PRESS RELEASE: Greenland “Not Open for Business”: Greenland Minerals’ Exploration Licence Rejection Further Weakens Western Supply Chain Resilience
29 June 2026
Greenland “Not Open for Business”: Greenland Minerals’ Exploration Licence Rejection Further Weakens Western Supply Chain Resilience
Refusal of Kvanefjeld exploration licence signals to international capital that Greenland’s regulatory process cannot be relied upon, and removes a tier-one critical minerals option for Western allies
PERTH, AUSTRALIA – In the latest signal that Greenland is not open for business, the Ministry of Business and Mineral Resources has formally rejected the application by Greenland Minerals, a wholly owned subsidiary of Energy Transition Minerals, to extend exploration licence 2010/02 for the Kvanefjeld project.
The decision stands in stark contrast to Greenland’s repeated public assurances that it welcomes responsible international investment. For companies and capital evaluating the jurisdiction, the message is now clear: regulatory process in Greenland may be used to serve political outcomes rather than to ensure fair and predictable treatment.
The rejection also carries consequences well beyond ETM. At a time when the United States, the European Union and allied governments are working to reduce dependence on concentrated critical minerals supply, Greenland has removed a tier-one rare earth resource from the options available to Western partners. The decision narrows, rather than widens, the West’s room to build supply chain resilience.
The rejection followed a consultation process marked by a 48-hour response deadline to technical geological assessments. Greenland Minerals’ request for a one-week extension was categorically refused on 23 June, despite reasonable requests being made. This is not simply an isolated incident, but the most recent example in a series of unreasonably short deadlines imposed on Greenland Minerals.
The company stated in recent correspondence that “the pattern of case management to date gives rise to serious concern. The repeated delays by the authorities, the incomplete disclosure of relevant materials, the reliance on an expert assessment that appears to have been prepared without sufficient time or information, and the imposition of an impractical deadline on [the company] all point to a process that is procedurally dysfunctional and unfair.” It was also stated that “these matters create the appearance that the outcome may have been predetermined, or at minimum that [the company] is not being afforded a genuine and meaningful opportunity to be heard.
Daniel Mamadou, Managing Director of ETM, said:
“Greenland has positioned itself as open for business. This decision creates a different impression. The Ministry had nine months to review our request for extension of the licence, then imposed a tight deadline and declined a reasonable extension request. It also disregarded our own recent data showing uranium below the threshold set by Greenland’s own law. The cost of that falls first on the local area: this project would bring jobs, training and revenue to Narsaq and to Greenland, and that opportunity is being held back. The broader stakes extend beyond ETM, too: companies and investors considering Greenland will draw their own conclusions about the predictability of its regulatory process, and Western governments working to secure critical minerals supply chains have a direct interest in how licensing decisions like this one are handled.”
ETM and Greenland Minerals said they are considering their options to pursue all available legal remedies, including to challenge the rejection under Greenlandic administrative law.
A Jurisdiction Out of Step
The Ministry’s approach to the consultation process deviates sharply from international mining regulation standards. A 48-hour response window to technical geological assessments is unusual among established mining jurisdictions.
By comparison, major mining jurisdictions including Australia, Canada and Norway routinely allow consultation periods measured in weeks rather than hours. The Ministry’s refusal to grant a one-week extension – despite acknowledging that key advisors were unavailable – raises questions about whether the deadline was designed to constrain genuine industry input.
If Greenland’s government had substantive governance concerns about the project, those concerns would be met with a reasonable consultation process. The compressed timeline suggests otherwise.
What This Signals to Investors
Greenland’s handling of this process will influence how international investors evaluate regulatory risk in the jurisdiction. For investors considering long-term capital commitments, this raises a critical question: can regulatory processes be relied upon to be fair and predictable, or will they be shaped by political outcomes? Where the answer is uncertain, capital flows elsewhere.
Mining houses and development finance institutions track how governments treat investors throughout the regulatory process. Greenland’s conduct in this case will be noted across the sector.
The Cost to Western Supply Chains
The United States, the European Union, Japan, Canada and Australia have all prioritised critical minerals diversification as a core energy security objective. Rare earth supply remains heavily concentrated, leaving Western economies exposed to disruption.
Up to 15% of the global supply of REEs could come from Kvanefjeld, if the project became operational. Kvanefjeld represents a significant rare earth resource in a stable, allied jurisdiction – precisely the kind of asset Western supply chain strategies are designed to bring online. Greenland’s decision removes that option, and narrows the field of reliable sources available to the West at the moment when diversification matters most.
The broader lesson is that regulatory unpredictability does not only damage the jurisdiction that practises it. It weakens the collective resilience of the supply chains its partners are working to build.
Next Steps
The company is evaluating all options, including challenge under Greenlandic administrative law and engagement with international partners regarding regulatory risk in Greenland’s mining sector.
-ends-
Media Contacts:
Dina Hudson – Byfield
Lead Consultant
UK/EUR/US
Email: [email protected]
DD : +44 (0)204 558 6130
Nicholas Read – Read Corporate
APAC
Email: [email protected]
DD: (+61-8) 9388-1474
Sara Kelly – ETM
Executive Director
Email: [email protected]
DD: : +61 407 167 001
NOTES TO EDITORS
Key Dates
• Act 20 passed 2021, banning rare earth and uranium mining and specifically designed to block Kvanjefeld.
• ETM submitted exploration licence extension application September 2025.
• Late last year, Government of Greenland stated licence recommendation was being passed to the Ministry, and would be approved.
• Ministry issued party consultation notice 1 April 2026, in first sign on zig zag of position.
• In June 2026, ETM identified around ten new rare earth element mineralised zones within the exploration licence area at Kvanefjeld, outside the existing resource areas, including a continuous mineralised strike of approximately 1,800 metres. Samples from these zones contain uranium concentrations below 100 ppm, the threshold established in Greenland’s Uranium Act, which the Government is currently relying on to halt the project.
• ETM submitted consultation response 15 June 2026, including new mineralised zones within the licence area where uranium measures at less than 100ppm.
• Ministry provided geological assessment memoranda 22 June with 48-hour deadline.
• ETM requested one-week extension 22 June; Ministry refused 23 June.
• Formal rejection issued 26 June 2026.
