DOCSLIB.ORG

Q8 Report Layout

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Q8 Report Layout Prospects for coal, CCTs and CCS in the European Union Stephen J Mills CCC/173 August 2010 Copyright © IEA Clean Coal Centre ISBN 978-92-9029-493-1 Abstract Since the EU enlargements of 2004 and 2007, the economic importance of coal for many Member States has continued. In a significant number, coal maintains an important role for power generation and in major industrial sectors such as iron and steel and cement production. The use of hard coal and lignite remains crucial in the commercial and industrial life of the EU. In 2008, between them, EU Member States produced around 146 Mt of hard coal (43% of total EU hard coal consumption) and 434 Mt of lignite (99% of total EU lignite consumption). A further 211 Mt of hard coal was imported. Thus, total EU coal consumption amounted to 783 Mt. At the moment, around 30% of electricity generation in the EU-27 is coal-based although in some countries, coal accounts for more than 50% of total power generation; for instance, 59% in the Czech Republic and 53% in Greece. In Poland, it is over 90%. Some countries produce most of the coal and/or lignite consumed, whereas others rely almost exclusively on imports. Many others fall some way between these extremes. This report includes a general review and update of the situation in the EU, and considers CCT- and CCS-related initiatives and activities. The scope and status of major EU clean coal and carbon capture and storage programmes are examined. These include such initiatives as the creation in 2006 of the Zero Emission Platform (ZEP), plus related major national (both government and private sector) RD&D CCT and CCS programmes under way or planned. The different technological options being pursued such as supercritical PCC, IGCC + CCS, oxyfuel combustion, and post-combustion CO2 capture, are addressed and the status of each reviewed. The second part of the report comprises more detailed examination of CCT and CCS activities in EU Member States that have an annual coal consumption of around 10 Mt or more. For each country, coal use and clean coal- and CCS-related activities are examined. Acknowledgements The help and comments of the following individuals and organisations during the preparation of the present report is gratefully acknowledged: Dr Marion Wilde, European Commission, Directorate-General for Energy. Unit B 3 - Coal & Oil Dr Constantina Filiou, European Commission, Directorate-General for Energy. Unit B 3 - Coal & Oil Mr Lionel Boillot, European Commission, Research Fund for Coal and Steel Dr Ireneusz Pyka, Glowny Instytut Gornictwa - GIG (Central Mining institute), Poland Acronyms and abbreviations ASU air separation unit UNFCC United Nations Framework Convention on BGL British Gas/Lurgi Climate Change BOFA boosted overfire air USC ultra-supercritical CBM coalbed methane ZEP Zero Emissions Platform CCC (IEA) Clean Coal Centre CCT Clean Coal Technology CCGT Combined Cycle Gas Turbine CCS Carbon Capture and Storage CFBC Circulating Fluidised Bed Combustion CSLF Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum CEE Central and Eastern Europe CHP combined heat and power CFBC Circulating Fluidised Bed Combustion COE cost of electricity CV calorific value EBRD European bank for reconstruction and development EC European Commission ECSC European Coal and Steel Community EERA European Energy Research Alliance EERP European Economic Recovery Plan EGR enhanced gas recovery EOR enhanced oil recovery EPC Engineering, Procurement and Construction ESP electrostatic precipitator EU European Union FBC Fluidised Bed Combustion FEED front end engineering and design FT Fischer Tropsch FGD Flue Gas Desulphurisation GE General Electric HP high pressure HRSG heat recovery steam generator IEA International Energy Agency IEA GHG R&D The IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme IGCC Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle IP intermediate pressure IPPCD integrated pollution prevention and control directive LCPD large combustion plant directive LHV lower heating value LP low pressure MBM meat and bone meal MEA monoethanolamine MHI Mitsubishi Heavy Industries MoU Memorandum of Understanding MSW municipal solid waste OFA overfire air PCC pulverised coal combustion PCI pulverised coal injection PFBC Pressurised Fluidised Bed Combustion RD&D Research, Development and Demonstration RFCS Research Fund for Coal and Steel RO (UK) renewables obligation SC supercritical SCR selective catalytic reduction SNCR selective non catalytic reduction US DOE United States Department of Energy 2 IEA CLEAN COAL CENTRE Contents Acronyms and abbreviations . 2 Contents. 3 1 Introduction . 7 1.1 European Union CCT and CCS activities . 8 1.2 EU Framework Programmes . 10 1.3 Energy research within the Co-operation Specific Programme of FP7 . 10 1.4 Clean Coal and CCS calls under FP7 . 11 1.5 European Technology Platform for Zero Emission Fossil Fuel Power Plants (ZEP) . 12 1.5.1 Demonstration projects selected under the EERP (December 2009). 13 1.6 Other major European initiatives. 14 1.6.1 Advanced 700ºC PF Power Plant research project (AD700) . 14 1.6.2 European COST Actions . 14 1.6.3 Research Programme of the Research Fund for Coal and Steel (RFCS). 15 1.6.4 EU-China Partnership on Climate Change and Energy & Environment Programme . 16 1.6.5 Biomass cofiring in Europe . 16 1.6.6 Summary. 17 1.7 Introduction to case studies . 17 2 Bulgaria . 18 2.1 Power generation . 18 2.1.1 Power plant modernisation programmes . 18 2.2 IGCC . 19 2.3 Cofiring . 19 2.4 CCS activities. 19 3 Czech Republic. 20 3.1 Power generation . 20 3.1.1 Power plant modernisation . 20 3.2 Supercritical PCC plants and proposals. 20 3.3 CFBC plants. 21 3.4 IGCC . 22 3.5 Cofiring activities. 22 3.6 CCT and CCS activities. 22 4 France . 24 4.1 Coal-fired power plants . 24 4.1.1 Supercritical PCC plants and proposals . 25 4.2 CFBC plants. 25 4.3 IGCC . 25 4.4 Cofiring . 25 4.5 CCS activities. 25 4.5.1 Oxyfuel combustion . 26 5 Germany . 27 5.1 Power generation sector. 27 5.1.1 Power plant modernisation . 27 5.2 Supercritical PCC plants and proposals. 27 5.3 CFBC . 28 5.4 Pressurised Fluidised Bed Combustion (PFBC) . 30 5.5 IGCC plants and proposals . 30 5.6 Cofiring activities. 30 5.6.1 Oxyfuel combustion . 30 5.6.2 Post-combustion capture. 32 Prospects for coal, CCTs and CCS in the European Union 3 6 Greece. 33 6.1 Power generation sector. 33 6.1.1 Power plant modernisation programmes . 33 6.2 Supercritical PCC plants and proposals. 33 6.3 CFBC . 34 6.4 IGCC . 34 6.5 Cofiring ..
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Coal Project Europe's Next Strategic Supply of Thermal Coal
    ASX: PDZ ABN 23 008 677 852 Lublin Coal Project Europe's Next Strategic Supply of Thermal Coal October 2013 For personal use only Prairie Downs Metals Limited – Lublin Coal Project Prairie Downs Metals Limited (ASX:PDZ) is an ASX listed company developing the Lublin Coal Project in Poland’s world class Lublin Coal basin Lublin Coal Project Map Strategic resource of high quality thermal coal - Inferred Coal Resource Estimate of 1.6 billion tonnes Existing rail and port infrastructure providing access to Polish and European coal markets Adjacent to the world-class Bogdanka (WSE:LWB) longwall coal mine - one of the lowest unit operating costs in Europe Commenced confirmatory drilling program with the Scoping Study being completed by Wardell Armstrong International Ltd Experienced board and management team with strong coal For personal use only expertise and experience in Poland 2 Coal – Fundamental to Europe’s Energy Matrix During 2012, Europe1 consumed over 770mt of coal for power generation, of which 265mt was thermal coal. Thermal coal imports amounted to 172mt, accounting for 22% of globally traded thermal coal… European Thermal Coal Imports & Production by Country (2012) 40 33 3 509 mt 52 Finland1 2 Thermal Coal Production (2012) 15 Thermal Coal Imports (2012) 10 9 Germany1 2 1 UK 2 8 Netherlands1 2 3 172 mt 1 12 Poland1 2 Czech1 2 93 mt 2 Republic 2 France1 2 Austria1 2 Romania1 2 20 19 4 19 2 2 Lignite Thermal Thermal ProductionFor personal use only Production Imports Portugal1 2 Bulgaria1 2 3 7 Total Europe Lignite and Turkey1 2 Thermal Coal Consumption Italy1 2 (2012) Spain1 2 Source: Euracoal (2012) 1 Europe is the EU plus Turkey 3 Europe – Declining Domestic Coal Production Europe’s hard coal production continues to decline as viable coal resources deplete European Hard Coal1 Production (million tonnes) 400 Rest of EU 365mt (total) Czech Republic 350 Germany 300 295mt United Kingdom Poland 250 227mt 200 189mt 155mt 150 127mt 100 50 0 1991 1995 1999 2003 2007 2011 Source: Eurostat .
    [Show full text]
  • To Download Full Research Note
    Prairie Mining 5th September 2017 “Under the radar” potential world-class hard coking coal supplier with two low-cost projects in Poland to supply Europe’s leading CONVICTION BUY steel makers & a likely acquisition target – Price Target Prairie Mining listed in London in 2015 to bring its hard coking coal 118p interests in Poland to the attention of European investors. The company is currently moving its two-impressive large Tier-1 low-cost coking coal projects towards production as early as 2023. Enviable high margin projects at currently strong coking coal prices Key data Prairie is continuing to advance its two projects towards production and has a world-class partner in China Coal, the second largest coal miner in EPIC PDZ China. In the current strong coking coal price environment, Prairie looks Share price 33.5p likely to be an M&A target in our opinion as majors are seeking such world 52 week 42p/11.5p class Tier-1 projects and midcap producers need growth options. high/low Listing LSE (Main List), Close to Europe’s steel makers who rely on imports for 85% of supplies ASX, Warsaw Europe is a big importer of coking coal from Australia and the US. Coking Shares in issue 167,498,969 coal from Prairie’s low-cost Polish projects should attract a premium price Market Cap £56.1m Sector Mining due to its quality comparable to coal produced by the majors and far lower transportation costs being on the doorstep of big European steel makers. 12 month share price chart PencePrairie Mining Ltd Ord Management has proven expertise in project development & financing 40 40 CEO Ben Stoikovich is an ex-BHP coal mining engineer/investment banker 35 35 whose skills have helped get Prairie where it is today.
    [Show full text]
  • Exco55 P1 a Global Operational Status of Co-Firing Biomass And
    Global operational status on cofiring biomass and waste with coal Experience with different cofiring concepts and fuels Jaap Koppejan1, Larry Baxter2, 1 Project manager Bioenergy systems, TNO-MEP, PO Box 342, 7300 AH Apeldoorn, Netherlands, phone +31 55 5493167, fax +31 55 5493287, email [email protected] 2 Professor Chemical Engineering, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT 84601, USA, phone: +1 (801) 422-8616, fax: +1 (801) 422-0151, email [email protected] 1. Primary motivations for biomass-coal cofiring One means of reducing the environmental impacts of fossil fuel combustion is to increase the fraction of renewable and sustainable energy in the national energy supply. Renewable energy technologies have, however, struggled to compete in open electricity supply markets with fossil energy, due to their low efficiencies, high costs, and the high technical and financial risks. The result is that they usually require the introduction of subsidies or other financial instruments to support their implementation. The co-firing of biomass with the coal in traditional coal-fired boilers makes use of the large investment and extensive infrastructure associated with the existing fossil-fuel-based power systems, while requiring only a relatively modest capital investment, typically up to $50-$300 per kW of biomass capacity. [i]. These costs compare very favorably with any other available renewable energy option1. Worldwide, each percent of coal that is substituted with biomass in all coal fired power plants results in a biomass capacity of 8 GWe, and a reduction of approx. 60 Mton of CO2. At a typical cofiring ratio of 5% on energy basis, this would correspond with a global potential of approx.
    [Show full text]
  • Biomass Cofiring in Coal-Fired Boilers
    DOE/EE-0288 Leading by example, saving energy and Biomass Cofiring in Coal-Fired Boilers taxpayer dollars Using this time-tested fuel-switching technique in existing federal boilers in federal facilities helps to reduce operating costs, increase the use of renewable energy, and enhance our energy security Executive Summary To help the nation use more domestic fuels and renewable energy technologies—and increase our energy security—the Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP) in the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, assists government agencies in developing biomass energy projects. As part of that assistance, FEMP has prepared this Federal Technology Alert on biomass cofiring technologies. This publication was prepared to help federal energy and facility managers make informed decisions about using biomass cofiring in existing coal-fired boilers at their facilities. The term “biomass” refers to materials derived from plant matter such as trees, grasses, and agricultural crops. These materials, grown using energy from sunlight, can be renewable energy sources for fueling many of today’s energy needs. The most common types of biomass that are available at potentially attractive prices for energy use at federal facilities are waste wood and wastepaper. The boiler plant at the Department of Energy’s One of the most attractive and easily implemented biomass energy technologies is cofiring Savannah River Site co- fires coal and biomass. with coal in existing coal-fired boilers. In biomass cofiring, biomass can substitute for up to 20% of the coal used in the boiler. The biomass and coal are combusted simultaneously. When it is used as a supplemental fuel in an existing coal boiler, biomass can provide the following benefits: lower fuel costs, avoidance of landfills and their associated costs, and reductions in sulfur oxide, nitrogen oxide, and greenhouse-gas emissions.
    [Show full text]
  • Report of the Management Board on the Activity of ELEKTROBUDOWA SA and the ELEKTROBUDOWA GROUP in 2018
    Report of the Management Board on the Activity of ELEKTROBUDOWA SA and the ELEKTROBUDOWA GROUP in 2018 REPORT OF THE MANAGEMENT BOARD ON THE ACTIVITY OF ELEKTROBUDOWA SA AND THE ELEKTROBUDOWA GROUP IN 2018 Table of contents 1 Market environment ...................................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Overview of the macro-economic situation ................................................................................................................ 1 1.2 Outlook for market development ............................................................................................................................... 1 1.3 The strategy adopted by the issuer and its corporate group ........................................................................................ 2 2 Basic information about ELEKTROBUDOWA SA and ELEKTROBUDOWA Group ................................................................ 3 2.1 Business profile ......................................................................................................................................................... 3 2.2 Divisions and branches .............................................................................................................................................. 3 2.3 Structure of ELEKTROBUDOWA Group ....................................................................................................................... 3 2.4 Organisational and equity ties ...................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Experience of Indirect Cofiring of Biomass and Coal
    Experience of indirect cofiring of biomass and coal Rohan Fernando CCC/64 October 2002 Copyright © IEA Clean Coal Centre ISBN 92-9029-370-9 Abstract There has been increasing interest in the use of biomass for power generation in recent years. The principal reason for this is that the use of biomass can significantly reduce net CO2 emissions. Other advantages of utilising biomass are that it diversifies the power plant’s fuel portfolio, it can lead to reductions in SO2 and NOx emissions and that such use can help to dispose of a solid waste. There are some disadvantages of firing biomass which relate to its supply, transportation and composition and these can be reduced if the biomass is cofired with coal. Cofiring can be direct, where the biomass and coal are fired in the same boiler, or indirect, where the combustion or gasification of biomass occurs in a separate unit. This report concentrates on indirect cofiring which is taken to mean technologies in which the ash from the coal and biomass are kept separate. Direct cofiring is relatively straightforward but can lead to several technical concerns. Indirect cofiring incurs greater costs and is particularly suitable for biomass containing troublesome components or when the quality of the ash is of importance. Indirect cofiring is less common than direct cofiring. The report discusses the relative advantages and disadvantages of direct and indirect cofiring. It then describes the following plants which indirectly cofire biomass: Aabenraa in Denmark, Amergas in the Netherlands, Avedøre 2 in Denmark, Kymijärvi in Finland, Zeltweg in Austria and Västerås in Sweden.
    [Show full text]
  • Consolidated Annual Report 2013
    Solutions for Demanding Business CONSOLIDATED ANNUAL REPORT 2013 CHAIRMAN´S LETTER MANAGEMENT REPORT SELECTED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL DATA CORPORATE GOVERNANCE CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS 4 March 2014 CONSOLIDATED ANNUAL REPORT 2013 CONTENTS I. CHAIRMAN´S LETTER .............................................................................. 4 II. MANAGEMENT REPORT ............................................................................ 6 1 GENERAL INFORMATION .......................................................................... 6 1.1 Organizational structure and nature of business operations ................ 6 1.2 General information ...................................................................... 6 2 SELECTED FINANCIAL DATA OF CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS .... 7 3 COMPANY VALUES .................................................................................. 8 3.1 Mission ........................................................................................ 8 3.2 Visions ........................................................................................ 8 3.3 The Company’s strategic goals ....................................................... 9 3.4 Characteristics of factors relevant to development of the Group .......... 9 3.5 Company management code ........................................................ 10 3.6 Code of conduct .......................................................................... 10 4 COMPANY´S AUTHORITIES .................................................................... 11
    [Show full text]
  • Corporate Social Responsibility Report of Enea Capital Group 2012
    CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY REPORT OF ENEA CAPITAL GROUP 2012 CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY REPORT OF ENEA CAPITAL GROUP 2012 Visit the online report on: http: raportcsr.enea.pl/en 1 CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY REPORT OF ENEA CAPITAL GROUP 2012 CONTENT TREE ON THE WEBSITE CALENDAR OF EVENTS 2012 .................................................................................................................... 3 1. ENEA CAPITAL GROUP ......................................................................................................................... 5 1.1 Structure of the Capital Group ...................................................................................................... 8 1.2 Financial results ........................................................................................................................... 11 1.4 Ethics ........................................................................................................................................... 14 1.5 CSR Strategy ................................................................................................................................ 14 1.6 Key investments .......................................................................................................................... 16 1.7 Awards ......................................................................................................................................... 18 1.8 Membership in organizations .....................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Mineral Industry of Czechia in 2016
    2016 Minerals Yearbook CZECHIA [ADVANCE RELEASE] U.S. Department of the Interior March 2021 U.S. Geological Survey The Mineral Industry of Czechia By Lindsey Abdale In 2016, Czechia was the world’s 2d-ranked producer of Mineral Trade diatomite, having produced 15% of world output; the 4th-ranked producer of kaolin (9.7% of world output); and the 10th-ranked In 2016, Czechia’s total exports were valued at $163 billion producer of bentonite (1.9% of world output). The country did and its total imports were valued at $143 billion. Exports of not mine any metal ores but produced processed metal products, metals were valued at $14.3 billion; fuels (all types), $3 billion; such as crude steel, pig iron, and semimanufactured steel, as and all mineral products, $251 million. Imports of metals were well as secondary aluminum and lead metals. Production of valued at $15.4 billion; fuels, $6.4 billion; and all mineral mineral fuels and related materials included coal, small amounts products, $676 million. Germany received 32% of Czechia’s of crude petroleum, natural gas, and uranium. The country total exports; Slovakia, 8.3%; Poland 5.8%; France, 5.2%; and supplied about 70% of its total electricity demand through Austria, 4.2%. Czechia received 26.5% of its total imports from coal-fired thermal powerplants and nuclear powerplants in 2016 Germany; 12%, from China; 8.3%, from Poland; 5.1%, from (table 1; Euracoal, 2017; Crangle, 2018; West, 2018). Slovakia; and 3.2%, from France (Czech Statistical Office, 2017a; World Integrated Trade Solution, 2017).
    [Show full text]
  • Cez Group: the Leader in Power Markets of Central and Southeastern Europe
    CEZ GROUP: THE LEADER IN POWER MARKETS OF CENTRAL AND SOUTHEASTERN EUROPE Investment story, April 2019 AGENDA . Introduction, strategic priorities 1 . Traditional Generation 9 . Regulated and New Energy 18 . Financial performance 29 . Summary 35 . Backup 37 . Electricity market fundamentals 38 . Project of new nuclear in the Czech Republic 45 . EU ETS, derogation scheme in the CR 46 . Environmental, social and governance 48 . Regulation of distribution 52 . Renewables support schemes 56 . 2018 generation outlook 58 . Latest and historical financial results 59 1 CEZ GROUP RANKS AMONG THE TOP 10 LARGEST UTILITY COMPANIES IN EUROPE Top 10 European power utilities Top 10 European power utilities Number of customers in 2018, in millions Market capitalization in EUR bn, as of April 2, 2019 1 Enel 70.4 1 Enel 57.7 2 EDF 51.0 35.1 2 Iberdrola 3 Iberdrola 33.3 3 EDF 38.1 4 Innogy 22.0 4 Engie 32.9 5 E.ON 21.0 5 E.ON 22.0 6 Engie 20.6 6 Fortum 17.0 7 Vattenfall 11.0 7 Verbund 14.9 8 EDP 8.0 8 RWE 14.6 9 CEZ Group 6.9 9 EDP 13.0 10 EnBW 5.5 10 CEZ Group 11.2 2 Source: Bloomberg, Annual reports, companies’ websites and presentations CEZ GROUP IS AN INTERNATIONAL UTILITY WITH A STRONG POSITION IN CEE AND GROWING PRESENCE IN WESTERN EUROPE CEZ Group in the Czech Republic CEZ Group in Poland . Mining . Traditional Generation . Traditional Generation . Renewables . Renewables . ESCO, Sales . Distribution . ESCO, Sales CEZ Group in Romania . Renewables . Distribution CEZ Group in Germany .
    [Show full text]
  • Morning Comments
    Thursday, March 11, 2021 | daily publication Morning Comments Equity Market, Poland Research Department: Michał Marczak +48 22 438 24 01 Kamil Kliszcz +48 22 438 24 02 Jakub Szkopek +48 22 438 24 03 Aleksandra Szklarczyk +48 22 438 24 04 Michał Konarski +48 22 438 24 05 Paweł Szpigiel +48 22 438 24 06 Mikołaj Lemańczyk +48 22 438 24 07 Piotr Bogusz +48 22 438 24 08 Piotr Poniatowski +48 22 438 24 09 DJIA 32,297.0 +1.46% FTSE 100 6,725.6 -0.07% Copper (LME) 8,861.5 +0.93% S&P 500 3,898.8 +0.60% WIG20 2,003.6 +0.47% Crude Oil (Brent) 67.87 +1.42% NASDAQ 13,068.8 -0.04% BUX 43,579.4 +0.62% USD/PLN 3.8342 -0.09% DAX 14,540.3 +0.71% PX 1,070.9 +0.51% EUR/PLN 4.5738 +0.15% CAC 40 5,990.6 +1.11% PLBonds10 1.543 -0.030 EUR/USD 1.1929 +0.24% Company & Sector News ING BSK ING board recommends no dividend from 2020 Reduce – 2020-11-19 In market filling ING informed that board recommends to divide net profit from 2020 (PLN Target price: PLN 143.10 1337.6m) and unallocated profit from previous years (PLN 495.7m) into reserve capital in amount of PLN 675.4m, while leaving PLN 1157.9m unallocated. Up to now, we have assumed that ING will payout some minor dividend in 2021 (DY<2%), however it was rather symbolic. Leaving unallocated PLN 8.90 per share leaves hope for bigger future dividends.
    [Show full text]
  • Elegant Letter
    NEWS RELEASE | 3 April 2018 JAN KARSKI CONCESSION UPDATE In July 2015, Prairie Mining Limited (“Prairie” or the “Company”) announced that it had secured the Exclusive Right to apply for a Mining Concession for the Jan Karski Mine (“Jan Karski”) as a result of its Geological Documentation for the Jan Karski deposit being approved by Poland’s Ministry of Environment (“MoE”). The approved Geological Documentation covers areas of all four original Exploration Concessions granted to Prairie (K-4-5, K-6-7, K-8 and K-9) and includes the full extent of the targeted resources within the mine plan for Jan Karski. As a result of the Exclusive Right, Prairie is the only entity with a legal right to lodge a Mining Concession application over Jan Karski for the period up and until 2 April 2018. Under the Polish Geological and Mining Law, a Mining Concession application comprises the submission of a Deposit Development Plan (“DDP”), approval of a spatial development plan (rezoning of land for mining use) and an Environmental Consent decision. Prairie has previously announced that the DDP and spatial development plans for Jan Karski have already been approved. However, as of the date of this announcement, Prairie has not yet received the required Environmental Consent decision, which remains pending. Prairie completed an Environmental and Social Impact Assessment and made submissions to the relevant administrative body for an Environmental Consent decision in October 2017 in accordance with all requirements. Accordingly, Prairie has not been able to apply for a Mining Concession for Jan Karski due to the delay in the issuance of an Environmental Consent decision.
    [Show full text]