Reports Regarding Deep Sea Mining Campaign in Papua New Guinea Released

Reports Regarding Deep Sea Mining Campaign in Papua New Guinea Released

During the past months several reports regarding the deep sea mining campaign in Papua New Guinea were released, Swakopmund Matters informed.

The campaign coordinator for the Australian-based organization “Deep Sea Mining”, Dr. Helen Rosenbaum, has authored a significant report on marine mining in Papua New Guinea’s coastal waters entitled “Out of our Depth – Mining the Ocean Floor in Papua New Guinea”.

In her well researched report she made the following conclusions:

• The mining company cannot be considered to have achieved a social license to operate until the information gaps on environmental and socio-economic impacts are filled and independently endorsed mitigation strategies are developed. In addition, due to the lack of good governance and accountability demonstrated to date, independent monitoring by a team of experts and civil society representatives should continue throughout the life of the project and any subsequent projects.

• Due to the high level of uncertainty associated with deep sea mining (DSM), it is not possible to predict the impacts of any individual DSM project, let alone the cumulative impacts of the many potential DSM projects.

• It is particularly of concern in national waters where governments do not have environmental regulatory systems specific to DSM, or the capacity to enforce regulations and conduct independent monitoring. In international waters, no authority is empowered to ensure the protection and conservation of the biological resources of the seabed.

Another significant report related to DSM in Papua New Guinea was released in November 2012, entitled “Physical Oceanographic Assessment of the Nautilus EIS for the Solwara 1 Project”.

It is authored by an oceanographic expert, Dr. John Luick who has over twenty years of experience in projects related to ocean monitoring, tidal analysis, and hydrodynamic modelling. He has numerous publications and technical reports as well as a wide experience in teaching, consulting, and shipboard observations. Most of his work has been in “marginal seas” similar to the Bismarck Sea, as well as in the deep Pacific Ocean and on the shallower waters of the continental shelf.

The report draws the attention because of the issued fact that “… much of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is simply too general in nature to determine impacts, and many of the mitigations proposed rely upon Environmental Management Plans and procedures that have yet to be developed by Nautilus, and thus the effectiveness of these cannot be judged at present. It is likely that the project would result in severe, prolonged, and perhaps region-wide impacts to a globally rare and poorly understood biological community, and it is clear that the EIS does not adequately assess many of these impacts. Further, the benefits to local people or the economy of PNG seem disproportionately low compared to the scale and risk of the project”.

It added this significant declaration about the Report’s conclusions about the EIS:

“It seriously downplays the risks facing local communities and the marine environment. … The oceanographic aspects of the EIS suffer from a lack of ragout. There are many errors and omissions in the modeling, presentation and analysis of data”.

The Report reviews the oceanographic elements of the EIS for the project in PNG. Its focus is on currents and upwelling that may bring pollutants into contact with local populations and marine species. The risk is with the possibility of upwelling and currents carrying mine-derived metals towards the coastline.

The author of the report Dr. Luick said:

“The physical oceanography and hydrodynamic components of the EIS are second-rate. The shortcomings in these elements of the Solwara 1 EIS are so basic that I could have written the same review 27 years ago while still a student. The modeling is completely unacceptable by scientific standards. The People of PNG deserve better. They should be able to feel confident that the approvals process is open and based on the best available science.”

Dr. Helen Rosenbaum voiced this opinion:

“As such it demands extremely careful attention to scientific detail and transparency in decision making. This new report indicates that both of these elements have been lacking. Important next steps are to make available the full data set behind the EIS”.

In the Foreword to the report it is observed that

“The EIS should provide a clear and rigorous assessment of potential hazards and impacts. It should provide the groundwork for comprehensive risk analysis and the development of mitigation strategies. Most importantly the EIS should have provided a solid basis for the Government of PNG to decide whether to approve this project and if so, under what conditions. Tis review demonstrates that the EIS fails to provide solid ground for informed decision-making”.

In the Overview section of the Report it is stated:

“In summary, there are serious omissions and flaws in information presented in the EIS about surface currents, the speed and direction of currents at different depths, and about tides. These deficiencies mean that several important risks to the marine environment and to local communities cannot be determined. These include the risks of pollution from spills from vessels at the surface, leakage from the riser or discharge pipes, and of upwelling dispersing metals from the mining activity or from the discharge water. The implications of these risks – especially for the people of New Ireland and possibly also East New Britain Province – demands that a thorough and independently verified analysis of currents be conducted as a basis for a comprehensive risk assessment”.

Dr. Luick at the end of the Report concluded:

“The authors of the EIS had access to excellent physical oceanographic data sets and modeling capacity. The EIS should have presented a clear and comprehensive picture of the physical ocean environment as a basis for environmental risk assessment and management. It has failed to do so”.

Subsea World News Staff, November 20, 2012;  Image: Nautilus Minerals




Share this article

Follow Subsea World News


<< May 2017 >>
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30 31 1 2 3 4

OGA 2017

OGA 2017 is the most beneficial way to meet, discuss and acquire the latest in the Oil & Gas industry! It is also;…

read more >


This seminar is designed to assist IMCA members in dealing with these, with a programme of technical and operational topics affecting…

read more >

Offshore Wind Energy 2017

In 2017, EWEA and RenewableUK will join forces to bring you the greatest conference and exhibition Europe has ever known in the history…

read more >

UTC 2017

The subsea industry has, as all other parts of the oil & gas industry, been seriously rattled by the most severe downturn in the hydrocarbon energy era. However, the realization of what hit us and actions to be taken to sustain a healthy and profitable future is still on-going – unfortunately with thousands of colleagues paying the price by losing their job as one of the most severe consequences. At this time, there are signs that we have reached bottom in terms of most industry indicators, but few experts expect a sharp recovery. Many seem to believe that a slow recovery is what the industry needs in order to avoid an unsustainable capacity build-up, as seen in the period after the financial crisis. Considering the uncertainty of what the future will bring, this year’s UTC Program Committee have decided to challenge all of us to present ideas, experiences, technological innovations, business models and execution models for how to shape our subsea future and explain how and why subsea is the future.
UTC welcomes abstracts based on the topics listed below. If selected, please consider writing a paper in addition to the UTC presentation. From 2017, UTC papers will be published in an international database.

More info

read more >