Energy Transition Minerals Challenges Greenland’s Government in Kuannersuit License Dispute
In a developing legal saga, the Australian company Energy Transition Minerals (ETM) has filed a lawsuit against Greenland’s self-government over the Kuannersuit mining license. The company alleges that both the Naalakkersuisut—the governing body of Greenland—and the Danish government are purposely prolonging the legal process with a series of procedural maneuvers.
Recent communications from the Attorney General, representing Denmark and Greenland, indicate that several procedural issues remain unresolved. This claim was made in a letter to Greenland’s High Court dated November 25, which stated that these issues must be clarified before a timeline can be established for a written response leading up to the trial.
“Their behavior is hard to interpret as anything other than an intentional delay,” remarked Daniel Mamadou, Director of ETM. “It’s astonishing to see Denmark and Greenland—two entities that should be committed to a swift resolution—procrastinate in this manner. As a result, the people of Greenland are now facing legal costs amounting to millions. We are confident in the strength of our case and are eager to clarify matters, which is why we see no need to focus on unnecessary formalities that only serve to stall proceedings.”
In contrast, Naaja H. Nathanielsen, the Minister for Business, Raw Materials, Energy, the Judiciary, and Equality, dismissed ETM’s accusations, emphasizing that it is the company that has caused delays. “Nothing could be further from the truth,” she asserted. “We have numerous instances where ETM’s strategies have hindered progress. From filing an improper arbitration case—which has since been resolved—to attempting to pursue litigation in Copenhagen that was subsequently dismissed, the records speak for themselves.”
Nathanielsen went on to highlight the company’s tactics of subpoenaing individuals and institutions not involved in the case as further complicating factors. “It only adds confusion and expense to the proceedings. Our aim is to reduce the case to its essence—between ETM and Naalakkersuisut—focused solely on the decisions we made,” she stated.
ETM also expressed concern regarding implications made by the Attorney General, suggesting that individual members of Inatsisartut (the Greenlandic Parliament) could potentially face personal liability in this matter. Mamadou expressed grave concern about the ramifications for those individuals. “This development is alarming and could have serious implications for those who may be held accountable,” he noted.
However, Nathanielsen contended that this interpretation reflects a misunderstanding on ETM’s part. “It’s unfortunate that they have misinterpreted their own case. The only proper entity to sue is Naalakkersuisut,” she clarified. “Accusing the Chairman of Inatsisartut over decisions made by the government is unfounded, and we have no choice but to challenge these misleading claims.”
In addressing allegations of a coordinated intimidation campaign against the self-government, Nathanielsen mentioned that clarifying questions have been posed to Greenland’s High Court, countering ETM’s assertions that these queries indicate personal liability. “If they genuinely believe that, it’s concerning. It implies a fundamental misunderstanding of decision-making in mineral projects. As always, we are prepared to guide ETM through this process and look forward to a fair and efficient review of our decisions.”
On the matter of environmental and legal compliance regarding the Kuannersuit project, ETM maintains that it has fulfilled all necessary criteria for an exploitation permit and accuses the self-government of wrongfully hindering its mining ambitions. Nathanielsen, however, offered a counter-narrative: “No final decision has been made regarding ETM’s adherence to the environmental and legal requirements. While public hearings on their Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and Social Impact Assessment (SIA) have been conducted, these documents have yet to be approved. The ongoing case will determine whether the exploitation permit was correctly refused, especially in light of the uranium content in the resource.”
As the legal tussle continues, one thing is certain: the first court hearing between Energy Transition Minerals and the self-government remains on the horizon, with no date yet set.