Hive, that's an extremely interesting article. I have been looking at how voting has gone in the Greenland General elctions since 2002. In the seven elections since then, Siumut and IA ( the instigators of the infamous Act 20 banning mining of any ore with over 100 ppm Uranium). These two parties usually get 17 and 28 seats in the Greenland parlaiment betweeen them, with the balance of power being held by the Democrat party.
As we know, IA is idealogically well to the left and is now virulently anti anything to do with Uranium. Siumut, although to the left, has a much more pragmatic attitude to mining, but has stepped back from any strong promotion of mining. However, my view is that things are going to change in the next general election, due in April 2025. There is a very useful document "Greenland in Figures 2023" which can be found on the internet, published by Statistics Greenland, it sets out a detailed account of a large number of statistics relating to Greenland and in particular, politics, population and occupation. There are many other statistics, but these are of prime importance when it comes to voting in a general election.
For instance, in 2021 out of a population of some 56,000 an average of 28,900 people were employed, but 4,460 of tese were eployed in agriculture and fishing, which is 15%, construction accounted for 2,268 and general business and transportation 3,278. However, the largest employment was in public administration and service. I would guess that out of this employment, most fishing activity would be in the south of Greenland and public service much more in the north in towns like Nuuk (400 km from Kvanefjeld). The new fishing legislation would impact most on the South of Greenland, which has tended to be a stronghold of IA, particularly in the 2021 election, stirred up no doubt Nathanielsen and Paviesen.
If Siumut want to regain power in the 2025 election, they have plenty of ammunition with the proposed fishing legislation. Not only that, but the leader of the SIK trade union, led by Jess G Berthelsen is known to be pro-mining, and SIK would have substantial membership in the construction and transportation sectors. Siumut can also point to the arbitration proceedings, which may well not be concluded by the date of the election, and could highlight the potential for substantial damages if judgement goes against the GoG.
As far at ETM is concerned, it cannot enter the political arena, but it can set out the employment prospects for the Greenlandic workforce. For those who would say that ETM wouldn't employ unskilled workers, I would reply that I was fortunate enough in the early 1960's to visit the construction site of the Churchill Falls hydroelectric scheme. At the time of my visit, mid-winter, work was in progress on drilling the 300mm long penstocks for feeding the turbines. The drillers on the drill rigs were all Newfoundland fisherman. Kvanefjeld, in its primary phase is basically a quarrying operation, and I see no reason why Greenlanders could not be trained and employed in substantial numbers. ETM could also offer training for higher level jobs, including specialist education in Denmark.
Expand
(20min delay)