Headlines, page-152

Nro,
Again, I would say that your trying to dismiss all the bad news coming from Greenland as "old news" is not old to most of us investors. Also, the articles that talk about your "old News" just came out over the last week. Not really old according to those who wrote them based on information that was supplied for the ialso in the last week or so. As you know the source for these articles are primarily Sermitsiaq and Knr.gl, both mainstream Greenland media outlets.
for you and the rest of the posters, i am posting the knr article that i believe provides a good summary of what has gone on in Greenland.

from knr.gl

"The Environment Agency and GML are in a fight over environmental reports"

Last week, Naalakkersuisut (hence in this copy called Greenland Government) rejected all points in an official GML complaint against the Environment Agency, which was accused of discrimination , among other things.

The Environment Agency for minerals and the Australian mining company Greenland Minerals Limited (GML) faces each other steeply in assessing the environmental impact of the mining project on the Kuannersuit.

On the one hand stands the Environment Agency for Minerals, which believes that GML's previous versions of the so-called EIA report, which is an impact assessment for the environment, contain significant shortcomings and errors.

The Agency also believes that the report under estimates the risk of, among other things ,radiation in the area and the potential leakage of chemicals to the Narsaq River and the Bredefjord.

On the other hand, GML which, among other things accuses the Environment Agency for Minerals discriminating against GML in relation to other mining companies and setting too many requirements for the EIA report. The Company also questions the Environmental Agency for Mining their external advisors.

That shows mail correspondence between the Agency and GML, which KNR has gained access to.

Years of environmental strife

Prior to the cool relationship between the mining company and the Agency, lies a long-standing communication about the EIA reportyfor Greenland's largest mining project close to Narsaq in South Greenland.

In December 2015, GML submitted an EIA report for the first time. for almost a year, the Environment Agency for Minerals (EAM) evaluated the report and found about 300 major and minor errors and omissions, and in April2017, the EAM officially asked GML to make a new one.

InAugust 2018, GML submitted a new EIAreport, and after several meetings between the parties, GML delivered a new version in October 2018. Again, however, the answer was that the report still has significanterrors and shortcomings, and that the Danish Environmental Protection Agencyagain rejected the report.

GML complains to Naalakkersuisut.

GML was so frustrated with the rejection and the EAM's treatment of the mining company that in February this year GML sent a number of complaints to several members of the Naalakkersuisoq (the Greenland Government) and in April this year GML submitted an official complaint against the Environmental Authority for mining to Naalakkersuisoq (the greenland Government) for Nature and Environment.

Here, among other things, GML accuses the EAM of discriminating and not placing the same demands on other mining projects . GML criticizes the EAM for making exaggerated demands--among othewr things about collecting data on dust and radiation, which has so far cost the company DKK 1.6 million.

Finally, GML criticizes the EAM's advisors for not making a professonal and impartial assessment of the mining project, and that the advisors are not objective because they bekieve the project is complex and has many environmental risks,

It is either extremely poor management, deliberate obstruction or simply an inability to perform its professional duty, GML writes in the complaint.

Rejects Complaint

On Friday September 6th Naalakkersuisut (the Greenland Government) dismissed the complaint from the mining company.

Naalakkersuisut (The Greenland Government) finds that GML's complaint of April 4th, 2019 is groundless and that GML has not provided any information that can justify any criticism of the Environment Agency for the Mineral Area.

Instead, Naalakkersuisut (Greenland Government )believes that Greenland minerals themselves must be a significant part of the responsibility for that process has taken several years, because GML has failed to complywith the orders issued.

Furthermore, Naalakkersuisit (The Greenland Government )does not believe that there has been any discrimination. Naalakkersuisut (the Greenland government) writes that the project is special because it is the only one in Greenland wher radioactive material -- Uranium and Thorium -- must be extracted and that it imposes a number of requirements for storage and handling of radioactive material.

The Environment Agency has used the National Center for Environment and Energy (DCE) and the Greenland Institute of Nature as main advisors. In addition, the Agency has also consulted with GEUS, the Canadian Uranium Safety Commission (CNSC) on dust conditions and with the Canadian consulting firm Robertson GeoConsultants on, among other things, air pollution and tailings.

Naalakkersuisut (Greenland Government): GML's attitude is baseless and unreasonable

Nor does Naalakkersuisut believe there is any substance in GML's complaints about the advisors' competencies.

Naalakkersuisut (the Greenland Government) believes that GMl's position about advisors' ratings are unqualified is both unreasonable and baseless.

in other words, Naalakkersuisut (the Greenland Government) rejects all complaints from Greenland Minerals and requires the mining company to comply with the requirements of the Environmental Agency. Naakakkersuisut (the Greenland Government) is the supreme authority, so the mining company cannot appeal the complaint to a higher authority.

Despite the cool relationship between the parties, GML has not given up. The company has thus submitted a new EIA report in June, which is currently being assessed by the Environment Agency.
End of KNR doc.


Guys, its me below:
So fellow hot copper people. To review, This was put out by KNR (Greenland Radio Broadcast's ) web page the day before yesterday, feel free to get it from there if you like.

To me it is a quite complete story of what Mair and his Board have done and failed at for years. I am amazed at the arrogance with which he has acted with the Government. I guess he never learned that you catch more flies with Honey rather than vinegar.

The bad news is that we are paying for his and his board's inexperience, How much are we willing to pay. I question, given the mess they have made, whether Greenland will deal with them as they try to fix it.
Why don't we start to turn this all around by firing Mair, and His Board? After their failures and foolish Lobbying we need a new team. Would you trust him or the bard after their conduct?