Australia's largest stock trading and investment forum Australia's #1 stock forum

ETM

Click for more information

0.00%

2.5¢ energy transition minerals ltd

nro, Thankyou for your detailed and thorough review of the...

First 6 Last

Share
Profile

Follow
Floated

384 Posts.

103

11/04/18

22:15

Post #: 32391424
Share

Originally posted by nro ↑

I unfortunately cannot reference articles applicable to what I am about to offer. As I have read so many now and have not kept the links. I have combined my resources with an American colleague who has set his own employees to task to investigate this concern raised here of the re-implementation of the uranium ban by the IA party should they come to power in these elections.

It has been an intense 2-3 weeks worth of work for us both. It has now gotten to the stage where we have discussed the matter directly with the Greenland MPs right hand men (personal aid) and have even befriended them. Its from them we have determined some very interesting insights and on hearing them we have become comforted with our holdings in GGG.

I am aware of IAs objection to uranium mining in the past. We all have. In August 2016 they had the chairman from the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons to speak to the locals living within close proximity to the Kvanefjeld site. Ive seen the presentation. Lets just say it was poor. Well, it was actually amusing. Photos dating in the 1960s and references of exposure from circumstances like when the miners use to carry bags of refined uranium on their backs, whose material were later used for villagers cloths causing radiation illness. It really wasnt that impressive and to me appeared like a greeny who hadn’t researched enough upon the subject matter in any modernised capacity and purely fear mongering adamant that all uranium would end up in the wrong hands in nuclear warfare. So of course he said it shouldn’t go ahead. Its not surprising it scared the locals. It was designed to scare monger anyone. This is why I am confident that with the new SIA it will comfort the Narsaq locals considerably compared to the fear they now have to the extent that what they recall of this presentation was a joke in comparison.

After this experience, in October the same year the subject of the uranium ban lift of 2013 was discussed between the newly formed coalition. At this time, although the matter was contended by members in the three top parties. They all still agreed to the following outcome.

The uranium ban would remain lifted and they would "bring up the issue when in the future it becomes relevant to discuss new applications" for mining concessions. This is the exact statement issued. Youll note in this statement it doesn’t refer to a bans reintroduction at all. But the discussion of new applications and their handling.

Both parties realised that you cant ban, release a ban, then ban, then release a ban each time a political party came to power. It ill effects the countries status as a dependable region to mine given projects take huge sums and time to eventuate. Such activity would dissuade interested mining companies investing into any mining sector when the government is seen to be conducting such back and forward activity in any subsector.

So at this time it was agreed the Ministry of Mineral Resources (MMR) would handle applications in the format they are currently following today. This was agreed to by all political parties in a majority (but not all members). It was understood that the MMR (and subsidiary processing departments) work as an almost separate entity in the handling of uranium applications. Unaffected by political contention. This is why the department is operating as stringently as what we have all seen. To ensure political satisfaction of all those involved so not to create further contention. I am actually awaiting reply from the MMR regarding their involvement and understanding on this matter to ensure they also verify the accuracy of this directive.

Since this time you can see the IA has apparently lessened its uranium banning outlook considerably. Some members want the ban reintroduced. However collectively their concern are all still sternly focused in consensus, within the fact that any ventures of such, remain free of any ill effects upon the environment and its people.

My colleague has questioned those in Greenland who were involved in these discussion held between the parties just this past week. When asked whether the IA party would reintroduce the ban. This member was literally confused at the question and why wed be asking it. As it was all old news to him. To him the mining of uranium is no longer a topic of discussion between the parties on whether it will or wont happen in future. The focus is more upon the formalised process of ensuring safety is properly addressed. He repeated that there was no question in his mind on if GGG would not be going ahead with their endeavour due to the reintroduction of a ban from any party. It was simply now if GGG could adhere to the stipulations and requirements laid out by the MMR.

So from all Ive understood. I don’t believe IA will look to reintroduce a uranium ban if they return to power. I don’t believe they will stop GGG from going ahead with their plans either. However, I am sure they will ensure the MMR is thoroughly doing their advised job. IA to me have raised, debated, agreed, formalised and now become numb to the proposition of uranium mining at Kvanefjeld over the years and I feel wont stand in its way anymore than ensuring absolutely no ill effects for the environment or its people will arise from the operation. Much in the same way as what is currently being conducted and all the parties have currently agreed upon.

I hope his helps.

Expand

nro,

Thankyou for your detailed and thorough review of the Greenland political situation.

That does give me much more confidence in GME progressing post election.

If you think about it the $9m insto was a very good indication of how things were progressing although I feel most investors were probably planning for a late 2018 election allowing time for the final permitting to be completed.

Thanks again for sharing.

Cheers,
Floated

GGG Price at posting: 8.7¢ Sentiment: Hold Disclosure: Held
Upvote

0 Great analysis

Reply

Top Stories

ASX Market Open: Six-day winning streak on Wall Street to push Aussie stocks up 1%

MOV

MOVE Logistics picks new interim CEO to take over operations from early September

Earnings Wrap: why is the utilities sector tanking & other big name earnings on Thursday

Bitcoin: Current State of Play & Where to Next | Swyftx

Emerald & Azure score Digger & Dealer awards

First 6 Last

Add ETM (ASX) to my watchlist

(20min delay)
Last 2.5¢		Change 0.000(0.00%)		Mkt cap ! $35.21M

Open	High	Low	Value	Volume
0.0¢	0.0¢	0.0¢	$0	0

Buyers (Bids)

No.	Vol.	Price($)
2	28286	2.5¢

Sellers (Offers)

Price($)	Vol.	No.
2.7¢	334662	2

View Market Depth

No.	Vol.	Price($)
2	28286	0.025
1	128510	0.024
1	23000	0.022
4	322492	0.021
3	600000	0.020

Price($)	Vol.	No.
0.027	334662	2
0.028	73512	2
0.029	120000	1
0.030	132500	2
0.032	40000	2

Last trade - 16.12pm 15/08/2024 (20 minute delay)

ETM (ASX) Chart

Day chart unavailable

SPONSORED BY