Ok Tedi mine (Papua New Guinea)
- Company or project BHP: The 1996 settlement included a commitment on tailings containment (the research record gives it as a promise of the best practicable containment system).
- International bodies SPREP (2025, as cited): About 80,000 tonnes of tailings a day are released into the rivers.
A copper-gold mine in Papua New Guinea has released tailings into the Ok Tedi and Fly rivers since 1984. Villagers sued BHP in 1994; BHP left in 2001–2002 under a law that shielded it from future environmental claims, and the PNG parliament removed that protection in 2013.
As reported by SPREP in 2025, as cited in secondary sources.
Status As of 2025: tailings discharge of about 80,000 tonnes a day is reported to continue; the PNG state holds about two-thirds of the mine; no prosecution is recorded.
- BHP — Exited the mine in 2001–2002 after transferring its stake to a foundation, with an indemnity limited to the foundation's value. BHP
- PNG state — Holds about two-thirds of the mine; 2024 dividend of K450 million recorded.
- Landowners — Share recorded as 33% (research record).
- BHP — Paid a 1996 settlement (110 million, currency not stated); lost its immunity in 2013. The Motley Fool Australia
- Communities along the Ok Tedi and Fly rivers, including the Yonggom people — Tailings released into the rivers they live along; 34,000 claimants sued in 1994.
What happened
The Ok Tedi copper-gold mine in Western Province, Papua New Guinea, was operated by BHP. According to the research record, its tailings dam was destroyed by a landslide in 1984 and was not rebuilt. Since then tailings have been released into the Ok Tedi and Fly rivers; SPREP (2025, as cited) gives the volume as about 80,000 tonnes a day.
In 1994 about 34,000 indigenous claimants sued BHP in Melbourne (Dagi v BHP). According to the research record, BHP's lawyers drafted a bill for the PNG parliament that would have blocked the case; the court found the company in contempt, and an appeal court overturned that finding on a technical ground. A 1996 settlement provided compensation (the record gives 110 million, currency not stated) and a commitment on tailings containment. In 2000 the villagers' lawyers dropped a second suit, citing insufficient evidence.
In December 2001 a PNG mining law transferred BHP's stake in the mine to a development foundation set up in Singapore. The foundation's purpose was to indemnify BHP and the state against pollution claims, and liability was limited to the foundation's value. BHP announced its withdrawal and the establishment of a development fund for the people of Papua New Guinea in February 2002. A World Bank recommendation in 2000 to close the mine, and critics of the exit, are recorded in a December 2001 report by IPS.
On 19 September 2013 a new law removed BHP's immunity. According to the research record, parliament voted 62 to 0 and, under Prime Minister Peter O'Neill, the state took the foundation's shares without compensation. The state now holds about two-thirds of the mine, with the company saying it will operate to 2050; a 2024 dividend of K450 million is recorded.
The research record states that no one has been prosecuted and no offence has been named.
- 1984Tailings dam destroyed by landslide and not rebuilt; tailings go to the Ok Tedi and Fly rivers (research record)
- 1994About 34,000 claimants sue BHP in Melbourne (Dagi v BHP)
- 1996Settlement: compensation (110 million, currency not stated) and a tailings containment commitment
- 2000Villagers' second suit dropped by their lawyers; World Bank recommends closing the mine
- 2001December: PNG mining law moves BHP's stake to a foundation set up in Singapore and limits liability to its value
- 2002February: BHP announces withdrawal and a development fund for the people of Papua New Guinea
- 201319 September: law removes BHP's immunity; the state takes the foundation's shares
- 2024Dividend of K450 million recorded
- 2025SPREP reports about 80,000 tonnes of tailings a day; company says production will continue to 2050
What was said
Where accounts differ
Each party's account, side by side, with its source. The record does not settle these points; it shows them.
Announced its withdrawal from the mine and the establishment of a development fund for the benefit of the people of Papua New Guinea.
BHPHeadline: 'Critics assail mining company's rearguard action'. The report records that the immunity was debated and that the World Bank had recommended closing the mine in 2000.
IPSDecember 2001: a mining law moved BHP's stake to a foundation set up in Singapore, with liability limited to the foundation's value. 19 September 2013: a new law removed BHP's immunity.
The Motley Fool AustraliaContested the fund; took over the mine in 2013 and now holds about two-thirds.
Reported (secondary source) to have ruled against the state; later status not found.
The 1996 settlement included a commitment on tailings containment (the research record gives it as a promise of the best practicable containment system).
About 80,000 tonnes of tailings a day are released into the rivers.
How it looked
Shown
- BHP announced it was withdrawing from the Ok Tedi mine and establishing a development fund for the benefit of the people of Papua New Guinea.BHP, February 2002 news release · BHP
Recorded
- Tailings released into the Ok Tedi and Fly rivers at about 80,000 tonnes a day (SPREP, 2025, as cited).
- 34,000 claimants sued BHP in 1994; a 1996 settlement included compensation and a tailings containment commitment.
- The December 2001 law limited liability to the value of the foundation; the 2013 law removed BHP's immunity.
- Reports give BHP's stake as 52% (IPS, December 2001) and the stake held in the fund as 63.4% (The Motley Fool Australia, October 2013).
Who gained
Reached nature or the ground
Gained elsewhere
Responses on record
- bhp (February 2002): BHP Billiton withdraws from Ok Tedi copper mine and establishes development fund for benefit of Papua New Guinea people. · BHP
- otml (2025): The company says it will continue production to 2050.
- png-government (2013): Parliament passed a law on 19 September 2013 removing BHP's immunity and took the foundation's shares. · The Motley Fool Australia
In court and with insurers
Lawsuits and rulings
- 1994–1996SettledDagi v BHPCourt in Melbourne, Australia · Class action · About 34,000 indigenous claimants from the Ok Tedi and Fly river area → BHP
Claimants sued in 1994. According to the research record, BHP's lawyers drafted a bill for the PNG parliament that would have blocked the case; the court found the company in contempt, and an appeal court overturned that finding on a technical ground. A 1996 settlement provided compensation (110 million, currency not stated) and a commitment on tailings containment.
- 2000–Outcome not on recordSecond claim by Ok Tedi villagersNot stated in the record · Civil · Ok Tedi villagers → BHP
A second suit was dropped in 2000 by the villagers' own lawyers, who said the evidence was insufficient (research record).
Insurers
What nature saw
Nature's report opens this page. Below: further outcomes measured on the ground.
What we don't know
Nature
- Not measured Harm to nature: The record holds no measurement of harm to nature.
- Disputed Was the tailings-containment commitment met?
Court
- Unclear Second claim by Ok Tedi villagers: outcome not on record.
Accounts
Record
- Disputed Stake figures conflict in the sources: 52% (IPS, December 2001) and 63.4% (The Motley Fool Australia, 2013, 'BHP's 63.4% stake in the fund').
- Unclear Status of the development fund (PNGSDP) after 2015: unknown. A long-term fund of about US$1.4bn is recorded around 2014, and a Singapore High Court ruling against the state is reported (secondary source); the later status was not found.
- None on record What followed the 2013 repeal of BHP's immunity was not tracked.
- None on record No criminal prosecution is recorded; the research record states that no one has been tried and no offence named.
- None on record No public insurer dispute was found for this case in the sources reviewed on insurance disputes.
- Unclear Whether the immunity arrangement was fully valid was debated at the time (IPS, December 2001: 'immunity was debated'); no court ruling on it is in the record.
- None on record The 1996 containment commitment is reported as not met (discharge continues at about 80,000 t a day); the record gives no ecological measurement of the rivers.
Did the harm stop?
Not stopped: discharge into the rivers is recorded as continuing in 2025, and the company says production will continue to 2050.
Who paid?
The record shows BHP's 1996 settlement and the loss of its immunity in 2013 (the state took the foundation's shares); communities along the Ok Tedi and Fly rivers carry the discharge. The record contains no restoration spending.
Sources
Company or project
Press and investigations
- Critics assail mining company's rearguard actionIPS · 2001-12-21
- BHP's Ok Tedi immunity scrappedThe Motley Fool Australia · 2013-10-24
Connected cases
- Alto Mayo REDD+ project (Peru) Peru · 2012–2024
- BHP (Company) — here: Former operator and majority owner; party to Dagi v BHP; there: Credit buyer
- Brazil's 2015 mining code draft was created on Vale and BHP's law firm's computer Brazil · 2015
- BHP (Company) — here: Former operator and majority owner; party to Dagi v BHP; there: Company served by the law firm that held the draft
- Indonesian nickel oversupply: BHP Nickel West suspension and the LME green contract Indonesia · 2023–2026
- BHP (Company) — here: Former operator and majority owner; party to Dagi v BHP; there: Suspended Nickel West
- Nautilus Minerals goes bankrupt; successor TMC rises from its ashes Papua New Guinea · 2018–2019
- Government of Papua New Guinea (Government) — here: State; legislated BHP's immunity (2001) and removed it (2013); now holds about two-thirds of the mine; there: 15 per cent stake in the Solwara 1 project
- Renova Foundation (Mariana dam, Brazil) Brazil · 2015–2024
- BHP (Company) — here: Former operator and majority owner; party to Dagi v BHP; there: Parent company of Samarco; secondary funder of Renova at 50% (BHP Brasil)
- Samarco Fundão dam collapse (Mariana): the settlement and the court cases Brazil · 2015–2026
- BHP (Company) — here: Former operator and majority owner; party to Dagi v BHP; there: 50% owner; acquitted in Brazil; found liable in London