PERMITS

[Monkeymandan]

@beserk I found it in Finland!

part o the verdict:
24 Conditions
"General condition
1.) The business must be conducted, facilities designed and work carried out in main accordance with what the company has stated in the application documents and has otherwise stated or undertaken in the case, unless otherwise stated in this judgment.

Explosions
2.) Blasting in open pits may only be carried out on weekdays during the day between 07.00-18.00 after a predetermined time and after a clear audible warning signal. Nearby residents who wish to do so must be informed about times for blasting.

3.) Blasting in the open pits must be carried out so that vibrations in the nearest homes are minimized. Vibrations as a result of blasting in the open pits must not result in a higher oscillation speed in the vertical direction in the housing's supporting basic structure such as plinth or plinth than 5 mm/s in more than 5% of the blasting occasions per calendar year and never exceed 7 mm/s.

Control of ground vibrations must take place at each blasting occasion by measuring at a nearby residential building. Measurement must comply with SS 4604866:2011.

4.) Air shock waves resulting from the blasts in the opencast mines must not exceed 100 pascal free field value in more than 5% of the blasting occasions per calendar year and must never exceed 200 pascal. Control of air shock waves must take place at each blasting occasion by measuring at a nearby residential building. Measurement must follow SS 02 52 10.

Noise
5.) Noise from construction work other than particularly noisy construction work (such as drilling, rock knocking and piling) must not give rise to a higher equivalent noise level at homes than

Non-holiday Monday – Friday (day)	At 07.00-19.00	60dBA
Weekend off Monday – Friday (evening)	At 19.00-22.00	50 dBA
Saturday, Sunday and holiday (day)	At 07.00-19.00	50 dBA
Saturday, Sunday and holiday (evening)	At 19.00-22.00	45 dBA
At night	At 22.00-07.00	45 dBA

Particularly noisy construction work may only be carried out on weekdays at 07.00-19.00.

6.) Noise from the activity must not give rise to a higher equivalent noise level at homes
Non-holiday Monday – Friday (day) At 06.00-18.00 50 dBA
Night time At 22.00-06.00 40 dBA
Other times 45 dBA

Work steps that can typically result in instantaneous noise levels above 55 dBA in homes may not be carried out at night.

Control must take place through immission measurements or through near-field measurements and calculations. An initial check must take place within three months from when all parts of the business that may cause noise have been put into operation. Inspections must then take place as soon as there have been changes in the operation that may lead to increased noise levels, but at least once a year.

Chemicals and hazardous waste
7.) Storage of chemicals and liquid hazardous waste may only occur on an embanked and sealed surface equipped with rain protection. The embankment must contain the volume of the largest storage vessel and 10% of the total volume of other storage vessels. The storage must be protected against collision. Spills and leaks must be collected and taken care of immediately.

Dusting
8.) Measures must be taken to limit the spread of dust that may pose a nuisance to human health and the environment.

Reindeer nutrition
9.) The company must annually carry out consultations with Talma Sami village and Gabna Sami village with the aim of minimizing the negative impact of the operation on the reindeer husbandry. The company must provide information in the environmental report that consultations have been held during the year.

10.) During the period from 1 December to 31 May inclusive, the company may not carry out blasting or drilling for production in the open pits, primary crushing of mined ore or transport of ore or waste rock from the open pits.

Release to water
11.) County retention water, contact water and potentially contaminated water must undergo purification before it is allowed to overflow into Hosiojärvi (county retention water from open pits, runoff from industrial areas, ore stockpiles and non-final-covered parts of sand and waste rock reservoirs, leachate from the sand and waste rock reservoir, water from cells for sludge and process water from the concentrator).

Facility
12) Ditches, pump pits, basins and other plant parts that handle the water that is intended to undergo purification must be tight. Relationship drawings must be submitted to the supervisory authority at a time determined in consultation with the supervisory authority.

13) Breakaway masses of moraine and peat and such masses that are otherwise taken out of the business must be used in the business or stored to the extent required for the post-processing of the business and used for this purpose. The company must report to the supervisory authority the planned design of moraine storage before the construction of such moraine storage begins, and must then annually report to the supervisory authority a balance of the amount of moraine stored and consumed.

14) The sand and gravel reservoir must, with the exception of parts of the gravel embankment, be constructed with a foundation consisting of a liner, which is connected to a collecting ditch. Drainage systems must be installed under the respective upper liner and with separation of the respective drainage water. Construction of the sand and gray rock reservoir can take place in stages.

Inspection of completed construction works (complete and in stages) must be carried out by an independent inspector, who is appointed by the company after consultation with the supervisory authority. The inspection report and relationship drawings must be submitted to the supervisory authority at a time determined in consultation with the supervisory authority.​

Finishing
15) The waste in the sand and waste rock storage must be covered with a qualified cover. Covering must begin within one year from when the surface, or part of it, is completed to its final form.

16) Backfilling in open pits that are above the equilibrium level for groundwater in the respective open pits must be covered with qualified coverage. Coverage must begin within one year of the completion of backfilling of an open pit.

17) The qualified cover must be designed and carried out with criteria to ensure that the oxygen transport rate through the cover in a normal year is limited to a maximum of 0.5 mol/m 2 and year. The cover must be designed with a 0.5 m thick sealing layer of moraine mixed with bentonite, a 2 m thick protective layer of moraine and a 0.1 meter thick plant establishment layer that is vegetated, or another design that provides an equivalent oxygen transport rate.

18) An implementation description for final post-processing must be submitted to the supervisory authority no later than one year before the operation is planned to finally cease.

Ecological compensation
19) The company must carry out measures to compensate for the loss of natural values that arise through the operation. The compensation measures must correspond to at least 115% of the impact value, calculated according to the CLImB calculation model or a similar calculation model. The compensation area must be located within Kiruna municipality or, alternatively within Norrbotten county. The compensation plan
must be drawn up in consultation with the supervisory authority and submitted to the supervisory authority no later than one year from when the permit has gained legal force and has been used or later if the supervisory authority so allows. The supervisory authority may then decide on compensatory measures.

Species protection
20.) Felling within the area of operation may not take place during the period from May 1 to July 31 inclusive.

Financial security (SEK 1 ≅ € 0.09 ≅ AUD 0.14)
21.) The company must provide financial security for costs for carrying out the restoration measures that the business may cause as follows

a) Basic security must be provided with SEK 140 million (140,000,000). The security must be submitted to the Land and Environmental Court for review no later than three months after the legally binding permit judgment.

b) Security for post-treatment of the sand and gray rock reservoir must be set up in stages so that it finally covers a total of SEK 85 million (85,000,000) as follows
- a security of SEK 30 million (30,000,000) must be submitted to the Land and Environmental Court for review no later than two years after the permit has been claimed,
- security of SEK 25 million (25,000,000) must be submitted to the Land and Environmental Court for review no later than five years after the permit has been claimed, and
- security of SEK 30 million (30,000,000) must be submitted to the Land and Environmental Court for review no later than seven years after the permit has been claimed.

When the basic security according to point a) is to be provided, the amount must be calculated using the consumer price index. When the staged security according to point b) is to be provided, both the basic security and the staged amount/s must be calculated using the consumer price index. January 2020

shall constitute the base month and calculation shall take place against the latest valid consumer price index as of the day the security is submitted to the court.


Control

22.) The company must draw up a special control program regarding conditions 15-17 that ensures and documents that the coverage meets the requirements in condition 17. The control program and relevant relationship drawings must be submitted to the supervisory authority before coverage begins.

23.) A program for self-control regarding the construction phase of planned facilities must be drawn up and reported to the supervisory authority no later than one month before construction work is intended to begin. The control program must specify measurement methods, measurement frequency and evaluation method.

24.) A program for self-control regarding the operation of the business must be reported to the supervisory authority no later than three months before the intended commencement of mining operations. The control program must specify measurement methods, measurement frequency and evaluation method."
link to the PDF (the whole verdict in 191 pages)

_____
Legal fees
The Land and Environment Court rejects the respective claims of Sami Village Gabna and Talma Sami for legal costs.

AN APPEAL.
The Land and Environment Court dismisses the claims of xxx, xxx, xxx and xxx, xxx and xxx for financial compensation due to the mining activity applied.

It only just dawned on me that they didn’t Condition a max limit of ore extraction per year.

I think this means they can in theory front load the ore extraction, eg mine 150ktpa ore per year (or whatever figure), provided they stay within the 24yr LOM total ore limit.

MT alluded to this previously, but I was sceptical and assumed they would include a Condition with max annual extraction.

 

[anbuck]

It only just dawned on me that they didn’t Condition a max limit of ore extraction per year.

I think this means they can in theory front load the ore extraction, eg mine 150ktpa ore per year (or whatever figure), provided they stay within the 24yr LOM total ore limit.

MT alluded to this previously, but I was sceptical and assumed they would include a Condition with max annual extraction.

It says on page 4: "mining and beneficiation of graphite ore up to an amount of 120,000 tons per year,"

 

[anbuck]

I am concerned about this:

The company must investigate the technical, environmental and economic conditions for limiting the operations' emissions to water of copper, nickel, zinc, lead, cadmium, uranium, nitrate nitrogen, arsenic, chromium, total phosphorus, mercury, sulfate and suspended substances. The B company must also measure the size of the flow from the clarification basin. The results of the investigations and proposals for final conditions must be submitted to the Land and Environment Court no later than two years after the enrichment plant has been put into operation.

After that, it provides provisional regulations during the investigation period, but it feels like it opens the judgement up to the potential appeal argument that if there has to be a provisional period due to an ongoing investigation, then the mining shouldn't be allowed until we have sufficient data. I have a feeling it's written this way because it's not possible to have this data until we start mining, so I'm hoping that this argument isn't considered credible enough to grant leave to appeal.

 

[anbuck]

This also seems like a potential avenue for a credible appeal:

Based on the material provided, comments received in Finland and the Ministry of the Environment's own opinion, the Ministry of the Environment believes that the cross-border environmental impact assessment is still not sufficient to form an opinion about the project's likely negative impact in Finland. Finland believes that the cross-border consultations must continue and therefore calls on the Swedish government to organize a bilateral consultation meeting on the project without delay and to complete the cross-border assessment with reference to Article 5 of the Espoo Convention. Finland considers that the competent authority in Sweden cannot draw a reasoned conclusion about the project before the bilateral consultation has been completed. Sweden is also asked to analyze the feedback provided by Finland, submit a proposal to remedy shortcomings in the assessment of crossborder impacts and submit this proposal to Finland before the meeting. Finland once again points out to the Swedish government that the EIA material from Sweden seems to almost systematically lack information on transboundary impacts. It must be emphasized that the application of the Espoo Convention does not mean that the material is only produced from a national perspective and then translated. It appears that the Finnish government consults with the mining company and not with the State Convention or the EU member state. Despite the fact that Finland has requested that Sweden Page 83 UMEÅ DISTRICT COURT SUBJECT M 1573-20 The Land and Environmental Court 2023-04-05 take quick and concrete measures to improve the situation, there are no visible changes in practice. To confirm the application of The Espoo Convention and Article 7 of the EIA Directive, as well as the practical application of these provisions, Finland requests that the Swedish government organize a special meeting on the issue without delay.

 

[Monkeymandan]

It says on page 4: "mining and beneficiation of graphite ore up to an amount of 120,000 tons per year,"

Thanks - you’ve got a better eye for detail than me clearly.

 

[WheresTheMonkey]

This also seems like a potential avenue for a credible appeal:

Mmmmmm...............that looks to me more like a request to the Swedish Government as it says the Finns don't believe the authority making judgement (the Environmental Court) is competent to look at the overall effect on Finland.

So I don't see how any Court could rule on that

"Finland considers that the competent authority in Sweden cannot draw a reasoned conclusion about the project before the bilateral consultation has been completed...........................Finland requests that the Swedish government organize a special meeting on the issue without delay."

I think Appeals Court Computer will say ...................No

 

[anbuck]

Mmmmmm...............that looks to me more like a request to the Swedish Government as it says the Finns don't believe the authority making judgement (the Environmental Court) is competent to look at the overall effect on Finland.

So I don't see how any Court could rule on that

"Finland considers that the competent authority in Sweden cannot draw a reasoned conclusion about the project before the bilateral consultation has been completed...........................Finland requests that the Swedish government organize a special meeting on the issue without delay."

I think Appeals Court Computer will say ...................No

Finland's request referenced the Espoo Convention, which is a UN convention that deals with transboundary environmental impact assessments. The convention was ratified by the EU. So the court could rule on whether Sweden was in compliance with the convention.

 

[WheresTheMonkey]

Finland's request referenced the Espoo Convention, which is a UN convention that deals with transboundary environmental impact assessments. The convention was ratified by the EU. So the court could rule on whether Sweden was in compliance with the convention.

But the court has already considered that

Taking into account the final basis in the case, the court has judged that it can be ruled out that the activity will lead to any cross-border environmental impact in Finland. Conditions have been announced to ensure the construction of the extraction waste facility and treatment of potentially contaminated water to protect land and aquatic environments. Since it is a question of a new establishment of the business, the court has considered that the question of final conditions for the release of certain substances into water should be postponed for a trial period and that Talga should carry out investigations. In order to ensure restoration of the area after mining operations, the permit has been combined with conditions on this and conditions on financial security

 

[anbuck]

But the court has already considered that

Taking into account the final basis in the case, the court has judged that it can be ruled out that the activity will lead to any cross-border environmental impact in Finland. Conditions have been announced to ensure the construction of the extraction waste facility and treatment of potentially contaminated water to protect land and aquatic environments. Since it is a question of a new establishment of the business, the court has considered that the question of final conditions for the release of certain substances into water should be postponed for a trial period and that Talga should carry out investigations. In order to ensure restoration of the area after mining operations, the permit has been combined with conditions on this and conditions on financial security

Yup and that's why the appeal would go to a higher court, the Environmental Court of Appeals and they would evaluate if the lower court's decision was flawed.

 

[WheresTheMonkey]

But the court has already considered that

Taking into account the final basis in the case, the court has judged that it can be ruled out that the activity will lead to any cross-border environmental impact in Finland. Conditions have been announced to ensure the construction of the extraction waste facility and treatment of potentially contaminated water to protect land and aquatic environments. Since it is a question of a new establishment of the business, the court has considered that the question of final conditions for the release of certain substances into water should be postponed for a trial period and that Talga should carry out investigations. In order to ensure restoration of the area after mining operations, the permit has been combined with conditions on this and conditions on financial security

Also Page 83

The Environmental Protection Agency considers that the consultation was planned and carried out in accordance with chapter 6 § 33 of the Environmental Code on consultation with other countries in the specific environmental assessment. The Swedish Environmental Protection Agency therefore considers that the authority has fulfilled its obligations in accordance with Article 5 of the Espoo Convention.

 

[WheresTheMonkey]

Yup and that's why the appeal would go to a higher court, the Environmental Court of Appeals and they would evaluate if the lower court's decision was flawed.

But it was not the Court's decision. It's the EPA that's made the decision

So a body of the Swedish Government has ruled on Espoo not the Court

 

[anbuck]

But it was not the Court's decision. It's the EPA that's made the decision

So a body of the Swedish Government has ruled on Espoo not the Court

The EPA expressed an opinion and the court took that opinion into consideration, but it's the court that makes the judgement, so that judgement can always be overruled by a higher court. The reason that I am concerned about this particular issue is that the Finish government has plenty of resources to cover legal costs if they wanted to appeal.

To be clear, I don't think that an appeal would end up successfully overturning the decision, but what I'm trying to assess is the chance that leave to appeal will be granted, causing a delay. I previously said that I thought there is a 15% chance of leave to appeal being granted. After reading the decision, I'm now thinking that maybe 25% is more realistic.

 

[WheresTheMonkey]

The EPA expressed an opinion and the court took that opinion into consideration, but it's the court that makes the judgement, so that judgement can always be overruled by a higher court. The reason that I am concerned about this particular issue is that the Finish government has plenty of resources to cover legal costs if they wanted to appeal.

To be clear, I don't think that an appeal would end up successfully overturning the decision, but what I'm trying to assess is the chance that leave to appeal will be granted, causing a delay. I previously said that I thought there is a 15% chance of leave to appeal being granted. After reading the decision, I'm now thinking that maybe 25% is more realistic.

OK so we are waiting for the Finnish Government's ugly head to look over the parapet.

I would have thought the Finns would go after the EPA.

Granting an appeal is not going to change the opinion of the EPA upon which the Court has relied upon. So an appeal would be futile as the opinion of the EPA would still be the same.

Unless the EPA changes it's opinion what is there to appeal about ?

 

[cosors]

It only just dawned on me that they didn’t Condition a max limit of ore extraction per year.

I think this means they can in theory front load the ore extraction, eg mine 150ktpa ore per year (or whatever figure), provided they stay within the 24yr LOM total ore limit.

MT alluded to this previously, but I was sceptical and assumed they would include a Condition with max annual extraction.

I thought 120kt/a or 120ktpa?

 

[Monkeymandan]

The EPA expressed an opinion and the court took that opinion into consideration, but it's the court that makes the judgement, so that judgement can always be overruled by a higher court. The reason that I am concerned about this particular issue is that the Finish government has plenty of resources to cover legal costs if they wanted to appeal.

To be clear, I don't think that an appeal would end up successfully overturning the decision, but what I'm trying to assess is the chance that leave to appeal will be granted, causing a delay. I previously said that I thought there is a 15% chance of leave to appeal being granted. After reading the decision, I'm now thinking that maybe 25% is more realistic.

It’s a good pick up. What ultimately is being questioned here is the adequacy of the EIS Talga submitted, they believe there to be gaps in the impact assessment. So an appeal being accepted would be contingent on the Finns putting up evidence to support the argument it was deficient.

 

[cosors]

Please do not use names from court documents or xxx them.

I'm not sure but I can imagine that this is against the strict EU data protection. In Germany, that would definitely be the case. How it is in Sweden I don't know. The thing is being installed here in Europe right now.
So before zeeb0t or anyone else here gets into trouble please make sure that names only appear in articles or media intended for the public.
The fact that we can look at these documents is due to the cross-border exchange and I suspect that the Finnish side is not quite clean in terms of data protection. But as I said the whole thing is only just emerging. I just want to avoid trouble if someone googles his own name or of his client. So please, if it's up to me, make xxx of all names that come from documents of authorities or courts. I don't think anyone wants to be sued.

Perhaps you will check and change your posts if necessary.

 

[JNRB]

I have had the opportunity to read the whole document and noted one thing.

Talma , Gabna Sámi villages and some of the antis are trying to make money out of this case or at least cover cost for expensive legal rep. I have read somewhere that this Case has supported a cottage industry of lawyers translators and other people hanging out for a free lunch going for three years.

COSTS

Trial fee
The Land and Environmental Court does not change what was decided in the decision on 3 June 2020 about the examination fee in the case.

Legal costs
The Land and Environmental Court rejects Gabna Sami village's and Talma Sami village's respective claims for compensation for court costs.

DISPLAY

The Land and Environmental Court rejects Erika Bjurholt's, Per-Erik Bjurholt's, Peter Petterson's and Jan Johansson's, Anette Johansson's and Eric Johansson's claims for financial compensation as a result of applied mining activity.

The last claim is quiet puzzling to me. Do they want to monetize imaginary damages they already suffered? Anyhow the court rejected their argument. And the Court will reject anything covered in its ruling so in a way we should thank the antis for raising all the arguments at this level.

I think they thought they would stop us at the first instance. They have shot themselves in the foot.

IMHO The only ace of Diamonds left for the antis is the UN protection of Indigenous population culture and life style much like the Fosen case in the streets of Oslo. In the presence of St Greta.

"So know it has come to pass. "

GALADRIEL LOTR

-beserk

The Declaration is a non-binding agreement. So the only real mechanism for enforcement is the moral and reputational impact of having broken it.

But it's also a little vague. It's not a carte-blanche for indigenous peoples.
"It establishes a universal framework of minimum standards for the survival, dignity and well-being of the indigenous peoples of the world"

This is from a summary not the text, but it shows the principle involved. So do you think the opposition to our mine will be able to prove to a court enough of a likelihood that our mine will have enough of a negative impact that it will jeopardize their survival, dignity or well-being?

Not a chance.

This text doesn't mean they must be fully shielded from any negative impacts. Everyone in society deals with impacts from changes in land use and development of infrastructure. Indigenous peoples charter only protects them from that in-so-far as the limits above. If there are activities that impact indigenous peoples, it's up to society/governments to decide and limit what those such as they don't exceed the survival, dignity or well-being limit.

Does our mine threaten Sami survival?
- No
Does our mine impact Sami dignity?
- No (though a few Sami doing a pretty good job of that themselves
Does our mine threaten Sami well-being?
- No
And good luck to them to prove otherwise.

So this will be judged against the overall impact of all activities that impact the Sami and society will decide if it's worth it. We know they'll decide it is. This isn't a bloody iron mine, or precious stones, this is a mine that's a critical/strategic resource to the country.

 

[cosors]

The EPA expressed an opinion and the court took that opinion into consideration, but it's the court that makes the judgement, so that judgement can always be overruled by a higher court. The reason that I am concerned about this particular issue is that the Finish government has plenty of resources to cover legal costs if they wanted to appeal.

To be clear, I don't think that an appeal would end up successfully overturning the decision, but what I'm trying to assess is the chance that leave to appeal will be granted, causing a delay. I previously said that I thought there is a 15% chance of leave to appeal being granted. After reading the decision, I'm now thinking that maybe 25% is more realistic.

I don't think the Finnish state is behind the Finnish plaintiffs. At the beginning of the judgement all 77 opponents are listed.
They are associations, authorities, individuals or salmon fishermen, as I recall, similar to the complaining group in Sweden. And this is already the second answer on the subject, if I have it right.
We can only speculate at the moment I can either imagine that it will come to nothing or that a decision will be taken at a higher level but not in our subject.
However, if the Swedish authorities are of the opinion that the measures are sufficient to protect the water (meet strict Natura2000 targets) and therefore grant a permit with high conditions, how should the water about 200 km away not be protected as well? In Finland, Natura2000 is just as valid as anywhere else in the EU. It's about cooperation and I don't think Talga can influence that.
And I remind you that it is exclusively about the river and the water with this cross border consultation with the Finns, and the whole issue of water was dealt with in the Natura2000 permit that was granted. I also recall that the European Commission has complained that its Natura2000 law is being used by some member states as a tool to obstruct environmental projects or to hit the Green Deal targets. The EU therefore wants to adapt these laws so that they can no longer be abused by so-called environmentalists. But moving on, the matter is fortunately positive for us, a huge hurdle was Natura2000 and it all went well!
So protecting water makes no sense. I think it is about something else and that is cross-border communication as such and not only in this rare case. I don't think there have been many cases like this and everybody has to learn how to deal with it. Someone should explain to the lazy Finnish authorities that in these days and age there are smart tools like DeepL that professionally translate documents for €250 a year in a privacy compliant way.)

If you want to take a closer look, take a look down this rabbit hole. But I warn you that it takes a lot of time because many documents were sent over as images in text documents and therefore cannot be easily translated as text without vectorisation. And here, as a Swede, I would clearly also blame the Finnish side, as if they had done it on purpose. But I don't think that's the case - we're all struggling with digitalisation, stamps, signatures and few know digital seals to authenticate documents. But that will change, I digress The rabbit hole

 

[WheresTheMonkey]

Appeal to the Court of Appeal

www.domstol.se

 

[Monkeymandan]

I thought 120kt/a or 120ktpa?

Yes you’re right - I missed it in the full consent.