Regular professor Dr. Aleksandar Cvjetić was recently elected as the new dean of the Faculty of Mining and Geology, and he will officially assume the position in October. For "Vreme", he talks about the new study on the assessment of the impact of mines published by Rio Tinto, the "Jadar" project, the dialogue of the professional public, as well as the environmental aspect and safety in mining.
"WEATHER" Two weeks ago, Rio Tinto went public with a study on the assessment of the mine's impact on the environment. You yourself participated in the creation of the document. Which is why it was done right now? What is the significance of this document??
ALEKSANDAR CVJETIĆ: Yes, I am part of the team from the Faculty of Mining and Geology that was responsible for the preparation of the study, practically the working draft of the study on impact assessment for its first part, which is the underground exploitation of lithium in the "Jadar" project. I participated in the development of that part, and our Faculty participated to a lesser extent in the development of the third part (disposal of industrial waste).
Of what importance is the whole study?
First of all, there is more and more talk about the green transition. It goes without saying that we are switching to renewable energy sources and less dirty technologies without burning fossil fuels. If it is known that traffic is the biggest air polluter, it is not unusual that more and more work is being done on the development of electric cars. One of the basic components of electric cars is the battery. It is a fact that various batteries are constantly being researched, but lithium batteries have proven to be the best. In addition, apart from cars, probably everyone in the house has several mobile phones, laptops... There are lithium batteries again.
Then, renewable sources are being discussed more and more. There are wind turbines, solar power plants... In some periods, a larger amount of energy is produced, and let's say consumption is reduced. The idea is to store that too in giant batteries, specifically lithium-ion batteries. The company Rio Tinto recognized that we have a potential, that deposit that was discovered back in 2004/2005. year. They thought, since there is more and more talk about it, that maybe it is the right moment to come out for the first time with some tangible data and to go against all these stories, start a debate first of all in professional circles, and at the same time among ordinary people who may be a little less familiar with this topic.
What are the key findings of the study?
Just for the sake of some explanation: the environmental impact assessment study is an integral part of the technical documentation and in order for the company to get permission to start a project, it must have an accepted impact assessment study by the competent authority. In our country, it is the Ministry of Environmental Protection. As far as the studies themselves are concerned, their task is to recognize all possible impacts of that technology on the environment based on the technology received from the investor - designed and planned. Before that, the current state is ascertained and by cross-checking the existing states and possibly some dangers caused by that technology, the risks are practically assessed. Based on that, measures are taken to eliminate those risks. Or, if they cannot be completely eliminated, to reduce those risks, to bring them to certain limits. When we talk about limits, we are guided by laws - they define certain levels of pollutants, i.e. the maximum permissible emission limits.
Until now, we have practically not even had a dialogue about the potential opening of a lithium mine in Serbia. The whole discussion was politicized from the very beginning, and the public is divided into those who are for and against the government. Rio Tinto called the previous discourse disinformation. What it means? What does disinformation refer to??
It can be discussed at this moment whether it should have come out earlier with those drafts of the study or not. However, in the profession you have to have something defined because otherwise we are in the realm of speculation. So, they were waiting for the technological process to be really completed, what about underground exploitation, what about concentrate production, disposal of industrial waste... When it was completed to the greatest extent possible, draft studies were made. Why is all this information that has been circulating so far, let's say, misinformation?
Simply, a certain political process started in our country - both of them attacked the project without knowing the details of the project. The only document in which there was some data that people could see was the spatial plan for special purposes, and within it a strategic impact assessment. It's just that people somehow extracted information from there, they made up their own minds about how much they would affect the environment, etc. In this sense, we say misinformation, because only now for the first time people have the opportunity to see concrete research.
To what extent does this study refute them??
Just for the sake of brevity - there are three studies in one here. It is divided into three parts because each part is subject to different laws. However, they were not done in isolation. The final result of each study is acceptance by the competent authority. In that study, all possible problems were really recognized, what is the main outcome, whether the project is environmentally acceptable or not... The study for the underground mine and the study for the process plant were done practically in one hundred percent scope because a lot of things were examined. A study on waste disposal was done to a lesser extent, because the spatial plan was already suspended at that time, and some more tests had to be done, so if the project comes to life again and if the conditions are created to complete those studies again, they will be complete. What the studies show from the point of view of environmental protection is that it is possible to carry out the exploitation and processing of lithium in an environmentally acceptable way. Having said that, we know that the process has an impact on the environment, but those impacts can be controlled and kept under control.
How generally are environmental standards in mining respected in Serbia and how well are we actually aligned with the best practices?
From the moment when the first set of "green laws" was adopted until today, perhaps in the field of the environment we have harmonized our legislation the most with the legislation of the European Union. Practically all the directives that appear with them are very quickly translated and implemented into our law, some in the form of laws, some in the form of specific regulations. Here we can really say that the Republic of Serbia practically follows all norms regarding environmental protection.
It is quite understandable why we follow the legal regulations really well and up-to-date in that field. On the one hand, because we are a pretender to join the European Union, and on the other hand, there are now laws and various agreements between countries, etc. Even the battery mentions "battery ID card". The final product must prove that everything in that supply chain – from processing to the end product – is in compliance with the law. If production is concerned, that it takes place in an ethical manner and that people have appropriate protection at work.
Is it implemented in practice and to what extent??
We are, as they say, a country that has a bit of a problem with authorities. We have that historical pollution in Bor, we also had problems with the mine around Loznica, etc. If you are an investor and you implement everything that is required by law - am I allowed to doubt you because I do not have the capacity to control you? Well, that's the question now. Probably, people have been taught about the problems that have appeared so far, so they think "well, maybe it will happen now, who can guarantee us". Practically, in this case, the state is the guarantor that the investor must implement the measures - legislation and inspection bodies must provide citizens with assurance and guarantee that what is actually written will be implemented by the investor, and they will be there to control whether it is real as it is.
It turns out that no new mine should be opened that way.
Well, not only the mine, every facility pollutes the environment in its own way. It turns out that if I can't control it, then I won't make anything. Simply, we have to move forward. The only question is whether this country has the capacity to control, but I believe it has the desire. We talk about capacities all the time. You don't need God knows what kind of capacity - you impose on the investor that he has to install the best equipment and control his processes. The state must see these results in real time, it sends certain inspections. There must be people from the state who have the power to say: "Shut down the factory right now" as soon as there is an overrun. If it pays for the investor to turn it on and off, then okay.
One of the previous experiences, which was problematic with Rio Tinto, it is their previous experience in Slovenia, Australia. Is this the same type of excavation?? If not, which is the key difference?
It is constantly mentioned, as well as Suriname, and the demolition of those historical artifacts in Australia, etc. As far as I know - and we were really interested - their whole teams were really changed because of it. They may not say it loudly, but in Australia, where the old cave was destroyed, everyone was changed from the top down. That's why it's best to learn from other people's mistakes, the worst is to learn from your own. Simply, this should be a source of information for us, so that we can see what happened and what went wrong, so that we can do everything to prevent that from happening here. On that side, there probably will be, but we need to recognize what can go wrong and anticipate it with the help of the best available technique. Therefore, it must be insisted that the investor incorporate what is best at that moment and develop protective measures to prevent such things from happening.
The task of that study and this entire debate is for all those who can recognize problems that may not be recognized to find a solution. There is no human activity without risk. You can only say that the risk is acceptable or not acceptable. But we must not stop and then lag behind technology. People have some exclusivity there, there are constant attacks. First, I'm not employed by Rio Tinto, I'm employed by the university and I'm one of the people who worked on the study, and people keep thinking I'm defending Rio Tinto. I'm not defending Rio Tinto at all, I'm simply defending the waistline. My colleagues and I worked on something, we signed it and we stand behind it. It could have been Rio Tinto, it could have been any other project – we did projects for the Chinese, we work for Elektroprivreda on surface mines, we did different studies. We do our work conscientiously, we stand behind it, we apply everything that is known at that moment. I think it leads to environmentally feasible projects.
Speaking of attacks, do you feel labeled?
Unfortunately, yes. Our society is very prone to attacking people. You shouldn't label people just because someone doesn't know something or doesn't like it. It seems to me that this project has gone too far into political waters. The professional public should be heard here. Unfortunately, everything appeared at the moment when both the government and the opposition were collecting points based on it. You didn't have a middle ground - either you were for the project and a traitor, or you were against the project and so on. You know how, the easiest thing to say is: "I won't do it". This is Serbia's chance for development. Whether we will enter that circle and join, that should be decided by the state. What was done within the study was done professionally.
Part of the scientific community is already in 2021, when there were demonstrations, called for data and information that spoke of the devastating impact on the environment if mining took place...
Then it was organized on the basis of what was known about the "Jadar" project. The only information that was available at the time, which was formal data, was the special purpose spatial plan for that part and the strategic impact assessment that is being done for those spatial plans. From these very meager data, some impacts on the environment could be recognized. I'm sure they didn't have any information other than those studies, so it's a bit debatable why SANU came out with it right away. This is now the first official data that everyone can see and compare to what was rumored in 2021.
When we look at the whole project, what the mine should look like, what is seen as the greatest risk to the environment? Is it a waste disposal, whether the process itself or the exploitation of underground mines?
What people are considering is certainly the disposal of industrial waste. Regarding mining, first people need to know that it is underground mining.
What it means?
Surface exploitation are mines like Kolubara, Kostolac, these are scenes that they say look like on the moon. This is not a surface mine, but an underground mine. This means that exploitation is carried out underground, approximately at depths of 400 to 600 meters, deep enough not to endanger the surface. These are more expensive projects, but they are much more acceptable from the environmental point of view. There are less noise emissions, dust emissions, everything takes place underground, it is excavated... In this sense, some impact could be subsidence, because you dig up the mineral raw material, an empty space is left. However, it was recognized here, several models of terrain subsidence were made, and that is why this method is used so that all the ore that is dug out, the empty space is filled in, filled with material that remains from the ore processing process. Almost 50 percent of that will be used, so less will be put away. So that, in some last instance, when the works are done after some 25, 30 years, you will have a maximum subsidence of perhaps half a meter on the surface. That's why underground mining is the best in mining, because people practically don't know that there's a mine down there - up there you have two export towers that export ore, deliver equipment. What people fear when it comes to underground mining is groundwater. With surface mining, you come across certain aquifers. In this particular case, it is good that it goes quite deep, that above the ore itself you have rocks called hydrogeological insulators. The filling itself will not damage that layer, and these rocks practically prevent you from affecting the upper layer of groundwater with your work.
Photo: Marija Janković...
How to find a common language between profession and ecology, tj. environmentalist? Environmentalists and environmental activists are not only involved in the project "Sailor", but the fact is that they are most engaged in this project.
Yes, it is a really big, capital project and it is completely understandable. Especially when there were stories about open pit mining. Ecology and mining collide everywhere. People are taught by experience. The best techniques and sustainable practices must be applied within mining, there must be strong legal regulations and mining must use the most modern technologies. Those are the three main elements.
