Lessons from the Omai spill
Editorial
On August 19 five years ago, the Omai Gold Mines Limited (OGML) tailings dam spectacularly collapsed and spilled 3.2 million cubic metres of cyanide-tainted waste into the Omai River and then into the country's largest river, the Essequibo. It was a shattering awakening to the scale of danger a mining operation of OGML's type could pose to a country ill-prepared environmentally and without the means to respond to a disaster of this magnitude. For all the spin-doctoring that was employed during the period and even today to minimise the jeopardy the country faced, it is indisputable that what happened on August 19 was a huge disaster. Thousands of people living along the banks of the Essequibo endured enormous dislocation in their lives, the aquatic diversity in the Omai River was decimated for a significant period, there were fish kills in the Essequibo River and pollution, tourism was affected, production at Omai was set back, fish exports to some markets was halted and at the end of the day the total loss in dollars to the country must have been quite significant. The largest waterway in the country had become a sponge for the uncontrolled discharge of hazardous waste from a mining operation which had failed in a comprehensive manner. What could be worse? It was only the huge diffusion capacity of the Essequibo and its flow rate that saved the country from an even bigger catastrophe. Five years on there are two crucial areas which bear scrutiny. The first is that the collapse of the dam has left unfinished business in its aftermath. As we have said before in these columns the work of the Commission of Enquiry into the disaster never apportioned specific liability for the breakdown of the dam. While Omai as the operator had overall responsibility it still left the question of engineering culpability unresolved. In the annals of the mining and engineering history of this country, it is a gap that leaves vital questions unanswered. It has also limited the options available for legal redress. Also pending after all these years are the claims by more than 500 persons for compensation due to the pollution of the river and the consequent disruption of their livelihoods. With its corporate legal might arrayed against these ordinary claimants, OGML is yet to come to an agreement on its liability. We appeal to the company to come to a reasonable settlement with these persons as soon as possible. There is also unfinished business in respect of Omai's obligations to mine closure and reclamation. Its fulfilment of these must be closely tracked. Secondly, after coming through the worst of the spill we need to ask whether it has galvanised decision makers to determine precisely what long-term impact the extrusion has had on the Omai and Essequibo Rivers, what long-term impact continuing discharge of effluent into the rivers will have, whether enough is being done to prevent a recurrence of this type of trauma anywhere in the mining sector and whether we have adeptly used the opportunity to heighten public awareness of environmental concerns. The answers to some of these latter questions may sadly be no. In the Spotlight feature on the Omai spill in the September 9 edition of Stabroek News two environmentalists Dr Joshua Ramsammy and Dr David Singh cited the need for a comprehensive survey of the heavily sedimented Essequibo river bed to determine whether cyaniding was evident and heavy metals derived from the spill had lodged. If this was so there could be an accumulative effect on the denizens of the riverain communities and aquatic life. This is an area that should be given immediate attention and a comprehensive study by independent experts should be funded by Omai. Our testing and monitoring facilities are still not what they should be, according to Dr Singh and this could find us again on the back foot like we were when the dam broke away. While there is routine logging of discharge results and other sampling from Omai the public has been kept largely in the dark about this process and this is unsatisfactory. The post-spill activities were intended to rebuild public confidence in the mining process. This won't be achieved in secret. We suggest that the results of the continual testing should be made public on a routine basis. It is also debatable whether Guyanese today show greater respect and sensitivity to environmental issues. The head of the EPA, Per Bertilsson said in the Spotlight that there is need for greater awareness among Guyanese. The government and the rest of society must act on this. What happened on August 19, 1995 has to be committed to the memory of each of us so that collectively pressure can be applied to prevent it from happening again.
 Follow the goings-on in Guyana
|