Yes, if the transport issue is not really a criteria that should be considered when weighing up the granting of a Concession, then the CAB has been a bit naughty. Have to see how this is now viewed by the Mountain State/Swedish Government.
Of course, if the CAB has overstepped the mark with its authority so to speak, by considering something which it shouldn't, then I would have thought that the Beowulf legal team will be pointing this out. So far it appears that this whole process has only ever been one-sided. You would never believe that this country has over a thousand years of mining under its belt.
Are not stupid, they've survived because they've adapted. Wild deer cross my path at night when I'm going home and I've never hit one yet, counted 16 together last winter. And the migration is seasonal, all sorts of accommodation could be made, if there was a will to find a solution.
It doesn't really say - the CAB is really clutching at straws here, imho...
1. They "do not rule out" that the transportation of ore "may result in irreversible changes" to the surroundings - what man-made structure does not have the same slim chance to bring on "irreversible changes"?
2. Has the same issue stopped other projects like this, at the same stage?
3. Should the CAB really comment on transportation issues at all, or does this part belong to later in the process?
"County Board finds that the mining operations involve many and heavy transport of ore which will have a major impact on the current use of land and water.
County Board believes that great caution should be exercised in assessing changes that may affect existing land use, both directly and in adjacent areas. Researching Jokkmokk Iron Mines AB's application to the County Board does not rule out that the activity of the company is planning in the area may result in irreversible changes to current operations."
Hehe, no, you're absolutely right, I wouldn't be thrilled at all with a "no"-decision, no matter how quick it would come...
The only thing I'm hoping for in the coming weeks is that Mountain State says that they agree with JIMAB that the transportation issue cannot be expected to be fully completed at this stage, and that the Mountain State would send it off to the government for a decision - since that has never happened before, that would be an extremely powerful signal.
That would make it 18 months waiting for a decision that should take six months max. Everyone with a say at what ever point in the process should receive the applications at the same time for consideratation so they can report closer together should the decision be pushed their way. This is a massive joke
If the Mountain State would agree with Beowulf/JIMAB and also say that the CAB shouldn't have said no (since it's too early in the application process for the transportation issue), it would be an unique situation and the government surely would make their decision quicker.
The only time scale I'm aware of is the deadline for Beowulf/JIMAB to add information (or whatever they're doing now) is October 24th, then the Mountain State have two months to make their decision which put us in the end of December, which probably actually mean early 2015.
Either way, I would be absolutely thrilled if the Swedish government would say "nope" og "go ahead" before Easter, which I'm guessing is in late April.
Datafeed and UK data supplied by NBTrader and Digital Look.
While London South East do their best to maintain the high quality of the information displayed on this site,
we cannot be held responsible for any loss due to incorrect information found here. All information is provided free of charge, 'as-is', and you use it at your own risk.
The contents of all 'Chat' messages should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Limited, or its affiliates.
London South East does not authorise or approve this content, and reserves the right to remove items at its discretion.