For several years now, the main lever of anti-EU—and consequently pro-Russian and pro-Chinese—propaganda in the region has been the dissemination of disinformation about lithium exploitation in Serbia and Bosnia and Herzegovina. Such a narrative has been uncritically adopted by many public figures and media outlets in Serbia, while those with adequate education largely remain silent on the issue. Through the “carefully” selected Academic Committee for Environmental Protection of the Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts (SANU), so-called “independent” media, and by handing over student assemblies to national-revisionist “advisors,” one of the cornerstones of the student program has become the demand to “halt the ‘Jadar’ project, which through exploitation threatens long-term social interests.”
In line with that program, the official YouTube channel Students in Blockade invited as one of its first guests Prof. Dr. Dragan S. Povrenović, full professor at the Faculty of Technology and Metallurgy, University of Belgrade (TMF). In the broadcast aired on September 13, 2025, together with a student representative, he voiced a series of disinformation claims. The NIFA team, in cooperation with technology engineer Dušan Blagojević, deconstructed these positions.
He begins his presentation with the well-known propaganda statement that: “the mining of lithium and the use of lithium in general have multiple harmful consequences,” as well as that he “does not see even traces of anyone who would use that lithium.” Meanwhile, two battery factories are planned in Serbia: ElevenEs in Subotica and InoBat in Ćuprija—not to mention that the whole of Europe is developing in that direction
He claims that the Mining Law of 2011, and especially those that followed, led to a situation “where someone engaged in geological research has continuity and the security that the state guarantees they will be able to carry it all out.” The facts tell a different story: it was precisely the amendments to the Mining Law of 2015 that corrected the 2005 law and the 2006 amendments, reducing the timeframe for the start of exploitation from an “unlimited” period to 6 years. In other words, under that law Rio Sava has 6 years to begin the exploitation of jadarite from the date the reserves are certified. Under the earlier version of the law, that deadline did not exist—that is, the period was unlimited.
With regard to this statement by Prof. Povrenović, it should be kept in mind that he served as State Secretary in the Ministry of Science and Environmental Protection, as chairman of certain privatization tender commissions, as well as chairman of the Council for Small and Medium Enterprises and Entrepreneurship in the Government of the Republic of Serbia from 2004 to 2008, when Vojislav Koštunica was Prime Minister
– He attaches a collective label to foreign private capital—but not to domestic capital—claiming that “their profit is more important than the life of your family and your very survival.”
– He asserts that the citizens’ protest of 2021 was due to amendments to the Mining Law, even though it was in fact against the Law on Planning and Construction (ZPI), despite the fact that ZPI has nothing to do with the Mining Law. As clearly stated in Article 1, paragraph 2 of ZPI, the provisions of this law: do not apply to the planning and regulation of space, nor to the construction and demolition of facilities that are considered military complexes or military facilities under the law governing defense, nor to the construction of facilities that are considered mining facilities, plants, and equipment under the law governing mining. (Expropriation of land under the Mining Law was carried out for Zijin, but not for Rio Sava).
– The student representative repeats the well-known propaganda line that Serbia has “become a mining colony of foreign companies” and that legal regulations were amended “so that one foreign company would be granted legitimacy.” The facts show that all laws in the Republic of Serbia related to polluting substances are harmonized with EU regulations.
He claims that employees in the ministries draft proposals and amendments to laws. The fact is that for each law a working group is formed, consisting of experts who essentially do not work in the ministry but are employed at institutes and faculties (setting aside also the fact that a good number of them in Serbia, despite their titles, lack adequate knowledge). The procedure then continues in such a way that, for most laws in the field of environmental protection for example, the text is provided by the European Union, and domestic legislation must be harmonized with it—depending on how much time is needed for Serbia to align with those requirements.
The claim that “there are lithium mines in the world which extract lithium without any problems because they do not have boron along with lithium” is also disinformation. The fact that an ore contains boron does not mean anything significant. Especially if we keep in mind that it was precisely Prof. Povrenović, as State Secretary in the Government of Vojislav Koštunica, who granted Rio Tinto exploration rights specifically for boron compounds (at that time lithium was not considered an element of importance at all).
Jadarite ore is in fact a borosilicate, and adding a sense of “mystery” around boron is just one among many anti-EU propaganda statements made. For the Jadar project, Rio Tinto essentially applied its own technology for obtaining borates from boron minerals (which jadarite indeed is) by dissolving them in a mildly acidic solution. This is a technology in which Rio Tinto is the world leader—both in knowledge and in annual volumes of borates produced. And that is exactly how borates are dissolved worldwide—in sulfuric acid. Such a process does not produce so-called “acid rain,” and so on.
Rio Tinto managed, in an elegant way, to take the acidic solution of boron (which also contains lithium and sodium) and, by changing process parameters—namely pH value and temperature—selectively precipitate all three elements: boron in the form of boric acid, sodium in the form of sodium sulfate, and lithium in the form of lithium carbonate. Essentially, the core of this technology lies in boron extraction, while lithium and sodium were considered byproducts. If lithium had not gained significance, the part of the process after producing boric acid would not even exist; lithium and sodium would simply have ended up in a waste deposit.
Also, jadarite ore is not an aluminosilicate, but a silicate. Every aluminosilicate is a silicate, but not vice versa—silicates do not necessarily contain aluminum.
He reiterates yet again the disinformation about the “notorious” sulfuric acid: it is widely used, from manufacturing to the cosmetics industry. In the Jadar project, it is used in a closed system below boiling temperature, with wet scrubbers (filters) designed to capture process gases, ensuring that during the operation of the complex there can be no significant emissions of pollutants into the air, as the acid is completely broken down in the process. Through this process, compounds of boron and lithium are obtained, while the sulfuric acid is fully neutralized. It should also be added that sulfuric acid is not classified as toxic, and that its corrosive and oxidative properties disappear at the concentrations used in this technological procedure. Not to mention the fact that the complete technological scheme of this process has been public and available since 2018.
He once again repeats the oft-stated disinformation that “lithium mines are not located in urban/floodplain areas.” On the contrary, there are both active and announced lithium exploitation/extraction projects in environments far more densely populated than the villages of Jadar/Gornje Nedeljice (Loznica). For example, within the EU several such projects have already been announced or are in advanced stages (France – EMILI; Germany – Zinnwald and DLE Upper Rhine; Czech Republic – Cínovec; Portugal – Barroso; Finland – Keliber; UK – Cornwall).
He spreads disinformation regarding the use of arsenic: the “Jadar” deposit does not contain high levels of heavy metals such as arsenic, and the results are similar to analyses of soil samples taken from arable land in the floodplain of the Jadar River. By claiming that “one ton of arsenic, if it were to reach a water source, could contaminate Belgrade’s annual water consumption,” he not only spreads anti-EU propaganda but also causes unjustified panic among citizens.
In fact, in the 2014 tailings dam failure at the Stolice mine, approximately 100,000 m³ of tailings slurry was released into waterways. The concentration of As (arsenic) in the released tailings was estimated at approximately 4,000–4,500 mg/kg based on soil and sludge analyses conducted immediately after the accident. From those data, the total amount of arsenic released into the waterways is estimated at about 280–450 tons (taking into account tailings density and solids content). The movement of that arsenic followed exactly the pathway through which Prof. Povrenović claims that a single ton could contaminate Belgrade’s annual water supply.
Additionally, Serbia’s electric utility (EPS) in Kolubara discharges 200,000 liters of wastewater per hour, with an arsenic concentration 174 times above the legal limit—roughly 3 tons annually.
Another anti-EU propaganda statement that the EU is “not paying sufficient attention to environmental protection, while corrupting local politicians for the sake of their own economic prosperity.”
He confuses the Mining Law with the Law on Planning and Construction (ZPI). The Jadar project falls under the Mining Law, not under ZPI. ZPI requires that certain projects be submitted to the Republican Review Commission so that, based on that report, the project can then be further aligned.
He spreads propaganda against foreign direct investments or foreign-owned companies operating in Serbia, implying that for some reason they behave differently with regard to their capital and profit than domestic investors do.
The host and the representative of Students in Blockade also presented a handful of disinformation, which on this occasion we will not address, since the primary responsibility lies with those advising them. This, of course, does not exempt the student population from personal and collective responsibility:
Connected analysis: