Why Cridical Medals is Collapsing..?, page-465

PRESS RELEASE

Narsaq, Nuuk, Copenhagen and Aarhus, August 21, 2020

The destruction of Greenland's environment has begun

On Thursday, August 13, the Minister for Industry and Mineral Resources issued a press release

that the Australian mining company Tanbreez Mining Greenland A/S has been granted a license to extract minerals at Killavaat

minerals at Killavaat Alannguat / Kringlerne in South Greenland [1]. The exploitation license is based on seven-year-old

old consultation material that does not include the latest updated Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) report

Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of the mining project. The material also does not include the plans for a chemical

separation plant with a daily consumption of up to 2000 tons of sulfuric acid, which the authorities want topart of the project.

Recently, applications for mining licenses in Greenland have increased significantly. In 2019, there were approximately 70 major

exploration and exploitation licenses, totalling many thousands of square kilometers.

Half of these are found in southernmost Greenland, which is known as “GƌøŶlaŶds bƌødkuƌv” because it includes

almost all of Greenland's farmland. Two major mining projects stand out here: The controversial

uranium/rare earth mining project in Kuannersuit/Kvanefjeld, which contains the world's second largest

inventory of uranium and by far the largest amount of thorium. And the rare earths mining project at Killavaat

Alannguat / Kringlerne, claimed by its owner, Australian company Tanbreez Mining Greenland A/S, to

to have the largest inventory of rare earths in the world [2]. Both are high-altitude open pit mines.

"MyŶ authorities have approved a ŵiŶe project without knowing in advance which mineral deposits

and how large they are," says Mariane Paviasen, chairwoman of Foreningen URANI NAAMIK /

No to uranium in Narsaq. "Both Tanbreez and the authorities describe the mineral deposits in Killavaat

Alannguat as huge when marketing the project to international investors, but in the environmental impact

the environmental impact assessment of the project, it is categorized as much smaller. Tanbreez has

also admitted that uranium is present at the mine site, but this is not mentioned in the consultation material." [3]

Most unusually, the MLSA has granted an exploitation license without first approving an

exploitation or decommissioning plan for the mining project [4]. Tanbreez has been given until the end of 2022 to

to get the plans approved.

"Unfortunately, there is no doubt that the deferred exploitation and activity plan relates to the chemical

separatioŶsaŶ plant, which the ŵyŶdighederŶe gerŶe want for GrøŶlaŶd", says Hans Pedersen from

RenewableEnergy. "The purpose of the separation plant is to increase the tax revenue for the mining project

Greenland Committee 2019-20

GRU Alm.del - Appendix 68

Public

Page 2 of 3

regardless of the cost to the environment. One must ask oneself whether the purpose of issuing an

exploitation license without an approved exploitation and decommissioning plan is to make it more difficult at a later stage

to stop the mining project for environmental reasons at a later date without incurring liability to the Greenlandic

liability for damages? In any case, the decision is highly unusual." [5]

Compared to what the Mineral Resources Act requires, the seven-year-old consultation material is seriously deficient. This is clearly

is clear from the consultation responses from KANUKOKA - The National Association of Greenlandic Municipalities,

Kommuneqarfik Sermersooq and DTU Wind Energy. Kommuneqarfik Sermersooq (the neighboring municipality to

Kommuneqarfik Sermersooq (the neighboring municipality to Kommune Kujalleq, where the mining project is located) skƌiveƌekte that ŵaŶ "is concerned that (the main EIA report) has been judged to be adequate by Naturstyrelsen for Råstoffer, DCE (National

Center for Environment and Energy at Aarhus University) and the Nature Institute without any

baggƌuŶdsŵateƌiale". AvataƋ, WWF and GƌeeŶpeace have similar objections [6].

The decisionŶiŶgeŶ oŵ to grant eŶ udŶ protection license on such a flawed basis lowers

environmental standards are lowered so much that it becomes difficult to imagine that mining projects in the future will be

rejected because of Ŷegative coŶsequences for the environment", says Erik Jensen, spokesperson for Foreningen URANI

NAAMIK / No to uranium in Nuuk. "In an Arctic climate, environmental degradation can be perŵaŶeŶeŶte because ŶatureŶ is already very vulnerable

is already very vulnerable, so the development that is now being set in motion cannot be rolled back."

“Killavaat Alannguat is right next to the Kujataa UNESCO World Heritage Site,” says Niels Henrik Hooge

fƌa NOAH FƌieŶds of the Eaƌth DeŶŵaƌk's uƌaŶgƌuppe. "Why hasn't there been an

impact assessment of the impact of the mining project on the World Heritage Site and why has the project not been

submitted to UNESCO for assessment in accordance with the guidelines for the implementation of the World Heritage Convention before the exploitation license was granted?" [7]