The island is being sued by a mining company over its decision, and faces paying nine times its annual budget in damages if it loses

The range is home to one of the largest undeveloped deposits of rare-earth minerals and uranium in the world: the Kvanefjeld site, or Kuannersuit in Greenlandic. It contains high concentrations of metals such as terbium and neodymium, which are used to manufacture permanent magnets in wind turbines and electric cars. Every major power in the world is scrambling to get access to these minerals for carbon-free energy and transport.

A proposed open-pit mine would be worth about $7.5bn (£6bn) if it went ahead, according to the site operator, generating income for the island’s economy.

Greenland has a troubled history with mining pollution: the sites of lead and zinc mines developed in the 1970s remain polluted more than 50 years later, with fish, mussels and seaweed still testing positive for toxins. The ecosystem surrounding Narsaq is rich with seals, whales and other marine life, which Inuit hunter-gatherers rely on for their livelihoods.

In 2021, Greenland went to the polls, in a contest to which uranium was so central, international media dubbed it “the mining election”. The people voted in a green, leftwing government, led by the Inuit Ataqatigiit party, which campaigned against uranium mining due to the potential pollution.

Many Greenlanders celebrated the vote as a victory for health and the environment. But three years later, the (Australian) company is suing Greenland for stopping its plans, demanding the right to exploit the deposit or receive compensation of up to $11.5bn: nearly 10 times the country’s 8.5bn krone (£950m) annual budget.

  • ArbitraryValueEnglish
    101·
    15 hours ago

    It’s surprising to me that the relevant treaty allows lawsuits for the value of potential future profits rather than just compensation for actual losses, but if that’s what Greenland agreed to in order to encourage foreign investment then I don’t think Greenland has grounds to complain when it is expected to follow through. You can’t have your cake and eat it too.

    • Zaktor@sopuli.xyzEnglish
      141·
      8 hours ago

      They didn’t. The Netherlands Denmark did, and the results of arbitration are both not prescribed (you can sue for a billion dollars for emotional damage in court, it doesn’t mean you’re going to get it) and can potentially be rejected by national courts.

      Edit: Used the wrong county.

        • Zaktor@sopuli.xyzEnglish
          31·
          8 hours ago

          As with anything regarding international law it’s kind of just agreements and power. You can just break treaties whenever and it will only matter if someone with power then tries to punish you for it.

          But Greenland isn’t fully independent. The Netherlands Denmark controls its foreign policy and provides for its defense. They do have an option to vote to leave that relationship, but Denmark also sends a lot of money Greenland needs to make their budgets, so it’s not a trivial decision to just leave.

          Edit: Wrong country