Tim Worstall sums up coverage from The Guardian about a case involving the government of Greenland and a mining operation going to court for damages from the government’s change of policy:
So, here’s a case:
Fearing toxic waste, Greenland ended uranium mining. Now, they could be forced to restart — or pay $11bn
Gosh.
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.
When it took power, the new government kept its campaign promise, passing legislation to ban uranium mining. While not primarily a uranium mine, the Kvanefjeld project would require unearthing the radioactive substance to extract its rare earth oxides, putting it in violation of the law.
Many Greenlanders celebrated the vote as a victory for health and the environment. But three years later, the 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.
That part of it isn’t wholly biased. It is, roughly and around and about, true.
Just as an aside I think I met one of the lads behind the mining company once. Mickey Five Names was it? Management and all has changed since then but they were not, say, of the probity of the board of Rio Tinto. Just as an opinion, you understand.
Still, they signed a contract which allowed them to prospect and so they then spent money. The law stated that they would, naturally, advance to an exploitation licence. That’s what they got denied.
[…]
Everyone’s agreeing on what happened. Roughly they are at least. You Mr. Corporation can explore and if you find something you can dig it up and so make money back on your costs. Then the government changed its mind leaving the company facing the total loss of all it had spent.
So, who has to cough up here?
No one — really, no one at all — is saying that a government cannot change its mind. Or even that elections should not have consequences and that policy might change after having had one.
What is being said is that if you nick someone’s property then you’ve got to pay for it.
Well, is not issuing an exploitation licence that you said you would nicking someone’s property? That’s clearly arguable (I would say “Yes!” but then that’s me) so, where do we go to argue this?
