Govt downplays Bt30-billion claim as Australian firm seeks negotiations to avoid conflict

[webfact]

Govt downplays Bt30-billion claim as Australian firm seeks negotiations to avoid conflict

By The Nation

 

File photo

 

THE government will conduct further negotiations with Australia’s Kingsgate Consolidated following a dispute over the closure of the mine, downplaying speculation that it may have to pay significant compensation to the firm.

 

Kingsgate Consolidated last week sought a settlement in an international arbitration process over alleged damages resulting from the government’s abrupt closure of its gold mining operation in Phichit province. 

 

The mine, which was closed on January 1, 2017, was operated by Akara Resources, which is owned by Kingsgate.

 

Industry Minister Uttama Savanayana said yesterday that his ministry remained committed to further negotiations with the firm, even though the latter had submitted the dispute to the arbitration process under the Thai-Australian free trade agreement. 

 

There could still be further negotiations between the two parties, Uttama said, adding that the government’s policy was to protect the environment and people’s well-being.

 

Akara Resources’ head of Corporate Affairs Cherdsak Utha-aroon, meanwhile, said Akara would appoint one representative for its negotiations with the Thai government, which would also choose one for itself. 

 

Both sides were supposed to find a neutral person to preside over the talks, he added.

 

Cherdsak said the three representatives would discuss and set the terms for talks to end the conflict, while the main issues on which the company wanted clarity from the government were compensation for the loss of income from the mine closure order and the terms for renewing its metallurgy licence.

 

“We hope to solve this conflict by negotiation, so we don’t have to fight in an international arbitration process and we still looking forward to continuing our business in Thailand,” he said.

 

Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha exercised his authority under Article 44 of the interim charter to close the mine late last year, citing several reasons, including a conflict between its supporters and local people opposed to it.

 

Rumours that the government would have to pay as much as Bt30 billion were unfounded and hurt the Thai stock market, Deputy Prime Minister Wissanu Krea-ngam said.

 

Pasu Laharjun, permanent secretary for the Industry Ministry, said a team of lawyers would be appointed to represent Thailand before the international arbitration committee.

 

The ministry was ready to consider granting the firm an extension for its licence but it needed to comply with the new Thai law on mining, he said.

 

The arbitration process is expected to take one to two years but could be expedited by a settlement.

 

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/detail/national/30330990

 

-- © Copyright The Nation 2017-11-07

 

[yellowboat]

3 hours ago, webfact said:

The ministry was ready to consider granting the firm an extension for its licence but it needed to comply with the new Thai law on mining, he said.

If previous contracts are subject to laws enacted recently by an autocratic government, Thailand is creating a future of mistrust which people will avoid. 

[smutcakes]

Will the PM be held personally liable if the state has to pay 30 bn baht to settle this due to their incompetence?

[meinphuket]

Thailand signs up to international agreements regarding trade from a perspective of national & commercial greed, but expects to be able to violate them and get away with it. Deserve to get taken for the full Monthy.

[DPKANKAN]

Perhaps better cancel the order for those Submarines to pay for the loss! 55555

[Thechook]

48 minutes ago, smutcakes said:

Will the PM be held personally liable if the state has to pay 30 bn baht to settle this due to their incompetence?

He will have be as it was a political decision made by him as p.m same as he held Yingluk responsible.  Oh no wait, he gave himself a blanket amnesty when he seized the country.

[Oziex1]

"The company could get an extension by complying to new rules"

 

Doubt if that will prevent them moving forward with the proceedings against Thailand. 

 

Still trying to save face and have their cake and eat it to.

[robblok]

1 hour ago, yellowboat said:

If previous contracts are subject to laws enacted recently by an autocratic government, Thailand is creating a future of mistrust which people will avoid. 

If it does not protects its villagers from pollution by big companies it is far worse then a future of mistrust. I get your point I would say normally your right however we are talking here about protecting the health of villagers. 

 

In my country emission limits change from year to year getting ever tighter. That is why now the rine (river) is getting so much cleaner because in the EU they changed the law. Laws on emissions and pollution change all the time. 

Edited November 7, 2017 by robblok

[robblok]

31 minutes ago, Oziex1 said:

"The company could get an extension by complying to new rules"

 

Doubt if that will prevent them moving forward with the proceedings against Thailand. 

 

Still trying to save face and have their cake and eat it to.

The company should do so it has to act in its own best interest just like Thailand should protect its villagers from pollution by a mine. If this cost the government money so be it. But this could have been handled better. 

[yellowboat]

11 minutes ago, robblok said:

If it does not protects its villagers from pollution by big companies it is far worse then a future of mistrust. I get your point I would say normally your right however we are talking here about protecting the health of villagers. 

 

In my country emission limits change from year to year getting ever tighter. That is why now the rine (river) is getting so much cleaner because in the EU they changed the law. Laws on emissions and pollution change all the time. 

No, it is about due process.  When you negate a legal process, you assume liability.  They might of done the right thing, they just did it the wrong way and now they have to pay.  Thailand loves short cuts and short cuts end up costing more in the long run.  If they did the right thing, then paying should not be a problem.  Legality on earth and in heaven do not always see eye to eye. 

[BuddyDean]

I suppose the coal, mining operations and power plants, are cleaner/safer.  The bad news is there are now firing squads; the good news is they only know how to shoot the feet, and often their own.

[Eric Loh]

5 hours ago, webfact said:

The ministry was ready to consider granting the firm an extension for its licence but it needed to comply with the new Thai law on mining, he said.

As though Kingsgate will be eager to come back. If you can't give an iron clad guarantee, they ain't coming back and they will made the junta government pay for future lost. 

[Dave67]

"THE government will conduct further negotiations with Australia’s Kingsgate Consolidated "

 

Too late to conduct anything you've been forced to international arbitration

[robblok]

17 minutes ago, yellowboat said:

No, it is about due process.  When you negate a legal process, you assume liability.  They might of done the right thing, they just did it the wrong way and now they have to pay.  Thailand loves short cuts and short cuts end up costing more in the long run.  If they did the right thing, then paying should not be a problem.  Legality on earth and in heaven do not always see eye to eye. 

Sure they might have to pay (so be it) I still think protecting the villagers is a good thing. 

 

I agree actually that they should have done it differently, it does not look good using art 44. But I do agree with tighter laws protecting the villagers. So they did the right thing the wrong way, and now they probably have to pay. So be it, the PM seems to be addicted to art 44. It is a useful tool but overused. 

[BuddyDean]

The multinational mining and energy companies are no stranger to attempts at seizing their assets.  It is highly likely they will be well prepared for their days in court.

[Media1]

2 hours ago, meinphuket said:

Thailand signs up to international agreements regarding trade from a perspective of national & commercial greed, but expects to be able to violate them and get away with it. Deserve to get taken for the full Monthy.

Pirates with no honor 

[Moti24]

2 hours ago, smutcakes said:

Will the PM be held personally liable if the state has to pay 30 bn baht to settle this due to their incompetence?

The Toyota Camry is standing-by, and the flight plan to Dubai has already been submitted.

[Media1]

1 hour ago, Oziex1 said:

"The company could get an extension by complying to new rules"

 

Doubt if that will prevent them moving forward with the proceedings against Thailand. 

 

Still trying to save face and have their cake and eat it to.

Game over. Administration has begun. Thailand must pay

[Oziex1]

If the locals have been exposed to toxins and there is some ambiguity on this as two groups did the testing with the Thai ministry of justice testing finding a result causing the mine closure. 

 

If this was a scam to gain full Thai control of the mine then the villagers need to be concerned very very concerned. The record of the Thai moneyed class for the welfare of the common man is appaling. They will wish the Aussie's were back.  Also should this scenario play out will Thais even have jobs at the mine, Burmese are cheap and disposable.

 

I look forward to a positive outcome for all.

[RichardColeman]

Really hope this company destroys Thailand credibility in the courts and gets every penny they sue for. Maybe they will have to cut back on the submarines !

[DavisH]

1 hour ago, robblok said:

The company should do so it has to act in its own best interest just like Thailand should protect its villagers from pollution by a mine. If this cost the government money so be it. But this could have been handled better. 

I have not read any reports that detail these impacts - it seems more like hearsay. I would have thought that an Environmental Impact Assessment was done beforehand and that these issues would have arisen then. This mine would have a lot of Thai employees as well. How many will lose their jobs?

[AGareth2]

somehow I don't think the gov cares about the health of the residents of Pichit

[jenny2017]

26 minutes ago, AGareth2 said:

somehow I don't think the gov cares about the health of the residents of Pichit

According to this article, it was the reason for: ( perhaps one of the reasons...)

 

  https://www.bangkokpost.com/learning/advanced/1160188/goodbye-to-thailands-biggest-gold-mine

[Stocky]

1 hour ago, DavisH said:

I have not read any reports that detail these impacts - it seems more like hearsay. I would have thought that an Environmental Impact Assessment was done beforehand and that these issues would have arisen then. This mine would have a lot of Thai employees as well. How many will lose their jobs?

The issue has been with blood levels of arsenic and manganese. These occur naturally in the rock, and the locally high levels are associated with the gold mineralisation. They are present in the crops grown in the soils around the deposit, and therefore enter the food chain, they would be there regardless the mine had been developed or not. 

 

The issue is whether blasting at the mine, and the dust associated with mining, has raised the levels of arsenic and manganese in the local population to levels that are unsafe. NGOs and activists claim it has, the government sided with the NGOs for whatever reason, the mining company argues that the levels are within levels accepted by both the WHO and comply with standards laid down in Safe Work Australia, guidelines for mining in Australia. The problem is Thailand has no clear set of levels for compliance.

 

In 2015 Thailand's Ministry of Industry asked for a major review of community impacts, which was done by the international mining industry consultants Behre Dolbear and paid for by the mine. That study found "low arsenic/manganese impact" and overall "no negative impact" to community health.

 

Meanwhile the local people living around the mine have lost their main source of employment, if anybody had bothered to ask them what they thought they would have said don't close the mine, indeed they held their own protests asking exactly that.

 

The government will have to pay up, they can't just renew the licence and hope it will all go away. Kingsgate have lost a years production, outstanding loans on the mine have still had to be financed, laid off workers had to be compensated and they've had to bear the costs of maintaining the mine under care and maintenance.

 

That there remains a considerable gold resource at Chatree means someone will mine it again at some point. If not an Australian multinational, it will be some dodgy local outfit who won't care less what environmental damage they do, and neither will the government officials taking the back handers.

 

.

Edited November 7, 2017 by Stocky

[rkidlad]

7 hours ago, webfact said:

There could still be further negotiations between the two parties, Uttama said, adding that the government’s policy was to protect the environment and people’s well-being

Keep on repeating that. The people might believe it but your bank balance won't care when they take their money back and you lose future foreign investment.

 

 

[Ossy]

Not long before we see that Article 44 smirk disappear. Damage limitation, all of a sudden.

Edited November 7, 2017 by Ossy
omission

[Oziex1]

6 hours ago, Stocky said:

The issue has been with blood levels of arsenic and manganese. These occur naturally in the rock, and the locally high levels are associated with the gold mineralisation. They are present in the crops grown in the soils around the deposit, and therefore enter the food chain, they would be there regardless the mine had been developed or not. 

 

The issue is whether blasting at the mine, and the dust associated with mining, has raised the levels of arsenic and manganese in the local population to levels that are unsafe. NGOs and activists claim it has, the government sided with the NGOs for whatever reason, the mining company argues that the levels are within levels accepted by both the WHO and comply with standards laid down in Safe Work Australia, guidelines for mining in Australia. The problem is Thailand has no clear set of levels for compliance.

 

In 2015 Thailand's Ministry of Industry asked for a major review of community impacts, which was done by the international mining industry consultants Behre Dolbear and paid for by the mine. That study found "low arsenic/manganese impact" and overall "no negative impact" to community health.

 

Meanwhile the local people living around the mine have lost their main source of employment, if anybody had bothered to ask them what they thought they would have said don't close the mine, indeed they held their own protests asking exactly that.

 

The government will have to pay up, they can't just renew the licence and hope it will all go away. Kingsgate have lost a years production, outstanding loans on the mine have still had to be financed, laid off workers had to be compensated and they've had to bear the costs of maintaining the mine under care and maintenance.

 

That there remains a considerable gold resource at Chatree means someone will mine it again at some point. If not an Australian multinational, it will be some dodgy local outfit who won't care less what environmental damage they do, and neither will the government officials taking the back handers.

 

.

 

"That there remains a considerable gold resource at Chatree means someone will mine it again at some point. If not an Australian multinational, it will be some dodgy local outfit who won't care less what environmental damage they do, and neither will the government officials taking the back handers."

 

And that is what it is all about, the short sighted greedy fools have stuffed it up completely. They may or may not pay compensation but whatever, they will lose foreign investment.

 

However this will not be recognized or admitted, they will just bleat on about another pie in the sky scheme to get the elusive big spending quality tourists. 

[Srikcir]

8 hours ago, BuddyDean said:

in court.

It will be in arbitration where three arbitrators will decide the outcome without appeal.

There is no court.

[Srikcir]

14 hours ago, webfact said:

The ministry was ready to consider granting the firm an extension for its licence but it needed to comply with the new Thai law on mining, he said.

Idea is DOA and essentially a hoax.

I strongly suspect (without reading the detailed articles) that the free trade agreement and date of operating license issuance fixes all applicable Thai laws to provide the developer/investor financial certainty.

 

Government application of any new laws to the project would require the consent of the developer/investor. If the developer/investor disagrees in whole or in part, it can file a complaint with the arbitration tribunal, ie., to either void the new laws for the purpose of the project or provide the developer/investor additional compensation to meet new conditions. Neither the Ministry nor the PM control matters otherwise.