The project emerged last spring under the name Emme, the acronym for Electro Mobility Materials Europe. That is the name of the company that plans to build a nickel and cobalt conversion plant at the Grattequina industrial-port terminal, in Parempuyre (mainly) and Blanquefort. The Grand Port Maritime de Bordeaux (GPMB) owns the site.
Once it is commissioned, scheduled for 2028, Emme is counting on processing 20,000 tonnes of nickel and 1,500 tonnes of cobalt per year. But before building to produce, it is necessary to pass the administrative authorization stage. Not easy.
The first obstacle is the classification of the land. The land concerned is covered by the Bordeaux Métropole Intercommunal Urban Planning Plan (PLUi). Three zones cover the areas surrounding the Grattequina terminal: US 13 plots “immediately buildable”, AU99 “to be urbanized in the long term” and Ab “agricultural zones as a biodiversity reservoir”.
More than 600 contributions
For the plant to exist, an accounting of the PLUi (Mecdu) is required. It consists of reclassifying the AU99 zone (36.3 hectares) as immediately buildable (US 13), and marginally as Ab (agricultural). Led by the port of Bordeaux, this procedure gave rise to a regulatory consultation from April 2 to 30, with an extension until May 20. 601 contributions (excluding duplicates) were collected digitally, 13 others on paper registers. Two public meetings were held in Parempuyre and Ambarès-et-Lagrave, in addition to telephone hotlines. What is the outcome?
From the outset, the report points out the “ignorance” or even “incomprehension” of many participants regarding the procedure for bringing the PLUi into account. In addition, the implementation of the project is perceived as “inconsistent” with regard to other texts governing regional planning: prohibition of backfilling in flood zones, project incompatible with the promotion of urban agriculture and the protection of marshes, etc.
Several arguments criticize the Mecdu consultation: its limited duration (one month), public meetings organized during school holidays, studies still in progress, and therefore inaccessible. These data will logically be mature and consultable during the public inquiry. Regarding the consultation period deemed too short, the GPMB and Emme responded by extending the deadline by three weeks (closing on May 20 instead of April 30).
Contributors have pointed out the health and environmental impacts of other projects (Pure Salmon farm in Verdon-sur-Mer or Yara in Ambès) on GPMB land. For its part, the port actor supports the need to host activities linked to the river and industry, “in order to keep the terminals and the surrounding employment area alive”.
Independence
Regarding Emme, participants put the “independence” and “legitimacy” of the design offices mandated for technical studies on the spot. While demanding the intervention of certification structures paid by the State to guarantee sincere results. The service providers targeted asserted their ethics and the “necessary neutrality” to carry out their missions.
“Nickel battery technology is the most efficient option from an environmental and carbon footprint perspective”
The report also reveals divergences regarding the interest of the site for the refining plant. Would a location as close as possible to the extraction mines have been more appropriate? Obviously not, according to Emme, who brandishes the issue of “sovereignty”, the interest of “having refining means in Europe” via a “low carbon” conversion solution. The company says it chose Nouvelle-Aquitaine for the wealth of its sector in the field of electric batteries. Asked about the relevance of the technological choice (nickel-cobalt batteries), it refutes the accusation of being behind the times. “Nickel battery technology offers the best performance in terms of autonomy and lifespan. It is therefore the most efficient option in terms of the environment and overall carbon footprint”, says the project leader. Which intends to use suppliers who comply with the Irma standard (for responsible mining). For those who contest the increasing electrification of uses in our societies, the challenge is obviously more profound.
Pollution and climate
The location and operation of the plant are controversial and divisive. Precisely because the land targeted by the modification of the PLUi is classified as a flood zone. Launched on change.org last May, a petition against the establishment of this Seveso factory in Parempuyre has collected more than 21,000 signatures. Voices are concerned about possible pollution in the river and groundwater in the event of flooding or accidental spillage during the transport of products. Knowing that these substances are miscible in water. Emme wanted to be reassuring by explaining that “the salts (of nickel or cobalt) produced would be contained by three different protective barriers.”
Another cause for concern: the raising of the factory by an embankment. What about the impact on the surrounding land? And how will the embankment materials be transported? By road, users fear that the roads will be saturated during the construction.
The criterion of climate change and its effects on the rise in the level of the Garonne, the weakening of the dikes and the amplification of floods were relayed in the report. The company assures that it has taken these factors into consideration. In particular by supporting the simulations of the technical study on “the rules defined by the PPRI and climatic hazards beyond the legal requirements, namely the centennial scenario of the 1999 storm + one meter.”
At this stage, the compatibility of the PLUi has still not been finalized. A public inquiry should be launched in the coming months. Let us add that in light of this prior consultation, Emme has changed its project on several points (read elsewhere).
