What you should know before visiting the land of Count Vlad Dracula - the Land of Death
Romania Tourism
Roșia Montană is Europe's largest gold mine
It is set to extract 314 tonnes of gold and 1,500 tonnes of silver over a 16-year period. It will destroy four mountain tops, force the relocation of hundreds of families, and leave behind a lake containing 215 million cubic metres of water contaminated with poisonous cyanide.
Roșia Montană is a commune of Alba County in the Apuseni Mountains of western Transylvania, Romania.
Rosia Montana has been a mining town since Romania was actually Roman. Before the socialist period, villagers were going into the mines themselves to search for gold, which they then sold to banks. Even today, they feel a sense of ownership over the precious resources hidden underground.
This region in the Apuseni Mountains is extraordinary for its rich biodiversity. With mining now halted, many people live off the land and from raising animals. Old people from Rosia say that no gold in the world can buy the peace the neighboring mountains offer them.
So when Gold Corporation began the process of buying up properties in the village (which it started doing in tandem to applying for necessary construction and exploitation permits), not everyone in the 3,000 strong village was happy.
On top of that, there is local pride for the cultural value of the houses, churches and ancient mining galleries the village and nearby areas host. Rosia Montana is the oldest documented Romanian locality and has been considered for inclusion on the UNESCO World Heritage list for its cultural and natural riches. According to academician Alexandru Vulpe, President of the Archaeology and Historical Science Department of the Romanian Academy and director of the Institute of Archaeology, such an inclusion stands no chance of being accepted by UNESCO (and this idea is in his opinion "simply ridiculous") but could delay the project for another 10 years.
The state-run gold mine closed in late 2006 in advance of Romania's accession to the EU. Gabriel Resources of Canada plan to open a new mine. This has caused controversy on one hand over the extent to which remains of Roman mining would be preserved and over fears of a repeat of the cyanide pollution at Baia Mare and on the other, over the benefits that mining would bring to this poor and underdeveloped part of the country.
The campaign against mining at Roșia Montană was one of the largest campaigns over a non-political cause in the last 20 years in Romania. A plethora of organizations spoke out against the project, from Greenpeace to the Romanian Academy, while groups representing the local community expressed support for the project. In late 2009, the Romanian government announced it made the project a priority, recognizing the economic benefits of the mining operation, but it continues to review the environmental impact assessment initially filed in 2004.
A majority of Romanians remain opposed to the prospect of mining gold with cyanide. They arguably have reason for concern. A cyanide accident in the year 2000 in the northern Romanian city of Baia Mare occurred after days of rainfall led a reservoir to burst. In the aftermath, 100,000 tons of mud containing cyanide and heavy metals flowed into the Tisza and Danube rivers, resulting in one of the most serious environmental catastrophes in European history.
Many within the country worry that to give the go-ahead to the project would be to sign away Romania's most valuable natural asset - and its ancient heritage.
The fear of corruption and a lack of faith in the Romanian political system has united many opponents of the Rosia Montana project. The government's reluctance to publish the contract it signed with RMGC has exacerbated suspicions there is something to hide.
RMGC is 75% owned and funded by Gabriel Resources - a Canadian mining company. The Romanian government owns the remaining 25% stake
If the go-ahead is given, Rosia Montana Gold Corporation (RMGC) will demolish three villages, four forested mountains, an ancient Roman mine and build a reservoir that will hold 214 million tons of highly toxic cyanide waste. After 16 years the investors will depart, leaving the hapless Romanian government with a toxic wasteland that will be impossible to clean up. The project is shortlisted as one of the 7 most endangered cultural heritage locations in Europe.
Although cyanide is used in Scandinavian mines (where small quantities are used in sealed containers) nothing on this scale has been attempted before in Europe. The only comparable projects are in Canada, where the area in question is under permafrost, and in the Australian desert. RMGC will use forty tons of cyanide every day and the groundwater and air supplies of Transylvania, one of the most beautiful and pristine parts of Europe, will become so toxic that whole populations will be displaced.
RMGC have spent hundreds of millions of pounds in convincing the Romanians that the destruction of their ecosystem is in their own best interests. They have become the biggest advertising spender in the country, have promised local jobs (even though the local villages will disappear from the face of the earth) and billions of pounds in tax income (even though RMGC's contract with the government is a state secret). They also promise to protect the environment.
Victor Ponta was a vehement opponent of the project until he became Prime Minister last year. Now he's been converted and is pushing through a new mining law that will enable mining investors to seize whatever land they like. This flies in the face of the property rights that successive Romanian governments have been carefully building up since they overthrew Communism in 1989.
What will be left behind? Open craters, moon-like terrain and cyanide waste. The Rosia Montana gold mine would use as much as 12,000 tons of cyanide annually over an exploration period of up to 16 years, according to Gabriel Resources. The cyanide would be stored in a 300-hectare pond in the Corna Valley in northern Romania, behind a dam 185-meters high.
The Canadian company argues that the technology is safe. Gabriel Resources and its subsidiary the Rosia Montana Gold Corporation have stressed that cyanide is so heavily regulated in the European Union that its toxicity is effectively regulated out of the picture. Some level of cyanide has been deemed to be acceptable. In 2010, the European Commission declined to impose an EU-wide ban on cyanide because it deemed the existing regulatory regime to be sufficient.
EU requirements on cyanide are stringent. They came about partly as a direct result of the 2000 Baia Mare cyanide spill, one of the worst ecological disasters since Chernobyl. Baia Mare is a village also in Romania. Since that disaster, Germany, the Czech Republic, Hungary and Turkey have banned cyanide in gold extraction.
Not everyone agrees with the “Save the Rosia Montana” protesters. Hundreds of people have gathered in Rosia Montana to support the mine’s development, arguing that the plan would create jobs and alleviate widespread poverty in the area. Thirty three workers had blockaded themselves into the Rosia Montana site 300 meters below ground; they threatened to go on hunger strike over fears that jobs would be lost if plans by Gabriel Resources’s plans for an open-cast gold mine did not go ahead.
So far, Romanian government officials have responded as they always do: they turn to where the wind blows. President Traian Basescu was once an avid supporter of the mine. After the protests, however, Basescu came out condemning it on environmental grounds. Given that the majority of Romanians are now opposed to it, Prime Minister Victor Ponta also announced an emergency procedure that would, he claimed, stop the project once and for all.
Gabriel Resources executives are livid. Since the protests broke out, many of its shareholders have sold off their shares, causing the company’s stock price to crash. As the company’s shares plummet, the company has now threatened to sue the Romanian government. Company executives claim that if members of the Romanian parliament vote against the mining project, they will “commence litigation for multiple breaches of international investment treaties for up to $4 billion.”
Ponta abandoned his emergency procedure. He has now set up a special parliamentary committee to debate the proposed mining project and to issue a report by October 20, which had been postponed until November 10. A vote in both chambers of the Romanian parliament will follow.
According to Mediafax, the EC does not currently work on a law to ban cyanide mining, considering that such a measure is not justified by environmental or health considerations, even though the MEPs requested in 2010 that a law was drafted in this regard by the end of the year.
"With regard to the introduction of a general ban on cyanide mining, the Commission considers that this is not justified by environmental and health considerations. The current legislation, particularly on the management of waste from extractive industries (Directive 2006/21/EC) includes precise and stringent requirements which should be able to ensure the proper safety level for the facilities from the extractive industry", shows the EC’s response, sent to MEDIAFAX.
In arguing its decision, the Commission indicates that the limit values for cyanide storage, set out by Directive 2006/21/EC, are among the lowest ones, these provisions being introduced after the accident from Baia Mare "so that the circumstances of the accident and its consequences can no longer reoccur".
Under such circumstances, the European executive reminds that guaranteeing the full application of the Directive by all the Member States is critical and that it will continue to take all measures necessary in this context.
"As far as we know, there are no proper alternatives to cyanide use in gold extraction. In most of the European deposits (underground deposits – editor’s note), gold is mixed with other metals, which means that a separation method is required. The general ban on cyanide mining would imply the closure of the existing mines which operate in accordance with stringent standards defined by Directive 21 of 2006, which would affect the number of jobs without bringing additional added value in environmental or health terms. A total ban on cyanide mining would, thus, imply the end of the European extractions and, as a consequence, an increase of the gold imports often made with countries with lower social and environmental standards", according to the EC.
The European executive explicitly shows that "a total ban on cyanide use at present would imply the closure of the existing mines, particularly in Sweden and Finland which have been operating safely for many years".
Romania's special parliamentary committee will debate the proposed mining project and issue a report by November 10. A vote in both chambers of the Romanian parliament will follow.
The 2000 Baia Mare cyanide spill
The 2000 Baia Mare cyanide spill was a leak of cyanide near Baia Mare, Romania, into the Someş River by the gold mining company Aurul, a joint-venture of the Australian company Esmeralda Exploration and the Romanian government.
The polluted waters eventually reached the Tisza and then the Danube, killing large numbers of fish in Hungary and Yugoslavia. The spill has been called the worst environmental disaster in Europe since the Chernobyl disaster.
On the night of January 30, 2000, a dam holding contaminated waters burst and 100,000 cubic metres of cyanide-contaminated water (containing an estimated 100 tonnes of cyanides) spilled over some farmland and then into the Someș river. Esmeralda Exploration blamed excessive snowfall for the dam failure.
After the spill, the Someș had cyanide concentrations of over 700 times the permitted levels. The Someș flows into the Tisza, Hungary's second largest river, which then flows into the Danube. The spill contaminated the drinking supplies of over 2.5 million Hungarians. In addition to cyanide, heavy metals were also washed into the river and they have a long-lasting negative impact on the environment.
Wildlife was particularly affected on the Tisza: on a stretch, virtually all living things were killed, and further south, in the Serbian section, 80% of the aquatic life was killed.
Large quantities of fish died due to the toxicity of cyanide in the waters of the rivers, affecting 62 species of fish, of which 20 are protected species. In Hungary, volunteers participated in removing the dead fish to prevent the disaster from spreading across the food chain, as other animals, such as foxes, otters and ospreys have died after eating contaminated fish.
After the cyanide entered the Danube, the large volume of the river's water diluted the cyanide, but in some sections it still remained as high as 20 to 50 times the allowed concentration.
Five weeks later, a spill of contaminated waters (this time with heavy metals) hit the region. A dyke burst in Baia Borş, Maramureş County and 20,000 cubic metres of zinc, lead and copper-contaminated water made its way into the Tisza.
A year later, another cyanide spill occurred in Romania, this time being a deliberate emptying of cyanide solutions into the Siret River.[
Brett Montgomery, the chairman of the mine operator, Esmeralda, denied responsibility, claiming that the damage of the spill has been "grossly exaggerated" and that the fish died in such numbers because of lack of oxygen due to the freezing of the river.
A spokesman for the company later claimed that media reports from Hungary and Serbia are politically motivated and the fish were killed by spills from industrial plants along the Tisza, due to the dynamite explosions used to break the ice locks on the river or simply due to the raw sewage pumped into the river.
The Hungarian government called the storing of cyanide next to a river madness and argued that the weather was not unprecedented. A European Union report on the disaster blamed the design faults at the mine.
In mid-February 2000, as the spill reached the Romanian section of the Danube, the Romanian government temporarily banned fishing and the usage of Danube water for drinking.
Two years after the spill, the ecosystem began to recover, but it was still far from its initial state, as the fishermen of Hungary claim that their catches in 2002 were only at a fifth of their original levels.
For further information on Rosia Montana, including links to the references and sources of this article. please visit the website of Occupy for Animals.