People can let off steam, get angry, shudder at the thought of it… ‘Who do these politicians think they are?’ ‘Scumbag generals!’ […] And they get more and more angry, and then, burp! A little liberatory burp to relieve their social indigestion.

These words came to mind last month when Iceland’s media reported upon the current situation of river Lagarfljót in the east of Iceland. “Lagarfljót is dead,” some of them even stated, citing the words of author and environmentalist Andri Snær Magnason regarding a revelation of the fact that the river’s ecosystem has literally been killed by the the gigantic Kárahnjúkar Dams. The dams were built in Iceland’s eastern highlands in the years between 2002 and 2006, solely to provide electricity for aluminium giant and arms producer Alcoa’s smelter in the eastern municipality of Reyðarfjörður.

The revelation of Lagarfljót’s current situation originates in a report made by Landsvirkjun, Iceland’s state owned energy company and owner of the 690 MW Kárahnjúkar power plant, the main conclusions of which were made public last month. Although covered as breaking news and somewhat of a scandal, this particular revelation can hardly be considered as surprising news.

Quite the contrary, environmentalists and scientists have repeatedly pointed out the mega-project’s devastating irreversible environmental impacts — in addition to the social and economical ones of course — and have, in fact, done so ever since the plan was brought onto the drawing tables to begin with. Such warnings, however, were systematically silenced by Iceland’s authorities and dismissed as “political rather than scientific”, propaganda against progress and opposition to “green energy” — only to be proven right time and time again during the last half a decade.

AQUATIC ECOSYSTEMS SHOULD RECEIVE MORE ATTENTION

One of the Kárahnjúkar plant’s functions depends on diverting glacial river Jökulsá á Dal into another glacial river Jökulsá í Fljótsdal, the latter of which feeds Lagarfljót. This means that huge amounts of glacial turbidity are funnelled into the river, quantitatively heretofore unknown in Lagarfljót. This has, in return, led to the disintegration of Lagarfljót’s ecosystem, gargantuan land erosion on the banks of the river, serious decrease in fish population and parallel negative impacts on the area’s bird life.

As reported by Saving Iceland in late 2011, when the dams impacts on Lagarfljót had become a subject matter of Iceland’s media, the glacial turbidity has severely altered Lagarfljót’s colour. Therefore, sunlight doesn’t reach deep enough into the water, bringing about a decrease of photosynthesis — the fundamental basis for organic production — and thereby a systematic reduction of nourishment for the fish population. Recent research conducted by Iceland’s Institute of Freshwater Fisheries show that in the area around Egilsstaðir, a municipality located on the banks of Lagarfljót, the river’s visibility is currently less than 20cm deep compared to 60cm before the dams were constructed. As a result of this, not only is there less fish in the river — the size of the fish has also seen a serious decrease.

Following last month’s revelation, ichthyologist Guðni Guðbergsson at the Institute of Freshwater Fisheries, highlighted in an interview with RÚV (Iceland’s National Broadcasting Service) that the destruction of Lagarfljót’s ecosystem had certainly been foreseen and repeatedly pointed out. He also maintained that aquatic environment tends to be kept out of the discourse on hydro dams. “People see what is aboveground, they see vegetation, soil erosion and drift,” he stated, “but when it comes to aquatic ecosystems, people don’t seem to see it very clearly. This biosphere should receive more attention.”

BENDING ALL THE RULES

All of the above-mentioned had been warned of before the dams construction took place, most importantly in a 2001 ruling by Skipulagsstofnun (Iceland’s National Planning Agency) which, after reviewing the Kárahnjúkar plant’s Environmental Impact Assessment, concluded that “the development would result in great hydrological changes, which would have an effect, for example, on the groundwater level in low-lying areas adjacent to Jökulsá í Fljótsdal and Lagarfljót, which in turn would have an impact on vegetation, bird-life and agriculture.” The impacts on Lagarfljót being only one of the dams numerous all-too-obvious negative impacts, Skipulagsstofnun opposed the project as a whole “on grounds of its considerable impact on the environment and the unsatisfactory information presented regarding individual parts of the project and its consequences for the environment.”

However, Iceland’s then Minister of the Environment, Siv Friðleifsdóttir, notoriously overturned the agency’s ruling and permitted the construction. Although her act of overturning her own agency’s ruling is certainly a unique one, it was nevertheless fully harmonious with the mega-project’s overall modus operandi: For instance, during Alcoa and the Icelandic government’s signature ceremony in 2003, Friðrik Sophusson, then director of Landsvirkjun, and Valgerður Sverrisdóttir, then Minister of Industry, boasted of “bending all the rules, just for this project” while speaking to the US ambassador in Iceland.

A BIOLOGICAL WONDER TURNED INTO DESERT

As already mentioned, the destruction of Lagarfljót is only one of the dams irreversible impacts on the whole North-East part of Iceland, the most densely vegetated area north of Vatnajökull — the world’s largest non-arctic glacier — and one of the few regions in Iceland where soil and vegetation were more or less intact. Altogether, the project affects 3,000 square km of land, no less than 3% of Iceland’s total landmass, extending from the edge of Vatnajökull to the estuary of the Héraðsflói glacial river.

Sixty major waterfalls were destroyed and innumerable unique geological formations drowned, not to forget Kringilsárrani — the calving ground of a third of Iceland’s reindeer population — which was partly drowned and devastated in full by the project. In 1975, Kringilsárrani had been officially declared as protected but in order to enable the Kárahnjúkar dams and the 57 km2 Hálslón reservoir, Siv Fiðleifsdóttir decided to reduce the reserve by one fourth in 2003. When criticized for this infamous act, Siv stated that “although some place is declared protected, it doesn’t mean that it will be protected forever.”

The dams have also blocked silt emissions of the two aforementioned glacial rivers, Jökulsá á Dal and Jökulsá í Fljótsdal, resulting in the receding of the combined delta of the two rivers — destroying a unique nature habitat in the delta. In their 2003 article, published in World Birdwatch, ornithologists Einar Þorleifsson and Jóhann Óli Hilmarsson outlined another problem of great importance:

All glacier rivers are heavy with sediments, and the two rivers are muddy brown in summer and carry huge amounts of sediment, both glacial mud and sand. The Jökulsá á Dal river is exceptional in the way that it carries on average 13 times more sediment than any other Icelandic river, 10 million metric tons per year and during glacial surges the amount is many times more. When the river has been dammed this sediment will mostly settle in the reservoir.

In contravention of the claim that Kárahnjúkar’s hydro electricity is a “green and renewable energy source,” it is estimated that the reservoir will silt up in between forty and eighty years, turning this once most biologically diverse regions of the Icelandic highlands into a desert. While this destruction is slowly but systematically taking place, the dry dusty silt banks caused by the reservoir’s fluctuating water levels are already causing dust storms affecting the vegetation of over 3000 sq km, as explained in Einar and Jóhann’s article:

The reservoir will be filled with water in autumn but in spring 2/3 of the lake bottom are dry and the prevailing warm mountain wind will blow from the south-west, taking the light dry glacial sediment mud in the air and causing considerable problems for the vegetation in the highlands and for the people in the farmlands located in the valleys. To add to the problem the 120 km of mostly dry riverbed of Jökulsá á Dal will only have water in the autumn, leaving the mud to be blown by the wind in spring.

This development is already so severe that residents of the Eastfjords municipality Stöðvafjörður, with whom Saving Iceland recently spoke, stated that the wind-blown dust has been of such a great deal during the summers that they have often been unable to see the sky clearly.

All of the above-mentioned is only a part of the Kárahnjúkar dams over-all impacts, about which one can read thoroughly here. Among other factors that should not be forgotten in terms of hydro power would be the dams’ often underestimated contribution to global warming — for instance via reservoirs’ production of CO2 and methane (see here and here) — as well as glacial rivers’ important role in reducing pollution on earth by binding gases that cause global warming, and how mega-dams inhibit this function by hindering the rivers’ carrying of sediments out to sea.

TEXTBOOK EXAMPLE OF CORRUPTION AND ABUSE OF POWER

“Lagarfljót wasn’t destroyed by accident,” Andri Snær Magnason also said after the recent revelation, but rather “consciously destroyed by corrupt politicians who didn’t respect society’s rules, disregarded professional processes, and couldn’t tolerate informed discussion.” The same can, of course, be said about the Kárahnjúkar ecological, social and economical disaster as a whole, the process of which was one huge textbook example of corruption and abuse of power.

Responding to same news, Svandís Svavarsdóttir, Iceland’s current Minister of the Environment, cited a recent report by the European Environment Agency, titled “Late Lessons from Early Warnings,” in which the results of a major research project into mega-project’s environmental impacts and public discussion are published. One of the damning results, the report states, is that in 84 out of 88 instances included in the research, early warnings of negative impacts on the environment and public health proved to be correct.

This was certainly the case in Iceland where environmentalists and scientists who warned of all those foreseeable impacts, both before and during the construction, found themselves silenced and dismissed by the authorities who systematically attempted to suppress any opposition and keep their plans unaltered.

One of the most notorious examples of this took place after the publication of Susan DeMuth’s highly informative article, “Power Driven,” printed in The Guardian in 2003, in which she highlighted all the up-front disastrous impacts of the project. The reaction in Iceland was mixed: While the article served as a great gift to Icelandic environmentalists’ struggle — tour guide Lára Hanna Einarsdóttir suggesting “that an Icelandic journalist would have lost their job if he or she had been so outspoken” — the reaction of the project’s prime movers was one of fury and hysteria. Mike Baltzell, president of Alcoa Primary Development and one of the company’s main negotiators in Iceland, wrote to The Guardian accusing DeMuth of “creating a number of misconceptions” regarding the company’s forthcoming smelter. Iceland’s Ambassador in the UK and Landsvirkjun’s Sophusson took a step further, contacting the British newspaper in a complaint about the article’s content and offering the editor to send another journalist to Iceland in order to get “the real story” — an offer to which the paper never even bothered to reply.

Another example is that of Grímur Björnsson, geophysicist working at Reykjavík Energy at that time, who was forbidden from revealing his findings, which were suppressed and kept from parliament because they showed the Kárahnjúkar dams to be unsafe. His 2002 report, highly critical of the dams, was stamped as confidential by his superior at the time. Valgerður Sverrisdóttir, then Minister of Industry, subsequently failed to reveal the details of the report to parliament before parliamentarians voted on the dams, as she was legally obliged to do. Adding insult to injury, Grímur was finally deprived of his freedom of expression when his superior at Reykjavík Energy — taking sides with Landsvirkjun — prohibited him to speak officially about the Kárahnjúkar dams without permission from the latter company’s director at that time, Friðrik Sophusson.

THE SHADOW OF POLLUTED MINDS

Similar methods applied to the East-fjords and other communities close to the dams and the smelter, where the project’s opponents were systematically ridiculed, terrorized and threatened. One of them is Þórhallur Þorsteinsson who, in a thorough interview with newspaper DV last spring, described how he and other environmentalists from the East were persecuted for their opposition to the dams. In an attempt to get him fired from his job, politicians from the region even called his supervisor at the State Electric Power Works, for which he worked at the time, complaining about his active and vocal opposition. Another environmentalist, elementary school teacher Karen Egilsdóttir, had to put up with parents calling her school’s headmaster, demanding that their kids would be exempt from attending her classes.

Farmer Guðmundur Beck — described by DeMuth as “the lone voice of resistance in Reyðarfjörður” — was also harassed because of his outspoken opposition towards the dams and the smelter. After spending his first 57 years on his family’s farm where he raised chicken and sheep, he was forced to close down the farm after he was banned from grazing his sheep and 18 electricity pylons were built across his land. Moreover, he was literally ostracised from Reyðarfjörður where Alcoa’s presence had altered society in a way thus described by Guðundur at Saving Iceland’s 2007 international conference:

In the East-fjords, we used to have self-sustaining communities that have now been destroyed and converted into places attracting gold diggers. Around the smelter, there will now be a community where nobody can live, work or feed themselves without bowing down for “Alcoa Director” Mr. Tómas.* — We live in the shadow of polluted minds.

(*Mr. Tómas” is Tómas Már Sigurðsson, Managing Director of Alcoa Fjarðaál at that time but currently president of Alcoa’s European Region and Global Primary Products Europe. Read Guðmundur’s whole speech in the second issue of Saving Iceland’s Voices of the Wilderness magazine.)

A LESSON TO LEARN?

All of this leads us to the fact that Icelandic energy companies are now planning to go ahead and construct a number of large-scale power plants — most of them located in highly sensitive geothermal areas — despite a seemingly non-stop tsunami of revelations regarding the negative environmental and public health impacts of already operating geothermal plants of such size. This would, as thoroughly outlined by Saving Iceland, lead to the literal ecocide of highly unique geothermal fields in the Reykjanes peninsula as well as in North Iceland.

Two of the latter areas are Þeistareykir and Bjarnarflag, not far from river Laxá and lake Mývatn, where Landsvirkjun wants to build power plants to provide energy to heavy industry projects in the north. Large-scale geothermal exploitation at Hellisheiði, south-west Iceland, has already proven to be disastrous for the environment, creating thousands of earthquakes and a number of polluted effluent water lagoons. The Hellisheiði plant has also spread enormous amounts of sulphide pollution over the nearby town of Hveragerði and the capital area of Reykjavík, leading to an increase in the purchasing of asthma medicine. Another geothermal plant, Nesjavallavirkjun, has had just as grave impacts, leading for instance to the partial biological death of lake Þingvallavatn, into which affluent water from the plant has been pumped.

Responding to criticism, Landsvirkjun has claimed that the Bjarnarflag plant’s effluent water will be pumped down below lake Mývatn’s ground water streams. However, the company has resisted answering critical questions regarding how they plan to avoid all the possible problems — similar to those at Hellisheiði and Nesjavellir — which might occur because of the pumping and thus impact the ecosystem of Mývatn and its neighbouring environment. In view of this, some have suggested that Iceland’s next man made ecological disaster will be manifested in a headline similar to last month’s one — this time stating that “Mývatn is dead!”

Concluding the current Lagarfljót scandal — only one manifestation of the foreseen and systematically warned of Kárahnjúkar scandal — the remaining question must be: Will Icelanders learn a lesson from this textbook example of political corruption and abuse of power?

Recent polls regarding the coming parliament elections on April 27, suggests that the answer is negative as the heavy-industry-friendly Framsóknarflokkur (The Progressive Party), for which both Siv Friðleifsdóttir and Valgerður Sverrisdóttir sat in parliament, seems to be about to get into power again after being all but voted out of parliament in the 2007 elections. Following the Progressives, the right-wing conservative Sjálfstæðisflokkur (The Independence Party) is currently the second biggest party, meaning that a right-wing government, supportive of — and in fact highly interrelated to — the aluminium and energy industries, is likely to come into office in only a few days from now.

In such a case, Iceland will be landed with the very same government that was responsible for the Kárahnjúkar disaster as well as so many other political maleficences, including the financial hazardousness that lead to the 2008 economic collapse and Iceland’s support of the invasion in Iraq — only with new heads standing out of the same old suits. Sadly but truly, this would fit perfectly with the words of Dario Fo’s Maniac when he states on behalf of the establishment:

Let the scandal come, because on the basis of that scandal a more durable power of the state will be founded!

The Energy Master Plan is a framework programme, meant to result in a long term agreement upon the exploitation and protection of Iceland’s glacial rivers and geothermal areas. Its making, which since 1999 has been in the hands of special steering committiees, established by the two above-mentioned ministries, reached a critical status in July this year when its second phase was finished and presented to the ministers who in mid August presented their proposition for a parliamentary resolution. Before it will be discussed in parliament the proposition will be open to comments and criticism from the public, as well as interested parties, energy and aluminium companies on the one hand, environmentalists on the other.

Twenty-Seven Energy Options Put on Hold

The proposition lists natural areas into three categories; protection, exploitation and hold. The last-mentioned includes areas that, according to the steering groups and ministers, have not undergone enough research for a decision to be made upon weather to protect or exploit them. Included in this category are, among other, the glacial rivers in fjord Skagafjörður as well as other rivers such as Skjálfandafljót, Hvítá, Hólmsá and Farið by lake Hagavatn in the south-west highlands. Also geothermal areas such as Trölladyngja and Austurengjar in Krýsuvík and certain areas around mount Hengill where the heavily indebted Reykjavík Energy (OR) already operates Hellisheiðarvirkjun, a sulphur polluting geothermal power plant. The 27 areas of the waiting category will be revised in five years, given that satisfactory studies have been made at that time.

Þjórsárver Wetlands to be Saved

Delightfully, the protection category features the uppermost part of river Þjórsá where Landsvirkjun wants to construct Norðlingaölduveita, a dam that would destroy the Ramsar listed Þjórsárver wetlands. River Jökulsá á Fjöllum, which has been seen as an energy potential for a new Alcoa aluminium smelter in Bakki, is also listed protected. The same applies for certain parts of river Tungná, in which Landsvirkjun is already building the Búðarháls dam that will provide energy for increased production in Rio Tinto Alcan’s aluminium smelter in Straumsvík.

The protection category also features geothermal areas such as the ones around Brennisteinsfjöll mountains on the Reykjanes peninsula, as well as Gjástykki, close to volcano Krafla and lake Mývatn. The same goes for the Grændalur valley and Bitra, which are located close to the small town of Hveragerði and have been particularily desirable in the eyes of energy companies. Bitra was saved by a local campaign in 2008 whereas Grændalur was recently threatened when Iceland’s National Energy Authority allowed a company called RARIK to operate test drilling in the valley, in complete contravention of previous rulings by the Ministries of Industry and of Environment.

Krýsuvík, Þeistareykir and Þjórsá to be Destroyed

The exploitation list features geothermal areas Þeystareykir, Bjarnarflag and Krafla in the north of Iceland, as well as Hágöngur in the mid-highlands west to glacier Vatnajökull. Also certain parts of the area around mount Hengill and finally geothermal spots in Reykjanes, Krýsuvík and Svartsengi, all three on the Reykjanes peninsula. Rivers Hvalá, Blanda and Köldukvísl are then all categorised as exploitable. And most critically the Energy Master Plan proposition allows for Landsvirkjun’s construction of three dams in the lower part of river Þjórsá.

Environmentalists Threefold Response

The most common response from environmentalist so far has been threefold. Firstly there generally satisfied by the protection of areas such as the Gjástykki, Jökulsá á Fjöllum and Grændalur, let alone the Þjórsárver wetlands. Shortly after the publication’s release, Iceland Nature Conservation Association (INCA) stated that, if approved by parliament, the Master Plan will mark the end of environmentalists’ forty years long struggle to save Þjórsárver from destruction. Though listed by the international Ramsar Convention on Wetlands due to its unique ecosystem, the wetlands have been on Landsvirkjun’s drawing table as a potential for construct a large reservoir, meant to produce energy for a planned expansion of Rio Tinto Alcan’s aluminium smelter in Hafnarfjörður, which was later thrown off in a local referendum. The plan has always been met with fierce opposition, no matter of Landsvirkjun’s repeated attempts to get it through by proposing a smaller dam and reservoir.

Secondly environmentalists are critical of the fact how many invaluable areas, such river Skjálfandafljót, are kept on hold instead of simply been categorised protected. Thirdly there is a clear opposition to the planned exploitation of certain wonders of nature, one example being the geothermal areas on the Reykjanes peninsula. Ellert Grétarsson, a photographer who has documented these areas extensively (his photos are here aside), fears that the drilling in Krýsuvík – covering between five and eight thousand square meters of land – will simply kill the area. And as a matter, says Ellert, the whole Reykjanes peninsula will be riddled with energy construction. Hjörleifur Guttormsson, former Left Green MP and a genuine environmentalists, shares Ellert’s worries and has asked for an integral study of Reykjanes before any decisions are made.

Þjórsá, the Bone of Contention

As as mentioned before the biggest concern regards Þjórsá, which has for a long time been the bone of contention between the two clashing arrays fighting for or against nature conservation. The struggle over Þjórsá has been especially tough, actually to such an extent that the government can be reputed to stand or fall with that conflict in particular. Guðfríður Lilja Grétarsdóttir, MP for the Left Greens, demonstrated, during parliamentary debate last April, her full opposition to the construction of dams in Þjórsá. At that point, three Left Green MPs, who up until then had been increasingly critical of the government and its lack of left-leaning policies, had just recently departed from the party, leaving the government with only one person’s majority in parliament. And as most members of the social-democratic People’s Alliance (Samfylkingin), which makes up the government along with the Left Greens, have not shown a sign of objection to the damming of Þjórsá, it wouldn’t be surprising if the river will be up for a heavy debate in parliament.

In fact it is more than sure that Þjórsá will be among the main matters of argument in parliament. The right wing Independence Party, which was in in power from and is largely responsible for the neo-liberalisation and heavy-industrialisation of Iceland, has always been one of the driving motors behind Landsvirkjun’s plans to dam Þjórsá. When the Master Plan’s proposition was presented in August, Ragnheiður Elín Árnadóttir, a MP of the party, called for the immediate starting of construction in Þjórsá. She also said she grieved the long period of which the project has been stuck within bureaucracy, referring to the attempts of Svandís Svavarsdóttir, current Minister of Environment, to halt the construction of one of the three proposed dams by refusing to include the dam, Urriðafossvirkjun, in a land-use plans for the parishes of Flóahreppur and Skeiða- and Gnúpverjahreppur (rural districts along Þjórsá) made by them at the request of Landsvirkjun.

Three Dams: Threat to Society and Ecology

The conflict in parliament mirrors the actual conflict in the Þjórsá region where locals have for a long time fought over the river’s fate. There Landsvirkjun hasn’t only used bribes in its attempt to get its plans through local administration, but also threatened farmers whose lands are at stake will the dams be built, by stating that if the farmers do not negotiate with the Landsvirkjun, the company will attempt for a land expropriation. This conduct has created a complete split within the local community, clearly demonstrated in last March when young locals from the region published a statement, in which they demanded a permanent halt to all plans of damming Þjórsá – thereby an end to the social conflict associated.

As a matter of fact two members of the Master Plan’s steering committee recently stated, when interviewed on state radio station RÚV, that due to the serious lack of studies regarding the social impacts of the planned Þjórsá dams, those plans should without any doubt have been put on hold. This is exactly what Guðmundur Hörður Guðmundsson, chairman of environmentalist organization Landvernd, said in last July following the publication of the Energy Master Plan’s second phase report.

Þjórsá’s position in the Master Plan proposition, yet shouldn’t be of any surprise. In the second phase report the three planned dams are not considered to be a great threat to the ecology of Þjórsá and its surroundings – contrary to the opinion of environmentalists who have voiced their worries concerning the dams’ impacts, for instance on the river’s salmon stock. Orri Vigfússon, chairman of the North Atlantic Salmon Fund (NASF), recently stated that “never before in the history of Iceland has there occurred such an attack on a sensitive area of wild salmon.” As is considered that the salmon’s spawning and breeding grounds are mosty located above waterfall Urriðafoss, where one of the three dams is planned to be built, Orri believes that the stock of salmon and salmon trout are likely to vanish.

Energy Companies Unsatisfied as Expected

As one could have imagined, Icelandic energy companies and other adherents of large-scale power production for heavy industry, are everything else than happy about the Master Plan’s proposition. Following its release Eiríkur Hjálmarsson, Public Relation manager of Reykjavík Energy, opposed the protection of Bitra on the ground that the company has already harmed the area with three examination boreholes, roads and electricity lines – but most importantly, spent 785 million ISK on the project. As reported earlier this year by Anna Andersen, journalist at the Reykjavík Grapevine, the foolhardy business operations of Reykavík Energy during the last decade or so – including large-scale geothermal projects associated with heavy industry – have brought the publicly owned company a debt of 233 billion ISK (2 billion USD or 1.4 billion Euros). Despite this financial collapse the company still advocates for the continuation of the agenda that brought it down.

Other energy companies have responded similarly, mostly complaining about the amount of areas listed as protected or on hold. Landsvikjun’s director Hörður Árnason has said that compared to the second phase report, the parliament proposition suggest that way too many energy options are put on hold. Another company, Suðurorka, owned by Alterra Power (former Magma Energy) and Íslensk Orkuvirkjun, had planned to construct a dam, called Búlandsvirkjun, in river Skaftá – a plan that the proposition puts on hold. The company argues that few energy options have been studied as thoroughly and while the studies might have been done – and might be thorough – not everybody agrees with the company on the impacts. Farmers in the area have opposed the project as some of their most important grasslands will be drowned under the dam’s reservoir.

Energy company RARIK will, due to the Master Plan, loose its grip on geothermal areas in Grændalur valley, as well as rivers in Skagafjörður and Hólmsá river – projects that the company claims to have invested in with 300 million ISK. Using the same monetary argument, HS Orka, also owned by Alterra Power, has been vocal about its 700 million ISK investment into their proposed, but now delayed if not entirely halted, geothermal plants in Trölladyngja. Finally representatives from Reykjahlíð, a small town that holds the good part of Gjástykki’s property rights, have stated that if the area will be protected, billions of ISK will be demanded as compensation.

The Predominant Strategy

Those arguments do in fact manifest the predominant strategy of those involved in the heavy industrialization of Iceland. Instead of waiting for all necessary contracts to been signed, all needed permissions to be granted, and all required energy to be ensured, the energy and aluminium companies have simply started major construction immediately when only one or a few permissions have been granted. And when criticised, not to mention when forced to stop, they have stated that because these projects have been announced and vast amounts of money put into them, they should be allowed to continue. If needed, they have also pointed out that because the natural areas at stake have already been harmed (by themselves), there is “no point” in preserving them.

One example would be Helguvík, where a framework for a proposed Century Aluminum smelter has already been built but hardly any construction has taken place there for two year. With every day that passes it becomes clear that not only has the company failed to ensure the energy needed to operate the smelter, but also that the energy simply doesn’t exist.

Geologist Sigmundur Einarsson has, for the last years, pointed this out and stated that the amount of energy needed for the Helguvík smelter cannot be found and harnessed on Reykjanes, like stated by the parties involved. For instance he believes that no more than 120 MWe can be harnessed in Krýsuvík, contrary to the official numbers of 480 MWe, and has repeatedly demanded answers from the authorities about where from the rest of the energy is supposed to come. Just as Saving Iceland’s questions about the whereabouts of energy for Alcoa’s planned smelter in Bakki, Sigmundur’s questions have never been answered, but he claims the Energy Master Plan proofs his theory.

Yet Another Three Kárahnjúkar Dams!

Environmentalists have reacted to the energy companies’ complaints and asked how on earth the companies can still pretended to be unsatisfied. As pointed out by Landvernd, these company’s are about be granted permission to harness energy equivalent of three Kárahnjúkar dams. From 2004 to 2009, Iceland’s energy production duplicated, largely with the construction of Kárahnjúkar dam, and is currently 16,900 gigawatt-hours. If the Energy Master Plan will be accepted as proposed, the energy companies will be able to duplicate the production again in few years, says Guðmundur Hörður, chairman of Landvernd, and continues:

The increase of public electricity usage is about 50 gigawatt-hours per year. The expansion entailed in the proposition would thus sustain that particular public increase for the next 265 years! If this will be the conclusion, the energy companies can be very satisfied. Still they send their agents onto the media, in order to cry and complain. That doesn’t give a good hint for a settlement.

Other environmentalists, Ómar Ragnarsson for instance, have mentioned that the whole discourse surrounding the Energy Master Plan portrays a false image. While the plan regards Iceland’s each and every hydro and geothermal area, potential for exploitation, the areas that have already been harnessed are kept outside of the discourse. Ómar says that it is simply false to state that “only twenty-two areas” have been categorised exploitable, as twenty-eight large power plants have already been built in Iceland. That means that out of the ninety-seven considered in the Master Plan, fifty have already been or will be utilised. In addition to the twenty-seven areas put on hold, another thirty-two have yet not been categorised by the steering committees, which makes the current proportion of protected areas even lower.

Ómar has also pointed out mismatches within the proposition. One example regards geothermal area Gjástykki that is listed as protected, as it is “a part of Krafla’s volcanic system, which has a protection value on a worldwide scale,” like stated in the proposition. But according to Ómar this will depend entirely on definitions. As an energy option, Vítismór, which is a part of Krafla’s volcanic system and is an inseparable part of the Gjástykki-Leirhnjúkur area, is currently listed as an addition to the Krafla power plant and would thus, regardless of its position within the Master Plan, be available for exploitation.

Limnology (or freshwater science) professor Gísli Már Gíslason upholds Ómar’s argument and has stated that half of Iceland’s “profitable hydro power” has already been utilised. One of those rivers is Jökulsá á Dal, harmed by the infamous Kárahnjúkar dam, which in order to be built required disallowing the protection of Kringilsárrani, an extremely important grassland for reindeer. This is not a unique incident as, for instance, the three dams in river Láxá are also manifestations of hydro power plants built in protected areas.

The Coming Struggle

Notably by the above-listed contradictions, which though demonstrate only a small part of the debate about the Energy Master Plan so far, the coming struggle about the fate of Iceland’s nature is going to be harsh and heavy. Armed with the rhetoric of economic crisis, unemployment etc., those in favour of heavy industry – in other words a big part of parliament, the energy companies, the Associations of Industry and Employers, the country’s biggest trade unions, and most recently Samál, a joint association of aluminium producers in Iceland – use literally every opportunity to push for the further development of industry, especially aluminium. In order for that development to occur, the country’s glacial rivers and geothermal areas have to be exploited on a mass scale.

Environmentalists, on the other hand, need to sharpen their knives and both ask and answer a great amount of questions. What, if any, are the actual benefits of heavy industry and its parallel large-scale energy production? And what are its impacts on Iceland’s society and ecosystems? No less importantly, what are its global impacts such as on the atmosphere or bauxite communities in India, Guinea, Hungary and Jamaica? How has it affected the economy and what are its contributions to the current economic situation? What are the impacts of the building of big dams and geothermal power-plants, fuelled by extremely high loans, bringing a temporary pump into the economy that inevitably leads to the demand for another shot? And what is the value of nature per se?

Only by answering all of these and many more questions, one can honestly try to answer the one fundamental question regarding the Energy Master Plan: What actual need is there for yet another three Kárahnjúkar dams, or in fact just a single more power plant?

In a recent article, originally published on news-website Pressan, Sigurbjörn says that before the municipal elections in spring 2009, the community in Hvalfjörður settled upon an agreement about environmental and industrial affairs. But under the administration of Hjálmar Sveinsson (on photo), who is a vice-councilman of Reykjavík for Samfylkingin, a joint venture of several port authorities in the Faxaflói area, titled the Associated Icelandic Ports, is enabling the way for the construction of yet another two factories at the Grundatangi industrial site in Hvalfjörður, where the two aforementioned factories are located. Sigurbjörn describes the whole process as a very dubious one:

Faxaflóahafnir [the Associated Icelandic Ports] requested that the industrial site at Grundartangi would be enlarged by 70,000 square-meters in order to place polluting industries there. The municipality, lead by the chairman of the parish council who is also a board member of Faxaflóahafnir, managed to put the change, which is now waiting a verdict from the Ministry of Interior, through by shady manners. Around 50 persons and parties made remarks on Faxaflóahafnir’s requested changes, but none of them were taken into consideration. But that wasn’t all: A detailed land-use plan was advertised beside the change of the general plan even before the deadline to make remarks on that particular change passed.

As the authorities have kept silent it is still not certain what companies are involved in those plans. In July this year newspaper Fréttatíminn reported that a Finnish company called Kemira – involved e.g. in paper and fertiliser production as well as biotechnology – which plans to operate a sodium chlorate plant in Iceland for bleach production, is looking at two potential locations: Bakki by Húsavík on the one hand, also a planned location for an Alcoa aluminium smelter; Grundartangi on the other. Such a construction does not require an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) by default but needs to be notified to Iceland’s National Planning Agency, which then decides if an EIA is needed or not. The energy needed to run the plant, which is said to be 40 MW, would, according to Fréttatíminn, come from geothermal area Þeistareykir, given that the plant would eventually be built in Bakki. No particular energy source has been mentioned in the case of Grundartangi.

Sigurbjörn and other residents of Hvalfjörður, who have filed repeated complaints against the plans to enlarge Grundartangi’s industrial site, have mostly been met with silence. While this should not necessary be surprising in a state that has still not ratified the Aarhus Convention, the Hvalfjörður residents were astonished to find out that the above-mentioned Hjálmar Sveinsson – who, in his article, Sigurbjörn says “can be remembered as a creative radio personality who one could contentedly listen to, especially due to his own stance on environmental and planning issues” – is one of the project’s key figure. Sigurbjörn states that after weeks, months and years of Hjálmar’s radio talks on environmentalism and democracy, one would have considered it as likely that Sea Shepherd’s Paul Watson would become a whale-hunter in Hvalfjörður as that Hjálmar Sveinsson would advocate for polluting industries and abuse of power. Paul Watson visited Iceland in 1986, along with Rod Coronado, where the two of them famously sank two of the country’s whaling ships and sabotaged a whale-processing factory in Hvalfjörður.

Neither Hjálmar nor any other authority figure responsible for these plans have openly responded to this criticism.
____________________________________________

See also:

Believes Aluminium Plant Is Poisoning Sheep

More Flouride in Animals Around Aluminium Factories than Elsewhere – Environmental Agency Refuses to Investigate

Elkem’s Icelandic Alloys Year Round “Human Errors”

Like explained on the project’s official website the process was “split into two phases. The first phase, 1999–2003, evaluated and ranked 20 large-scale hydro-power options, mostly located in the highlands, and the same number of geothermal options in 8 high-temperature areas.” The second phase was supposed to “rank all the options to produce the final result,” including “an evaluation of whether some areas should be conserved completely, without any energy-harnessing activities.” Proposed power projects were said to be “evaluated and categorised on the basis of efficiency, economic profitability, and how they will benefit the economy as a whole,” while the “the impact on the environment, nature, and wildlife” was also supposed to be evaluated, “as well as the impact on the landscape, cultural heritage and ancient monuments, grazing and other traditional land use, outdoor activities fishing, and hunting.”

TORFAJÖKULL AND KERLINGAFJÖLL PROTECTED – HELLISHEIÐI, REYKJANES AND KRAFLA AMONG “EXPLOIT-FRIENDLY” AREAS

The second phase’s report, as said before, was published in the beginning of July 2011, two years later than expected when the process started. On top of the protection list are two geothermal areas, around Torfajökull glacier and Kerlingafjöll mountains, which both have been viewed as preferable exploitation areas by the energy industry and its representatives in committees concerning the Master Plan. Other areas scoring high on the protection list are geothermal area Vonarskarð and rivers Skaftá and Hólmsá, south-west of Vatnajökull glacier, the latest-mentioned being a part of Landsvirkjun’s recently announced plan to build 14 new power-plants in the next 15 years. These areas are, according to the report’s authors, the highest ranking natural treasures that were taken into account in the making of the report.

On the other hand the geothermal areas on Hellisheiði by mountain Hengill, the Reykjanes peninsula and volcano Krafla, as well as river Tungnaá, are listed on the top of exploitation areas. Geothermal energy production has been going on Hellisheiði since 2006 (where Saving Iceland’s 2008 action camp was located ), resulting in highly increased sulphur pollution in the Reykavík capital area. There is a vast local opposition against the plant and the planned enlargement of it, its most recent manifestation being when residents of Hveragerði, living close by one of Reykjavík Energy’s boreholes, called the police to complain about constant noise coming from the borehole. Further construction is currently taking place in Hellisheiði as well as in Tungaá river where Landsvirkjun is building its Búðarháls dam that will produce energy for increased aluminium production in Rio Tinto Alcan’s smelter in Straumsvík, Hafnarfjörður. Already existing plans to increase geothermal energy production on the Reykjanes peninsula, for a planned Norðurál/Century Aluminum smelter in Helguvík, have resulted in worries of overexploitation – not only by environmentalists but also, and most recently, by Iceland’s National Energy Authority.

ÞJÓRSÁ RIVER NOT CONSIDERED NATURALLY VALUABLE

What mostly grabs one’s attention is the fact that Þjórsá river is llisted quite high on the report’s exploitation list, meaning that according to the authors, Landsvirkjun’s three planned dams in the river would not have any serious impacts on the environment surrounding the river. Thus the planned dams by Holt and Hvammur are number 15 and 16 on the list, while the damming of Urriðafoss waterfall – the most critical of all three – is located number 28, which is still above the list’s middle. This conclution completely contradicts environmentalists nation-wide and many local residents around the river, opposing all three dams. In an article e.g. published on Saving Iceland’s website, natural scientist and author Guðmundur Páll Ólafsson, criticised the rhetoric of those in favour of the dams:

When a glacial river is harnessed to generate electricity, this important function, and the binding of the greenhouse gas CO2, is diminished. What they generate is not green energy as the advocates of hydro-power plants and heavy industry maintain, but black energy. Dams and reservoirs hinder the function of glacial sediment in the oceans, and hence hydro-electric power plants that harness glacial rivers are far more harmful than has hitherto been believed.

The planned Þjórsá dams have also been highly criticised from a social perspective, most recently by a group of young locals who challenged Iceland’s government “to state officially that no dams will be built in the lower Þjórsá river, against the peoples wishes.” This happened shortly after a Supreme Court ruling stating that the decision of Environmental Minister Svandís Svavarsdóttir, to reject the construction of a dam in Urriðafoss waterfall in Þjórsá river, was illegal. The ruling was only a one small factor in the long and complicated farce concerning the Þjórsá issue – a farce including Landsvirkjun’s attempts to bribe local residents and the company’s threats of using expropriation in order to gain access to lands owned by people opposed to the dams. Following the publication of the Master Plan’s second phase report, Guðmundur Hörður Guðmundsson, chairman of environmentalist organization Landvernd, expressed the organization’s disagreement with Þjórsá’s position on the exploitation list, stating that a much better and more detailed research has to be done on the planned dams’ social impacts.

Interviewed by newspaper Fréttablaðið, natural scientist Guðmundur Páll Ólafsson voiced a very negative view towards the report, saying that the whole process of it marks the energy company’s coming retrieval. “My criticism is mostly based on the premises that the exploitation options are always at the forefront, but not to protect the Icelandic nature and Icelandic natural treasures from the outburst of the present,” Guðmundur said and added that the latter is much more important than to exploit certain areas. He also criticised the Minstry of Industry and the National Energy Authority for allowing Landsvirkjun to walk all over the second phase’s protective section.

THE COMING RETRIEVAL

Only a few days prior to the report’s publication Landsvirkjun announced the company’s future policy formulation, parallel to the publication of another report that was made for Landsvirkjun by a consulting service named GAMMA. The reports states that according to the results of the Energy Master Plan’s first phase, Landsvirkjun can duplicate its energy production in the next 15 years, promising between 9.000 and 11.000 thousand related jobs. If things go like planned, at least 3.000 people would be employed by energy-intensive heavy industry companies in 2025, while the so-called – and often doubted – derivative jobs would be a little more than 4.000, meaning that c.a. 4% of the Icelandic nation would work directly or implicitly for heavy industry. To make a good story better the director of Landsvirkjun, Hörður Arnarson, compared Landsvirkjun with the Norwegian oil industry, saying that if the company is allowed to follow its published strategy, only its dividend payment and tax payment could become 14% of the state treasury. Hence Landsvirkjun would be able to live up to the cost of Iceland’s police, courts, culture, sports, colleges and universities.

Aforementioned Guðmundur Hörður Guðmundsson, chairman of Landvernd, called Landsvirkjun’s strategy “the mapping of the next economical bubble,” pointing out that the financial amounts mentioned in the report are much higher than the amounts of the Kárahnjúkar dam project, which contributed fiercely to Iceland’s economic collapse in 2008. “How will the situation be here when all this construction will be finished?” he asked when interviewed by a left-leaning news-website Smugan, adding that Landsvirkjun is not the only energy company planning large-scale constructions. The editor of that same website, Þóra Kristín Ásgeirsdóttir, called the report “Landsvirkjun’s political manifesto” and asked when a time would come where expensive professionals would be hired to write a report about the immeasurable value of unspoiled nature instead of yet another report on the greatness of large-scale exploitation. In an open letter to Katrín Júlíusdóttir, Minister of Industry, Guðmundur Páll Ólafsson said that “in fact nothing has changed in the Minstry of Industry since the collapse […] except that the scurrility is more than before.”

ENVIRONMENTAL MINISTER PROMISES EMPTY-LOOKING CHANGES

As reported by Saving Iceland before, environmentalists are highly critical of the making of the Master Plan, especially in relation to a committee, nominated to sort the areas in question into three different categories: protection, hold and utilization. The committee did not include a single representative from environmentalist organizations whereas representatives from the energy and tourism industries, as well as the Ministries of Environment and Industry, had seats IN it. Minister of Environment and a Left Green MP, Svandís Svavarsdóttir, has now backed up the criticism, stating that there is, and has always been, an enormous advantage difference between environmentalists on the one hand and those in favour of extreme exploitation on the other. Interviewed by State TV station RÚV, Svandís said that within both the Ministries of Environment and Industry there is a will to strengthen environmentalists’ position, though no plans have been made how to actually execute that will.

Once again promises given about changes concerning the protection of Iceland’s nature seem to lack all real meaning.

Last spring ALCOA released the first draft of the joint environmental impact assessment for the proposed Bakki smelter and power plants at Krafla and Theistareykir. Recently Iceland’s National Planning Agency commented on the draft assessment in a damning commentary.

The agency stated that the environmental impacts of the project are high and cannot be mitigated. 17,000 ha of untouched wilderness will be affected. Greenhouse gas emissions of the project would constitute 14% of Iceland’s total. There is a great deal of uncertainty on the full impact of the planned power plants and particularly on how much geothermal energy can be sustainably produced. Finally, the assessed energy projects will not be able to fully power the smelter, with 140 MW of capacity missing.

This confirms three key points of critique on the smelter that we have been voicing for several years now.

Firstly, the environmental impact of the geothermal plants and drilling in the north is much greater than Alcoa has claimed.

Secondly, we have said that carbon emissions from the projects would be so high that Iceland would find it extremely difficult to meet its international obligations. If Iceland wishes to become an EU member, then this impact assessment will surely be the kiss of death for the Bakki project.

Thirdly, when the joint impact assessment was announced we insisted that possible dams in Skjalfandafljót, Jökulsá Eystri, Jökulsá Vestri and Jökulsá á Fjöllum (a 72 km2 reservoir is on the drawing boards!) should be assessed for environmental impact, because one or more of them would be needed for a 346.000-ton smelter.

Now our calculations, that the northern geothermal fields will not produce enough energy for the smelter, have been proven correct. The original proposal for the smelter was for 250.000 tons, but ALCOA have stated in international media that they intend to extend the Bakki smelter to 500.000. Whether or not this will happen, new dams need to be built if the smelter is pushed through. This will lead to a large amount of borrowing and capital inflow that will again destabilise the Icelandic economy, which is too small to deal with projects this size.

Saving Iceland’s energy calculations were published in Morgunblaðið (22 August 2008), and greenhouse gas calculations were published in an international book publication on green energy and on savingiceland.org. Other environmentalists in Iceland have also raised these issues.

However, Alcoa and the consecutive Icelandic governments have thus far ignored them.

They refuse to comment on where the required energy is going to come from.

They refuse to think about how the economy will respond to more huge projects.

They refuse to comment on how Iceland can keep its green and unspoiled reputation if so much of its landscape and rivers will be ruined and if greenhouse gas emissions sky-rocket.

They now even refuse to respond to the national planning agency, except that they have said they will simply ignore the environmental impact.

We hoped that this kind of arrogance had been gotten rid of by the fall of the government in 2009 but apparently it is still there.

Clarity and transparency is for a start needed now on this simple question: if there is going to be a 346.000-ton or more smelter at Bakki, where will the new dams be built?

References:

Development of Iceland’s Geothermal Energy Potential for Aluminium Production – A Critical Analysis

Sparking a World-wide Energy Revolution: Social Struggles in the Transition to a Post-Petrol World. Editor: K. Abrahamsky. AK Press, 2010.

Jaap Krater is an ecological economist and a spokesperson of Saving Iceland

This article was first published in Morgunblaðið March 5 2011.

A delegation committee from Alcoa, including John Thurstadt, the head of the company’s aluminium production worldwide, and Marcos Ramos, president of Alcoa in Europe, were in Iceland over the weekend to meet with the government and Landsvirkjun, Iceland’s national energy company. During the meetings, the committee stated that Alcoa is not withdrawing from the project and wants to go ahead with the project.

Less then three weeks ago, on January 20th, business newspaper Viðskiptablaðið, stated that Alcoa would soon announce the company’s withdrawal. The reason, according to the paper, was the obstacles that the current government has put in the way of the project, reaching its climax in September 2009 when Katrín Júlíusdóttir, Minister of Industry, refused to renew a memorandum of understanding between Alcoa, the council of Húsavík and the government at that time. The memorandum was originally signed in March 2006 and had repeatedly been renewed as the speed of the project slowed down. By refusing to renew it, Júlíusdóttir did however not rule out the smelter but most significantly disagreed with Alcoa about its planned size.

After this weekend’s meetings, Tómas Már Sigurðsson, CEO of Alcoa in Iceland, said in the media that the company’s has not changed at all and that the government had sent good messages about the future of the project. Asked about the frequently asked questions about the energy that the smelter is supposed to be run on, Sigurðasson said that he believed there is enough energy for the project: “A permit exists for more then 500 MW of power plants on the north-east corner [of Iceland].”

In the summer of 2008, Þórunn Sveinbjarnardóttir, Minister of Environment at that time, ruled that a joint Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) had to be made, including the planned smelter, geothermal power plants and energy transportation. Whereas the decision was met with anger by the smelters proponents – some of them calling it a trick to actually stop the smelter from being built – others critisized the minister for not including in the EIA, possible hydro dams in several rivers in north Iceland that would be needed to produce enough energy to run a smelter of this size: at least 346 thousand tons per year (tpy) but maybe even 500 tpy according to the words of Alcoa’s Vice-President Bernt Reitan.

In an article published in the newspaper Morgunblaðið in August 2008, Jaap Krater, an ecological economist and a spokesperson of Saving Iceland, stated:

“A 250,000 ton smelter would require 400 MW of electricity. The energy would be coming from the geothermal fields in North Iceland. If the optimistic estimate of 370 MW for Krafla 2 (drilling into the Viti volcano), Þeistareykir and Bjarnarflag would be realised, which is uncertain, there would still be a deficiency, so 30 MW would be taken from the yet unspoiled and unexplored Gjástykki area, at a huge environmental cost . For a medium sized smelter the deficiency would rise to at least 150 MW and for a large smelter it would be at least 400 MW.”

“Thus, if the Bakki project is pushed through, it is almost inevitable that this will lead to construction of more large dams.”

The joint EIA was published in 2010 and in November that same year the National Planning Agency published its comment on the report. The agency’s conclusion was damning and proved three key points of Saving Iceland’s critique: Firstly, the environmental impacts of the drilling in the north will be far more then claimed by Alcoa. Secondly, not enough geothermal energy can be harnessed in the north to run the smelter. Thirdly, the project will highly increase Iceland’s emissions of greenhouse-gases and constitute 14% of the country’s total emission (which is already high above international agreements).

The questions about how Alcoa and Landsvirkjun are going to get enough energy for the smelter and if new dams have to be built, where they will be located, have still not been answered. Both parties are allowed to boldly talk about the project without being faced with these fundamental questions, which were highlighted in a press release from Saving Iceland on November 25th 2010 but ignored by the media, apart from the Reykjavik Grapevine, who’s report can be read here.

Gjástykki is a rift valley north of the caldera Krafla and the potential harnessing of energy there is controversial. Environmentalist Ómar Ragnarsson is making a documentary about the area. To paper over their highly destructive drills in other geothermal areas in north Iceland the Landsvirkjun PR department helped finance the documentary.

According to Fréttabladid, the Energy Authority’s permit does not authorize Landsvirkjun to harness geothermal energy in the area, only to investigate its feasibility.

The research permit caused controversy as it was issued in spite of opposition from the Environment Agency of Iceland and the Icelandic Institute of Natural History. The government is also planning to preserve the area.

However, the Energy Authority’s decision is supported by municipalities and landowners in the region.

Minister of Industry Katrín Júlíusdóttir said the permit won’t change the government’s plans. “It is absolutely clear that this government has been in agreement in launching a preservation process for Gjástykki. That process has started and we stand by it.”

Ragna Sara Jónsdóttir, head of Landsvirkjun’s communications division, said drilling won’t begin before the government’s policy is clear. “Landsvirkjun will not commence experimental drilling until a conclusion has been reached regarding framework regulations and nature protection of the area,” she iterated.

Landsvirkjun has been looking into the feasibility of energy harnessing in four areas in the Thingeyjarsýsla counties in northeast Iceland, among other reasons to power an aluminum smelter at Bakki by Húsavík, Gjástykki being one of them. The other three are Theistareykir, Krafla and Bjarnarflag.

It states that:

– Environmental impacts of the project are high and cannot be mitigated.
– 17,000 ha of untouched wilderness will be affected
– Greenhouse gas emissions of the project would constitute 14% of Iceland’s total.
– There is a high amount of uncertainty regarding the full impact of the planned geothermal power plants and particularly their impact of the geothermal energy resource base.
– The assessed energy projects are not sufficient to power the smelter, with 140 MW of capacity missing.

“These reports confirms three key elements of critique that Saving Iceland voiced now several years ago,” says Jaap Krater, a spokesperson for Saving Iceland.

“The first is that the environmental impact of the drilling in the north would be much greater than Alcoa claimed.”

“Secondly, when the joint impact assessment was announced we insisted that possible dams in Skjalfandafljot, Jökulsá Eystri, Jökulsá Vestri (both in the Skagafjörður region) and Jökulsá á Fjöllum should be assessed for environmental impact. Now our calculations that the northern geothermal fields will not produce enough energy for the smelter are proving correct.”

“Thirdly, we have said that carbon emissions from the projects would be extremely high and would make it very difficult for Iceland to meet its international obligations. This is also confirmed,” explains Krater.

“If Iceland wishes to become an EU member, then this impact assessment will surely be the kiss of death for the Alcoa Bakki project.

Saving Iceland’s energy calculations were reported in Morgunblaðið in August 2008 (1), while the greenhouse gas issues were published in a recent international book publication (2).

References

(1) Bakki Impact Assessment Should Include Dams, by Jaap Krater, Morgunbladid, August 22nd 2008, in Icelandic here and English here.

(2) Development of Iceland’s geothermal energy potential for aluminium production – a critical analysis, by Jaap Krater and Miriam Rose, In: Abrahamsky, K. (ed.) (2010) Sparking a World-wide Energy Revolution: Social Struggles in the Transition to a Post-Petrol World. AK Press, Edinburgh. p. 319-333. Also published on Saving Iceland’s website here.

The memorandum of understanding between Þeistareykir, Landsvirkjun and Alcoa because of the aluminium smelter in Bakki, ran out on November 1st 2008 and was not renewed. One of the reasons was said to be the uncertainty on the Icelandic financial markets. Tómas Már Sigurðsson, Alcoa’s director in Iceland, says that decisions about electricity purchase depends on the market situation and hopes that it will get better in the next 12 months.
Þeistareykir and Landsvirkjun have now started discussions with two companies who want to buy the geothermal energy that was meant for Alcoa. The companies are Stokkur Energy, which has shown interest in building a silicone factory in Þingeyjasýsla, and the Norwegian aluminium producer Norsk Hydro. Originally Norsk Hydro wanted to build an aluminium smelter in Reyðarfjörður (east Iceland), to be run on hydro energy from the massive and heavily criticized Kárahnjúkar dam in the east highlands. The company backed out and Aloca came took over the project.

Þeistareykir and Landsvirkjun have already started constructing for the building of several geothermal power plants in the north east of Iceland, around lake Mývatn, in Þeistareykir, Gjástykki and Krafla. Last year Þórunn Sveinbjarnardóttir, the former minister of environment, announced that the power plants would have to go through a joint environmental impact assessment (EIA) along with Aloca’s planned aluminium smelter and the energy transportation. Sveinbjarnardóttir war heavily criticized by environmentalists for not including possible mega dams in the glacial rivers Skjálfandafljót and Jökulsá á Fjöllum, in the EIA, stating that the geothermal energy would not be enough to run a medium sized aluminium smelter.

Will a new “red-green” government put an end to heavy industry in Iceland?

At this moment Samfylkingin (social democrats) and Vinstri Grænir (VG, the left greens) are forming a new government here in Iceland, after the recent collapse of the Icelandic government. The collapsed government consisted of Samfylkingin and Sjálfstæðisflokkurinn (right wing conservatives), but the latter party is mostly responsible for the development of the aluminium industry here in Iceland.

VG has from the birth of the party in 1999, spoken against the aluminum industry and the construction of mega dams, the destruction of glacial rivers and geothermal fields. It will be interesting to see if the party keeps it’s environmental policy unchanged when finally in government, or if the collaboration with the populists in Samfylkingin demands that VG will have to make expensive compromises?

Last Wednesday, Jacynthe Côté, Rio Tinto Alcan’s director, told Össur Skarphéðinsson, the minister of industry, that the company’s planned 40 thousand ton enlargement in Straumsvík would not take place. The enlargement was planned to take place in 2009, inside the company’s already declaired zone. The smelter’s production capacity would have raised from 185 thousand tons to 225 thousand tons.

Rio Tinto Alcan’s decission could at the same time change Landsvirkjun’s plans for the construction of Búðarhálsvirkjun dam in Tungnaá river and therefor Verne Holding’s plans to build a internet data center in Keflavík. Rio Tinto Alcan and Verne Holding had both signed contracts with Landsvirkjun about buying energy from Búðarhálsvirkjun.

Another aluminium giant, Alcoa, has also decided to delay the construction of it’s planned aluminium smelter by Bakki for several years. Alcoa will though still continue the joint Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) for the smelter and the planned energy sources.

Landsvirkjun and Þeistareykir hf. have agreed to discuss with other possible energy buyers. Alcoa’s and Landsvirkjun’s memorandum of understanding ran out the 1st of November this year and Alcoa decided not to take further part in financing the test drilling that is taking place in geothermal areas in the north.

UPDATE: Össur Skarphéðinsson, minister of industry, has now said that this information is wrong, but refuses to say what went on between him and R.T. Alcan’s director, Jacynthe Côté last Wesnesday. Until he does so, we keep this article unchanged.

Þorsteinn Hilmarssson, Landsvirkjun’s spokesperson, states that Alcoa is minimizing its costs in various place around the world and did not think the company could bring money in to the test drilling. The Icelandic participants, Landsvirkjun and Þeistareykir, also face uncertainty about financement and what price it would be.

Alcoa Fjarðaál has not commented anything on the issue but after a meeting with Landsvirkjun earlier this week. Tómas Már Sigurðsson, Alcoa’s director, stated that the energy in the North would for sure be used and that despite the world economic crisis ,,people would just continue with their plans. Alcoa really wants to buy the energy” said Sigurðsson.

Even though heavy industry and dams are one of the driving forces behind the current economic crisis in Iceland, the government has been talking about further heavy industry projects as some kind of a solution.  The government has already applied for a big loan from The International Monetary Fund to pay the three major banks’ debts. If IMF accepts to grant the loan, privatisation of the energy sector and the destruction of Iceland’s natural resources is likely to be on of the fund’s main demands.

But like the big Kárahnjúkar and Fjarðaál project in the East, further large power plant and heavy industry construction with borrowed money will only be a short term boost for the economy, while at the same time worsening the crisis in the long run.

“I do not see any laws against experimental drilling -which people say are bound to be postponed- taking their usual course despite an overall environmental impact assessment,” says Skarphédinsson in Frettabladid.

“An overall assessment will take place as well, but part of that is researching the area and estimating the possibilities at hand,” Skarphédinsson said.”An overall assessment will take place as well, but part of that is researching the area and estimating the possibilities at hand,” Skarphédinsson said.

Skarphédinsson restated his opinion that it is logical for experimental drilling for geothermal energy to begin before the environmental impact assessment is completed in fall 2009 because such drilling will reveal how much geothermal energy is available in northeast Iceland.

In reality a large amount of damage is done by test drilling, where a vast number of boreholes are created, for which the ground needs to be levelled and roads constructed. After the test drilling is already done, building a power plant and laying pipes in the area will not be of that much further impact as the damage is already done. This makes the test drilling highly controversial. Also unexpected results occur, such as  the large sulphur-arsenic lagoon at Þeistareykir.

Smelter size
Originally the Bakki smelter was said to be planned for 250,000 metric tons per year. However, Alcoa has said before it deems smelters under 360,000 tons ‘unsustainable’ (2). Now the American corporation has said it would like at least a 346,000 tons smelter (3) near Husavík. Alcoa has been steering towards a smelter of this size from the start. Their initial study for the area aimed at a smelter of this size (4), although the environmental impact assessment and energy generating plans under discussion now would be for a smaller smelter. For a smelter above 250,000 tons, the whole energy grid of the north would need to be rebuilt (5). In the end, expansion to 500,000 tons would be possible. “The bigger the better,” says Bernt Reitan, Alcoa’s Vice-President (6).

Energy requirements
A 250,000 ton smelter would require 400 MW of electricity. The energy would be coming from the geothermal fields in North Iceland. If the optimistic estimate of 370 MW for Krafla 2 (drilling into the Viti volcano), Þeistareykir and Bjarnarflag (7,8) would be realised, which is uncertain, there would still be a deficiency, so 30 MW would be taken from the yet unspoiled and unexplored Gjástykki area, at a huge environmental cost (9). For a medium sized smelter the deficiency would rise to at least 150 MW and for a large smelter it would be at least 400 MW.

Possible dams
Thus, if the Bakki project is pushed through, it is almost inevitable that this will lead to construction of more large dams. A company named Hrafnabjargavirkjun Hf is already set up to prepare construction of a new 90 MW plant with three dams in Skjalfandafljot. Fljotshnjuksvirkjun (two dams) in the same river would produce another 58 MW. The corporation is owned for 60% by Orkuveita Reykjavikur. Other shareholders include Norðurorka and Orkuveita Húsavíkur (10). The proposed Skatastaðavirkjun power plant dams on Jökulsá Eystri, Jökulsá-Vestri, Fossá , Giljá, Lambá and Hölkná and on Lake Orravatn and Reyðarvatn (north of Hofsjokull), may produce 184 MW. Villinganesvirkjun, which would dam both Jökulsá-Vestri and Jökulsá-Eystri in the Skagafjörður region, could produce another 33 MW.
A 72 km2 reservoir in Jökulsá á Fjöllum in the Eastern Highlands (Arnardalsvirkjun) could produce 570 MW.
So it would seem that new dams would need to be built in either Skjalfandafljot, Jökulsá Eystri and Jökulsá-Vestri, or in Jökulsá á Fjöllum, just to build a medium sized smelter at Bakki. Further options are more dams at Laxá í Aðaldal or Eyabakka (11).

Risks from geothermal plants
An added factor why an aluminium smelter in the north would need to rely on hydro rather than geothermal is the risks associated with power plants in highly active geological areas. Geological assessment has indicated definitite risks of geothermal boreholes being destroyed by geologic activity. In 1975, at Bjarnarflag, one of the areas that is supposed to power the Bakki smelter, four out of six boreholes were destroyed due to volcanic activity (12). For aluminium smelting, a prolonged electricity cut-off can destroy part of a smelter, which depends on continuous electric supply. A base level of supply from a second source is desirable. On top of that, geothermal energy production is more expensive than hydro.

For Alcoa, it would be neither desirable nor feasible to construct an aluminium smelter near Husavík that would be solely dependent on geothermal areas. A number of dams would need to be constructed. The environmental impact would be high.
At the same time, the damage from drilling into the Viti volcano and at Gjástykki will be considerable and at Þeistareykir a large pollution lagoon has already been formed by test drilling (13), for which no impact assessment was thought necessary.
It is thus not surprising that the pro-aluminium lobby is resisting a joint impact assessment. It would be much more convenient to have smaller half-hearted assessments when the smelter is already half built.
If the environmental impact of the Bakki smelter is to be considered seriously, then the impact of a medium to large smelter and potential new dams need to be taken into account as well as the damage from drilling around Lake Myvatn.

Jaap Krater is a spokesperson of Saving Iceland.

• 1 Iceland Review (2008). North Iceland Smelter Project up for Joint Assessment. http://www.icelandreview.com/icelandrevi… [Accessed August 4th, 2008]
• 2 Wilson, A. (2006). Alcoa clears the air. Interview with Bernt Reitan and Wade Hughes. Trinidad Guardian, Dec 7th 2006. http://www.guardian.co.tt/archives/2006-… [Accessed August 4th, 2008]
• 3 Alcoa (2008). Alcoa presents revised draft EIA proposal for an aluminum smelter at Bakki by Husavik. http://www.alcoa.com/iceland/en/news/wha… [Accessed August 4th, 2008]
• 4 HRV/Honnun (2005). Primary aluminium plant located near Husavik. Site study. http://www.hrv.is/media/files/Husavik_si… [Accessed August 4th, 2008]
• 5 Ibidem 4.
• 6 Saving Iceland (2008). Húsavík contract signed behind closed doors. http://www.savingiceland.org/?p=2500 [Accessed August 4th, 2008]
• 7 Ministry of Industry, Iceland (2002). Master Plan for Hydro and
• Geothermal Energy Resources in Iceland. http://www.landvernd.is/natturuafl/index… [Accessed August 4th, 2008]
• 8 Pallson, B. (2007). Geothermal Power in Iceland. Nordnet.
• 9 Iceland Review (2008). Power Company Accused of Prioritizing South Iceland. http://www.icelandreview.com/icelandrevi… [Accessed August 5th, 2008]
• 10 Alþingi (2008). 135. löggjafarþingi 2007–2008. Þskj. 688 — 432. mál. http://www.althingi.is/altext/135/s/0688… [Accessed August 4th, 2008]
• 11 Ibidem 7.
• 12 Sæmundsson, K. (2006). Assessing Volcanic risk in north Iceland. ISOR – Icelandic Geosurvey. http://www.hrv.is/media/files/Volcanic%2… [Accessed August 4th, 2008]
• 13 Saving Iceland (2008). Energy companies destroying Þeistareykir. http://www.savingiceland.org/?p=1317 [Accessed August 5th, 2008]

They might have thought Karahnjukar was a shame, or even a necessary sacrifice, but that it would be limited to just that.

Two years after the flooding in the east, what is happening now? The Century smelter at Hvalfjordur has just been expanded, without anyone really noticing. A huge part of the Hengill area is being blown up right now with explosives to make the ground level enough for the geothermal boreholes and pipes constructed by low-paid Eastern Europeans working 72 hours a week, living in something that makes the newly opened Akureyri Prison look like Hotel Nordica.

Work has been started to build a smelter in Helguvik for which the same will happen to all the geothermal areas in Reykjanes. Never mind the environmental impact (which hasn’t even been assessed yet).

At Krafla, Alcoa and Landsvirkjun are drilling boreholes right into one of the top 10 tourist attractions of Iceland, the Viti volcano crater. At Theistareykir the deep drilling testing has accidentally created a new arsenic-sulphur lake. Oops.

Apparently most Reykjavik journalists are too bored with the issue to go and take a few pictures up north, no one has written anything about it.

In the mean time, everyone who can calculate that one plus one is two can figure out that there won’t be enough geothermal energy in the north to power a second Alcoa smelter. If the smelter plans aren’t stopped now it is inevitable that Skjalfandafljot and the Skagafjördur rivers or Jökulsá á Fjöllum will be dammed. But apparently most journalists have forgotten their basic maths and choose to ignore the obvious.

Last year, before the Saving Iceland protest camp began, we had a two-day conference where we browsed through every little detail of the aluminium industry. We had people over from Africa, Trinidad and Brazil telling their stories. The whole conference was completely ignored by Icelandic media.

They are mostly not interested in that kind of thing. It’s boring.

When we chain ourselves to something, they always phone up asking for injuries, arrests, whether things are damaged or stolen and if anyone ever uses drugs or has ever flown in an aluminium plane.

The papers don’t show photos of pollution lakes or blown up mountains but what they do print is a giant close-up of our camp toilet. We just hope people have a look at our website or find some other way to inform themselves and then decide to take whatever kind of action they feel is appropriate.

I find it quite amusing to have the weirdest questions being asked, such as “do you use cutlery to eat?” but it also makes me incredibly sad. James, you are right, but tell me, what should we do? Maybe I will start working on my giant pink footed goose costume!

Apparently four years of climbing cranes has not motivated many people to actually do something about making sure there will not be any new dams. Everyone is just bored and apathetic about it.

Write something, make a complaint, get angry at politicians for breaking election promises, phone people up, whatever it is you can do, if you oppose these projects, no one will stop them if no one does anything. Please!

Jaap Krater

Saving Iceland’s Attention

James Weston, Iceland Review – The television is on in the corner of the room showing the evening news bulletin. A young protester is chained to a fence with a few police officers trying to pull her away. A crowd of onlookers is standing with their mouth’s agape, a few still waving their own protest banners.

Now this may seem like exciting television, but for some, it’s quite the opposite. During the piece I found my own attention wandering from the television towards the conversation that has just started between two friends. It doesn’t appear they’re listening either.

This is a piece regarding the latest protest by Saving Iceland, “who do not intend to stand by passively and watch the Icelandic government in league with foreign corporations slowly kill the natural beauty of Iceland.”

Everyone seems to have an opinion on the aluminum smelting issue facing Iceland. I’ve previously presented my outlook on the situation. That’s not to say that all of my friends and new Icelandic family agrees with me. On the contrary, there are quite a few that strongly disagree! The issue is a debate starter, but for both sides, the debate is entered with a sigh. A “here we go again…”

I keep some of my fears hidden just to grease the wheels of friendly, social conversation. Some situations do not welcome the discussion, of course. It’s tantamount to announcing that you were a card-holding communist at dinner with Joe McCarthy! I will say at this point, I am not and never have been a member of Saving Iceland. In fact I don’t know anyone that is.

With the frequent media coverage, “Saving Iceland” seems to have become a by-word for someone who posses a little environmental awareness. The mention of those two words seems to conjure up images of hand holding, banner waving lunatics .The woman from Saving Iceland interviewed after the news piece does much to uphold the viewpoint. A well-spoken Brit, earthen clothing, complete with big red dreadlocks. You really don’t get more new-age hippy than this!

There are many of my friends who are fiercely against the smelting program. When I ask them about Saving Iceland, the responses are all very similar. The overriding issue being that they are simply bored of it all. They have been seeing this for ages and find themselves switching off when any news item is raised about the group. “It’s always in the news and I kind of switch off” is a common reaction. They’re aware of the issue, but seeing it almost every day pushes it into the background for them.

It’s an age-old problem for any issue worldwide. Prolonged attention in the public eye will lead to a stagnation of reaction. Saving Iceland have done a fantastic job in keeping their cause in the public psyche. It’s a grand project and the commitment admirable. As always though, people will be looking for something new. Being told the same thing again and again does become, well, boring.

Maybe the fact that people are bored of the issue is signs of a job truly well done for Saving Iceland. They’ve almost become ubiquitous, part of the news briefings almost as much as Sports & Weather. Not everyone is going to grow dreadlocks and get out the padlocks and chains; but they are constantly aware of the situation whether it bores them or not.

JW

• Krafla gallery
• Þeistareykir gallery / report
• Hengill gallery

REYKJAVÍK  – Today 30 activists from the international campaign Saving Iceland have invaded the Landsvirkjun (national power company) building (Háaleitisbraut 68) to disrupt work. Earlier this morning Saving Iceland activists dammed the house of Landsvirkjun director Friðrik Sophusson and nailed an eviction notice to his door.

“We oppose Landsvirkjun’s intentions to build the four Þjórsá and Tungnaá dams for Rio Tinto at Straumsvik (1,2), despite the referendum. They are also negotiating to dam Skjálfandafljót and Jökuslá á Fjöllum for ALCOA’s planned Bakki smelter (3,4). This is on top of the mess they are making of Þeistareykir (5) and the deep drilling into Mount Krafla, right next to the tourist attraction. LV are doing this for a company that is a self-admitted arms dealer (6) and has been in the news again and again for it’s gross abuse of human rights. (7) This company should not be welcomed by Landsvirkjun,” says Jaap Krater from Saving Iceland.

Extreme abuse of workers’ rights
ALCOA claims to be an excellent employer, taking good care of their workers. But the reality is different:

“Often workers have to urinate, or even defecate, in their clothing after repeatedly being denied permission to use the bathroom. The bathrooms are also dirty, lacking lights and toilet paper. Workers who take “too long” may be pulled from the toilet by guards. There have even been cases of women being made to disrobe and lower their underpants to prove they were having their period so they could use the bathroom more than twice a day,” says a recent report about Alcoa’s treatment of workers in Honduras (7).

“With as little as ten minutes notice, workers on the night shift can be ordered to remain working for another six hours, keeping them at the factory from 4:15 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. – nearly 14 hours. All overtime is obligatory and those who object can be fired.”

“The base wage of 74 cents an hour at Alcoa’s plants meets just 37 percent of a small family’s most basic survival needs.”

Workers have protested, but Alcoa does not encourage unionising. “Alcoa will use slightly veiled death threats, mass illegal firings, blacklists and threats to close the plant to block workers daring to exercise their legal right to organize,” says the report.

In Mexican factories, a range of human rights and worker abuse has also been reported (8). Ironically, Alcoa are now laying off 1240 workers in Honduras and Mexico as a response to decreased demand for aluminium for large cars due to high fuel prices (9).

ALCOA and the Arms Industry
Alcoa actively supports the US military ventures, such as the war in Iraq. “Alcoa Defense is proud to be a trusted partner for the U.S. military and defense industry.” said Dave Dobson, president, Alcoa Defense. “We look forward to protecting soldiers with our armor plate, while making vehicles lighter, faster and stronger.” (10).

“All Alcoans are working hard to ensure that these orders move quickly through the plant in order to support our troops,” said Mark Vrablec, director of manufacturing at Alcoa Davenport Works (11).

Other recent examples of Alcoa products for the US military include combat ships (12) and light tactical armed vehicles (13).

“Basically, electricity from the power plants Landsvirkjun is intending to build, will be exported straight to Iraq and Afghanistan in the form of Alcoa weaponry,” says Saving Iceland’s Jaap Krater.

About Saving Iceland
Last Saturday, Saving Iceland stopped work at the construction site of Century Aluminum’s planned new smelter in Helguvík while on Monday they blockaded the existing Century smelter on Hvalfjordur. This is part of their fourth summer of direct action against heavy industry in Iceland.

Saving Iceland was started by Icelandic environmentalists asking for help to protect the Icelandic wilderness, the largest remaining in Europe, from heavy industry. Aluminium corporations Alcoa, Century Aluminum and Rio Tinto-Alcan want to construct new smelters. This would require exploitation of all the geothermal areas in the country, as well as damming all major glacial rivers (see http://www.savingiceland.org/sos).

This year, the fourth action camp to protect Icelandic nature has been set up near the Hellisheidi geothermal plant east of Reykjavik. That power plant is currently being expanded to produce electricity for Century Aluminum.

More information
http://www.savingiceland.org
 savingiceland at riseup.net

References

(1) Landsvirkjun (2008). Alcan and Landsvirkjun reach agreement on electricity price. http://www.landsvirkjun.com/EN/article.a…
(2) Iceland Review (2008). Trial Delays Hydropower Projects in Iceland. http://www.icelandreview.com/icelandrevi…
(3) Visir.is (2008). Ný virkjun á stærð við Kárahnjúkavirkjun. http://visir.is/article/20080718/FRETTIR…
(4) Visir.is (2008). Enn stærra álver á Bakka hugnast Ingibjörgu ekki. http://visir.is/article/20080722/FRETTIR…
(5) Saving Iceland (2008). Energy companies destroying Þeistareykir. http://www.savingiceland.org/?p=1317
(6) ALCOA Defense website. http://www.alcoa.com/defense/en/capabili…
(7) National Labor Committee with Community Comunication Honduras (2007). The Walmart-ization of Alcoa. http://www.nlcnet.org/article.php?id=447.
(8) Comité Fronterizo de Obreras (2008). Alcoa in México. http://www.cfomaquiladoras.org/english%2…
(9) Reuters (2008). Alcoa Inc.’s Alcoa Electrical And Electronic Systems To Restructure Honduran And Mexican Operations. http://www.reuters.com/finance/industrie…
(10) Alunet International (2008). Alcoa to Supply Armor Plate for New Army Vehicle http://www.alunet.net/shownews.asp?ID=23…
(11) ALCOA (2008). Alcoa Provides Aluminum for Humvees Used In Iraq. http://www.alcoa.com/defense/en/news/rel…
(12) Cavas, C. (2007). Alcoa Joins U.S. Navy LCS Program. Defense News 10/10/2007. Cfr. http://www.alcoa.com/defense/en/news/rel…
(13) ALCOA (2008). Lockheed Martin Announces Alcoa As Principal Team Member To Compete For Joint Light Tactical Vehicle Program.http://www.alcoa.com/global/en/news/whats_new/2007/jltv_program.asp.

Þeistareykir was first drilled in August 2007 and now contains three pods which belch huge quantities of Sulphurous steam and make a sound similar to a jet taking off, which shakes the surrounding ground. Below the two most active pods, and in front of a small sleeping hut for tourists is a huge blue lagoon, the source of which can be easily traced to a steaming outlet pipe from the drill pods. The pool has no outlet stream to drain the water away, and therefore must be continually expanding as more effluent water runs into it. This new lake is not shown on maps, and comparisons to photos taken in 2004 confirm that this is an utterly new phenomenon.

Geothermal outlet water contains a number of toxic elements including Arsenic (usually at 0.5-4.6 ppm, well over the WHO standard of 0.01 ppm) and Sulphur, which are very damaging to vegetation and animal life. Test drilling for geothermal power does not require an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) in Iceland, as it is supposed to have very limited effects on the environment, and effluent water is supposed to be pumped back into the boreholes. Instead hot, toxic water is being pumped directly onto grassland in an area which is designated a ‘national memorial'(1). This careless act of pollution shows total disregard for this rare and sensitive environment, and a total lack of respect for the EIA procedure which is supposed to protect against unaccounted for environmental disasters, and hold the companies accountable for their behaviour.

The North Iceland environmental group SUNN demanded an EIA at Þeistareykir last July before drilling began, but as yet have been denied it. The drilling company (Þeistareykir ehf- a conglomeration of the Husavík energy company (Orkuveita Husavíkur), North Icelandic Energy (Norðurorka) and the National Power Company (Landsvirkjun)), will only need an EIA for the construction of the power plant at Þeistareykir. It has been common practice that once an area like this has already been ruined, the next stage (the power plant and associated buildings and roads) is pushed through, as the EIA concludes that due to existing damage the additional construction will not be ruining anything too valuable.

Geothermal drilling in the North of Iceland is required to power the upcoming Husavik ALCOA Aluminium smelter which will start at 250,000 tonnes but is already expected to expand to 500,000 tonnes in the first few years after construction. ALCOA and the Icelandic energy companies have joined together to fund the ‘Icelandic Deep Drilling Project’, a new technology that they hope will vastly increase the amount of energy available for the power guzzling smelter. Despite this, they currently only have 25% of the energy they require for the initial capacity, and will require at least 15 more boreholes at Krafla aswell as two rivers at Skagafjörður and Skjálandafljot in Husavík if they are to expand to full capacity as planned. The new boreholes at Þeistareykir are expected to produce up to 150 MW, while drilling at Krafla may expand the current 60MW to 220MW. In addition 100 MW is hoped for at Gjástykki, and 90MW at Bjarnarflag. (see Landsvirkjun’s own map of geothermal power options, and projection of the Bjarnaflag power station below).

If the history of ALCOA smelter construction in Iceland is anything to go by, the energy companies and this Aluminium giant will cut every corner they can to maximise profit and minimise information about the environmental negatives of this mega project. There have already been a number of pro-smelter meetings in Husavík, thanks to the brainwashing and bribery of ALCOA, and their billion dollar PR machine, which cleverly denies and covers up negative scientific reports and environmental costs such as this. For this reason it is essential that we hold these rogue companies accountable for their actions and stop them from continuing to destroy Iceland’s most valuable resource (its stunning and rare nature) without permission or public knowledge. Iceland prides itself on its green image, yet its environmental laws allow for irreversible damage to nature without even an assessment of the possible impact on rare and protected areas.

The beautiful geothermal area of Gjástykki is now the only significant geothermal area in the North which can still be saved. This unspoilt area is filled with stunning caves and crevices and must be protected before a similar environmental tragedy occurs here, out of the public eye. Geothermal areas may be fairly common in Iceland but they are incredibly rare on a world scale. Iceland has a duty to protect these scientifically fascinating areas before they are irreversibly destroyed.

(1) Areas in Þeistareykir and Öxarfjörður are registered national memorials. Morgunblaðið, 15th Nov 1998, ‘Free Enterprise is the Condition for the Most Economical Power Plants’ .

See also these maps:

Is the Energy on the Doorstep?

By Dr. Ragnhildur Sigurðardóttur

Many things have been said and written about plans for ALCOA´s aluminium plant at Bakki near Húsavík. One after another, important men have praised the idea and by now the only political parties not supporting it are the Iceland Movement and the Left Green party.
The propaganda of the supporters follows these lines: “utilise the national energy potential,” “the people of Húsavík have a right to an aluminium plant,” “the plant will only use energy drawn from the land nearby Húsavík, “damming of Skjálfandafljót and Jökulsá á Fjöllum is nothing but environmental propaganda”, “Geothermal energy has a low environmental impact”, “preparation work has been exceptionally well done.”
But how much truth do those slogans contain? Is there something more that needs to be looked into? Are the people of Húsavík, politicians included pushing the issues forward without really having looked at all the facts?

Procuring energy
When producing 250 thousand tons of aluminium per year, 550MW of capactity is needed producing around 3700 GWhours per year. When signing the agreement to look into a aluminium plant by Húsavík the president of ALCOA announced his plans for right away building a 300 thousand ton aluminium plant (which demands 660MW), but in the end the community should be prepared for demands for a 500 thousand ton plant. According to Alcoa´s site report the company plans to get the energy from:

1) Þeistareykir (80 MW),
2) Krafla I (100 MW),
3) Krafla II (120 MW),
4) Bjarnarflag (80MW),
5) Gjástykki (80 MW)
6) Hrafnabjörg (90 MW).

This means five new energy plants in Suður-Þingeyjarsýsla plus almost doubling of Krafla I. Little research has gone into some of those areas, how much energy they could give is uncertain. The questions that arise are for example:

1. ALCOA includes in their plans all the energy now produced in Krafla, around 60 MW, that energy has already been sold, so somewhere there must be more energy plants or dams needed to fulfill energy needs for the national grid.

2. Where will the energy come from when the aluminium plant will be doubled?

3. Why are supporters of the aluminium plant so certain that Skjálfandafljót with Hrafnabjargafoss and Aldeyjarfoss will not be sacrificed for the plant, even though ALCOA includes Hrafnabjargavirkjun in their site report?

4. Geothermal energy plants have an estimated 30 year lifespan. What happens than? Is the aluminium plant supposed to just pack up and leave?

Energy at the doorstep
For it’s first phase the aluminium plant will have to receive energy though power lines stretching more than 114 km from Mývatnssveit and 64 km extra from Hrafnabjörg. To reach the 300 thousand ton production limit it might be necessary to get energy from Villinganes- and Skatastaðadams, but power lines from them would stretch from Skagafjörður across Eyjafjarðar- and Suður-Þingeyjarcounty all the way to Húsavík – that is if the local people are not willing to sacrifice more of Skjálfandafljót and if Jökulsá á Fjöllum will not be sacrificed. Where the energy for a 500 thousand ton aluminium plant is supposed to come from is not known at all, but must be before the decision to build a aluminium plant is taken.

• Link to the site report from ALCOA.

Is the energy really so green and great?

Water pollution from geothermal energy plants
Among the many things that have been written about pollution from aluminium plants is the cancer-causing PAH chemicals who are carried into nature, plus fluoride, sulphur and CO2 which are pumped into the air. Not so much has come forth about the impact from the energy plants themselves. Apart from the obvious impact on land, as the people in the south of Iceland have experienced with the work at Hellisheiði, the biggest polluters from geothermal plants are noise, exhaust fumes and run-off water. In geothermal run-off water the biggest polluters are hydrogen sulphite, arsenic, boron, mercury and other metals like led, cadmium, iron, zink and manganese but lithium, ammoniac and aluminium are sometimes also present in harmful amounts. From this list it is arsenic which is the biggest worry in run-off water by lake Mývatn since it is poisonous and dangerous to life. It is vital to look into whether a fivefold increase of energy production in the Mývatn county will damage the biosphere in and around the lake, but the environmental impact of all the plans has not been estimated as a whole.

Production of greenhouse and other gases
According to the estimate reports for Krafla and Bjarnarflag it is expected that 1300 tons of CO2 and 108 tons of hydrogen sulphide (H2S) will be let into the atmosphere for each MW produced by the plants. On a limited area and close to the populated area of Reykjahlíð, 390 thousand tons of CO2 and more than 32 thousand tons of H2S per year will be released into the atmosphere. Hydrogen sulphite is a poisonous gas, it´s strength in the atmosphere at workplaces in Iceland may not be above 10 ppm on a 8 hour workday. On top of this comes the production from from Þeistareykjar and Gjástykki. Given the same premises and based on Alcoa´s site report which includes a 90 MW hydropower dam in Skjálfandafljót, the probable amount of CO2 exhaustion will be 600 thousand tons a year, which is about the same amount as all transport in Iceland produces. For comparison, the aluminium plant itself will exhaust about 375 thousand tons a year. If energy will be provided only with geothermal energy the CO2 exhaust will be close to fifty percent more in providing energy for the plant than the plant itself will exhaust. In my opinion it is time that we Icelanders face the fact that maybe our green energy isn´t so green after all.

The effect on Mývatn county
The face of the province, which is supposed to be protected under nature preservation laws, will change considerably to the northeast when all work on site has been carried out. Some of the most popular hiking paths will be significantly disrupted. Blows of steam will take over the horizon with pipelines and concrete dominating the area. Since about 32 thousand tons of hydrogen sulphite will enter the atmosphere around the most populated area each year, I feel that the residents of the Mývatn county deserve that a thorough investigation into the possibility of the amount of the substance exceeding health limits. This must be investigated before it is “too late” to go back. It is predictable that the fight to preserve the nature of Mývatnssveit, which has been going on for nearly 40 years, will harden again. The comparison to the struggle to preserve Þjórsárver is striking.

I hope that most people take a stand based on real facts, whether they see those ideas about aluminium plants as a well thought out environmentally friendly action which will please and benefit all who live in this part of the land. To me the words and propaganda of supporters of the aluminium plans raise many questions. When does propaganda become truth and when does imagery become reality?