From the ancient times, in Greece, there have been written sources, proving the existence of gold mines. The most known mines were in Chalkidiki and Thrace. These mines were some of the most valuable sources of wealth to the ancient Macedons who led to the epic campaign of Alexander the Great.

Chalkidiki, which is the homeland of the great philosopher Aristoteles, is a small peninsula in north Greece whose surface is mostly covered with forest land and the two out of its three 'legs' (look picture) have largely developed tourism. Its third 'leg' is Mount Athos (Holy Mountain), considered world monument of cultural heritage, in the heart of the Christian Orthodox Church, with a lot of monasteries. Also, this place is forbidden for women for more than 1500 years.

In the 20^th century there was an effort so that the mines of Chalkidiki could regenerate. However, the little content of that land in gold was the reason of many difficulties in its mining and elaboration. The last years, due to the economic problems that Greece faces, there has been a new try for the exploitation of the mines.

The new plan takes place in an area of 32.000 hectares of massive natural beauty, one part of which there is an untouched forest of 350 hectares. Apart from the mining, in that area, factories of gold elaboration will be constructed.

The inhabitants of that area have been divided into two opposing teams:

The villages which are near the mines react for the destruction of the natural environment, the water, the forest, the local economy and their decreasing property. Many ecological organizations agree with them.

This team argues that:

1.       The operation of the mine (with surface mining) will destroy a big part of the forest.

 

2.       The remnants of the elaboration of the metals, with the so far known methods, will contaminate the surface water and the ground water, resulting to a permanent ecological disaster. As an argument stands the accident of the gold mines in Talivaara of Finland, a country with great ecological tradition. This accident contaminated many lakes of the country. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talvivaara_Mining_Company)

 

3.       This operation excludes the ability of the development of this area with alternative ways, such as tourism, beekeeping, livestock etc. and as a result many people will lose their job.

 

4.       Greece is a small country with high population in its coasts. Even the small possibility of natural disaster in a surrounded sea such as the Aegean Sea will have many catastrophic effects to the environment.

 

This subject has provoked international interest with many questions about its viability.

(http://www.mining-technology.com/features/featurefive-of-the-most-controversial-mining-projects-of-2013-4186417/)

The people who agree with this investment are mostly villages that used to work at these mines, with their central argument being the combat against the unemployment, a strong argument in a country where unemployment reaches 27%. Furthermore, the Greek state will collect great income by the taxation of the gold mined.

The highest Greek court, after many years of trials, decided to allow this operation, taking into account the difficult economic situation but also based on the promise of this company to use a new technology (Flashing Smelting) which will have decently less toxic remnants.

However, in my opinion there were much stronger arguments for the suspension of the project.

1.       The gold will always be in that area. A milder exploitation of the minerals for future elaboration (with more advanced technological methods) is a more logical solution.

2.       One of the most dangerous remnants of the mining process is the substance Arsenikum (As) which is toxic and proven to provoke cancer. The minerals in Chalkidiki contain a large percentage of Arsenikum which naturaly will affect seriously the environment and the people's health

3.       As specialists suggest (Technical Chamber of Greece), the new technology that the company proposed to use is still in an experimental stage, and has not been used in such a great scale ever before and in any case not for minerals with large percentage of Arsenicum.

4.       When (if) the project takes place, the forest will be destructed, along with the local economy and many inhabitants will have left from their villages while other local people will have found job in this company. What will happen when more than a billion Euros have been invested and the technology used will be considered as inadequate, and will have to be changed to another which will widely contaminate the already affected environment? Will be a strong resistance then?

5.       The company has promised that will restore the affected environment after the end of the works. One large and sometimes insuperable problem in other such occasions was that after the completion of the projects, some companies did not keep their legal responsibilities for the restoration of the local environment. They prefer to spend many years in trials which cost less than the restoration itself. (source: Jarred Diamond's book 'Collapse')

6.       Last, but not least, the effect of the division of the society. The society must analyze this problem and conclude to a solution being or negative or defining strict terms of operation if is positive, with the help of specialists. Otherwise, there will be many conflicts between the people of each group which will probably last for very long.

Finally, I believe that this investment does not help to the sustainable development of this area, and it is ecologically dangerous. However, as long as the project has been allowed to be done, the society shall closely observe the process of this operation, to be ready to react on time, if the company violates its terms  for the protection of the environment.