The totally off-topic thread

[penegal]

Ideally environment impact would get a seat at the table even earlier, e.g. during MinEx, and then planning, before your MCP even starts.

 

[penegal]

But hey, who cares about the environment anyway.

It's all about gay marriage this week.

Climate Change was SOOOOO 2010, get with times guys...

 

[medhead]

Please keep me informed this might be useful !

Apparently the UK government produced a very good video. SWMBO has the details. But I'm currently on a computer that blocks youtube, so couldn't post a link anyway.

 

[JessicaTam]

<snip>

Check which Govt dept (from the books) had the car. SES/Police/Fire may not be worth risking (although engines may be in good nick the suspension can be of concern).

<snip>

And hope my name isn't on the log book!

In other news, I have just had an interview for a promotion. I find out at the end of the week.

Did I mention I hate doing interviews.

 

[RooFlyer]

The S part I can believe and a lot has been spearheaded by the industry. This was significantly an economic issue as well; companies could not literally afford to keep on being complacent on safety. Going beyond legislation and even self-legislating is quite noticeable in the safety arena.

The H part is somewhat tied to the previous and also sits relatively well, though it has still some shortfalls when it comes to the that of the communities that operations affect. Some of those issues are tied up in legacies which didn't really reveal the extent until now (when most of those who were responsible for those "unhealthy" or what not practices - including government ministers who endorsed such practices - have either moved on, retired or died).

The E part, for most, is still mired in the space of just meeting regulation or regulatory requirements. That is not to say that some companies / operations go further than that to create value, but it is not commonplace. This also goes for what mining companies do when it comes to closure planning. There is just meeting requirements and then there is creating value.

Having been able to get an inside view of many mining operations and their approaches to the environment, I know that there is still a long way to go before it is acceptable to think that mining companies are taking their environmental obligations beyond that which is just required of them. Either that, or there is still a large disconnect between the management and operations levels of companies where stances expressed and actual ground actions are not in sync.

I'm trying hard to have a good discussion with yourself, and others, but I continue to see statements about mines and mining made which I just don't recognise and wonder about the basis of them being made. "Environment being the first to be cut", as we've seen, has been thoroughly refuted. Geos seem never to have darkened your door. I've laid out where I come from - a 35 year career on mines and exploration on most continents; big and micro companies; wearing khaki, suits, you name it. I just did a calc; on-the-ground presence and working on:

* 2 gold mines in west Africa;
* 1 gold mines, and 1 industrial minerals mine in Nth America;
* 2 gold mines, 1 tin mine, 1 industrial minerals mine in Australia;
* Base metals mine in Asia;
* copper mine in Sth America
* geothermal projects ('heat mines') in Europe, Australia and Nth America
* gold mine in the Middle East

Yes, bully for me. But it gives me a pretty good basis for saying, in respect of these statements for instance:

Having been able to get an inside view of many mining operations and their approaches to the environment, I know that there is still a long way to go before it is acceptable to think that mining companies are taking their environmental obligations beyond that which is just required of them. Either that, or there is still a large disconnect between the management and operations levels of companies where stances expressed and actual ground actions are not in sync

The E part, for most, is still mired in the space of just meeting regulation or regulatory requirements. That is not to say that some companies / operations go further than that to create value, but it is not commonplace. This also goes for what mining companies do when it comes to closure planning.

... and prior ones of same ilk, that they appear to be just ex-cathedra generalisations that we frequently see come out of the prism of academia, some UN agency or an NGO, and not from practical experience. (Like some of the comments made in this thread about private schools - out of date, stereotyping). Would I be close to the mark? Does one practice, or just observe and report?

NO mine and NO company I have worked for (and I have dealt from the Board room to the crib room) has ever paid lip service to the environmental or safety issues part of the mine. ALL have invested in their local communities, way above what they might be required to do to run their business. Mining is a high risk, long term investment for companies and shareholders. Besides the genuine concerns held by workers on the ground, it just doesn't make economic sense for the mainstream company to cut corners or 'do the minimum'. (That said, I will not defend CSG in Australia).

Yes, I will rise to baiting of the mining industry, with pleasure; but I wouldn't mind knowing the experience behind statements like those referred above , please.

 

[penegal]

Great post RooFlyer

 

[drross]

Ok here is a petition.

https://www.change.org/p/australian...source=share_for_starters&utm_medium=copyLink

done and forwarded to lots of travellers

 

[Flashback]

Time for a new AFF campaign perhaps?

I recently received a spam e-mail from AFF re: rate capping on credit card fees on the major providers, asking me to join a campaign. On the mere fact that the information in the spam was factually incorrect - I declined. I had to laugh at the statement about the effect the recent changes in the EU having then meant credit card rewards were abolished in the UK and that all credit card fees went up in cost. Absolute bollocks.

Best purchase 2 yr old Citroen at 70% off. Ended up costing grand total of <$2,500/yr for the 4 years we had it. That includes servicing and difference in purchase/sale price.

You're very fortunate that's all the Citroen cost you, one of the most disrespected cars in Europe!

The S part I can believe and a lot has been spearheaded by the industry. This was significantly an economic issue as well; companies could not literally afford to keep on being complacent on safety. Going beyond legislation and even self-legislating is quite noticeable in the safety arena.

The H part is somewhat tied to the previous and also sits relatively well, though it has still some shortfalls when it comes to the that of the communities that operations affect. Some of those issues are tied up in legacies which didn't really reveal the extent until now (when most of those who were responsible for those "unhealthy" or what not practices - including government ministers who endorsed such practices - have either moved on, retired or died).

The E part, for most, is still mired in the space of just meeting regulation or regulatory requirements. That is not to say that some companies / operations go further than that to create value, but it is not commonplace. This also goes for what mining companies do when it comes to closure planning. There is just meeting requirements and then there is creating value.

Having been able to get an inside view of many mining operations and their approaches to the environment, I know that there is still a long way to go before it is acceptable to think that mining companies are taking their environmental obligations beyond that which is just required of them. Either that, or there is still a large disconnect between the management and operations levels of companies where stances expressed and actual ground actions are not in sync.

While I can't spend the time to give as detailed a reply as RooFlyer gave, unfortunately I have to disagree with the above points also. Being involved at the moment in what is a very scaled back exploration project, I can assure you that with all the staff that have been cut, all letters of HSEC are the heavily accounted for people who are still there.

 

[JohnK]

I have been with Ninemsn home page for a long time but think it is time to move away. I have a very low spec machine and my internet usage is not unlimited.

So why download the video on the page and play it without my permission? Ties up machine memory and uses up valuable download.

 

[JessicaTam]

I have been with Ninemsn home page for a long time but think it is time to move away. I have a very low spec machine and my internet usage is not unlimited.

So why download the video on the page and play it without my permission? Ties up machine memory and uses up valuable download.

I have AFF as my home page!*

*Written, spoken and authorised by JessicaTam, Melbourne.

 

[medhead]

NO mine and NO company I have worked for (and I have dealt from the Board room to the crib room) has ever paid lip service to the environmental or safety issues part of the mine.

No one has made such a claim. To claim they have is a strawman on top of a high horse. Especially when you throw in safety issues which aren't even part of the discussion.

ALL have invested in their local communities, way above what they might be required to do to run their business. Mining is a high risk, long term investment for companies and shareholders. Besides the genuine concerns held by workers on the ground, it just doesn't make economic sense for the mainstream company to cut corners or 'do the minimum'. (That said, I will not defend CSG in Australia).

Yes, I will rise to baiting of the mining industry, with pleasure; but I wouldn't mind knowing the experience behind statements like those referred above , please.

As I have said, in my experience. Mines DO invest in the local community when times are good. But they also cut those extra investments that are way above what they are required to do when they need to cut costs. I've seen that first hand.

As I have clearly stated they cut to only do the minimum that they are required to do. That is entirely possible to happen, while also not paying lip service to the required regulatory requirements to do with the environment. News flash meeting the minimum regulatory requirements is not a claim to be cutting corners - again a strawman. I many not have 35 years experience in mining, But I have been in the crib room and the board room (not sure where the board were), I've spent my hours driving around underground yada yada yada. I can, at least, take the time to understand what people are writing.

Oh and I will defend CSG because people I've worked with in mining (only geos so perhaps you can dismiss them from your throne) are now in CSG. I trust them, they are the dedicated, honest people that I referred to previously. But do go on with your, what was it, ex-cathedra generalisations about CSG.

Great post RooFlyer

If strawmen and failure to understand other points of view are great. Oh that's right repeating my experience that the above and beyond programs can and do get cut is actually a claim that miners are dishonest, fly by night cowboys. Please spare me the sermon about how I'm the anti-christ bashing the poor defenceless miners. Not what I wrote, why claim it is?

 

[penegal]

Speaking of killing the environment, let's talk about Sydney killing their nightlife (and economy).

The draconian lock-out laws are ridiculous IMHO, and as predicted, once vibrant nightlife areas are dying.


This is quite a long and at times emotive piece, but quite possibly worth a read:
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/would-last-person-sydney-please-turn-lights-out-matt-barrie

 

[JohnM]

I think I like Rooflyer's approach: go and do a PhD part time as a mature-age student for the intellectual challenge - definitely not to use it as the basis for trying to get a job.

Ahem, I omitted to mention that I'm doing a mature-age double DSc in advanced global travel and quantum-mechanics sandy surfing beach coastal zone studies . The Theory of Everything is about to be cracked . Just watch me suck in the grants and the invitations to The Institute of Advanced Studies after that . Pfft - a Nobel Prize will be a doddle :mrgreen:. Lift your game, RF .

 

[anat0l]

Yes, bully for me. But it gives me a pretty good basis for saying, in respect of these statements for instance:

... and prior ones of same ilk, that they appear to be just ex-cathedra generalisations that we frequently see come out of the prism of academia, some UN agency or an NGO, and not from practical experience. (Like some of the comments made in this thread about private schools - out of date, stereotyping). Would I be close to the mark? Does one practice, or just observe and report?

NO mine and NO company I have worked for (and I have dealt from the Board room to the crib room) has ever paid lip service to the environmental or safety issues part of the mine. ALL have invested in their local communities, way above what they might be required to do to run their business. Mining is a high risk, long term investment for companies and shareholders. Besides the genuine concerns held by workers on the ground, it just doesn't make economic sense for the mainstream company to cut corners or 'do the minimum'. (That said, I will not defend CSG in Australia).

Yes, I will rise to baiting of the mining industry, with pleasure; but I wouldn't mind knowing the experience behind statements like those referred above , please.

tl;dr - my limited experiences explained, may not stack up to a more extensive experience assessment. Conceded point on stereotyping private schools.

I don't mind having a good discussion either, and I don't mind a dissenting view for that matter. You have experience on your side; I don't have the same amount in comparison, be it different experience as well. No need to categorically discredit academia, NGOs and the UN - they get it right sometimes, and sometimes they aren't a bad voice to have, whether in support or against. Having interacted with NGOs, if you think I'm trying to just categorically put down an industry and discard them to the embers, (a) you're off the mark (perhaps the unfortunate by-product of having only a text argument to go by), and (b) this is no where near as "bad" as how some NGOs tend to argue a point rather farcically or unreasonably.

My experience? Mainly from a research perspective, so yes, observe and report, not so much practice myself. A fair amount of on the ground, face-to-face experience compared to most other "stereotyped" researchers; including shadowing HSE officers at various sites (base metals, precious metals, Australian and overseas); interviews with operational personnel, management and community representatives on various operational and planning aspects, was also lucky enough to talk to or interview some industrial network boards, parliamentary ministers and two mining company CEOs; sat in and recorded details of interactions at operational and management meetings; taken operational data and environmental monitoring data for external analysis with industry experts; taken some independent sampling (operational and environmental) for analysis; analysed way too many mining company sustainability reports. Certainly not 35 years - I didn't start examining sites when I was still in my mother's womb!

Wish I had some of the sites you mention for my PhD case studies! Sounds like they would have been more engaged than the sites I had, even though I eventually managed to get quite a satisfactory interaction with the sites I had. Getting access to data and people was a huge issue, even with the contacts that I had at my disposal.

Maybe we have different standards (or hold companies to different standards) as what is "lip service" and what is going beyond that.

I was at an operation where the role of HSE (at least at the time, could have changed) was lip service to E; HS was just fine. Why did I observe this? When I was talking to the HSE officer, I went over a range of environmental issues for that operation, raised variously by community and in the issue register for the operation at the time. They maintained that the operation was within limits and any apparent reports otherwise were not true. I asked them if they had any testing or monitoring to back those claims up. Some of the testing was there; some of it was not; some of the testing didn't actually address the issue or wasn't complete. When I had a look at the EIS submission for that operation, some of the issues discussed were not mentioned in any risk assessments. So some of those issues were 'new' (i.e. not in the original 'plan'). From a retrospective assessment, the HSE officer and mine manager, at a minimum, agreed that some of the current issues could have and should have been reasonably foreseeable. A conclusion - which was agreed between us and the site - was that there was basically too much minimising of and management of acute impacts, and not really enough attention on identifying the sources of risks. Basically, "containing the mess" rather than "don't make a mess". As a result of that interaction and further discussions with the mine manager, I was told about a month later an external company had been procured to finally track the issues which were not being looked at. The process had been modified to further reduce the risk of some of those environmental issues resurfacing, with the convenient by-product that the recovery actually improved. New tracking and measurement processes had been installed at the operation. A comprehensive water and energy audit was commissioned and used as the basis of resource planning (e.g. climatic variations).

That's probably the best example I have where the HSE (E part) role was done rather passively; changed considerably after we had a chat with them. I've seen other HSEs which, after observing them at meetings and even talking to them, were mainly there to ensure the operation "wasn't making a mess", and that was mostly it. Nearly all of them conceded for most part that their role was rather passive and the environmental commitment was mostly limited to containing impacts, simply because the technical demands of the operation were much more important and were prioritised for effort and funding. When I asked many of them what they would do differently given the funding and time, some came up with some interesting ideas. On one site, the technical researchers who were with us came up with a great way to sell both the environmental initiative and changes to the process, which improved the production indicators and considerably reduced risks, and the company agreed.

Those are the "not so good" examples. That doesn't mean they are all like that. One tailings storage operation I was working with had very good environmental processes. Their reporting structure was efficient and active. Environmental impact risks were managed very well and monitoring was excellent. There was very good interaction between environmental and technical operation teams (for both current operations and expansions). There were environmental initiatives were enacted to not only reduce environmental damage risks, but actually improve the environment (ecosystems, downstream water courses, long term rehabilitation planning). The personnel - management and operational - actually took pride in taking steps beyond compliance and aiming for a higher goal. As a researcher, you need to assume a degree of scepticism at times, but this operation was very hard to find much fault with the processes, much less with the operational culture, the latter of which I believe is critical.

I can only say that I have limited experience so examples like the last one were rarer than ones more like the first example, though the first one is the "worst" that I was at. Maybe for you, you've seen the opposite, or, as it would seem, they are all good. Fair enough. For the mining companies of repute, I don't think they will have serious problems with safety or safety culture. The processes for safety in the mining industry are very mature these days and well established. In fact, I'd argue that mining is one of the industries who are leading the others on proactive approaches to safety, and the corporate and operational culture to go with it.

it just doesn't make economic sense for the mainstream company to cut corners or 'do the minimum'.

Agree with that wholeheartedly. This is especially true for companies with unfortunate legacies in a given environment.

I'm not anti-mining. And I know people who are (they can be real tough nuts, and just for completeness, not all of them are fruit loops, hippies, socialists or completely uneducated). Working with communities can be exhausting; perceptions can talk louder than the measured data, and that's really tough to deal with. I've said many times that no matter what happens, we'll be relying on mining for many generations to come. Trying to be sustainable in mining is not selling snake oil; it's trying to do something which we "need" to do, much better; if it makes operations work better from a technical perspective, that's more than a double win.


As for the stereotype on private schools, I'll concede that one. I heard that one through off-hand discussions with family friends, plus I thought I've read before in some job ads for some private schools that there were requirements (or "an advantage" bullet points) related to faith, or at least when the ad was explaining the values of the school (including faith), it somehow tied the teachers into those values, which means they could have been viably brought up during an interview. Given I have no hard evidence of this, I can't argue it further but glad to hear that at least if I apply to a private school I don't have to worry too much about my faith!

 

[RooFlyer]

No one has made such a claim. To claim they have is a strawman on top of a high horse. Especially when you throw in safety issues which aren't even part of the discussion.



As I have said, in my experience. Mines DO invest in the local community when times are good. But they also cut those extra investments that are way above what they are required to do when they need to cut costs. I've seen that first hand.

As I have clearly stated they cut to only do the minimum that they are required to do. That is entirely possible to happen, while also not paying lip service to the required regulatory requirements to do with the environment. News flash meeting the minimum regulatory requirements is not a claim to be cutting corners - again a strawman. I many not have 35 years experience in mining, But I have been in the crib room and the board room (not sure where the board were), I've spent my hours driving around underground yada yada yada. I can, at least, take the time to understand what people are writing.

Oh and I will defend CSG because people I've worked with in mining (only geos so perhaps you can dismiss them from your throne) are now in CSG. I trust them, they are the dedicated, honest people that I referred to previously. But do go on with your, what was it, ex-cathedra generalisations about CSG.
)

If strawmen and failure to understand other points of view are great. Oh that's right repeating my experience that the above and beyond programs can and do get cut is actually a claim that miners are dishonest, fly by night cowboys. Please spare me the sermon about how I'm the anti-christ bashing the poor defenceless miners. Not what I wrote, why claim it is?

There I was, having a bit of a bat-back-and-forth with anat01; in disagreement but reasonably civilised (and speaking of taking the time to understand what people are writing, the 'S' in HSEC stands for Safety - see post 48877 amongst others). Glad you can join in, and especially pleased that you are a fan of the guessologists.

My 'ex cathedra generalisation' about CSG I think extended to writing that I wouldn't defend that industry in Australia. As far as my writing what I will and won't do, sure, I'm about as cathedra as it gets, but no ex about it!

 

[anat0l]

Speaking of killing the environment, let's talk about Sydney killing their nightlife (and economy).

The draconian lock-out laws are ridiculous IMHO, and as predicted, once vibrant nightlife areas are dying.


This is quite a long and at times emotive piece, but quite possibly worth a read:
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/would-last-person-sydney-please-turn-lights-out-matt-barrie

Thanks for this article. Agree indeed.


We kind of saw this coming, but we are supposed to live in the comfort knowing that those who supported it have supposedly stopped more people dying due to alcohol related violence, along with curtailing embarrassing nightlife incidents after 12 am, and generally promoting the city centre as being better morally (less drunk people, more people not staying out so late because there is sleep to be had, less bars, less alcohol culture......) ... ah, who am I kidding...

Obviously the powers that be can't trust us to not act up. What an unfortunate broadbrush.

I guess if you're over about 35-40, one doesn't really care about all of this. Sweeping generalisation alert!

I don't know what the situation in Melbourne is, but I'm going to place bets that Brisbane may be heading that way.

 

[RooFlyer]

I don't mind having a good discussion either, and I don't mind a dissenting view for that matter. You have experience on your side; I don't have the same amount in comparison, be it different experience as well. No need to categorically discredit academia, NGOs and the UN - they get it right sometimes, and sometimes they aren't a bad voice to have, whether in support or against. Having interacted with NGOs, if you think I'm trying to just categorically put down an industry and discard them to the embers, (a) you're off the mark (perhaps the unfortunate by-product of having only a text argument to go by), and (b) this is no where near as "bad" as how some NGOs tend to argue a point rather farcically or unreasonably.

<snip>!

Nice one (whole post).

Not that I should sneer at academia - I'm about to do that again (or at least part of the time), as JohnM alludes to:

Ahem, I omitted to mention that I'm doing a mature-age double DSc in advanced global travel and quantum-mechanics sandy surfing beach coastal zone studies . The Theory of Everything is about to be cracked . Just watch me suck in the grants and the invitations to The Institute of Advanced Studies after that . Pfft - a Nobel Prize will be a doddle :mrgreen:. Lift your game, RF .

Well, my study area is going to be 45 mins drive north and south from where I live (and otherwise work) . But we do have good beaches (don't laugh) and excellent wines.

Speaking of which, surely your best field would be Comparative Oenology? Mendoza compared to Napa, compared to Bordeaux, compared to Margaret River? Do you think anyone's thought of that [-]lurk[/-] field of study before?

 

[JohnM]

Nice one (whole post).

Not that I should sneer at academia - I'm about to do that again (or at least part of the time), as JohnM alludes to:



Well, my study area is going to be 45 mins drive north and south from where I live (and otherwise work) . But we do have good beaches (don't laugh) and excellent wines.

Speaking of which, surely your best field would be Comparative Oenology? Mendoza compared to Napa, compared to Bordeaux, compared to Margaret River? Do you think anyone's thought of that [-]lurk[/-] field of study before?

Dang! I meant to say a mature-age triple DSc. Thanks for reminding me of the other component. It will truly be the Theory of Everything (worthwhile) :mrgreen:.

 

[drron]

Thanks for this article. Agree indeed.


We kind of saw this coming, but we are supposed to live in the comfort knowing that those who supported it have supposedly stopped more people dying due to alcohol related violence, along with curtailing embarrassing nightlife incidents after 12 am, and generally promoting the city centre as being better morally (less drunk people, more people not staying out so late because there is sleep to be had, less bars, less alcohol culture......) ... ah, who am I kidding...

Obviously the powers that be can't trust us to not act up. What an unfortunate broadbrush.

I guess if you're over about 35-40, one doesn't really care about all of this. Sweeping generalisation alert!

I don't know what the situation in Melbourne is, but I'm going to place bets that Brisbane may be heading that way.

There's no supposedly about the effect of lockout laws.Watch Q&A from Monday night and Dr.Gordon Fulde who saw a huge reduction in ED attendances due to aklcohol and the violence it causes at St.Vincent's Sydney.
You probably are unaware of the trauma that alcohol brings.See if you can spend a few hours at night with an ED doc at a major city hospital.Can be frightening.Are you aware of how prevalent attacks on hospital staff are-and the majority due to alcohol and other drugs.Here are the figures from Adelaide with over 20 staff attacked each day across the city.
No Cookies | The Advertiser

PS-An article giving figures on the drop in violence-
http://www.straitstimes.com/asia/australianz/sydneys-alcohol-curbs-reduce-street-violence-and-fun

 

[OATEK]

<SNIP>

If strawmen and failure to understand other points of view are great. Oh that's right repeating my experience that the above and beyond programs can and do get cut is actually a claim that miners are dishonest, fly by night cowboys. Please spare me the sermon about how I'm the anti-christ bashing the poor defenceless miners. Not what I wrote, why claim it is?

Didn't see mention of you as the "anti-christ" in his post either. Lots of hyperbole often makes for a good post. It entertains, it engenders discussion etc...

You and Rooflyer seem to have the ability to re-invigorate a discussion coming as you both do from different perspectives.

I worked with an environmental agency that actually provided on the ground restoration services (eg with bulldozers etc) and monitoring of mine sites, and my view is that more than the minimum was done, but not as much as could be undertaken in a perfect world.