Going back over the debate notes from the proposed bill is very illuminating. Whereas Google Translate doesnt get the nuances, its clear by the debating MPs that Vanadis will proceed to extract vanadium with uranium as a waste product. The notes arent in perfect English either but you get a good sense of the Bill's main points...
Speech. 4 Mattias Bäckström Johansson (SD)
It is a little interesting that there will be a ban on exploration permits to break uranium just to use its fissile properties. But it is in no way so that the Social Democrats prevent you from breaking other metals where uranium exists. The only difference will be that, if it were to overcome political uncertainties, it would break the amount of uranium in order to bring up other metals we need for battery technology, for example, and innovation-critical for other parts in terms of green technique. But the difference is that we will not use the uranium picked up from the slope, but it will remain and be completely unavailable. At the same time, we have a uranium requirement in Sweden for our power supply and for our energy supply.In what way is it reasonable to import uranium from significantly more undemocratic states, where it is questionable how it works with environmental testing and where there are far lower requirements for uranium degradation than would be the case in Sweden?
Speech. 10 Hanif Bali (M)
Look at the exploration of our largest innovation-critical minerals in, for example, Jämtland. 30 percent of the minerals in that mine are uranium. With your logic, it's ok to break up all of them and uranium. It is perfectly okay to take the risk of breaking up the uranium in order to extract the remaining 70 percent of important minerals. Then you just have to put it back. You take the whole risk without having to use the product that you actually dig up.
Speech. 13 Helena Lindahl (C)
Many people in our party, especially in Jämtland and Skaraborg, have been worried about breaking uranium. There are quite a lot of uranium in some of these areas, especially where there is an alum scale. They are concerned because they have a strong focus on the cultural landscape, tourism, animals and nature as well as health risks, and this must also be respected.I want to point out that the mining industry is very important for Sweden and for employment. It is therefore important that we do not complicate the extraction of other important minerals than uranium. As many previous speakers have mentioned, uranium properties are used, for example, to find other minerals, such as rare earth metals that you need in green technology.I know that these issues are taken into account in the bill - you are writing it very clearly - but I would like to point out that the proposed ban must be followed up and evaluated on the basis of the perspectives I mentioned to ensure that other significant mineral extraction is not hampered.
Speech. 14 Birger Lahti (V)
The ban applies both to mining operations involving uranium extraction as a by-product and for the recovery of extraction waste. The prohibition does not cover mining operations involving iron ore, base metals, rare earths or other minerals where they are broken, tested, processed or physically or chemically enriched for purposes other than uranium fissile properties.
Speech. 23 Penilla Gunther (KD)
Madam President! It is a matter of uranium becoming a by-product in the extraction of other minerals and metals. I have said a number of times in this speech and in other debates. So I do not understand what Anna-Caren Sätherberg in turn does not understand.STYLEREF Kantrubrik \ * MERGEFORMAT Prohibition of uranium extractionAccording to the mining industry itself, this is the case. Then I ask again: What do the Social Democrats think of the mining industry then? Uranium is a by-product that can be picked up while breaking other metals and minerals. What should we do with the small amount of uranium that still comes in the day?I repeat it again: As far as I know, there is no party in this parliament which for many years has even proposed to break uranium in particular. That's not what it's about. It's about what happens when you break something else and uranium still comes with.I'll repeat it again: What should we do then? What should it be used for? Today, we import 1 500 tonnes of uranium for the existing nuclear power, which will still be available for a few years. The small amount of uranium that this time is about, can not even be used for nuclear power. That's not what it's all about.That is why I think the debate about the bill becomes so completely incomprehensible. What do you really want? Do you want to lower the whole mining industry, or what is it about? I would like to have an answer.
Speech. 24 Lise Nordin (MP)
would like to conclude by clarifying that this proposal as we are debating today relates specifically to uranium degradation and does not involve any changes for mineral extraction of other metals. How it will look, we can debate another day. But this proposal means that the uranium that can accompany as a by-product of extraction, just as today, will continue to be treated as mining waste.
Speech. 26 Lise Nordin (MP)
As for Penilla Gunther's question about what happens to other mineral extraction in Sweden, I wonder if Penilla Gunther has read the bill. There it is clear that this is about uranium degradation and how to handle the uranium that comes along as a byproduct, and it will still be possible. This is clearly stated in the bill. What is the difference and the change in this legislation is that you can not extract and enrich uranium.We still have today and will continue to have uranium contained in the mining waste. That means no change. I wonder if Penilla Gunther has an example of what she means with this product that would mean a change in the recovery of other minerals.I agree with her that in our energy and climate setting we need many rare earths. We need to discuss and ensure that we can extract them safely. But there is no way to blend this with this legislation.
Speech. 28 Lise Nordin (MP)
On my question about how this regulatory product means a deterioration or deterioration for the other mining industry, Penilla Gunther answers me to listen to the mining industry. I maintain that the proposal is very clear about uranium degradation and that there is no change for other mineral extraction. Even in the future, we will have a certain amount of uranium as a byproduct that is handled as mining waste in Sweden.STYLEREF Kantrubrik \ * MERGEFORMAT Prohibition of uranium extractionThe big difference now is that no company can say that they search for, for example, vanadium or neodymium even though they are really looking for uranium. With this legislation it becomes clear that you are free to prospect and search for all minerals, such as today, but you can not base your economy on extracting and enriching uranium. We do not want uranium degradation in Sweden.
Speech. 36 Lise Nordin (MP)
Madam President! It seems difficult to get an answer to the question in what way this legislation makes it difficult to extract other minerals. Now the question has been raised many times, and I still do not see an example of what would be difficult. It is very clear about the fracture of uranium, which should not be enriched or prospected. But it is very clear in the proposal that uranium can still be included as a by-product for the extraction of other minerals, and then it is treated as mining waste, just as it is today.
Expand
(20min delay)
