The Permitting Process, page-18

You didn't answer, and my article shows different elements of government in disagreement with other, and I picked it up from a poster on reddit, by the way- file:///C:/Users/jhnty/Documents/Kiruna%20Municipality.pdf - give this link a read. You didn't know that. You couldn't explain that to me.

and if you really think it's so obvious and the market already knows, are you telling me that there will be no reaction when/if permits are granted? If you're so sure, and I'm in 100% on this stock for the record, I have nothing on anything else.

On that article these two pages stand out different to the other 61 pages.

The survey of BMP has been sent to the County Administrative Board for comments.
The County Administrative Board has submitted an opinion in which they essentially
agree with the municipality's assessment that the plan can be assumed to have a
significant environmental impact and that Natura2000 permits may be required. In
addition, they specify the scope of the above-mentioned points that the municipality
has assessed that the environmental impact assessment should investigate and which
will be integrated into the detailed planning work.
However, as regards the Environmental Quality Standard for Water and the
environmental objectives, the County Administrative Board does not share the
municipality's assessment. They highlight that the implementation of the detailed plan
can contribute to or make it more difficult to achieve the current MKN, for those bodies
of water that do not currently do so. As far as the environmental objectives are
concerned, the County Administrative Board believes that the targets for non-toxic
environments, living lakes and watercourses, good quality groundwater, teeming
wetlands and living forests can be adversely affected by the exploitation.