Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
(Marchev 2006). The heart of Dundee's investment (Phase II) focuses on
mining the most promising veins and reprocessing old mining waste with
cyanide leaching in order to obtain more of the gold, then fi lling the old
tunnels with the solid waste from the processing, thereby rendering the
remaining ore permanently inaccessible. The cyanide-laced tailings would
be stored in a new pond. As designed, the project seeks to mine the area
intensively for several years, after which the known accessible resources
will be depleted. Experts in the Cyanide-Free Bulgaria coalition estimate
that at the projected rate of 3,000,000 tons of ore per year, the resources
available for the planned means of exploitation should be depleted
in seven to eight years (Fournadzhiev 2006; A. Kovatchev 2006;
P. Kovatchev 2006; Radev 2006). The European Bank for Reconstruc-
tion and Development approved a loan for the fi rst phase in 2004 (Popov
2008b; Bacheva 2006), but the project stalled out in March 2006, when
the Minister of Environment and Water froze the environmental impact
assessment (EIA) process for Phase II. Plans for further development
began to move ahead again, when an agreement between the government
and Dundee in spring 2008 led to the delayed approval of the EIA at the
end of July 2008.
While the proposed project split Chelopech residents from the begin-
ning, with a small majority for the Dundee project, many of the residents
of neighboring Chavdar, who would now have a cyanide tailings pond
alongside two older tailings ponds, were strongly opposed. They formed
a local initiative committee, “Future for Chavdar,” and voiced their
opposition to the project in public hearings. Still, the project was
approved by local authorities and the company continued its Phase I
projects and planning for Phase II. Opponents, especially those from
Chavdar, voiced their opposition both in local protests and in the hear-
ings mandated by the EIA process, which were held in December 2005.
Proponents dominated the meetings, and no signifi cant changes were
demanded of or proposed by the company as the hearings fi nished at the
local level.
The EIA process was blocked in March 2006 by Minister of Environ-
ment and Water, Dzhevdet Chakarov, not by a rejection of the project
but by a “silent refusal” to approve it. The pairing of the project with
Dundee's other proposal in Krumovgrad had a good deal to do with the
block, because the Krumovgrad proposal had raised more local and
political opposition. Although the minister was required to make a deci-
sion within ninety days of the public hearings, he did not. The company
took the matter to Bulgaria's Supreme Administrative Court and won a
