English translation for Satu Hassi's blog post on Talvivaara: http://www.satuhassi.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1989:kaivosyhtioen-ja-kainuulaisten-totuudet-talvivaarasta-kuin-yoe-ja-paeivae&catid=5:blogi&Itemid=19
The Finnish broadcasting company (Yle) reported that the Ministry of industry is against the complaint I submitted to the Chancellor of justice on Talvivaara. Well, that's what ministry is supposed to do of course, ex officio.
But explanation of the ministry is illogical, and in fact confirms my point of complaint. According to Yle, the chief mining inspector, Pekka Suomela, says that the authorities have been well aware of the separation of uranium mine in the process.
The point in the complaint is that the mine application does not mention anything about uranium, even though the authorities knew, or at least they should have known about the uranium in Talvivaara. The mining company knew in advance that the process used in the mine separates uranium from ore. No one told about uranium to local municipalities and residents before the mine was already there. The mine permit does not include conditions for uranium waste disposal. Nor do permitted emission limit values include uranium.
In reality, what Yle told about the response of the ministry of industry only confirms my complaint. I have not seen the actual response of the ministry due to a meeting in London today.
Last Friday I visited Talvivaara with Ville Niinistö. The mining company's management report on the situation was from another planet compared to what local people told us at Kajaani town hall.The company's management gave the impression that the emissions to the environment (which have been dozen times higher than what the environmental permits allow and and the values of the prior assessment) are brought under control. Only in the closest and smallest two lakes the water is not normal.
In the town hall, on the other hand, we heard from local residents that the conductivity of the water in two larger lakes downstream is still a ten-fold compared to the situation before the mine. Conductivity indicates the amount of various metal salts, acids or bases in water.
Representatives of the mine told me that the biggest complaint, the smell, has been curbed. As evidence, they showed decreasing figures of the neighbours' complaints after the summer.When we visited the mine, the rotten egg stench (caused by hydrogen sulfide gas), was fairly mild. But in the town hall, we were told that when two locals meet, discussion turns to the odor.Vuokatti tourism entrepreneur told me that a few days days before, a disappointed customer had called him and said that he did not drive his family and three children all the way from the south to Vuokatti to get to smell the odor. Entrepreneurs in Vuokatti tourism will suffer.
The mining company's management tells that in the local meetings, which they hold in the area quite frequently, the complaints on environmental problems are almost non-existent.In the public event in Kajaani almost everyone said that people have been deceived. According to them, the mining company's managing director Pekka Perä, who together with the director of the Center for economic development did not attend the event, toured beforehand in the villages talking to bioleaching process, and gave the impression that it is pretty much organic stuff.Locals were not told that in addition to bacteria the mine uses massive amounts of chemicals such as sulfuric acid. And, of course, the uranium was not discussed in advance.
But explanation of the ministry is illogical, and in fact confirms my point of complaint. According to Yle, the chief mining inspector, Pekka Suomela, says that the authorities have been well aware of the separation of uranium mine in the process.
The point in the complaint is that the mine application does not mention anything about uranium, even though the authorities knew, or at least they should have known about the uranium in Talvivaara. The mining company knew in advance that the process used in the mine separates uranium from ore. No one told about uranium to local municipalities and residents before the mine was already there. The mine permit does not include conditions for uranium waste disposal. Nor do permitted emission limit values include uranium.
In reality, what Yle told about the response of the ministry of industry only confirms my complaint. I have not seen the actual response of the ministry due to a meeting in London today.
Last Friday I visited Talvivaara with Ville Niinistö. The mining company's management report on the situation was from another planet compared to what local people told us at Kajaani town hall.The company's management gave the impression that the emissions to the environment (which have been dozen times higher than what the environmental permits allow and and the values of the prior assessment) are brought under control. Only in the closest and smallest two lakes the water is not normal.
In the town hall, on the other hand, we heard from local residents that the conductivity of the water in two larger lakes downstream is still a ten-fold compared to the situation before the mine. Conductivity indicates the amount of various metal salts, acids or bases in water.
Representatives of the mine told me that the biggest complaint, the smell, has been curbed. As evidence, they showed decreasing figures of the neighbours' complaints after the summer.When we visited the mine, the rotten egg stench (caused by hydrogen sulfide gas), was fairly mild. But in the town hall, we were told that when two locals meet, discussion turns to the odor.Vuokatti tourism entrepreneur told me that a few days days before, a disappointed customer had called him and said that he did not drive his family and three children all the way from the south to Vuokatti to get to smell the odor. Entrepreneurs in Vuokatti tourism will suffer.
The mining company's management tells that in the local meetings, which they hold in the area quite frequently, the complaints on environmental problems are almost non-existent.In the public event in Kajaani almost everyone said that people have been deceived. According to them, the mining company's managing director Pekka Perä, who together with the director of the Center for economic development did not attend the event, toured beforehand in the villages talking to bioleaching process, and gave the impression that it is pretty much organic stuff.Locals were not told that in addition to bacteria the mine uses massive amounts of chemicals such as sulfuric acid. And, of course, the uranium was not discussed in advance.
Overall, the Talvivaara mine is almost a moon scenery. That is an open mine unlike most of the Finnish mines so far. In the underground mines you mostly see on the surface the mine elevator tower. In an open mine, the top soil is turned around as deep as there is ore. Talvivaara mine is big, 60 km2, and the company wants to expand it further.We were told at the mine, that the content of nickel in the ore (the company's main product), is just over 0.2%. This poor ore would not become economical to use with traditional methods.
My side remark is that at the same time this means huge amounts of material handling, ie huge land masses to be turned over. If the nickel content is 0.2%, then the stone has to be grind at least 500-fold compared to the amount of product sold. With the traditional method, the ore stone should be grind really fine. In bioleaching it is enough that the rock is crushed to a grain size of about 8 mm in size. This way the rock grinding uses a lot less energy.
Gravel is piled up a ridges. When the bacteria that naturally lives in this type of rock, are given the right conditions, they remove the nickel. In a way, fascinating and ingenious. But when handling such huge amounts of substances, including chemicals needed for the process, such as sulfuric acid, the emissions to the environment are huge, at least until now.
If I understood correctly, the mining company is investigating how to circulate the water in the process so that it does not leak to the environment. But they are still quite far away.The company's representatives explained that the fact that the original application did not talk about uranium, was that they did not originally know ways how to transform uranium to commercial form. But even before the start of mining operations, however, they knew that bioleaching would separate uranium from ore. If a company receives from uranium mining license afterwards, many other mining projects should probably be examined as potential uranium mines, even though their permit applications would not mention uranium.
The mining company's managing director Pekka Perä - who only a few days after, announced his resignation - reminds me of a lively engineering student. The visit gave an impression that the entire mine had been build up in a spirit of a young engineering student happening.
And by the way, the uranium is radioactive material and toxic heavy metal.
My side remark is that at the same time this means huge amounts of material handling, ie huge land masses to be turned over. If the nickel content is 0.2%, then the stone has to be grind at least 500-fold compared to the amount of product sold. With the traditional method, the ore stone should be grind really fine. In bioleaching it is enough that the rock is crushed to a grain size of about 8 mm in size. This way the rock grinding uses a lot less energy.
Gravel is piled up a ridges. When the bacteria that naturally lives in this type of rock, are given the right conditions, they remove the nickel. In a way, fascinating and ingenious. But when handling such huge amounts of substances, including chemicals needed for the process, such as sulfuric acid, the emissions to the environment are huge, at least until now.
If I understood correctly, the mining company is investigating how to circulate the water in the process so that it does not leak to the environment. But they are still quite far away.The company's representatives explained that the fact that the original application did not talk about uranium, was that they did not originally know ways how to transform uranium to commercial form. But even before the start of mining operations, however, they knew that bioleaching would separate uranium from ore. If a company receives from uranium mining license afterwards, many other mining projects should probably be examined as potential uranium mines, even though their permit applications would not mention uranium.
The mining company's managing director Pekka Perä - who only a few days after, announced his resignation - reminds me of a lively engineering student. The visit gave an impression that the entire mine had been build up in a spirit of a young engineering student happening.
And by the way, the uranium is radioactive material and toxic heavy metal.
Ei kommentteja:
Lähetä kommentti