Energy Transition Minerals' legal battle over the Kvanefjeld rare earths project moves from arbitration to Greenlandic and Danish courts, following a tribunal ruling that imposes significant costs on ETM's subsidiary.
- Arbitration tribunal ends jurisdictional phase, removing Denmark as a party
- Key legal questions on exploitation licence referred to Greenlandic and Danish courts
- Tribunal orders ETM’s subsidiary to pay over EUR 3 million in costs to governments
- ETM disputes costs award, citing unresolved merits and procedural ambiguity
- Dispute highlights broader concerns about Greenland’s investment climate
Background to the Arbitration
Energy Transition Minerals Ltd (ETM) has provided a significant update on the ongoing legal dispute surrounding its wholly owned subsidiary Greenland Minerals A/S (GM) and the Governments of Greenland and Denmark. The dispute centres on the Kvanefjeld (Kuannersuit) Rare Earths Project, a strategically important mining venture in south-east Greenland. The arbitration, initiated in March 2022 following Greenland's refusal to recognise GM’s right to an exploitation licence under the Uranium Act, has now reached a pivotal juncture.
Tribunal Ruling Ends Jurisdictional Phase
On 28 October 2025, the arbitration tribunal clarified its jurisdiction, deciding to remove the Government of Denmark from the proceedings and referring the core legal questions about GM’s licence rights to the Greenlandic and Danish courts. This ruling effectively concludes the jurisdictional phase of arbitration and signals a shift towards substantive legal examination in national courts. Meanwhile, claims related to contractual breach and damages remain in arbitration but are on hold pending court outcomes.
Costs Award Sparks Dispute
In a surprising development, the tribunal ordered GM to pay substantial costs: approximately EUR 1.23 million to Denmark and EUR 1.92 million to Greenland’s government (Naalakkersuisut). ETM has expressed strong disagreement with the costs awarded to Greenland, arguing that it is premature given that the merits of the case have yet to be determined. The company emphasised that the arbitration clause was ambiguous, justifying its decision to pursue arbitration, and criticised the costs ruling as inconsistent with established arbitral practice and the tribunal’s own reasoning.
Implications for ETM and Greenland’s Investment Climate
ETM’s Managing Director, Daniel Mamadou, highlighted the broader implications of the dispute, suggesting that the drawn-out procedural battles and political manoeuvring risk undermining investor confidence in Greenland’s mining sector. Despite the setback, ETM remains confident in its legal position and committed to securing the exploitation licence through the courts. The company also reiterated its focus on advancing the project efficiently and removing procedural obstacles.
Next Steps and Market Outlook
The arbitration is now stayed pending the resolution of the referred issues in the Greenlandic and Danish courts. ETM has accounted for the financial exposure from the costs award within its risk management framework. The company will preserve its claims related to contractual breach and damages for potential resumption of arbitration after court decisions. Investors and observers will be watching closely as this high-profile dispute unfolds, with implications not only for ETM but also for the broader perception of Greenland as a mining investment destination.
Bottom Line?
As ETM’s legal battle moves to national courts, the outcome will be a key test for Greenland’s mining investment environment.
Questions in the middle?
- How will the Greenlandic and Danish courts rule on GM’s exploitation licence rights?
- Will ETM appeal or seek to negotiate the substantial costs awarded by the tribunal?
- What impact will this dispute have on future foreign investment in Greenland’s resource sector?