The latest from Sermitsiaq.
Note the words towards the end: "the company (ETM) will instead be granted exploitation permission."
Is this an admission that they, GoG, know they will likely lose the case?
During the autumn session, there was renewed focus on the uranium ban adopted in the autumn of 2021, which has resulted in a billion-dollar claim for damages from the mining company Energy Transition Minerals (ETM - formerly Greenland Minerals).The Audit Committee has thus wanted to find out whether Inatsisartut made the legislation without having all the relevant information regarding the consequences of the uranium ban. Naaja H. Nathanielsen denies to Sermitsiaq.AG that Naalakkersuisut has withheld relevant documents: Denies withholding documents "Several Section 37 questions have been asked on this subject, and the answer is consistent and consistent that 'yes, Inatsisartut has been in possession of all relevant information regarding the consequences of the Uranium Act and the risk of liability'," Naaja H. Nathanielsen said in a written reply to Sermitsiaq.AG. However, Naalakkersuisoq welcomes the Audit Committee's wish for uncovering: It is no good constantly raising doubts about something so important, which is why I share the Audit Committee's wish for clarification. In fact, I think it will be positive to have the country's overall approach to the uranium issue brought together in a single report.Poul Schmidt report commissioned before the election. "This is one of the topics that has occupied an incredible amount of space in the domestic political debate over the years, and therefore the point also deserves to be described for posterity," Nathanielsen said. During the consideration of the National Treasury accounts, the Audit Committee had called Naaja H. Nathanielsen in consultation on the matter, and the committee's questions revolve in particular around an assessment from the Law Firm Poul Schmith, which was not handed over to Inatsisartut during the consideration of the uranium ban. The committee wants to know why. READ ALSO: Arbitration: Committees want to dig into the basis for decisions on uranium bans In a memo from the consultation, Nathanielsen informs the committee that the assessment from the Attorney General was commissioned before the 2021 election and was intended to uncover the legal position if ETM's project at Kuannersuit would not receive approval- The committee has asked Naalakkersuisut to elaborate on the reason why Inatsisartut was not given the assessment in question in connection with the consideration of the bill. This is because the legal assessment was not linked to the uranium law, Nathanielsen said in the consultation note. If the case is unsuccessful, ETM must be granted permissionIn this connection, Naaja H. Nathanielsen emphasizes to the committee that if the PA loses a case in the courts to ETM, compensation will not necessarily have to be paid, but the company will instead be granted exploitation permission for the disputed Kuannersuit project. In the note, Nathanielsen states:- It was also described in detail that should such a case end in defeat for the PA, it would not automatically result in a claim for damages, but that it would generally lead to the reopening of the case for the application for an exploitation permit and that an exploitation permit would generally have to be granted.- Naalakkersuisut has not since hidden this, Naaja H. Nathanielsen assures the committee.
Expand
