Richard Ness : Trial Log : Court Hearing #9 on 25 November 2005

Court Hearing #9 on 25 November 2005 - 25 Nov 2005
by Eric


1.Witness Dolfi Nicolaas

The Witness dove to take the sample of seawater. The Witness took the water at a depth of 43 meters. The Witness took the water sample using a plastic bag.

The Witness went to the diving location using a cakalang fish motorboat. There were approximately more than 10 people on the boat, including the members of Kelola and Mabes Polri.

The Witness stated that it was the General Manager of Nusantara Diving Centre (NDC) who gave the order to dive.

The Witness recalled that there was [only] one time of taking sample. Afterward, the Witness corrected his [previous] statement and stated that there were two times of taking sample (Note: In his Police BAP/dossier, the Witness stated that there were four times of taking sample).

The Witness stated that he did not know Rignolda Djamaludin at the time when he was ordered to take the sample. The Witness stated that the Witness came to know Rignolda only after he returned from taking the sample when someone had informed him and referred him to Rignolda [as the person who order him to dive] (In the Police BAP/dossier the witness stated that Rignolda requested him to take the water sample).

The Chairman of the Panel of Judges reminded the witness to tell the truth. The Chairman of the Panel of Judges even appeared to be very upset at the Witness who gave inconsistent, complicated and dishonest information.

The Witness [claimed that he] did not know the purpose of taking the sample. The Witness was never informed about the procedure for taking the water sample.

The Witness did not know who received the sample [on the boat]. The Witness did not know where the sample was taken to.

At the time when the seawater [sample] was taken, sediment was also taken. The Witness admitted that the sea bed disturbed with Yogie’s [flippers] movement when taking the sediment [sample] causing high turbidity of the water.

During the dive, [the Witness considered] the seawater was dark. According to the Witness, this was because they were diving under the boat.

Rignolda gave money to the Witness for taking the sample in the amount of Rp300.000.

The response of Accused I and Accused II:

The Witness did not know the procedures for taking the sample. It wasn’t clear in what depth they did take the water from and to whom the sample was handed over, but the photographs show that it was Rignolda who took control of the samples and not the police]. The Witness also indicated that he took two samples but the police report indicates 4 samples. The witness did not know where the other 2 (two) bags came from that were analyzed by the Police.

It was clear from the Witness’s statement that Kelola [Regnolda] arranged for the taking of the sample of seawater. The Witness’s statements were also inconsistent with the Police BAP/dossier.


2.Witness Siegfried Lesiasel

The Witness was the Chairman of the Team of Drafters of PT NMR’s AMDAL [Environmental Risk Assessment], the Witness supervised 16 people comprising experts in the relevant fields required in AMDAL. The process of making the AMDAL took place in 1992-1994.

The Witness stated that the members of the AMDAL Drafter Team consist of people who are experts and were competent in their fields. All calculations and considerations on PTNMR project analysis are always made through these experts.

The Witness stated that the purpose of AMDAL was to analyse the operation of a company with regard to its impact to the environment. The analysis was carried out based on a normal condition. The AMDAL is monitored regularly through the RKL/RPL [Monitoring & Management Plan]. An AMDAL approval serves as the basis of the issuance of an operation permit.

The Witness emphasized that without the approval of AMDAL, it is impossible for PTNMR to place the tailings in the seabed of Buyat Bay.

The Witness stated that PTNMR suggested the placing of the waste in the sea. However, the Witness also stated that the AMDAL of PTNMR also provided an analysis of waste disposal on land. The analysis demonstrated that tailing disposal in the sea had a smaller impact to the environment compared to tailing disposal on land.

The Witness stated that the AMDAL was made to be submitted to the Department of Energy and Mineral Resources (DEMR) to be evaluated by and be presented in front of the AMDAL commission. The evaluation and presentation were carried out several times.

The Witness stated that the AMDAL Commission consists of various institutions including the DEMR [Department of Energy & Mineral Resources] (particularly the Environmental Bureau), KLH [Ministry of Environment] and WALHI [NGO].

The Witness stated that the laws relating to mines in Indonesia regulate that the wastes of a mining operation should be processed first [before disposal]. It cannot be disposed directly.

The AMDAL includes an environmental baseline, identification of impacts and the evaluation of those impacts.

The evaluation of the tailings resulted as follows, the tailings placed in the seabed would cover the seabed with sediment and therefore it would kill the biota in the seabed (which is benthos organism).

The impact was classified as “important” because the impact resulting from the tailings placement will reverse, which means the life of benthos will reappear and benthos will live [again] at the top of tailings placed in the seabed of Buyat Bay. In other words the tailings [placed in the seabed of Buyat Bay] would be the new habitat for benthos. The new life of Benthos colony [will] appear after tailings are no longer disposed.

The Witness stated that PTNMR had prepared calculations of STP location. Rescan prepared the calculations. The AMDAL Drafter Team then carried out a photo shooting and an analysis on the STP location, including taking the sample of seawater and benthos.

The Witness stated that his findings showed that there is thermocline at the STP location.

The Witness stated that it is common for tailings to naturally contain compounds of arsenic and mercury because gold ore usually contain some traces of arsenic and mercury.

According to the Witness, tailings are not included in [the category of] B3 waste.

The response of Accused I and Accused II: