Unlock the Editor’s Digest totally free
Roula Khalaf, Editor of the FT, selects her favorite tales on this weekly e-newsletter.
Senior managers at mining group BHP Billiton instructed workers to overview the “outrage issue” of a tailing dam failing, years earlier than simply such an occasion at one in every of its joint ventures triggered an environmental catastrophe, the Excessive Courtroom in London has been advised.
Executives on the firm made the request in 2011, 4 years earlier than a dam that held waste supplies burst at an iron-ore mine in Brazil unleashing a sludge wave that killed 19 individuals, in accordance with inner correspondence cited in a lawsuit introduced on behalf of victims.
Staff had been requested following a bunch administration committee assembly to “overview the seemingly outrage issue of a tailing dam failure” and to “examine the eye given to BP’s spill within the Gulf of Mexico”, a reference to the lethal Deepwater Horizon explosion the yr earlier than.
Inside BHP correspondence cited within the courtroom proceedings contains Sir Andrew Mackenzie, who was on the time an govt on the mining group and subsequently grew to become its chief govt. He now chairs power firm Shell.
BHP, previously often known as BHP Billiton, is going through a multibillion pound declare introduced on behalf of about 620,000 alleged victims of the 2015 catastrophe close to the city of Mariana. The corporate had a non-operating stake within the dam that burst, which it co-owned with the Brazilian mining firm Vale by means of their Samarco three way partnership.
The correspondence — which mentioned the generic danger of a tailing dam failure and never the Mariana web site specifically — was cited on Thursday throughout a cross examination of Peter Beaven, BHP’s former chief monetary officer.
He was requested by Alain Choo Choy KC, representing the claimants, whether or not the existence of an “outrage issue” meant senior managers had been “typically delicate of the chance of a tailing dam failure”.
Beaven replied that “it didn’t want an e-mail from Andrew [Mackenzie]” for managers to concentrate on such dangers.
He advised the courtroom in his witness assertion that Samarco was “not mentioned in any stage of element” by the group administration committee when he served on it, however that it had a file as a “dependable and protected operator”.
Beaven added that when he “noticed footage of the collapse on the information, I used to be very stunned that such a tragic incident had occurred”.
BHP argues that Samarco was an impartial entity, with a separate administration crew that made its personal choices.
Vale and BHP have reached an settlement with authorities in Brazil, finalised this month, to pay R$170bn ($28.4bn) in reparations, together with sums already paid. BHP has described the London proceedings as pointless and never within the pursuits of victims.
Pogust Goodhead, the UK legislation agency bringing the case in London, mentioned the sums to be paid to victims underneath the Brazil settlement had been insufficient.
The primary spherical of the case, which started final month, is scheduled to final till March. If BHP is discovered liable, a subsequent trial will happen to find out damages.
Extra reporting by Malcolm Moore in London
