Buzwagi mine closure has range of opportunities

-environmental drawbacks if the mine closes in an unsavory manner, there is a cost analysis issue which cuts across issues of ownership of land as different from operating a mine, and corporate social responsibility. That is what the government is apparently privileging, that it is dutiful for the company to close down the mine positively, not just run.

Depending on what mining sector analysis feel is the right cost margin for the business of mine closure, it is possible to justify one or other approach, as it can’t be said that there is only one approach. Again it is unclear what the law says in that regard as what happened at the weekend was a matter of ministerial visit and inspection, and issuing some directives. It means that relevant agencies like the Mining Commission and even the jointly owned mining company between the Treasury and Barrick Gold weren’t able to set out the right path to solving that issue, and merely inform the ministry what they intended to do, directly.

It would imply that there is a difference of perspectives, and if it can’t be resolved say by a commercial court (the law says such disputes ought to be sorted out locally) then it would constitute a matter for renegotiation at the highest level. But in the final analysis the crucial issue is technical, as to whether there is one option of mine closure, refilling the massive pit with soil, sand, rock or gravel, and entirely with the mining firm bearing the cost. The issue is, assuming that all land has value, is there no potential taker for that land who can assume occupancy rights from Barrick Gold and then use it fruitfully, quickly?

That comes down to asking what a company – or an individual – would do with a rather vast portion of land (taking up one or two villages, say) if he was handed a stretch of land which is marked by a massive hole in the middle of it, or rather constituting the main part of that plot of land. Would such an investor say that this plot is useless as there is nothing one can do with a large hole, except that it endangers the lives of villagers surrounding the place as well as livestock? Is there no purpose that can be served there?

It would be astonishing if someone answered in the affirmative, that there is nothing useful that can be done with the land as it is, but it would not be surprising if someone else answered that there is nothing useful that can be done by the government, or by the villagers, on that land. Quickly it is seen that there is a problem of agency, as to who may take up that land after Barrick Gold Corporation leaves, and ex post facto such agent wants the company to prepare the land so that he can use it. The company would say it is possible to get another agent who can use the land with presumably modicum investments, and fruitfully, like laying a pipe to Lake Victoria, fill it with water, and harvest fish, while a new wetland is also started.