Ann: Arbitration Proceedings - Bifurcation Hearing, page-18

All that this proves is that the GoG over the last 15 years are unable to keep promises to public that they make in wanting to create a Mining Industry...

Hence John Mairs frutrations with the Government some years ago when he was accused of interferring in the process. When in fact the Greenland Government is the problem in every step hesitating in going the next step...

I expect that after the US re-established it's consulate some years ago now and the recent visit of Ursula Von der Leyen and establishment of an EU Office with lots of money will further apply pressure to the Government in particular the uncooperative Minister Naaja Nathanielsen to deliver on her portfolio....

The preesure is starting to be applied with Sermitsiaq ag recent stories which are starting to highlight the issues...

Thats is also why we now have a new man on the ground to work in developing relationships.......

Fencker criticizes Naalakkersuisut for lack of will

Member of Inatsisartut Kuno Fencker (S) is not satisfied with answers from Naalakkersuisut about case processing times at the Norwegian Natural Resources Agency. He questions why companies with permits give up without having extracted minerals they have permits for. - We must recognize that our country's location presents challenges, and the mining companies may therefore need other solutions than countries with easy access to infrastructure. Here, Naalakkersuisut must step in and have political weight, he points out.

An example of a company that for several years is still waiting to get the green light to make full use of its exclusive permit is Lumina Sustainable Materials A/S. But instead of getting started with full force, the company is met with demands for new applications. - Technicality does not give us momentum in our ambitions to get the raw materials industry to make our economy stronger in this country. Naalakkersuisut must come into character instead of constantly referring to administrative processing, points out Kuno Fencker (S)

Photo: Lumina

JENSINE BERTHELSEN

JOURNALIST

TUESDAY 09 JULY 2024 17:37

Member of Inatsisartut, Kuno Fencker (S) is far from satisfied with the answers to his § 37 question (spm.129/2024, ed.) about the processing time for applications for activities from mining companies that have extraction permits, and about whether Naalakkersuisut has plans to to shorten the case processing times from the self-government.

In the response, Naalakkersuisoq for raw materials, Naaja H. Nathanielsen (IA), explains, among other things, that no measurements are made of the processing time for activity applications under exploitation permits, as the applications are different and take place in an ongoing process. At the same time, Naalakkersuisoq explains that the company used as an example in the paragraph 37 question, Lumina, had applied for processing of extracted minerals in the USA on 20 June 2023, which Naalakkersuisut refused on 15 January 2024.

- Unfortunately, I have not received an adequate answer. I must state that, among other things, Naalakkersuisut has answered with half-truths and has chosen to make use of technicalities that neither Greenland nor the mining companies can get richer from.

- What do you mean by half-truths?

- In my Section 37 questions, I refer to the company Lumina as an example. The company has appeared before Inatsisartut's Business and Raw Materials Committee on 30 May 2024. The company has expressed concern about slow administrative processes at Naalakkersuisut. We know that in its efforts to get started in earnest, the company has applied to have the business basis approved back in December 2021 and again in December 2022. But Naalakkersuisut replies that the company has applied on 20 June 2023, which Naalakkersuisut refused on 15 January 2024.

Consequences of heavy administrative process should be looked at

Among other things, Kuno Fencker wants Naalakkersuisut to direct their attention to whether the heavy administrative process may have caused companies to turn the key:

- The fact that even companies that have been granted an extraction permit have such great challenges with the case processing from the public authorities, and where they are met with refusal after refusal, does not provide momentum in any way. If we want mining in this country, we have to recognize that we have different conditions and conditions. We cannot continue to equate ourselves with other countries that do not have the same logistical and infrastructural challenges as us, he points out and continues:

- Why are there so many companies that have had big plans for mining, but had to turn the key? We must have clarified that question. Greater political weight and determination are needed. I can easily understand that in all respects we must ensure that our country gets the greatest possible benefit from the activities and that there is a need for control and monitoring. But from there to drown the possibilities for technicalities is in no way beneficial for the country, the country's credibility and not least the companies that, after spending a lot of money, finally throw in the towel, notes Kuno Fencker.

Announcements are requested

At the same time, Kuno Fencker requests the orders that Naalakkersuisut will have to work with after a new mining law is adopted in 2023. The orders are long overdue, he believes:

- I have not yet seen any announcements regarding the Mining Act. I absolutely believe that we need transparent processes. After all, we require the companies to play with open cards, but at the same time we play with closed cards against them and largely leave the decision-making processes to take place on an administrative level.

"Compromise and Collaboration"
"Go Thor"