My God, that's one Hell of a story. Outstanding journalism, an honest attempt to present both sides of a story. It reads like something by Conrad. I am very, very impressed.

This reads like a scrupulously fair account of a difficult story. I like your last few paras in particular. They sum up the inherent contradictions in the people who excel at these kinds of jobs - quixotic pioneers, not company stooges. Yet you do not let Ness off the hook and the final point is made very clearly.

PCPs are only dangerous if you burn them. Can you believe carbon dioxide and water vapor-the stuff that life is built upon-is considered pollution by some? Copper is a necessary mineral supplement.......These were statements I heard frequently growing up in a household financially supported by the copper mining business. I remember as a child taking a detour on a family vacation to visit the town of Murdockville where there had been a small "incident" at the copper smelting works. There were no trees anywhere within sight larger in diameter than my wrist. Yes, we are all human which often means we are full of contradictions, but anything other than the facts of the situation is just spin.

Of course,and some people always saw themselves as just "transportation specialists," not killers. As a sage once observed, if someone's patycheck is dependent on his not understanding something, he won't understand it.

Newmont, like many companies in the extractive industries still needs to make improvements in its environmental and social performance. But Newmont’s pollution controversy in Indonesia has many unique and complex dimensions that David Case’s article doesn't cover. This pollution case took place in Indonesia, which is among the worst performing countries when it comes to governance and corruption. And when Newmont’s case started five of Newmont’s staff were jailed for 32 days but they were never charged. Most recently the environmental NGOs that were very active in this case have been found to be consorting with radical Islamist organizations, bringing in an element of activism that goes beyond the motive of just the clean environment. I also found the article to be very dismissive of the research findings of the World Health Organization/Minamata Institute and CSIRO, Australia’s most reputable research organization. These are very competent organizations and they are at the forefront of research that has shaped the international and national health policies. To cast doubt on the published findings of these organizations raises some doubts about the true neutrality of David Case. This article could have been more comprehensive if David Case had addressed many of the complex political and socio-economic aspects that seem to be integral part of the Buyat Case. I would urge other readers to visit the site www.richardness.org to get an additional perspective.

wow. fabulous journalism rivetting coverage on compelling, important issues. great work!! em>Spread Love... ... but wear the Glove! BlueBerry Pick'n can be found @ ThisCanadian.com ~~~ "We, two, form a Multitude" ~ Ovid. ~~~ "Silent Freedom is Freedom Silenced"

Mr. Case deserves a Pulitzer for this piece.

A fascinating, gripping account told with precision, flair and nuance. This terrific article is as suspenseful as a literary thriller. The tale of hubris, moral blindness and the banality of evil is tragic; if only the damage was imaginary and the story a work fiction.

For decades,the EPA has been The Whore of commercialism, and it was forced into that role because in America's infinite lack of wisdom by neglecting to give the EPA the necessary power to enforce its violations. I have a 6 inch thick folder of DENIAL, DENIAL, DENIAL by the NRC for 30 years of using subcontractors to get rid of nuclear waste by shooting holes in 55 gallon drums (because they floated due to the light nature of the fission material inside) so that they sank into the depths of the oceans. Out of sight,out of mind is the U.S. gov posture on just about everything they cannot be legally held accountable for. Why would we think Americans in foreign countries would behave any differently? Because there is no stewardship YET for the outrageous profiteering going on by pilfering 3rd world countries by our own corporate America, would personally be more inclined to (when in host nations) apply the reverse tactic: GUILITY UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT. With Blackwater now (thanks to Bushbaby) an insidious cancer of militarily trained assassins will be "Guns-For-Hire" (Busybaby's own reliving of the Old Texan west in the present day) for corporate America to "protect" their raping of the resources of other nations from their rightfully resentful native peoples. These "Guns-For-Hire" have no accountability WHATSOEVER for murder and havoc they are responsible for, and even if the American people finally realize the heinousness of Blackwater and force it to go underground, my bet will be that Bushbaby, when he slinks out the White House, will make its headquarters on that 900,000 acres Bushbaby bought in Paraquay and it will become the mecca for assassins globally. We held Castro in scorn for his decades of security by having paid henchmen protect his back. Bushbaby will be protected from his rightful fate by mercenaries who get their pay from all the TAX CREDITS/CUTS that corporate America gets from Uncle Sam and will be a permanent "axis of evil" fully funded -albeit indirectly- by every single American.

a great story with the depth and detail that underscore the complexities of mining and other issues in Indonesia. american readers need more good international stories like these.

Thank you- very interesting. I love international activist stories of success. Kudos yo David as well as Global Response.org in Boulder, Colorado for keeping this story in the news. Now that Newmont is included in the Sustainability Index, it is very timely.

The August 2007 issue of Mother Jones magazine contains an article by freelance writer David Case about now-discredited allegations claiming Newmont Mining Corporation's Minahasa Raya mine polluted Buyat Bay. The article implies that the Indonesian court's unanimous and complete acquittal of Newmont and its President Director Richard Ness was due to influence and pressure from the company instead of the product of an exhaustive 21-month trial by a panel of five independent judges. Much of the scientific data examined by David Case was either ignored or suggested it was tainted. Scientific experts were not mentioned or quoted in the article. Instead, the story relied upon information from outside sources with well known anti-mining biases who have neither been to Buyat Bay nor examined the data. Furthermore, allegations which were proven false in the trial were unfortunately repeated in the article. In some cases the author infers intrigue, even when facts were well known and publicly available. Specific errors or omissions within the story include: The Trial and Verdict. FLAW: Case's article cannot be considered a balanced look at the Buyat Bay case since it omits Newmont's complete acquittal of any and all pollution charges. FACT: On April 24, 2007, after a 21-month trial, a panel of five judges from the Manado District Court unanimously found Newmont not guilty of polluting Buyat Bay, of causing harm to human health or of operating the mine without proper permits. The verdict included a painstaking 279-page analysis of the witnesses, exhibits and scientific evidence presented. With meticulous detail, the judges outlined the law and how it guided each of their decisions. It is noteworthy that the verdict has yet to be criticized by anyone on points of the law or on the laws in which the decisions were rooted. The proof that Buyat Bay was unaffected by Newmont's mining operations, as captured in the judges' verdict, is overwhelming. Verdict Human Health. FLAW: The author makes light of respected, independent health studies or ignores them altogether in an effort to suggest that any health problems found in Buyat Bay residents should be linked to Newmont's mining operations. FACT: When allegations of disease and death were originally circulated in 2004, many medical experts came to study the area. The data collected was presented in peer-reviewed academic journals, academic conferences and government-sponsored reports. Every study conducted on human health in Buyat Bay has come to the same conclusion: that there were no unusual or mining-induced health problems in the community. WHO Study FLAW: The author suggests he discovered Buyat Bay Village and implies it was a community Mr. Ness did not want him to see. As such he leaves the impression there were medical issues in another nearby village being hidden by Ness and the company. FACT: Buyat Village is the closest established community to the coastal community. Because of its position, it has been the most closely studied of all the surrounding communities. Doctors from the local government and local teaching university have all concluded that the types and rates of diseases there are normal, with no unusual disease pattern. The health problems that do exist are, unfortunately, typical for a community in the region. Mercury. FLAW: The Mother Jones article says "lab tests showed mercury levels in some villagers' bodies that were triple the level the U.S. government considers safe." FACT: This is incorrect. No evidence was offered to support this statement and every study that has been conducted contradicts this statement. Conclusive data shows community has low mercury levels. Some individual readings may be false or of illegal miners who work with mercury. Mercury and arsenic levels in Buyat Village inhabitants have been studied extensively. Studies by the World Health Organization and the Indonesian Ministry of Health found no residents with dangerous levels of heavy metals. Rigorous and repeated studies and lab tests have shown the village's population to have mercury levels which are considered normal anywhere in the world, and lower than those in many countries' coastal populations where fish is the primary diet. WHO Study World Health Organization. FLAW: The article attacks the United Nations' World Health Organization study stating some of their findings were inconclusive. And, despite having no medical credentials the author seems to disagree with WHO's conclusions. FACT: In 2004, shortly after the controversy began, the WHO team studied the environment and levels of mercury in the local population at the request of the Indonesian government. The team found mercury levels to be normal and lower than those found in many commercial fisheries. WHO's study found that mercury levels in the bay's fish do not indicate contamination from any source. WHO Study FLAW: The author repeats the same error in his treatment of the subject of arsenic. FACT: The WHO study found arsenic concentrations in fish muscles to be normal. WHO Study Medical Help. FLAW: In describing the surgeries performed on Buyat Bay residents bused to the regional university medical center, the author presents the matter in a misleading way, suggesting that Newmont might have paid for the surgeries in an attempt to influence medical specialists who were to study the Buyat Bay community. FACT: The author was well aware that the regional university medical center sent repeated expeditions of medical officials to the area after the controversy began in 2004. Dozens of medical personnel examined the local population, trying to evaluate the health of local villagers. Part of that process was to perform free surgery to determine whether growths were cancerous, unusual or could be connected to mercury poisoning. Dr. Frans Tangel and his team performed the surgeries; the lumps were analyzed by pathologists and found to be benign and normal, both in type and number for the population. This information was made public and was available to the author who neglected to include these facts in his article. Water Quality. FLAW: Another of the many misleading statements in the article concerns Buyat Bay's water quality. The article claims, "Police investigators found mercury and arsenic in the Bay. (Newmont's own analysis of the same water samples found them to be clean.)" FACT: In 2004, an Indonesian police lab found what it considered dangerously high levels of mercury and arsenic in the water it tested. These police lab results have since been completely discredited both because they were wildly out of line with every other test done and because the police submitted a greater number of samples than had originally been taken when the police, Newmont and independent labs split common samples for testing. The police lab's personnel had no experience in conducting tests or performing analyses on such low concentrations of metals in ocean water. Its lab results were simply invalid. FACT: Other national and international laboratories who tested Buyat Bay ocean water found it to be normal and clean. These waters have been tested and retested many times over. There is no scientific controversy on this point: the waters in and around Buyat Bay are clean. Newmont had hired an internationally-recognized lab to test the Buyat Bay water samples, and its tests yielded the same results. Around the globe, ocean water has small amounts of mercury, arsenic and virtually every other natural element. The levels of mercury and arsenic in Buyat Bay waters are normal for ocean water and safe for all living things. CSIRO Report Part 1 – CSIRO Part 2 Questionable Sourcing, Questionable Journalism. FLAW: Instead of citing the many competent and independent scientists who studied the Buyat Bay environment and the health of its community, the author sought and quoted sources with known anti-mining positions from the United States who have no first-hand knowledge of Buyat Bay. The activists quoted include Glen Miller of Great Basin Mine Watch as well as Jim Kuipers and David Chambers of the Center for Science and Public Participation. FACT: All three have established views opposing gold mining. There is no indication that any of the three have been to or studied Buyat Bay. The author ignored meticulously researched and peer-reviewed studies and reports from medical specialists who visited the area and examined the population. WHO, Minamata Institute, CSIRO FLAW: In another example of flawed sourcing, the article ends with a quote from Sandra Ainsworth, identified as a "former company employee who says she was fired after she blew the whistle on pollution at a Nevada mine." FACT: The courts ruled Ms. Ainsworth was not fired for whistle blowing. Her subsequent whistleblower lawsuit against Newmont was dismissed as being without merit by the United States District Court for the district of Nevada. Postscript. Untold context to the story is that Newmont engaged with David Case, on multiple occasions, for more than a year while he wrote his article for Rolling Stone magazine. After Rolling Stone rejected Case’s article he offered it to Mother Jones who published it. Newmont gave Case access to scientific data compiled by the company, data from outside independent laboratories, and access to technical and scientific experts with impeccable credentials who studied Buyat Bay. It is unfortunate that David Case chose to ignore most of the scientific data and independent experts that could have enlightened him on the true condition of Buyat Bay.

Thank you for an excellent article. I would be interested in learning if Newmont was obliged to submit regular emissions reports during the mine's operations. Newmont's JV with Barrick in Australia, in Kalgoorlie, saw these companies emit almost 8 tonnes of mercury over the community in 2005 and nearly 7 tonnes in 2006. Those figures, are of course, those volunteered by Newmont Barrick, however, regulators in Australia turn a blind eye to excessive emissions. The official reports (which are public documents) clearly reveal constant breaches of the EP Act, however, regulators fail to include them in licensing conditions, then claim the Act is unenforceable. Recently one mining company (in collusion with regulators and the port) poisoned the town of Esperance with lead which led to yet another parliamentary enquiry. Barrick/Newmont's massive expansion, encroaching on the community, was recently approved by the acting Head of the EPA, however, a conflict of interest was revealed and must now be re-assessed. Naturally, we can be assured of the same outcome. The community of Yarloop in WA has been contaminated by Alcoa. Many have now been forced to accept offers from Alcoa for their homes in that area and a official health study, which somehow went "missing' revealed that the town of Kwinana has the highest rate of cancer in Western Australia. This industrial area is now pegged by the state government for a huge expansion. Unfortunately, the hazardous emissions from mining, effecting community health, are hard to prove due to the lag time for many of these diseases to emerge. Our governments knows this and so do the polluters at the big end of town. Keep up your excellent work Mother Jones - Mother Earth needs you!

In response to Mr. Clean, my article in the September/October edition of Mother Jones, Newmont published rebuttal on its website. The rebuttal is littered with inaccuracies, and in no way refutes the facts or substance of my article. But Newmont’s response was not surprising: as I pointed out in detail in the article, the company has used misinformation to convince the media and the courts that it is innocent of polluting Buyat Bay and sickening villagers, when the facts clearly suggest the opposite. Newmont appears to have ignored the sidebar to the story in which much of the scientific data is summarized. The sidebar is available at: http://www.motherjones.com/new s/feature/2007/09/data-mining- newmonts-dubious-science.html. Here’s a response to Newmont’s rebuttal, which can be found on their website at http://buyatbayfacts.com. Newmont: Much of the scientific data examined by David Case was either ignored or suggested it was tainted. Mother Jones: On the contrary, my conclusions are based exclusively on science. Newmont provided me with hundreds of pages of studies and data that I examined in detail. A considerable amount of the data provided by Newmont actually supported the case that Newmont polluted Buyat Bay. After confronting Newmont with the facts, I spent dozens of hours on the phone with their scientists. Their arguments—which were at times deliberately misleading—never disproved the basic facts of the case: -- that high levels of mercury and arsenic have been found in Buyat Bay and in the villagers that live nearby; -- and that the villagers have suffered from serious health problems that can be explained by these toxins. Newmont: Scientific experts were not mentioned or quoted in the article. Instead, the story relied upon information from outside sources with well-known anti-mining biases who have neither been to Buyat Bay nor examined the data. Mother Jones: This is incorrect. Dozens of scientists were consulted in researching the article, and many were quoted as well. Newmont: Case's article cannot be considered a balanced look at the Buyat Bay case since it omits Newmont's complete acquittal of any and all pollution charges. Mother Jones: This allegation raises questions about whether Newmont actually read the article, which states in the very first section: “…the provincial court acquitted Ness of all charges. ‘I was amazed at how thoroughly the judges sided with us,’ Ness says. ‘”It was a slam dunk.’" Newmont: The author makes light of respected, independent health studies or ignores them altogether in an effort to suggest that any health problems found in Buyat Bay residents should be linked to Newmont's mining operations. Mother Jones: On the contrary, I examined in detail the data provided by Newmont, as well as by independent sources who had visited the site. Far from exonerating the company, the data provide strong evidence that the villagers have been exposed to dangerous pollutants at excessive levels (as defined by the US government). Incidentally, some of the most damning evidence comes from a study conducted by the Minamata Institute under the auspices of the World Health Organization—the so-called “WHO study” that Newmont links to repeatedly in its rebuttal. As mentioned in the sidebar, this study actually shows that “70 percent of villagers reported headaches and 8 percent had neurological disorders, both of which can be linked to mercury exposure.” Newmont: The author suggests he discovered Buyat Bay Village and implies it was a community Mr. Ness did not want him to see. As such he leaves the impression there were medical issues in another nearby village being hidden by Ness and the company. Buyat Village is the closest established community to the coastal community. Because of its position, it has been the most closely studied of all the surrounding communities. Mother Jones: The first part of this is correct: in an exhaustive tour of the area, Ness failed to discuss Buyat Village, and we drove past the road leading to it numerous times without ever entering the village, even though it is only a few minutes drive away. If indeed it was the “most closely studied” community, then it’s even more surprising that Ness chose to take me to nearby Buyat Beach, from which nearly all of the residents have fled due to health problems they say began after Newmont started dumping waste in front of their houses, where they fish. When I visited Buyat Village on my own, many residents complained of illnesses, and showed me tumors they had developed. Additionally, data from local doctors that Newmont provided me showed that after mining, the villagers had a substantial level of skin disease—lumps, tumors and rashes. Skin disease can be caused by arsenic, one of the contaminants found in the bay. These days, Newmont contends that these skin diseases are “typical” and attributes them to poor sanitation. The company’s environmental impact assessment contradicts this, however, noting (on page 4-193) that skin problems were not found in Buyat prior to mining. Newmont: WHO found mercury levels to be normal and lower than those found in many commercial fisheries. WHO's study found that mercury levels in the bay's fish do not indicate contamination from any source. Mother Jones: In fact, as we stated in our sidebar, at the mercury level that WHO found in Buyat fish, villagers could barely consume an ounce before exceeding the EPA's standard. That said, the mercury levels in Buyat fish are probably even worse than WHO reported, given that they only studied the muscle, not the skin and organs that villagers routinely eat. Nemwont: Instead of citing the many competent and independent scientists who studied the Buyat Bay environment and the health of its community, the author sought and quoted sources with known anti-mining positions from the United States who have no first-hand knowledge of Buyat Bay. The activists quoted include Glen Miller of Great Basin Mine Watch as well as Jim Kuipers and David Chambers of the Center for Science and Public Participation. All three have established views opposing gold mining. There is no indication that any of the three have been to or studied Buyat Bay. Mother Jones: In fact, Miller is a professor at University of Nevada, and a recognized expert in mercury from mining. Kuipers runs his own consulting firm. Along with Chambers, they are valuable sources due to their inside knowledge of the industry. Hardly “anti-mining activists,” they are concerned citizens who readily disagreed with environmentalists, and spent hours painstakingly explaining the science of mining. Kuipers and Chambers left lucrative careers with companies after becoming disillusioned with the needless destruction that some (but not all) companies perpetrate. They were not primary sources for the article; instead, they assisted with the interpretation of data supplied by Newmont and others. Note that Newmont didn’t refute their quotes or any facts they provided. Newmont: In another example of flawed sourcing, the article ends with a quote from Sandra Ainsworth, identified as a "former company employee who says she was fired after she blew the whistle on pollution at a Nevada mine." The courts ruled Ms. Ainsworth was not fired for whistle blowing. Her subsequent whistleblower lawsuit against Newmont was dismissed as being without merit by the United States District Court for the district of Nevada. Mother Jones: As I wrote, Ainsworth describes herself as a whistleblower, and provided a lengthy list of environmental sins being committed at the Newmont mine where she worked in Nevada. These were corroborated by another colleague who was fired along with her. The quote she provided was not material to the case against Newmont; rather, it was to put Ness in context. Newmont: Untold context to the story is that Newmont engaged with David Case, on multiple occasions, for more than a year while he wrote his article for Rolling Stone magazine. After Rolling Stone rejected Case’s article he offered it to Mother Jones who published it. Mother Jones: Alas, there is some truth to this. Rolling Stone did initially assign this story, and chose not to publish it. This was not due to any factual inaccuracies, however. It’s not at all uncommon for magazines to withdraw from agreements to publish a story, often for economic reasons, or because they decide that a story won’t have popular appeal, which was the case with this detailed investigation. Newmont: Newmont gave Case access to scientific data compiled by the company, data from outside independent laboratories, and access to technical and scientific experts with impeccable credentials who studied Buyat Bay. It is unfortunate that David Case chose to ignore most of the scientific data and independent experts that could have enlightened him on the true condition of Buyat Bay. Mother Jones: Newmont, and Rick Ness, should be commended for its openness. In the many investigations that I’ve done over the years, few corporations have been as forthcoming with studies, staff time and access to its experts. Far from ignoring this opportunity, I engaged Newmont for more than a year, and examined every detail. Over that time, I got to know and like Ness, as a person. His predicament, it seemed, was that just as his phenomenal mining career was cresting at the summit, he’d been dealt a bad hand and made the mistake of not folding. Neither Newmont’s cooperation nor sympathy for Ness change the facts of the story, however: Buyat Bay is polluted with Newmont’s mining waste, dangerous levels of which are showing up in villagers’ bodies. Most importantly, nearly four years after this controversy first grabbed headlines in Indonesia, the company’s denials only prevent the villagers from getting the help they need.

Yo

Yo