Hey Guys,In my opinion, the 2011 agreement is not the most...

Hey Guys,
In my opinion, the 2011 agreement is not the most important or even the germane document regarding GGG and Greenland and Uranium. I suggest the the Addendum that the company agreed to in 2013, is the germane document as to GGG and Greenland and Uranium litigation rights.

I have put it up here on Hot copper a couple of times but since there seems to be discussions that this document should be a part of, in my opinion, I will copy it directly again. I copy the addendum from the Sermitsiaq.AG article written by Merete Lindstrom on February17, 2021 titled "Naalakkersuisut: There is no liability"
If you have any interest in finding the article you may find Sermitsiaq.AQ at https://Sermitsiaq.AQ

The addendum as published in that article is copied in Quotes below exactly as it was published:
It reads:
"If the licensee applies for notification of authorization for the use of radioactive elements, cf. point 301, the Naalakkersuisut may freely and for no reason or for any reason reject the application. the application may be rejected among other things, due to a political or administrative decision not to grant permission for the use of radioactive elements. A rejection of the application entails no obligations and no liability, including no liability, for the Greenland Home rule Government, the Naalakkersuisut or the Mineral Resources Directorate." (end of addendum)

The article contains one other sentence which reads "The right to reject Greenland Minerals continues to apply, is the answer in all four section 37 questions."

The addendum was signed by the Government and Greenland minerals and was attached to the Greenland Minerals Expoloration mining license.

So as you can see above the company agreed to give up its litigation rights in the event of the Government rejecting their application to use radioactive materials, which is exactly what the new IA government has said they intend to do. The company in my opinion has no chance of fighting this addendum in court it is simple and air tight and the company agreed to it, what is their to fight?

As I read the posts this morning as to GGG fighting the Greenland Government's no uranium policy, I can't find any reasonable argument to do so. The political establishment just were given a very clear message by their electorate. Siumut was, in my o[pinion, GGGs only real political supporters, they were soundly defeated in the recent election, and that defeat in my opinion again, was because of their support of GGG. IA won, again in my opinion, because they campaigned on no uranium mining in Greenland. Suimut had been solidly in control of Greenland politics for years, their defeat, again in my opinion was a clear message that the electorate does not want any radioactive mining.

The polling done indicated that the majority of the electorate when polled did not want GGG to be granted a mining license because of the uranium that runs extensively through their deposit. Again, my opinion.

Greenland Minerals, from what I am reading seem to be saying, again in my opinion, that because they have been in Greenland for a long time and because they have spent a lot of money that they are entitled to be granted a mining license to mine their ore. Never mind the fact that they haven't even completed the exploitation mining application process, they seem to think, in my opinion, again that the Greenland Government is obliged to grant them a license. The Greenland government is not obliged to grant them a license. As a matter of fact the Greenland Government work for their electorate, that electorate expects those they elected to do what they the electorate tells them to do. Siumut, just found out what happens when a party fails to do so, that is, they get voted out of office, which is what happened to Siumut.

I would suggest again, that in my opinion, it is the Government's responsibility to make a decision, based on their judgement based on the applicant for a mining license application, the company's conduct in Greenland, the conduct of the company's officers and employees and their working attitudes and actions with the Greenland Government officials in the process of working with the government to establish a trust that the company will follow the rules and requirement's required in the application process and if granted, in continuing to meet all regulations and requirements imposed by the Governmen t to assure safe mining.

I again, in my opinion, I would suggest, that Greenland Minerals operations and actions have failed to establish the trust that the Greenland government and the Greenland people expect of those who are granted to privilege of being given a license to mine in Greenland.

Conversely if the company, applying for the mining license fails, because their actions fail to establish a trust with the Government regardless of how much time or money the company has spent, it is, in my opinion, it is the Government's responsibility to refuse to give that company a mining license. The Greenland people expect and demand that the Government do so.

Lastly, in my opinion, Greenland Minerals have abjectly failed to establish themselves or their company, as trustworthy mining partners that the Greenland Government can safely, in the service of their citizens, grant a mining license for Kvanefjeld especially given its significant radioactive challenges.

Ciao
Dull