Roundtable Discussion; The Future of Mineral Sands. Watch the video here.
London South East prides itself on its community spirit, and in order to keep the chat section problem free, we ask all members to follow these simple rules. In these rules, we refer to ourselves as "we", "us", "our". The user of the website is referred to as "you" and "your".
By posting on our share chat boards you are agreeing to the following:
The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. As a user you agree to any information you have entered being stored in a database. You agree that we have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic or board at any time should we see fit. You agree that we have the right to remove any post without notice. You agree that we have the right to suspend your account without notice.
Please note some users may not behave properly and may post content that is misleading, untrue or offensive.
It is not possible for us to fully monitor all content all of the time but where we have actually received notice of any content that is potentially misleading, untrue, offensive, unlawful, infringes third party rights or is potentially in breach of these terms and conditions, then we will review such content, decide whether to remove it from this website and act accordingly.
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East. You can subscribe here.
London South East does not endorse such members, and posts should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Ltd, or its affiliates.
Obviously the KU Committee cannot deliver the decision but they can put a spotlight on the ineffectiveness of the permitting process, which the Riksdag will take a dim view of. We know they will because it was debated earlier in the year and all parties want Sweden to be a mining country, all of course except MP, the 4.1% party who seem to be in charge of everything. In answer to your question that's how important it is. The other question doesn't need an answer.
FarEnd...Nobody can know what the outcome of the KU Review will be, we may assume I suppose that the Committee will be critical of the Government, because the Review is after all an investigation into the Government's handling of the application and they (KU)presumably agree with us that grounds exist or they wouldn't have embarked upon it. We have discussed the relevance of the KU Committee's investigation in minute detail on this board...since it began in October last year...it is completely independent of what the Government may or may not be doing in the course of their 'preparation'...few people could continue to believe that the Government have 'prioritised' it and that it is 'forthcoming', which means we need help and it could be that an independent investigation will deliver it. There it is in a nutshell, you'll have to wade back some way to find out more details, to last October. So...you've appealed to my ego, clever little you...lol. Have a nice day, stay safe.
I guess like me you don't then know Suzy.
Still waiting for an indication of the negatives in my original post.
FarEnd...The regurgitated posts from Avanza are posted for discussion for those who are actually interested in what's going on...we can I know all read Avanza. So far as the relevance of the KU Review is concerned...we've discussed it on here many times and if you can't be bothered to take it in then that's your problem.
"FarEnd...Well you thought wrong, maybe you should pay more attention to the facts instead of using every opportunity you can to post a negative remark."
Oh dear Suzy, day 1 of lockdown and already you're on a short fuse, Beowulf does not rule my life.
Where was the negative in my post?
Meanwhile you haven't answered my question, which was -
What exactly is the relevance of this Constitutional Committee to our application, could someone enlightened me, as it does not appear as that important?
Some original thoughts and deductions might be useful instead of the usual regurgitated posts from avanza.
Have a nice day..........if that's possible.
I don't know the full provenance of this letter from Linus...it was posted under the heading Beowulf Mining/Now we have to ask for an answer...sent to politicians in KU and the media yesterday.
"Hello politicians in the Constitution Committee.
13 / 10-2020 was the date when mining in Kallak was to be prepared in your committee. The government would then answer questions regarding why the processing concession is delayed for the company that applied for mining in Kallak. This is because the company has been granted a processing concession with Bergstaten but where the County Administrative Board has said no. The government must then make a decision as a last resort.
However, the Kallak case was postponed to the Constitution Committee. The government with responsible Minister of Trade and Industry Baylan would return with answers. The answers were submitted on 27 / 10-2020. It was written there that the case is complicated and that it is being prepared and that Unesco should be consulted to obtain more information.
What is extremely strange is that the government has had the matter on its table since 2017 and Unesco has been mentioned as a party before. If the government cannot make a decision, as there is probably a conflict of interest between the Social Democrats and the environmental parties, then the constitutional committee should come to the conclusion that the government actually needs to make a decision. This is due to lateness and the fact that the government does not act independently of the facts set out in the submissions and opinions.
According to Section 9 of the Public Administration Act, authorities must act simply, expeditiously and cost-effectively without compromising legal certainty. This should also apply to the government as a representative of society at large. The Kallak case obviously needs to be examined.
Issues constitutional committee may ask the responsible minster when he earlier and even now leaves standardized responses and to work concerning mining Kallak are tardy are:
- Why are prompted UNESCO in this position and not before, when the issue was already raised in the context when the government got Kallak case on his table?
- Is the actual reason for the late preparation a conflict between the Green Party and the Social Democrats? In a state governed by the rule of law, this should not be a reason why a processing concession is not granted.
- If the government plans to procure more opinions. When can these parties have a deadline to respond?
- When can the government set an end date for when the preparation of mining in Kallak is complete, as a decision should already have been made when the submissions were submitted already in 2017 !?
Regards Linus. "
FarEnd...Well you thought wrong, maybe you should pay more attention to the facts instead of using every opportunity you can to post a negative remark.
Oops, double post syndrome, sorry.
I thought this 5th November agenda was the immediate government business of the day.
Couldn't understand why the SP (over the North sea) hadn't moved.
I see it is a review of the Constitutional Committee which I guess by the apathy shown in the share price today is no big deal.
What exactly is the relevance of this Constitutional Committee to our application, could someone enlightened me, as it does not appear as that important?
I thought this 5th November agenda was the immediate government business of the day.
Couldn't understand why the SP (over the North sea) hadn't moved.
I see it is a review of the Constitutional Committee which I guess by the apathy shown in the share price today is no big deal.
What exactly is the relevance of this Constitutional Committee to our application, could someone enlightened me, as it does not appear as that important?
The date must have been wrong last week... it stated the 3rd, but yes, it’s the 5th. Cheers...
Nice to see a healthy buy today.Someone, at least, has some confidence or wind of something maybe? gla.
Was there a meeting today that discussed Kallak?
Seems we are on the list again this Thursday 5/11 item 16:-
https://www.riksdagen.se/sv/dokument-lagar/dokument/sarskild-kallelse--och-foredragningslista/konstitutionsutskottets-sammantrade---granskning_H8A7KU12
I wonder what will be ‘leaked’ out of tomorrow’s meeting?
From Avanza, thanks JW=):
https://www.dagenssamhalle.se/debatt/vi-behover-utoka-den-svenska-gruvbrytningen-34160
Quite a lot of wishful thinking yes I know.
that’s why my late wife married me ,Suzy,
It's not the size that counts.
Suzy two enormous buys this morning they must have faith LOL
Second installment of the soap saga, don't forget to tune in.
It could be exciting out there in Mitrovica.
I thought so too. From one of the groups
excellent post profit seeker,
These recommendations are therefore relevant to the protection of Laponia as well. JIMAB has explained that it intends to follow these recommendations and has also explained that it aims to assist and strengthen the Sami reindeer management and culture in establishing the mining business.
The company's assessment of the possibilities to avoid and / or minimize negative consequences for the same villages has been challenged by the same villages and Sametinget. These go as far as to consider that the mining project can even threaten future reindeer maintenance in the Kallak area.
It is understandable that the same villages concerned feel concerned about the proposed and significant industrial project in reindeer pastures. The company is actively working to develop the project in consultation with the same villages in a direction that does not have any negative consequences for reindeer management in the area.
The proposed mining project should not be confused with previous exploitation in the region. Expansion, operation and restoration are planned to take place in continuous dialogue with the same villages and with responsiveness to the unique business that reindeer management is."
Here are the National Antiquarium Office's own words to UNESCO, from 2013:
"The geographical area this application involves is Kallak, situated outside and ca. 30 kilometres south-southeast of the boundary of the "Laponian Area", which means that this activity will not exert any physical impact on the World Heritage property itself. Instead, the question of potential threats is more directed toward its effects on reindeer herding and the Outstanding Universal Values of criterion (iii) and (v)."
And the company's attitude, from 2016:
'' Laponia is a so-called combined world heritage, where both natural and cultural values should be protected. Five criteria (so-called Outstanding Universal Values - OUV) are the basis for the designation of Laponia as a World Heritage Site and it is the OUV to be protected (see box).
The criteria concerning pure natural values (vii, viii & ix above) are not affected by the planned mining operations at Kallak, due to the significant distance from Kallak to Laponia. The planned mining operations are closest, the bird road, 33 km from Laponia, see map Annex 3. The mining operations are not such a nature or extent that it can have an impact at such a distance. Possibly future transportation of ore from the mine would lead to a certain impact in the form of increased traffic on existing road or existing rail, if such a transport option is chosen in the future (see section below).
However, the OUVs related to the culture and nutrition of Nazi (iii and v above) risk being indirectly affected by the activities in Kallak by the fact that the foundation is located on the same village of Jåhkågasskas year roundlands. Clean management is carried out over large and coherent areas and if there is an impact in one area (t. ex. ex. Kallak) could lead to some consequence in other areas (t. ex. ex. Laponia).
Laponia constitutes a reindeer care area for a total of nine same villages: Baste cearru, Treat Tjerusj, Sirges, Jåhkågaska tjiellde, Tuorpon, Luokta-Mávas, Udtja, Slakka and Gällivare. Laponia accounts for about 11 % of the lands of the same villages concerned. The remaining reindeer care areas for these nine same villages occupy a total of about 58 % of Norrbotten's surface, see Figure 1. A possible stop to establish operations outside Laponia, which can indirectly affect the reindeer management and culture of these same villages, means by extension that no new establishments of activities can be accepted within most of Norrbotten's surface.