For months, the world has wondered about the stated goal of the president of the United States to acquire Greenland. Is he merely expressing a desire to make America greater again in terms of territorial area? Is it a question of security policy? Or are critical minerals—and especially Greenland’s immense rare earth riches—a key factor?
The first two questions can’t really be answered without a fuller understanding of the administration’s motives and strategies than is currently available publicly. But for that third question, there exists a wealth of data and context, both historical and modern-day.
Let’s start with the modern day. U.S. industries, like those of any developed economy, depend on critical materials. Lots of attention now is focused on the rare earths, a group of elements of unusual importance because of their indispensability in essential commercial, defense, and industrial applications. Roughly 90 percent of processed rare earths come from China, creating supply-chain vulnerabilities that many countries are now trying to avoid, particularly since China announced restrictions on the export of heavy rare earths in April 2025. Systematic studies have indicated that Greenland has 10 important deposits of rare earth elements.
But in mining, it’s the details that matter. To understand the value of a minerals deposit it’s important to consider the history and to make a reality check of documented resources. The facts and the obvious conclusions do not always reach decision-makers, investors, and the media.
Greenland Is the World’s Biggest Island, But It’s Not as Big as You Think
Greenland is the largest island in the world, but people often get an exaggerated impression of how big it is because the commonly used Mercator projection distorts the size of landmasses close to the poles. Greenland is about 2 million square kilometers. However, the ice-free part—which could much more feasibly be mined than the other part—is roughly the size of California, and without any scenic coastal highways. Traveling between settlements is possible only by boat or airplane.
Greenland has had nine different mines since World War II, but only one, for the mineral anorthosite, is active today. Another one, for gold, is expected to reach full production later this year.
Greenland’s only fully operational mine as of May 2025 extracts anorthosite rock at a site called White Mountain, on the central west coast of the island.Flemming Getreuer Christiansen
Greenland took over the handling of all mining licenses from Denmark in 1998 and full authority in 2010 after self-governance was introduced. Greenland has developed a modern licensing system for mining with an element of competition between companies and transparent procedures for public input on environmental and socioeconomic concerns. The number of licenses granted by the government has been high and relatively constant for many years, but the level of actual activities, such as drilling, has been low over the past decade. Several licenses have been relinquished or revoked without any mining ever taking place.
The reasons are many. A major one is lack of human resources. The population of Greenland is only 57,000, scattered around an area three times the size of Texas. Another reason is high operational costs due to the harsh climate and lack of infrastructure. Others include restrictions favoring labor from Greenland or Denmark. Still others include puzzling recent bureaucratic changes in the legal framework of mining related to the requirements for resource assessments and feasibility studies, and also environmental and socioeconomic requirements for obtaining an exploitation license. Complex royalty schemes and relatively high corporate taxes contribute to uncertainty and risks that many investors have been unwilling to take. This is at a time when Greenland sorely needs investments to fuel its dreams of economic and political independence from Denmark.
In the summer of 2021, the Greenland government said no to issuing further petroleum licenses. It didn’t matter very much because by then, all the largest oil and gas companies had already left Greenland as a result of declining oil prices and increasing costs caused by the changes to regulations. Since the 1970s, some 40 companies have been involved, but they drilled only 15 exploration wells and made no commercial discoveries.
The Ivittuut mine, seen here in 1953, extracted huge amounts of cryolite during World War II. Ivittuut was one of the few places in the world known to have deposits of cryolite, which was necessary for the smelting of aluminum. The mine closed in 1987.Kaj Skall Sørensen/Danish Arctic Institute
Still, there have been some commercial activities. During World War II, the Ivittuut mine in South Greenland produced cryolite for aluminum production and was crucial for the U.S. war effort. Since that time, U.S. companies have shown only a modest interest in Greenland; of the total of 250 companies that have been granted exploration licenses over the past several decades, 10 have been American. Of 50 companies from various countries that have been drilling in Greenland, four were from the United States, and of the 15 companies that have applied for an exploitation license, precisely zero were American. So historically the U.S. fingerprint on mineral exploration in Greenland is negligible, even though the door has been open for decades.
The Deposits Are Big but Have Low Concentrations of Rare Earth Elements
According to the European Union, Greenland has great untapped potential for 25 of the 34 minerals identified in the Union’s official list of raw materials, including rare earth elements, graphite, platinum group metals, and niobium. Looking at these in more detail, however, a more complex picture emerges. In 2023, an investigationfor the Center for Mineral Resources and Materials of the Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland found that Greenland’s mineral resources included everything from minor occurrences to substantial deposits scattered around the island.
Of Greenland’s 10 important rare earth deposits, only two, Kvanefjeld (Kuannersuit) and Kringlerne (Killavaat Alannguat), have attracted much attention.
In spite of being located just a few miles apart in the same complex in South Greenland, these two rare earth deposits are very different for all parameters: geology and mineralogy, stage of exploration, and documented resources. They are alike, however, in that both deposits have some serious drawbacks when compared with active mines or advanced projects elsewhere in the West.
The Kvanefjeld plateau, near the southern tip of Greenland, is the site of large deposits of rare earth oxides, uranium, thorium, and other elements of industrial importance.Jan Richard Heinicke/laif/Redux
Kvanefjeld is the only project in Greenland with well-documented reserves, but it suffers from–or, some would say, could potentially benefit from–a high content of uranium and thorium.
In 2021, when the project was in the final phase of getting an exploitation license, the Greenlandic government dug in its heels and made it illegal to mine deposits with more than 100 parts per million of uranium. The new regulations were used against the Australian company behind the Kvanefjeld project, rendering worthless years of heavy investments; more than US $100 million was reportedly spent on drilling and other work.
The company filed a request for arbitration in 2022, and in 2024 it commenced legal proceedings against the Greenland and Danish governments. It may be years before these cases are resolved. In the meantime, this case is likely to harm investment in Greenland due to the climate of high political risk it suggests.
The rare earths at the Kringlerne deposit are contained within an igneous rock called kakortokite.Jan Richard Heinicke/laif/Redux
At Kringlerne there are much lower concentrations of uranium. The privately owned company that has invested in the site, Tanbreez, claims that it is the largest deposit of its kind in the world, but that belief is based on very little drilling. In 2020, the company got an exploration license in spite of not having provided documentation of resources, updated studies of feasibility, or of environmental and socioeconomic impact. Deadlines for providing financial security and plans for mining and closure were extended for many years. Tanbreez was partly taken over by a New York–based company registered on the NASDAQ, and the new owners were obligated to follow international standards and disclose a confidential resource estimate from 2016. The report revealed considerably more disappointing numbers with regard to ore grade and other characteristics.
Nor do Greenland’s deposits fare well in comparison with other mines or deposits. Typical ore grades at successful mines or attractive deposits are between 4 and 8 percent rare earths. The ore at the mines at Mount Weld in Australia and Mountain Pass in California, and the deposits at Nolans Bore in Australia and Bear Lodge in Wyoming, all fall within that range. In Kvanefjeld the number is 1.4 percent, and in Kringlerne, it dips as low as 0.38 percent. The Greenlandic mines would consequently require larger open pits and much more energy for crushing, separation, and refining, which would inevitably drive up costs for establishing mines and for actually operating them.
Nevertheless, the recent U.S. interest in Greenland led to some surprising reactions on the stock market, combined with high volatility. The share price of Kvanefjeld tripled after intense trading at the start of 2025. The share price of Kringlerne has dropped significantly since the new owners were listed on the NASDAQ, but with many ups and downs following all sorts of stock announcements that referenced miscellaneous analyses of old cores.
Greenland’s Flirtations With China Could Backfire
After the Trump administration touched off a tariff war, the geopolitical skirmishing between the United States and China over rare earths became a much more complicated conflagration involving the United States, the European Union, and China.
And the Greenland government has continued to fan the flames by courting Chinese investment. In March, for example, Greenland’s foreign minister, Vivian Motzfeldt, reportedly identified closer cooperation with China as a priority, and even touted the possibility of a free trade agreement between Greenland and China. According to a report in The Diplomat, Motzfeldt’s actions were ”largely driven by the belief…that a mining boom, fueled by Chinese investment, was the most realistic path toward independence from Denmark—a goal shared by most Greenlandic parties.” Maybe so, but such moves have been widely perceived as a provocation against Denmark and the United States. Whatever their motivation, they could very well lead to increased U.S. pressure. For the United States it would be a geostrategic nightmare if China opened a mine in a remote part of Greenland, with a town, communication lines, harbor, and an airfield that could obviously be used for purposes other than resource extraction and export.
Since Greenland took control of its mineral resources, Denmark has been reluctant to get involved in mining projects. That could very well change. Denmark and the E.U. may come under pressure to invest in much-needed infrastructure and energy projects and offer loans on more favorable conditions, if for no other reason than to keep the United States at bay.
Though the situation is highly unstable, it’s important to try, at least, to separate the geopolitical posturing from the realities of mining. In that vein, it’s safe to say there will be no operating rare earth mines in Greenland during the term of Donald J. Trump.
From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
