Growler et al, I dont really like the mineral Code amendment...

Growler et al, I dont really like the mineral Code amendment because its a bit wishy washy. For example, uranium occurs naturally the world over so at what ppm do you ban mining? Uranium is a by product of all mining so how do you say whats too much U or whats jsut right?

As an example there's no way Copperstone are mining AND NOT digging up uranium. For sure, U will be a byproduct.

https://www.bequoted.com/bolag/copperstone-resources/pressmeddelande/award-eva-k-no-1-exploitation-concession-confirmed-by-the-sw-67281/ 

Anyway you shouldnt reply on a magazine. The parliamentery decision is here:

http://www.riksdagen.se/sv/dokument-lagar/arende/betankande/forbud-mot-utvinning-av-uran_H501NU13

ITs poorly translated but its clear that existing permit holders for uranium can continue to surbey for concession minerals: "Examination methods using uranium properties to find concession minerals for which survey permits havedivided, however, is not affected by the amendment of the law".

The main point of the legislation is to prevent the exploitation of uranium - that is, it cant be mined for the sole purpose of being used as a fissile material. There is some room for the extraction of minerals where Uranium is a by product but not a concession material. 

It's just very poorly defined IMO and green metals are about to become an extremely important part of Sweden's mining future. 

Yes there's some legislative haziness, but Peter Reeve is correct - the amendment does not prevent Aura from pursuing other minerals.