From the following, comes the following mistruth.
"Bougainville fought because it has been getting 0.025% from the Bougainville Copper."
For the years 1972-1989 in total, the cash disbursements were as follows. (From audited Company reports)
to PNG Government (K Million)
Income tax 582
Dividends on the shares that were gifted to the PNG government 166
Withholding tax on those dividends 96
PAYE tax 120
Customs Duty 104
Misc 10
-----
TOTAL 1078 or 61.45%
To NSP Government
Royalties (95%) 61
taxes 12
resource fund 2
-----
total 75 OR 4.27%
To Landowners
Royalties (5%) 3
Occupation and Compensation 21
----
24 or 1.36%
Investors (non government, including CRA)
577 or 32.9%
(and numerous citizens of PNG)
Those dividends were spread over approximately 325 million shares. (the non government shareholding, which means an effective dividend return of of around K1.8 per share for the investors spread over 17 years - hardly anthing to write home about.
If Kondras claim was true then the average annual return to landowners would have been only K26,000 total per year. (roughly). I don't think so. The difference between the "Local" total of 5.4% (NSP & LO) and his stated 0.025% is some 200 fold.
The above figures do beg the point. If the ABG were to get its **(& together and get drawdown on not only mining, but finance, taxation, infrastructure and so on, it could then take the lions share of the 66% or so, that was previously predominantly going to the national government (and the NSPG). If one looks at BCL's own recent estimates (conservative) on the value of the remaining Panguna pit ore body, which was, as I recall around USD 36 Billion or around K75Bn, That is as much as $k50Bn staying in Bougainville. (Just don't put it anywhere near Tonu). And that is apart from all of the reconstruction, employment etc etc. Staying on Bougainville?? Top tier investment portfolio, would be smarter, or even establishing Bougainville as a "real" finance centre (not like NMs lies...)
As I have said before, and the numbers that Lawrence Daveona posted a while back tend to reinforce, the issue would not be where the "landowners" would resettle to - they could have their choice of penthouses in Q1 on the gold coast...
Also, if you look at the shareholding ( per the annual report ) most of the shares have now been acquired by Institutional investors (banks etc). The top 20 shareholders account for 95.51% of the shares, leaving only 18 milion shares out of the total 401 million, owned by "others" (including the European shareholders...). The people that have "put and kept the money in the investment" will be the first to be "paid" for their trust and persistence. The other issue is that, as I recall, Peter Taylor (of BCL) has indicated that a "restart" estimate would be in the order of 3 Billion. IN the current economic times, that will be hard to raise. It will be harder to raise, when investors see disproportionate greed from landowners, a lack of guarantee of law and order, and the various other basics that one would reasonably expect. The arguing point for increased local revenue, would have been stronger in better economic times, but then everyone was too busy, dicking around with Invincible (who seem to have dropped of the face of the planet) and their partners in "Crime", BDRC.
Ah, hindsight is so crystal clear, at times... |
Thread abonnieren
