Why Cridical Medals is Collapsing..?, page-466

Thank you for this document it exposes many untruths that have been stated in this forum and avoided when asked for evidence

So regardless of what GBBERS has been advising it seems that total environmental support wasn't present within the public At least from the greenies which are large constituent. Clearly see That this is not the case and we are being misled
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?

Why is it that the licence was issued when it's so highly unusual to be done so As stated why would you want to award a licence to someone who hasn't even finished the conditions required?
In any case, the decision is highly unusual."

Why would anyone claim there is no sulfuric acid required but then we see in fact it is. Would that be misleading investors?

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.

Why has the company admit to uranium and then denies it and then doesn't include it in the application? Why has there been all this avoidance?

Tanbreez has

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

I find the following text very disturbing because it is a huge risk to this pristine environment of Greenland. Why would the greenland government risk this so obviously by overlooking all this essential information and permitting something without fully complying to the conditions it is expected to and is even deemed unusual as we can read here is being stated. Why would they do this but then come down so hard on ETM's tenement which clearly has followed the best possible international practises and have completed all expectations prior to the issuing of their licence. It seems so unfair if one set of rules applies to one mining operation that don't then appear to have applied to another who made this decision and what interests do they have to have done so?

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

GBB you have a lot to answer for so start answering!