Jenny Jägerhorn | Melbourne editor

Hazelwood Power station in Victoria. Image: Jenny Jägerhorn

The air is crisp and the clouds over Latrobe Valley are as grey and thick as the smoke spewing out of the pipes of Australia’s most polluting power stations. The mining of the oldest brown coal reserves started in the 1950’s and even the younger power stations, built in the 80s, look like icons from the former Soviet Union, with their toxic green façades.

The brown-coal-fired generation plants in the valley account for 85 per cent of Victoria’s greenhouse contributions. Hazelwood power station produces up to 16 million tonnes of carbon dioxide each year, which is almost 15 percent of Victoria’s annual greenhouse gas emissions, and 3 percent of Australia’s total carbon emissions.

Environmentalists are calling for the closure of Hazelwood by 2012 to be followed by Gippsland’s other brown coal stations.

“Environmentalists have to make a large decision on how they’re going on about it. It’s not just the power stations they’re going to shut down, it’s three major towns [Morwell, Moe and Churchill] within the region and all the people that support the power stations as in workshops and industries that rely on it,” says Phil Bramstedt, who works as a belt technician at the Yallourn mine.

He has been working in the power industry for 25 years and has seen all the commotion around the industry during the past decades.

“There’s nothing they’ve really thought on the community side. Basically, Latrobe Valley has been built over the 70 years as a coal industry,” says Bramstedt.

Once owned by the state

All six power stations, Yallourn Power Station, Hazelwood Power Station, Energy Brix Power Station, Loy Yang Power Stations A & B and Jeeralang Power Station (gas), were once run by the government owned State Electricity Commission (SEC). The height of power production was in 1974, when the SEC employed 26, 000 workers in Latrobe Valley.

The privatisation of the state’s electricity in the 1990’s was commenced by the Kirner Labor government and continued by the Kennett Liberal government, delivering $23 billion dollars to the state coffers.

Hazelwood Power Station and the associated mine were privatised in 1996 and sold for $2.35 billion.

However, the privatisation came as a bombshell in the Latrobe Valley and led to mass layoffs. Jobs went down from 11, 000 in 1989 to only 2, 500 people working in the power industry in Latrobe Valley today, and many never returned. The SEC trained around 500 apprentices a year, but nowadays, the apprenticeships are a fond memory. The Government’s withdrawal wounded both the economy and the psyche of the community. Thriving families spiralled into despair as employment opportunities went up in smoke and social infrastructure failed.

Social problems

Gippsland Trades and Labour Council secretary John Parker says there are two to three generations of families that have lived but haven’t worked in the Latrobe Valley since the privatisation, which has led to major social problems with a lot of drug and alcohol abuse.

In the 15 years to 2005, the population of Latrobe municipality dropped from 75, 000 to 70, 000. More would have left the valley but were unable to because of the plummeting property prices.

“The biggest problem is that we have a market driven economy, but what we need is planning and leadership that work together with the community and the unions,” says Parker.

He sees the Government’s recent decision to postpone the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, which aimed at cutting Australia’s greenhouse gases by making the industry pay for the right to pollute, as unfortunate.

PHOTO GALLERY – Click to enlarge

“It would have given a certainty to the workers. Companies want to wait until the last minute and then just close everything and give redundancy packages. The rest of Gippsland will collapse around them without the support form the government,” says Parker.

The effects of what happened after the privatisation can still be seen. Many of the small businesses never recovered. Walking down the streets empty shops can be seen all over Morwell.

Bramstedt says the government backing in the Latrobe Valley is virtually zero.

“Every time we set up some sort of scheme to do anything here it’s always moved up to Melbourne or some consultant overseas. We put up the ideas and the next minute they’re moved out. Politicians don’t listen to anybody here,” he says.

One-fifth of local jobs in the valley remain directly related to electricity. Phil Bramstedt believes that closing down the coal business would mean the end for Latrobe Valley.

“This will just be like an American ghost town. I’ve already told my children not to rely on the Latrobe Valley as an employer in the future. My 21-year-old daughter is living and studying in Melbourne and my sons have made plans to move there. It is a very large part of Victoria’s economy that the government has to look at,” he says.

Australian Manufacturing Worker’s Union (AMWU) organizer in the La Trobe Valley, Steve Dodd, has a more positive vision about the future of coal but stresses that there needs to be a just transition to new industries.

He sees a future in coal and believes the power stations need to be retrofitted to make a more pollution-controlled zone, whether it will be in power stations or to put coal in to some other use, such as coaled oil or coal fertilisers.

“There’s got to be a change in the short term, there’s got to be a change in the long term, but it has to be a just transition with all parties involved. That includes not only the business groups but also the union and the community groups. They shouldn’t only be done on the basis on the next election in sight,” Dodd says.

“Heard promises before”

On the opposite side of the street from Loy Yang lies a big hole with a massive amount of the black gold. From here the coal strip goes up to a building that crushes the coal. Conveyer belts then move it further and dump it into the ominous, curved brown boilers. The 150-meter high chimney pumps out 14 million tonnes of greenhouse gases each year. The endless, overpowering, signature smell envelops you through the sticky air.

In March 2010, it was announced that the operators of Loy Yang A (Loy Yang Power) signed a contract with Alcoa World Alumina and Chemicals Australia for the supply of electricity to power aluminium smelters at Portland and Point Henry until 2036.

Loy Lang workers Neville Darragh, 53, and Toby Thornton, 50 have both worked in the power industry for more than 25 years and recognize that there has to be a change.

“There will have to be a move away from coal, but the biggest problem is where are we going to take the electricity from,” says Darragh.

They have heard promises by the Government before, assuring that new industries would come into the area, but without seeing it carried through. They fear that the past could be repeated.

“I think there’s a lot of pressure, Hazelwood was due to close 2005 but they’ve extended it to 2031. There isn’t really anything else,“ says Thornton.

“And Morwell power station [Energy Brix Power station] was supposed to shut down in 1996, all the money was set aside to close it down and it’s still running,” says Darragh.

“They’ve known that the plants here are getting old. They’ve had at least 20 years where they could have started looking around building new things.”

Redundancy packages a solution?

The Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU) says that a move away from coal is inevitable, but it believes the transition time would have to be minimum seven years.

Greg Hardy, Victorian secretary of the CFMEU’s mining and energy division says that the average age of the members is 53 years. So a natural or early retirement could be a solution, requiring that the Government supports them. If the power stations were closed gradually the younger employees could be moved to the newer power stations, Hardy suggests.

But the two Loy Lang workers aren’t convinced.

“How are we going to enjoy the life quality, if we don’t have the power? I think the government wouldn’t allow that. Where would they find money for that, when they they’re struggling with building new hospitals and roads,” says Thornton.

Both agree that people would probably look at redundancy packages if they were given enough to sustain their quality of life. But another aspect is that they feel that one needs a sense of wellbeing in the community as a contributor.

“You can’t just sit in the house and do nothing. We’re hands on people. When the SEC sold it off and downsized and gave away packages, people sat at home and the whole society here changed,” Darragh says.

The question remains, even if most of the workers retired earlier what else is there for the Valley?

“Even if they’re going to have these power stations closed, and if new technology would come along, who are they going to get to build it? These people pass on worthwhile skills to the younger generation,” says Thornton.

The Government recognises that the older and dirtier Hazelwood and Yallourn power stations are likely to close over the next ten years although compensation to the generators will slow that process. To combat devastating job losses alternatives need to be found.

Steve Dodd, from the AMWU, believes in developing manufacturing in Latrobe Valley.

“It could be solar hot water heaters or making parts for wind turbines, there could be a whole range of different, manufacturing of things in this region. It needs a bit of backing up from the government and the power stations and business groups.”

“We believe that there are more opportunities in new technology and in new ways of doing things than in the old power stations that haven’t been upgraded. If it would still be in government hands there would be two new power stations more up to date,” he says.

A recent report by Green Energy Markets for Environment Victoria has found that the closure and replacement of Hazelwood power station could be achieved by the end of 2012 for $320 million a year. The report also points out that an early closure of the power station would cut the state’s greenhouse gas emissions by 12 per cent.

Consultants Green Energy Markets found that Hazelwood could be replaced in one of two scenarios.

Firstly, a combination of large-scale gas-fired power of 1800 megawatts and an expanded renewable energy program of 1500 megawatts, mainly from wind.

Secondly, install less gas and introduce a residential and commercial energy efficiency program, wiping out the need for a quarter of Hazelwood’s electricity.

Environment Victoria expects between 1900 to 2500 construction jobs will be created in building the clean energy replacements for Hazelwood.

Another part of the jigsaw of the future may lie in hot rocks.

Professors Rachel Webster and Edwin Van Leeuwen of Melbourne University have discovered that the best site for geothermal power is in the Latrobe Valley. An operational test plant could be running within four years for $100 million.

John Parker questions the capacity of it. The existing coal-fired power plants in Latrobe Valley generate more than 6000 megawatts. Loy Yang A alone has four generating units with a combined capacity of 2200 megawatts.

“That’s a lot of power to replace within a few years. The problem with all of the thermal, carbon capture and solar test plants so far is that all are based on give us some money and we’ll try,” says Parker.

Nuclear power, popular in many countries in the European Union, where it provides around a third of the electricity, has had significant societal barriers to overcome in Australia. But perhaps attitudes will change?

“Nuclear power will come to Australia, we can’t get away from that, because people still want their lives to go on. If a nuclear power station is to be built it needs to be built here because the infrastructure is here. So I believe there will be a mix of energy,” says Darragh.

“Even if we decided to go on nuclear power, there would be another 10-15 years before we would have anything on tap,” says Thornton.

Despite the unhappy past they still have hope for the future.

“It’s got to be positive, there’s a lot of pressure everywhere, so I reckon pressure usually brings good,” says Darragh.

Both find it disappointing that the Climate Change Minister, Penny Wong hasn’t been to Latrobe Valley although there were promises to do so. Perhaps if she did, she would see how devastating bad planning could be to a community.

Jenny Jägerhorn is a GEJI exchange student currently at Monash University in Melbourne.

Related articles
Hundreds protest over Rudd’s backflip
Climate protesters planning new protests

Could whales and oil platforms be neighbours? Federal Resources Minister Martin Ferguson seems to think they can. He has just released new offshore oil leases, and some of them lie in areas that are flagged as potential marine sanctuaries. Pia Volk reports.

Oil leases compete with marine sanctuary proposals for Government approval. Image: Mike L. Baird.

Nearly 80 oil and gas approvals were made in Australian waters throughout the last 18 months, but not one marine reserve has been declared. Now federal Resources Minister Martin Ferguson has announced new drill and leases in South Australia and the area of Kangaroo Island – the same area that was flagged by Environment Minister Peter Garret for potential marine sanctuaries.

“What you’ve essentially seen is the Resources Minister Martin Ferguson jumping the gun and deliberately trying to get in before these marine sanctuaries have actually legally been declared,” says Peter Owen, campaign manager of the Wilderness Society in South Australia.

“They’ve been flagged and they’re currently being discussed, and now suddenly we’ve got oil acreage released right over the top of one of the more significant marine sanctuary propositions for the whole of southern Australia- the Kangaroo Island Canyons.”

The Kangaroo Island Canyons are very nutrient-rich areas and several species of whales feed there, a fact that has regional manager of the Whale and Dolphins Society Mike Bosseley concerned for their wellbeing.

“Whales and dolphins are vulnerable to being impacted by oil spills in several ways,” Bosseley says.

“One way is by eating the oil either directly in the water or if it gets onto fish. Another way is by absorbing it through their skins and another way is when the oil vaporises it just lies above the surface of the water and the whales and dolphins can breathe it in.”

Listen to this story on the Wire:

A similar case of conflicting interests between oil drilling and environmental protection occurred in Western Australia. There, a spokesperson of Mr Ferguson’s told The West Australian newspaper that the areas would continue to be evaluated as a marine reserve by the federal Environment Department, but within the framework of existing oil and gas leases.

“You can’t have a marine sanctuary with oil drilling in the middle of it… that completely defeats the purpose of having a marine sanctuary,” says Peter Owen. “What we’re basically calling on with the Rudd government is to make a decision here.”

Owen warns that the risk of accidents is very real.

“If you were to have an oil accident out where this is being proposed in the Kangaroo Islands Canyon area, you would decimate much of Kangaroo Island, which is South Australia’s tourism Mecca,” he says.

“You would then potentially also decimate much of the gulf areas and see oil washed up on some metropolitan beaches in Adelaide… We really can’t afford to take this type of risk.”

Pia Volk is a producer for The Wire .

By Jenny Jägerhorn | Melbourne Editor

Described as the 'dirtiest power station in Australia,' protesters are fighting for its closure. Image: Courtesy of Greenpeace/Hunt

With state and federal elections looming, the campaign by environmental activists to close Hazelwood, Australia’s dirtiest power station, is set to intensify with a demonstration planned for Thursday.

Environment Victoria, the state’s peak non-government environment organization, has been lobbying for closure since a demonstration last September in which 22 people were arrested amid ugly scenes.

Replace Hazelwood campaigners say Victoria must change the way it gets its energy supplies and the number one priority is to replace Hazelwood power station.

“It’s old, it’s inefficient and it’s time for it to be replaced. We have got this opportunity now because the owners have signalled that they will be willing to shut down, so there is a big opportunity for the government to step in and close Hazelwood and subsidize clean energy,” Environment Victoria climate change campaigner Victoria McKenzie-McHarg said.

Environment Victoria says the demonstration, scheduled to take place on May 6 on the steps of Parliament House in Melbourne, is for those wanting “real action to slash Victoria’s greenhouse pollution.”

The organisations behind the campaign to close Hazelwood power station are pressing the state and federal governments to negotiate with owners International Power to close it by 2012.

Environment Victoria feels optimistic it can negotiate closure.

In interviews with Reportage-Enviro, the union agrees that closure is inevitable, although it believes several years will be required, and the operator says it may agree to close the plant so long as compensation is paid.

Meanwhile, the Victorian government prolonged Hazelwood power station’s contract. It was scheduled to close down in 2005, but the Labor Government extended its contract until 2030.

Hazelwood burns brown coal, which is one of the dirtiest energy forms and is, according to Environment Victoria, responsible for 15 per cent of Victoria’s annual greenhouse gas emissions. According to a report commissioned by Environment Victoria – Victoria’s Energy Mix 2000-2009, Victoria’s reliance on coal fired electricity has increased in the last decade with both electricity generation and greenhouse pollution from coal increasing by nine percent since 2000.

Ms McKenzie-McHarg said that the Victorian government was under real pressure with an election looming and that seats could go to the Greens.

“People… will be watching very closely to see what the government decides to do on this issue,” she said.

“No plans to close within years”

Hazelwood’s owner International Power says the company itself decides when to close and has no plans to do it for years.

“It won’t be any union’s, it won’t be any environmental group’s, neither the state or federal Government’s decision. We will decide when it closes,” said Mr Neil Lawson, Public Affairs Manager at International Power Hazelwood.

He said that if governments were “wanting to phase out all the coal-fired power stations then there is a process to go through it, it is not a statement of closing down Hazelwood within a certain period of time.”

“We are not prepared to do anything until we see some certainty in the carbon policy direction of the Federal government,“ said Mr Lawson.

The Australian Government has claimed it is strongly committed to reducing carbon pollution with a goal of reducing emissions by 25 percent below 2000 levels by 2020.

But last week Prime Minster Kevin Rudd delayed plans until the Kyoto Protocol expires in 2012.

International power shares a vision with the both state and federal governments that coal will form the majority of the energy-mix in Australia for “some time to come.” The power station claims there is no replacement for efficient based coal power in this country at this point of time.

Minimum seven years transition

The Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union recognises that moving away from coal is inevitable but believes that the transition time needs to be at least seven years. The average age of its members is 53 years, so it believes a natural or early retirement could be a solution.

“Our members want security in the employment for the duration of their working life. The government will obviously have to play a significant role, because they will need to mandate that companies that are closing down will shift their younger employees across to power companies that are going to hang around for a while, because you can only close them down at a certain phase,” said Greg Hardy, Victorian secretary of the CFMEU’s mining and energy division.

After the privatisation of Hazelwood Power station in 1996, there were a lot of job losses in La Trobe Valley and, according to Mr Hardy, the workers got little help from the government. There is still a lot of mistrust in the Government.

“Both sides of politics in Victoria have been the enemy in La Trobe Valley for quite some time and I can’t see that suddenly changing. The Government does not talk to our union. They treat us like second-class citizens, but they seem to have lunches with the power industry bosses on a regular basis. Whether or not that will change, who knows,” said Mr Hardy.

In terms of the elections, Mr Hardy does not see much choice for the public because the major parties implement similar politics; they are both pro-coal.

“It’s the companies they look after and obviously for companies who aren’t presently set up in our industry that makes it very difficult for them, because it’s the big existing companies that get listened to, when their setting policy, not the future companies,” said Mr Hardy.

“In terms of the future of coal I think the future lays in alternate usage for it. But that is along way off,” said Mr Hardy.

Options to coal

Environment Victoria’s wants to reduce electricity demand in Victoria through energy efficiency measures.

It also supports new gas-fired power stations in Western Victoria as part of a transition, while building up renewable energy sources.

“La Trobe Valley is a manufacturing heart and we could be renewable energy and green technology there, but we need the Governments support for that,” said Ms McKenzie-McHarg.

Mr Hardy from CFMEU agrees that demand management is needed and believes it is possible through government regulation.

“You need base load renewable energy and the only one that seems to have the runs on the board at this stage is the solar thermal, with large scale storage. We would probably also need to have some sort of interim period where a bit more gas was used, but either way it would take a while to replace our older stations so that you progressively shut down an older station and whilst you’re doing that you’re commissioning new cleaner plants,” said Mr Hardy.

Professors Rachel Webster and Edwin Van Leeuwen of Melbourne University are working on a project called the Victorian Geothermal Assessment Report, on Geothermal power. They have discovered that the best site on earth for this is the Latrobe Valley, a prospective geothermal site with a vast amount of brown-coal needed for the process. An operational test plant could be running within four years for $100 million.

The next report will be published later this year.

Jenny Jägerhorn is a GEJI exchange student currently at Monash University in Melbourne.

By Dominic Geiger

Environmentalists say coal mines are no longer practical. Image: Iain Thompson.

A new coal mine planned for north of Maryborough in Queensland has recently received significant financial backing from a Chinese company, frustrating environmentalists in their struggle to prevent the operation going ahead.

Executive Director of the Queensland Conservation Council, Toby Hutcheon, says the coal mines will have a large negative environmental impact.

“The major issue obviously with coal mines is that the use of the coal is very emission intense. Any expansion of a coal mine- any increase in the export and use of that coal- will actually increase global greenhouse gas emissions.”

Roger Curry of the White Bay Burnett Conservation Council says the mine might not be exactly what it seems.

“We are particularly concerned about this proposal. Even though Northern Energy Corporation (NEC) is currently looking into a very small footprint pre-emptive project of 500 000 tonnes a year, it actually sits within a large coke and coal deposit called the Borough syncline which is approximately 50 000 hectares in size,” he says.

“[NEC] believes that there is 100 million tonnes of potential resource there, so we are concerned that this current proposal could be simply a small approval process to try and then have the ability to move into a large scale extraction of the 100 million tonnes.”

Keith Barker, managing director of NEC , says this isn’t the case.

“We’re looking at, on the scale of coal mining, a very small mine. The assessments of the environmental impacts are that they will not impact on anywhere apart from within the mining leash area. Part of our approval process is to do our environmental management plan.

Barker says the mine will have considerable benefits for both the local community and the state as a whole.

“There’ll be benefits through Queensland; the direct impact on the Maryborough region in terms of wages and direct services within the mine region is about 20 million dollars. In addition there will be export revenue from the sale of the coal, which will be from the order of $100 plus million a year, [and] royalties to the state government through things like rail and other services.”

Listen to this story on the Wire:

But according to Curry, the mine could cause significant harm to the local environment.

He says that the project is located close to the Great Sand Ramsar which could potentially create federal and state debate about biodiversity in the area.

There is also concern for the community as the mine is fairly close to the township.

“Given that the Queensland Government is pretty keen on coal as the way to save Queensland’s economy, we’re really up against it, but we will definitely put our biggest effort into ensuring that the biodiversity issues are well discussed.”

Hutcheon, however, says the building of new coal mines is altogether no longer feasible in a world affected by global warming.

“We are essentially living in an age where we have to dramatically reduce greenhouse gas emissions. That essentially means for the coal industry that we have to start to use less coal and use more of the alternatives particularly renewable energies,” he says.

“That is the reality of the times that we live in, so any expansion of coal mine [and] any increase in exports of coal will increase greenhouse gas emissions. That, we do not support.”

Dominic Geiger is a producer for The Wire.

By Joel Philp and Tara Egan

The Shen Neng 1, grounded on the Great Barrier Reef. Image: AMSA

Marine experts say damage from the Chinese oil tanker running aground on Australia’s Great Barrier Reef could be far worse that first thought.

The physical impact of the ship, the Shen Neng 1, ploughing into the reef on April 4 has caused extensive coral damage that may take 20 years to repair, according to Capricorn Conservation Council spokesman, Ian Herbert.

He said the vessel was going at full speed and travelled several kilometres along the sea bed before it came to rest.

“Those first video vision shots that people saw last East Sunday and Monday of that big slick of white floating on the surface, that was not oil, that was shredded coral,” Mr Herbert said.

“That really shows the extent to which the ship has crunched the coral and its formed a white powder and its floating on the sea.”

Listen to this story on the Wire:

The Shen Neng 1 came to rest in Douglas Shoal, just east of Great Keppel Island, leaking a small amount of oil that authorities are still monitoring.

Queensland reporter Marlina Whop said the Australian Institute of Marine Science will closely examine the World Heritage site.

“It will send its team of divers who are specialised in to looking at the reef, and who have been studying this for a number of years,” Ms Whop said.

“So those experts have been called in and this is really day by day turning into a large operation.”

It is still unclear as to whether the shipping company, Shenzhen Energy Transportation, will pay the full cost of the clean up.

Ian Herbert said that from past incidents, chances of the Queensland government receiving full payment from the shipping company are unlikely.

“We had a much bigger oil spill bigger that this a year ago off the east coast of Brisbane where a large quantity of oil washed up on the shores of Moreton Island and the state government is still out off pocket,” Mr Herbert said.

“There’s some gentleman’s agreement with these insurance companies that their viability is capped to $20 million and they don’t pay any more than that which I think that’s a very sad state of affairs.”

The Capricorn Conservation Council is pushing the federal government for policy reforms regarding shipping surveillance in Australian Shores.

Mr Herbert added that laws are not always sufficient in preventing these types of incidents.

“It’s all very well and good for the premier to say ‘look, if only they obeyed the rules this wouldn’t happen’, but if only all road users obeyed the rules, we would have no road toll, would we.”

By Matthew Knott

Activists get ready to go out on the water for the day. Image: Matthew Knott

Ship movements in Newcastle, home to the world’s biggest coal port, came to a halt yesterday as environmental activists opposed to the expansion of the coal industry staged a harbour blockade.

Coal exports from Newcastle are set to almost double from 93 million tonnes to 174 million tonnes by 2020, equivalent to a 40 per cent increase in Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions*.

Around 400 people from across NSW attended the protest – with half taking to the water in boats, kayaks and homemade rafts – according to Rising Tide , the local environmental group that organised the event.

“No coal ships moved into the harbour today, where there would normally be several,” Steve Phillips, spokesperson for Rising Tide, said. “They cancelled them because of our protest.”

Newcastle Port Corporation denied its services had been disrupted. A spokesperson said that several ships were due to enter and leave the port after the protest had been completed.

Six police boats, including the 32m ocean patrol vessel Nemesis, the largest police boat in the Southern Hemisphere, were on the harbour. No arrests were made.

In a bid to reduce logjams at Newcastle Port, where vessels wait up to 16 days to load, last year the NSW Government made it obligatory for coal terminal operators to provide extra capacity should a coal mining company open or expand a mine.

A new coal loader, the city’s third, began operations last week and a fourth terminal is already in the planning stages.

Newcastle state government MP Jodi McKay said the new export terminal has given a boost to the local economy.

“Up to 800 people have been working…each day thanks to the recent expansion.

“These jobs are great news for families in the Hunter and the flow-on effect they have to the region’s economy is very welcome.”

But green groups say the massive increase in coal exports will fuel dangerous climate change.

“Effectively you double our carbon footprint if you include our exports,” said Naomi Hodgson, a Newcastle environmentalist. “For Australia the most effective thing we can do is stop the expansion of the coal industry here.”

Ms Hodgson said coal mining was also having “devastating” effects on mining communities in the upper Hunter area.

“People are suffering quite severe impacts from increased dust and noise; people are suffering psychological impacts from the noise and health impacts such as asthma.”

Peter Kennedy, who has worked for 32 years as a coal miner in Muswellbrook, in the upper Hunter, travelled to the protest to demand a transition from coal to renewable energy.

“I would be one of the first people knocking on the door of a company making solar panels or thermal energy,” he said.

*Author’s note: Figures based on the US Energy Information Administration´s calculation that 1 tonne of combusted coal produces 2.89 tonnes of carbon dioxide. In 2007, Australia´s total greenhouse gas emissions were 597 tonnes, according to the Department of Climate Change.

By Calliste Weitenberg

A native Fimbriate Gudgeon (Oxyeleotris fimbriata) and Sooty Grunter (Hephaestus adamsoni) found dead at Yakerabo Creek in July 2007. Image: Kutubu Villagers.

A crucial scientific report has not been included in the environmental impact assessment of a new $16 billion gas project in Papua New Guinea, which received the final green-light from co-venturers last week.

The confidential report compiled by a global wetlands organisation for the World Wildlife Fund Australia (WWF) confirms evidence of acute pollution and a dramatic decline in the health of the internationally protected site, Lake Kutubu.

Crossing a section of its northern catchment area, the ‘PNG LNG’ project will run a 284 km gas pipeline near to the lake, already the site of major environmental degradation at the hands of mining development according to local villagers who live there.

Conducted by Wetlands International, the Rapid Ecological Health Assessment of the Lake Kutubu Ramsar Site, obtained by Reportage, confirms toxic levels of barium and lead in fish samples taken from the lake, as well as a dramatic decline in its unique fish stocks and exceptional water clarity.

“The ecological character of Lake Kutubu has changed markedly in the last ten years,” states the report.

“This is most clearly illustrated by an approximate 37% decline in density of fishes at four metres depth during this period, along with a declining size structure.

“There also appears to be a roughly 50% decline in water clarity in the lake over the last 17 years…”

The report raises concerns about the effects of oil mining that began at the lake in 1990. In recent years the oil mining has been conducted by Australian mining company Oil Search Ltd, a partner in the PNG LNG project.

Conducted over four days in October 2007, the Wetlands International report was commissioned following complaints by villagers about an acute pollution incident in June and July of that year which coincided with nearby drilling activities by Oil Search Ltd.

The lake is a designated “Wetland of International Significance” protected under the Ramsar Convention for its unique biodiversity and ecological significance, most notably for its pristine water and high level of rare fish endemic to the site.

This week, the Ramsar Secretariat said they were still investigating the 2007 pollution incident and the new joint Oil Search – Exxon Mobil – Santos PNG LNG project. It was signed off by all parties at a ceremony at the Papua New Guinea National Parliament House last week, but $US43 million in early works construction began in August.

Another Fimbriate Gudgeon found dead at Yakerabo Creek. Image: Kutubu Villagers.

One shellfish showed barium at 65 times the standard, selenium at 33 times the standard and arsenic at 30 times the standard.

Heavy metals in surface water samples collected in October by the report’s author, Aaron Jenkins, were within the World Health Organisation (WHO) standard for drinking water.

However, samples taken at the time of pollution in 2007 provided by villagers at Gese and Yakerabo – sites closest to an Oil Search well during the contamination event – were found to contain barium in concentrations of 36 mg/L, fifty-one times the WHO safe drinking water standard. Lead was found at 0.13 mg/L, thirteen times the standard.

During this pollution incident, villagers said the lake changed colour. Connected creeks discharged unnaturally yellow-brown coloured water, detergent-like bubbles floated on the surface and fish also died.

In statements recorded at the time of the pollution, villagers told of explosive vomiting and diarrhoea as well as skin and eye irritation after swimming in the water or eating fish and drinking from the lake and connected catchment areas.

One local girl is reported to have experienced extreme vomiting and died two days after eating freshwater perch from a heavily polluted part of the lake.

In the Wetlands International report, author Aaron Jenkins urges further investigations into the deterioration.

“Evidence of acute environmental pollution and associated human health problems at Lake Kutubu give very strong support to recommending further investigations on both the extent of these phenomenon, and to ensuring that actions are taken to fully address these problems,” he concludes.

WWF inaction

Finished in December 2007, the Rapid Ecological Health Assessment has not been released by WWF Australia.

Its findings – which are among the most recent for the lake – have not been assessed in the PNG LNG project’s Environmental Impact Assessment, raising new concerns over the extent and accuracy of the project’s future impacts on the lake.

Neither WWF or Oil Search have carried out any further scientific investigations into the pollution of the lake, despite its strong suggestions for follow-up investigations.

In correspondence to Friends of Lake Kutubu, an Australian group representing the local Kutubu villagers, the International Program Development Manager at WWF Australia, Peter Ramshaw, said the report’s recommendations and any further water testing were “not within WWF’s remit”.

“Aaron’s report contains a series of recommendations, these are not within WWF’s remit, it is now up to the appropriate authorities to take up their own responsibilities,” he said.

“Again, [water monitoring] is not part of WWF’s remit and we have not been engaged to carry out any monitoring of the water quality nor do we have the expertise to do so.

“The responsibility for this lies initially with the Government of PNG’s Department of Environment and Conservation and thereafter with [Oil Search Limited] if it is demonstrated that their responsibility was engaged,” he said.

WWF is funded by Oil Search Ltd to conduct conservation projects in the area, called the Kikori Integrated Conservation and Development Project.

First established under Chevron Niugini in 1994 and continued by Oil Search Ltd after its take-over in 2003, this funding arrangement is currently in its fifth phase of the partnership which began in 1993.

WWF Australia, its PNG offices and Oil Search Ltd have not answered questions about how much this arrangement is worth.

No annual reports by Oil Search Ltd or WWF declare the funding amounts, despite listing the project among their environmental initiatives.

WWF Australia has also ignored its own peer review of the report by an external applied ecologist who found the Wetlands International assessment to be “well written and balanced” and its conclusions both “conservative” and “sensible”.

While noting that the samples were small and there was a lack of overall statistical data, this peer review especially supported recommendations for further investigation, also calling for “a sustained and rigorous monitoring program” of the lake.

Wetlands International Oceania – who compiled the report for WWF – says it stands by the report and that it is a valid preliminary assessment of the lake’s health, despite its ‘snapshot’ analysis of data collected across a four-day period.

An introduced carp (Cyprinus carpio). Image: Kutubu Villagers.

Doug Watkins, Manager of Wetlands International Oceania, agrees follow up investigations into these findings should have been by conducted by WWF to form comparative, statistically significant data.

“The work that we did was over a short period of time, it was a very preliminary assessment. I would have liked to have seen in the period afterwards a quick follow up into the findings,” he said.

No further studies or investigations have been done by WWF Australia in PNG.

In November, Reportage revealed WWF Australia did not alert the Ramsar Convention to the report or original evidence of pollution, despite it being party to an international wetlands protection agreement.

Wetlands International Oceania, which is also an official partner of the Ramsar Convention, said it was unable to pass on the report to the convention’s international body due to its confidentiality agreement with WWF Australia.

Pollution links

Further concerns are raised by the report over potential links between the mining activities of Oil Search Ltd within the area, the high heavy metal counts in both the lake’s water and fish stocks and the reports of illnesses by local villagers.

None of these have ever been fully investigated.

The Rapid Ecological Health Assessment finds the symptoms suffered by villagers after eating or drinking from the lake are synonymous with the effects of barium poisoning. Barium is a compound used to drill oil and gas wells.

“The symptoms described by villagers, particularly in the vicinity of Gese and Yakerabo and around the time of the alleged event, of explosive vomiting and diarrhoea are consistent with the effects of acute toxicity of barium, a major component of drilling mud,” it says.

Symptoms of major skin and eye irritation and the descriptions of detergent like bubbles on the contaminated water are also found by the report to be consistent with the health and environment effects of drilling foam.

The potential for underground chemical seepage through the easily eroded limestone geology of Lake Kutubu from Oil Search Ltd’s Kutubu 2 drill site and surface mud pits – which store and treat the toxic run off during drilling – has not fully been investigated.

Both the well and its drilling fluid settlement ponds (which store the chemical run-off from the well during drilling) were situated within the lake’s catchment boundaries and also within a major groundwater recharge zone for Lake Kutubu.

No investigations by Oil Search Ltd have been conducted into specific surface and groundwater pathways in this landscape and it maintains it was not the cause of the pollution.

A statement issued to Reportage by Peter Botten, Executive Director of Oil Search Ltd, said two independent reviews – one conducted by the DEC and the other by WWF (the Rapid Ecological Health Assessment) – cleared its operations of any link to the pollution.

“Both found no evidence of a causal link between our drilling operation and the events at the lake,” it states.

“Toxicity tests carried out on mud chemicals used in the drilling process indicated that, even in undiluted form, they had effectively no toxicity.”

“While there was turbidity observed in the tributaries that were sampled, all measurements were well within WHO water quality standards,” it states.

Oil Search Ltd said it responded immediately to villager reports of toxic pollution by shutting down drilling operations to investigate potential linkages to its operations.

“None could be established and at no time was the well considered to be unstable,” it said.

Drilling reports for the Kutubu 2 well obtained by Reportage from the Australian Stock Exchange (ASX) and lodged by Oil Search Ltd reveal the well was considered unstable.

Lodged reports from March 15 to June 25 2007 show the well was plagued by “ongoing losses” which slowed weekly drilling progress to a mere three metres by week six and prevented any drilling altogether in weeks nine, twelve and thirteen of the operation.

By week fifteen, a final drilling report issued by Oil Search Ltd to the ASX stated, “due to the instability of the Kutubu 2 hole, it has been decided to plug and abandon the well.”

Note:

If you would like to contact Calliste Weitenberg with further information, please email calli.weitenberg@gmail.com

While the world’s attention is focused on the 2009 Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen, the Pacific Island country of New Caledonia is quietly struggling with its own climate change burden. Nicole Gooch investigates.

A camp at one of the world's largest nickel deposits, the Goro mine. Image: Wikicommons

Best known to Australians for its attractive tropical beaches and French food, New Caledonia will also soon become infamous as one of the highest emitters of CO2 in the word, thanks to plans for two new nickel mines and three new coal-fired power stations.

The island country is set to emit 36 tonnes of CO2 per person annually by 2015, ranking 7th in the world just in front of the United Arab Emirates and well ahead of Australia, with its 20.6 tonnes. Most of the coal used in New Caledonia will be imported from Australia.

France, which still has shared sovereignty over New Caledonia, did not include the island and its population of 250 000 people in its ratification of the Kyoto Protocol in 2002.

This time round, though, the President of New Caledonia, Philippe Gomes, will be at the Copenhagen summit, and he wants New Caledonia to take part in action against climate change. The problem is that New Caledonia also holds 25 per cent of the world’s nickel reserves and is the world’s third largest exporter of nickel, behind Russia and Canada.

The existing nickel treatment plant sits in the middle of Noumea, in the Southern Province, and belongs to the country’s oldest and largest nickel producer, the Societe Le Nickel (SLN), part of the powerful French group Eramet. The SLN plans on building a new coal-fired power station by 2015 to replace its current fuel power generation plant.

For Kanak independentist George Mandaoue, an Assembly member for New Caledonia’s Northern Province, the construction of a second big mine down south and a coal-fired power station up north is incomprehensible.

“It is just incredible that we are going ahead with such developments, without having made any effort to look into economic alternatives or done studies on using renewable energies to avoid such high levels of CO2 emissions.”

The CEO of the SLN, Pierre Alla, believes that the environmentalists’ criteria of measuring CO2 emissions per capita is inadequate.

“Given the small size of our population, and the fact that most of the carbon emitted is for exports, I think that using per capita measurements is not relevant.”

The other two nickel treatment plants that the new coal-fired stations will power are still being built. The Koniambo Nickel Sas (KNS) mine in the Northern Province is owned by the Anglo-Swiss group Xstrata and the local SMSP, and is due to start operations in 2012. The second mine is at the extreme end of the Southern Province, at Goro, in the Bay of Prony, and is owned by the Brazilian company Vale-Inco. Goro is one of the world’s largest nickel deposits and mining is due to start production in 2010, using a new chemical treatment process.

Martine Cornaille with Kanak women at the Place des Cocotiers, Noumea, for the action against climate change day. Image: Nicole Gooch

Mr Mandaoue does point out that the mine up north is necessary for social development and political peace in New Caledonia, and to achieve equality with the more affluent Southern Province. But he also believes that “instead of rushing into copying the existent industrial models and contributing to global warming, we could have become proud pioneers in renewable energies and sustainable development.”

But both agree that the total CO2 emissions of New Caledonia need to be looked at from a global perspective, and whilst for some this means that the country’s contribution to global warming is minuscule, for others it means that New Caledonia now has a moral responsibility towards the rest of the planet, and in particular, towards its closest Pacific Island neighbours.

“We like to consider ourselves Pacific Islanders, but Pacific Islanders normally have a strong sense of solidarity towards each other. We are certainly not showing much of that at the moment,” said Mr Mandaoue.

“Of course the country’s emissions are tiny on a global scale, but it is no excuse. Rather, it is selfish and irresponsible,” said Martine Cornaille, president of the association of environmental NGOs, Together for the Planet.

According to Ms Cornaille, thousands of hectares of New Caledonia’s biodiversity have already been destroyed through more than a century of mining, and any restoration will be at great cost for the government.

“Intensive mining and its pollution also come at a cost for the population’s health and social well-being. Is it really worth it?”

Renewable energies, comprising hydro, wind and solar energy, is becoming a significant source of electricity in New Caledonia, producing 16 per cent of the country’s domestic needs. But two-thirds of the country’s total power production is consumed by the metal industry and the SLN itself consumes 90 per cent of the energy production from the hydro-power station, so that 78 per cent of New Caledonia’s power production comes from fossil fuels.

Meanwhile, the last fifteen years have witnessed the installation of 60 windmills in the Southern Province, many overlooking the construction site of the Goro mine. On some days, the windmills generate enough power to cover all the domestic needs of New Caledonia’s second largest town, Mont-Dore.
A little further south and right next-door to the Goro site, the 2000 inhabitants of the town of Yate are also gearing up towards sustainable development.

“We plan on developing new capacities for Yate in terms of renewable energy, through wind and hydro power as well as tidal energy,” said Raphael Mapou, High Chief of the St Louis tribe and chairman of the Rhéébù Nùù Committee, a strong indigenous rights group.

Following six years of both legislative and occasionally more physical battles, the Rhéébù Nùù Committee, the Customary Senate and representatives of the 8 Customary Districts of the South, have now signed a treaty with the mining giant Vale-Inco.

“The Treaty covers the protection of the environment and reforestation, as well as issues such as socio-cultural impacts, youth, education and economic development,” said Mr Mapou.

According to SLN CEO Alla, “the objectives of the SLN are to conform to European and New Caledonian legislation in terms of environmental protection.”

The switch over to the new coal-fired power station would reduce emissions of sulphur dioxide to around seven per cent of what they are now. However, the SLN plans on increasing its energy production, thanks to burning coal, with the aim of reaching 210 MW. The Goro power station in the south will be producing 100 MW, half of which will be for public consumption. The Koniambo KNS mine in the north will be producing 270MW, all of which will be for the nickel treatment plant.

“New Caledonia is an insular economy, and at this stage it has no viable economic alternatives to mining. Renewable energies would only produce a marginal amount of our factory’s needs,” said Mr Alla.

But according to the President of Together for the Planet, Ms Cornaille, “The industrialists have prioritised a short-term outlook. It should be the responsibility of our country’s leaders to prioritise the long-term.”

Chief Mapou said he regrets that more research was not done on the impacts of the coal fired power stations and on that of having three big mines in New Caledonia, be it environmental impacts or social consequences of the island being turned into a consumerism society.

“For the past couple of decades the position of the Kanak leaders has been the same: we need to control the development of the nickel industry so that it has a sustainable development trajectory. This is far from being the case now.”

New Caledonia may have missed out on the Kyoto protocol, but it did sign the 2006-2015 Pacific Islands Framework for Action on Climate Change. The framework is administered by the Pacific Regional Environment Programme (SPREP), an inter-governmental organisation based in Samoa, which includes Australia, New Zealand, France and the United States as members, in addition to 22 Pacific Island countries.

According to SPREP’s Climate Change Advisor, Espen Ronneberg, who was also vice-chair of the 1997 Kyoto Conference, “New Caledonia needs to expand its electricity supply. It would have been good if additional energy efficiency measures could be considered, as well as renewable energy options.”

But for Assembly member Mr Mandaoue, there is still too much of a gap between political discourse on the environment and the reality.

“We should have prioritised investments in renewable energies and done comparative studies between the costs of mining and the benefits of establishing huge national forest reserves for eco-tourism for instance,” he said.

Chief Mapou is positive that active community involvement will play a vital role in steering things onto right track.

“The indigenous populations and customary Kanak leaders are going to get increasingly involved in protecting the environment and promoting renewable energies and eco-tourism. We will be guided by an approach to development that takes into account indigenous rights and traditional and philosophical values.”

Nicole Gooch is a freelance journalist currently living in New Caledonia. Contact her at nicolesgooch@gmail.com for further information.

By Calliste Weitenberg

Lake Kutubu (Image: Ants of New Guinea)

An international body for the protection of wetlands is investigating acute toxic pollution and a PNG government approved plan for a $15.6 billion mining project at Lake Kutubu – a world listed site.

The Ramsar Secretariat, responsible for the Ramsar Convention on internationally significant wetlands, will question the PNG Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC) over an unreported toxic pollution event in 2007 and a projected $15.6 billion PNG LNG mining project at the world recognised lake.

“The Secretariat did not hear about the event (pollution) in 2007 until [Reportage] brought it to our attention,” Lewellyn Young, senior regional advisor for Asia/Oceania of the Ramsar Convention Secretariat, told Reportage. “If there has been an incident, then the next step is for us to get assistance for that site.”

The Ramsar Secretariat will also ask questions about the PNG Government’s decision to sign off on the multi- billion dollar Oil Search-ExxonMobil-Santos gas project.

Evidence of acute toxic pollution at Lake Kutubu in June and July 2007 was reported in the media by the Sydney-based Sun Herald in September. Kutubu residents made statements at the time of the pollution incident that  the water changed colour and large numbers of fish floated on the surface of the lake.

Many also said they had suffered severe vomiting, diarrhoea and skin and eye irritation – including skin-sores – after swimming in the water or eating fish and drinking from the lake.

One local girl is reported to have died two days after eating fish from the lake.

As a signatory to the Ramsar Convention since 1998, the PNG Government is directly responsible for maintaining the ecological health of Lake Kutubu.

Under the Convention, it is obliged to report to the Secretariat at the earliest possible time any change or threat of change to the ecological character of its wetland.

Sites where changes in ecological character have occurred, are occurring, or are likely to occur, are also to be placed on the Secretariat’s Montreux Record for closer monitoring.

Reportage research shows there are  discrepancies in the accounts by the DEC and the Australian mining company Oil Search Ltd – who was drilling the site at the time – about when they first became aware of the incident, the nature of investigations and the likely cause of the pollution.

In a statement issued by its executive director Peter Botten, Oil Search Ltd said it reported the incident immediately to the PNG Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC) on May 23 2007, followed by a detailed incident report that was delivered on June 21.

Oil Search Ltd said: “Two external independent reviews were conducted, one by the DEC and one by the [World Wildlife Fund].”

A letter obtained by Reportage from the Secretary of the Department of Environment and Conservation, Dr. Wari Iamo, stated:.

“…Oil Search Ltd did not inform the Department at that time or immediately after the incident had occurred. DEC only became involved in October 2007, several months after the alleged incident had occurred,” it states.

Whatever the date the DEC was told about the pollution incident, the Ramsar Secretariat says that the PNG Government – which is a significant shareholder in Oil Search’s PNG mining operations – never alerted it to the pollution.

The DEC’s internal review of the pollution incident has also never been made public.

Asked why the Ramsar Secretariat was not notified, the DEC’s National Ramsar Officer, James Sabi, said he was not aware of any pollution incident at Lake Kutubu.

The World Wildlife Fund (WWF), who is an active caretaker in the Kutubu region, also did not notify Ramsar of the incident although they had carried out investigations into the pollution.

WWF receives annual funding from Oil Search for projects that protect the Lake Kutubu environment.

Last year they received $AUS600, 000 from Oil Search and a further $US48, 000 from the Asian Development Bank for work on a water catchment management plan

The head of WWF in PNG, Iain Carr, told Reportage it was the responsibility of the DEC, not WWF, to report the pollution to Ramsar.

“The PNG Government is the signatory to Ramsar and thus has the responsibility for reporting,” he said.

“But all stakeholders, including WWF as an environmental non-governmental organisation with local involvement, would be consulted.”

The WWF website declares it consults, co-operates and works with the Ramsar Convention to “help governments to implement their commitments under the convention” and to uphold “strong international laws and policies that ensure the sustainable management, equitable use, and adequate protection of biodiversity and natural resources.”

The Ramsar Convetion also states that “competent NGOs and other “third parties” who can supplement information obtained by official bodies should provide “early warning” notification to site managers and relevant authorities of changes or likely changes…”

Vainuupo Jungblut, Associate Ramsar Officer for the Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Program (SPREP) based in Fiji, said he had not been told about the $15.6 billion Oil Search-ExxonMobil-Santos gas project.

“It is a big concern for us,” he said.

“If and when you join and sign up to the Ramsar convention it’s believed that you express a commitment to its regulations and that you do everything possible to make sure the ecological functions and characteristics of the site are maintained.

“This includes reporting any changes.”

Under the Convention, the PNG Government is obliged to provide a fully updated Ramsar Information Sheet for Lake Kutubu at least every six years and submit a detailed National Report to the Secretariat every three years before its official Conference.

The PNG Government has failed to submit its National Report since 2002, ignoring the 2005 and 2008 Conference deadlines.

If you would like to contact Calliste Weitenberg with further information, please email calli.weitenberg@gmail.com.

The case against oil giant Chevron may finally be coming to an end after at least 16 years in the court system, writes Sophie Palmer.

The Amazon rainforest in Ecuador has been damaged and local communities poisoned by negligent remidiation of oil well sites in the 1990s (Image: L. Marcio Ramalho).

The long running environmental case against oil giant Chevron over its activities in the Amazon rainforest of Ecuador gained momentum recently, when two Chevron lawyers committed fraud in their testimony.

This case has spanned decades, beginning when Ecuador’s state oil company, Petroecuador, was involved in a project with US partner Texaco Petroleum (Texpet), which merged into Chevron in 2001.

The lawsuit was first filed against Texaco in 1993, and will now determine whether Chevron will be forced to pay for clean up and remediation costs for the 18 billion gallons of toxic wastewater that was dumped during its operation in the Amazon from 1964 to 1990.

Although the Ecuadorian government and Texaco declared the sites remediated after the company spent $40 million in the 1990’s to clean up the contaminated areas, a civil suit has been brought against the company on behalf of thousands of indigenous residents.

The pollution has been labelled one of the biggest environmental catastrophes ever witnessed, and a new court-ordered report has found extensive levels of toxic contamination in oil well sites, which the company previously claimed to have been effectively remediated in the mid 1990’s. The report now clears the way for a decision within the coming months.

Pablo Fajardo represents the Ecuadorian communities, and believes the latest results will most likely be used against two Chevron lawyers and seven former Ecuadorian government officials for lying about the results of the remediation in the mid 1990’s in exchange for a release from government claims against the company.

The case has been presented by an international team of lawyers claiming that the area’s high rates of cancer and other health issues are a direct result of pollution from the oil company’s operations there.

Plaintiffs allege that cleanup efforts have continually been substandard, with hazardous waste and crude oil left in hundreds of open pits dug all over the Amazonian forest floor.

The remediation carried out by Texaco has been particularly criticised for being an illegal cost cutting exercise. It is alleged that the oil giant deliberately chose not to use the standard oil industry operation known as ‘re-injection’, a process that involves firing the toxic waste back into the bored well cavity.

Instead, Texaco was allegedly involved in dumping topsoil over small portions of 916 unlined pools of toxic waste so as to disguise the remnant pollutants in the open dumpsites.

It is claimed that this resulted in the poisonous waste by-products seeping into the water table, contaminating the drinking water of local inhabitants. The plaintiffs say that over the last 20 years, cancer and other serious health issues have escalated enormously in populations who live close to these sites.

According to ChevronToxico in their international campaign website Campaign for Justice in Ecuador, Texaco deliberately and fraudulently took short cuts in their remediation programs. This saved them between $1.5 and $4.5 billion in operational expenses at the cost of the health and welfare of the local indigenous population.

One of the lead plaintiffs, Luis Yanza, had nothing but contempt for the remedial work that Chevron claims it undertook years ago.

“The corrective work they say they performed does not exist,” he told the United States radio program Free Speech Radio. “Water and soil samples have been taken at the sites which Chevron says they have cleaned up, and the results show incredibly high levels of toxicity.”

Similarly, New York based attorney Steve Donziger argues that the remediation work was more of a cover up than a clean up.

“They just took dirt and ran it over the pits without cleaning them out. You cannot live over a toxic waste pit without being exposed to carcinogens.”

According to a damages assessment produced in April 2008 by a team of court-appointed experts, all 45 of the remediated sites previously inspected during the trial showed illegal levels of Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPHs) that were thousands of times higher than normal.

Of the 178 water and soil samples collected by Chevron’s own experts, over 90 percent indicated high levels of contamination that surpass the lax Ecuadorian norms. Of the 69 separate samples taken by the Amazon Defence Coalition, every test sample showed extensive levels of toxic contamination.

Chevron does not deny that Texaco dumped the toxic waste into the rainforest, but maintains that the Ecuadorian government released it from further clean-up operations.

However, Mr Fajardo argues that although Chevron has attempted to use the remediation as a defence in the trial, this recent evidence of fraudulent test results give these claims little or no value.

“Not only does the remediation fail as a defence at trial, it has backfired into a criminal indictment against Chevron lawyers, who orchestrated a fake clean up with the apparent help of corrupt Ecuadorian government officials,” Mr Fajardo said.

“Chevron’s continued use of this defence in the face of scientific evidence that clearly exposes the remediation as a sham, calls into question the company’s credibility on many aspects of the trial.”

The original damage estimate of $6 billion has been reassessed to $27 billion and the number of cancer deaths from oil is estimated to be greater than 1,400.

Analysts seem to have mixed opinions as to what the Ecuadorian fallout may mean to Chevron, but agree that there will be at least a short term knock to the stock price. Leading oil industry analyst, Faded Gheit, said that the case has been poorly handled by Chevron.

“I think the longer it lingers the more it will cost,” said Gheit. “The sooner they resolve it, the better off shareholders are. I don’t think it will cost $27 billion, but it will certainly cost a hell of a lot more than the $1.8 billion Chevron has reserved for liabilities.”

If the legal experts are correct in their prediction, it will be the first time in history that a large oil company will be subject to a significant judgement over environmental damages in the court of a developing nation.

In September this year, Chevron filed an international arbitration claim against the government of Ecuador claiming Ecuador is exploiting the company through the ongoing lawsuit, as well as the failing to uphold its duties under decade-old contracts. The arbitration is currently before the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague under the Rules of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law.

Director of the Los Angeles Environmental Law Center, Sean Hecht, believes this to be an epic case.

“The sheer size of the money involved explains why a company like Chevron will continue to fight this as long as possible,” he said. “You could be looking at years, if not decades before any money exchanges hands.”

Although this may be true, for now the noise appears to be getting louder.

Perhaps public opinion and corporate share value will draw a better response from Chevron management than the Ecuadorian villagers who are living in the toxic, oil polluted environment created by the company.