Jesus Christ they were already using gold, silver or bronze chalices and the like? Hmm..then that means even during at that time mining was already in process.

How about inside schools?
• BAN calculators
• BAN scissors
• BAN staplers
• BAN paper punchers
• BAN ball pens and pencils
• BAN crayons
Some crayons come from minerals, as an alternative; students should just use the pigments of leaves and flowers to add a little color. Now that’s what you call a true environmentalist. Come to think of it almost all school supplies have metal in it.

This is where the government should be firm in implementing there stand. Medical apparatuses, medical equipments and even medical supplies heavily regard on different kinds of metals and for some even different types of minerals.
• BAN blood pressure apparatus
• BAN thermometers
• BAN stethoscopes
• BAN wheelchairs
• BAN walkers
• BAN rehabilitation supplies
• BAN microscopes
• BAN surgical kits
• BAN hospital monitors
• BAN operating tables
• BAN MRI
• BAN ECG
• BAN EEG
• BAN CT scans
• BAN X-ray machines
• BAN ultrasound machines
• BAN mammography machines
Now what do you propose we should use as an alternative if this things were all banned? Hmm.. bare hands??

And lastly, as citizens of Albay these things should be banned inside common households.
• BAN cellphones
• BAN televisions
• BAN radios
• BAN refrigerators
• BAN silverware

And that’s just naming a few of the things the government should forbid if they want the people of Albay to be really serious in what they are standing for.

It’s very hypocritical and unfair if Albayanos are saying no to mining but are still encouraging and using products mined from different places. NO means NO and that includes everything and I mean everything.

But if the LGU and the anti-mining groups should really want to prove their point, the government should cut-off electricity, because electric cable, wires, fuses, even insulators and conductors have metal parts, should gather everything that uses any kind of metal and minerals even the tiniest bit, store it up in a faraway warehouse lock it up and throw away the key.

No more metals! No more mining!

This is the way we should go!

Whoopee! we're back at the caveman era!!

To close? Or Not to close?

2008-03-11T13:54:00.000+08:00

“Lafayette declares ‘voluntary administration’, banks to take over”
-Philippines: Arroyo’s flagship mining project goes bankrupt
December 20, 2007
Pinoy Press

The question now is, should Lafayette choose to close down and finally cease their operations so that they could retain whatever assets they have left or should they stick it out and fulfill the benefits they promised?

To close or not to close? That is the question.

Let’s look at the pros and cons if Lafayette chooses to close down:

DENR’s point of view:

ADVANTAGES of closing the mine:

Open pit where ore extraction has commenced remain at its present size and lower potential for AMD generation

No more use of toxic chemicals, thereby removing risk of chemical and heavy metal contamination

Possible health risks due to chemicals and heavy metals to be mitigated, if not stopped
Preserve mineral resources in the island for future generations

No additional environmental damage that may be caused by the mining operations

No mining in a small island fragile environment

DISADVANTAGES of closing the mine:

Open pit area and other areas affected by mining operations will be left unattended, exposed to the environment, and allow continued generation of acid rains
Various infrastructures in the area will deteriorate; causing various environmental and physical risks (e.g. mill plant, chemical and fuel storage facilities, etc.)

Government, and eventually the Filipino taxpayer, will have to shoulder tremendous cost of rehabilitation of affected sites and infrastructures (e.g. Bagacay Mine at initial cost of PhP 40 million)

Send negative signal to investors, specially to foreigners, on the government’s inability to honor contracts, with serious implications to the mining industry and the whole economy

Will cost the job of about 900 direct employees in the area, at PhP 6.2 million in monthly salaries and wages

Loss of projected PhP 3.1 billion in government revenues (PhP 28 billion for national and PhP 278 million for local)

Cessation of company’s commitments for socioeconomic development and livelihood projects to the community estimated at least PhP 5.0 million per year.

In my opinion the advantages we could get in closing the mine:

No more rallies

No more stakeouts outside Albay capitol

No more useless expenses for streamers, banners, placards, posters or whatever against Lafayette and the mining industry.

BUT the real disadvantage I can see if Lafayette can’t overcome their debts and their last resolution is for them to close down is that for the employees who work there would lose their jobs.

The problem with some of the anti-mining groups is that they overlook the fact that Lafayette is not just a mine, it’s not just a structure, but it’s also a company made up of employees, contractors, workers in other words it’s a company of people.

Let’s look at the statistics here’s a list of their work force as of April 2007.

A total of 26.30% of the entire workforce are from the Direct Impact Areas—barangays Binosawan, Malobago and Pagcolbon. A total of 40.38% are from the host town Rapu-Rapu; total of 53.38% are from host province Albay while total of 56.21% are from the host region Bicol.
Source: www.rapu-rapumining.com

I’d also like to quote some of the leaders of the anti-mining groups are proposing:

” A change in ownership or administration of Lafayette is not enough. The mine
should be closed and a mining moratorium should be put in place in Rapu-Rapu
island. The mining-affected communities should be rehabilitated and compensated
for the losses in livelihood, environmental devastation, and health impacts that
we suffered due to Lafayette’s mining operations in our
homeland,”
-Antonio Casitas, Spokesperson of Sagip Isla Sagip Kapwa Inc. (SISK).

” Voluntary administration simply means that Lafayette has gone bankrupt and
that the banks are now taking over their operations. Lafayette’s mine proved to
be a financial, environmental, and social disaster: it should be closed for
good, subjected to rehabilitation, and the local communities compensated for the
damage brought by the mine,”
-Clemente Bautista Jr., Convenor of Defend Patrimony alliance.

They have strong views and strong recommendations BUT they don’t have any suggestions for the local employees of Lafayette especially the ones in the direct impact areas who are greatly assisted by the company.

If they’re fighting against Lafayette in the context of morality and human rights what about the 413 local Rapu-Rapu employees? or to sum it all up, what about the 575 bicolanos who will lose their jobs?

Yes. I do understand what they’re fighting for but unless they have a solution to this dilemma I think it’s unfair and selfish for them to keep pursuing and welcoming the news of Lafayette’s so called “bankruptcy” in the comfort of their own homes while they KNOW but keep ignoring the fact that those 575 families will be unsure if they can keep supporting their own homes.

Isn’t selfishness against moral norms?

Having laid all that out, if we’re going to weight the pros from the cons, which do you think the scale would tip to?

Or better yet, we should ask ourselves, to close or not to close? that is the question..

check this out..

2008-03-10T23:47:00.001+08:00

Rapu-Rapu "Fault" Finding Commission

2008-02-29T12:57:00.000+08:00

If you read the previous articles you would also question the results of the Rapu-Rapu Fact Finding commission headed by Bishop Arturo Bastes.

I agree with what the previous vice governor, James Calisin said that a bishop heading a fact finding commission on mine safety laughable. We all know that from the very start Bishop Bastes was already against the mining operations of Lafayette in Rapu-Rapu. If you really think it out why would the president choose a person like Bishop Bastes who speaks his views against mining so vocally to head the commission? Funny right?

Naisip ko tuloy bka may conspiracy na nangyari. Coz looking back that was the time when the president was again in the hot seat facing another impeachment issue. Maybe she chose Bishop Bastes to divert the media and the peoples attention kasi we know naman the results of the commission would be against Lafayette. Hmm..smart talaga si madam president. Hehe.

It’s unfair for Lafayette and for the people who support the mining firm coz we know that even if the commission said that they were gonna be “objective”, “neutral” and “impartial”, the result would still be biased and subjective kasi from the previous article majority ng commission members full pledged anti-mining advocates na kasi si Bishop Bastes ang pumili ng ibang committee members.

I was there when the BU Engineering students held a seminar on climate change and invited a resource speaker from Lafayette to address their answer on the issue of global warming. After her talk, the Lafayette staff gave us a photocopy of a “Dissenting Opinion” made by Gregorio A. Tabuena, a member of the Rapu-Rapu fact finding commission. It was all about the anomalous and unscientific way some of the committee members made their findings and recommendations.

I read it page per page and I’d like to quote some of the things he said:

“..During the organizational stage of the commission, I recommended to
include in the list of technical consultants a mining engineer, geologist,
marine biologist and a resource economist but my recommendation fell on deaf
ears...”

“..the Report, however, proceeded to discuss matters beyond its mandate. It
delved into matters clearly not covered by A.O 145 and discussed the PEZA issue,
the process of issuance of the ECC and even the amendment of the Mining Act of
1995. The purpose of the Commission would have been better served if it limited
the scope of its fact finding in the subject matter clearly identified in AO
145- the effects of mining operations in Rapu-Rapu on people’s health and
environmental safety…”

“..to make such a sweeping conclusion, without
any scientific evidence, would make this fact finding commission nothing more
than an alarmist doomsayer..”

"…the Commission also heavily relied on the INECAR studies which
conclusions are based on insufficient data, highly speculative and more
suggestive of an advocacy rather than open-minded and objective...”

“…I believe that it was the Commission’s duty to have inquired further on
the origin of the said November 30, 2005 samples. It was certainly not
scientific and not fair for the Commission to blame the mercury in the said fish
samples to Lafayette...”

“..I do not know how the Report could have made such a reckless conclusion.
Again, this simple fact could have been resolved by calling experts in the
field. Unfortunately, the Commission chose not to do so...”

“..for lack of any scientific data or clear factual basis, I am not
prepared to condemn Lafayette or the Project.”

“..the foregoing discussion only shows that further data gathering which
should be reliable and unbiased, should be conducted by credible organizations
who are proven experts in the area..”

FYI, Gregorio A. Tabuena is a forester by profession, with a degree of B.S Forestry from the University of the Philippines at Los Baños, his services have been engaged by several firms as a consultant and participant in multi-disciplinary environmental impact assessments and environmental impact studies regarding mining. The mining project proponents include South Seas Natural Resources, Inc., Farmont Mines, Inc., All-Acacia Resources, Inc., Industrial Enterprises, Inc., Altai Philippines Mining Corporation and Sunpacific Resources Philippines, Inc., among others.

So what would you expect from a fact finding commission err should I say a “fault” finding commission? SUBJECTIVE, BIASED, and UNFAIR results.

They remained one-sided and took for granted the opportunity and their given position making the results inconclusive and questionable.

Dig copper out of the ground

2008-02-29T01:14:00.001+08:00

By: Peter Wallace
Manila Standard Today
Friday, June 23, 2006

WE did something Bishop Arturo Bastes didn’t do. We did some scientific research on the Philippine Mining Law and whether it was sufficient to protect the environment and ensure responsible mining.

We compared the mining-related and environmental laws and regulations of three mineral-rich and high-income countries (Australia, Canada and the US) with those of the Philippines in terms of how they address the three most significant aspects of any mining project, namely: the environment, health and safety, and community development and engagement. Regulations on how these countries address transparency and accountability in government processes, and the recent international initiative in this area, were also examined.

We also looked at the standards, guidelines and declarations of multilateral organizations (the World Bank’s International Finance Corp. or IFC, and United Nations’ International Labor Organization) as well as standards set by international organizations that are currently being adopted by many corporations as they have now come to realize that compliance with the laws of the countries where they operate may not be sufficient to protect the environment and address the concerns of affected communities.

On top of that, we reviewed guidelines developed by some international mining organizations, all of which are members of the International Council of Metals and Mining. The ICMM has an extensive work program that includes public reporting and sharing of good practices. They have developed—through the contributions of industry leaders—a set of field-proven guidelines on exploration activities, community engagement and environmental practices.

What this scientific research that we did showed was that the Philippine Mining Act not only was as good as these laws, but was even better in a number of aspects. As Philip Romualdez, head of the Chamber of Mines, said it was “better than the UK law in protecting the environment; better than the US law in protecting indigenous people; better than Canadian law on corporate social responsibility and tougher than Australian law in granting mining permits.”

Mind you, the Mineral Action Plan (MAP) of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources has identified areas that need strengthening. But these can easily be covered by amending the implementing rules and regulations of the act or by issuing an executive order, if necessary. The critical issue, therefore, is not the law but its implementation.

So the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines didn’t need to call for a review of the Mining Act. It doesn’t need to be. As the Lafayette incident showed, it’s the implementation and enforcement that needs, not change, but massive improvement and strengthening.

The Mines and Geosciences Bureau just doesn’t have the manpower, the equipment or the money to do its job. It can’t even test if dead fish were killed by mine poisoning, or deliberate sabotage because the fish can’t be tested immediately and on the spot. Sabotage? Yes, there is indeed suspicion that the fish scare was deliberately done.

I am told, and perhaps the bishop can correct me on this if I’m wrong, that it was he who warned the people in Sorsogon not to eat fish because it was poisoned by mercury. People in a locale 16 km from the mine across a bay where the current flows against any mine tailings ending up in Sorsogon were warned. This is scientific fact, not a conscience-directed conclusion. And on this, one of the commissioners deliberately lied to me on TV when he said the current wasn’t from Sorsogon to Rapu-Rapu. I checked and it was. There is absolutely no way a spill in Rapu-Rapu could have affected Sorsogon. Lafayette paid dearly for its mistakes, but the people who lied and deprived fishermen of a livelihood have paid for nothing. I suggest another commission be appointed to ascertain blame, and fine the liars too. Additionally they should be required to reimburse the fishermen for their lost income.

The bishop wants to ban mining in Albay. What’s so different in Albay from the rest of, not just the Philippines, but the world as well. Albay is lucky to have some huge wealth tucked into the ground. To not exploit is criminal, but responsible exploitation is needed. This is one thing the Church could help achieve.

I cannot understand how a man of conscience, which he professes to be, can call for a ban on mining in his area, but accept that it can be done in someone else’s. The Bible didn’t say, “dig copper out of the ground everywhere except Albay.” It stated (reminder to the bishop), in Deuteronomy 8:7-10, “dig copper out of the ground.”

I don’t know about you, but I’ve had enough of “do-gooders” like the bishop and various NGOs who care more for trees than they do for people.

Mining is essential to human life. God, through the Bible, has mandated it so. There is nothing we use today that didn’t originate from a mine (plastic, for example, need steel moulds so it could be made). The gold cross around the bishop’s neck originated from a mine. The paint NGOs love to spatter everywhere calling for a ban to mining came from a steel can, and that can was made from steel machines. And they go to a rally in a steel car on time by way of their steel watches.

It’s time this nation took a stand against these myopic people who can accept no sense of balance in life. Of course we must protect the environment, I’m as rabid about that as anyone, but we must do it sensibly, cognizant of the need to also provide a decent life for our people.

There must be balance. I venture to suggest, but it’s only my conscience saying so since I have no scientific proof, that Greenpeace has, overall, done more harm than good. I’d be very interested to see some scientific research on that one. But perhaps I don’t need it. Bishop Bastes didn’t, so why should I?

So my independent commission says Greenpeace is harmful to the world. Now, isn’t that absurd? But that’s how Bishop Bastes conducted his investigation. I suggest he search his conscience, knowing that eventually, he’ll answer directly to God. Has he acted in a way God would approve? I hope he can answer that.

I’m prepared to challenge the bishop to an open debate anytime he wishes. I want the Filipinos to be healthy, well fed, gainfully employed and living a full, satisfying life. What does the bishop want for his flock? Obviously not those things, because he’d rather deprive them of jobs and the development of their communities whilst offering nothing else in return. The bishop provides no income to anyone. In fact he takes money from the poor during Sunday collections.

I’ve never publicly attacked a particular person before. But now I am because I care. I care for people. I think they deserve a decent life here in this life. Not in purgatory. Purgatory is for the afterlife, for those who have betrayed God’s trust. I believe God meant us to enjoy this life, to derive satisfaction from it and not to watch our children starve (28 percent of Filipino children under 5-years-old is malnourished, 30 percent experience a stunted development for lack of food), or die.
What, I wonder, is the bishop doing to provide a decent life for his flock. Forget the handouts (if he gives them); they are patchwork solutions that achieve no real improvement. The old saw, “Feed a man, and you feed him for a day. Teach him to fish and you feed him for life,” is applicable. Well, open a mine and you feed a whole community for life.

Can Bastes do that? What is he doing to provide his people a decent quality of life? Yes, we must protect the environment. But quality of life and the environment must, and can go hand-in-hand. The trouble is, in the Philippines, it doesn’t happen too often.

Careful monitoring and control are necessary. That’s where the Church can really help by assisting the government in ensuring that mining companies act responsibly and truly care for the community and bring wealth to the nation. Mining can never be stopped. We have to have it. So let’s have it in a way that does the least damage. And that damage can be corrected when a mine closes by bringing the land back to the condition it was in before the mine started operating. Also, damage is further mitigated when local communities uplifted by mining have a life after mining. One of the reasons why the Philippines is so far behind everyone else and has more people in poverty than almost anyone else is because of people like Bastes.

I congratulate Environment Secretary Angelo Reyes for his well-considered decision, and call on the Church to support this Solomonic solution: Test the mine under stringent conditions. If it meets those conditions, continue operating it. If it can’t, it’s closed. Fair enough, and fair for everybody.

2008-02-22T12:15:00.000+08:00

Manila Standard Today
May 19, 2006

Reader Michael Cavanagh writes from Australia:

“I have read your articles regarding Lafayette with great interest as I am a small investor in the company. Might I ask if you still believe the mine will be closed indefinitely or will sanity prevail and the mine be given a chance to prove it can operate safely?

“As a matter of interest, why do the Catholic bishops wield so much power, particularly when the local people are in favor and would benefit from the works?”

Your first question may be answered today, Michael. That’s because the good Bishop of Sorsogon, head of the fact-finding team formed by the government to investigate last year’s cyanide spill in the Rapu-Rapu mining project in Albay, is scheduled to submit his committee’s report to President Arroyo in Malacañan Palace.

As to sanity prevailing, well, no one knows for sure. Yesterday, the vice chairman of the Bastes committee said the report would contain portions that would be “unpalatable but realistic.”
That the Bastes committee report would be unpalatable is already expected, as readers of this column already know. Bastes, like many antimining Catholic bishops, has made no bones about his being against the Rapu-Rapu project of the Australian company long before he got his commission.

So when the fact-finding team’s vice chairman warns that the forthcoming report would be unpalatable, given where the bishop and the other members of the team whom he personally chose are coming from, we already know who it will be unpalatable to.

Since it’s not going to be unpalatable to those who drafted it, offhand, I’d say that it wouldn’t be particularly appetizing to people like you, the investors in Lafayette, and to the mining industry in the Philippines in general.

That the report will be realistic is again a matter of who it would be realistic to. If the report is realistic to the antimining faction of the Church and their benighted NGO partners, then it’s definitely going to be unrealistic to all the investors like you—and practically condemns the Philippine mining industry to the status of a fairy tale.

Your second question, Michael, is more difficult to answer. The Philippines is nominally a Catholic country—which is why the supposed doctrinal issues in the movie “The Da Vinci Code” take up so much newspaper space and broadcast airtime hereabouts.

Why they choose to wield that power to thwart economic progress through commercial mining is something only they can really explain.

* * *
It’s interesting, though, that our letter-writer inquires if “sanity will prevail and the mine will be given a chance to operate safely.” Because, no matter what the antimining lobby says, extracting metals from the earth has been known to be done in a sane and safe manner for the longest time —and not just in other countries but here, as well.

But the trouble with Bishop Bastes and his fact-finding team is that they are certain not to approve of the reopening of the Rapu-Rapu mine, regardless of how safe it has been made, and that’s the unvarnished truth.

As proof, Albay Vice Governor James Calisin, a longtime critic of Bastes and the antimining lobby in the Bicol region, proffers what he calls a “smoking gun” that makes the whole idea of the bishop heading up a fact-finding commission on mine safety laughable. You’d laugh, too, unless you’re one of the thousands of people who had money invested in Lafayette or are in any way employed by or doing business with the mining company.

Calisin has released copies of a videotape that shows Bastes making a speech after the cyanide poisoning was reported and before his appointment as head of the fact-finding team. The vice governor’s point: Bastes cannot be expected to find anything good about the mine even if all the safety measures in the world are put in place, simply because he has come out so openly in the past against mining.

“I have the video of Bishop Arturo Bastes of Sorsogon lambasting mining in general and accusing Lafayette of contaminating Sorsogon’s fishes and waters without any scientific basis just several days before the president formed the Rapu-Rapu Fact-Finding Commission where he is the chairman,” he said.

In a statement, Calisin said the bishop had promised that the members of his commission, under the rules the cleric himself drafted, should demonstrate objectivity, neutrality and impartiality and should not have previously expressed any opinion for or against the Lafayette issue.
“With Bishop Bastes a vocal antimining advocate, he is now in a conflict of interest of his own making. How can we trust him if he breaks his own rules? How can we trust the commission’s impartiality? With all due respect to the bishop, he is biased and he should have not been part of the commission from Day 1,” Calisin said.

In the video shot last Feb. 17, Bastes told a crowd of people on the island of Rapu-Rapu that “the seas of Sorsogon are dead because of mining, the effects of Lafayette mining. Our fish are no longer edible. I can no longer eat tangigue and malasugue and all the different kinds of fish because of what happened here in Rapu-Rapu.”

Also, the bishop said on tape: “Mining should not be done here in the Philippines. The bishops have issued a statement not only against mining here in Rapu-Rapu but against all kinds of mining here in the Philippines.”

The Bastes commission is not fact-finding but fault-finding, not independent and impartial as the basic rules of ethics dictate and violates even the evangelical duty of the Church for truth-telling and rendering justice, Calisin explained.

But the proof of the unpalatable pudding is in the eating. The future of the Philippine mining industry—and the government’s efforts to end poverty, develop the countryside and attract investments—could hang in the balance in the Bastes report.

Maybe the good bishop doesn’t know this. Or maybe, in his wisdom, he does— which is why he’s hell-bent on doing what he’s doing.

(jojo.robles@manilastandardtoday.com)

Albay exec dumps Bastes' group report

2008-02-20T23:06:00.000+08:00

Manila Standard Today
May 23, 2006

Albay Vice Gov. James Calisin wants the Bastes Commission report trashed for trying to sneak supposedly antimining and pseudo-leftist militant members into critical government panels that will decide on the application of Lafayette Philippines for an environmental clearance certificate.

“That is sneaky. They were able to do it in the commission because Bishop Bastes handpicked its members, which included pseudo-leftist militants and antimining people. To follow the Bastes recommendation is to have someone that perennially will thwart government efforts to attract foreign investments,” he said.

In effect, he said, the Bastes recommendation will allow these groups to use government funds to advance their advocacy. “That was what happened when the Bastes Commission was formed and it should not happen again.”

The nine-member commission was chaired by Bishop Arturo Bastes, whose antimining and anti-Lafayette apostolate has been caught on video. Its other members included one from the militant Sagip Isla organization, a teacher, a lawyer and a former politician, among others.

The only commissioner who has the technical background and experience in mining did not sign the commission report since he did not agree with most of the recommendations. He said he would issue his dissenting report soon.

Calisin commented that the government should conduct an audit of the commission’s expenses to check reports of fat allowances for its members and who reportedly billeted themselves in an expensive first-class hotel for the entire duration of their preparation of the report. During the press briefing at the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines, the commission admitted that they spent P5 million from government funds, in about two months.

“If this report is true, then the commission must explain. If they cannot explain, they must face the consequences,” Calisin said.

“How could they have spent that amount when they did not even conduct their own scientific study? They merely relied on second hand information. That amount of money would have been better spent if it was used for livelihood programs in Rapu-Rapu and Albay,” Calisin added.

It was Calisin who had warned commission members that they would be sued in their personal capacity if their report is based on wrong science and causes another fish scare.

The first fish scare was started by unknown groups who claimed Sorsogon’s waters and fishes had been contaminated by mercury. People stopped buying fish and about 5,000 fishermen were affected. President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo had to release P10 million to help them.

This fish scare had already been proven a hoax and the National Bureau of Investigation is now onto the case upon the initiative of Calisin himself.

The commission, in its report and despite the several scientific studies ruling out the contamination, insisted it did happen and that it was caused by Lafayette.

The company had disputed this and called the commission report flawed and unscientific. It said it could not have possibly caused any mercury contamination since it does not use mercury and it was only in operation for barely three months.

Open Your Eyes

2008-02-15T15:02:00.000+08:00

No to mining? No to Lafayette?

Anti-mining groups are everywhere! And to think there becoming more extreme in speaking out their views. They even stayed for one week in front of Albay capitol to show how serious they are. But the question is, are they true to what they’re fighting for?

Some of the activists are calling themselves “environmentalists”, wanting to shut down Lafayette due to the damaging effect it can do to the environment. But are you really true “environmentalists”? Nung nagstake out kayo sa labas ng Albay capitol, I saw some of you SMOKING! And you call yourselves environmentalists?? Haha! Super funny! In my own opinion, don’t you think you should start rehabilitating your own “damaging” habits first before you go on marching and screaming “SAVE the ENVIRONMENT!”? It looks very hypocritical kapag ganun.

My second point, have you ever been to one of their mining forums? Have you ever been to the Lafayette mine? I mean have you actually step foot inside their site? Because if you’ve actually been there you will have your answers and some of the things you’re trying to blame on them put to a rest.

For example, “Two major issues concerning the implementation of the Project remained pending: the integrity of the tailings dam structure and the Acid Mine Drainage, or AMD, problem.”, as Bishop Bastes said in one of his never ending critiques against Rapu-Rapu mining.

Yes, it WAS an issue before and Lafayette even admitted that there tailings dam was not yet that high and no provisions for spillway and for the drainage of rainwater causing it to enter the tailings pond that eventually overflowed BUT that was resolved fast and if you were to actually go the site you would see that they made a temporary earthern spillway and made the dam stronger than before, it even survived typhoon Reming. Now, that was a true test of integrity. And about the AMD problem, they already built their AMD controls. And if you’ve been at one of their mining forums you would have a complete and detailed explanation on their AMD management plan.

tailings dam (just after typhoon Reming)

mine pit

environmental ponds

It’s a matter of opening your eyes and ears instead of getting stigmatized on past issues and a matter of giving second chances.

Feeling ko, for some of the anti-mining groups they choose to be stigmatized on past issues kasi if they didn’t and they actually opened their eyes they would see that thay would have no more reasons to keep on fighting against Lafayette.

As for second chances, Lafayette already paid their debts on their previous faults and I think it’s about time to give them the opportunity to prove themselves again. Let’s not forget the benefits and rewards we can achieve through this mining firm and mining in general.

I’m not really against anti-mining groups all in all. I understand that you’re fighting for your rights and whatever but before you go on marching and putting up streamers and banners against Lafayette, I think you should have your facts straightened out first and for some, be true to what you’re trying to preach.

2008-02-13T11:28:00.000+08:00

Managing the distance between mine developers and locals
BY IAN THOMSON
Mining environmental management magazine
Jan 2007

“Why don’t they understand us?” is a common lament among explorers and mine developers when a proposal for a new mine is met by a seemingly irrational negative response from locals. “It doesn’t seem to matter what we say, they just won’t accept that modern mining is environmentally sound and socially responsible”

THE fact that potential physical impacts are measurable, predictable and manageable is logical and accurate to industry insiders. However, there are frequently powerful social factors driving the apparent refusal to recognize the real nature of the risks that come with mineral extraction, particularly when it comes to gold mining. What many engineers and scientists find difficult to accept is that there continues to be a profound readjustment globally around societal perceptions of risk and risk management.

Since the early 1990s, ongoing discussion among academics and in the popular press has explored the idea of a social progression from ‘modernity’ to ‘post modernity’, a shift onwards from the industrial society created during the 19th and 20th centuries. One element of this discussion has focused on the emergence of what has been termed a ‘risk society’.

The concept of a risk society rests on the distinction between danger arising from natural forces, which is seen as characteristic of pre-modern society, and manufactured risk characteristic of post-modern society. In a series of BBC lectures in 1999 Anthony Giddens provided a succinct explanation of the situation:

“In all traditional cultures, one could say, and in industrial society right to the threshold of the present day, human beings worry about the risks coming from external nature – from bad harvests, floods, plagues and famines. At a certain point, however – very recently in historical times – we started to worry less about what nature can do to us and more about what we can do to nature. This marks the transition from the predominance of external risk to that of manufactured risk.”

Further analysis of this phenomena shows that in many counties a transition has taken place from an industrial society in which the central issue was how produced wealth can be distributed socially, to a risk society focused on risks and uncertainties arising from the very actions of modern wealth creation – the industrial processes.

Paradoxically, one consequence of this transition has been that as science becomes more and more necessary, it becomes less and less significant for socially binding definitions of truth. In practice, while science and the experts who practice it are important in identifying and finding solutions to risk, they are seen increasingly as loosing legitimacy. Giddens, once again, is particularly able to articulate this ‘limitation to expertise’.

“Widespread lay knowledge of modern risk environments leads to an awareness of the limits of expertise and forms one of the ‘public relations’ problems that has to be faced by those who seek to sustain lay trust in expert systems. The faith that supports lay trust in expert systems involves blocking off the ignorance of the lay person when faced with the claims of expertise. However, experts often take risks ‘on behalf’ of lay clients while concealing, or fudging over, the true nature of those risks or even the fact that there are risks at all. More damaging than lay discovery of this kind of concealment is the circumstance where the full extent of a particular set of dangers and risks associated with them is not realized by experts. In this case what are questionable are not only the limits of, or gaps in, expert knowledge, but an inadequacy which compromises the very idea of expertise.”

Substitute the terms ‘general public’ for lay person, ‘geoscientist or engineer’ for expert, and ‘mining company’ for expert systems in the above discourse and the relevance to many of the conflictive situations encountered around mineral exploration and mine development projects becomes apparent. Very obviously, the strongest antidote to this problem is direct engagement with the community, transparency about the activities of the corporation, and inclusion of the general public in a participatory process of monitoring, evaluation, planning and decision making around those aspects that directly affect their lives. However, things are not necessarily so simple.

The social construction of risk is central to the ongoing controversy over chemicals in the environment, and by extension the use of cyanide in gold mining, which Ed Liebow considers to be rooted in the distinct notions of ‘hazard’ and ‘stigma’.

It is well documented that popular concerns about potential hazards to personal health and safety are often inconsistent with scientific evidence regarding the probability (or risk) that such hazards will actually happen (Liebow). A related concern is that even if potential hazards are never realized, the very presence of the hazard can stigmatize a location, affecting the reputation of the area and in turn the market for local goods and real estate, limiting future economic opportunities, and creating ‘victims’ out of the local population. Thus while then notion of ‘hazard’ is associated with a risk to health, ‘stigma’ is associated with social and economic harm or impairment Liebow, and while ‘hazard’ represents a potential for a temporary of transient event, ‘stigma’ is socially permanent.

Non-specialists are said to be ‘intuitive’ when judging risks and hazards, as opposed to the analytical approach normally used by experts (Chauncey Starr and Chris Whipple). The intuitive approach relies on images of risk and hazard drawn from news accounts, popular literature and the media. These are often dramatic scenes of horror and devastation, which tend to focus on the controllability of hazards – could this catastrophe be prevented? Non-specialists are influenced not only by the way they receive information but also from whom it is received – information is accepted and believed if it comes from sources that are perceived as trustworthy, credible, understandable, or supportive of the position of the individual.

Using the intuitive approach, individuals are relatively accurate in ranking the seriousness of hazards, but are inaccurate in estimating the probability of occurrence and calculated magnitude (Liebow) - they overestimate significantly. Unlike the specialists, the general public uses mental reference points based on personal perceptions when faced with making decisions surrounded by uncertainty, as in the case of unusual events that may or may not take place at an unknown time somewhere in the future. As a consequence, individuals and communities, when faced with a risk that is perceived as a hazard related to an industrial process, will tend to see it as a threat to personal health and safety and will reject it - saying no to the mine.

The general public is often told that a product or industry is ‘state-of-the-art’ or using ‘best practice’, only to see it malfunction or fail (contamination at Summitville, tailings failures at Marcopper and Omai, and the mercury spill at Choropampa are mining examples). As a result, many people have become skeptical or even cynical at such claims, and providing information about the safety of a proposed development will not, by itself, remove concern (or fear) that the development is a source of possible health hazards. In these circumstances, the public needs information that will help evaluate the proponent’s credibility, trustworthiness and hence ability to reliably manage the development in the public good. The public wants to know that it is being dealt with honestly and fairly, that benefits and risks are being distributed equitably. This is particularly true of gold mining and cyanide, where the very word cyanide creates an instant ‘stigma’ in the eyes of many people.

The public discourse that takes place around industrial development projects creates a situation in which potential risks and hazards are evaluated in a social context where what is termed as ‘social amplification of risk’, may take place. In this, the interaction between the potential hazard and its social setting may increase the relative negative influence of technology as a factor in creating an image within the collective mind of the general public. As information about the possible hazard is exchanged, either through word of mouth between individuals or through the mass media, a population may come to perceive the risk of impact as a threat that is many times grater than that calculated by informed experts.

For example, during the confrontation between Meridian and the community of Esquel, Argentina, over development of the El Desquite gold mine, the company brought in a technical specialist to explain the safe use of cyanide. The initiative backfired badly when it emerged that the specialist worked for the cyanide manufacturer, at which point this ‘expert’ information was seen as coming from a source with a clear conflict of interest, lacking objectivity and hence credibility, and was rejected by many in the local community. At the same time, information disseminated by non-governmental organizations was accepted as valid and helped create heightened awareness of potential hazards associated with cyanide. Public concern grew in the community, spread to the region and entered the political process. The net result was a ban on the use of cyanide throughout the Province of Chubut.

According to Liebow, factors contributing to ‘social amplification of a risk or hazard’ include:

■ Selective, sensational, and/or inaccurate media reporting of risks and regulatory actions to control them;
■The use of technical language;
■ Limits in the ability of non-specialists to understand technical information;
■ Intolerance for scientific uncertainties or the way in which risk is described as an abstract percentage or frequency relative to some (seemingly irrelevant) standard; and
■ Failure to address the concerns of the public directly.

Social amplification is often the precursor to stigmatization of a hazard or indeed the project itself. Again, transparency, dialogue with the community and full participation of all stakeholders are powerful antidotes to these challenges for any new industrial development, and mining in particular.

However in engaging with the public and becoming involved in a dialogue process as a means of managing the potential for social risk, it is worth remembering the following points of advice from Daniel Yankelovich:

■ On any given issue it is reasonable to assume that the public and the experts will be out of phase. To bridge the gap, the company must learn what the public’s starting point is and how to address it.
■ Do not depend on experts to present issues.
■ Learn what the public’s pet preoccupation is and address it before discussing any other aspect of an issue.
■ Give the public the incentive of knowing that someone is listening and cares.
■ Limit the number of issues to which people must pay attention to at any one time to two or three at most.
■ ‘Working through’ is best accomplished when people have choices to consider.
■ Company representatives and facilitators must take the initiative in highlighting the value component of alternatives.
■To move beyond the ‘say-yes-to-everything’ or ‘say-no-to- everything’ form of procrastination, the public needs help.
■ When two conflicting values are important to the public, resolution should be sought by developing alternatives that preserve some elements of each. Given the speed and power with which social processes can operate, it falls to the explorer or developer to be proactive in understanding the local community, its hopes, fears and social structure, and develop a process of communication, consultation and sharing that brings the various players together rather than polarizing positions and driving them apart.

Given the speed and power with which social processes can operate, it falls to the explorer or developer to be proactive in understanding the local community, its hopes, fears and social structure, and develop a process of communication, consultation and sharing that brings the various players together rather than polarizing positions and driving them apart.

my first time..=)

2008-02-09T19:21:00.000+08:00

Armed with their corporate values:

"Teamwork, Transparency, Exceed Expectations, and Delight the stakeholders"

the speakers from Rapu-Rapu Mining Incorporated stayed true of what they're trying to achieve. All was boldly shown during their mining forum held at BU amphitheater for the BS Chemistry week last February 7, 2008.

As a "first timer" in a mining forum. I had a lot of questions and a whole lot to take in. Well, to tell you honestly, I was kind of skeptic about the concept of mining mainly because of what other people are saying about its "damaging" effect to the environment. Some even say it’s disastrous to have a mining project here in Rapu-Rapu, just right here in our own backyard and to top it all of we can see this by the different environmental incidents "accused" to RRMI. BUT, as a first timer I listened to them open-mindedly.

Everything was explained. From the different mining processes to the waste management procedures to the different environmental rehabilitation plans after the project was over. But the thing that really got the attention of the audience was when the speaker. Engr. Carmelita Pacis addressed the issue about the incidents that happened at the plant. The different spill incidents, “fish scare” and mercury contamination pointed at RRMI were all explained in detail and for the students there, these “alleged” incidents were finally put to a rest because of facts laid out plainly for the students. This was TRANSPARENCY at its peak. (If you want to check out their full explanation, you can check their website at http://www.rapu-rapumining.com)

After their presentation, an open forum was held. On my part, I was anxious to see what kind of questions the other students were gonna ask to the RRMI speakers. Well, aside from the usual questions regarding the mining processes, I wasn’t surprised when one student still addressed the issue of the mercury scare in Sorsogon late last year and bluntly asked “when will Lafayette leave Rapu-Rapu? For me, it was funny to see persons like this who keep on pointing their fingers at the wrong culprit even when pure facts are right in front of their eyes.

At the end of the day, my “first time” went pretty well, I had my questions answered and my skepticism reduced to pulp. It even got me more interested in mining and to their mining project as well. And you know what? I’m even considering a site visit at Lafayette to experience things first hand..=)