AFTER REFUSAL TO ETM
The permit to explore for minerals in Kuannersuit has not been extended. Even if more studies were done, it would not lead to more knowledge, and the current knowledge is sufficient, says naalakkersuisoq after criticism from the opposition and the rejected mining company.
Naalakkersuisut’s decision about not extending the company Greenland Minerals’ exploration permit at Kuannersuit, which expired at the end of last year, is now being commented on in more detail by naalakkersuisoq for raw materials, Múte B. Egede (IA).
Naalakkersuisut briefly announced their decision on Friday, and now Múte B. Egede explains it further:
– The department’s basic assessment is that an extension would not lead to new knowledge.
– The department’s assessments have been central to Naalakkersuisut. The assessment that no new knowledge will be created and that the knowledge that already exists within the demarcated area will not change is the most important justification for refusing an extension.
– The fact that within the limited license area there are radioactive substances, i.e. uranium, with a content above the limit (100 ppm, ed.), is also part of the justification, says naalakkersuisoq for raw materials Múte B. Egede to Sermitsiaq.
Naalakkersuisoq to ETM: We look at the whole
According to what Energy Transition Minerals’ director Daniel Mamadou informed Sermitsiaq on Wednesday, the company assessed last year that in ten sub-areas within the license area there were deposits which were in accordance with the law, i.e. without exceeding the limit for uranium. But the individual areas did not form the basis for Naalakkersuisut’s decision, says naalakkersuisoq, as the entire license area was assessed together.
– If you look at the overall picture, the data must be above the set limits, and on that basis the decision was made.
– The conclusion is that even if the company had come up with new data, the overall assessment of the entire occurrence area would be the same, and the decision is based on that, says naalakkersuisoq.
Existing businesses must be developed
Naalakkersuisut’s decision is criticized by Siumut. According to party chairman Aleqa Hammond (S), Naalakkersuisut should have at least pointed to new income opportunities for the citizens when they refused. But apart from the professions we already hear about, Naalakkersuisoq did not mention others.
– We work purposefully to make our country more economically strong. Raw material extraction without uranium is a high priority. In addition, Naalakkersuisut works purposefully and intensively on the development of tourism, so that tourism together with fishing and raw material extraction without uranium can become a major supporting foundation, says Múte B. Egede.
This makes it clear that Naalakkersuisut has no plans for new revenue areas, which have not yet been discussed. Right now, the goal is instead to develop the business areas that already exist.
Siumut will also extract raw materials with uranium
Aleqa Hammond has also previously said in an interview that Siumut is in favor of extracting raw materials, even when there is uranium in them.
– Regardless of whether there is uranium or not, Siumut agrees that our country should have raw material extraction, says the chairman.
She emphasizes, however, that if there is disagreement about the limit value in the law, i.e. about how large the uranium content must be, then it must be subject to negotiation.
Not worried
The chairman of the opposition party Naleraq, Pele Broberg (N), has also previously criticized Naalakkersuisut’s decision towards Sermitsiaq. In his criticism, he emphasized that the party does not want raw material extraction now, but fears that the refusal will affect foreign investors who want to invest. But Pele Broberg’s concern is not shared by Naalakkersuisut.
– We must open up to foreign investors. Naalakkersuisut believes that there will still be someone who wants to invest with clear laws, says Múte Bourup Egede.
SIK’s chairman, Jess G. Berthelsen, has also previously criticized the reasons Naalakkersuisut presented for their decision. He believes that Naalakkersuit’s reasons are too short. Naalakkersuisut briefly justified their decision thus in their announcement:
“A decision has been taken to reject the application for an extension, as further exploration in the area is not considered to be able to lead to the discovery of deposits that can be exploited in accordance with the Uranium Act.”
