Avaaraq Olsen, mayor of Kommuneqarfik Sermersooq, has published an open letter to Greenland Energy CEO Robert Price, challenging the way the company has described its Jameson Land oil project to American audiences and to residents of Ittoqqortoormiit.
The letter, posted to Facebook and published by Kommuneqarfik Sermersooqasks asked whether Greenland Energy Company has been giving one message to investors and media audiences in the United States and another to the people living closest to the area the company wants to explore.
“Who are you telling the truth to?” Olsen wrote.
In a statement to GreenlandEnergy.com, CEO Robert Price rejected the idea that Greenland Energy Company has given contradictory messages.
“I acknowledge Mayor Avaaraq Olsen’s letter and appreciate the need to open dialogue,” Price said. “The geological potential of the Jameson Land Basin — up to 13 billion barrels based on independent engineering assessments — is real and well-documented. At the same time, no responsible operator tells a local community that a discovery is guaranteed before a well has been drilled.”
Price said the two messages reflect the same exploration reality rather than a contradiction.
“Both statements are true,” he said. “They reflect different aspects of the same reality: frontier exploration involves extraordinary potential and genuine uncertainty. I have been consistent about both.”
Price also said he has contacted the mayor directly.
“I have already reached out to Mayor Avaaraq Olsen directly to request a meeting, and I look forward to addressing her concerns face to face,” he said.
The offer of a meeting gives both sides a possible way to lower the temperature. GreenlandEnergy.com will update this article if a meeting between Price and Olsen is confirmed or takes place.
A Question of Trust
Olsen’s letter focused on what she described as a gap between the company’s confident public statements outside Greenland and the more cautious message given to residents of Ittoqqortoormiit.
She said Price has spoken to American audiences about Jameson Land as a major potential oil opportunity, including references to possible resources of up to 13 billion barrels and Greenland’s possible role in global energy supply.
But she said the message sounded different when Price appeared before residents of Ittoqqortoormiit.
“Now everything was uncertain,” Olsen wrote. “Now you said you do not know whether oil exists. Now you said more exploration is needed. Now you said no one can know until wells are drilled.”
Olsen asked which version Greenlanders should believe.
“The Robert Price who tells American audiences that a historic oil discovery is waiting beneath Jameson Land?” she wrote. “Or the Robert Price who tells Greenlanders that nobody knows whether there is any oil at all?”
“Because both stories cannot be true,” she added.
Price Says Potential and Uncertainty Can Coexist
Price’s answer is that the two messages are not contradictory.
Greenland Energy Company can point to major geological potential in Jameson Land, he argues, while still acknowledging that no discovery can be guaranteed before drilling. A prospective resource estimate is not the same thing as a proven commercial oil field.
The company’s position is that both things can be true: Jameson Land may hold major geological potential, but no discovery can be treated as certain until drilling proves what is actually there.
But Olsen’s criticism is less about the technical meaning of an estimate than about how confidence and caution are heard by different audiences.
Her concern is that investors hear opportunity, while local residents hear uncertainty and risk.
“You cannot sell certainty abroad while selling uncertainty at home,” Olsen wrote. “You cannot encourage excitement among investors while asking Greenlanders to accept that the outcome remains unknown.”
What Olsen’s Letter Does Not Say
Olsen’s letter is worth reading carefully for what it does not say. It does not call for drilling to stop, frame the issue as environmental opposition or demand that Greenland Energy Company leave Greenland.
Instead, it asks for consistency. Olsen is asking Price to speak to Greenlanders with the same candor and confidence he uses with American audiences, or to speak to American audiences with the same caution he uses in Greenland.
That makes the letter a demand for process and respect, not outright opposition. The door to a working relationship remains open, but Olsen has made clear that the company will be judged not only by what it says to investors, but by how it speaks to the people closest to Jameson Land. Her letter also creates a public record that Ittoqqortoormiit’s leadership was not passive and not caught off guard.
“If Greenland Energy wants to operate in Greenland, then start by speaking honestly and consistently, regardless of whether you are standing in front of investors in the United States or citizens in Ittoqqortoormiit,” Olsen wrote.
The American Shadow Over the Debate
Greenland Energy Company is not operating in a neutral atmosphere. President Trump’s repeated comments about Greenland have made American interest in the island far more politically charged than it might otherwise have been. For any American company trying to operate on Greenland’s terms, that rhetoric has narrowed the margin for error.
It has also made it easier for critics to view American commercial interest through a sovereignty lens before the details of any individual project are fully considered. Greenland Energy Company did not create that environment, but it is operating inside it.
The irony is that American energy development in Greenland, done well, could be strategically sound. It could be a counter to Russian and Chinese influence in the Arctic, a path toward Western supply chain security and a model for legitimate commercial partnership with a territory navigating its own sovereignty future.
It is exactly the kind of issue serious people in both Washington and Nuuk could find common ground on.
But Greenland Energy Company’s own U.S. media strategy, including high profile appearances and strong language about Jameson Land’s potential, has made it easier for critics to connect the company to a broader American narrative that many Greenlanders already distrust.
That is the difficult line the company is walking. It must explain a frontier oil prospect in commercial terms without making Greenlandic communities feel as if they are being pulled into someone else’s American energy story.
If Done Right, There Is a Path Where Everyone Wins
If Greenland Energy Company were to succeed, and if development were carried out on Greenland’s terms, with real local consent, strong environmental safeguards and clear public communication, the potential benefits could be significant.
For Ittoqqortoormiit and East Greenland, those benefits should be measured first locally: in better transport links, stronger services, local training, skilled jobs, logistics work, port activity, emergency response capacity and a higher standard of living for the people who live there.
That is why the current dispute should be cooled down, not inflamed. The question is not only whether Greenland Energy Company can find oil. It is whether the company, Greenlandic authorities and local communities can build a process credible enough that people in Ittoqqortoormiit actually benefit.
A Wider Problem Than One Company
The dispute also points to a wider issue that does not begin or end with Greenland Energy Company.
Ittoqqortoormiit’s frustration is not only about one oil company or one public meeting. The town has long faced difficult questions over transport, infrastructure, public services and distance from decision making in Nuuk. If residents deserve honest answers from Greenland Energy Company, they also deserve clear answers from Greenlandic and municipal authorities about what has and has not been done for East Greenland over many years.
A Face to Face Meeting Would Be the Right Next Step
If Price and Olsen meet face to face, the discussion can move away from public accusation and slogans and toward practical questions: what is known, what remains uncertain, what permissions are still needed, what risks exist and what benefits could realistically reach Ittoqqortoormiit.
That would be a better outcome than letting the debate harden from a question of trust into a political standoff. The people of Ittoqqortoormiit deserve clear answers, but they also deserve a serious conversation about whether any future development can improve life locally, not just create opportunity elsewhere.
GreenlandEnergy.com provides independent analysis of Greenland’s energy landscape, critical minerals development, and Arctic geopolitics. For corrections or feedback: press@greenlandenergy.com
READ NEXT: Greenland Airports Are Building First Generation Gateway Infrastructure
