Newmont's Strategy of Severance
Severing the connection between Turcaud's discovery and Newmont's posession
Newmont's Strategy of Severance
Severing the connection between Turcaud's discovery and Newmont's posession
|
| Turcaud to Searls (January,
1973): "I realise that Day Dawn have been instrumental in re-introducing
you to the Paterson Range prospect, although the information supplied was
little more than the original information given to you by myself, and I
am glad that they were able to stimulate your interest in the ground.
However, please be fair and give me some consideration for the time and
money spent in discovering this area which you have now pegged ... I feel
sure that you, a reputable company would agree that it is not right that
the prospector who draws attention to these things should be missing out
all the time." (10/1/1973)
Newmont's solicitors to Turcaud: "Dear Sir, We have been handed your letter of January 10, 1973 addressed to out client company Newmont Proprietary Limited, and advise that we act as its Melbourne solicitors. Our client has instructed us that it does not and never has acknowledged your claim to any interest in the mining tenements in the area concerned, nor is it prepared to give any consideration to the matters raised in your letter of January 10, 1973. Furthermore our client should be pleased if you would desist from further correspondence or attempts to contact it in this matter, as all such will hereafter be ignored. Accordingly we return herewith your correspondence." (17/1/1973) (Sheppard, 2002 p.167) |
Newmont adopted a number of strategems to sever the connection with Turcaud and to distance Turcaud's discovery from their staked title of ownership, all of them quite legal but in denial of fairness:-1. Searls' use of the word 'discovery' for what was clearly 'uncovery', meaning 'further revealing of that which is already found'.
2. Attributing detection of gold in samples to Thomson, yet 'discovery of the deposit' to Tyrwhitt, whilst dismissing Turcaud's efforts as "valiant and frustrating mineral prospecting in this desert" and entirely ignoring Koehn.
3. Discriminating between copper and gold in the same samples as a rationale for justifying what was 'mineralisation of interest' and what was not, and thereby insisting that Turcaud did not prove commercial viability of his find (when all prospecting is directed towards finding simply indications of mineralisation) again an attempt to usurp Turcaud's discovery.
4. Placing the routine of chemical analysis of samples in the lab over Turcaud's pioneering efforts and field acquisition of the samples in the first place.
5. Attributing the source of information about gold to Day Dawn when Turcaud had already twice sought (unsuccessfully) to interest Newmont in his samples (and interest Day Dawn).
6. Spreading doubt that Turcaud had ever been to the Paterson Ranges.
7. Recognising and using the importance of "key people" to override Turcaud's application to name the deposit.
8. Trying to get Turcaud to sign a document forfeiting his discovery even whilst saying they did not recognnise his dicscovery in the first place (!!)
Searl's misuse of the word 'discovery' to describe what Tyrwhitt himself describes simply as just "pegging the claims" is asinine, and hardly brooks any other comment. Turcaud had sought twice, unsuccessfully, to directly interest Newmont in the prospect. Newmont's refusal on those occasions would therefore seem to be more of an indictment of their own professional ineptitude than of any failure on Turcaud's part to discover 'outcrops of value'. Clearly Turcaud discovered indications of mineralisation over a very large area, some of it highly spectacular - "gossans were beautiful, and there was up to 1.9% copper in them" ( Sheppard, 2002, p.65). Equally clearly, Tyrwhitt's view that Turcaud did not discover "commercial indications" (meaning recognise the gold).."and therefore did not play (Tyrwhitt's emphasis in interview, Adcock, 1999) a critical role in the discovery process" is manifest nonsense. Whilst it is incumbent on the prospector to show indications of mineralisation, it is not incumbent upon him to demonstrate commercialism. Commercialism is not an intrinsic quality of any deposit, particularly in initial stages of evaluation, but of the vagaries of supply and demand in the marketplace. Neither, with the price of gold so low at the time, was gold an inherently sought-for mineral - by any company.It seems possible that Newmont may well not have known about Turcaud's earlier attempt to introduce Day Dawn Minerals NL to his prospect when they insisted they had acquired the information via that company. In an interview with Thomson in 1990, Thomson is officially sceptical about Turcaud having been in the area at all, so it seems hardly likely, since his employment by Newmont was coupled to the information he brought to them, that he would have revealed to Newmont any possible Day Dawn -Turcaud connection, even had he known of it. Also whilst Newmont may have been oblivious to Turcaud's discovery role in the first instance, his later appearance on the scene would most certainly have stimulated their closest enquiry. Sheppard's (2002) carefully researched account however shows that Newmont did not want to know, otherwise Koehn would have received the credit he deserved, as having been the first amongst Day Dawn staff to analyse samples from the prospect for gold, ..an enterprise which Koehn relates as being in any case more of a group decision, than attributable to any single person. Sheppard reveals substantial discrepancies in Newmont's 'discovery' (/uncovery) account, which raise serious questions over the honesty that Searls is at considerable pains to emphasise in his foreword to Tyrwhitt's account in Desert Gold.
Thomson was sacked within six months of employment, and Newmont was left with the legacy of a lie, yet a lie (given Koehn's erasure) that obviously suited them. The subsequent labyrinth that followed included the demise of Day Dawn Minerals and the exclusion of Newmont's joint venture partner Narla Minerals NL, which paved the way for the entry of BHP. With both Day Dawn and Narla gone from the picture, with the deposit named after Searls' old friend Bert Telfer, and with Newmont portraying Turcaud as unreasonable in not signing a "fair and final offer", severance of Turcaud's discovery from Newmont's possession seemed complete to all but anyone who cared to look more closely.
But who would take the trouble? Certainly not Newmont, nor any who had an interest in accepting their false version of discovery. Only those concerned that posterity should record an accurate history of the events leading to the discovery of the largest gold mine in Australia, might have an interest. It is a sorry reflection on those in government at the time that very few would, and with the exception of shadow Attorney General Evans, only appear to have done so through short-term political expediency.
Who amongst those who visit the Golden Mile at Kalgoorlie in the Eastern Goldfields of Western Australia will remember the names of the operating companies over the name of Paddy Hannan who disovered it? Paddy Hannan gained little from his discovery, but he was known for it, and did receive recognition from the State Government and a pension for his efforts commensurate with the norms of the time. However thanks to the facilitators of Newmont's lie, Jean-Paul Turcaud faces denial for his discovery, from those who would "rather be friends with the powerful Newmont"..than recognise the power of posterity in writing their legacy to the State..
...The more the value of the discovered thing is uncovered, or further revealed, the more the value of discovery increases. To the extent that Newmont denies Turcaud,
so posterity will grant Newmont theirs