Breaking news in GreenlandLook at Naaja’s comments - she’s uncomfortable. Chickens coming home to roost or roast?Greenland minerals threatens compensation claims Greenland Minerals has filed an arbitration case against Greenland and the Danish state over their planned project at Kuannersuit. The project more or less got the death knell with the new legislation that has been passed banning the extraction of uranium. Merete Lindstrøm / Sermitsiaq.AG MERETE LINDSTRØMOnsday, 23 March 2022 - 16:29 Naalakkersuisut has just received a complaint from Greenland Minerals, in which Greenland Minerals requests an arbitration case against both Greenland and the Danish state, despite the fact that the raw materials area is exclusively a Greenlandic matter.
It appears from the Self - Government's website. - Naalakkersuisut finds it striking that Greenland Minerals wants to pull the case out of Greenland and outside Greenland law, it reads, among other things. Uranium ban voted through by a slim majority An arbitration case is a form of private litigation in which disputes can be settled outside the ordinary public courts.
The decision of an arbitral tribunal shall be binding and may not be appealed.
The case has arisen in the wake of inatsisartut having adopted a ban on uranium mining. The project at Kvanefjeld was primarily to consist of rare earths but also has uranium as a by-product. Greenland Minerals threatens to seek compensation On Greenland Minerals' website, the company writes that the dispute concerns the impact of the legislation that Inatsisartut adopted in December 2021 on GGG's rights under its existing exploration permit, including the right to a exploitation permit for the Kvanefjeld rare earths project. GGG's intention is to proceed with the project by obtaining binding confirmation that the new legislation has no effect on the Company's existing exploration permit, including the provision that entitles the Company to an exploitation permit. Alternatively, GGG will seek compensation and compensation for expropriation, it reads. .
Naalakkersuisoq for Finance, Raw Materials, the Area of Justice and Gender Equality Naaja H. Nathanielsen (IA) emphasizes that political disagreement is not a sign of a weak democracy, as Greenland Minerals proposes in the complaint. - I am disappointed with Greenland Minerals' complaint, which both lacks legal justification and expresses deep distrust of our society and democracy. Greenland Minerals claims that our country is politically unstable, that our legal processes are junk and that the Naalakkersuisut has not taken home the raw material area from the Danish state. I can only answer Greenland Minerals that our democracy is strong and that our legal processes are well-functioning.
There is no liability
The question of whether Greenland Minerals can seek compensation in the event of a refusal of a production license has been answered four times by the Naalakkersuisut since 2013. In 2018, it was Vittus Qujaukitsoq who answered as Naalakkersuisoq for raw materials, and in 2019 it was Erik Jensen on the same post. Each time, the answer has been the same.
In the agreement on an exploration permit at Kuannersuit for Greenland Minerals, there is an appendix which states the following: - If the right holder applies for notification of authorization for the use of radioactive elements, cf. clause 301, the Naalakkersuisut may freely and for no reason or for any reason reject the application. The application may be rejected, among other things, due to a political or administrative decision not to grant permission for the use of radioactive elements.
A rejection of the application entails no obligations and no liability, including no liability, for the Greenland Self-Government, Naalakkersuisut or the Mineral Resources Directorate. The right to reject Greenland Minerals continues to apply, is the answer in all four section 37 questions.
(20min delay)
