Rafizi: Rare earth policy not hypocritical, to stop abuse by state govts

REE under rainforests and forest reserves should just be left untouched, considering that our rainforests are now in a critical situation, in terms of area, degree of fragmentation and biodiversity. Much land in the country has already been developed. What is left now are fragments of undeveloped Ecological Sensitive Areas (ESA). In view of the small area of ESAs left, it’s high time they be left untouched and the government come up with amendments and policies to put all ESAs, mining activities, coastal development and reclamation as well as management of islands with marine parks under federal jurisdiction rather than state jurisdiction to better control mismanagement of the remaining ESAs. Government policies regarding environmental protection must be amended in order to keep up with the critical need for the protection of ESAs. The government should also discard the idea that a country can only prosper if it has got natural resources. Just look at Singapore. I’m sure, buried under its country are also vast sources of rare earth metals. But did they mine them to prosper? No, they developed their human resources instead. In the 1950s, they were economically on par with us. Now, they are economically and technologically way far ahead of us, without dependence on natural resources and despite their land area being 453 times smaller than ours. Exporting REE does bring immense profits, But the expenditure for mitigation of impacts due to mining might outweigh the profits. Furthermore will mining companies foot the mitigation bill ? No, it will all be piled upon the government, in the end causing no net gain for the government. The only parties getting net gain are the mining companies, state heads and their cronies and the importing countries. Earlier this year, Nik Nazmi said his ministry has also identified a more environmentally friendly 'in-situ' leaching method which involves minimal land clearing for mineral extraction from the ground. This method reportedly has less impact on the environment than the current open-pit mining method used, which involves forest clearing. In-situ leaching as compared to open-pit mining is supposed to be more environmentally, friendly, with minimal land clearing and less impact on the environment. Firstly, less impact as compared to open-pit mining doesn’t mean that the impact of in-situ mining is small. Surely, the impact is going to be great but the only thing is, it’s less when compared to that of open-pit mining. Secondly, let’s say the layer of rare earth elements (NR-REE) lies below a forest. The initial natural state of the NR-REE is most likely a solid, insoluble ore of the REE. So initially it’s a thick layer of forest soil on top of this layer of NR-REE ore. Then, using in-situ leaching, an acidic or alkaline solution is pumped through pipes into the ore layer so that the ore reacts with the acid or alkaline solution to produce a solution of NR-REE. Then the NR-REE solution is pumped out to the processing facilities. New acid or alkaline solution is continuously pumped into the ore layer till most of the REE is extracted in its solution form. So eventually, isn’t the solid ore layer going to be replaced by a solution or liquid layer? Wouldn’t soil particles above this ore layer go to sink into the solution? Eventually, wouldn’t the whole forest floor sink, destabilising the forest trees?

01:38 PM, 15 Sep 2023