Talga TLG - General Discussion, page-316

The below is an extract from a report at the time the permit was granted:

Should coexist with reindeer herding

In the Vittangi area, the company is applying for processing concessions for four areas, but this is only one of the areas for which environmental permits have been sought.

The decision was therefore made today and the Court considers that it was possible to grant a permit only for the area applied for. The court also considers that mining activities can coexist with reindeer herding in the area.

"A mine always involves an intervention in the natural environment and an impact on reindeer husbandry. In this case, mining will only be allowed to take place for the six months per year that the Sami communities do not stay in the area. The court has therefore concluded that mining operations and reindeer herding can exist together on the site, says Lena Nilsson, also a technically knowledgeable judge in the case.

Talga AB has proposed that condition and now the environmental permit is in place.

So:

The issue of more pending mine applications should be a dead rubber. This was, apparently, a key point of the Supreme Court appeal. It has already been covered off on.

The issue of the impact on reindeer herding was considered, and so this looks to me like acceptable contingencies are already in place.

That leaves the question about the possible pollution of the two rivers in the area, the Torne and the Vittangi, and the supposed threat to rare birdlife species.

It really is difficult to imagine that these two issues were not dealt with at the initial permit and appeal stages in the lower courts.

I agree that Sami may have concerns, and their city supporters may be revisiting the issues, but Talga is in the environmental camp too and obviously would take every measure to prevent ground water issues or threats to specific wildlife species. This is undoubtedly documented in their submissions. The concerns of the Sami can be alleviated by more community consultation and involvement.

There is another issue the environmental group have raised, and this is that graphite in batteries may become redundant technology soon. But that I think, may be a bit too speculative for the court to be conerned with. It's a bit like saying, EVs will soon be replaced by hydrogen cars, which is possible, so therefore we shouldn't build EVs. Hmmmm?.

From my perspective, generally speaking, I just can't see anything new in the Supreme Court appeal submission, though of course, I have not been privy to the documents themselves!