Richard Ness : Trial Log : Court Hearing #14 on 3 February 2006

Court Hearing #14 on 3 February 2006 - 03 Feb 2006
by Eric



Masnellyarti Hilman

On 17 April 2000, the President Director of PT NMR, Richard Bruce Ness (RBN), applied for a permit to dispose the tailings into the sea.

MH stated that as far as she knows, there is no other mining company that was required by MoE to carry out an ERA. MH stated she did not know about Freeport. However, later on after the lunch break, MH stated she has never seen any Freeport ERA, but there is probably an ERA from Freeport. She also said that she might have heard about Freeport’s ERA. .

MH stated that there is no official letter addressed to PT NMR advising that ERA had been rejected. However, she stated that a minutes of meeting discussing the ERA had recorded that the ERA was not yet acceptable.

When asked if she had seen the October 14, 2004 from the Minister of the Environment regarding Buyat, she stated she had never seen such document.

The response of the Accused I and II:

On the bathymetry survey (i.e. joint sampling), the Accused I and II asked MH whether it is true that the MoE agreed to use the equipment from LIPI, MH replied she did not remember this.

The Accused I and II went on reminding the MH that thereafter the MoE found out that the equipment did not function and therefore they requested PT NMR to bring equipment from United States of America (USA), which was then arranged by PT NMR.

With regard to the equipment, MH stated that she had mentioned about it in he BAP/dossier. The Accused I and II stated that they only wished to clarify that the delay was on the part of MoE.

The Accused I and II

• 1. Accept the witness testimony that RKL/RPL data was to be used to develop a risk assessment (ERA), which for seawater and fish contained data from all seasons.
• 2. Accept witness confirmation that Minister of Environment issued a permit in July and NMR was to perform an ERA within 6 months based on RKL/RPL report data.
• 3. Accept NMR submitted the ERA within the time frame structured in permit (performed by professional expertise)
• 4. Accept witness testimony that IF the ERA showed High Risk that standard permit could be adjusted by Minister of Environment.
• 5. Reject the witness testimony with regards to thermocline – biota (outside the expertise).
• 6. Accept the witness testimony that water quality both 2003 – 2004 KLH sampling within quality standards.
• 7. Do not accepts witness early statement that findings of all studies were accepted by all parties – they were not. I am aware of many dissenting opinions by leading universities, Department of Mines, Perhapi, Government of Sulawesi including Newmont
• 8. PT NMR NEVER received a warning letter from BAPEDAL