3 ms·

Sure that is one factor. However the environmental impact of the mining as well as insufficient compensation to the people of Boganville is also contributed to

Sure that is one factor. However the environmental impact of the mining as well as insufficient compensation to the people of Boganville is also contributed to the conflict.

roenxi 7y ago
> The mine was vitally important to the economy of Papua New Guinea. The PNG national government received a 20% share of profit from the mine, of which the Bougainvilleans received 5% - 1.25% share of the total profit [0] Present day PNG has a per-capita GDP in the single-digit thousands, and that mine was a money printing machine. Did the mine operation contribute to the conflict? Obviously yes, it was a major contributing cause. Insufficient compensation? Pull the other one, that sort profit sharing is reasonable and traditionally governments regulate if the environmental conditions aren't suitable. Besides, the environmental impact will have done them vastly less damage than them killing each other and and being dirt poor. Francis Ona did a great deal of damage to PNG and to Beugainville, as did the PNG government's obvious mismanagement of the Beugainville region. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bougainville_Copper https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bougainville_Copper
- qtplatypus 7y ago
  From the wiki you are quoting from the Australian courts found that it was inadequate. As to the government environmental regulation was insufficient I completely agree. However I am of the (perhaps naive) view that a company should be engaging in best practice with regards to environmental impact rather then "Only enough to comply with local laws".
  - roenxi 7y ago
    That judgement is talking about a specific case of local farmers land plots damaged by building an access road; not the profit sharing situation of the mine overall. I'd be shocked if they offered something that was normal under Australian law; Australian property is worth an order of magnitude more than PNG property. Purchasing Power Parity and all that. You can't find a large project that pleases everyone. Roads, mines, skyscrapers, etc all upset somebody; such disputes are neither war crimes nor genocide. They aren't even a reflection of how much money the project is funnelling in to the local economy. Also, best practice in the 80s was pretty poor practice. Miners have learned a lot / been regulated very differently in recent decades.

Sure that is one factor. However the environmental impact of the mining as well as insufficient compensation to the people of Boganville is also contributed to the conflict.

roenxi 7y ago

> The mine was vitally important to the economy of Papua New Guinea. The PNG national government received a 20% share of profit from the mine, of which the Bougainvilleans received 5% - 1.25% share of the total profit [0] Present day PNG has a per-capita GDP in the single-digit thousands, and that mine was a money printing machine. Did the mine operation contribute to the conflict? Obviously yes, it was a major contributing cause. Insufficient compensation? Pull the other one, that sort profit sharing is reasonable and traditionally governments regulate if the environmental conditions aren't suitable. Besides, the environmental impact will have done them vastly less damage than them killing each other and and being dirt poor. Francis Ona did a great deal of damage to PNG and to Beugainville, as did the PNG government's obvious mismanagement of the Beugainville region. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bougainville_Copper https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bougainville_Copper

qtplatypus 7y ago
From the wiki you are quoting from the Australian courts found that it was inadequate. As to the government environmental regulation was insufficient I completely agree. However I am of the (perhaps naive) view that a company should be engaging in best practice with regards to environmental impact rather then "Only enough to comply with local laws".
- roenxi 7y ago
  That judgement is talking about a specific case of local farmers land plots damaged by building an access road; not the profit sharing situation of the mine overall. I'd be shocked if they offered something that was normal under Australian law; Australian property is worth an order of magnitude more than PNG property. Purchasing Power Parity and all that. You can't find a large project that pleases everyone. Roads, mines, skyscrapers, etc all upset somebody; such disputes are neither war crimes nor genocide. They aren't even a reflection of how much money the project is funnelling in to the local economy. Also, best practice in the 80s was pretty poor practice. Miners have learned a lot / been regulated very differently in recent decades.