Go to Survey
IF the Peruvian State consulted with you about these demands by Doe Run Peru, what would you say?
Dear friends,
This is a critical time for the people of La Oroya, Peru, and we need to hear YOUR VOICE in order to help them.
Here is a 5 QUESTION (YES/NO) SURVEY regarding demands being made to the government of Peru by the company Doe Run Peru that will negatively affect the people and environment of La Oroya. Please take 3 minutes to fill it out. For an introduction to the issue, please read below:
La Oroya is one of the ten most contaminated cities in the world (according to Blacksmith Institute). The population finds itself gravely effected by the contamination produced by the Metallurgical Complex operated by the mining company Doe Run Peru. This company belongs to the North American billionaire, Ira Rennert. Thirteen years ago the company committed itself to investing in the modernization of the metallurgical complex through the state mandated Environmental Clean-Up Program (known in Peru as the PAMA). To date, the company has not finished its commitment despite the fact that the mandated time frame has expired and despite that various extensions have been provided.
In the United States, the holding company, Renco Group, for Doe Run Peru has invested in new technologies at its smelter in Herculaneum, Missouri in order to meet the regulations of the Environmental Protection Agency in the United States (www.doerun.com).
After many years of economic profit (the net gains of Doe Run Peru by the end of 2008 were $508 million – La Republica 28/03/2009), the mining company inexplicably declared itself in a state of economic and financial crisis. In June of 2009, it then halted the operations of the Metallurgical Complex in La Oroya, ceasing to fulfill its contracted obligations with its workers and creditors. In the face of this situation, the Peruvian State has tried to help the company through various opportunities to escape this crisis. Nonetheless, the company has taken advantage of the State in order to escape its responsibilities. And today, the start up of the plant comes with conditions placed by Doe Run Peru, which has placed new demands before the State.
Please take 3 minutes to fill out THIS SURVEY.
also, to hear more about la oroya, check out our podcast or my blog
Hi, Joe!
ReplyDeleteThe "fill out THIS SURVEY" link near the bottom is broken, but the others seem to work.
Also, though it's pretty clear that the company doesn't DESERVE any extensions, waiving of fines, etc., it still might be in the best interest of La Oroya to keep cutting them a little slack. What would happen if the State dug in its heels, refused all the contract changes and extensions requested by the company, and then it turned out that the "financial crisis" wasn't a fake excuse so they could escape responsibility? What if it turned out that the company was truly unable to meet the demands put forth by the various laws and contracts? Would the company go under, and if so, what would that mean for their workers and for the cleanup effort? Would the government receive enough collateral/compensation from Doe Run to take the plant over and modernize it? Probably not, if Doe Run didn't have the cash to do it themselves. If the plant closed indefinitely because no one had the money to modernize it, would that be enough to fix the environment in La Oroya, or would additional cleanup be needed? Would simply closing the plany be an improvement at all?
Obviously, the State can't grant extension after extension indefinitely and expect to get anywhere, and obviously Doe Run doesn't deserve any favors. But fixing the situation may not be possible without the company being involved and continuing to be profitable. And that might not be possible unless they are cut some more slack.
I answered the survey assuming that Doe Run can bear the burden of sticking to the original agreements. But my actual advice to the State would be, give Doe Run the minimum amount of slack you can. Get someone in there to verify the financial situation, and then hold the company to as many of its contracts and responsibilities as you can without sending it under - unless you're willing to see it go under.
Now - as someone who knows way, way more about this than I do - let me have it. What are the problems with my reasoning? But please remember that I in no way think that the company deserves to be cut any slack. If justice alone was the only question, I'd be all for the State digging in its heels and, if need be, squeezing Doe Run for every cent they can legally get, to atone for the damage the company's done. I'm just not convinced that this approach would be enough to actually fix the problem.