London Mining’s Permit Dispute: A Deepening Legal Conflict
On November 15, 2022, London Mining—a Chinese-owned enterprise—held a meeting to assert that it had been unlawfully stripped of its exploitation permit for iron ore extraction in Isukasia, located north of Nuup Kangerluaq. This revocation traces back to 2021, and the company contends that the actions taken against it are without merit.
The Greenlandic self-government justified its decision to withdraw London Mining’s permit by citing the company’s history of requesting time extensions, a lack of tangible progress on the project, and a failure to contribute to a required collateral account despite numerous reminders.
Naalakkersuisoq for Raw Materials, Naaja H. Nathanielsen of the Inuit Ataqatigiit party, addressed the situation firmly. “We cannot accept that a rights holder repeatedly fails to meet agreed deadlines. Nor can we sit by and listen to a rights holder not depositing the agreed amounts despite repeated reminders. If a rights holder cannot fulfill their obligations, others must be given the opportunity. This is a fundamental principle in the Mineral Resources Act.”
A Legal Battle for Control
London Mining’s lawsuit asserts that its 2013 permit remains valid contingent upon the submission of an exploitation and decommissioning plan within 18 months of a court ruling. Alternatively, they seek DKK 20 million in damages and the release of their DKK 6 million collateral.
Representing London Mining in this legal showdown are Nuna Advokater and Horten Advokatpartnerskab, while the case for the mineral authorities will be handled by Attorney General Poul Schmith.
A Matter of Access
Central to this dispute is both the permit extension and the compensation claim. The resolution of these issues is anticipated sometime between 2024 and 2025. However, complications arose when London Mining requested access to internal documents exchanged among various governmental departments within Naalakkersuisut. The self-government countered that these documents were exempt from disclosure as internal working papers integral to administrative functioning.
“The question is fundamentally important, as it impacts day-to-day work in the administration,” stated the Ministry of Raw Materials.
Written Proceedings Ahead
Initially, the Greenland Court sided with Naalakkersuisut, but London Mining’s appeal reached Greenland’s High Court, which found procedural errors in the lower court’s handling. The High Court is now addressing document access, opting for written proceedings—a method that promises efficiency and cost-effectiveness compared to an oral hearing.
As a result of this ongoing document access dispute, the broader matter concerning London Mining’s right to extend its license, along with its compensation claims, has been put on hold. Only once the document access issue is resolved will the next steps be determined, as confirmed by the Ministry for Raw Materials.
License Area Remains Off-Limits
In the meantime, the Greenlandic authorities have placed a moratorium on new applications for exclusive licenses in the Isukasia region. This prohibition extends to both mineral exploration permits and local mineral activities, which previously included smaller permits. Under no circumstances can any activities proceed in this area without explicit permission.
As this legal saga unfolds, the intersection of regulatory oversight and corporate ambition continues to play out against the backdrop of Greenland’s rich mineral resources.