Australian mining is poisoning El Salvador. It could soon send it broke, too
Australian mining is poisoning El Salvador. It could soon send it broke, too
OceanaGold, an Australian mining company, is trying to compel El Salvador to allow it to mine. If it wins a high-profile legal case, the results for the poor country will be dire
Damien Kingsbury
theguardian.com, Thursday 2 October 2014 23.08 EDT
The stream that leads into the San Sebastian River in the poor and tiny Central American country of El Salvador runs bright yellow, not for the gold in the mine nearby but for the chemical byproducts which leach into the water. That stream is emblematic in a fight between an Australian mining company and the El Salvador government, over whether there should be gold mining in the country.
If El Salvador wins this fight, it will preserve a bipartisan policy on mining, a country’s right to make policy generally, and to protect its main water supply in particular.
If it loses, then a foreign mining company will be able to ride roughshod over the country’s democratic process and prosecute a financial claim that could send its government broke.
The yellow stream which symbolises what can happen with gold mining is a consequence of “acid mine drainage”. This stream in question flows into the San Sebastian River, where it has killed all aquatic life, and then into the sea, where it causes further environmental damage.
Nearby San Sebastian village suffers a high rate of disease linked to arsenic poisoning as a result of this pollution. El Salvador’s government believes that, if the Australian mining company’s attempt to impose a new gold mine is successful, there could be even more devastating consequences for the country’s limited drinkable water supply.
More:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/oct/03/australian-mining-is-poisoning-el-salvador-it-could-soon-send-it-broke-too
= new reply since forum marked as read
> The Australian-listed, Melbourne headquartered company OceanaGold is
> suing El Salvador in a US-based court for more than $300 million - almost
> half the government’s annual budget – over the government’s refusal to
> grant the gold mining permit.
> OceanaGold is claiming that under the US-central America free trade agreement,
> it has a “right” to compel mining or be compensated for loss of profits.
1) What does the "US-Central America free trade agreement" have to do with
the dispute between an Australian company and a Central American one?
2) Why is this being held in a US-based court anyway?
My personal suspicions are that the answers to the above are
1) Nothing but there are some big US-based investors.
2) Best opportunity to buy the verdict you want (cf Chevron).
but I'm open to being informed on the matter if anyone knows.
