Dear all,
I read the Arainfo notice (that is not the first one about this subject during the last days). Reference to the same information was published in other serious papers from Navarra (Diario de Noticias and Diario de Navarra), but also in Aragón (El Periódico de Aragón). It is clear that the paper and web editions are different (I have not found the information in the web that I have read in the paper edition from some journals). I read the same notice in the paper version from Diario de Navarra, Diario de Noticias and Periódico de Aragón, but also in other Spanish papers.
This information comes in origin from people that can be understood as against the mine, but they make reference to reports from the administration in Spain. The notice was published in reference to EFE agency, the national notices agency of Spain, then this is not a publication in a blog or a sensationalist journal (on the other hand, all the journals include in their disclaimers that they are not responsible from the notices in their editions systematically, even paper ones).
The reason that I have not said anything before is because, these notices make explicit reference to some public organisms, if these references were incorrect, organisms or the own HFR should have explained that they were incorrect. But this answer has not been carried out yet. The access to these reports is not accessible in the web, then I do not know what they say exactly or in detail.
After all, news makes reference to the evaluation from public organisms and their considerations. These news do not say that the people against the mine think, they include between quotation marks what the official reports says. They can be old reports, but looking to what they points out, they can be the request for the new reports that are expected to be present during may of this year. It could be that HFR does not find new requirements, as some of them were publically requested by the administration nearly one year and a half before (published by the Aragon and Navarra governments about the interaction between the mine, the dam, the reservoir and the natural seismicity and/or induced by the mine and the reservoir), and looking at this, they can be still unresolved.
The Spanish law about environmental subjects is clear, it gives 4 months to present new reports when they have to modify significantly the project or when they have not answered to the requirements (this it not an opinion, is what 4 months means in the Spanish Environmental law).
I do not know the transcendence from these news, but in this moment HFR-Geoalcali has not answered, and the propagation of the new is not from an independent blog, serious subjects starts to appear that I thought that they should be previously solved.
We will have to follow any news about but, at least, no good news, or at least, not near future permissions can be seen. I can expect that due to the requirements that the papers says, I think that the different public organisms will have to answer about, that possibly means no news about permission, in at least, all the 2017 (the Spanish law give 6 months for the organisms answer between them). In the papers the people against the mine request a new public exposition from the project. This should mean the restart from the whole project evaluation and we should be then again at 2015 July…
I said in a previous post that the requested items from the administration should be public for general information, the unknown requested subjects give credibility to the published ones in this moment, and this could be the reason to be not completely transparent about.
Always the best, JC. (sorry for the long post…)
Some news about that I have found looking at the web during the last days
(20min delay)
