Just to clarify, do we have a company representative on HC...

Just to clarify, do we have a company representative on HC referring to some other posters as "clowns" because they've posted and commented on a translation of an earlier article that doesn't appear to sit well with the spin the company has been issuing?

As far as I'm aware this is the first time a translation of the original article has been translated and made available to holders. I was very interested to see what it actually said. I believe I'm correct in saying the subsequent report in English does not appear to have suffered from being "lost in translation" after all.

SSkim has very kindly taken the time to translate the original Danish article and, for me, the salient points are:

"Kvanefjeldet (name place) is simply too close to to town, says O. K Berthelsen MO for minerals"

"Kfeldtet is so close to Narsaq that we will not run any rik for radio active pollution from unranium even as a bi product,."


Rod has posted "The company and the Government have already clarified this already."

On 13 July the company put out an ann saying:

"The report found that many of the English version media articles contain factual inaccuracies, due largely to incorrect Danish - English transaltion"

Well, now we have the original translated for us.

"The conclusion of the Nuna Law assessment was that at this point in time, no decision has been made about exploration and exploitation of minerals containing uranium as a by-product by the Greenland Government"

True, but doesn't address the concerns about how close to town the proposed mine is.

It references a clarification put out by the government:

"uranium policy remains unchanged and no decision has been made so far on regarding the zero-tolerance policy which has been in force since the 1980s" however "other mining projects may be implemented within the zero tolerance limit".

Again, no further clarification about the closeness to town of this project.

Rod, can you direct me to any statements by the company or government addressing the key concern in the original Danish article about how close to town the project is?

There have been a number of posts since made on this board which address the safety issues arising from a mining operation involving U which IMO add to safety concerns with mining close to a town.

It might be that I've missed something since put out (like everyone else, I'm suffering from limited time to fully research every company I'm interested in) and please understand I'm not saying I've got all the answers. I'm just genuinely trying to get the bottom of it, but I don't appreciate if I'm being called a clown for doing so.

Position: questioning everything.