Kuannersuit company in sharp criticism of self-government

The Australian company Energy Transition Minerals, which has filed a lawsuit against the Government of Greenland regarding the Kuannersuit license, believes that the Greenland Government and the Danish government are dragging out their case with procedural delays.

According to the company, the Attorney General, representing Denmark and Greenland, stated in a letter to the Greenland High Court dated November 25 that a number of procedural matters remain outstanding and should be clarified before a deadline can be set for a response prior to the trial.

– It is difficult to perceive this behavior as anything other than a deliberate attempt to drag out the case. We are surprised that Denmark and Greenland, with open eyes, are setting a model for a case that all parties have an interest in being resolved, being delayed and delayed in this way. The result is simply that the Greenlanders are stuck with bills in the millions for legal assistance. There can no longer be much doubt about the substantive content of the case. We believe that we have a very strong case, and therefore we will continue to work towards a clarification as planned, which is why we find it unnecessary to spend more time on formalities that only delay the case, says Daniel Mamadou, CEO of Energy Transition Minerals, in a press release.

It's the company that's delaying the process

When faced with accusations that the self-government was dragging out the case, the response from Naalakkersuisoq for Business, Minerals, Energy, Justice and Equality Naaja H. Nathanielsen (IA) is:

– No. Nothing could be more wrong.

According to her, it's actually the other way around.

– We have numerous examples of Greenland Minerals/Energy Transition Minerals (GME/ETM) having adopted a strategy that is delaying the process. The most obvious example is of course the entire arbitration case, which should not have been filed in the first place. It was the wrong place to have the case tried, and this has now been finally clarified with the decision from the Arbitration Court.

- Another example is the attempt to also file a case in the Copenhagen City Court. This was also recently rejected by the fact that the Greenlandic Government and a number of Greenlandic institutions are now out of the case. In addition, the company's strategy of subpoenaing a large number of institutions and individuals who are not parties to the case has also delayed the case. The Greenlandic Government is the only counterparty in the case, and GME/ETM fails to understand or acknowledge this.

- For example, it makes no sense whatsoever to accuse the chairman of Inatsisartut for a decision made by Naalakkersuisut. That is why we have challenged this in the High Court. Yes, it takes time to clarify but the alternative is unacceptable, says Naaja H. Nathanielsen and adds:

– If the case were to continue with all the other parties that GME/ETM has summoned, it would only mean confusion and additional costs. Therefore, the only responsible thing to do is to have the case cut so that it can be processed as quickly and efficiently as possible. Naalakkersuisut, like GME/ETM, looks forward to having the case tried in court in the way it should be tried; namely in a case between GME and Naalakkersuisut, with a focus on the decisions that Naalakkersuisut has made.

Personal liability

The company is also surprised that the Attorney General, in his letter to the Greenland High Court, suggests that Energy Transition Minerals should possibly hold individual members of Inatsisartut personally liable for damages in the case.

– We note that the opposing party's own lawyer suddenly brings into play the idea that individuals can be held liable in this case. This is obviously serious for the individuals who may be held liable for damages, says Daniel Mamadou.

But that is not a correct interpretation, says Naaja H. Nathanielsen: – The polite interpretation is that GME/ETM must have misunderstood their own action. It is GME/ETM that has made the decision to file the case against a whole bunch of completely irrelevant parties. As we have advised them several times over the years, Naalakkersuisut is the only entity it is correct to sue.

- GME/ETM has, among others, sued “Inatsisartut v/Chairman of Inatsisartut, Mimi Karlsen”. That decision is meaningless, as the Chairman of Inatsisartut cannot be held responsible for decisions made by Naalakkersuisut. All these unclear decisions made by GME/ETM raise a number of clarification questions. But it is GME/ETM that has set the framework, and that is what we have to deal with. We are forced to challenge these conditions and ask questions about it. Questions that GME/ETM have not answered so far.

Intimidation campaign against self-government

According to Naaja H. Nathanielsen, the department has asked some clarifying questions about the case at the Greenland High Court, but that this is not an opening towards personal liability, as claimed by the company.

– If they really believe that, then it is really worrying. It means that they have not understood the decision-making structure in mineral projects at all. Once again, we experience that GME/ETM is trying to scare the Government by suggesting that someone will be stuck with an astronomical compensation. As always, we stand ready to guide GME/ETM, as has always been the case – and we welcome a quick and effective review of our decisions.

Environmental and regulatory requirements

Energy Transition Minerals finally writes that all environmental and statutory requirements for an exploitation permit for the Kuannersuit project have been met, and that the company has thus been unjustly deprived of the opportunity to conduct mining operations in Kuannersuit.

But here too, Naalakkersuisoq does not agree with the interpretation:

- No decision has been taken on whether GME/ETM meets all environmental and statutory requirements. Public hearings have previously been requested and held on the company's EIA and SIA, and it is the Greenland Government that must approve these reports. Greenland Government has not taken a decision on or approved GME's EIA and SIA. Right now, the case is about whether the application for an exploitation permit and the refusals were rightly granted. They were granted as a result of the amount of uranium in the resource and in relation to the Uranium Act. Should the court, contrary to our expectations, find that our refusal was not rightly granted, the case must be remitted to Greenland Government, which will then consider whether the additional conditions have been met. This is the usual procedure when administrative decisions are reviewed. So their interpretation is not correct.

The first court hearing in the case between Greenland Minerals/EnergyTransition Minerals and the Government of Greenland has not yet been scheduled.