Arbitration The Way Forward

There seems to be a lot of conflicting statements regarding GML's position and the way forward....

There is also a Considerable difference between Arbitration and Ltigation which some posters seem to be focussed on.
In Arbitraion an arbitrator is appointed for each party and the facts are presented as in a dialogue the Arbitrating judge then decides and cannot be questioned. Holding it in Copenhagen Denmark is quite logical being that Greenland Lawyer is Danish and anything held in Greenland would be biased and who would adjudicate...Furhter the process obviously will happen more quickly in Denmark who are now party to the Arbitration....

Looking at what has recently happened regarding the Greenland Government and supposed meetings with GML. it seems quite clear that the Government have taken the stance that they do not need to meet with GML and discuss options and enter a Dialogue. The Government (Naaja Nathanielsen) believe that they have decided on a new law regarding uranium, whether you have agreements in place or not they do not exist. That GML are going against the will of the people..?

Naaja's statement that they have in the agreement the point that they can "cancel the project as and when they wish" actually does not hold up water given all the other support and encouragement since 2007 to develop the Kvanefjeld. Further they have been unwilling to enter into dialogue and only wanted to set the rules as based on the New Law....

The premise being that GML have no rights at all.....

The evidence from GML's point is that they have been operating in Greenland since 2007 with the continued support of the Greenland Government in each step of the process. In 2013 Greenland also changed the law to allow Uranium to be extracted as By/Product. GML is a Rare Earth mine 80% of the process being Critical Rare Earth Minerals. GML also have and were given Special Conditions with the licence they currently hold...

The Greenland Government have refused to enter into any dialogue about any of these points and many other relevant issues and a possible way forward and have placed GML in a difficult impasse leaving them with no option other than to proceed and force Government of Greenland to the TABLE...

The process for Arbitration has now been initiated by GML and the first step of Arbitration may take a few months to sort out Arbitrators which takes us to August September. Then it could potentially run for maybe 3-4 years.
However I do not think IMO that it will go that long and will come to a conclusion much sooner...
IMO things will develop in Greenland much quicker once the penny drops as to the position that Naaja has created with her falsehoods and misleading statements.. The Danish law firm Poul Smidth being central to the drafting of the Uranium Bill

Naaja as we are aware is clearly stating that their is no case to answer and GML can't sue for compensation etc etc. Once the other members of parliament wake up to the reality of their position and if they are wanting to develop a Critical Minerals industry which is now really stalled. Then we will see some sparks from the parliament.

GML IMO have a very strong case/argument with a lot of supportive evidence including importantly that:

They are outside of the terms of the new ban
They have Special Conditions
Government support from 2007
Naaja Nathanielsen has refused to enter into Dialogue
It is a Rare Earth Mine 80%
Critical Minerals are urgently needed
Excerberated by current Ukraine Conflict
Potentially the largest Rare earth Mine in the world including the largest uranium resource
GML have been part of EU Critical Alliance
Plus the jobs and financial input into Greenland
Project now at Final White Paper

Greenland 1A Government now in disaray and being uncooperative with GML
issue's with Fishing - Jobs and many other fast approaching first year in Government.
What are the positives versus the negatives....??


The premise being that on the above the conclusion can only be

"Compromise and Collaboration"

"Go Thor"