Thread by @mcaterra

@burrosuy @TeivoTeivainen @Uruguay2035 @jussipesonenUPM @MarkoJanhunen @PaiviVistala @paivanlehti @lassesinikallas Take a look a what @burrosuy explains here in this thread. I sent the same info to Finland because is the best explanation in terms of money regarding the UPM plant. No one, neither UPM nor the government has refuted this economic analysis. Nor has the press, servile as usual

@burrosuy @TeivoTeivainen @Uruguay2035 @jussipesonenUPM @MarkoJanhunen @PaiviVistala @paivanlehti @lassesinikallas to the governments of the day, questioned the figures.

@burrosuy @TeivoTeivainen @Uruguay2035 @jussipesonenUPM @MarkoJanhunen @PaiviVistala @paivanlehti @lassesinikallas In case you do not handle Spanish well, I leave you the translation of the analysis of the figures made by @burrosuy. The first thing to distinguish is that there are large numbers and small numbers. The first are those that move the needle. The latter, whether they exist or not,

@burrosuy @TeivoTeivainen @Uruguay2035 @jussipesonenUPM @MarkoJanhunen @PaiviVistala @paivanlehti @lassesinikallas practically do not affect the account. An example of a small number in the UPM2 contract is the total compensation expected for environmental damage, 10.5 million dollars. It looks great, until you compare it with others. Note: if the plant were an investment of 2,200 million

@burrosuy @TeivoTeivainen @Uruguay2035 @jussipesonenUPM @MarkoJanhunen @PaiviVistala @paivanlehti @lassesinikallas dollars, 10.5 million dollars - the maximum compensation for environmental damage - would represent only 0.48%. Ridiculous, right? Let's see then what the big numbers are. The biggest of all is the free economic zone. Álvaro García (Director of the OPP, Office of Planning and

@burrosuy @TeivoTeivainen @Uruguay2035 @jussipesonenUPM @MarkoJanhunen @PaiviVistala @paivanlehti @lassesinikallas Budget) said that if it was not granted, UPM2 was not profitable. So it is not worth discussing. The one that follows, is the one of the energy. This has 2 components: the one that we have to buy from UPM and the one that stops being generated. The loss of generation is produced

@burrosuy @TeivoTeivainen @Uruguay2035 @jussipesonenUPM @MarkoJanhunen @PaiviVistala @paivanlehti @lassesinikallas by having to manage the reservoirs to ensure a minimum flow of the Río Negro. The minimum flow is necessary to ensure UPM water intake and dilution of its polluting spills at the end of its process. But let's go back to the big numbers. In the contract we compromise to buy energy

@burrosuy @TeivoTeivainen @Uruguay2035 @jussipesonenUPM @MarkoJanhunen @PaiviVistala @paivanlehti @lassesinikallas for 72.5 million dollars per year, for 20 years. That is, US $ 1,450 million. Let's compare it with the 2,200 million cost of the plant: it gives us 66%. That is, only for energy, UPM recovers 2/3 of its investment. The loss of generation, according to UTE services, would be

@burrosuy @TeivoTeivainen @Uruguay2035 @jussipesonenUPM @MarkoJanhunen @PaiviVistala @paivanlehti @lassesinikallas between 45 and 160 million dollars annually. That is, between 900 and 3.2 billion dollars in 20 years. It's crazy: we lose energy by installing UPM2 and on top of that we buy energy from them. A fair negotiation should have forced UPM to COMPENSATE that loss, since in addition,

@burrosuy @TeivoTeivainen @Uruguay2035 @jussipesonenUPM @MarkoJanhunen @PaiviVistala @paivanlehti @lassesinikallas that energy is a surplus of its production, which if not, would be lost. The intermediate value of the estimated loss is 1,440 million dollars. That is, we lose generation by 1,440 and then pay up 1,450 to buy the energy we lose? Do we pay 2 times for the same energy? Let's go to

@burrosuy @TeivoTeivainen @Uruguay2035 @jussipesonenUPM @MarkoJanhunen @PaiviVistala @paivanlehti @lassesinikallas the next big number: the train. According to the contract, it will cost us more than 148 million annually, for 20 years. More than 2,200 million. The contract stipulates that Uruguay will give unrestricted access to UPM or the railway operator designated by UPM, paying only half

@burrosuy @TeivoTeivainen @Uruguay2035 @jussipesonenUPM @MarkoJanhunen @PaiviVistala @paivanlehti @lassesinikallas a cent (US $ 0.005) per gross ton and km. The annual account is then 0.005 x 2,000,000 tons x 273 km = 2,730,000
That is 2.73 million dollars. Adding the weight of the wagons, plus the return trip, plus the chemicals, for UPM the final bill is 6 million dollars annually. In 20

@burrosuy @TeivoTeivainen @Uruguay2035 @jussipesonenUPM @MarkoJanhunen @PaiviVistala @paivanlehti @lassesinikallas years, UPM would end up paying 120 million to use the train that would cost us 2,200 million. That is, 5.45%. There are other charges, they tell us. The construction company itself reported that the project capacity will be 4 million tons. So if UPM uses 2, there are 2 more left.

@burrosuy @TeivoTeivainen @Uruguay2035 @jussipesonenUPM @MarkoJanhunen @PaiviVistala @paivanlehti @lassesinikallas If we charge them the same, we recover 11%. After 20 years, we have 1,960 million left to recover
Let's go to the other big number. UPM affirms that it will generate 120 million in taxes to the State. This figure includes wealth tax, IRAE, VAT, IMESI, retirement contributions,

@burrosuy @TeivoTeivainen @Uruguay2035 @jussipesonenUPM @MarkoJanhunen @PaiviVistala @paivanlehti @lassesinikallas FONASA and other minors, for all direct, indirect and induced activities. Given the calculation made by CPA Ferrere as commissioned by UPM, is it reasonable to take contributions and FONASA as taxes? And if they are counted as income, the benefits they generate as expenses should

@burrosuy @TeivoTeivainen @Uruguay2035 @jussipesonenUPM @MarkoJanhunen @PaiviVistala @paivanlehti @lassesinikallas not be counted, to make the correct evaluation? Unfortunately we do not know how much of the 120 million corresponds to these concepts. If they were 20 million annually, they would total 400 million in 20 years
In summary, to evaluate the contract with UPM2, you have to

@burrosuy @TeivoTeivainen @Uruguay2035 @jussipesonenUPM @MarkoJanhunen @PaiviVistala @paivanlehti @lassesinikallas concentrate on 3 concepts: energy, train and taxes. The rest are relatively lower figures. In energy, we lose. On the train, we lose. In taxes, benefits must be subtracted, which inflate the number And we are talking about significant losses, in the order of 4,000 million

@burrosuy @TeivoTeivainen @Uruguay2035 @jussipesonenUPM @MarkoJanhunen @PaiviVistala @paivanlehti @lassesinikallas dollars, considering those 3 concepts.

@burrosuy @TeivoTeivainen @Uruguay2035 @jussipesonenUPM @MarkoJanhunen @PaiviVistala @paivanlehti @lassesinikallas The study made by the OPP to favor UPM is disastrous. Briefly, this study makes gross mistakes, such as not considering the energy account and counting labor contributions as "income", without taking into account the corresponding benefits. What the government forgets to say is

@burrosuy @TeivoTeivainen @Uruguay2035 @jussipesonenUPM @MarkoJanhunen @PaiviVistala @paivanlehti @lassesinikallas that this study was paid by UPM and carried out based on the information provided by UPM. That is, there is no study by the Government, or any other private study, or the OPP, or the Ministry of Economy, or the University of the Republic in this regard. How can it be that before

@burrosuy @TeivoTeivainen @Uruguay2035 @jussipesonenUPM @MarkoJanhunen @PaiviVistala @paivanlehti @lassesinikallas a monstrous investment, which commits us for decades with millionaire contributions, there is not a single government study on the impact on employment? Does the government forget that for example, in plantations, there are already people working today? The cost of the train is

@burrosuy @TeivoTeivainen @Uruguay2035 @jussipesonenUPM @MarkoJanhunen @PaiviVistala @paivanlehti @lassesinikallas ot repaid. And yes, if UPM pays at most 6 million dollars per year, and the train will cost us 2.2 billion dollars, at most it will cover 6% of the cost. The government said a long time ago that UPM made the train viable because it was like having half of the insured cargo. So,

@burrosuy @TeivoTeivainen @Uruguay2035 @jussipesonenUPM @MarkoJanhunen @PaiviVistala @paivanlehti @lassesinikallas UPM pays 6% but occupies 50% of the maximum road load? The other users, how much will they have to pay to make the project viable? It would take 17 UPM plants to cover the cost. The cost of the train is never repaid. This is another point that pays that the initial calculations

@burrosuy @TeivoTeivainen @Uruguay2035 @jussipesonenUPM @MarkoJanhunen @PaiviVistala @paivanlehti @lassesinikallas the government made with 5 cents, instead of with 5 thousandths of a dollar. With that figure, it gave UPM paying half the train, which seemed fair, according to the projected use. Regarding the train investment, in November 2017 the government said it would be between 800 and 1

@burrosuy @TeivoTeivainen @Uruguay2035 @jussipesonenUPM @MarkoJanhunen @PaiviVistala @paivanlehti @lassesinikallas billion dollars. When the bids were opened, it turns out that we will pay $ 148 million per year, or $ 2.2 billion. How can there be so much difference? Simple. The first figure refers to the money that the construction company will invest. The last, what we will pay. As it

@burrosuy @TeivoTeivainen @Uruguay2035 @jussipesonenUPM @MarkoJanhunen @PaiviVistala @paivanlehti @lassesinikallas includes interest, it is correct to take it to its net present value of 1.7 billion dollars (double the initial 800 million dollars). On the exclusivity of the train for UPM, Álvaro García (OPP director) asks ironically "how can it be done, by decree, by resolution ...?". And if

@burrosuy @TeivoTeivainen @Uruguay2035 @jussipesonenUPM @MarkoJanhunen @PaiviVistala @paivanlehti @lassesinikallas you are given unrestricted and priority access 7 days a week, 365 days a year, with the freedom to set schedules 24 hours in advance? Then García argues that the train will offer connectivity to the port that today is "quite unfortunate."

@burrosuy @TeivoTeivainen @Uruguay2035 @jussipesonenUPM @MarkoJanhunen @PaiviVistala @paivanlehti @lassesinikallas Sure, but that connectivity is with the UPM terminal, only. What logistics hub are you talking about? If the other trains are going to arrive at most to the town of Progreso. Regarding the financial calculations to evaluate the investment, García mentions that he did not see any.

@burrosuy @TeivoTeivainen @Uruguay2035 @jussipesonenUPM @MarkoJanhunen @PaiviVistala @paivanlehti @lassesinikallas You are right, we did not see any of the Government, either before or after the contract was signed. He mentions a 7-page report from the OPP, which was delivered to Parliament at the end of the year. The first question is why that report was not made and disclosed BEFORE signing

@burrosuy @TeivoTeivainen @Uruguay2035 @jussipesonenUPM @MarkoJanhunen @PaiviVistala @paivanlehti @lassesinikallas the contract. It is striking that it has just been sent to Parliament 1 year later. Was it done, or did they have to do it when they realized the error on the train? Because like García, I did not see anyone questioning the discrepancy of numbers and letters in the Spanish

@burrosuy @TeivoTeivainen @Uruguay2035 @jussipesonenUPM @MarkoJanhunen @PaiviVistala @paivanlehti @lassesinikallas version of the contract (a clause in the contract states that, in case of differences, the Spanish version of the contract will prevail; in fact, the which generates legal obligations is the English version. In addition, even when they realized the error in the calculations, the

@burrosuy @TeivoTeivainen @Uruguay2035 @jussipesonenUPM @MarkoJanhunen @PaiviVistala @paivanlehti @lassesinikallas government did not defend the national interests of the country and instead privileged those of UPM, even knowing that the economic losses were enormous). We did not see more numbers because the government was releasing loose figures. At the beginning they said that we were going

@burrosuy @TeivoTeivainen @Uruguay2035 @jussipesonenUPM @MarkoJanhunen @PaiviVistala @paivanlehti @lassesinikallas to put 1,000 million dollars, and to me the account is already giving me more than 4,500 million dollars. And all those figures disclosed by the Government, UPM and CPA Ferrere were gross, not at net present value. Thats weird! The OPP super fantastic report also did not

@burrosuy @TeivoTeivainen @Uruguay2035 @jussipesonenUPM @MarkoJanhunen @PaiviVistala @paivanlehti @lassesinikallas consider the energy issue. Isn't it a rude mistake? If that is why, it is also a rude mistake to consider labor contributions as taxes, since as they are collected today, in the future pensions will be paid. With the same reasoning they should get them out of the 120 million

@burrosuy @TeivoTeivainen @Uruguay2035 @jussipesonenUPM @MarkoJanhunen @PaiviVistala @paivanlehti @lassesinikallas dollars annually that they consider as income, right? In any case, the report mentions the assumptions and shows the results, but there are no calculations. Neither there, nor anywhere. For those who are not familiar with the IRR (internal rate of return) and the NPV (net present

@burrosuy @TeivoTeivainen @Uruguay2035 @jussipesonenUPM @MarkoJanhunen @PaiviVistala @paivanlehti @lassesinikallas value), let's say that a small variation in the assumptions can cause the result of the analysis to change radically. For example: only subtracting labor contributions (which above are an estimate of UPM, considering up to induced positions), and the figures are not credible.

@burrosuy @TeivoTeivainen @Uruguay2035 @jussipesonenUPM @MarkoJanhunen @PaiviVistala @paivanlehti @lassesinikallas They do not match. Or changing only the interest rate - a very likely thing in 30 years, because we are at record lows - do not agree either. The government also evades the issue of labor regulation. Garcia repeatedly avoids answering this question. Because at that point, UPM

@burrosuy @TeivoTeivainen @Uruguay2035 @jussipesonenUPM @MarkoJanhunen @PaiviVistala @paivanlehti @lassesinikallas does not want promises or assumptions. It specifically requested that the issue of occupations (clause 3.6.10 of the contract) be incorporated into the labor regulations, with December 2019 at the latest. Once again, it is clear that the Government refuses to discuss the issue

@burrosuy @TeivoTeivainen @Uruguay2035 @jussipesonenUPM @MarkoJanhunen @PaiviVistala @paivanlehti @lassesinikallas because, before any person who is moderately informed, they cannot support their arguments. With just checking the train, the energy and the labor issue, it is enough to see that the numbers do not match. Needless to say about the environmental impact that the soil will suffer

@burrosuy @TeivoTeivainen @Uruguay2035 @jussipesonenUPM @MarkoJanhunen @PaiviVistala @paivanlehti @lassesinikallas due to abusive afforestation and water pollution. Let's see some data. To the high water consumption of the new UPM cellulose plant, which proposes to resort to the Río Negro river and two reservoirs, the subsequent discharge of its effluents is added. The Paso de los Toros Pulp

@burrosuy @TeivoTeivainen @Uruguay2035 @jussipesonenUPM @MarkoJanhunen @PaiviVistala @paivanlehti @lassesinikallas Mill Project of the UPM company obtained in record time the authorization of the National Environment Directorate (Dinama) to settle north of the Durazno department. Both the municipal government and Dinama ignored the procedure provided for in the Land Management and Sustainable

@burrosuy @TeivoTeivainen @Uruguay2035 @jussipesonenUPM @MarkoJanhunen @PaiviVistala @paivanlehti @lassesinikallas Development Law for these types of decisions. The two key factors of the location of the project in that place are the proximity of the eucalyptus plantations that would supply the raw material for the production of cellulose and the availability of water in the area located four

@burrosuy @TeivoTeivainen @Uruguay2035 @jussipesonenUPM @MarkoJanhunen @PaiviVistala @paivanlehti @lassesinikallas kilometers west of Pueblo Centenario, on the banks of the Río Negro river, on the reservoir contained between the Rincón del Bonete dams, to the east, and Baygorria, to the west. The execution of the project is subdivided into two perfectly differentiated phases: the first, the

@burrosuy @TeivoTeivainen @Uruguay2035 @jussipesonenUPM @MarkoJanhunen @PaiviVistala @paivanlehti @lassesinikallas construction of the industrial plant and its complements (the chemical plant, the intake and water plant, the effluent treatment plant, the final waste disposal site solid and biomass boiler) and the second, the operation of the industrial complex for the production of cellulose.

@burrosuy @TeivoTeivainen @Uruguay2035 @jussipesonenUPM @MarkoJanhunen @PaiviVistala @paivanlehti @lassesinikallas In both phases large volumes of water are required, but there is a big difference between the consumption of the first and the second. In construction, according to the report of the consulting firm Environmental Engineering Study (EIA) presented to Dinama, UPM "estimates that

@burrosuy @TeivoTeivainen @Uruguay2035 @jussipesonenUPM @MarkoJanhunen @PaiviVistala @paivanlehti @lassesinikallas water consumption could reach the order of 20 m3 / h (cubic meters per hour) for personnel services and 300 m3 / day (cubic meters per day) for other uses. " It would then consume a total of 32.5 cubic meters of water per hour in the first phase.

@burrosuy @TeivoTeivainen @Uruguay2035 @jussipesonenUPM @MarkoJanhunen @PaiviVistala @paivanlehti @lassesinikallas For this phase, UPM proposes in the first instance to use water from the subsoil and only resort to the Río Negro river if that source was not enough to supply. "If the water supply is only done through groundwater, it will not be necessary," says the consultant EIA.

@burrosuy @TeivoTeivainen @Uruguay2035 @jussipesonenUPM @MarkoJanhunen @PaiviVistala @paivanlehti @lassesinikallas The UPM report argues that in that place "it would be a cracked aquifer of very low productivity, with medium to small relative hydrogeological importance." It is clear then that the company would use the underground water of the place and, if it does not reach it, it would

@burrosuy @TeivoTeivainen @Uruguay2035 @jussipesonenUPM @MarkoJanhunen @PaiviVistala @paivanlehti @lassesinikallas complete it with water from the Río Negro river. This would cover the consumption of the construction, but it would not be enough for the next phase. In effect, UPM estimates a daily consumption of 125 thousand cubic meters of water in the operation of the plant. It is equivalent

@burrosuy @TeivoTeivainen @Uruguay2035 @jussipesonenUPM @MarkoJanhunen @PaiviVistala @paivanlehti @lassesinikallas to 5,200 cubic meters per hour, 160 times that required in the construction phase. Hence, the company leaves no doubt that the main source of water supply for the pulp mill must be the Río Negro river and its reservoirs, although it then tries to minimize the effects. In summary,

@burrosuy @TeivoTeivainen @Uruguay2035 @jussipesonenUPM @MarkoJanhunen @PaiviVistala @paivanlehti @lassesinikallas UPM would use underground water in the area but, if it is not enough, it will resort to the Río Negro river and, as the natural flow of the river may not reach it for the operation of the plant, it will finally rely on the reservoirs of Baygorria and Rincón del Bonete.

@burrosuy @TeivoTeivainen @Uruguay2035 @jussipesonenUPM @MarkoJanhunen @PaiviVistala @paivanlehti @lassesinikallas When analyzing the possible impacts of the effluents from the plant, EIA recognizes that the situation of the Río Negro river is worrying. "The most relevant aspect in terms of contributions is associated with eutrophic contamination, in terms of the phosphorus contribution that

@burrosuy @TeivoTeivainen @Uruguay2035 @jussipesonenUPM @MarkoJanhunen @PaiviVistala @paivanlehti @lassesinikallas will be made, the main limiting factor in algae growth," says the report. In the following paragraph, the report reaffirms that "There is a concern about the trophic status of reservoirs since, currently, phosphorus concentrations exceed water quality standards (Total Phosphorus

@burrosuy @TeivoTeivainen @Uruguay2035 @jussipesonenUPM @MarkoJanhunen @PaiviVistala @paivanlehti @lassesinikallas standard for Class 3 water is 25 μg / L ( micrograms per liter), and average values of 90 μg / L have been measured." However, the last figure no longer matches the values of the studies conducted by Dinama. After those statements coinciding with public knowledge about the state

@burrosuy @TeivoTeivainen @Uruguay2035 @jussipesonenUPM @MarkoJanhunen @PaiviVistala @paivanlehti @lassesinikallas of the Río Negro river, EIA goes on to minimize the impact that the plant would have. For this, the report questions the official studies carried out until today. "In fact," says the UPM consultant, "the trophic level classifications of the Baygorria reservoir are based on

@burrosuy @TeivoTeivainen @Uruguay2035 @jussipesonenUPM @MarkoJanhunen @PaiviVistala @paivanlehti @lassesinikallas phosphorus concentrations, although it is not proven that this is the limiting factor in this case. Therefore, if well the concern is attentive, a deeper study is necessary to affirm the real situation of the body of water and the significance of the contribution."

@burrosuy @TeivoTeivainen @Uruguay2035 @jussipesonenUPM @MarkoJanhunen @PaiviVistala @paivanlehti @lassesinikallas Who can refuse to study? It is a common argument when seeking to hide the impacts of an intervention. And then the makeup begins. For now, the average value of phosphorus in the river measured by Dinama is 130 micrograms per liter, much higher than that handled by UPM. According

@burrosuy @TeivoTeivainen @Uruguay2035 @jussipesonenUPM @MarkoJanhunen @PaiviVistala @paivanlehti @lassesinikallas to the "Río Negro river Monitoring Plan. Water Quality Data Report", April 2015, "The annual average total phosphate in 2014 is the same as the previous five-year period of 0.13 mg / l", five times above the norm. At the same time, the company underestimates the amount of

@burrosuy @TeivoTeivainen @Uruguay2035 @jussipesonenUPM @MarkoJanhunen @PaiviVistala @paivanlehti @lassesinikallas phosphorus transported by the effluents saying that "the maximum average monthly phosphorus contribution load could be 150 kg / d (kilograms per day) of Total Phosphorus, which should be specifically evaluated for be able to determine significance." In the same report, UPM

@burrosuy @TeivoTeivainen @Uruguay2035 @jussipesonenUPM @MarkoJanhunen @PaiviVistala @paivanlehti @lassesinikallas expresses that the phosphorus concentration of the effluent "under normal conditions" would be less than 1 mg / L (milligram per liter), but adds that it will have a "maximum reference concentration" of 2 mg / L and that "In no case may the maximum permitted concentration

@burrosuy @TeivoTeivainen @Uruguay2035 @jussipesonenUPM @MarkoJanhunen @PaiviVistala @paivanlehti @lassesinikallas standard of 5 mg / L be exceeded." What is the fair value to take to calculate the contribution of the effluent to the river? Knowing that the plant sometimes exceeds the maximum allowed, as Dinama has registered with the UPM plant in Fray Bentos, the value to be taken should be

@burrosuy @TeivoTeivainen @Uruguay2035 @jussipesonenUPM @MarkoJanhunen @PaiviVistala @paivanlehti @lassesinikallas 2 mg / L. Then, the maximum average monthly contribution of phosphorus to the Río Negro of the 106,500 cubic meters of effluents could be 213 kg / d (kilograms per day) of Total Phosphorus and not the 150 kg / d referred by the company in its report. UPM points out that it will

@burrosuy @TeivoTeivainen @Uruguay2035 @jussipesonenUPM @MarkoJanhunen @PaiviVistala @paivanlehti @lassesinikallas need a lot of wood, requiring more than 90 thousand additional forested hectares in the next decade. In its operation phase, the plant will use 20 thousand tons of sodium chloride, 48 thousand tons of sodium chlorate and 88 thousand tons per year of various chlorine inputs that

@burrosuy @TeivoTeivainen @Uruguay2035 @jussipesonenUPM @MarkoJanhunen @PaiviVistala @paivanlehti @lassesinikallas it will need to process cellulose pulp. It will pour 106 cubic meters of treated effluents a day, 450 kilos of nitrogen and 85 kilos of phosphorus into the river. It will have two final waste disposal sites with a useful life of five years, with a third in case of emergency.

@burrosuy @TeivoTeivainen @Uruguay2035 @jussipesonenUPM @MarkoJanhunen @PaiviVistala @paivanlehti @lassesinikallas The MVOTMA (Ministry of Housing Territorial Planning and Environment) increased to 80 cubic meters per second (m3 / s) the need for the minimum flow for the operation of the project, which by the UPM proposal was 65 m3 / s. The requirement of a minimum flow to dilute the effluent

@burrosuy @TeivoTeivainen @Uruguay2035 @jussipesonenUPM @MarkoJanhunen @PaiviVistala @paivanlehti @lassesinikallas of this cellulose plant is unprecedented because it was not raised with the previous Botnia / UPM plants in Fray Bentos and Montes del Plata in Conchillas. The ministerial resolution cites as reference the Final Report of the National Environment Directorate (Dinama) but,

@burrosuy @TeivoTeivainen @Uruguay2035 @jussipesonenUPM @MarkoJanhunen @PaiviVistala @paivanlehti @lassesinikallas interestingly, that document is not published. The authorization of a minimum flow for UPM affects the management of the Río Negro river dams, it is a decision with economic, social and environmental consequences, which would modify the current norm on the generation

@burrosuy @TeivoTeivainen @Uruguay2035 @jussipesonenUPM @MarkoJanhunen @PaiviVistala @paivanlehti @lassesinikallas of electricity. The generation of hydroelectric power is regulated by Decree 160/80, dated March 19, 1980, which assigned to the National Administration of Electric Power Plants and Transmissions (UTE) the priority for the use of the waters of the three reservoirs of the Río

@burrosuy @TeivoTeivainen @Uruguay2035 @jussipesonenUPM @MarkoJanhunen @PaiviVistala @paivanlehti @lassesinikallas Negro river . "This priority will be effective against all other uses," the decree adds, except for the provision of drinking water to the populations. This decree admits "the extraction of water for productive uses that allow its return to the reservoir, after its use". For this

@burrosuy @TeivoTeivainen @Uruguay2035 @jussipesonenUPM @MarkoJanhunen @PaiviVistala @paivanlehti @lassesinikallas reason, UPM emphasizes that its water consumption would be lower when returning 107 of the 136 million liters taken daily, but it does not return water but an effluent that must be diluted at least 65 times so as not to aggravate the present contamination of the Río Negro river.

@burrosuy @TeivoTeivainen @Uruguay2035 @jussipesonenUPM @MarkoJanhunen @PaiviVistala @paivanlehti @lassesinikallas In order to operate the new plant, it requires that Rincón del Bonete be under the orders of UPM, although now the authorities of the company recognize that under extreme conditions it must stop completely. UPM stated in its project that the operation of the plant will require

@burrosuy @TeivoTeivainen @Uruguay2035 @jussipesonenUPM @MarkoJanhunen @PaiviVistala @paivanlehti @lassesinikallas 136.5 million liters of water and will return 107 million liters of effluents to the river every day. As if it could easily fool technicians, UPM says it will return water. "Clarification is made - expressed in the project report - that the water used does not imply significant

@burrosuy @TeivoTeivainen @Uruguay2035 @jussipesonenUPM @MarkoJanhunen @PaiviVistala @paivanlehti @lassesinikallas consumption for the receiving body, since about 80% of it returns from the PTE (Effluent Treatment Plant ), so that actual consumption can be estimated at 9,700,000 m3 / year (cubic meters per year), or 27,300 m3 / d (cubic meters per day). " But the effluent that returns has a

@burrosuy @TeivoTeivainen @Uruguay2035 @jussipesonenUPM @MarkoJanhunen @PaiviVistala @paivanlehti @lassesinikallas considerable chemical and organic load. To give a more understandable idea of the meaning of these figures, according to officially managed standards, 136.5 million liters are equivalent to the daily water consumption of a population of one million inhabitants. Despite its

@burrosuy @TeivoTeivainen @Uruguay2035 @jussipesonenUPM @MarkoJanhunen @PaiviVistala @paivanlehti @lassesinikallas previous treatment, the 107 million liters of effluents will have a phosphorus load of 2 milligrams per liter and are comparable to untreated sewage from a population of 235,000 people (sewage effluents per person are estimated as 70% of the water consumed. The concentration of

@burrosuy @TeivoTeivainen @Uruguay2035 @jussipesonenUPM @MarkoJanhunen @PaiviVistala @paivanlehti @lassesinikallas Total Phosphorus (PT) in household effluents ranges from 5 to 15 mg / l (milligrams per liter). 70% of 130 l / d of water = 91 liters of effluents, per 10 mg / l of PT = 0.91 g / l of PT per liter. Phosphorus goal set by UPM: 214 kg per day. 214,000 ÷ 0.91 = equivalent to 235,000

@burrosuy @TeivoTeivainen @Uruguay2035 @jussipesonenUPM @MarkoJanhunen @PaiviVistala @paivanlehti @lassesinikallas people). A big problem of the installation of the plant in that place is, precisely, the dilution of that effluent because the river is already contaminated. The current norm establishes that the maximum permissible concentration of phosphorus in surface waters must be 25 µ / l

@burrosuy @TeivoTeivainen @Uruguay2035 @jussipesonenUPM @MarkoJanhunen @PaiviVistala @paivanlehti @lassesinikallas (micrograms per liter). According to the Dinama measurements, the Río Negro river has an average load of 130 µ / l, five times above the norm. On December 28, Impact Assessment requested additional information on water that revealed significant shortcomings of the Environmental

@burrosuy @TeivoTeivainen @Uruguay2035 @jussipesonenUPM @MarkoJanhunen @PaiviVistala @paivanlehti @lassesinikallas Impact Study. For Dinama the application of the numerical model was not satisfactory, the baseline of water quality was lacking and only gave the results of a single discharge and a single minimum flow, so it required testing these factors with different values. "It is necessary

@burrosuy @TeivoTeivainen @Uruguay2035 @jussipesonenUPM @MarkoJanhunen @PaiviVistala @paivanlehti @lassesinikallas to carry out some additional assessments aimed at identifying the best area in front of the plant site where to proceed to the discharge," said the Environmental Impact Area. And the report adds: "in this case estimate, in addition to the expected concentrations for conservative

@burrosuy @TeivoTeivainen @Uruguay2035 @jussipesonenUPM @MarkoJanhunen @PaiviVistala @paivanlehti @lassesinikallas substances at the edge of the mixing zone, the thermal response of the water course to the expected discharge".
Lastly, Dinama pointed out that UPM had "failed to analyze the measures to be taken by the plant in the event of extreme drought events" and requested "to present the

@burrosuy @TeivoTeivainen @Uruguay2035 @jussipesonenUPM @MarkoJanhunen @PaiviVistala @paivanlehti @lassesinikallas corresponding analysis of such contingency, including the corresponding action plan to implement in such case." It is known that acute droughts are recurrent in the area. This situation explains the need to guarantee this cellulose plant a minimum flow of water to dilute that

@burrosuy @TeivoTeivainen @Uruguay2035 @jussipesonenUPM @MarkoJanhunen @PaiviVistala @paivanlehti @lassesinikallas effluent so as not to aggravate the existing contamination. This requirement of a minimum flow, something not happened with the other plants on the Uruguay River and the Río de la Plata, is the evidence that the Río Negro river does not support the new UPM plant unless it uses

@burrosuy @TeivoTeivainen @Uruguay2035 @jussipesonenUPM @MarkoJanhunen @PaiviVistala @paivanlehti @lassesinikallas the water from the reservoirs. From the second Environmental Impact Study presented to Dinama in September, it was known that this UPM plant needs to have a minimum flow of 65 m3 / s (cubic meters per second) to dilute that effluent in about 50 times. So, this flow is an

@burrosuy @TeivoTeivainen @Uruguay2035 @jussipesonenUPM @MarkoJanhunen @PaiviVistala @paivanlehti @lassesinikallas unavoidable condition for the operation of the plant: 5.6 billion liters of water, equivalent to the daily consumption of more than 44 million people. What does it mean to supply UPM continuously 80 cubic meters per second of water from the Rincón del Bonete lake? If the priority

@burrosuy @TeivoTeivainen @Uruguay2035 @jussipesonenUPM @MarkoJanhunen @PaiviVistala @paivanlehti @lassesinikallas established by Decree 160/80 was not modified, was UTE consulted to make this decision? Today, dams do not always release water and doing so without necessity has the risk of being missing when needed and this generates significant economic expenses. In 1979, the Salto Grande dam

@burrosuy @TeivoTeivainen @Uruguay2035 @jussipesonenUPM @MarkoJanhunen @PaiviVistala @paivanlehti @lassesinikallas began operating on the Uruguay River, which reached full operation of its 14 turbines in 1983. Since then, the Río Negro river dams do not need to generate electricity at all times but instead serve as a reserve for situations of emergency and / or sale to neighboring countries,

@burrosuy @TeivoTeivainen @Uruguay2035 @jussipesonenUPM @MarkoJanhunen @PaiviVistala @paivanlehti @lassesinikallas as the country has surpluses due to the contribution of wind, biomass and solar energy. If we take the flows discharged by the Gabriel Terra dam between 1979 and 2010, the flow rate was less than 80 m3 / s 24% of the time or 89 days, almost three months, in the year. This means

@burrosuy @TeivoTeivainen @Uruguay2035 @jussipesonenUPM @MarkoJanhunen @PaiviVistala @paivanlehti @lassesinikallas that in those days the dam must release water to serve the UPM plant, not because it must generate energy. To know the consequences of this situation on the management of dams, let's look at the response given by ADME (Electricity Market Administration; it is in charge of the

@burrosuy @TeivoTeivainen @Uruguay2035 @jussipesonenUPM @MarkoJanhunen @PaiviVistala @paivanlehti @lassesinikallas wholesale electricity market and the National Load Dispatch Center. The Center programs and executes the integrated operation of the power generation system, public and private, in an economic way giving priority to the current quality and reliability parameters.) It would be

@burrosuy @TeivoTeivainen @Uruguay2035 @jussipesonenUPM @MarkoJanhunen @PaiviVistala @paivanlehti @lassesinikallas logical that the MVOTMA decision on the minimum flow established for the operation of the UPM pulp mill was supported by an evaluation of its consequences on the management of the generation system as a whole and the operation plan of the Gabriel Terra dam in particular, as well

@burrosuy @TeivoTeivainen @Uruguay2035 @jussipesonenUPM @MarkoJanhunen @PaiviVistala @paivanlehti @lassesinikallas as the economic costs for the Uruguayan state of its application. This was ADME's response: "This administration did not carry out a study that considers the operation plan of the Gabriel Terra dam with a minimum discharge of 80 m3 / s referred to in its note", was the concise

@burrosuy @TeivoTeivainen @Uruguay2035 @jussipesonenUPM @MarkoJanhunen @PaiviVistala @paivanlehti @lassesinikallas response of the ADME authorities. From the declaration it can be deduced that they were not even informed of the resolution that granted the environmental authorization to the UPM plant with that requirement. In this context, the question about UTE's plan to meet the water

@burrosuy @TeivoTeivainen @Uruguay2035 @jussipesonenUPM @MarkoJanhunen @PaiviVistala @paivanlehti @lassesinikallas supply to UPM, which was associated with the project of the entity to raise by one meter, up to level # 81, the maximum level of Rincón del Bonete Lake is reconsidered. Announced by UTE´s Board of Directors at a press conference in December 2018, the project was suspended by then

@burrosuy @TeivoTeivainen @Uruguay2035 @jussipesonenUPM @MarkoJanhunen @PaiviVistala @paivanlehti @lassesinikallas Minister of Industry Carolina Cosse. In recent days, the arrival of eviction notifications in farms near Paso de los Toros rekindled concerns with this UTE project. To carry it out would mean the flooding of 10,000 hectares of mostly cattle fields and would give a coup de grace

@burrosuy @TeivoTeivainen @Uruguay2035 @jussipesonenUPM @MarkoJanhunen @PaiviVistala @paivanlehti @lassesinikallas to the tourist destination of San Gregorio de Polanco, which in addition to losing its beaches would see a good part of its urban plant flooded. UPM responded in February to the requirements of Dinama reaffirming, in substance, the initial proposal regarding the consumption of

@burrosuy @TeivoTeivainen @Uruguay2035 @jussipesonenUPM @MarkoJanhunen @PaiviVistala @paivanlehti @lassesinikallas water that the plant would have, the characteristics of the effluent to be discharged into the Río Negro river and the minimum flow required to dilute it. However, UPM added details and requirements that allow a more complete assessment of the different implications of this

@burrosuy @TeivoTeivainen @Uruguay2035 @jussipesonenUPM @MarkoJanhunen @PaiviVistala @paivanlehti @lassesinikallas project. "It can be affirmed that a minimum flow of 65 m3 / s is sustainable over time, and the extreme events that prevent its maintenance would be very scarce," UPM argues based on the records between 1947 and 2017, according to which the discharged flow average monthly minimum

@burrosuy @TeivoTeivainen @Uruguay2035 @jussipesonenUPM @MarkoJanhunen @PaiviVistala @paivanlehti @lassesinikallas was 86 m3 / s at the Rincón del Bonete dam. However, the average does not indicate how long the flow rate is less than 65 m3 / s. “If an evaluation is made from 1994 to 2017, flows below 65 m3 / s occur more or less 20% of the time of the hydrological variability of the Río Negro

@burrosuy @TeivoTeivainen @Uruguay2035 @jussipesonenUPM @MarkoJanhunen @PaiviVistala @paivanlehti @lassesinikallas river. "These periods can even be consecutive in time and last a week or more," said biologist Luis Aubriot. The only way to guarantee the minimum flow at that time is by extracting that water from the dam reservoir.

@burrosuy @TeivoTeivainen @Uruguay2035 @jussipesonenUPM @MarkoJanhunen @PaiviVistala @paivanlehti @lassesinikallas The studies requested by the Dinama to UPM included the possibility that the flow supply was intermittent, discharged for 18, 12, 8 or 6 hours and the rest without discharge, but the response was negative. That this flow is continuous forces UTE to supply it without generating

@burrosuy @TeivoTeivainen @Uruguay2035 @jussipesonenUPM @MarkoJanhunen @PaiviVistala @paivanlehti @lassesinikallas electricity or that the one it generates is not necessary, with the economic losses and the energy reserve that implies. Last December, UTE leaders denied that the elevation of the Rincón del Bonete lake elevation was related to the pulp mill and said they negotiated intermittent

@burrosuy @TeivoTeivainen @Uruguay2035 @jussipesonenUPM @MarkoJanhunen @PaiviVistala @paivanlehti @lassesinikallas water delivery. UPM does not support this option and the decision on the project will depend on whether or not the plan of level 81 resurfaces, beyond circumstantial statements by President Tabaré Vázquez. The most novel aspect of UPM's response to Dinama was the admission that

@burrosuy @TeivoTeivainen @Uruguay2035 @jussipesonenUPM @MarkoJanhunen @PaiviVistala @paivanlehti @lassesinikallas in acute droughts the plant must stop, but the demands of the Uruguayan State do not stop there. "Faced with the forecast of an extreme drought event ... the information must be available well in advance to be able to start a process of halting activities in a harmonious way,"

@burrosuy @TeivoTeivainen @Uruguay2035 @jussipesonenUPM @MarkoJanhunen @PaiviVistala @paivanlehti @lassesinikallas the company said. UPM then stated: “It will be necessary, first, to form a coordinated working group (between Dinama, UTE, ADME, UPM) that allows an early warning about the possible break in the supply of minimum flow from the Gabriel Terra dam. This group must have agreed,

@burrosuy @TeivoTeivainen @Uruguay2035 @jussipesonenUPM @MarkoJanhunen @PaiviVistala @paivanlehti @lassesinikallas prior to the commissioning of the factory, a procedure that establishes the actions to be implemented ”. The procedure to follow “can only be elaborated when it is known, on behalf of the Uruguayan State, the operational strategy for the management of the Rincon del Bonete

@burrosuy @TeivoTeivainen @Uruguay2035 @jussipesonenUPM @MarkoJanhunen @PaiviVistala @paivanlehti @lassesinikallas reservoir to be implemented to ensure said minimum flow,” the company reaffirmed. It´s impossible to put it more clearly: dam management will be at the service of UPM's needs and that is the tone of the company's reports. In other relevant aspects of the information requested,

@burrosuy @TeivoTeivainen @Uruguay2035 @jussipesonenUPM @MarkoJanhunen @PaiviVistala @paivanlehti @lassesinikallas UPM reaffirms that the best situation is the one initially proposed. After ensuring that variations in discharges do not have perceptible consequences, the conclusion is that "although it cannot be considered that there is a significant improvement in water quality, it can be

@burrosuy @TeivoTeivainen @Uruguay2035 @jussipesonenUPM @MarkoJanhunen @PaiviVistala @paivanlehti @lassesinikallas said that there is no deterioration of it." To summarize, how did UPM get to that figure? The company must justify the foreseeable impact of its installation knowing that the Río Negro river is contaminated above acceptable levels. "It is always difficult to establish a

@burrosuy @TeivoTeivainen @Uruguay2035 @jussipesonenUPM @MarkoJanhunen @PaiviVistala @paivanlehti @lassesinikallas criterion of admissibility of an impact for a new activity when there is a previous contamination situation on a given environmental factor," says UPM in the environmental impact study. And it adds that "when the environmental liability presents a basin scale, as in this case,

@burrosuy @TeivoTeivainen @Uruguay2035 @jussipesonenUPM @MarkoJanhunen @PaiviVistala @paivanlehti @lassesinikallas the possibility of reversing the situation is beyond the scope of the project." UPM thus falls from its responsibility in the current pollution of the river, a situation obviously not generated by the unbuilt plant. The company argues that it can only "not increase and possibly

@burrosuy @TeivoTeivainen @Uruguay2035 @jussipesonenUPM @MarkoJanhunen @PaiviVistala @paivanlehti @lassesinikallas reduce the current situation." Recognizing its impact, UPM is committed to compensating Uruguay with "technical and financial support for Uruguay's plans to improve the quality of the waters of the Río Negro river." The company will contribute 1,5 million dollars annually for 20

@burrosuy @TeivoTeivainen @Uruguay2035 @jussipesonenUPM @MarkoJanhunen @PaiviVistala @paivanlehti @lassesinikallas years and will contribute to the sanitation of the towns of Paso de los Toros and Pueblo Centenario, but that is far from offsetting the impact of the pulp mill operation. According to the project presented to Dinama, the UPM plant will discharge 107 million liters per day of

@burrosuy @TeivoTeivainen @Uruguay2035 @jussipesonenUPM @MarkoJanhunen @PaiviVistala @paivanlehti @lassesinikallas effluent into the Río Negro river. Although the company affirms that the chemical and organic components of these effluents will be within the current norm, the immediate subsequent problem is whether the river has the capacity to dilute them and take them to a relationship that

@burrosuy @TeivoTeivainen @Uruguay2035 @jussipesonenUPM @MarkoJanhunen @PaiviVistala @paivanlehti @lassesinikallas does not increase the already existing pollution. To the extent that it already has a high level of pollution, the Río Negro river does not have the capacity to dilute these effluents and an additional flow of water is necessary that can only be supplied by the reservoir of the

@burrosuy @TeivoTeivainen @Uruguay2035 @jussipesonenUPM @MarkoJanhunen @PaiviVistala @paivanlehti @lassesinikallas Rincon del Bonete lake that would remain upstream of the plant. That is, that minimum flow is the condition so that the impact of the plant does not aggravate the situation of the river. The flow of 65 m3 / s raised by UPM is equivalent to 5.616 million liters of water per day.

@burrosuy @TeivoTeivainen @Uruguay2035 @jussipesonenUPM @MarkoJanhunen @PaiviVistala @paivanlehti @lassesinikallas If one takes into account that the pulp mill would discharge 107 million liters of effluents into the river daily, this means that these effluents need a dilution of more than 52.5 times in order not to aggravate the situation of the Río Negro river. This completely modifies the

@burrosuy @TeivoTeivainen @Uruguay2035 @jussipesonenUPM @MarkoJanhunen @PaiviVistala @paivanlehti @lassesinikallas calculation of the water consumption of the plant. UPM alleges that water consumption would be the difference between 136 million liters it takes and 107 million liters that it returns daily to the river, that is, about 29 million liters. But the discharge is not water but

@burrosuy @TeivoTeivainen @Uruguay2035 @jussipesonenUPM @MarkoJanhunen @PaiviVistala @paivanlehti @lassesinikallas effluents that need 5.616 million liters of water to be diluted. Then the volume of water without which the plant could not operate is 5,752 (5,616 + 136) million liters per day. In short, although UPM fulfills its commitments and that minimum flow is provided, the plan to

@burrosuy @TeivoTeivainen @Uruguay2035 @jussipesonenUPM @MarkoJanhunen @PaiviVistala @paivanlehti @lassesinikallas resolve the Río Negro river pollution will remain pending. The company's claim that it will not aggravate the river's situation is not even valid because the pulp mill consolidates a productive model that is at the origin of the environmental degradation of the country's soil and

@burrosuy @TeivoTeivainen @Uruguay2035 @jussipesonenUPM @MarkoJanhunen @PaiviVistala @paivanlehti @lassesinikallas water. Which by the way, are full with cyanobacteria. Algae invade the Río Negro river and six out of ten cows and sheep in Rincón del Bonete and Baygorria have been detected an unusual level of toxins in the blood. According to a thesis of the Department of Limnology of the

@burrosuy @TeivoTeivainen @Uruguay2035 @jussipesonenUPM @MarkoJanhunen @PaiviVistala @paivanlehti @lassesinikallas Faculty of Sciences, 43% of the producers in the area admit that some of their animals have died from pollution, and is the most extreme manifestation of excess phosphorus in the basin, which since 2007 is in values "well above" those allowed. The Minister of Environment, Eneida

@burrosuy @TeivoTeivainen @Uruguay2035 @jussipesonenUPM @MarkoJanhunen @PaiviVistala @paivanlehti @lassesinikallas De León, acknowledged that the Río Negro basin, where the second UPM plant will be installed, "is contaminated", while the independent works of the Faculty of Science reveal that in Palmar, the concentration of phosphorus in quintuple water to the limit. The only way to mitigate

@burrosuy @TeivoTeivainen @Uruguay2035 @jussipesonenUPM @MarkoJanhunen @PaiviVistala @paivanlehti @lassesinikallas it is through a reduction in the amount of pollutants that reach the river and its tributaries, said oceanographer Guillermo Chalar. According to the regulations, the Río Negro river can register up to 25 micrograms of phosphorus per liter of water, but in Palmar the levels range

@burrosuy @TeivoTeivainen @Uruguay2035 @jussipesonenUPM @MarkoJanhunen @PaiviVistala @paivanlehti @lassesinikallas between 124 and 134, in Baygorria it is 83 and in Rincon del Bonete, 91. The current UPM plant on the Uruguay river is allowed to pour 74 kilos of phosphorus per day, which led to the Río Negro river - where the flow is smaller and therefore the water tends to “stagnate” more -

@burrosuy @TeivoTeivainen @Uruguay2035 @jussipesonenUPM @MarkoJanhunen @PaiviVistala @paivanlehti @lassesinikallas the nutrient could grow between 70 and 100 micrograms per liter of water. The consumption of these algae is capable of killing a small sheep in three weeks and a more grown one in two months. According to scientists, "it is likely" that some of its toxins remain in tarariras,

@burrosuy @TeivoTeivainen @Uruguay2035 @jussipesonenUPM @MarkoJanhunen @PaiviVistala @paivanlehti @lassesinikallas typical fish of the Río Negro river and exported to Brazil. Several towns in the area, including Mercedes, purify the water in the Río Negro basin, and the increase in cyanobacteria makes the purification process increasingly expensive, Chalar explained. Hydroelectric dams on the

@burrosuy @TeivoTeivainen @Uruguay2035 @jussipesonenUPM @MarkoJanhunen @PaiviVistala @paivanlehti @lassesinikallas Río Negro river allow water reservoir and nutrient concentration, while the growth of productive ventures, such as soybeans, provide more elements for pollution. However, the discharge of phosphorus that UPM will make is only the end of an impact that, according to the doctor in

@burrosuy @TeivoTeivainen @Uruguay2035 @jussipesonenUPM @MarkoJanhunen @PaiviVistala @paivanlehti @lassesinikallas Water Management, Daniel Panario, has its beginning in eucalyptus afforestation: "These trees demand a lot of water and the huge plantations meant that there is 20% less water in the basins associated with the Río Negro river and that it reaches 50% in times of low rainfall."

@burrosuy @TeivoTeivainen @Uruguay2035 @jussipesonenUPM @MarkoJanhunen @PaiviVistala @paivanlehti @lassesinikallas @HSfiPolitiikka
@gijn
@ICFJ
@merjaya
@ylepuhe
@yleisradio
@yleuutiset
@radiosuomi
@svuorikoski
@YleUutiset_pol
@yleradio1
@urgewald
@yleareena
@YleAstudio
@elavaarkisto
@YleTV1
@JussiPullinen
@YleTeema
@StopTNCimpunity
@iltalehti_fi
@hsfi
@Maikkari
@mtv_fi
@SuomenKuvalehti

@burrosuy @TeivoTeivainen @Uruguay2035 @jussipesonenUPM @MarkoJanhunen @PaiviVistala @paivanlehti @lassesinikallas @HSfiPolitiikka @gijn @ICFJ @merjaya @ylepuhe @Yleisradio @yleuutiset @radiosuomi @svuorikoski @YleUutiset_pol @yleradio1 @urgewald @yleareena @YleAstudio @elavaarkisto @YleTV1 @JussiPullinen @YleTeema @StopTNCimpunity @iltalehti_fi @hsfi @Maikkari @mtv_fi @SuomenKuvalehti @Yleisradio
@tuomaspeltomaki
@villeseuri
@MVirtanen
@WhatsNYourPapr
@Valeproffa
@EsaMakinen
@markojunkkari
@KaiusNiemi
@SZ
@b_obermayer
@SZ_Investigativ
@minnaknus
@f_obermaier
@jliski

@burrosuy @TeivoTeivainen @Uruguay2035 @jussipesonenUPM @MarkoJanhunen @PaiviVistala @paivanlehti @lassesinikallas @HSfiPolitiikka @gijn @ICFJ @merjaya @ylepuhe @Yleisradio @yleuutiset @radiosuomi @svuorikoski @YleUutiset_pol @yleradio1 @urgewald @yleareena @YleAstudio @elavaarkisto @YleTV1 @JussiPullinen @YleTeema @StopTNCimpunity @iltalehti_fi @hsfi @Maikkari @mtv_fi @SuomenKuvalehti @tuomaspeltomaki @iltasanomat
@STTViestintap
@STTInfo
@ilkka_fi
@MTVSuomi
@Yleisradio
@svenska_yle
@DailyFinland
@thisisFINLAND
@hsfi
@vihrealanka
@tiede_lehti
@alandstidningen
@Imatralainen
@ESSonline
@jyrkikasvi
@orastynkkynen

@burrosuy @TeivoTeivainen @Uruguay2035 @jussipesonenUPM @MarkoJanhunen @PaiviVistala @paivanlehti @lassesinikallas @HSfiPolitiikka @gijn @ICFJ @merjaya @ylepuhe @Yleisradio @yleuutiset @radiosuomi @svuorikoski @YleUutiset_pol @yleradio1 @urgewald @yleareena @YleAstudio @elavaarkisto @YleTV1 @JussiPullinen @YleTeema @StopTNCimpunity @iltalehti_fi @hsfi @Maikkari @outialanko @paavoarhinmaki @EvaBiaudet @TuulaHaatainen @Haavisto @AtteHarjanne
@eveheinaluoma @mariholopainen @veronikahonka
@EmmaKari @MaiKivela @terhikoulumies @MariaOhisalo
@JaanaPelkonen @MariPSRantanen @willerydman
@sarisarkomaa @filsdeproust @adleande @TiinaElo

@burrosuy @TeivoTeivainen @Uruguay2035 @jussipesonenUPM @MarkoJanhunen @PaiviVistala @paivanlehti @lassesinikallas @HSfiPolitiikka @gijn @ICFJ @merjaya @ylepuhe @Yleisradio @yleuutiset @radiosuomi @svuorikoski @YleUutiset_pol @yleradio1 @urgewald @yleareena @YleAstudio @elavaarkisto @YleTV1 @JussiPullinen @YleTeema @StopTNCimpunity @iltalehti_fi @hsfi @Maikkari @outialanko @paavoarhinmaki @Guzenina @TimoHarakka @hjallisharkimo @InkaHopsu
@SaaraHyrkko @arjajuvonen @anttikaikkonen @PiaKauma
@pihla_keto @kimmokiljunen @koponno @KvarnstromJohan @MiaLaiho @AnteroLaukkanen
@elinalepomaki @AnttiLindtman @plohikoski
@leena_meri

@burrosuy @TeivoTeivainen @Uruguay2035 @jussipesonenUPM @MarkoJanhunen @PaiviVistala @paivanlehti @lassesinikallas @HSfiPolitiikka @gijn @ICFJ @merjaya @ylepuhe @Yleisradio @yleuutiset @radiosuomi @svuorikoski @YleUutiset_pol @yleradio1 @urgewald @yleareena @YleAstudio @elavaarkisto @YleTV1 @JussiPullinen @YleTeema @StopTNCimpunity @iltalehti_fi @hsfi @Maikkari @SariMultala @KaiMykkanen @mikaniikko @ir_rkp
@rehnkivi @AnttiRinnepj @jussisaramo @RuutSjoblom
@RiikkaPoutsalo @VanhanenMatti @rauhantaee
@liandersson @SandraBergq @elorantaeevajoh
@SariEssayah @vilhelmjunnila @LindenAki
@PetteriOrpo @saarasofia @VilleTavio

@burrosuy @TeivoTeivainen @Uruguay2035 @jussipesonenUPM @MarkoJanhunen @PaiviVistala @paivanlehti @lassesinikallas @HSfiPolitiikka @gijn @ICFJ @merjaya @ylepuhe @Yleisradio @yleuutiset @radiosuomi @svuorikoski @YleUutiset_pol @yleradio1 @urgewald @yleareena @YleAstudio @elavaarkisto @YleTV1 @JussiPullinen @YleTeema @StopTNCimpunity @iltalehti_fi @hsfi @AMVirolainen
@VirtaSofia
@Eeva_Kalli
@KristaKiuru
@MatiasMarttinen
@JariMyllykoski
@KrisseSalonen
@TarjaFilatov
@sannigrahn
@timoheinonen
@Mika_Kari
@HiluKemppi
@RamiLehto1973
@akpekonen
@LuluRanne
@villeskinnari
@satuhassi
@IkonenAK
@KiuruPauli
@annakontula
@MarinSanna

@burrosuy @TeivoTeivainen @Uruguay2035 @jussipesonenUPM @MarkoJanhunen @PaiviVistala @paivanlehti @lassesinikallas @HSfiPolitiikka @gijn @ICFJ @merjaya @ylepuhe @Yleisradio @yleuutiset @radiosuomi @svuorikoski @YleUutiset_pol @yleradio1 @urgewald @yleareena @YleAstudio @elavaarkisto @YleTV1 @JussiPullinen @YleTeema @StopTNCimpunity @iltalehti_fi @hsfi @AMVirolainen @VirtaSofia @IlmariNurminen
@JouniOvaska @ArtoPirttilahti
@artosatonen
@iiris_suomela
@saritanus
@SofiaVikman
@HannaHolopaine
@anttihakkanen
@VilleKaunisto
@AnneliKiljunen
@jukka_kopra
@JariLeppa
@NiinaMalm
@JaniMakelaFi
@sirpa_paatero
@SannaAntikainen
@SariEssayah
@HannakaisaHeikk

@burrosuy @TeivoTeivainen @Uruguay2035 @jussipesonenUPM @MarkoJanhunen @PaiviVistala @paivanlehti @lassesinikallas @HSfiPolitiikka @gijn @ICFJ @merjaya @ylepuhe @Yleisradio @yleuutiset @radiosuomi @svuorikoski @YleUutiset_pol @yleradio1 @urgewald @yleareena @YleAstudio @elavaarkisto @YleTV1 @JussiPullinen @YleTeema @StopTNCimpunity @iltalehti_fi @hsfi @AMVirolainen @MikkonenKrista
@merjamakisalo
@AnuVehvilainen
@jussiwihonen
@anna_maja
@kurvisentwiit
@MikaLintila
@perusjukka
@paularisikko
@JanneSankelo @MikkoTSavola
@Jocke_Strand
@JuttaUrpilainen
@HonkonenPetri
@joonaskontta
@swheimo
@PAittakumpu
@kmhanninen
@ImmonenOlli
@MikkoPJKinnunen

@burrosuy @TeivoTeivainen @Uruguay2035 @jussipesonenUPM @MarkoJanhunen @PaiviVistala @paivanlehti @lassesinikallas @HSfiPolitiikka @gijn @ICFJ @merjaya @ylepuhe @Yleisradio @yleuutiset @radiosuomi @svuorikoski @YleUutiset_pol @yleradio1 @urgewald @yleareena @YleAstudio @elavaarkisto @YleTV1 @JussiPullinen @YleTeema @StopTNCimpunity @iltalehti_fi @hsfi @AMVirolainen @MikkonenKrista @merjamakisalo @AnuVehvilainen @jussiwihonen @anna_maja @MattilaHanna
@Raimo_Piirainen
@JenniPitko
@HSarkkinen
@ainoahelmi
@juhasipila
@marileenat
@TyttiTup
@SebastianTyne
@heikkiautto
@KatriKulmuni
@KarnaMikko
@MarkusLohi
@MarkusMustajarv
@matslofstrom