Greenland's National Interest, page-60

Hi dull1122

Your response to my email gets off on the wrong foot in the first sentence you write:

"There won't be a lawsuit of any consequence filed against the Greenland government. In my humble opinion, because GGG signed away their right to litigate against the Greenland government for taking away their right to mine radioactive materials in an Addendum they and the Government agreed to and signed in 2013. The Addendum continues to be in force and is attached to the GGG exploration license today."

I think you are under the illusion that the Addendum you refer to relates to mining of uranium. It doesn't. It specifically relates to the utilization of uranium.

In support of what I am saying I repeat one of my previous posts. It was a response to poster Greenwash, who has not challenged my argument.

Greenwash posted this translation of section 302 in his post #: 52708778:

"302. If the rightholder applies for authorization for the utilization of radioactive elements, cf. point 301, the Naalakkersuisut may freely and for no reason or for any reason reject the application.

The application can be rejected for political or administrative reasons, including a decision not to authorize the mining of radioactive elements.

A rejection of the application entails no obligations and no liability, including no liability, for the Greenland Self-Government,Naalakkersuisut or Råstofdirektoratet."

I pointed out that only 'utilization' appears in the original version of section 302, and 'mining' is not mentioned.

This is what I wrote:

START
Post #: 52711661
You have the phrase 'authoriize the utilization of radioactive elements' in the first line of your translation of 302.

In the third line you have 'not to authorize the mining of radioactive elements',.

Not to be able to mine radioactive elements is a serious threat to GGG.

However your translation of the third line is a serious mistranslation. In fact it should read 'not to authorize the utilization of radioactive elements' exactly as in the first line.

The Danish phrase is 'udnyttelse af radioaktive grundstoffer' in both instances in 302.

Why does your translation change that phrase to 'mining'?
END

In other words, 'mining' is not mentioned in section 302.

I shall be interested in what you have to say about this mistranslation.