Mining boss Ellison tells investors: ‘I hate what I’ve done’
The executive has been pressured to explain why the company made historical payments to offshore entities he controlled.
Greenland may soon start building the world’s fifth-largest uranium mine and second-biggest rare earths operation, which could fuel independence dreams in the island, an “autonomous administrative division” within Denmark since 2009.
The proposed open pit mine in the southern town of Kvanefjeld is expected to process over 100 million tonnes of ore in the coming decades, helping Greenland to diversified its economy. According to Danish Radio, it would also alleviate the island’s dependence on a locked Danish subsidy of 3.2 billion DKK (about $500 million), which constitutes about half of its budget.
The proposed uranium-rare earths mine could alleviate the island’s dependence on a locked Danish subsidy of 3.2 billion DKK (about $500 million), which constitutes about half of its budget.
But Greenland Minerals and Energy’s (ASX:GGG) project, which would have an annual processing capacity of 3 million tonnes of ore a year and employ at least 325 locals, is facing opposition from those who don’t want to see major landscape and environmental changes.
For a start, the proposed operation would dispose of its mining waste, consisting of crushed ore, water and chemicals used for extraction, in a nearby lake. Since that lake is not big enough, the company plans to build two extra dams to help contain the waste. Based on the project’s description, nearly 21,000 tonnes of chemicals will be used each year to extract the sought-after resources.
Kvanefjeld’s shutdown period is considered by many as too long (it’s expected to take another six years) and, after the final closure, it will be filled with rainwater, CHP Post Online reports.
There is also the common argument raised against uranium mines, this project in particular, that radioactive dust could potentially fall on neighbouring settlements and farmland.
But the mine, with an expected lifespan of about 37 years and the potential to hire around 800 people, will also be a contributor to the new global green economy, the company says. This, as 80% of the commercial deposits in Kvanefjeld are rare earth minerals, commonly used in wind turbines, hybrid cars and lasers, while uranium accounts for only 10%.
Kvanefjeld is just one of several mining projects popping up in Greenland since 2013, when the parliament voted to remove the ban on uranium mining, opening the door to that project and many others. In fact, based on official data, there are currently 56 active licences to explore for gold, rubies, diamonds, nickel, copper and other minerals in the island.
Just in January, Australian Ironbark Zinc Limited (ASX:IBG) was given the green light to begin construction of a zinc and lead mine on the northern coast.
15 Comments
12phil34
Ten years of “almost”, “soon” as the stock slowly swoons. I’ll believe it when i see it.
Mississauga_Dad
‘that radioactive dust could potentially fall on neighbouring settlements and farmland.’ Must be at least one whole square kilometer of farmland in Greenland.
Jens Frederiksen
Farmland includes pastures for sheep. This is the main farming activity and is substantially more than one square kilometre. Presently 20,000 sheep are farmed in the area as well as 1,600 reindeer.
Mississauga_Dad
To my mind, the more we can reduce the Chinese monopoly on rare earths production the better off the entire global economy will be.
At what price to the world is China’s new economic muscle: In 2012 China pumped nearly double CO2 into the air as did the U.S. (9.8 billion tons as opposed to 5.2) & was responsible for 70% of the world increase that year. Things have only gotten worse since & the staggering level of air pollution in Chinese cities is well known, as the 2008 Olympics can testify. The Guardian published a story titled: “Forced student labour is central to the Chinese economic miracle”. The Daily Mail published stories with the headlines: “China’s colonialist behaviour in Africa could be a ‘disaster’ for environment, Jane Goodall warns, as she says Beijing is pillaging continent for raw materials”, “Beijing’s ruthless leaders subjugate armies of foreign workers with opium, plunder resources across the globe”, “China’s ‘black collar class’ unmasked – The ten most powerful business chiefs who are poised to take over the world”. China employs TWO MILLION workers to keep an eye on internet use by its citizens. Should we be concerned? What do you think?
We should be a lot more than simply ‘concerned’ about Chinese economic activities. We should be terrified and be actively fighting back. Make no mistake – the Chinese have only ONE goal – total economic (and hence political and social) domination of the world. They will stop at nothing to achieve this goal. Their internal economy is in many ways a fraud – prices set and regulated at both supplier and purchaser ends by the government; a banking system controlled by the government and reporting to nobody but the government; a total lack of any real ‘private’ companies; massive infrastructure projects bankrolled by a fraudulent non- market responsive currency; a housing industry which is booming because of millions of totally empty high rise apartment buildings being built all over the country; a labour pool provided by hundreds of millions of poorly paid workers who are little better than slaves; a total lack of regard for any environmental standards that the western world embraces. Let’s not fool ourselves – China may be Communist with a nice face presented to the outside world but it is first and foremost Communist and its prime goal is always, and will always be, to extend its Communist domination over the rest of the world.
Let’s go Greenland. Your Rare Earths operations will not only benefit the Greenland people but will also help to ensure free access to the basic raw materiel that is vitally important to our modern technological world.
ReaderS
Posting comments totally negative about a nation with picked “media facts” doesn’t make your points stand well. They could more easily be accepted if brought out dialectically, in my opinion.
Wiesław Jura
Bravo ! energy will be cheaper, but conventional mining must be convert for innovative methods.
Uramin
I bet, Kvanefjeld will not be developed in the foreseeable future, if any. We have uranium oversupply on the market and a lot of secondary uranium stocks. As for REE, – look what happened to the Mountain Pass project. Total disaster.
Mark Duffett
Sigh…there is far more radioactive dust being emitted from the world’s coal mines and smokestacks (many of which are adjacent to farmland) than uranium mines, but no one bats an eyelid about that…
Eric_Oz
To write that a uranium mine is eco friendly because the rare earth metals that are obtained as a by-product of uranium mining
is dialectically incorrect no matter how one spins and manipulates the facts. I do not have a problem with uranium or uranium mines but I do not live
anywhere even remotely near deposits of uranium. Anyway,..I view uranium as any other product that is needed for a modern World. If handled properly and with additional cost any element can be made relatively (relative being the key word) safe. The problem I have is the rather clumsy way it is written that a person can only come to one conclusion. The one conclusion being that the more uranium mines that are open the cleaner and Co2 free the World will be. It would be a hypothetical case that if there problem with air quality in China for example, the long term solution would be to open a uranium mine or two. As far as using the word “dialectically”, I have been looking for a new word to spice up my cocktail party conversation. The word does get a bit difficult to pronounce correctly if a person is not paying attention and not concentrating on what is being said. Of course I am joking. I can say “dialectically while standing on my head. However, I might look kind of ridiculous holding a cocktail in one hand while standing on my head with the other, while repeatedly saying the word “dialectically”.
Mark Harder
The article raises a couple of environmental issues that it doesn’t answer; radioactive dust and dumping waste in a lake followed by a reservoir. It’s nice that the end products will be used to create green energy somewhere else, but what of the project’s impact on local communities and future development?
Mark Duffett
The impact of ‘radioactive dust’ (actually pretty much all dust is radioactive to some extent, but anyway) will be imperceptible if the mine is even half-decently managed.
austinalum
Why not call it a rare earths mine instead of an uranium mine since most of its output will be rare earths?
Terry Bates
For as long as the general population of the world ( and that includes environmentally aware people in all their political groupings) want to benefit from the advantages of a modern life style there is going to have to be trade offs between resource use ( all sorts not just minerals) and impacts on the environment .Therefore users have to pay the price and bear the consequences of their demands. People who agitate against nuclear power on the assumption of what issues it might cause rather than on what it has caused are in the same groupings as those well off mainly westerners who think much of the world should curb their development .to enable them to enjoy a better environment, loosing sight of the fact that on the way to their comfortable position they collectively have been the cause of most of the current problems.
There is of course one way to solve this problem. get rid of all the people. No people no pollution. However hardly a popular solution and I can’t see any one getting support for such a drastic solution. In the meantime we are going to have to learn to accept user pays principals and to compromise
Terry
Restless Boomers
‘Global Green Economy’? Nuclear power is anything but ‘GREEN’.
Be
The pro nuclear folks claim solar and wind need rare earths, they don’t, 90% of them don’t use any. The pro nuclear folks then claim rare earth mining is the dirtiest mining on earth. I point out that uranium and rare earths are often the very same ore deposits, so that makes uranium the dirtiest mining on earth as well.
The world needs rare earths for many things bu t not solar and wind, EVs, batteries. Nuclear not only needs rare earths to operate, nuclear’s fuel is the same ore as rare earths. We don’t need nuclear, it’s 4 times the cost of available solar and wind, even with this mine nuclear will be short of fuel in about 2025 according to the IAEA RED book 2014. The is no solution to the million years spent fuel rods.
I tend to trust Greenland and the Danes to do this mining cleanly, but it is very hard to do and very hard to clean up the mine afterwords. The dust will blow in the wind and cause cancer and other health problems downwind. The dust it billions of times more porous than the native rock, and the water will filter thought it leaching out heavy metals, that’s how they remove the uranium and rare earths in the first place. But when they are done with it, and stick it in a pile of the whole it came from, it will still leach from the water flowing through it. Will they cast it all in concrete? probably too expensive. Water proof cover and liner? it won’t last. Throwing it all in a lake is just about the worst thing they could do. It will reach the water table. It will be in the water and the water will blow in the breeze. They are depending on the IAEA for advice which is not wise. The IAEA is a pro nuclear agency, go look at their charter. They get industry money too.
The only defense the pro nuclear folks have is that coal is worse. That’s not a good defense.