Ann: Greenland Government Meeting on Uranium Legislation, page-127

Hi @Traderjohh ( Post #: 58453714 )


You have suggested that holders of an exploration licence for an area have a right to proceed to an extraction/exploitation licence under the assessment rules that applied when the exploration licence was originally applied for. Please identify the jurisdiction where you have found this to be the case.


There can be no meaningful discussion about amending GML’s GoG "Minerals - Exploitation" Licence because it has never existed.
Let’s see it issued first . . .

1. There are no current applications for any Type of Minerals Licence within 20 km of Narsaq
   (refer today's GEUS Web Site). (Exception: there is one application for an Exploration licence M-303, some 10 km west of Narsaq). GML could make an application for a "Minerals - Exploitation" Licence whenever they choose, but haven't.
   .
2. Such an application would be assessed by many criteria. The GoG must be seen to apply the "Uranium concentration within Licence Area/Depth" criteria.
   My understanding is that the exploration assays already submitted by GML under the terms of the "Minerals - Exploration" licence would cause the application to be promptly rejected.
   .
3. Suppose the "Agreement to Waive" such criteria actually exists as a document.
   It may contain a non-disclosure clause; it may not.
   If GML wishes to enforce a right that the document has purportedly assigned to GML the document must be presented in Court. At that time the identity of the persons making the agreement will become known, as will the date of the agreement, and the nature of any goods/services offered in exchange for the Agreement.
   .
   Now we know of the ASX's interest in continuous disclosure, the ASIC's interest in Australian company dealings with officials of foreign Governments, and the ATO's interest in disallowable expenses.
   .
   However the Shareholders may also wish to discuss the document with the GML Board.
   They may say that the Agreement placed Shareholder property at great risk without their consent.
   .
4. You see, the document, if it exists, is unenforceable in practice because it cannot be made public. The GoG seem to have no reason to table their copy.
   .

You may well ask what the GML Board is doing, or has done, with their copy, and why.