RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Ministry refused to prolong Kuriskova exploration licence!A deal is a deal BUT the deal here is NOT a uranium mining licence, rockplay. Let's take your concerns/complaints one by one:
1. The MoU was signed between the Ministry of Economy and EUU. Forte Energy has nothing to do with it, the Ministry of Environment has nothing to do with it and the Slovak Government as a whole has nothing to do with it. The document is not a legally binding one - as is stated in the memorandum itself, it creates no obligations according to the international law.
2. Ministry of Environment doesn't want to cancel the MoU - it doesn't need to. It is not bound in any way by the existence of the memorandum. It is absolutely free to make a decision that it has made, i.e. not to prolong Ludovika's licence any longer.
3. As to "this is not the first time this situation has occurred." - you are wrong here, mate. The Slovak geological law allows the licence to be prolonged twice and twice it has been prolonged already (first in 2009 and then in 2013). A third prolongation is only allowed if special conditions are fulfilled - and this is not the case. Ludovika had plenty of time to finish the exploration within the 10-year period granted. However, since they (and EUU) have been lazy or short of money (or both) they haven't finished it in time frame they had been granted. They begged the ministry for extension but the ministry chose not to please them. No other exploration company in Slovakia so far has been so greedy as to ask for an extension of the exploration licence to more than 10 years. Ludovika and EUU have nobody but themselves to blame for the non-extension of the licence.
4. The 22 million euros they have spent (or rather claim they have spent - having witnessed the works in the area myself I rather doubt it) was their own business risk. The so-called "green light" they've been given was nothing more than a 4-year exploration licence that could be (and was) extended twice to the total period of 10 years. They have never been given nor even promised a mining licence. Now they have come to another crossroad and are wondering at the red light? What made them expect that there would be a "green light" at all the crossroads to come? The "deal" didn't mean mining, it meant just exploration and they have used it to the full extent. (The fact that they have presented an exploration deal as if it was a mining deal to their shareholders and that some of the shareholders believed it is another story). They could attempt a lawsuit (that is, if in their current financial misery are able to find enough money to pay the lawyers with) but they have no legal cards in their hands to play with - so they will be welcome to go away but with no money because they don't have right to any.
5. What problems with coal mining in Slovakia do you mean? You have probably read some outdated information. As far as I know, there is only one coal mine left in Slovakia - in the Prievidza-Novaky-Handlova area - that is still operational and there are plans to close it. Another coal mine near Velky Krtis (Bana Dolina) has been closed recently.
6. "Much greener fuel uranium" is nonsense. Uranium is no fuel - it is only a chemical element from which after long and costly processing (enrichment, conversion, etc.) nuclear fuel (or nuclear weapons) can be produced. Slovakia is not capable of producing nuclear fuel on its own so from the energy-production point of view it would make no difference whether uranium would be mined in Slovakia or not - however, from the environmental and health-risk point of view, it would make a huge difference!