This is the translation I have been unable to translate a portion which I think references various projects...?Special clause in uranium ban worries politicians
If the ban on uranium mining is adopted, the Naalakkersuisut may also ban the extraction of other radioactive substances. It could put an end to several raw material projects. The opposition wants the paragraph removed.
On Tuesday, the proposal to ban uranium mining is on the agenda in Inatsisartut.
As has been the case for the past many years, the uranium issue divides politicians to such an extent, which also shines through in the Business and Minerals Committee's consideration of the proposal.
The committee's report exudes smoky disagreement among the politicians in the committee, who come mainly from IA and Siumut.
Siumut is generally against the whole bill, but one paragraph in particular worries the opposition party, which wants it removed from the bill.
Paragraph two allows the Naalakkersuisut to also prohibit the exploration and extraction of other radioactive substances such as thorium. Feel free to ask Inatsisartut first- Will create uncertainty
Make use of the Naalakkersuisut that section is affected far more raw material projects than the two that are immediately the goal of the law - Greenland Minerals project on Kuannersuit and Orano Mining, which specifically looks for uranium.
Siumut believes that the mere fact that the Naalakkersuisut has the opportunity to decide on a ban on the extraction of thorium outside Inatsisartut will create great uncertainty in the industry and scare investments away from Greenland.
The Naalakkersuisut itself states that the ban on uranium and a possible ban on thorium will particularly affect exploration for rare earths, which to a large extent play a role in the green transition. For a number of years, Greenland itself has promoted the possibility of extracting the soil types in this country.
Naalakkersuisut has made the following list of projects where the deposits have a naturally high content of thorium:
IumSiumut's members of the committee propose that it should be enacted by law if the exploration or extraction of more minerals is to be prohibited. But it is rejected by the majority of the committee, which consists of IA politicians led by committee chairman Mariane Paviasen.
Has spent 145 million. on investigation
The committee's report states that politicians are concerned that the Self - Government will be faced with claims for compensation as a result of the law.
Naalakkersuisut states that rightholders who are affected by the law have spent DKK 146 million on exploration in the years 2016 to 2020.
In this connection, the Naalakkersuisut emphasizes that the law does not give the companies the right to compensation for the expenses, and that the companies in the opinion of the Naalakkersuisut have no legal requirement for an exploitation permit despite the years-long investigations.
With regard to lost revenue from a possible project on Kuannersuit, Naalakkersuisut states that Greenland Minerals VSB shows that an average of DKK 1.52 billion per year in various taxes would accrue to the public coffers during the life of the mine. However, the committee notes that these are the company's own figures.
The bill is scheduled for a second reading on Tuesday, with the IA majority in the committee recommending that the law be passed without changes. Siumut's members of the committee want the proposal rejected or at least more thoroughly considered.
The review committee obviously is balanced with a majority being IA....
From my understanding the committee has to finalise the review then take it to the parliament with a recommendation for the final vote...
