hehe no thanks
TLG Discussion 2022
- Thread starter zeeb0t
- Start date
Critical Raw Materials Act
Setting benchmarks by 2030 for domestic capacities
The Act sets these benchmarks along the strategic raw materials value chain and for the diversification of the EU supplies- at least 10% of the EU’s annual consumption for extraction
- at least 40% of the EU’s annual consumption for processing
- at least 25% of the EU’s annual consumption for recycling
- no more than 65% of the EU’s annual consumption from a single third country
Fair. Best to take a long term view of investing. So if we think things are heading that way, then there are bargains to be had now.
cosors
👀
MT likes this as others on LinkedIn:
8h ago
"Charles A.
CFO | 20 Years’ Experience | Mining & Resources | Capital Raising | ASX-listed | Project Finance | AI in Finance | Investor Relations | Critical Minerals | Africa-Australia | BFS/DFS
One thing more junior mining companies need to understand is that royalty and streaming deals can work—even if your commodity isn’t listed on a global exchange or lacks transparent spot pricing. You just have to structure it the right way.
If your project produces something like graphite, especially high-purity or battery-grade graphite, the lack of a clear benchmark doesn’t mean it’s unfundable—it just means you need to get smarter about how you link value.
One effective approach is to anchor the price not to fragmented or unreliable spot quotes, but to the end-use value of what your commodity enables. For example, if your graphite is being used in lithium-ion battery anodes for EVs or stationary energy storage, you can link your streaming terms to the future value of those battery-grade products or reference pricing from active anode material contracts. That reframes your material as strategic rather than obscure.
Tying your stream to an offtake agreement with a downstream processor or battery supply chain player also helps build confidence and transparency for the financier. If the commodity price is opaque, your internal costs and margins need to be rock solid—make sure your BFS or PFS provides a clear bottom-up cost structure. In many cases, a hybrid structure works best: a small royalty combined with a convertible note and equity injection can balance risk, preserve upside, and avoid over-dilution. You should also push for milestone-based tranches rather than one large upfront payment—this allows the funder to commit in phases, such as post-permitting, post-BFS, or after project mobilization, which reduces risk on both sides. But perhaps the most important point is this: don’t give away the farm just because your pricing isn’t transparent. Negotiate royalty pricing based on cost-plus formulas, offtake-linked benchmarks, or even downstream contract references—anything that gives both parties confidence in a fair deal. Done right, a royalty or stream can be a powerful tool to advance your project without gutting your cap table."
www.linkedin.com
www.rushraremetals.com
_____
Maybe this explains a bit the negotiantions.
8h ago
"Charles A.
CFO | 20 Years’ Experience | Mining & Resources | Capital Raising | ASX-listed | Project Finance | AI in Finance | Investor Relations | Critical Minerals | Africa-Australia | BFS/DFS
One thing more junior mining companies need to understand is that royalty and streaming deals can work—even if your commodity isn’t listed on a global exchange or lacks transparent spot pricing. You just have to structure it the right way.
If your project produces something like graphite, especially high-purity or battery-grade graphite, the lack of a clear benchmark doesn’t mean it’s unfundable—it just means you need to get smarter about how you link value.
One effective approach is to anchor the price not to fragmented or unreliable spot quotes, but to the end-use value of what your commodity enables. For example, if your graphite is being used in lithium-ion battery anodes for EVs or stationary energy storage, you can link your streaming terms to the future value of those battery-grade products or reference pricing from active anode material contracts. That reframes your material as strategic rather than obscure.
Tying your stream to an offtake agreement with a downstream processor or battery supply chain player also helps build confidence and transparency for the financier. If the commodity price is opaque, your internal costs and margins need to be rock solid—make sure your BFS or PFS provides a clear bottom-up cost structure. In many cases, a hybrid structure works best: a small royalty combined with a convertible note and equity injection can balance risk, preserve upside, and avoid over-dilution. You should also push for milestone-based tranches rather than one large upfront payment—this allows the funder to commit in phases, such as post-permitting, post-BFS, or after project mobilization, which reduces risk on both sides. But perhaps the most important point is this: don’t give away the farm just because your pricing isn’t transparent. Negotiate royalty pricing based on cost-plus formulas, offtake-linked benchmarks, or even downstream contract references—anything that gives both parties confidence in a fair deal. Done right, a royalty or stream can be a powerful tool to advance your project without gutting your cap table."
#miningfinance #royaltydeals #streamingagreements #juniormining… | Charles A.
One thing more junior mining companies need to understand is that royalty and streaming deals can work—even if your commodity isn’t listed on a global exchange or lacks transparent spot pricing. You just have to structure it the right way. If your project produces something like graphite...
Fabiana Lara
www.rushraremetals.com
_____
Maybe this explains a bit the negotiantions.
curiousmagpie
Regular
Strong backing from the Chairman as always
he's now a holder of MASSIVE 232,000 shares. Accumulating an average 30,000 per year over his 8 yr tenure. Strong conviction!!!!!
he's now a holder of MASSIVE 232,000 shares. Accumulating an average 30,000 per year over his 8 yr tenure. Strong conviction!!!!!
Semmel
Top 20
What kind of investors are pentwater? Do they just have shares for customers.. like a fund or are they an independent entity holding shares for the win? Do they do hostile takeover stuff? Would be hard to pull off with talga, given how illiquid the stock is, but you never know
Monkeymandan
Regular
Monkeymandan
Regular
And I would add to your list of catalysts - likely grant funding for the mine site, noting the existing €70m grant is specific to the refinery.
My guess is another €30m could be heading our way come in the next 1-2months, or to put it another way, about 30% of today’s market cap.
cosors
👀
"Europe facing harsh truths about its position in the global critical minerals race
Mining companies and industry stakeholders are unanimous about the role of over-regulation holding back Europe’s critical minerals value chain.
May 30, 2025
The EIT RawMaterials Summit gathered over 1,000 representatives from the European mining sector, technology developers and EU policymakers. Credit: Claire Jenns.
Frustrations were high at a perceived lack of progress in securing Europe’s critical mineral value chains during the EIT RawMaterials Summit, held in Brussels from 13 to 15 May.
Over 1,000 representatives from the European mining sector, technology developers and EU policymakers gathered to deliberate the continent’s comparative stagnancy against its global competitors in securing critical raw materials (CRMs).
In his opening speech, EIT RawMaterials CEO Bernd Schäfer introduced the event’s theme ‘Race to 2030’, noting the countdown of fewer than 1,300 working days to reach the targets set by the Critical Raw Materials Act (CRMA).
The CRMA was one of the fastest laws to ever be adopted in the EU, from its proposal in March 2023 to its implementation in May 2024. Just under a year later in March 2025, the European Commission (EC) adopted a list of 47 strategic projects under the CRMA in a major step towards enhancing domestic raw material capacities.
Schäfer told attendees that “Europe has been asleep at the wheel. This is a race for resilience, technology, and industrial survival. It is a race we cannot afford to lose as we meet at a moment of global turbulence.”
Europe’s competitiveness and the need for urgency were underscored by speakers in almost every session across the summit’s agenda, and for good reason. The continent has between 80-100% import dependency on a range of critical minerals, creating extreme supply chain vulnerability amid an already heated geopolitical climate.
Schäfer highlighted the Russia-Ukraine conflict, disruptions in the Red Sea and escalations between India and Pakistan as key examples exacerbating supply chain fragility. Indeed, GlobalData’s ESG Sentiment Polls Q1 2025 survey found that geopolitical conflict has topped business concerns for first time in years.
“Meanwhile, the US, China, Japan and others are out-subsidising and outpacing us [Europe] in extraction, processing, innovation and control of strategic vehicles,” warned Schäfer. “This is no longer about market competition. It is about political leverage and security and that is why we cannot treat raw materials as a niche sector.”
China was an invisible presence at the summit, with its dominance over critical minerals and rare earth elements (REEs) underscored by many speakers. In the session ‘Geopolitical Dynamics in Securing Europe’s Defence Supply Chains’ on 14 May, director of DG Grow Joaquim Nunes de Almeida highlighted vulnerability in the graphite market, as 77% of all production and 97% of global anode output is controlled by China.
“We have 11 strategic projects on graphite, most of which, in order to be viable or bankable, have to show that they are competitive vis-a-vis the Chinese price, as this is what makes the market. What if China, once these projects start coming to fruition, floods the market with enormous amounts of graphite and tries to kill our projects?” de Almeida speculated.
Atlantic Copper CEO Macarena Gutiérrez echoed this concern within the metals sector in an interview with Mining Technology. “We are competing with the rest of the world, but mainly China, which has been growing in spending capacity for the last 25 years. We need to make sure we have access to primary concentrate in Europe and in a competitive way.”
But with the need for acceleration identified, what has been the cause of Europe’s slow-moving critical minerals development thus far?
Over-regulation and barriers to financing
It is widely acknowledged that the regulatory landscape in Europe is complex, being split between the EC, Council of the European Union, and the European Parliament, all with evolving policies and targets.
But the effects of this on CRM development are only now being recognised, particularly in limiting access to financing.
Allard Castelein, special representative for raw materials strategy at Netherlands’ Ministry of Economic Affairs, identified a disconnect between public and private partners as a key barrier to accelerating CRM projects. “This is a market situation that has emerged over a period of 35 or so years. My worry is that the urgency does not resonate with the governments and politicians, and there is no incentive for the private sector as there aren’t enough rules and regulations.”
The 47 strategic projects under the CRMA are funded by public and private sources, from financial institutions to regional and member state funds.
European Investment Bank (EIB) vice-president Nicola Beer pointed out that supportive partnerships are one of Europe’s strengths. “EIB, with its big balance sheet, has the possibility to be a patient financial partner. So we can provide risk mitigation through longstanding loans or other guaranteed financial products.”
During a panel titled CRMA Recycling Target: On Track or at Risk? on 15 May, European Aluminium director-general Paul Voss voiced one of the industry’s main frustrations with the Act: “There’s not really any money there. You hear a lot of unflattering comparisons with the US’ Inflation Reduction Act and how they pour money into problems while the EU tends to try and regulate problems.
“Money to help businesses and finance innovation progress in the sector would be useful,” he added.
“We cannot have 10 years to get the permitting and development of a project,” Saft CEO Cedric Duclos stated. “Stop sprinkling money all around and pick the winners, because otherwise we disperse the effort and we are not going to build a resilient value chain. Stop over-regulating the industry to death, because this is what drags us down today.”
Also in attendance was Savannah Resources, which is developing the Barroso lithium project in Portugal that has been designated as a strategic project under the CRMA. Company CEO Emanuel Proença told Mining Technology that it “certainly took us a while to get our project fully licensed and it is true that Europe needs to be more pragmatic.
“But, policymakers and politicians are far more aware today that their role is to ensure there is an acceleration of the mining industry and that excess bureaucracy is taken out of the way,” he said.
Under the CRMA, permit-granting for extraction projects is capped at 27 months and strategic projects at two years. Only time will tell as to what impacts this will have on Europe’s CRM reserves and mining industry profits.
But not all businesses in the sector are wholly disadvantaged by over-regulation. Ella Cullen, CEO of Minespider, a supply chain traceability solutions provider, sees both sides of the picture. The company benefits from assisting miners operating in Europe with regulatory compliance but also faces challenges as a start-up.
“When applying for grants for example, the amount of paperwork and bureaucracy is undeniably monstrous,” she explained. “But the world looks to Europe for regulation and this builds trust, particularly as the public perception of the mining industry needs to improve.”
Frédéric Carencotte, founder of French REE recycling and refining company Carester, was also positive about the state of Europe’s regulatory landscape in his conversation with Mining Technology. “The CRMA provides objectives and direction and we have experienced the benefits of this firsthand.”
In March, Carester secured €216m ($245m) from the French government and Japanese investors for its rare earth recycling and refining industrial facility Caremag, in alignment with the CRMA’s directive for 25% of the EU’s annual demand to be met through recycling.
The EC has stated that it will announce a new call for strategic project applications by the end of summer 2025, opening the door for developers looking to access the financial support and exposure provided by the Act for projects that will be operational beyond 2030.
In a promising sign of an upward trajectory, the EU’s Competitiveness Compass economic roadmap has signposted the implementation of a joint purchasing platform for CRMs by the third quarter of 2025, to identify the needs of EU industries, aggregate demand, and coordinate joint purchases.
To continue developing new mining projects, Castelein was firm in urging the industry and governments not to hold back due to a lack of data or public approval in an “analysis paralysis situation [as] we do not have the time.”
Member of the European Parliament Hildegard Bentele emphasised that projects that will become operational after 2030 should also be brought into the support offered by the CRMA. “There are not many European mining companies around as we phased out our mining sector for 30 years. It is not an easy thing to rebuild but this shouldn’t be demotivating. It is Europe’s obligation.” "
www.mining-technology.com
They know exactly what it's all about and put the pressure on.
____
We are far from alone with our knowledge. Now it's all about the good of society and the ball WE are living on, as opposed to individual interests.
Mining companies and industry stakeholders are unanimous about the role of over-regulation holding back Europe’s critical minerals value chain.
May 30, 2025
The EIT RawMaterials Summit gathered over 1,000 representatives from the European mining sector, technology developers and EU policymakers. Credit: Claire Jenns.
Frustrations were high at a perceived lack of progress in securing Europe’s critical mineral value chains during the EIT RawMaterials Summit, held in Brussels from 13 to 15 May.
Over 1,000 representatives from the European mining sector, technology developers and EU policymakers gathered to deliberate the continent’s comparative stagnancy against its global competitors in securing critical raw materials (CRMs).
In his opening speech, EIT RawMaterials CEO Bernd Schäfer introduced the event’s theme ‘Race to 2030’, noting the countdown of fewer than 1,300 working days to reach the targets set by the Critical Raw Materials Act (CRMA).
The CRMA was one of the fastest laws to ever be adopted in the EU, from its proposal in March 2023 to its implementation in May 2024. Just under a year later in March 2025, the European Commission (EC) adopted a list of 47 strategic projects under the CRMA in a major step towards enhancing domestic raw material capacities.
Schäfer told attendees that “Europe has been asleep at the wheel. This is a race for resilience, technology, and industrial survival. It is a race we cannot afford to lose as we meet at a moment of global turbulence.”
Europe’s competitiveness and the need for urgency were underscored by speakers in almost every session across the summit’s agenda, and for good reason. The continent has between 80-100% import dependency on a range of critical minerals, creating extreme supply chain vulnerability amid an already heated geopolitical climate.
Schäfer highlighted the Russia-Ukraine conflict, disruptions in the Red Sea and escalations between India and Pakistan as key examples exacerbating supply chain fragility. Indeed, GlobalData’s ESG Sentiment Polls Q1 2025 survey found that geopolitical conflict has topped business concerns for first time in years.
“Meanwhile, the US, China, Japan and others are out-subsidising and outpacing us [Europe] in extraction, processing, innovation and control of strategic vehicles,” warned Schäfer. “This is no longer about market competition. It is about political leverage and security and that is why we cannot treat raw materials as a niche sector.”
China was an invisible presence at the summit, with its dominance over critical minerals and rare earth elements (REEs) underscored by many speakers. In the session ‘Geopolitical Dynamics in Securing Europe’s Defence Supply Chains’ on 14 May, director of DG Grow Joaquim Nunes de Almeida highlighted vulnerability in the graphite market, as 77% of all production and 97% of global anode output is controlled by China.
“We have 11 strategic projects on graphite, most of which, in order to be viable or bankable, have to show that they are competitive vis-a-vis the Chinese price, as this is what makes the market. What if China, once these projects start coming to fruition, floods the market with enormous amounts of graphite and tries to kill our projects?” de Almeida speculated.
Atlantic Copper CEO Macarena Gutiérrez echoed this concern within the metals sector in an interview with Mining Technology. “We are competing with the rest of the world, but mainly China, which has been growing in spending capacity for the last 25 years. We need to make sure we have access to primary concentrate in Europe and in a competitive way.”
But with the need for acceleration identified, what has been the cause of Europe’s slow-moving critical minerals development thus far?
Over-regulation and barriers to financing
It is widely acknowledged that the regulatory landscape in Europe is complex, being split between the EC, Council of the European Union, and the European Parliament, all with evolving policies and targets.
But the effects of this on CRM development are only now being recognised, particularly in limiting access to financing.
Allard Castelein, special representative for raw materials strategy at Netherlands’ Ministry of Economic Affairs, identified a disconnect between public and private partners as a key barrier to accelerating CRM projects. “This is a market situation that has emerged over a period of 35 or so years. My worry is that the urgency does not resonate with the governments and politicians, and there is no incentive for the private sector as there aren’t enough rules and regulations.”
The 47 strategic projects under the CRMA are funded by public and private sources, from financial institutions to regional and member state funds.
European Investment Bank (EIB) vice-president Nicola Beer pointed out that supportive partnerships are one of Europe’s strengths. “EIB, with its big balance sheet, has the possibility to be a patient financial partner. So we can provide risk mitigation through longstanding loans or other guaranteed financial products.”
During a panel titled CRMA Recycling Target: On Track or at Risk? on 15 May, European Aluminium director-general Paul Voss voiced one of the industry’s main frustrations with the Act: “There’s not really any money there. You hear a lot of unflattering comparisons with the US’ Inflation Reduction Act and how they pour money into problems while the EU tends to try and regulate problems.
“Money to help businesses and finance innovation progress in the sector would be useful,” he added.
Bureaucratic red tape vs. accelerating European CRMs
The prevailing message among attendees was that there are too many cooks in the kitchen holding back the rapid domestic exploration, extraction and production of CRMs that Europe desperately needs.“We cannot have 10 years to get the permitting and development of a project,” Saft CEO Cedric Duclos stated. “Stop sprinkling money all around and pick the winners, because otherwise we disperse the effort and we are not going to build a resilient value chain. Stop over-regulating the industry to death, because this is what drags us down today.”
Also in attendance was Savannah Resources, which is developing the Barroso lithium project in Portugal that has been designated as a strategic project under the CRMA. Company CEO Emanuel Proença told Mining Technology that it “certainly took us a while to get our project fully licensed and it is true that Europe needs to be more pragmatic.
“But, policymakers and politicians are far more aware today that their role is to ensure there is an acceleration of the mining industry and that excess bureaucracy is taken out of the way,” he said.
Under the CRMA, permit-granting for extraction projects is capped at 27 months and strategic projects at two years. Only time will tell as to what impacts this will have on Europe’s CRM reserves and mining industry profits.
But not all businesses in the sector are wholly disadvantaged by over-regulation. Ella Cullen, CEO of Minespider, a supply chain traceability solutions provider, sees both sides of the picture. The company benefits from assisting miners operating in Europe with regulatory compliance but also faces challenges as a start-up.
“When applying for grants for example, the amount of paperwork and bureaucracy is undeniably monstrous,” she explained. “But the world looks to Europe for regulation and this builds trust, particularly as the public perception of the mining industry needs to improve.”
Frédéric Carencotte, founder of French REE recycling and refining company Carester, was also positive about the state of Europe’s regulatory landscape in his conversation with Mining Technology. “The CRMA provides objectives and direction and we have experienced the benefits of this firsthand.”
In March, Carester secured €216m ($245m) from the French government and Japanese investors for its rare earth recycling and refining industrial facility Caremag, in alignment with the CRMA’s directive for 25% of the EU’s annual demand to be met through recycling.
The EC has stated that it will announce a new call for strategic project applications by the end of summer 2025, opening the door for developers looking to access the financial support and exposure provided by the Act for projects that will be operational beyond 2030.
European critical minerals at a crossroads
While industry players agree that the CRMA’s 2030 targets are out of reach, the Act has set an example of what can be achieved when the EU consolidates its efforts towards shared goals and lessens its bureaucratic rigidity.In a promising sign of an upward trajectory, the EU’s Competitiveness Compass economic roadmap has signposted the implementation of a joint purchasing platform for CRMs by the third quarter of 2025, to identify the needs of EU industries, aggregate demand, and coordinate joint purchases.
To continue developing new mining projects, Castelein was firm in urging the industry and governments not to hold back due to a lack of data or public approval in an “analysis paralysis situation [as] we do not have the time.”
Member of the European Parliament Hildegard Bentele emphasised that projects that will become operational after 2030 should also be brought into the support offered by the CRMA. “There are not many European mining companies around as we phased out our mining sector for 30 years. It is not an easy thing to rebuild but this shouldn’t be demotivating. It is Europe’s obligation.” "
Europe facing harsh truths about its position in the global critical minerals race
Mining companies and industry stakeholders are unanimous about over-regulation holding back Europe’s critical minerals value chain.
They know exactly what it's all about and put the pressure on.
____
We are far from alone with our knowledge. Now it's all about the good of society and the ball WE are living on, as opposed to individual interests.
Last edited:
cosors
👀
Hold still for a moment. 23% of all projects with the strategic project status in the EU are just about graphite. I think Brussels is looking very closely at Sweden. We've known about the this/our lighthouse project for years.
My gut feeling is that @Pharvest ist right and it can't be stopped and it is coming.
My gut feeling is that @Pharvest ist right and it can't be stopped and it is coming.
Last edited:
Depends if they were bought on market or not. If the Chairman is buying on market, would agree it is a good sign.
Pharvest
Regular
Sure mate,
Let's all hope we see real progress on a lot of this in the coming six months.
Price manipulating algo's ..'provide liquidity' according to the ASX Questy. I’ve let that shit twist me outta shape for years, trust me get over it, it’s not gonna change. It’s one of the games the big boys get to play that we don’t. You might as well make your peace with it.
There is something that does render them useless though and it’s this .Thinking about Talga over the last few days a word has sprung to mind, and that word is UNDENIABLE. We are all just in a holding pattern until the Vittangi project, from mine, to concentrator, to luleo anode plant, becomes UNDENIABLE. Undeniable to the Sami, undeniable to the Nimby mushroom enthusiasts, to the equivocating Swedish politicians and Councilmen. But most of all the ASX market.
And when I say UNDENIABLE I mean the following
Up in Kiruna
- The municipality stop there incessant bitching and adopt the detailed plan
- The last challenge to the mining concession is quashed by the Swedish government
- The debt consortium structure is announced along with the final investment decision
- There is at least one major offtake announcement, possibly from an OEM that may be part of the debt consortium, ie owns a piece of the project ( Not company )
- Mining works begin at Vittangi
- The ROM pad, concentrator building, haul roads etc are being constructed
- Significant progress milestones are met with media released to market
Down in Luleo
- Construction of the Anode factory begins in ernest
- Technology partner ABB are fully engaged and begin works on line robotics etc
- Significant progress milestones are met with media released to market
- Transport logistics are worked out / announced /contracts are awarded
The Kicker
- This is the HUGE one.. Massive expansion of 3,4 possibly 500ktpa on top of the 19ktpa initial allowance is applied for.
Now I will grant you that the last one may be a couple of years off. But that’s the one that we all need to remain focused on. That’s where you have a shot at making generational wealth from Talga in my opinion. As for the rest, there's a good bit of it that SHOULD begin happening within months. I loved this from Rhythm the other day so I’m gonna put it up again.. And yes I do believe we are here mate, yes indeed.
And I would add that some of those risks such as fluctuating commodity prices, cost overruns and geological risk .. well I just don't see any of them applying to Talga to a great degree.
- Talga are making a high grade battery component, not digging up dirt and selling it. The Nyobolt offtake has given Tal c huge credibility and positioned it as a high performing state of the art component, esp with regard to fast charging.
- It’s my belief that the first couple of mining seasons are going to be relatively straightforward ( very little overburden to deal with ) . I can't see the actual mining of the material creating any cost overrun. Maybe there is a risk of this on the processing side of things, though I doubt it. ABB is a great technology partner we have and this will have been meticulously planned out for quite some time by now, surely.
- Geological risk… see the start of point two, or better yet go find the photo of the excavator sitting directly on top of the deposit after scratching the grass off and tell me how much geological risk there is.
Anyway a few thoughts and a bit of positivity from me. Enjoy your weekend Talgarians.
cosors
👀
"Chose plague over cholera – Kiruna changes mining plan in Vittangi
Updated today 14:06Published today 14:01
The crack within the block is growing as Kiruna Municipality is now changing its decision regarding the detailed plan for Talga's mine in Vittangi.
– It was plague or cholera and we have chosen plague, says Mats Taaveniku (S), municipal councilor in Kiruna.
It was at the beginning of the year that the government overtook Kiruna Municipality and issued an ultimatum that they would complete a detailed plan for the planned mine in Nunaasvaara outside Vittangi - otherwise the County Administrative Board would take over the project.
Don't want to give up control
Kiruna Municipality has been skeptical of new mines as long as the state does not provide better compensation, but now the municipality has chosen to develop a detailed plan.
We chose to do it ourselves because we wanted to have control over the situation instead of leaving it to another authority, says Mats Taaveniku (S).
Split within the bloc
But opinions regarding whether the municipality itself should make the detailed plan differ within the bloc. The Left Party, the Feminist Initiative and the Sami List want the government to bear the responsibility.
– We don't think the municipality should contribute to this. We have said no once and if the government wants to run over Kiruna municipality, they are the ones who should be responsible for it, says Jenny Mäki, chairwoman of the Left Party.
It is now up to the city council to make a decision on the matter on June 16."
www.svt.se
Updated today 14:06Published today 14:01
The crack within the block is growing as Kiruna Municipality is now changing its decision regarding the detailed plan for Talga's mine in Vittangi.
– It was plague or cholera and we have chosen plague, says Mats Taaveniku (S), municipal councilor in Kiruna.
It was at the beginning of the year that the government overtook Kiruna Municipality and issued an ultimatum that they would complete a detailed plan for the planned mine in Nunaasvaara outside Vittangi - otherwise the County Administrative Board would take over the project.
Don't want to give up control
Kiruna Municipality has been skeptical of new mines as long as the state does not provide better compensation, but now the municipality has chosen to develop a detailed plan.
We chose to do it ourselves because we wanted to have control over the situation instead of leaving it to another authority, says Mats Taaveniku (S).
Split within the bloc
But opinions regarding whether the municipality itself should make the detailed plan differ within the bloc. The Left Party, the Feminist Initiative and the Sami List want the government to bear the responsibility.
– We don't think the municipality should contribute to this. We have said no once and if the government wants to run over Kiruna municipality, they are the ones who should be responsible for it, says Jenny Mäki, chairwoman of the Left Party.
It is now up to the city council to make a decision on the matter on June 16."
Valde pest före kolera – Kiruna ändrar gruvplan i Vittangi
Sprickan inom blocket växer när Kiruna kommun nu ändrar sitt beslut kring detaljplanen för Talgas gruva i Vittangi. – Det var pest eller kolera och vi har valt pest, säger Mats Taaveniku (S), kommunalråd i Kiruna.
This seems to align with what grok was saying, that yesterday they had to make a recommendation whether to proceed, but it's not the actual approval, which is due on the meeting on June 16."Chose plague over cholera – Kiruna changes mining plan in Vittangi
Updated today 14:06Published today 14:01
The crack within the block is growing as Kiruna Municipality is now changing its decision regarding the detailed plan for Talga's mine in Vittangi.
– It was plague or cholera and we have chosen plague, says Mats Taaveniku (S), municipal councilor in Kiruna.
It was at the beginning of the year that the government overtook Kiruna Municipality and issued an ultimatum that they would complete a detailed plan for the planned mine in Nunaasvaara outside Vittangi - otherwise the County Administrative Board would take over the project.
Don't want to give up control
Kiruna Municipality has been skeptical of new mines as long as the state does not provide better compensation, but now the municipality has chosen to develop a detailed plan.
We chose to do it ourselves because we wanted to have control over the situation instead of leaving it to another authority, says Mats Taaveniku (S).
Split within the bloc
But opinions regarding whether the municipality itself should make the detailed plan differ within the bloc. The Left Party, the Feminist Initiative and the Sami List want the government to bear the responsibility.
– We don't think the municipality should contribute to this. We have said no once and if the government wants to run over Kiruna municipality, they are the ones who should be responsible for it, says Jenny Mäki, chairwoman of the Left Party.
It is now up to the city council to make a decision on the matter on June 16."
Valde pest före kolera – Kiruna ändrar gruvplan i Vittangi
Sprickan inom blocket växer när Kiruna kommun nu ändrar sitt beslut kring detaljplanen för Talgas gruva i Vittangi. – Det var pest eller kolera och vi har valt pest, säger Mats Taaveniku (S), kommunalråd i Kiruna.
But sounds like fantastic news that they don't seem like they are going to block it or cause further delays. Fingers crossed for June 16!
cosors
👀
And fingers crossed that the Social Democrats in Kiruna don't take advantage of this. The county executive argues that it is better not to let the initiative be taken out of their hands and to have the plan (which is already in place) drawn up by another authority.
I'm keeping my fingers crossed that they don't take advantage of this and use all sorts of formal tricks to delay the matter as long as possible wich they couldn't If they let the work do someone else.
I trust them to do anything. With their media agitation against the project, they have left scorched earth behind.
And it remains a political battle between the north and the south, where no one has been interested in the quality of this project up there for a long time. They are only interested in their individual interests.
We can only keep our fingers crossed.
____
What I mean with scorched earth can be seen e.g. from the headline that the people of Kiruna get to read. The government is forcing Kiruna to choose between plague and cholera against its will. It says nothing about the real positive aspects, nothing about climate protection, CO² reduction, Green Transition, Green Deal or independence. And you know how people are, if someone only ever tells them one thing, then many simply start to accept and believe it.
The plan has been with Kiruna for a very, very long time now. Now they are being forced to adopt it. The procedure will hopefully leave little to no room for delays or procedural tricks. If they are forced to do so, I don't trust them to do a good job, even if the puppet suggests otherwise to his voters.
They have managed to quickly designate LKAB's site as a leisure area for the new application.
They've already snuck in an extra month.)
___
More than four months ago:
Politiker i Kiruna vill överlåta grafitgruvans detaljplan på länsstyrelsen
Flera politiker i Kiruna menar att de inte kan stå för en detaljplan de tvingats besluta om efter regeringens föreläggande. De vill hellre överlåta det arbetet och ansvaret åt länsstyrelsen. – Vi vill inte alls ha gruvan, säger Mats Sidmalm (S).
Last edited:
teilenswert
Regular
Bloody hell. I had understood Talga's announcement in January to mean that by mid-May
1. the detailed mining plan must be planned and 2. it must also be approved, otherwise another authority will take over.
Then in May it was said that the deadline had been extended by one month.
Your latest posts read quite differently. It sounds to me that 5 months had to pass before the authorities have to make a fundamental decision as to whether they are prepared to plan a detailed mining plan and that they will then need and be given additional time to carry out and approve this planning?!?
I'm so annoyed by this shitty investment, by delay after delay and half-truth after half-truth and capital increase after capital increase and the fact that I'm still invested and am deeply in the red. I'll be spinning in my own grave for years and swearing like a drain.
Fingers crossed that we get significant news this month - but I'm starting to understand why MT had mentioned a Q1 2026 construction start without explaining further context...
1. the detailed mining plan must be planned and 2. it must also be approved, otherwise another authority will take over.
Then in May it was said that the deadline had been extended by one month.
Your latest posts read quite differently. It sounds to me that 5 months had to pass before the authorities have to make a fundamental decision as to whether they are prepared to plan a detailed mining plan and that they will then need and be given additional time to carry out and approve this planning?!?
I'm so annoyed by this shitty investment, by delay after delay and half-truth after half-truth and capital increase after capital increase and the fact that I'm still invested and am deeply in the red. I'll be spinning in my own grave for years and swearing like a drain.
Fingers crossed that we get significant news this month - but I'm starting to understand why MT had mentioned a Q1 2026 construction start without explaining further context...
cosors
👀
I hear you.
...
Here is the ready plan:
...
Here is the ready plan:
N
The alternative is worse, they don't approve it and now the government needs to take it up. But that would mean the government needs to re-review everything that has already been done, probably do consultations etc, and that would take way longer.
So we are still on the happy path.
No I don't think that's the case. I understand there's 2 levels to the approval. The one on June 2nd is the guys doing the work, and they are now recommending adopting the plan. It now goes to "their manager" who gives the final ok on June 16th. I don't think there's any more work to be done, it's just going through their approval process.
The alternative is worse, they don't approve it and now the government needs to take it up. But that would mean the government needs to re-review everything that has already been done, probably do consultations etc, and that would take way longer.
So we are still on the happy path.
Similar threads
- Article
