PERMITS

[cosors]

I want to draw your attention to the other spot. That is equally/also important! If we get the approval, we can start:

Publication date:May 2, 2023
Last updated:Tuesday 2 May, 15.27

"Now begins the main negotiation on Talga AB's environmental permit for the plant on the Hertsö field​

View attachment 35610

On Wednesday, May 3, the main hearing starts in the Land and Environmental Court regarding Talga AB's environmental permit for the manufacture of battery anode material from graphite concentrate at the Hertsö field in Luleå. The company has applied for a so-called building permit to be able to start construction work on the area.

Background​

Talga AB has applied for an environmental permit for a facility for the manufacture of battery anode material from graphite concentrate on the Hertsö field in Luleå. The company has submitted its application to the Land and Environmental Court and has requested to receive a so-called building judgment, a permit to be able to start the works that need to be carried out (earthworks, foundations and certain buildings) in order for the business to be in place.
The County Administrative Board is fundamentally positive about this type of activity, which is part of the industrial transition and which can contribute to a lower climate impact. In this case, the business intends to manufacture components for batteries for e.g. electric cars.
To ensure sustainable development, the requirements in the Environmental Code must be met, among other things. The county board's role in this context is to give us an opinion regarding the impact on environmental interests and other public interests.

The opinion of the County Administrative Board​

The County Administrative Board believes that there are still question marks regarding the future activities' impact on water and the water body where the discharges will take place. In previous statements before the main hearing, the County Administrative Board has assessed, based on what the company reported, that there is a risk that there will be an impermissible impact on water (environmental quality standards) in the water body.
Since the company has applied for a so-called building permit, it is required that the entire operation is permissible according to the requirements of the Environmental Code. The County Administrative Board believes that the issue of emissions to water must be clarified. We see that the company has largely met the other questions and requirements for conditions set out by the county administrative board, including risk and safety, noise and air emissions.

The main hearing​

The main hearing in the Land and Environment Court starts on Wednesday, May 3 at 8.30 a.m. and lasts until lunch on Friday, May 5, with the afternoon as a spare day. The main hearing takes place in Luleå District Court, Skeppsbrogatan 43 in Luleå. The County Administrative Board has representatives on site during all days of the main hearing.

Related information​

• Current permit processes
• Download press photo of Anna-Carin OhlssonJpg, 2.2 MB.
• Environmental quality standards for water (Vattenmyghterena.se) "

https://www.lansstyrelsen.se/norrbo...llstand-for-anlaggningen-pa-hertsofaltet.html

_____________
On the other matter I have answered full length. But due to a really stupid mistake that I didn't want to make again everything is now gone. I don't feel like repeating everything So in short: I think you are also right and - wait and see or drink tee or all at once.

 

[Semmel]

@cosors , @Semmel .............I read this differently from you guys.....................I lean toward's anbuck's view

"We as affected property owners who want to appeal.............................."

We already knew that certain individuals were appealing.

This letter it seems to me is just an offer to the anti-miners that they can avail themselves of her services should they be granted an appearance to make their case for an appeal. But she needs to know by 23 May because the hearing starts then. They are simply being added to her client list.

Seems to me she is there to plead for the time extensions nothing too complex. After all a plea for a time extension would be a fairly common occurrence for any lawyer.

I think the 4 or 5 extensions of time will be either granted or thrown out on the 23rd. Since this is a case of some controversy don't be surprised if the Judges grant time extensions so they are seen to be offering all parties due process and so exhausting their avenues before they get their plea for an appeal declined.

If they are thrown out then the other appeal (only one I think ?) might be considered very quickly (same day) as the judges would have probably formed a pretty firm view of its merits since they already have the argument in paper form right now without needing for it to be heard out in an open court.

If time extensions are given I think that will apply to all the appeals which will then be heard at a later date say 3 weeks or so

Seems like thats exactly what I intended to say but didnt get the point accross properly. The 23.5. seems to be a date set by the lawyer, not the court. It is speculation, i.e. a conclusion from the mail of that lawyer what that means for any hearing date or extension of submitting appeals. I think its the date the court of appeal makes a decision on the leave to appeal. If a time extension is granted, then we have another round of waiting in front of us. However, the court might also decide to grant Talgas appeal immidiately, namely that the law comes into force immidiately. Would only make sense if an extended time for appeals is also granted, since it smells like delaying tactics by the anti miners. We will see.

 

[Slymeat]

I have posted my answer in two parts. The hefty comment is in the bar.

I find it frightening that the plaintiffs are objecting on the pretext of needing more time. Remember that there must be valid reasons that must be presented.
At the moment, these reasons look like this: They have failed to encourage individuals to organise themselves. Most of them probably had concerns about the costs. Now the Nature Conservancy is taking over these costs.
I am curious to see if this is official and the court recognises that good cause exists when those who want to object have not been quick enough to clarify whether they want to object. It's like the court is saying: we'll give you more time to sort out the costs and to get your act together.
I'm curious whether that is what it seems to be, whether that is factual.

We need more time, we have to clarify the costs first, is that supposed to be a valid reason for extending the deadline?!

The courts, the judges, all other court staff, and the lawyers, make no money if no objections get raised. It is in their own interests to allow people time to sort out costs and take the matter back to court.

I both despise and love the sentiment expressed by the lawyer of:
“But what I can guarantee is that I will do everything I can to ensure that the activity will at least be subject to the most stringent requirements possible, so that it may even become economically unattractive to continue.”

So all she wants to do is to bury the project in so much red tape that it will be economically [un]attractive. [edit, whoops, I forgot the “un”]

Hopefully, her tipping her hat to this course of action will be sufficient grounds for Talga to have the appeal overturned. I would hope that a sensible appeals process would give weight to reasonable arguments highlighting environmental impacts but will see the above “publicly available” statement as the waste of time and money that it is.

On the subject of stringent environmental processes, I believe Talga is all over this and plans to Improve the land to a better state than that in which they found it. Wasn’t that what the demo mine was all about?

Matters pertaining to the environment should be the ONLY argument when being heard in an environment court hearing.

 

[WheresTheMonkey]

“But what I can guarantee is that I will do everything I can to ensure that the activity will at least be subject to the most stringent requirements possible, so that it may even become economically unattractive to continue.”

@Slymeat those are the words of a f**king totally unhinged fanatic who wants to look like some sort of hero to the locals. It's the statement of a person who craves attention and a higher profile.

As you said let's hope the responsible parties see that kind of attitude, and those that support her, as an extraordinarily destructive group not interested in practical solutions at all but only interested in blocking any proposals that probably wont inconvenience them at all.

 

[Monkeymandan]

The courts, the judges, all other court staff, and the lawyers, make no money if no objections get raised. It is in their own interests to allow people time to sort out costs and take the matter back to court.

I both despise and love the sentiment expressed by the lawyer of:
“But what I can guarantee is that I will do everything I can to ensure that the activity will at least be subject to the most stringent requirements possible, so that it may even become economically unattractive to continue.”

So all she wants to do is to bury the project in so much red tape that it will be economically attractive.

Hopefully, her tipping her hat to this course of action will be sufficient grounds for Talga to have the appeal overturned. I would hope that a sensible appeals process would give weight to reasonable arguments highlighting environmental impacts but will see the above “publicly available” statement as the waste of time and money that it is.

On the subject of stringent environmental processes, I believe Talga is all over this and plans to Improve the land to a better state than that in which they found it. Wasn’t that what the demo mine was all about?

Matters pertaining to the environment should be the ONLY argument when being heard in an environment court hearing.

A really good point you make.

I’m sure Talga’s legal team are across this, but have forwarded them the link in case not, as she has clearly exposed herself here as attempting to pervert a judicial decision.

 

[cosors]

Nothing new but I like the wording here. It comes from the local government in Lulea/Hertsön.
It reads straightforward and clear, doesn't it?

"Done - court grants permission to graphite mine outside Vittangi​

April 5, 2023
The Land and Environmental Court grants Talga AB permission to mine graphite in the Nunasvaara south deposit near Vittangi in Kiruna municipality. But there are still several authority decisions that must fall into place before mining can start.

Australian Talga resources began the investigations of the graphite deposit near Vittangi just over ten years ago. Now the Swedish Talga AB is running the project and the plans are extensive.
The graphite is to be delivered to the industrial park in Luleå, which is partly already built."

https://hertson.se/2023/04/05/klart-domstol-ger-tillstand-till-grafitgruva-utanfor-vittangi/

 

[cosors]

And one step further again!

Notice in an environmental case
In a judgment dated 3 May 2023, Umeå District Court, the Land and Environment Court, granted Luleå Municipality a permit under the Environmental Code for excavation and construction work in a wetland and installation of road intakes (?) in Hertsöfältet, Luleå Municipality (case number M 1748-22). The activity is subject to the requirements for a specific environmental assessment under Chapter 6 of the Environmental Code."
https://www.domstol.se/globalassets...ngorelser-mmd/umea-tr-m-1748-22-aktbil-44.pdf

I assume it is the access to the area from the road, i.e. the roads to the plots.

 

[Vigdorian]

Does anyone have any insight as to how the three day refinery environment permit proceedings went ?

 

[Semmel]

It will surely take a few days for a decision to be announced

 

[Vigdorian]

It will surely take a few days for a decision to be announced

I have zero confidence in trying to predict the judicial timelines anymore. Could this be stretched out to a month ? What is the likelihood of an appeal, is that possible ? What about the appeal extension ? Is the Supreme Court applicable to the refinery permit ruling ?

 

[Semmel]

No idea. But they are building a factory in an industrial park. What else would you build there? No idea about appeals though.

 

[Vigdorian]

No idea. But they are building a factory in an industrial park. What else would you build there? No idea about appeals though.

Gvan shared an article on the other forum. The decision will be handed down on the 21st June.

 

[beserk]

Yes the court will.not be ged into any hasty decisions. This is ttrue for the lower courts too. Talgas case no 1573 -20 is as good as its conclusions.

Andcit took the En B iro court three years to rule in favour of Talga if certain conditions are met. Ie ming under 6 months only leaving the Talma reindeer peace and quiet under the six months on winter. Ehat Talma was gambling on is that rlthe tree tear of stalling would kill the project. At least that is exactly wath t thex

 

[beserk]

I think you're correct but I believe if leave to appeal is granted then at that point Talga also has a few weeks where they can appeal any portions of the decision that they lost. I assume it would be things that they wouldn't want to appeal on their own and hold up the permit, but if another appeal is going to slow things down anyway, then Talga might want to appeal bits too. It seems like they won nearly everything in this decision though. The only thing I could think of for them to appeal might be the 6 month a year limitation, but I don't think they would appeal that because they agreed to that limitation long ago.

Right on 6 months mining activity is iron clad guarantee . If Talga would for any reason like to contest that it would open up the whole case again to the murder of crows to pick at like at the corpse of a dead reindeer.

Not a wise move.

- beserk

 

[cosors]

No translation and directly copied by me. It seems that the Finns are out?

"UNDERRÄTTELSE
2023-05-09

Aktbilaga 501
Mål nr M 1573-20
Domare 2:4

Mottagare, se nedan

Parter: Talga AB Målet gäller: Ansökan om tillstånd enligt miljöbalken till gruvverksamhet m.m vid Nunasvaara Södra, Kiruna kommun (verksamhetskod 13.10, 13.40 och 90.290-i)

We hereby send you the translated version of part of the Environment Court’s judgement in the court’s case M 1573-20. Now translated material is the given permit and condition along with the Court’s grounds for the given permit. No more parts of the judgment will be translated so this is the last notification from the Environment Court in Umeå."

https://www.ymparisto.fi/sites/default/files/documents/Ume%C3%A5%20TR%20M%201573-20%20Aktbil%20501.pdf

 

[cosors]

Nothing with the topic today for future direction.

"June 9, 2023

Survey Permit Sourravaara No. 5​

On June 9, 2023, the Bergsstaten has decided to grant Talga Battery Metals AB an exploration permit for the area Sourravaara no. 5 in Gällivare municipality in Norrbotten county
On 9 June 2023, the Bergstaaten has decided to grant Talga Battery Metals AB an exploration permit for the area Sourravaara no. 5 in Gällivare municipality in Norrbotten county (Dnr BS 200-309-2023).
Known property owners and other interested parties are notified of the decision by mail.
The owners of the properties Gällivare Ullatti 24:4, Gällivare Lillberget 4:2 and Gällivare Sammakko 1:32 are notified of the decision through this announcement. The last day to appeal the decision is July 14, 2023.
=> Read decision (opens in new window)
Last reviewed 2023-06-09"
https://www.sgu.se/bergsstaten/om-b...juni/undersokningstillstand-sourravaara-nr-5/

anyway

 

[catdog]

Nothing with the topic today for future direction.

"June 9, 2023

Survey Permit Sourravaara No. 5​

On June 9, 2023, the State of Norway has decided to grant Talga Battery Metals AB an exploration permit for the area Sourravaara no. 5 in Gällivare municipality in Norrbotten county
On 9 June 2023, the State of Norway has decided to grant Talga Battery Metals AB an exploration permit for the area Sourravaara no. 5 in Gällivare municipality in Norrbotten county (Dnr BS 200-309-2023).
Known property owners and other interested parties are notified of the decision by mail.
The owners of the properties Gällivare Ullatti 24:4, Gällivare Lillberget 4:2 and Gällivare Sammakko 1:32 are notified of the decision through this announcement. The last day to appeal the decision is July 14, 2023.
Read decision (opens in new window)
Last reviewed 2023-06-09"
https://www.sgu.se/bergsstaten/om-b...juni/undersokningstillstand-sourravaara-nr-5/

anyway

Since when did Talga have a tenenment in Gallivare? That's news to me.

It says the concession minerals are cesium, gold, cobalt, copper, lithium, molybdenum, silver, tantalum and
bismuth.

 

[Semmel]

Also.. Norway? Someone messed up big time with that article. I bet it was AI written and the AI didn't get all the facts straight as it tried to string words together.

 

[ACinEur]

Why does it say ‘State of Norway’. Surely this is Sweden? Or am I missing something?!

 

[cosors]

Since when did Talga have a tenenment in Gallivare? That's news to me.

It says the concession minerals are cesium, gold, cobalt, copper, lithium, molybdenum, silver, tantalum and
bismuth.

It's been a long time but I know the area with the view from above. At that time I left it because it seemed to me that the area collided with some residential buildings. But if you look at this resolution, you will see how large the area is that we are allowed to examine more closely.

https://www.google.de/maps/@67.0393643,21.4929828,24269m/data=!3m1!1e3?entry=ttu
Perhaps the area has changed from then. I do not know. At some point I had a closer look at all the spots of Talga but lost sight of them again. Maybe it's time to take a closer look at all of them again. It is not the only area with an application from us. There is a lot of information in the document. Maybe we should look at it together when we get a chance.