ETM (ASX) Meeting with Naaja

Originally posted by LightsNorth: ↑

Funny that there’s a current S37 question on a ‘dead project’. Most peculiar.

February 18, 2022Pursuant to section 37 para. 1 of the Rules of Procedure for Inatsisartut, I put the following questions to the Naalakkersuisut.

Questions to Naalakkersuisut:In connection with the consideration of EM2021 / 23 (the uranium ban), the Naalakkersuisut writes in response to questions from the Business and Mineral Resources Committee that it is the Naalakkersuisut's assessment that an adoption of the proposal will not result in a claim for compensation as a result of the law.
1. Has the Naalakkersuisut had internal legal assessments made in relation to whether there is a risk that companies can sue the Self-Government in connection with the adoption of a uranium ban?a. In that case, I want to know who in the Self-Government has made these assessments as well as when they were given.
2. Has the Naalakkersuisut had external legal assessments made in relation to whether there is a risk that companies can sue the Self-Government in connection with the adoption of a uranium ban?a. Who made these assessments?b. When they were delivered.In Sermitsiaq number 6/22 you can read that meetings are being held between the Ministry of Minerals and Greenland Minerals with the Danish Chamber Advocate. I would like to know the following about these meetings:
3. How long have they been going on?
4. How long has the Naalakkersuisut known about these meetings?
5. What is the reason for the meeting activity?
6. Assess the Naalakkersuisut - including a possible external legal adviser - that there is a risk of alawsuit?
7. In what way has the Naalakkersuisut involved Inatsisartut in the meetings with Greenland Mineralswith the Danish chamber lawyer?
8. How will Inatsisartut be involved in these and similar meetings in the future?
9. Can the Naalakkersuisut state anything else of interest to the subject?(Member of Inatsisartut Jens-Frederik Nielsen, Democrats)

ReasonsNaalakkersuisoq for Raw Materials has mentioned on several occasions (for example during the debate on EM2021 / 23 and answers to committee questions in connection with the consideration of this point) that she does not believe that raw material companies such as Greenland Minerals are entitled to compensation as a result of the adoption of the uranium ban ( EM2021 / 23)
.In Sermitsiaq number 6/22, however, you can read that meetings are currently taking place between Greenland Minerals and the Ministry of Minerals at the Danish Chamber Advocate.
In this connection, Naalakkersuisoq for Raw Materials states the following: "It's no secret that we have lawyers on both sides of the table, as it could potentially end in a lawsuit."In this connection, I find it interesting to know whether the Naalakkersuisut has had legal assessments made of whether a company such as Greenland Minerals is potentially entitled to compensation as a result of the uranium ban. It is also interesting for me to know when these assessments were made and by whom.I look forward to receiving your questions within 10 working days.

Expand

I do believe that much earlier when Naaja advised they had legal advice when requested she refused to release the content of that advice.......

When the parliament meets again shortly I would assume that they will be questioned again on what the legal advice is....

I would think that the parliament would be entitled to know what that advice is........

The White paper as she has advised will be delayed until the end of summer for response.....

This is contrary to the previous advice by IA that they would trdpond to the White Paper promptly (timely manner)

Makes one think that she is playing delay tactics and Bluster....
Jensen should push harer for answers to both Egede and Nathanlielsen, it is not unreasnonable for the parliament be able to read that legal comment to the GoG from Poul Schmith

(October 8) assessment from the law firm Poul Schmith. What is the reason for actively hiding it

"It ain't over till yhr fat lady sings"

"Go Thor"

No.	Vol.	Price($)
2	174222	2.1¢

No.

Vol.

Price($)

174222

2.1¢

Price($)	Vol.	No.
2.2¢	59703	1

Price($)

Vol.

No.

2.2¢

59703

No.	Vol.	Price($)
2	174222	0.021
4	1832517	0.020
13	1716768	0.019
5	1102777	0.018
2	458800	0.017

No.

Vol.

Price($)

174222

0.021

1832517

0.020

1716768

0.019

1102777

0.018

458800

0.017

Price($)	Vol.	No.
0.022	59703	1
0.023	32542	1
0.024	130000	1
0.025	405415	2
0.027	250000	1

Price($)

Vol.

No.

0.022

59703

0.023

32542

0.024

130000

0.025

405415

0.027

250000

(20min delay)
Last 2.1¢		Change 0.001(5.00%)		Mkt cap ! $29.49M

Open	High	Low	Value	Volume
2.1¢	2.2¢	2.1¢	$8.161K	383.9K

I do believe that much earlier when Naaja advised they had legal...

Monadelphous inks $200M contract with Woodside to help build Pluto LNG – but will it make Scarborough cheaper?

MinRes jumps 5% as the company meets production guidance – depressed iron ore prices be damned

Nova locks in NASDAQ US market listing at a value of only US$3.3M as ASX gets quieter and quieter

Red Hawk upgrades Blacksmith with DSO mineral resource at the Eagle Deposit

Nine's staff strike as Paris Olympic coverage begins

Featured News

Buyers (Bids)

Sellers (Offers)

Featured News

I do believe that much earlier when Naaja advised they had legal...

Top Stories

Monadelphous inks $200M contract with Woodside to help build Pluto LNG – but will it make Scarborough cheaper?

MinRes jumps 5% as the company meets production guidance – depressed iron ore prices be damned

Nova locks in NASDAQ US market listing at a value of only US$3.3M as ASX gets quieter and quieter

Red Hawk upgrades Blacksmith with DSO mineral resource at the Eagle Deposit

Nine's staff strike as Paris Olympic coverage begins

Featured News

Buyers (Bids)

Sellers (Offers)

Featured News