Et sjødeponi har mange klare fordeler fremfor alternative deponeringsløsninger. Dette gjelder spesielt når massen som skal deponeres ikke er giftig og kun består av inert geologisk materiale.

Direktoratet for naturforvaltning (nå Miljødirektoratet) gjorde i 2012 en sammenligning av sjø- og landdeponi. Resultatet viser at sjødeponi i mange tilfeller er en mye bedre løsning enn landdeponi. Dokumentet kan bestilles fra Offentlig Elektronisk Postjournal (OEP):  Kunnskap om generelle erfaringer med sjø- og landdeponi.

Kjemiprofessor Einar Sletten

har skrevet en svært lærerik artikkel i Bergens Tidende under tittelen Heller i Førdefjorden enn på land

Landdeponi er ikke uproblematisk

Ved Titanias gruver i Jøssingfjorden ble sjødeponiet erstattet med et landdeponi. Dette har i følge professorene Per Aagaard og Knut Bjørlykke ført til en naturkatastrofe.  Utfordringen illustreres i grafikken nedenfor.


Se hele artikkelen i

4 thoughts on “Sjødeponi”

  1. Many thanks for the clarification – this is my point exactly! It is a shame that such non-empirical nonsense is published in papers like the Guardian. Not everyone knows what inert waste actually is, not to mention Magnafloc 155. The reputation of Norway as a front runner in environmental friendly matters is at stake. From the outside, it seems like Norway doesn’t have much of a clue about the pollution threats. When articles like this reaches out to the masses, people also starts wondering how much knowhow there is within the Norwegian society with regards to true pollution threats as from the fish farming industry. In respect of it’s own reputation, it wouldn’t harm if your government went out public with some rectifying information in this matter.

    Best wishes for a sustainable future

    Brudny Wasser
    International WAFE Agent

  2. Hello, Brudny here. There are people asking questions about what’s happening up there in the North? Not only in the European Community, but also in the US and the Rep. of China, people are asking questions about Sea disposal plans and the Government bureaucracy. Haven’t you guys heard about the Barcelona Convention, the ESA Cooperation, the London Protocol or the OSPAR Commission? There is no such thing as toxic inert waste. I came across an article in the Guardian, a link was sent to me from a worried citizen. I am just wondering, how is it possible to mislead your own people with such heresy? And where does it all come from?

    Brudny Wasser
    International WAFE Agent

    1. Dear Brudny, no wonder that you are puzzled by this. The conflict about the seabed deposit at Engebø has been going on for quite a while, and it is fair to say that there has been a fight for the truth. The company Nordic Mining has conducted a long series of studies of various risks in connection with the deposit, and most of the risk issues have been declared as highly acceptable. In that sense this is an environmentally friendly way to deal with the residual minerals from the production. However, there has been a small group of protestors actively falsifying information about many issues, like particle diffusion, threats to biodiversity, and not least to the issue of heavy metals and toxic contents. They have used people in their network abroad to issue statements of their own composition, such as insisting that the residuals is toxic waste. Firstly, like you point out, the inert material is what it is, not toxic. There will be some chemicals to be used in the process, like Magnafloc 155, but this is not toxic, it will be diluted to levels you will find in your coffee cup, and the Environmental Agency has fully accepted this. So when some scientist in Guardian is playing the role of a useful idiot based on what he is fed from the fanatics in Norway, he is just like that, a useful idiot. These people are also pushing the idea of heavy metals that will be polluting the fjord, and this is also falsifying the truth, as the contents of heavy metals iis not more that is entering the fjord anyway through natural erosion etc. I hope you will continue this discussion from your vantage point, as we need facts and knowledge to illuminate this issue.

Leave a Reply