PERMITS

[cosors]

"G..ná and the Nature Conservation Society appeal against graphite mine​

PUBLISHED TODAY 16:25
Talga AB has received approval to mine ore in a graphite mine in Njunisvárri.
Now the G..ná Sami village and the Nature Conservation Society have appealed the decision to the Supreme Court.
At the beginning of April, the Land and Environmental Court gave the green light to Talga AB to mine 120,000 tons of graphite ore annually in four open pits in a graphite mine in Njunisvárri in Kiruna municipality.
The decision was appealed, but at the end of August the Supreme Court announced that leave to appeal was denied.
Now, instead, the Ga..ná Sami village and the Nature Conservation Society have appealed to the Supreme Court, where they hope that HD will overturn the Land and Environmental Appeals Court's decision.

"Is there reason for such an examination"​

The news agency Siren writes that the chairman of the Sami village, as the Nature Conservation Association's representative, is asking for more time to develop his position on the matter.
"My principals are of the opinion that it is of the utmost importance for the management of
the application of the law that the appeal is examined by a higher instance and that there are several reasons
for such an examination", writes lawyer G. H. B. in the appeal."
https://www.svt.se/nyheter/sapmi/gabn-och-naturskyddsforeningen-overklagar-grafitgruva

...asking for more time for further delaying
so waiting for the answer yes/no

So it is then without reason to ask the Supreme Court for more time to maybe find powder somewhere. Hopefully, the processing time will not be so long this time and the Supreme Court will be better staffed.
Will the same tactics work for the Supreme Court?

 

[Semmel]

 

[cosors]

We are appealing and would like the court to have made a serious mistake, but we don't know how to justify it. So we're going to appeal to the Supreme Court and ask them to give us more time so we don't find anything, but it's worth a try.

Sounds like desperation tactics to me. Personally, I would be embarrassed. But that's how climate deniers are.

 

[Monkeymandan]

We are appealing and would like the court to have made a serious mistake, but we don't know how to justify it. So we're going to appeal to the Supreme Court and ask them to give us more time so we don't find anything, but it's worth a try.

Sounds like desperation tactics to me. Personally, I would be embarrassed. But that's how climate deniers are.

Another disgusting attempt at stymying the process, with zero grounds for appeal cited by the sounds of it.

At face value this should be dismissed instantly, as it doesn’t meet the requirements of the appeal, which states the reasons and evidence to support the appeal claim have to be submitted with the appeal by the close date.

However the lower court had the same requirements, and evidently they extended on simialr grounds, so I’m not confident. One just hopes the SC administers the rules more ruthlessly.

 

[brewm0re]

Another disgusting attempt at stymying the process, with zero grounds for appeal cited by the sounds of it.

At face value this should be dismissed instantly, as it doesn’t meet the requirements of the appeal, which states the reasons and evidence to support the appeal claim have to be submitted with the appeal by the close date.

However the lower court had the same requirements, and evidently they extended on simialr grounds, so I’m not confident. One just hopes the SC administers the rules more ruthlessly.

From the domstol website:

State the reasons why the Supreme Court should grant leave to appeal​

The main rule is that the Supreme Court only grants leave to appeal if its judgment or decision can provide a precedent (give guidance on how courts are to assess similar cases). Thus, state why a Supreme Court ruling can be valuable for the application of law in a perspective wider than just your own case. Alternatively, state why you consider there are exceptional reasons for the Supreme Court to try your appeal.
If your appeal relates to a court of appeal decision not to allow review of a case, you need to state both why the court of appeal should have granted leave to appeal and why the Supreme Court should grant such leave.

 

[brewm0re]

From the domstol website:

State the reasons why the Supreme Court should grant leave to appeal​

The main rule is that the Supreme Court only grants leave to appeal if its judgment or decision can provide a precedent (give guidance on how courts are to assess similar cases). Thus, state why a Supreme Court ruling can be valuable for the application of law in a perspective wider than just your own case. Alternatively, state why you consider there are exceptional reasons for the Supreme Court to try your appeal.
If your appeal relates to a court of appeal decision not to allow review of a case, you need to state both why the court of appeal should have granted leave to appeal and why the Supreme Court should grant such leave.

Lodge an appeal and request leave to appeal

Before it can try a case, the Supreme Court must, as a rule, first grant leave to appeal. Around 8 000 appeals are lodged with the Supreme Court every year. Leave to appeal is granted in only just over 100 cases.

www.domstol.se

​

This is how long it takes​

Normally, the Supreme Court decides whether to grant leave to appeal around 1 month after it receives the application. This decision is taken by one or more Justices of the Supreme Court. Usually, a good 90% of applications for leave to appeal are decided by a single Justice of the Supreme Court.

 

[Monkeymandan]

Another disgusting attempt at stymying the process, with zero grounds for appeal cited by the sounds of it.

At face value this should be dismissed instantly, as it doesn’t meet the requirements of the appeal, which states the reasons and evidence to support the appeal claim have to be submitted with the appeal by the close date.

However the lower court had the same requirements, and evidently they extended on simialr grounds, so I’m not confident. One just hopes the SC administers the rules more ruthlessly.

 

[Monkeymandan]

Lodge an appeal and request leave to appeal

Before it can try a case, the Supreme Court must, as a rule, first grant leave to appeal. Around 8 000 appeals are lodged with the Supreme Court every year. Leave to appeal is granted in only just over 100 cases.

www.domstol.se

​

This is how long it takes​

Normally, the Supreme Court decides whether to grant leave to appeal around 1 month after it receives the application. This decision is taken by one or more Justices of the Supreme Court. Usually, a good 90% of applications for leave to appeal are decided by a single Justice of the Supreme Court.

If the Court shows the same leniency as the lower Court, then they will provide an extension to the Appellants to submit the evidence to support the appeal (probably 3 weeks based on previous), then that 1 month period you refer to would begin.

This is clearly not exercising the rules correctly though. I hope Talga’s lawyers go to town on them today.

 

[ACinEur]

FFS The inability of people to see the bigger picture and understand that this company is net positive for the climate does my head in….

 

[Monkeymandan]

Here’s a summary outlining the next steps for the CRMA to enter into legal force.

All being well that would be March/April 24, so should coincide nicely with the expansion plan, whatever it looks like. Surely classified as a Strategic Project under the Act at that time, I have no doubt MT is going to go f*%king huge after this 3 year permit process.

The European Critical Raw Materials Act: A quick summary on what it does and when it’s coming

The European Critical Raw Materials Act (CRMA) - which is at the heart of the EU's effort to address critical raw materials strategic dependencies…

www.lexology.com

 

[curiousmagpie]

Here’s a summary outlining the next steps for the CRMA to enter into legal force.

All being well that would be March/April 24, so should coincide nicely with the expansion plan, whatever it looks like. Surely classified as a Strategic Project under the Act at that time, I have no doubt MT is going to go f*%king huge after this 3 year permit process.

The European Critical Raw Materials Act: A quick summary on what it does and when it’s coming

The European Critical Raw Materials Act (CRMA) - which is at the heart of the EU's effort to address critical raw materials strategic dependencies…

www.lexology.com

"I have no doubt MT is going to go f*%king huge after this 3 year permit process"

Related question - I'm Interested to know what the maximum size of any Niska+ study can be based on the current MRE, ie without further drilling and discovery. I've attempted a stab at this below.

Can someone remind me of the asx/jorc rules on what can quantities of resource can be included in the studies based on various confidence levels? I've extrapolated based on what Talga have published previously.

eg The Vittangi DFS uses only probable ore reserves from Nunasvaara South

The Niska Study (2020) was based on Nunasvaara North and Niska N & S and used approx 80% of the indicated resource and effectively none of the inferred, to get to 400,000tpa ore for 12 years = 5.1Mt ore. (see below)

Based on current updated MRE excluding Nunasvaara South (for Vittangi) and adding in the newer Nunasvaara East and Niska Link, the indicated category gives approx 14.6Mt mineable ore (see below)

For Niska study 400,000tpa ore yielded ~85,000tpa Tal-C. Since then the average grade in the MRE above has reduced from 28.7%Cg to 24%. This is similar to Vittangi where at 24%Cg, 100,000tpa ore yields 19,500tpa Tal-C so a good reference to use.
Keeping the Niska 14 year LOM, that's 1.05Mtpa ore and 205,000tpa Tal-C.


So I believe that based on these back-of-the-envelope calcs, currently any Niska+ study published would bound by an upper limit of approx 200,000tpa Tal-C based on current MRE and reporting rules.

The numbers for that would be great - approx NPV8 of US$8.5bn / A$13bn as a simple multiple of the Niska study base case (and nearly A$17bn at the upper range)

Caveat with lots of assumptions with the original Niska base case of US$3.5bn won't hold up in the 3 years that have passed since publication. Discount rate of 8% is just not appropriate in this market (eg when Minres are borrowing at >9%), capex and opex increases across the board, AAM price depressed etc etc.
Also shows there is a lot of drilling to do for resource expansion to get to the theoretical 800ktpa anode in the Euroz Hartleys bull case! Good job MT loves to drill.

I am not a geo and have likely made mistakes here so keen for some input.

 

[Monkeymandan]

"I have no doubt MT is going to go f*%king huge after this 3 year permit process"

Related question - I'm Interested to know what the maximum size of any Niska+ study can be based on the current MRE, ie without further drilling and discovery. I've attempted a stab at this below.

Can someone remind me of the asx/jorc rules on what can quantities of resource can be included in the studies based on various confidence levels? I've extrapolated based on what Talga have published previously.

eg The Vittangi DFS uses only probable ore reserves from Nunasvaara South

The Niska Study (2020) was based on Nunasvaara North and Niska N & S and used approx 80% of the indicated resource and effectively none of the inferred, to get to 400,000tpa ore for 12 years = 5.1Mt ore. (see below)

View attachment 46699



Based on current updated MRE excluding Nunasvaara South (for Vittangi) and adding in the newer Nunasvaara East and Niska Link, the indicated category gives approx 14.6Mt mineable ore (see below)

View attachment 46700


For Niska study 400,000tpa ore yielded ~85,000tpa Tal-C. Since then the average grade in the MRE above has reduced from 28.7%Cg to 24%. This is similar to Vittangi where at 24%Cg, 100,000tpa ore yields 19,500tpa Tal-C so a good reference to use.
Keeping the Niska 14 year LOM, that's 1.05Mtpa ore and 205,000tpa Tal-C.


So I believe that based on these back-of-the-envelope calcs, currently any Niska+ study published would bound by an upper limit of approx 200,000tpa Tal-C based on current MRE and reporting rules.

The numbers for that would be great - approx NPV8 of US$8.5bn / A$13bn as a simple multiple of the Niska study base case (and nearly A$17bn at the upper range)

Caveat with lots of assumptions with the original Niska base case of US$3.5bn won't hold up in the 3 years that have passed since publication. Discount rate of 8% is just not appropriate in this market (eg when Minres are borrowing at >9%), capex and opex increases across the board, AAM price depressed etc etc.
Also shows there is a lot of drilling to do for resource expansion to get to the theoretical 800ktpa anode in the Euroz Hartleys bull case! Good job MT loves to drill.

I am not a geo and have likely made mistakes here so keen for some input.

Hi Curiousmagie

Your calcs look logical and relying only on the Indicated category is right I think, however I would have thought the indicated category for Nunn South should be included too - less the ore that is already earmarked for phase 1 Vittangi (104ktpa ore x24y LOM = 2.5mt ore. 8.4m - 2.5m = 5.9mt ore balance). I say this because I see the Niska+ scope as likely to mop up every bit of excess indicated resource.

So that would bring your 18.3mt ore to 24.2mt ore. 80% being 19.4mt, giving approx 4.1mt TalC, or 293ktpa TalC over 14 year life of mine.

I did my own rough calcs some time ago and landed on a figure of 300ktpa, so this seems pretty consistent.

So I’ll take your NPV $13bn AUD and raise you $19.5bn!

All just my opinion.

 

[Semmel]

I did a little bit investigation in this. And (i edited that part out of the first version of the post as it was repeating yours.. sorry!) .. where does the notion of using 80% of the inferred resource comes from? I mean, yes, the numbers line up, but why would they do that?

However, the resource STILL remains open at strike and at depths. So there is almost certainly even more to be mined in the area.

I understand the conservative approach using JORC standard. There are probably plenty of projects that got their nose bitten off because they thought they had more ressources than truely were there. It makes sense to low-ball the resource size and be conservative. Better to increase the mines scope when it actually turns out to be more mineral available.


HOWEVER, that approach is NOT GOOD in SWEDEN. The limiting factor for a mine is NOT its size or the mineral. Its the legal process to open the mine in the first place. The scale of the project is almost insignificant. In Australia, its probably no big deal to increase the scope of a mine if more minerals are found. In Sweden, it takes a decade to get this through. At the same time, the initial permit does not seem to depend on the scale of the project but solely dominated by the speed the court can handle opposition. And opposition is at break-neck intensity for even digging out a hole for a fence post. It doesnt matter how large the project is, opposition is maximum, all the time.

So as a result, I think the best strategy for Talga to proceed here is go for a permit application of a mine that takes 5Mtpa ore out, for a 1Mtpa Cg extraction rate. This application would take the exact same time and efford as a project for half or 1/3 that scale. Then, when they actually build the mine, they can scale back the size. Or go for the full scale if the resource strike and depth still remains open, even after getting the inferred resource to 100Mt ore.

There is also another aspect. A mine with much longer life span of 20 years is not fiesible for graphite. Within 20 years, and probably much sooner, the enegry environment will change completely. We will have almost 100% renewable energy in form of solar and wind, which will be abundand and much cheaper than coal and gas. We will go into a future similar to Tony Sebas Super power, I am certain of that. I posted about the solar installation aspect in the other thread a week or so ago. With almost free energy, synthetic graphite will become super cheap. So cheap that our mine will not be profitable in comparison. Now, we are not there by a long shot yet, but... as slow as the legal process is in Sweden, it will take at least 5 years before we have the permits for an expansion. Then another 2 to 3 years of building the mine and refinary. So we will start at EARLIEST in 8 years with the mine. On top of that, go a 20 year life of mine, and .. at the tail end, it might ot be all that profitable any more.

What I want to say with that is.. be fast, and dont plan for a long lasting graphite mine.

 

[cosors]

I repeat this here once because it gives a first insight into the argumentation to the Supreme Court.


"The general rule is that the Supreme Court will only grant leave to appeal if the Supreme Court's judgement or decision can have significance as a precedent, i.e. provide guidance on how the courts should assess similar cases (reasons for precedent). Therefore, state why a decision from the Supreme Court may be of value for the application of the law in a broader perspective than in your particular case or, if you consider that there are exceptional reasons for the Supreme Court to review your appeal, why this is so.

If your appeal concerns a decision by a court of appeal not to grant leave to appeal, you need to state both why the court of appeal should have granted leave to appeal and why the Supreme Court should grant leave to appeal."
https://www.domstol.se/hogsta-domstolen/om-handlaggningen/overklaga-och-begar-provningstillstand/
https://www.domstol.se/en/supreme-court/about-proceedings/appeals-and-leave-to-appeal/

"Current situation in autumn 2023 on various mining topics
16 october, 2023
...
Nunasvaara, SNF BD has appealed to the Supreme Court (HD) when we were not granted leave to appeal by MÖD regarding the judgment for Nunasvaara södra and requested a postponement until 1 Nov with detailed presentations. We got the time until 26 October. Results after the extensive inventories carried out by the circle will be included in the appeal. We participated in the demonstration at Sergels torg in Stockholm on 16 September."
https://kiruna.naturskyddsforeningen.se/2023/10/16/aktuellt-lage-hosten-2023-om-olika-gruvfragor/


I am not a lawyer and have no deeper knowledge of this. I for one interpret this to mean that this reason for the appeal to the Supreme Court completely misses the point. We probably all suspect this, so it's nothing new to us in our minds. But this is the first concrete indication I know of exactly what they plan to do. So I thought I'd share it with you.

 

[Monkeymandan]

I repeat this here once because it gives a first insight into the argumentation to the Supreme Court.


"The general rule is that the Supreme Court will only grant leave to appeal if the Supreme Court's judgement or decision can have significance as a precedent, i.e. provide guidance on how the courts should assess similar cases (reasons for precedent). Therefore, state why a decision from the Supreme Court may be of value for the application of the law in a broader perspective than in your particular case or, if you consider that there are exceptional reasons for the Supreme Court to review your appeal, why this is so.

If your appeal concerns a decision by a court of appeal not to grant leave to appeal, you need to state both why the court of appeal should have granted leave to appeal and why the Supreme Court should grant leave to appeal."
https://www.domstol.se/hogsta-domstolen/om-handlaggningen/overklaga-och-begar-provningstillstand/
https://www.domstol.se/en/supreme-court/about-proceedings/appeals-and-leave-to-appeal/

"Current situation in autumn 2023 on various mining topics
16 october, 2023
...
Nunasvaara, SNF BD has appealed to the Supreme Court (HD) when we were not granted leave to appeal by MÖD regarding the judgment for Nunasvaara södra and requested a postponement until 1 Nov with detailed presentations. We got the time until 26 October. Results after the extensive inventories carried out by the circle will be included in the appeal. We participated in the demonstration at Sergels torg in Stockholm on 16 September."
https://kiruna.naturskyddsforeningen.se/2023/10/16/aktuellt-lage-hosten-2023-om-olika-gruvfragor/


I am not a lawyer and have no deeper knowledge of this. I for one interpret this to mean that this reason for the appeal to the Supreme Court completely misses the point. We probably all suspect this, so it's nothing new to us in our minds. But this is the first concrete indication I know of exactly what they plan to do. So I thought I'd share it with you.

Thanks for sharing. I think this sheds a slightly different light on what has occurred, that being that an extension to the appeal date wasn’t provided (which imo would have required an ANN), but rather a ‘presentation’ has been scheduled for 26 October for the appellants to present their evidence. This concept of ‘presentations’ as part of the formal process to present evidence fits with the earlier phase where we learnt two such presentations occurred. The court of appeals rejection of the initial appeals came very soon after the second presentation date in late Aug.

If this is correct, I would expect a rejection of the appeals by early November.

Speculation obviously.

 

[cosors]

The two sentences. As noted, I can misunderstand or mistranslate something. And I interpret a translated interpretation. And I am not a politician, lawyer or bureaucrat.

So this decision was made today, and the court is of the opinion that a permit could only be granted for the area applied for.

A detailed plan is not necessarily required, but applications for future building permits can be appealed, and then there will be an assessment for the county council, the outcome of which will be difficult to predict.

The district administration would have to process the application for Niska South, for example, as it did for NS. The only difference is that at that time the city government was in favor of mining. The social democrats have positioned themselves against this mining for whatever reasons. Rightly, the question would be asked here, what if no permit. For me, now that we have it, the biggest threat is a delay and that there will be difficulties with the expansions and that they will be prevented. But there is a tailwind coming from Brussels with the proposal for the CRMA. So they couldn't obstruct in the future just because they want to. On the contrary, they were forced to support it. In the proposal natural graphite is classified not only as critical but also of strategic importance. I would be interested to know if the local politicians of the SD knew or wanted to know about this.)

I just want to play through everything in my mind.

I had overlooked the last sentence in that old 'article'.

"(S) controversy over Talga mine - No side: "Our position stands firm"

It was by a narrow margin that members of the Social Democrats in Kiruna voted against a mine in Vittangi, shortly before the environmental judgement was made.

Social Democrat K. N. (You aknow him from the Facebook anti group) in the municipal council sees no reason for the party to change its mind now that the company Talga has been given the green light by the Land and Environment Court.

But his party colleague, councillor Mats Taaveniku, wants to have a new discussion - otherwise he sees a risk of the municipality being run over."
https://sverigesradio.se/artikel/splittring-om-talgagruvan-nejsidan-var-standpunkt-star-fast


I think it is meant that the government then simply takes the decision away from the colleagues from Kiruna and takes away the sovereignty over the detailed plan.

By the way, yesterday the Minister for Employment and Integration announced that he would provide about AUD18M for 2000 new education places in northern Sweden to meet the demand. Johan Pehrson is the one who broke ground with MT and others for the factory in Lulea. He sharply attacked the politician from Kiruna.

this is another but as reminder:

However, the minister has recognised the urgency, takes the matter seriously and acts, is putting the spade in the ground for us, is attacking his colleagues in Kiruna and in the article in the biggest newspaper (The newspaper is currently Sweden's largest-circulation morning newspaper.) where this job offensive is explained Talga is mentioned with the picture of the opening ceremony! Unfortunately, the article is behind a PW, but the Google search clearly shows that. It is good to see the right politicians on our side and taking action.

Here together with Mark Thompson, founder of Talga (second from the right), Lotta Finstorp, County Governor of Luleå, Carina Sammeli, Chairman of the Municipal Executive Board in Luleå.
https://www.dn.se/sverige/miljonsatsning-for-nya-utbildningar-i-norra-sverige/

 

[curiousmagpie]

fyi I think in the Swedish court terminology “presentation” is closer to the English “submission”. ie the presentation date is when they submit their written evidence, there’s no actual oral presentation (might just be me but my mind goes to slide shows and the like when I hear that, which it is not)

 

[Monkeymandan]

fyi I think in the Swedish court terminology “presentation” is closer to the English “submission”. ie the presentation date is when they submit their written evidence, there’s no actual oral presentation (might just be me but my mind goes to slide shows and the like when I hear that, which it is not)

You might be right there. Either way, with the earlier appeal the decision not to hear the appeal was made 2 days after the second ‘presentation’ date, with TLG then announcing it the next day.

I’m going to go out on a limb and guess we’ll get an ANN of the outcome on Monday 30 October.

Purely speculation.

 

[Pharvest]

You might be right there. Either way, with the earlier appeal the decision not to hear the appeal was made 2 days after the second ‘presentation’ date, with TLG then announcing it the next day.

I’m going to go out on a limb and guess we’ll get an ANN of the outcome on Monday 30 October.

Purely speculation.

I’m going sit on that limb with ya MMD

 

[anbuck]

fyi I think in the Swedish court terminology “presentation” is closer to the English “submission”. ie the presentation date is when they submit their written evidence, there’s no actual oral presentation (might just be me but my mind goes to slide shows and the like when I hear that, which it is not)

I believe that someone who works for the court gets familiar with the case and then presents it to the judges. The judges may ask questions and then the person would have to investigate further and do another presentation.