Mining professor statement about EIA

In the EIA process there is a very critical statement by
an established mining professor Kari Heiskanen as and appendix of the statement
of Pro Kuusamo union of people
http://www.prokuusamo.fi/liite1.pdf

The statement studies basic technology of the mining and reveals that the Kuusamo
plan was not based on real facts. The data questions the basic feasibility of the plan.

from the summary in the beginning:
"Kuusamon Juomasuon esiintymän YVA:n merkittävin ongelma liittyy siihen, että
arviointi perustuu paljolti olettamuksiin, koska projektin insinöörisuunnittelua ei
ole tarpeellisessa määrin joko tehty tai sitä ei ole YVA:ssa osattu huomioida. On
myös huomioitava, että merkittävä osa tarvittavista tiedoista olisi voitu helpostikin
mitata prosessikokeita tehtäessä ja perustaa siten YVA faktoihin."

non-official translation:
"A substantial problem of Kuusamo Juomasuo EIA relates to basing the assessement on
a major part on suggestions, because the engineering planning of the project has not been either done
in a sufffficient amount, or one has not been able to take it in consideration in the EIA. Furthermore,
one should notice, that substantial part of information could have been relatively easily
measured when perrforming processing experiments and then base the EIA on facts.

Brief overview of the contents of the stetement, non-official translatons:
First part says that Juomasuo is not sufficient alone and the the effects of other
mines have not been studied properly.
Second indicates that the mine district (Kaivospiiri) in samll and largening
would threathen the Kitka river.

The paragraph Malmiarvio counts the amount of waste stone
produced in mining the open pit and produces figure 38 million tons.
There is substantial difference in what is suggested 4 million tosper year,
2 years. There is not enough room for the waste stone, not even for
1/3 of the amount. Wastestone contains substantially sulphides and
could be acid forming. There is a risk that the metal containing drainage would
end to Kitka river through Hangaspuro creek.

Properties of mineral has not been told. Heiskanen discusses the large amount of acid forming
minerals and lacking neutralizing minerals. Referring to a geology thesis Vanhanen 2001
correlation of uranium and gold is 0,76, this is in contrast with statement of EIA that
there is no correlation between gold and uranium in the ore. Based on magnetide-sulfide(magneettikiisu) mineral
the sulphur content is at least 5 %. There is published information about high arsene concentrations.
The published uranium content of the ore stones is on average 1400 ppm,substantially more than what is
told in the EIA and over the value of atomic energy law,<

Risks of uranium are discussed. The gravity enrichment process appears to give wrong amount of
uranium instead of 0.1 % the amount would be 0.5-3 % U.
Risks of arsene in the drainage is discussed.
Multiple problems are found with process and dangerous chemicals such as flotation chemicals,
syanide process and its products.
Dust problems including uranium and arsene have not studied properly.
Water balance and purification includes multiple failures and problems,especially uranium
and arsene are problems. Risk assement has not been performed


Link to professor Heiskanen on Aalto University pages
http://aalto-fi.academia.edu/KariHeiskanen