RANKED: Top 20 automakers by EV battery metal spending
Value of the graphite, lithium, nickel, cobalt and magnesium contained in EV batteries is up 38% from the lows struck in January.
By Catalin Hosu, the Regional Communications Manager for Rosia Montana Gold Corporation
Without local jobs, young people flee, creating an enormous drain on a community and its ability to survive. This issue is well understood in Romania, a country which has attracted considerable press attention on the issue of emigration and the subsequent flight of labour from Romania, particularly when EU barriers are lifted at the beginning of 2014. One area of industry which has seen significant job outflows over the last few decades is that of natural resources. For years, Romania’s traditional mining communities have struggled to find work in their local communities, following the closure of the majority of the country’s mines in the late 90’s and early 2000’s.
A recent article, published on mining.com on 2 November 2013, highlighted the gravity of this problem in Aninoasa, a Romanian town which has recently declared bankruptcy following the closure of a coal mine, its only major employer, seven years ago. Since this time, almost every young person has left in search of jobs elsewhere. This constitutes a very real threat to other areas of Romania, where the once active employment of the mining industry has dried up, leaving in its place no viable and sustainable alternative.
Romania has a strong mining tradition, with more than 2.6 million people living in around 600 mining communities throughout the country. However, by 2006 about 80% of the 650 mines that were operating in the early 90s had been closed (to meet EU accession criteria) and since then more than 200,000 jobs have been lost, with less than 8,000 new jobs replaced through alternative job creation programs. According to the World Bank, despite having the highest proportion of rural population in the EU (45%), Romania also has the highest incidence of rural poverty, standing at over 70%. Clearly something needs to be done to create jobs for this rural population.
Rosia Montana is one of these rural communities, with unemployment of around 65% (a number that would be even higher if not for the employment created by the hundreds of millions of dollars already invested by Rosia Montana Gold Corporation). Mining operations in Rosia Montana alone will create some 7,000 direct and indirect jobs during its construction phase and around 3,600 direct and indirect jobs during its operational phase. Most of these jobs will be in the immediate vicinity of the mine and will be given to Romanians.
One only needs to look to local opinion to understand the support for the re-commencement of modern mining in the area. In a December 2012 referendum, 78% of people living in Rosia Montana who voted in the poll supported the construction of the gold mine – an unsurprising number, given the vast benefits that will be derived from the project on both a local and national level.
As one of the poorest countries in the EU, Romania needs to harness its strong mining tradition by creating a modern, environmentally-sound and sustainable mining industry. The Rosia Montana project has the potential to create thousands of jobs and to generate over $24 billion for the Romanian economy (at an assumed gold price of $1,200/oz), whilst maintaining the highest environmental standards and ensuring a sustainable future for the area. This could be the standard bearer for a revitalised, modern mining industry in Romania, providing local communities with much needed reasons to stay.
11 Comments
filip
I think that this is exactly the type of project which Romania needs, as it is an investment in restarting an industry which has historically sustained the entire area. This way people will stop migrating away from the countryside and will stop migrating away from the country, a huge long-term problem for Romania.
Bogdan
just empty PR. the area has huge potential for sustainable development through tourism and agriculture. Rosia Montana must be a UNESCO site, not the bottom of a cyanide lake.
Bogdan
As to what the locals want, one of the only reasons why this project hasn’t started yet is the active resistance of the locals, who have been in a constant state of defense for 11 years now, fighting off a company that has tried to buy them and then threatened them when they refused to leave their homes and lands. More about the extraordinary struggle of the locals against Rosia Montana Gold Corporation: http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/rupert-wolfemurray/romania-the-worlds-first-_b_3395413.html
As for the referendum, the article omits to say that it was invalidated due to having only 43.20% participation. The majority of the population in the area refused to take part in a mock referendum that didn’t have a legal basis.
One only has to take a look at the protests against the mining project happening in Romania and all over the world to see that people have realized the full dimension of the social, environmental and economic disaster the project represents for Romania. More about the protests here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_Romanian_protests_against_the_Ro%C8%99ia_Montan%C4%83_Project
In regards to job creation, the article fails to mention a recent study reveals that over 20.000 current jobs in agriculture, tourism and wood industry in the area might disappear if the mining project would start.
The company’s PR department is working hard to sugar coat and manipulate the population with every chance it gets and this article is no exception.
Jason
Bogdan
From your comments here one can assume have a job and do not live in Rosia Montana. Easy to say “don’t invest here, let the people remain in poverty” when you can put food on your table.
And a report that states “20,000 jobs might disappear” is also empty PR, as you call it, but from the other side. Gabriel Resources will create 7,000 jobs, which is a lot more than anyone else is doing in the area. Not to mention committing to clean up Soviet era environmental destruction which to this day continues to pour into the rivers.
Fighting to keep away a company that is committing to bring jobs and clean up the environment to one of the most impoverished and polluted areas in the country makes no sense. If anyone has ever been to Rosia Montana you’ll know it’s not the pristine wilderness that the one sided (and frankly ignorant and scaremongering) Huffington Post article claims it is.
Matt
Bogdan: Please from your lofty position as a student/protestor, you should not be preaching to the people of Rosia Montana. I have lived around mining towns in 3 different continents and 90% of the areas when left are changed, but not disasters. The flora and fauna return and the footprints left behind are small. Of course there is some disasters but if the government overseers are not corrupt their is no reason for it. Modern technology as it were. As far as “world wide” protests? For every 1 protestor there is 100,000 people making a living and feeding their families off mining and minerals. Of course the protestors being young and noisy make for better press and TV than the middle aged miner feeding his wife and children, so it happens. Now Bogdan, you go and find 100,000,000 usd to invest in “sustainable’ eco-toursim for Rosia Montana, but don’t be surprised if you show up with a backpack and a camera and try haggle poor people down on the price of a room, that they look at you with a jaundiced and bitter eye.
JFSF
I had opportunity to talk about this project with some Romanians who live here in Chile. They are miners, and their families live near Rosia Montana. The want that project but in a different approach: they dislike a project that extracts all ore in seven years: they’d approve a longer life project (25 years or more).
petre
Mining will go ahead. Maybe not at Rosie Montana, maybe not now. Everybody needs minerals, gold it is used in many applications.
Sa fim seriosi cu ecoturismul. Romania nu a fost niciodata buna la as a cava.
frankinca
Well in one edition we have both sides cheering their side. I suggest mr. BoGDAN to go on the Greenpeace ship and invade the Russian arctic oil wells to do his thing for the environment. We need more people of action than those with Big Mouths that tend to oppose progress and will only do so if they get full credit for the change. ……Try a new referendum and see the results, and let it be UN monitored to assure an honest result. If 48% only voted in the last one, that must mean the people in the country are mostly not readers or really don’t care about Rosia Montana as a new Disneyland site in response to a huge demand of east European tourists and locals.
tmr
Cyanide and nuclear energy stir great emotions of fear. Some fear the long term consequences, they can be positive or undesirable. But look at the fauna and life around Chenobyl. Cyanide is not a difficult complex to destroy. The greatest problem is the aura of fear. Sites with high CN – Cyanide contaminations are remediated with biological process. The bacteria chew up the CN in situ. Industrially CN is broken from cyanide to cyanate. CN at 140F/60C begins to gas off ammonia forms calcium, potassium, sodium and other carbonates. CN will also form strong complexes with iron and nickel. Most other complexes are easily broken and the CN converted in a single stage reaction with chlorine or hypochlorite. This forms cyanate with can be further broken down with the second reaction of adjusted pH and more oxidizer. These process are very common in both batch and continuous stream systems
Now for an alternate sodium thiosulfate leaching is a more modern technique. There are essentially no hazardous by products. It proprietary to a Swiss company SGS
CREATE JOBS TO HELP ROMANIA WITHOUT DESTROYING THE AREA.
BEWARE OF THE LAZY COMMUNIST AND CORRUPTION! WHO IS BEHIND THE CURTAIN ALWAYS TRYING TO KILL THIS PROJECT. WHO BENEFITS WHEN THE CANADIANS GIVE UP. IS THE GOVERNMENT TRYING TO RENEG ON THE CONTRACT IN ORDER TO GET MORE OWNERSHIP 20% TO 40 OR 50%
Most of the people have no real understanding of the issues. If they had a job, they would not have time to protest.
Bogdan
I have been to Rosia Montana several times and I am constantly keeping in touch with the situation there. The area is beautiful and has a huge potential for tourism. I recommend everyone to go and visit Rosia Montana and see for themselves.
The argument that tourism is not a viable option in Romania simply does not stand. One example that comes to mind right away is the village of Sancraiu, where 1800 people live almost exclusively off of tourism – http://stirileprotv.ro/stiri/social/povestea-satului-sancraiu-localitate-trecuta-in-randul-celor-europene-cum-traiesc-oamenii-de-aici.html
Rosia Montana is home to a world class cultural heritage that is beyond any monetary value and that is to be destroyed in case the mining project starts. The importance of the site has been brought to light by archaeology professors from Oxford and Leicester in a report which can be fully read here (bottom of the page): http://totb.ro/exclusiv-totb-citeste-integral-raportul-specialistilor-straini-despre-importanta-rosiei-montane-pentru-patrimoniul-mondial-a-carui-existenta-a-fost-negata-de-ministerul-culturii/
What most the supporters of the mining project fail to see is what happens after the mining project is completed, after the gold is taken away and the company leaves town. The planned duration of the mining project is 16 years, a far cry from what constitutes sustainable development. After this period, the area will basically remain a toxic wasteland, with a huge cyanide lake in the middle. At that point the locals will truly have no alternatives but to desert the area. I would also add to that the fact that no insurance company agreed to back up the project so there is no real plan in case of an accident. Romania has had its share of mining accidents, the most well known being the Baia Mare and Certej cyanide spills.
This project is wrong on so many levels and so detrimental to Romania that I could go on for ages but this is not the place for an exhaustive analysis so I’m going to end here and recommend as a source for more information the website of the campaign that has miraculously managed to fight off a the mining company for so many years – http://rosiamontana.org/en
jdw
1) The figures I’ve seen show a relatively high unemployment rate of 65% in the region. While Romania on a whole has a relatively low unemployment rate within the EU, that is a high rate which shows unless there is some investment into the area, either through natural resources or tourism, the area is going to fall apart into a ghost town. With that I don’t see tourism as a viable day in day out source of income. Also the mining activities bring more jobs to the area then there are people.
2) Romanian government run mining basically failed. As one city in the coal mining district is basically 100% unemployed and those still living there live off the pensions from the coal mine and most of the other mining activities were shuttered. This is a major cross-roads for Romania in that to sustain the rate of development nationally they need to show the are reliable for foreign investment in their natural resource sector or any other industry sector as well.
3) This project can be something that sustains the area for longer than what the current project shows. 16 years isn’t the drop dead time frame as exploration and expansion cases are probably already being looked at which will extend those figures out to longer timeframe. I’ve lived the past couple years in areas that had mining activities start in the late 1880’s and still are active. And the current location I work at has been said to be closing since the 1980’s and continues to operate.
4) There are environmental controls out there that can prevent spills and other technologies for recovering the gold.