Boliden : One-sided and misleading film about Boliden's exports to Chile

On Sunday the 4th of July, Swedish National Television (SVT) shows a film about the court proceedings related to Boliden's export of smelter sludge 1984-1985. The starting point for the film is the allegations raised by the other party in the dispute, which have been found to have no support at all. Boliden's actions have in all material aspects been deemed responsible.

- In civil cases, it is very clear that there are two parties. To only start from and report on one's attitude in such a situation gives a deeply misleading picture of what actually happened from the mid-80s onwards. It is telling that the conclusions from independent courts in Sweden are ignored in favor of completely unfounded statements that supports the conclusion you want to present, says Klas Nilsson, communications director Boliden.

In 2013, the company Arica Victims KB initiated legal proceedings against Boliden at Skellefteå District Court on behalf of more than 800 private individuals from Arica who claim to have been exposed to arsenic exposure as a result of Boliden's export of smelter sludge to the company Promel in Chile in the mid-80s. Boliden denied that the action was negligent and on this basis would be liable for damages. Furthermore, experts have carried out thorough scientific studies, which strongly suggests that there is no connection between the smelter sludge and the exposure to arsenic that the private individuals believed they had been exposed to.

The conclusions from the trial in Skellefteå District Court clearly show that Boliden has essentially acted responsibly, that relevant authorities in Sweden and Chile were informed and all regulations were followed. Furthermore, it was judged that the course of events in Chile, for which the Chilean authorities and company were responsible, was impossible for Boliden to predict. It was also established that almost none of the approximately 800 people showed any potentially harmful arsenic levels. The Court of Appeal for Upper Norrland found that the requirements were statute-barred and upheld the district court's judgment. The Supreme Court found no reason to grant appeal.