The government might slowly crumble if during the arbitration...

The government might slowly crumble if during the arbitration thing start to not look good.


Party Chairman on Arbitration Request: Expected and a Potential Disaster
Jens-Frederik Nielsen hopes that the Naalakkersuisut can win a possible arbitration case against Greenland Minerals, because he fears the consequences for the country's economy if one loses. Naalakkersuisoq denies that there is a basis for either arbitration or compensation to Greenland Minerals.

A legal aftermath of Greenland Minerals' right to compensation as a result of the newly introduced uranium ban is underway.

The mining company has asked the Naalakkersuisut to initiate an arbitration case on the issue, the Naalakkersuisut announced on Wednesday.

ALSO READ:
Greenland minerals threatens compensation claims
One of the most active politicians in the question of the risk of a claim for compensation from Greenland Minerals has been the Democrat's party chairman, Jens-Frederik Nielsen, who on several occasions has asked naalakkersuisoq about the matter.

He tells Sermitsiaq.AG that he is deeply concerned about the latest developments in the case, which he believes may be the first step in a series of legal actions that Greenland Minerals can take to seek compensation:

Expected first step
- What is happening now, I see as the first step of what to expect. The information I have received from Naalakkersuisut via my questions, I interpret as meaning that we are in an uncertain position, says Jens-Frederik Nielsen to Sermitsiaq.AG.

He points out that the Naalakkersuisut in connection with the adoption of the uranium ban has stated that it can not be ruled out that a licensee - in this case Greenland Minerals - will drag the Self-Government to court

He calls the situation predictable:

- We are dealing with a company that has a signed agreement in hand, and the Naalakkersuisut has introduced legislation that makes the project illegal, he says.

Fear huge-bill
Jens-Frederik Nielsen fears that it could potentially end up with a huge bill for Greenlandic society if the Naalakkersuisut loses the arbitration case or a later lawsuit. This is not small money Greenland Minerals has spent on investigating the Kuannersuit project.

Greenland Minerals was granted permission to explore as far back as 2007 and expected to be able to stack a billion-dollar business on its feet if permission was eventually granted to build the mine.

- It is terrible if we have to give compensation to Greenland Minerals.

ALSO READ:
Note on uranium replacement remains secret
- It is catastrophic that we do not know what the consequences may be. We know nothing, and that means that as an opposition politician you sit on the edge of your seat, says Jens-Frederik Nielsen and continues:

- One thing is the about half a billion kroner the company has spent on investigation. But if it's a question of expropriation - then it's not just their provisional expenses. Then it may also be about lost earnings. It's hugely dangerous, and that's the concern we have

Naalakkersuisoq does not expect a replacement bill
According to Greenland Minerals' own figures, the company expected to pay around DKK 1.2 billion a year in taxes to Landskassen during the mine's lifetime.

Naalakkersuisoq for raw materials, Naaja H. Nathanielsen (IA) states that she focuses on facts and not fear.

Question: Politician Jens-Frederik Nielsen fears that a large bill could come to the Self-Government if the case is lost. What does naalakkersuisoq say to that fear?

- I only relate to the facts of the case and am currently working with it. As a starting point, in my opinion, there is no basis for an arbitration case or for paying compensation, writes Naaja Nathanielsen in a written response to Sermitsiaq.AG.

Secret assessment
The self-government has also been given a legal assessment of the risk of being held liable for Greenland Minerals, but that assessment is kept secret in the event of a possible lawsuit.

Naalakkersuisoq has also stated in a press release that it sees the request for an arbitration case as a symbol that Greenland Minerals will not respect a Greenlandic desire for a uranium ban.

Law professor Peter Pagh says in this connection that it is quite normal for disputes about agreements to be settled in an arbitration if a disagreement arises about a given agreement