GREENLAND MINERALS A/S
Claimant
- V -
GOVERNMENT OF GREENLAND
(NAALAKKERSUISUT)
First Respondent
GOVERNMENT OF THE KINGDOM OF DENMARK
Second Respondent
22 March 2022
[Page 2]
1.1 This request for arbitration ("Request") is issued on behalf of Greenland Minerals A/S ("GMAS" or the "Claimant"), pursuant to section 20 of the "Standard Terms for Exploration Licences for Minerals (Excluding Hydrocarbons) in Greenland" ("Standard Terms")¹, and section 21 of the Danish Arbitration Act 2005 (Act No. 553 of 24 June 2005 on Arbitration as amended) ("Arbitration Act"). GMAS is a subsidiary of Greenland Minerals Ltd ("GML"), an Australian public company listed on the Australian Securities Exchange ("ASX").
1.2 GMAS hereby submits to arbitration the dispute that has arisen between GMAS and the Government of Greenland ("Naalakkersuisut" or the "First Respondent") regarding questions concerning the Exploration Licence held by GMAS ("Exploration Licence")² for the Kvanefjeld or Kuannersuit rare earths project in southern Greenland ("Project" or "Kvanefjeld"). For reasons explained further below, the dispute concerning the Exploration Licence also arises between GMAS and the Government of the Kingdom of Denmark ("Danish Government" or the "Second Respondent"), which, though a non-signatory, is bound by the
1 "Standard Terms For Exploration Licences For Minerals (Excluding Hydrocarbons) in Greenland" dated 16 November 1998. These Standard Terms have been amended by Addendum No. 1 of 10 September 2010 and Addendum No. 2 of 25 June 2013 (consolidated into "Standard Terms For Exploration Licences For Minerals (Excluding Hydrocarbons) in Greenland", at (C-1)), as well as by Addendum No. 3 to Standard Terms For Exploration Licences For Minerals (Excluding Hydrocarbons) in Greenland of 1 July 2014, at (C-2). ↩
2 The exploration licence in question was originally granted as Licence No. 2005/17 ("Exploration Licence for Rimbal Pty Ltd. for an Area at Nakkaalaaq in West Greenland" dated May 2005 and executed 6 July 2005, at (C- 3)), which was amended by "Addendum No. 1 to Licence No. 2005/17 for an Area of Nakkaalaaq in West Greenland" dated September 2006 and executed 19 December 2006, at (C-4). Subsequently, Licence 2005/28 was granted as a separation of Licence No. 2005/17 ("Exploration Licence for Rimbal Pty Ltd. for an Area at Nakkaalaaq North in West Greenland" dated April 2007 and executed 14 June 2007, at (C-5)), which was amended by "Addendum No. 1 to Licence No. 2005/28 for an Area at Naakkaalaaq in West Greenland" dated June 2008 and executed 19 June 2008, at (C-6). Licence No. 2005/28 was renewed as Licence 2010/02 ("Renewal of exploration licence with exclusive exploration rights for Greenland Minerals & Energy (Trading) A/S for an area near Kuannersuit in Southwest Greenland" dated February 2010 and executed 21 April 2010, at (C-7)), which was amended by "Addendum no. 1 to licence 2010/02 for an area at Kuannersuit in South West Greenland" dated December 2011 and executed 6 January 2012, at (C-8), by "Addendum No. 2 to Exclusive Licence No. 2010/02 for Exploration of Minerals Concerning a Temporary Adjustment of the Minimum Yearly Exploration Expenses for 2015 and 2016" dated December 2015 and executed 9 February 2016, at (C-9), by "Addendum No. 3 to Exclusive Licence No. 2010/02 for Exploration of Minerals Concerning a Temporary Adjustment of the Minimum Yearly Exploration Expenses for 2017" dated May 2017 and executed 18 May 2017, at (C-10), by "Addendum no. 4 on renewal of exploration licence with exclusive exploration rights for Greenland Minerals and Energy A/S for the area Kuannersuit near in South Greenland" dated June 2018 and executed 31 July 2018, at (C-11), by "Addendum no. 5 for exploration licence no. 2010/02 on change of Licencee's name" dated September 2018 and executed 19 September 2018, at (C-12), by "Addendum No. 6 to Exclusive Licence No 2010/02 for Exploration of Minerals Concerning a Temporary Adjustment of the Minimum Yearly Exploration Expenses for 2018" dated July 2018 and executed 13 August 2018, at (C-13), and by "Addendum no. 7 to exploration licence 2010-02 on change of licence period temporary adjustment of the yearly exploration expenses for 2020" dated January 2021 and executed 1 February 2021, at (C-14). ↩
[Page 3]
arbitration agreement contained within the Exploration Licence, and has had relevant involvement in the Project and Exploration Licence.
1.3 This dispute arises out of targeted steps taken by the newly elected Naalakkersuisut in seeking to block the progress of the Project, after GMAS invested in and worked on the Project with the active support of previous governments for over 14 years. In 2021, Naalakkersuisut caused the promulgation of controversial legislation, in the form of Greenland Parliament Act No. 20 of 1 December 2021 to ban uranium prospecting, exploration and exploitation, etc. ("Act No. 20").³ Representatives of Naalakkersuisut have explained to GMAS that it will not be possible for the Project to proceed as planned, and GMAS' current application for an exploitation licence ("Exploitation Licence Application") will be refused because, although the focus of the Project is the extraction and exploitation of rare earth elements, it will also involve the extraction of uranium at a level above the 100 ppm (0.01%) limit stated in the new law.
1.4 GMAS is commencing this arbitration because there is currently a dispute as to GMAS' entitlements under the Exploration Licence and the applicable law, and GMAS wants to understand its prevailing entitlements. Hence, GMAS seeks a formal determination of the effect, if any, of Act No. 20 on GMAS' entitlement, under section 14 of the Standard Terms of the Exploration Licence, to the grant of an exploitation licence for the Project. In this regard, GMAS notes that aspects of Act No. 20 (and its preparatory works) indicate that Act No. 20 does not have the effect that representatives of Naalakkersuisut have stated to GMAS. These indicia include clear wording in the statute itself, which specify that it does not apply to existing licences, and the preparatory works to the statute, which emphatically state that it does not apply to the extent that its application would result in an expropriation. Indeed, representatives of Naalakkersuisut have recently confirmed that Act No. 20 only applies to the extent that it does not amount to an expropriation.
1.5 It is clear from the statute and parliamentary records that Act No. 20 was the product of a delicate legislative process, in which legitimate questions were posed by several stakeholders regarding the effects of the proposed law, including whether it would have expropriatory effects. Indeed, allegations have recently been made in the Greenland Parliament that Naalakkersuisut concealed information in the legislative process, namely an external legal assessment regarding possible liability on the part of Naalakkersuisut if Act No. 20 were to be enacted. The product of this problematic legislative process is an incongruous
3 Greenland Parliament Act No. 20 of 1 December 2021 to ban uranium, prospecting, exploration and exploitation, etc., at (CL-1). ↩
[Page 4]
statute that seeks to have it both ways: on the one hand, to eviscerate GMAS' entitlement to an exploitation licence for the Project, and on the other hand, to avoid the legal consequences of that evisceration – including liability for expropriation. This outcome is manifestly impermissible under the applicable law, including international law.
1.6 It is self-evident from the fact that Naalakkersuisut felt the need to embark upon this fraught legislative process, in order to make good on its election promise to stop the Project, that Naalakkersuisut was fully aware that it was under a legal obligation to grant GMAS an exploitation licence. Fundamentally, GMAS brings these proceedings to vindicate its entitlement to an exploitation licence or, if GMAS has been deprived of that entitlement in violation of the Exploration Licence and the applicable law, obtain damages.
1.7 The background to the dispute is provided below, along with the specific questions that GMAS poses for determination by the tribunal.
2.1 By this Request, GMAS refers its dispute with Naalakkersuisut and the Danish Government to arbitration under section 20 of the Standard Terms of the Exploration Licence, and the Arbitration Act.
2.2 The Standard Terms are incorporated by reference into the Exploration Licence, which has been held by GMAS since June 2008. Section 20 of the Standard Terms sets out the regime for the resolution of disputes concerning the Exploration Licence. Naalakkersuisut has provided its consent to the referral of disputes to arbitration, in accordance with the terms of section 20 of the Standard Terms, which, relevantly, provide that:
"disputes arising between the Government of Greenland and the licensee regarding questions concerning the licence will be finally decided upon by a board of arbitration, appointed pursuant to sections 2003-2006."⁴
2.3 At the time the Exploration Licence (including the Standard Terms) was first issued in 2005, the regulation of mining in Greenland was the joint responsibility of Naalakkersuisut and the Danish Government (this system remained in place until 2010).⁵ In this period, administrative power over mineral resources was exercised by Naalakkersuisut under joint responsibility with the Danish Government. As part of this system, rights to revenue from mineral resources were
4 "Standard Terms For Exploration Licences For Minerals (Excluding Hydrocarbons) in Greenland", at (C-1), section 2002. ↩
5 See Danish Parliament Act No. 335 of 6 June 1991 on Mineral Resources, etc. in Greenland (consolidated with amendments into Consolidation Act No. 368 of 18 June 1998), at (CL-2). ↩
[Page 5]
shared between Greenland and Denmark.⁶ In accordance with the then-prevailing Danish legislation, the Exploration Licence was granted with the agreement of both Naalakkersuisut and the Danish Government.⁷ On this basis, and in view of (a) the broader political and sovereign interests of the Danish Government with respect to Greenland and its mineral resources since before 2007, and (b) the fact that the Danish Government was involved in the Exploration Licence and Project, GMAS submits that the Danish Government is bound by the arbitration agreement in section 20 of the Standard Terms of the Exploration Licence. The Danish Government is so bound by virtue of the following legal principles and doctrines under the applicable law(s): (i) implicit consent; (ii) agency; (iii) its status as a third-party beneficiary; (iv) estoppel and/or (v) attribution and State responsibility. Relevant conduct and involvement of the Danish Government in relation to the Exploration Licence and Project spans the period prior and subsequent to entry into the arbitration agreement.
2.4 Section 20 does not stipulate any period of negotiations between the parties before a dispute may be referred to arbitration. Therefore, the dispute is presently appropriate for referral to arbitration. GMAS notes, for the record, that it has unsuccessfully attempted to resolve this dispute through consultations with Naalakkersuisut.
3.1 GMAS is a company registered in Greenland with company registration number (CVR No.) 12449550 and its address at:
Nuugaarmiunut 523B
Postbox 156
3921 Narsaq
Greenland
3.2 As noted above, GMAS is a subsidiary of GML, a public company incorporated in Australia. GML owns 39% of GMAS directly, and owns the remaining 61% indirectly, through Chahood Capital Limited (a company incorporated in the Isle of Man).
6 See Danish Parliament Act No. 335 of 6 June 1991 on Mineral Resources, etc. in Greenland (consolidated with amendments into Consolidation Act No. 368 of 18 June 1998), at (CL-2), section 22. ↩
7 See, for example, Danish Parliament Act No. 335 of 6 June 1991 on Mineral Resources, etc. in Greenland (consolidated with amendments into Consolidation Act No. 368 of 18 June 1998), at (CL-2), sections 3 and 7. ↩
[Page 6]
3.3 GMAS is represented in this matter by Clifford Chance, by Bruun & Hjejle and by Plesner. GMAS requests that all communications concerning this arbitration be addressed to:
Dr Sam Luttrell
Partner
Clifford Chance
Level 7
190 St Georges Terrace
Perth WA 6000
Australia
Telephone: +61 8 9262 5555
Facsimile: +61 8 9262 5522
Email: [email protected]
[email protected]
Dr Moritz Keller
Partner
Clifford Chance
Junghofstraße 14
60311 Frankfurt am Main
Germany
Telephone: +49 69 719901
Facsimile: +49 69 7199 4000
Email: [email protected]
Mr Audley Sheppard QC
Partner
Clifford Chance
10 Upper Bank Street
London E14 5JJ
United Kingdom
Telephone: +44 207006 1000
Facsimile: +44 207006 5555
Email: [email protected]
[Page 7]
Dr Ole Spiermann
Partner
Bruun & Hjejle Advokatpartnerselskab
Nørregade 21
1165 København K
Denmark
Telephone: +45 30 18 87 55
Email: [email protected]
Mr Lasse Mikkelsen
Partner
Bruun & Hjejle Advokatpartnerselskab
Nørregade 21
1165 København K
Denmark
Telephone: +45 21 83 53 06
Email: [email protected]
Mr Jimmy Skjold Hansen
Partner
Plesner Advokatpartnerselskab
Amerika Plads 37
2100 Copenhagen
Denmark
Telephone: +45 36 94 11 53
Email: [email protected]
Mr Peter Schradieck
Partner
Plesner Advokatpartnerselskab
Amerika Plads 37
2100 Copenhagen
Denmark
Telephone: +45 36 94 13 65
Email: [email protected]
[Page 8]
3.4 Relevant details for the First Respondent (Naalakkersuisut) are:
The Premier's Office
Imaneq 4
P.O. Box 1015
3900 Nuuk
Greenland
Telephone: +299 34 50 00
Email: [email protected]
Ministry of Mineral Resources and Justice
Imaneq 1A
Box 930
3900 Nuuk
Greenland
Telephone: +299 34 68 00
Email: [email protected]
Ministry of Agriculture, Self-Sufficiency, Energy and Environment
Imaneq 1A, 8th floor
Postboks 1614
3900 Nuuk
Greenland
Telephone: +299 34 50 00
Email: [email protected]
3.5 The First Respondent is represented in this matter by Poul Schmith/Kammeradvokaten. Details of the First Respondent's legal representatives are as follows:
[Page 9]
Poul Schmith/Kammeradvokaten
Kalvebod Brygge 32
1560 København V
Denmark
Attention: Paw Fruerland, Mads Mygind Bojsen
Telephone: +45 33 15 20 10
Facsimile: +45 33 15 61 15
Email: [email protected]
[email protected]
3.6 Relevant details for the Second Respondent (Danish Government) are:
The Prime Minister's Office
Christiansborg
Prins Jørgens Gård 11
1218 København K
Denmark
Telephone: +45 33 92 33 00
Email: [email protected]
Ministry of Justice
Slotsholmsgade 10
1216 København
Denmark
Telephone: +45 72 26 84 00
Email: [email protected]
Ministry of Climate, Energy and Utilities
Holmens Kanal 20
1060 København K
Denmark
Telephone: +45 33 92 28 00
Email: [email protected]
3.7 The Claimant does not know if the Second Respondent is legally represented in this matter.
[Page 10]
4.1 The Project at issue in this dispute is an advanced (development-stage), multi-element project, situated in southern Greenland.
[An image of a map is present here. The text labels on the map are transcribed below.]
4.2 Kvanefjeld is host to a vast ore body of rare earth elements, estimated in accordance with Australian resource reporting standards at 108 million tonnes of ore reserves and over 1 billion tonnes of mineral resources. The Project is expected to have an initial mine life of 37 years and to produce all commercially important rare earth elements, including neodymium, praseodymium, terbium and dysprosium. These rare earth elements – which are required in ever increasing volumes for low-carbon technologies such as electric vehicles and wind turbines – are the subject of intense competition amongst major economies, including China and the United States. In this context, Kvanefjeld is regarded as a globally significant technology metals project. As discussed below, the resource at Kvanefjeld also contains a small percentage of radioactive materials: uranium (approximately 0.03%), and thorium (approximately 0.07%).
4.3 GML first invested in the Project in 2007, through a joint venture arrangement with the Project's original proponent and the original holder of the Exploration Licence. The Exploration Licence was transferred to GMAS with government approval in June 2008.⁸ Since GML acquired rights to the Project, the Exploration Licence has been renewed in accordance with the prevailing legislation multiple
8 See "Addendum No. 1 to Licence No. 2005/28 for an Area at Naakkaalaaq in West Greenland" dated June 2008 and executed 19 June 2008, at (C-6), and Danish Parliament Act No. 335 of 6 June 1991 on Mineral Resources, etc. in Greenland (consolidated with amendments into Consolidation Act No. 368 of 18 June 1998), at (CL-2), section 27. ↩
[Page 11]
times, in April 2010,⁹ in April 2015,¹⁰ in July 2018,¹¹ and (most recently) in February 2021.¹²
4.4 From the time of GML's initial investment, the Exploration Licence has included section 14 of the Standard Terms, which, relevantly, states:
"1401. [...] the licensee is entitled to be granted an exploitation licence under articles 7 and 15 subsection 2 of the Mineral Resources Act. The exploitation licence will be granted as indicated in sections 1402 [to] 1408.
[...]
1404. The exploitation licence will cover the same mineral resources as covered by the exploration licence.
1405. The exploitation licence will be granted for a period of 30 years from the signing by the Government of Greenland. [...]"
4.5 This entitlement to an exploitation licence was and is enshrined in statute. At the statutory level, this entitlement was originally conferred in an exercise of power under Danish legislation.¹³ The entitlement was subsequently recognised and affirmed by Greenlandic legislation, namely through the enactment of the Greenland Parliament Act No. 7 of 7 December 2009 on mineral resources and mineral resources activities ("Mineral Resources Act 2010"), which entered into force on 1 January 2010.¹⁴ The source of this entitlement is relevant to responsibility of the Danish Government in these proceedings, as is the fact that the Danish Government stood to, and continues to stand to,¹⁵ benefit financially from mining activities in Greenland, including the Claimant's Project.
9 "Renewal of exploration licence with exclusive exploration rights for Greenland Minerals & Energy (Trading) A/S for an area near Kuannersuit in Southwest Greenland" dated February 2010 and executed 21 April 2010, at (C-7). ↩
10 "Renewal of exploration licence with exclusive exploration rights for Greenland Minerals and Energy (Trading) A/S for an area near Kuannersuit in South Greenland" dated March 2015 and executed 8 April 2015, at (C-15). ↩
11 "Addendum no. 4 on renewal of exploration licence with exclusive exploration rights for Greenland Minerals and Energy A/S for the area Kuannersuit near in South Greenland" dated June 2018 and executed 31 July 2018, at (C- 11). ↩
12 "Addendum no. 7 to exploration licence 2010-02 on change of licence period temporary adjustment of the yearly exploration expenses for 2020" dated January 2021 and executed 1 February 2021, at (C-14). ↩
13 Danish Parliament Act No. 335 of 6 June 1991 on Mineral Resources, etc. in Greenland (consolidated with amendments into Consolidation Act No. 368 of 18 June 1998), at (CL-2), section 15. ↩
14 Greenland Parliament Act No. 7 of 7 December 2009 on mineral resources and mineral resources activities, at (CL- 3), section 29. ↩
15 See Chapter 3 of the Danish Parliament Act No. 473 of 12 June 2009 on Greenland Self-Government, at (CL-4). ↩
[Page 12]
4.6 The Claimant notes that, from the Exploration Licence's inception, it included the arbitration agreement contained in section 20 of the Standard Terms (discussed in Part 2 above), which has remained part of the Exploration Licence ever since, with no change to its wording.
4.7 At the time that GML initially invested, the policy of the Greenland Bureau of Minerals and Petroleum ("BMP") was to permit the exploitation of all commercially viable mineral deposits falling within the exploration area. From an early stage, as a result of exploration results and other information provided or published by GMAS and GML, it was known by Greenlandic authorities that exploitation of any mineral in the ore body at the Project would necessarily require extraction of uranium at its naturally occurring concentration level. Indeed, the presence of uranium at Kvanefjeld has been known to the Greenlandic and Danish Governments since at least the 1950s.
4.8 In the period since GML made its initial 2007 investment – a period in which Greenland has sought to diversify its economy by supporting mining activities and to gain greater independence from Denmark – GML has been a long-term and high-profile investor in Greenland. At the invitation of successive governments of Greenland, GML representatives have participated in, and presented at, investment conventions hosted in Greenland, as well as promoted Greenland as a mining investment destination internationally. Representatives of the Danish Government were aware of these investment promotion activities and indeed participated in certain of the events concerned. For example, at the invitation of Naalakkersuisut and the Danish Government, GML hosted the Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency ("IAEA") at the Project site, accompanied by the then Premier of Greenland, Kim Kielsen, and the Danish Ambassador to Austria – as part of this initiative, the Director General also visited Copenhagen, meeting with various Danish officials,¹⁶ including the Danish Minister for Foreign Affairs to discuss cooperation between Denmark and Greenland in relation to the Project.¹⁷
16 These included members of the Danish Parliament's Foreign Affairs Committee, and officials from the Danish Emergency Management Agency and Danish Health Authority. ↩
17 GML ASX Company Announcement dated 15 May 2017, at (C-16). ↩
[Page 13]
[An image is present here. The caption below the image is transcribed.]
Delegation members at the base of the Narsaq valley, following a visit to the Kvanefjeld project area. From left: Jakob Rohmann Hard (Chief of Protocol, Foreign Department, Greenland), Liselotte Plesner (Danish Ambassador, Vienna), Nuka Møller (Greenland Business), Jørn Skov Nielsen (Deputy Minister, Industry Trade and Labour, Greenland), Kim Kielsen (Greenland Premier), John Mair (Managing Director, GMEL), Yukiya Amano (Director General, IAEA).
4.9 Naalakkersuisut has consistently treated the Project proponent and licence holder as, in substance, GML, generally addressing GML and GMAS collectively as "Greenland Minerals" or "GM". GM has had extensive direct engagement with both Naalakkersuisut and the Danish Government over the life of the Project. Amongst other things, GM has enjoyed an open dialogue with both governments and other stakeholders regarding the uranium component of the Project. GM conducted regular community consultations in relation to the Project and maintained a high level of transparency regarding its intentions for the Project and key features such as environmental and social impacts.
4.10 GM and its activities enjoyed the support of successive Greenlandic governments, which implemented various initiatives to create a regulatory framework to promote mining, including to permit the extraction of uranium – at least as a by-product in multi-element projects such as Kvanefjeld.¹⁸ The economic significance of GM's Project was a key consideration in Naalakkersuisut taking these enabling measures: GML has announced estimates, through realisation of the Project, of US$235 million in taxes and royalties to Greenland's economy and the creation of 330 local jobs during the operations phase.
4.11 The promulgation of Act No. 20 (the first ever legislative measure taken by Greenland to prohibit uranium mining, or indeed to specifically limit exploration
18 These included initiatives by the Inuit Ataqatigiit party, which is the current lead coalition partner in Naalakkersuisut and was the lead coalition partner between June 2009 and March 2013. ↩
[Page 14]
or exploitation in connection with radioactive materials) therefore marked a major shift in Greenland's historic posture towards uranium mining. In a period dating back to the early days of GM's investment in Greenland, Naalakkersuisut adopted a series of measures, both with respect to uranium mining generally and Kvanefjeld specifically, that were intended to clear a path for the development of the Project. These measures were taken to attract and provide comfort to mining investors (such as GM), in the recognition that the development of a mining industry in Greenland was critical to the attainment of Greenland's goal of economic independence from Denmark. The significance of GM in this context (as the proponent of the ground-breaking Kvanefjeld Project) is clear from the fact that many of the measures in question were crafted in consultation with GM. By virtue of these measures, GM became entitled (under section 14 of the Standard Terms of the Exploration Licence) to an exploitation licence that permitted extraction of uranium as a by-product to the rare earths that were the primary mineral target of the Project. These governmental measures, taken with input from Danish authorities, included the following:
19 See sections 709 to 711 of the"Standard Terms For Exploration Licences For Minerals (Excluding Hydrocarbons) in Greenland", at (C-1), which were inserted by this amendment. ↩
20 This was subject to satisfaction of relevant requirements in the Mineral Resources Act 2010. ↩
21 "Addendum no. 1 to licence 2010/02 for an area at Kuannersuit in South West Greenland" dated December 2011 and executed 6 January 2012, at (C-8). ↩
[Page 15]
Addendum"). The 2012 Addendum recorded GM's right to apply for an exploitation licence to carry out uranium exploitation for commercial purposes. This reflected GM's entitlement (including under statute) to the grant of such an exploitation licence. Certainly, the 2012 Addendum did nothing to disturb or condition GM's existing entitlement to an exploitation licence that, at least, permitted the exploitation of non- radioactive elements and any incidental extraction of uranium for treatment as a by-product for non-commercial purposes. The 2012 Addendum to the Exploration Licence was intended to provide greater clarity before GM embarked upon reporting needed for an exploitation licence for the Project. It was on this basis that GM proceeded, including in subsequently acquiring 100% of the rights to the Project.
22 See Protocol Additional to the Agreement between the Government of the Kingdom of Denmark and the International Atomic Energy Agency for the Application of Safeguards in Connection with the Treaty on the Non- Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (INFCIRC/176/Add.1). ↩
23 Indeed, some observers have questioned whether this was a "policy that never really existed". See, for example, Danish Institute for International Studies "Governing Uranium in the Danish Realm" (DIIS Report 2015:17), at (C- 17), pp. 14-17. ↩
[Page 16]
4.12 Encouraged by these developments, and indeed enabled by them, GM's work on the Project continued, in conjunction with Naalakkersuisut. That GM had acquired an entitlement to an exploitation licence, which included permission to extract uranium at least as a by-product, is axiomatic from the fact that the parties – aware of the uranium content of Kvanefjeld – openly collaborated to bring the Project into fruition for over a decade.
4.13 From 29 August to 6 October 2014, 35 days of public pre-consultation were held on terms of reference for the content of the Social Impact Assessment ("SIA") and Environmental Impact Assessment ("EIA") reports for the Project. A feasibility study for the Project was completed in 2015 (this followed a pre-feasibility study that had been completed in 2012), which identified uranium as a component of the Project (as did the pre-feasibility study of 2012).
4.14 By December 2020, both the EIA and SIA had been accepted by Naalakkersuisut as meeting the standards and requirements to commence the statutory public consultation process in relation to them:
24 GML September 2021 Quarterly Report, 29 October 2021, at (C-18), pp. 3-4. ↩
25 GML September 2021 Quarterly Report, 29 October 2021, at (C-18), p. 4. ↩
[Page 17]
4.15 From 18 December 2020, public consultation on the SIA and EIA reports for the Project began. Ultimately, the consultation period mandated for the Project by Naalakkersuisut constituted the longest public consultation period ever conducted for a mining project in Greenland. It eventually spanned some nine months, despite the required statutory minimum period being a mere eight weeks.²⁶
4.16 During the consultation process, a snap election took place in Greenland on 6 April 2021. Regrettably, this political development compromised the integrity of the community consultation process that was underway for the Project.
4.17 The election was won by the Inuit Ataqatigitt party, having campaigned to ban uranium mining and, specifically, to halt the Project on environmental and ideological grounds. The Inuit Ataqatigitt party formed a government with the Naleraq party via a coalition agreement that stated that "[t]he coalition agrees that uranium should not be mined in Greenland. The mineral project at Kuannersuit [the Project] must be stopped. During this election period, work will be done to legislate on a ban on mineral extraction that contains radioactive material".²⁷ This new Naalakkersuisut was sworn in on 23 April 2021.
4.18 Following this:
"In relation to the Greenland Minerals' project at Kuannersuit [Kvanefjeld], it will be processed in accordance with the Mineral Resources Act and the special terms issued to the company. The government operates in accordance with the Mineral Resources Act and complies with the terms set out in the exploration licence. A public consultation is already planned in connection with Greenland Minerals' application for an exploitation licence, and I will of course help to complete it. But I make no secret of the fact that I am simultaneously assessing the possibilities within the framework of the Mineral Resources Act and the exploration licence to avoid
26 Originally, the consultation period was scheduled for 12 weeks (until March 2021) and included an initial round of public meetings in the period of 5 to 9 February 2021. However, on 5 February 2021, Naalakkersuisut extended the public consultation period to 1 June 2021. The public consultation period was ultimately extended to as late as 13 September 2021 while further events unfolded. ↩
27 Government of Greenland Coalition Agreement, 16 April 2021, at (C-19). ↩
[Page 18]
exploitation of uranium – also for the Kuannersuit project."²⁸ (emphasis added)
4.19 On 2 July 2021, Naalakkersuisut released a draft bill (including explanatory notes) to ban prospecting, exploration and exploitation of a resource unless its total content of uranium is below 100 ppm (0.01%) and the mining is not for the purposes of uranium prospecting, exploration or exploitation ("Consultation Bill").³⁰ In addition, the Consultation Bill sought to empower Naalakkersuisut to issue further provisions to the effect that the ban applied to other radioactive elements (the explanatory notes made clear that this would include thorium). This precursor bill to Act No. 20 was released for public consultation, open to responses until 2 August 2021.
4.20 The final form of the bill for Act No. 20 bore few substantive amendments (to the Consultation Bill). This is despite the explanatory notes³¹ to the final bill demonstrating that various concerns were raised with Naalakkersuisut through the public consultation process in relation to the bill, including:
28 Government of Greenland Public Announcement "Government of Greenland supports mining activities, despite no to uranium" (Minister Naaja Nathanielsen), 7 May 2021, at (C-20). ↩
29 Response to letter dated 19 April 2021 from Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights mandate holders, ref. AL DNK 2/2021, dated 1 July 2021, at (C-21). ↩
30 "Bill: Greenland Parliament Act no. [X] of [dd mm 2021] to ban uranium prospecting, exploration and exploitation", at (CL-5). ↩
31 "Explanatory notes to the Bill", at (CL-6). ↩
32 See "Explanatory notes to the Bill", at (CL-6), pp. 17-19. ↩
[Page 19]
the threshold meets requirements of non-arbitrariness and proportionality);
"The Bill neither has nor will have any retroactive effect. The Bill will only apply to licences granted after its effective date. This means that licences already granted, standard terms, etc. will not be affected by the Bill. An exploration licence comprising uranium will thus survive the adoption of this Bill. Conversely, no new licences comprising uranium can be granted after the effective date of the Bill. This also applies to the grant of exploitation licences in continuation of an existing exploration licence." ³³ (emphasis added)
"The Bill is not a compulsory acquisition act and therefore does not provide for the compulsory acquisition of protected property rights. The Bill therefore does not include any provisions on compensation for expropriation. The Government of Greenland also sees no reason to introduce a compensation scheme on any other basis." ³⁴ (emphasis added)
4.21 It is also noteworthy that the explanatory notes to the final bill for Act No. 20:
33 See "Explanatory notes to the Bill", at (CL-6), p. 23. ↩
34 See "Explanatory notes to the Bill", at (CL-6), p. 23. ↩
35 See "Explanatory notes to the Bill", at (CL-6), pp. 1, 17. ↩
36 See "Explanatory notes to the Bill", at (CL-6), p. 17. ↩
[Page 20]
"After the effective date of the Bill, no uranium exploitation licence can be granted to licensees who, prior to the effective date of the Bill, held an exploration licence comprising uranium. This applies regardless that the licensees will usually have a conditional right to obtain an exploitation licence for uranium deposits discovered under section 29(2) of the current Mineral Resources Act."³⁸ (emphasis added)
"The Bill does not provide for the payment of damages or other compensation to licensees whose projects may be affected by the prohibitory regime. However, it cannot be ruled out that such affected licensees may bring an action against the Self-Government to obtain damages or other compensation on other grounds."⁴⁰ (emphasis added)
4.22 Many aspects of the preparatory works, including the explanatory notes, to the final bill sit in clear tension with each other. Chief among these are contradictory statements (a) that existing exploration licences remain unaffected but that their "continuation" into an exploitation licence is affected; and (b) that acknowledge an effect on existing rights but disclaim any expropriatory character. This tension
37 See "Explanatory notes to the Bill", at (CL-6), pp. 13, 23. ↩
38 See "Explanatory notes to the Bill", at (CL-6), p. 15. A substantially similar statement is recorded in the description of one of Naalakkersuisut's consultation responses in the explanatory notes to the final Bill: see "Explanatory notes to the Bill", at (CL-6), pp. 23-24. ↩
39 See "Explanatory notes to the Bill", at (CL-6), pp. 7, 10, 14, 23. ↩
40 See "Explanatory notes to the Bill", at (CL-6), p. 8. ↩
[Page 21]
– which has been present in subsequent communications by Naalakkersuisut with GM – suggests that Naalakkersuisut is trying to make good on its campaign promise to stop GM's Project whilst trying to hedge its expropriation risk. Naalakkersuisut appears to be attempting to use Act No. 20 to stop the Project in so far as doing so does not amount to an expropriation requiring compensation. In taking this approach, Naalakkersuisut has also sought (and managed) to avoid confronting, in the legislative process, the task of successfully passing legislation that accepts and takes account of the legal consequences of expropriatory effects, including damages being payable by Naalakkersuisut. Recently, concerns have emerged as to Naalakkersuisut's transparency throughout the legislative process by which Act. No. 20 was enacted – with one member of Parliament accusing Naalakkersuisut of concealing information essential to the Greenland Parliament's assessment of the bill for Act No. 20.⁴¹ Naalakkersuisut has confirmed that it sought an external legal assessment as to its liability if Act No. 20 were to be enacted, and that it received that assessment after the release of the Consultation Bill but before the first reading of the bill in the Greenland Parliament.⁴² It has also confirmed that this legal assessment included an analysis of whether an expropriation would occur if Naalakkersuisut denied exploitation licences to two specific licence holders, and that the external legal assessment was sought following an internal preliminary assessment in relation to GM's Exploration Licence.⁴³
4.23 Notwithstanding any irregularity in the legislative process, on 1 December 2021, Act No. 20 was promulgated and signed by the Premier of Greenland, taking effect the next day, on 2 December 2021. According to its terms, relevantly:
"1.-(1) Uranium prospecting, exploration and exploitation is not permitted.
(2) The provision in subsection (1) does not apply to prospecting, exploration and exploitation directed at non-uranium mineral resources if the average uranium content of the total resource is less than 100 ppm by weight.
[...]
5.-(1) This Greenland Parliament Act comes into force on the day after its promulgation.
41 Follow-up Questions to Naalakkersuisut under s 37 of the Rules of Procedure of the Inatsisartut, 2 March 2022, at (C-28). ↩
42 Naalakkersuisut Answers to Questions under s 37 of the Rules of Procedure of the Inatsisartut on Possible Claims for Damages as a Violation of the Uranium Act, 1 March 2022, at (C-27). ↩
43 Further Naalakkersuisut Answers to Questions under s 37 relating to possible claims for damages arising from the Uranium Act, 21 March 2022, at (C-29). ↩
[Page 22]
(2) This Greenland Parliament Act applies to licences issued after its effective date."⁴⁴
4.24 The Minister of Mineral Resources stated to media that she would first and foremost seek dialogue with GM.⁴⁵ Following the enactment of Act No. 20 and GM's request for information on whether the new law would affect the processing of its Exploitation Licence Application, Naalakkersuisut (specifically representatives of the Ministry of Mineral Resources) proposed a meeting with GM representatives – in its invitation, Naalakkersuisut stated that Act No. 20 "applies to the processing of Greenland Minerals' application for an exploitation license for the Kuannersuit-project".⁴⁶
4.25 The meeting between GM and Naalakkersuisut took place (on an open basis)⁴⁷ by videoconference on 15 December 2021, during which Naalakkersuisut conveyed its position on Act No. 20 and on the impact that the Act has on GM's Exploitation Licence Application, namely that:
4.26 In making these statements to GM (and further statements described below), Naalakkersuisut openly declared an intention not to honour GM's entitlement under section 14 of the Standard Terms of the Exploration Licence to receive an exploitation licence for the Project and, therefore, committed an anticipatory breach of that provision.
44 Greenland Parliament Act No. 20 of 1 December 2021 to ban uranium, prospecting, exploration and exploitation, etc., at (CL-1) ↩
45 T Munk Viruses, "Note on uranium replacement remains secret", Sermitsiaq, 2 December 2021, at (C-22). ↩
46 Email chain between Greenland Ministry of Mineral Resources to Greenland Minerals dated 4 November 2021 to 13 December 2021, at (C-23), p. 4. ↩
47 Without any stipulation of confidentiality or 'without prejudice' status by Naalakkersuisut or GM. ↩
48 The Claimant was provided with a copy of the minutes of this meeting prepared by the Ministry of Mineral Resources ("Minutes from meeting regarding the Kuannersuit-project", at (C-24)). The Claimant prepared its own minutes of this meeting, which do not fully correspond with the minutes prepared by the Ministry. As such, the Claimant's reference to the Ministry's minutes should not be taken as acceptance of their broader accuracy. ↩
[Page 23]
4.27 As a public company subject to the mandatory disclosure rules of the ASX, GML was required to issue an announcement regarding the meeting with Naalakkersuisut on 15 December 2021.⁴⁹ In that announcement, GML outlined Naalakkersuisut's interpretation of Act No. 20 and said that, based on the Government's interpretation, "the Company's exploitation licence application would not be granted, based on its current development proposal for Kvanefjeld". GML advised that "[w]hilst the Company acknowledges the Greenland Parliament has the sovereign prerogative to enact legislation, the Act, as explained by the Ministry, appears to deprive the Company of its acquired rights (including under the Company's exploration licence) and effect an expropriation without compensation".
4.28 On or around 14 January 2022 (following GML's ASX announcement), the Minister for Mineral Resources publicly stated to media that she does not agree with an interpretation that Act No. 20 expresses an expropriation without compensation. The Minister also stated that "[a]s Greenland Minerals' current application for an exploitation permit cannot comply with the [new] law, this will result in a rejection", and that "Greenland Minerals' project is inevitably affected by the new law".⁵⁰
4.29 In the most recent consultations between GM and Naalakkersuisut,⁵¹ which took place on 8 and 9 February 2021, the existence of both a legal and factual dispute was confirmed. In those consultations, representatives of Naalakkersuisut conveyed the position that the Act does not apply if its application would amount to an expropriation, but that the Act does apply in relation to GM. According to the Naalakkersuisut representatives, this is because, by virtue of the 2012 Addendum, GM had no entitlement under the Exploration Licence to an exploitation licence for Kvanefjeld and there is, therefore, nothing capable of being expropriated. In articulating this position, Naalakkersuisut advanced the extraordinary suggestion that all of GM's investment in the Project post-dating the 2012 Addendum was made in the full knowledge that GM did not have an entitlement to be granted an exploitation licence for the Project.
4.30 Naalakkersuisut's most recently expressed position ignores the fact that, for almost a decade after the 2012 Addendum, GM relied in good faith on the terms of the Exploration Licence and the conduct of successive Greenlandic governments in advancing the Project and continuing to invest and incur substantial costs, including by making detailed plans regarding the treatment of
49 GML ASX Company Announcement dated 20 December 2021, at (C-25). ↩
50 T Juncher Jørgensen, "Naaja Nathanielsen: Not agreeing with Greenland Minerals' interpretation", Sermitsiaq, 14 January 2022, at (C-26). ↩
51 These consultations were again conducted on an open basis without any stipulation of confidentiality or 'without prejudice' status by Naalakkersuisut or GM. ↩
[Page 24]
uranium, employing a Greenlandic workforce to assist on the Project, and paying licence fees to Greenland. Of the several statutory requirements that precondition the grant of GM's Exploitation Licence Application,⁵² only two remain to be completed: the finalisation of the already submitted 'White Paper'⁵³ for the Project (on which GM awaits completion of Naalakkersuisut's remaining steps), and the conclusion of an 'Impact and Benefit Agreement'⁵⁴ (a draft of which will shortly be presented by GM to Naalakkersuisut).
4.31 In progressing the Project to its current state, GM has spent approximately AUD$130 million (AUD$90 million of which has been explicitly acknowledged by the BMP/ Greenland Mineral Licence and Safety Authority) on exploration programmes, feasibility studies, development work and other items necessary for the progress of the Project (including comprehensive environmental and social impact assessments). GM's investment has resulted in a development-stage Project that has been conservatively valued at approximately US$3 billion (based upon rare earths prices as they were in 2021).
5.1 The events outlined above give rise to the following questions and claims by GMAS:
52 Pursuant to the Mineral Resources Act 2010. ↩
53 A paper responding to comments raised in public consultation for environmental and social impact assessments for the Project. ↩
54 An agreement aimed at regulating social impact that is executed by GM with Naalakkersuisut and the relevant municipality government. ↩
[Page 25]
GMAS' rights under the Exploration Licence and a corresponding order against the First Respondent.
5.2 These questions reflect the unenviable position in which GMAS has been placed by Naalakkersuisut. GMAS needs to know what its entitlements are under the Exploration Licence. GMAS is either still entitled to an exploitation licence in accordance with section 14 of the Standard Terms of the Exploration Licence, and that entitlement must be honoured by Naalakkersuisut, or GMAS no longer has this entitlement and instead now has an entitlement to damages. It is one or the other, but not, as Naalakkersuisut would have it, neither.
5.3 With respect to Question 1, GMAS refers to Naalakkersuisut's stated position on the operation and effect of Act No. 20 in relation to the Project (as described above). However, GMAS' primary position in these proceedings is that Act No. 20 has no application in respect of the Exploration Licence or of the Exploitation Licence Application. GMAS seeks declaratory relief to this effect (see Question 4). GMAS' primary position is put on two bases:
5.4 With respect to Question 2, if:
GMAS submits that the deprivation of GMAS' rights in relation to the Project, including its entitlement to an exploitation licence under section 14, violates the Exploration Licence and applicable law(s). GMAS submits that relevant breaches include:
[Page 26]
5.5 With respect to Question 3, GMAS submits that any violation of the applicable law(s), whether in the nature of a deprivation of an entitlement of GMAS under section 14 of the Exploration Licence or not, must result in an award of damages to GMAS. GMAS submits that damages must be in an amount equal to the fair market value of the Project prior to the date upon which Naalakkersuisut made public its intention to take measures to prevent the progress of the Project.
6.1 The Claimant seeks the following relief from the tribunal:
[Page 27]
[Page 28]
6.2 The Claimant reserves its right to amend and/or supplement the relief sought in this Request. Specifically, and without limitation, the Claimant reserves its right to seek relief as necessary to preserve the status quo, including appropriate measures to ensure that the Exploration Licence is renewed pending determination of the issues in dispute or determination of the Exploitation Licence Application (whichever happens last).
7.1 Section 2003 of the Standard Terms of the Exploration Licence stipulates that the arbitration will be seated in Copenhagen. The lex arbitri therefore comprises the Arbitration Act of Denmark, a statute based upon the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law ("UNCITRAL") Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration 1985, and its attendant jurisprudence.
7.2 Section 20 of the Standard Terms of the Exploration Licence deals with the procedure for constituting the tribunal. References to the "Government of Greenland" in section 20 should be read as references to both Naalakkersuisut and the Danish Government, for reasons outlined above. Accordingly, the Claimant invites Naalakkersuisut and the Danish Government to act jointly in the exercise of all rights pertaining to the constitution of the tribunal under section 20.
7.3 Section 2003 of the Standard Terms stipulates that the arbitral tribunal is to consist of three members. By section 2004 of the Standard Terms, the Claimant is entitled to appoint one member of the tribunal. The Claimant nominates Dr Veijo Heiskanen as its appointed arbitrator:
Dr Veijo Heiskanen
Rue de la Mairie 35
P.O. Box 6569
1211 Geneva 6
Switzerland
Telephone: +41 58 105 2000
Facsimile: +41 58 105 2060
Email: [email protected]
[Page 29]
7.4 In accordance with section 2004, the Claimant invites the First and Second Respondents to jointly appoint a single arbitrator within 30 days, failing which that arbitrator is to be appointed by the Chief Justice of the Danish Supreme Court.
7.5 Section 2004 of the Standard Terms stipulates that the chairman of the tribunal must be a Danish national. Including given that GM is an Australian business and the Danish Government is a party to these proceedings, in the interests of fairness and of justice not only being done but being seen to be done, the Claimant invites the First and Second Respondents to agree to waive this Danish nationality requirement and instead to agree that the chairman of the tribunal may be a person of any citizenship, other than Australian or Danish. The selection of a chairman of a neutral country also aligns with customary practice under the Arbitration Act and applied by the Danish Institute of Arbitration ("DIA") – this principle has been codified directly in article 19(7) of the DIA's Rules of Arbitration Procedure.
7.6 Section 2004 stipulates that the parties may seek to agree the appointment of the chairman of the tribunal. Section 2004 stipulates that, failing appointment by such party agreement within 60 days, the chairman shall be appointed by the Chief Justice of the Danish Supreme Court. The Claimant invites Naalakkersuisut and the Danish Government to agree to a list procedure for the purpose of appointing the chairman of the tribunal, to be attempted by the parties for 60 days. Again, in the interests of fairness, the Claimant invites the First and Second Respondent to agree that, failing appointment by the list procedure proposed above (or otherwise), the chairman be appointed by the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague, the Netherlands ("PCA"), rather than the Chief Justice of the Danish Supreme Court.
7.7 Section 1901 of the Standard Terms of the Exploration Licence expressly provides for the laws of Greenland and Denmark to apply to the Exploration Licence, and, by section 2003, the arbitral tribunal is to apply Danish law. For reasons to be articulated in due course, the Claimant submits that the applicable laws also include principles of international law.
7.8 The parties have not agreed any procedural rules or rules of evidence for the arbitral proceedings. In the interests of an efficient procedure, GMAS proposes that the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules 2013 ("UNCITRAL Rules") apply to the arbitration,⁵⁵ and invites the First and Second Respondents to agree.
55 This proposal that the UNCITRAL Rules apply does not extend to Article 28(3) of the UNCITRAL Rules insofar as that Article would mandate that hearings be held in camera. ↩
[Page 30]
7.9 In the absence of party agreement as to an administering authority, the Claimant proposes that the PCA be appointed as the administering authority for the arbitration, and invites the First and Second Respondents to agree.
7.10 The Claimant notes that there are no confidentiality obligations in respect of these proceedings. The Claimant welcomes openness and transparency in the arbitration process. The Claimant wishes for the arbitration to be conducted in "full openness", continuing the transparency that has so far characterised the relations and communications between the Claimant and Naalakkersuisut (as described by Naalakkersuisut)⁵⁶. The Claimant invites the First and Second Respondents to agree, including that any hearings be held in a manner open to the public (rather than in camera).
8.1 A copy of this Request (and exhibits referred to herein) has been hand delivered to each of the First and Second Respondent, and to the First Respondent's legal representatives, at the respective addresses outlined above. A copy of this Request (and exhibits referred to herein) has also been served by email to the addresses of the First and Second Respondent (including legal representatives) listed above.
9.1 The Claimant reserves its right to supplement or modify this Request in response to any arguments or assertions made by the First and Second Respondents.
9.2 The Claimant reserves the right to apply to a court of competent jurisdiction and/or the tribunal for further interim and/or interlocutory relief should the Claimant consider it appropriate.
Clifford Chance, Bruun & Hjejle and Plesner
For and on behalf of the Claimant
22 March 2022
56 Follow-up Questions to Naalakkersuisut under s 37 of the Rules of Procedure of the Inatsisartut, 2 March 2022, at (C-28). ↩
[Page 31]
| Exhibit | Description | Date |
|---|---|---|
| C-1 | Standard Terms For Exploration Licences For Minerals (Excluding Hydrocarbons) in Greenland (including Addendum No. 1 of 10 September 2010 and Addendum No. 2 of 25 June 2013) | 16 November 1998 |
| C-2 | Addendum No. 3 to Standard Terms For Exploration Licences For Minerals (Excluding Hydrocarbons) in Greenland | 1 July 2014 |
| C-3 | Licence No. 2005/17 ("Exploration Licence for Rimbal Pty Ltd. for an Area at Nakkaalaaq in West Greenland") | 6 July 2005 |
| C-4 | Addendum No. 1 to Licence No. 2005/17 | 19 December 2006 |
| C-5 | Licence No. 2005/28 ("Exploration Licence for Rimbal Pty Ltd. for an Area at Nakkaalaaq North in West Greenland") | 14 June 2007 |
| C-6 | Addendum No. 1 to Licence No. 2005/28 | 19 June 2008 |
| C-7 | Licence No. 2010/02 ("Renewal of exploration licence with exclusive exploration rights for Greenland Minerals & Energy (Trading) A/S for an area near Kuannersuit in Southwest Greenland") | 21 April 2010 |
| C-8 | Addendum No. 1 to Licence No. 2010/02 | 6 January 2012 |
| C-9 | Addendum No. 2 to Licence No. 2010/02 | 9 February 2016 |
| C-10 | Addendum No. 3 to Licence No. 2010/02 | 18 May 2017 |
| C-11 | Addendum No. 4 to Licence No. 2010/02 | 31 July 2018 |
| C-12 | Addendum No. 5 to Licence No. 2010/02 | 19 September 2018 |
| C-13 | Addendum No. 6 to Licence No. 2010/02 | 13 August 2018 |
| C-14 | Addendum No. 7 to Licence No. 2010/02 | 1 February 2021 |
| C-15 | Renewal of Licence No. 2010/02 | 8 April 2015 |
| C-16 | GML ASX Company Announcement | 15 May 2017 |
| C-17 | Danish Institute for International Studies "Governing Uranium in the Danish Realm" (DIIS Report 2015-17) | 2015 |
| C-18 | GML September 2021 Quarterly Report | 29 October 2021 |
| C-19 | Government of Greenland Coalition Agreement | 16 April 2021 |
[Page 32]
| Exhibit | Description | Date |
|---|---|---|
| C-20 | Government of Greenland Public Announcement "Government of Greenland supports mining activities, despite no to uranium" (Minister Naaja Nathanielsen) | 7 May 2021 |
| C-21 | Response to letter dated 19 April 2021 from Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights mandate holders, ref. AL DNK 2/2021 | 1 July 2021 |
| C-22 | T Munk Viruses, "Note on uranium replacement remains secret", Sermitsiaq Newspaper Article | 2 December 2021 |
| C-23 | Email chain between Greenland Ministry of Mineral Resources and Greenland Minerals dated 4 November 2021 to 13 December 2021 | 4 November 2021 - 13 December 2021 |
| C-24 | Greenland Ministry of Mineral Resources Minutes from meeting regarding the Kuannersuit-project | 15 December 2021 |
| C-25 | GML ASX Company Announcement | 20 December 2021 |
| C-26 | T Juncher Jørgensen, "Naaja Nathanielsen: Not agreeing with Greenland Minerals' interpretation", Sermitsiaq Newspaper Article | 14 January 2022 |
| C-27 | Naalakkersuisut Answers to Questions under s 37 of the Rules of Procedure of the Inatsisartut on Possible Claims for Damages as a Violation of the Uranium Act | 1 March 2022 |
| C-28 | Follow-up Questions to Naalakkersuisut under s 37 of the Rules of Procedure of the Inatsisartut | 2 March 2022 |
| C-29 | Further Naalakkersuisut Answers to Questions under s 37 relating to Possible Claims for Damages Arising from the Uranium Act | 21 March 2022 |
[Page 33]
| Exhibit | Description | Date |
|---|---|---|
| CL-1 | Greenland Parliament Act No. 20 of 1 December 2021 to ban uranium, prospecting, exploration and exploitation, etc. | 1 December 2021 |
| CL-2 | Danish Parliament Act No. 335 of 6 June 1991 on Mineral Resources, etc. in Greenland (consolidated with amendments into Consolidation Act No. 368 of 18 June 1998) | 6 June 1991 |
| CL-3 | Greenland Parliament Act No. 7 of 7 December 2009 on mineral resources and mineral resources activities | 7 December 2009 |
| CL-4 | Danish Parliament Act No. 473 of 12 June 2009 on Greenland Self-Government | 12 June 2009 |
| CL-5 | Bill: Greenland Parliament Act no. [X] of [dd mm 2021] to ban uranium prospecting, exploration and exploitation | 2021 |
| CL-6 | Explanatory notes to the final Bill for Greenland Parliament Act No. 20 of 1 December 2021 to ban uranium, prospecting, exploration and exploitation, etc | 2021 |