GPOE
In relation to my post above around Denmark and their $626 million per annum donations they give Greenland keep them afloat, i meant in my post that Denmark Debt position and balance sheet is very lucrative. The danish government is very good with money as you rightfully pointed out.
In regards to your good discussion point above with Denmark needing to sign off anything occurring in Greenland mining etc.
My position, is that when this Danish government is sitting down with their governments treasurer, they are at the boardroom table making bilion dollar budget plans and allocations, and there is a piece of paper that comes across for ML's for projects in Greenland that will ensure they wont have to send over the water $626 million USD per annum, i doubt they will sip on their coffee and go " No, we would much prefer them have no financial independence, we enjoy sending over $1.7 million USD to run their country, we do not support mining".
Economically if they didn't have to transfer cash to Greenland all the time, this would further position Denmark to invest in their own services and developing a very very well growing GDP that majores in agriculture, tourism and energy.
I see your point and its a good one, however these decisions I believe are all built on long term economic diversification and sustainability, which is why i am of the strong standpoint all mining projects regardless of which company, have the backing from not only Greenland but also the Denmark Government.
It is the same as this example for Australia, say if we were funded for say $1 trillion a year from China, and we had all this mining that generates at Australia current GDP 35% @ $1,500 billion AUD per annum, and we needed china to agree to it, I doubt China would say "no, we enjoy paying $1 trillion a year to keep that country going, we will deny mining". I just cannot see that occurrence happening from any governments treasury department.
Expand
.
