Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
How to deal with opponents of deep-sea mining in PNGs waters?
#1

As we all know, there are groups and individuals who  are concerned about and strongly opposed to Nautilus Minerals’ deep-sea mining project off the coast off Papua New Guinea. Let us discuss arguments and tactics that we could use on- and offline to counter criticism levelled against Nautilus Minerals. I have written down what I currently see as the main arguments  - please correct, enhance and complete these statements as you see fit.

1. Deep sea mining causes damage to the environment and local economy

- Claim: The deep sea mining operations planned by Nautilus Minerals will wreak havoc on the fragile marine ecosystem off the coast of Papua New Guinea, thereby threatening the livelihood of fishermen .

- Counterarguments: Almost any human activity can be associated with both positive and negative consequences. While deep sea mining will inflict some damage - primarily mechanical in nature - to the soil from which the minerals will be extracted, a lot suggests that the technique envisaged by Nautilus Minerals is significantly less harmful than land-based mining activities, for the following reasons:

a) Unlike in land-based mining, no acid rock draining will occur, and no explosives will be used in the process. Once the extraction of the rock containing the ore has taken place, organisms living on the floor of the deep sea can and will reclaim their territory.

b) Subsea mining requires no access roads which cut deep into uninhabited territority on land. Likewise, since the seafloor mining tools will be operated remotely, there will be no need to set up infrastructure to support mining crews which are the cause of “secondary” stress and pollution in the vicinity of land-based mining sites.

c) It is true that deep sea mining will cause considerable noise and vibration where it is carried out and beyond. However, the fish and shoals targeted by fishermen from Papua New Guinea do not live in the immediate proximity of the mining site which is 1600 meters below the sea-level. While it is conceivable in theory that fish relatively nearby will shift their location somewhat as a result, unlike high sea fishery deep sea mining is relatively localised in scope and does not systematically target and reduce large shoals. Also, as the technology matures, ways of reducing noise and vibrations will be found.

2. Deep sea mining equals big profits for big business (only):

Claim: Like other mining operations, deep sea mining will primarily benefit (large) foreign corporations and their shareholders. As has happened in the past, the inhabitants of Papua New Guinea will see little if any increase in living standards as a result.

- Counterarguments:  Already today, Nautilus Minerals recruits a share of its personnel from Papua New Guinea, which includes geologists and members of corporate management. If the envisaged deep sea mining projects off the coast of Papua New Guinea is successful, the government stands to see a considerable increase of its current revenues as a result. To be sure, the presence of minerals or oil on the territory of a country does not in itself guarantee high living standards for the entire population. Yet, the examples of the Gulf monarchies, Norway, Australia, Scotland and Canada (it would be good to have more examples outside of the anglosphere) prove that it would be shortsighted to view the abundance of certain natural resources as something that is best left untouched.

3. Foreign corporations are destroying the traditional lifestyle of Papua New Guineans

Claim: The inhabitants of Papua New Guinea were living in harmony with nature prior to the advent of foreign-owned industrial companies. Their activities and Western influence in general are to blame for the widespread poverty, structural violence and crime in Papua New Guinean society.

- Counterarguments: Papua New Guinea’s rapid population growth to 7 million people in recent times is in itself a reflection of improved living standards in the wake of multiple technological revolutions on a global scale. The ubiquity of modern means of transport and mass communication implies that there is no turning back to a world in which village elders, tribal leaders or shamans were dominant societal actors.  Like many other developing nations, Papua New Guinea is now trying to find ways to help sustain its rapid population growth. With only about 18 of its inhabitants living in urban centers, Papua New Guinea will continue to face dramatic change and considerable challenges, with or without deep sea mining. By embracing new technologies and economic opportunities, Papua New Guinea has a better chance of mitigating the social stresses that arise from urbanisation and economic globalisation.

How to engage opponents of deep sea mining?

- Let us always remain polite, factual and understanding, even if their language is assertive and provocative.

- We should not label their views as extremist but try and show sympathy for their concerns, while attempting to demonstrate that their argument does not hold water.

- Do not try to make the point that no issue whatsoever exists or will exist. Rather, try to show that the problems are likely to be manageable and small when put into perspective.

- Try to advance your arguments in a positive manner so that your own statements appear as future-oriented and progressive. Therefore, avoid any negativity, reference to negative or extreme events in world history etc. (hence, I would not argue in the first place that corruption in resource-rich African states is to blame for societal problems, however if pressed on/with these examples, one might consider making the point)

- Never talk of Papua New Guinea as having been or being a backward or primitive society.

- The ultimate aim is to back opponents into a corner by making them appear as rude and unbalanced in their views, backward-looking and out of touch with reality.

Additions, thoughts, corrections?

Reply

#2

Nautilus has all this covered. Everyone who has read their articles and press releases knows this.They have an excellent relationship with the governments they are doing business with and they've made a point of emphasizing the much smaller environmental impact their technology would make compared to terrestrial mining. They are already paticipating in charity and infrastructure development on PNG. So, given all this, your sophomoric attempt at producing a bit of FUD leads me to believe you either get off on trying to annoy people enough to get a reaction, such as the people described in:

http://www.amazon.com/Sociopath-Next-Doo...0767915828

Or, you are being paid to try to "shake the tree." Either way, most of the board's users have you on ignore, so you might not get many responses. I have a few stocks I plan to cash out profits on by late summer, so continue your FUD posts and maybe I'll get lucky and get to double my position in Nautilus for under 50 cents a share in September.

Reply

#3

'lorcan458' pid='59379' datel Wrote:

Nautilus has all this covered. Everyone who has read their articles and press releases knows this.They have an excellent relationship with the governments they are doing business with and they've made a point of emphasizing the much smaller environmental impact their technology would make compared to terrestrial mining. They are already paticipating in charity and infrastructure development on PNG. So, given all this, your sophomoric attempt at producing a bit of FUD leads me to believe you either get off on trying to annoy people enough to get a reaction, such as the people described in:

http://www.amazon.com/Sociopath-Next-Doo...0767915828

Or, you are being paid to try to "shake the tree." Either way, most of the board's users have you on ignore, so you might not get many responses. I have a few stocks I plan to cash out profits on by late summer, so continue your FUD posts and maybe I'll get lucky and get to double my position in Nautilus for under 50 cents a share in September.

It seems as though you have misunderstood my post. I wasn't saying that Nautilus was not doing enough in terms of CSR. Rather, I am trying to collect the main lines of arguments that we could use in discussions with other people about Nautilus off- and online (i.e. in discussion forums, blogs, on youtube, social media etc.)

Reply

#4

'observer' pid='59334' datel Wrote:

Additions, thoughts, corrections?

Your arguements are qualitative and criticisms seem to be anecdotal.  Your statement - "The ultimate aim is to back opponents into a corner by making them appear as rude and unbalanced in their views, backward-looking and out of touch with reality" does seem to speak volumes. 

Reply

#5

'ArtM72' pid='59446' datel Wrote:

[quote='observer' pid='59334' dateline='1434318454']

Additions, thoughts, corrections?

Your arguements are qualitative and criticisms seem to be anecdotal.  Your statement - "The ultimate aim is to back opponents into a corner by making them appear as rude and unbalanced in their views, backward-looking and out of touch with reality" does seem to speak volumes. 

I am not sure I understand what you are trying to say. What do you mean by "qualitative" in this context? If I remember correctly, you are opposed to Nautilus Mineral's project due to environmental concerns?

Reply

#6

'observer' pid='59461' datel Wrote:

'ArtM72' pid='59446' datel Wrote:

[quote='observer' pid='59334' dateline='1434318454']

Additions, thoughts, corrections?

Your arguements are qualitative and criticisms seem to be anecdotal.  Your statement - "The ultimate aim is to back opponents into a corner by making them appear as rude and unbalanced in their views, backward-looking and out of touch with reality" does seem to speak volumes. 

I am not sure I understand what you are trying to say. What do you mean by "qualitative" in this context? If I remember correctly, you are opposed to Nautilus Mineral's project due to environmental concerns?

I don't really have a dog in this fight but found the "ultimate aim" statement to be a general ad hominem attack strategy, a strategy generally used when you have little else to workwith.

Reply

#7

'ArtM72' pid='59462' datel Wrote:

'observer' pid='59461' datel Wrote:

'ArtM72' pid='59446' datel Wrote:

[quote='observer' pid='59334' dateline='1434318454']

Additions, thoughts, corrections?

Your arguements are qualitative and criticisms seem to be anecdotal.  Your statement - "The ultimate aim is to back opponents into a corner by making them appear as rude and unbalanced in their views, backward-looking and out of touch with reality" does seem to speak volumes. 

I am not sure I understand what you are trying to say. What do you mean by "qualitative" in this context? If I remember correctly, you are opposed to Nautilus Mineral's project due to environmental concerns?

I don't really have a dog in this fight but found the "ultimate aim" statement to be a general ad hominem attack strategy, a strategy generally used when you have little else to workwith.

I see. Actually, I recommend the exact opposite of ad hominem attacks. What I suggest is to use carefully crafted messages which appeal to common sense from the perspective of the average reader and consistently convey them in a polite and positive manner.

Reply

#8
Oh...
Reply



Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)