abusesaffiliationarrow-downarrow-leftarrow-rightarrow-upattack-typeburgerchevron-downchevron-leftchevron-rightchevron-upClock iconclosedeletedevelopment-povertydiscriminationdollardownloademailenvironmentexternal-linkfacebookfiltergenderglobegroupshealthC4067174-3DD9-4B9E-AD64-284FDAAE6338@1xinformation-outlineinformationinstagraminvestment-trade-globalisationissueslabourlanguagesShapeCombined Shapeline, chart, up, arrow, graphLinkedInlocationmap-pinminusnewsorganisationotheroverviewpluspreviewArtboard 185profilerefreshIconnewssearchsecurityPathStock downStock steadyStock uptagticktooltiptwitteruniversalityweb

このページは 日本語 では利用できません。English で表示されています

記事

2022年1月15日

著者:
Ben Doherty, The Guardian

‘Very hard life now’: 12 years after the Montara oil spill, Indonesians are still fighting to be heard

15 January 2022

[...]

In March 2021, the federal court ordered the Australian subsidiary PTTEP Australasia (PTTEPAA) to pay [Daniel] Sanda a little over A$34,000 in damages.

So far he has not received anything.

[...]

But there are thousands more outside this group who say they have been affected by the spill – fishers, farmers and families – and who have received no apology or compensation.

[...]

The company accepted it had been negligent in its operation of the well, but argued the oil lost did not reach Indonesian waters and, if it did, its concentration was not toxic enough to destroy the seaweed crops.

The company also denied it owed a duty of care to the farmers.

[...]

A spokesperson for PTTEPAA says the company “remains disappointed” by the federal court’s decision.

The spokesperson says the court’s judgment related only to Sanda’s claim and that the other 15,482 claimants were “statute-barred and must be determined separately”.

“The court’s decision does not negate the requirement for individuals to demonstrate their actual loss and damage,” the company says.

[...]

The company’s appeal documents argue, among other things, that the original decision wrongly dismissed or placed insufficient weight on evidence from some experts that said it was likely oil from the Montara spill never reached Sanda’s island.

The company argues the decision in Sanda’s favour was flawed, and that the judge “should have instead found that Sanda failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that Montara oil reached the coastal areas of Rote and Kupang in a sufficient quantity or concentration to cause damage to seaweed crops”.

Lawyers for the company argued before the court that seaweed crops may have been affected by “ice-ice” disease, caused by rising sea temperatures and climate change. [...]

[...]

タイムライン