Greenland critical minerals remain trapped behind cost and politics

Greenland

Greenland critical minerals remain largely untapped despite renewed geopolitical attention and massive resource potential. Greenland critical minerals, including rare earths, molybdenum and other strategic metals, face geological, financial and political hurdles. As a result, Greenland critical minerals will not quickly become a major new supply hub without heavy state-backed investment.

Geopolitics raise the profile of Greenland critical minerals

Trump’s push to acquire Greenland has thrust the island’s strategic value back into the spotlight. The US administration frames the issue primarily as national security, but officials also acknowledge the importance of Greenland critical minerals. However, Europe has pushed back strongly, with Denmark and other European leaders defending Greenland’s sovereignty and warning about US pressure tactics.

Tensions have escalated as Washington links the acquisition debate to tariffs on countries that oppose the move. Meanwhile, US, Danish and Greenlandic officials have failed to reach common ground in recent talks. This stand-off adds political uncertainty that further complicates long-term planning around Greenland critical minerals. Investors now must factor in both resource risk and geopolitical risk.

Resource scale contrasts with extraction and infrastructure hurdles

Greenland holds some of the world’s largest undeveloped rare earth and critical mineral resources. Geological surveys estimate tens of millions of tonnes of rare earths and significant potential in molybdenum, graphite, hafnium, niobium, tantalum, titanium and platinum group metals. However, Greenland critical minerals remain unproduced at scale because projects face harsh weather, complex geology and almost nonexistent infrastructure.

Operating in Greenland requires long logistics chains, specialised equipment and high-cost power solutions. Therefore, unit costs can exceed those of competing projects in more accessible regions. The government’s ban on uranium mining since 2021 also constrains project design where uranium is associated with rare earths. Without substantial public financing, many deposits remain technically attractive but commercially marginal.

Projects depend on government-backed funding and secure offtake

Early-stage projects illustrate both the promise and constraints of Greenland critical minerals. US-based Critical Metals’ Tanbreez project claims a huge share of global heavy rare earth potential and has filled its entire planned concentrate output with offtake contracts. However, the project still has not reached commercial production and relies on a tentative $120mn letter of interest from the US Export-Import Bank.

Similarly, Greenland Resources’ Malmberg molybdenum project has a long-term exploitation permit and supply agreements with European steel and metallurgical firms. As a result, European institutions now view the project as a strategic source for defense-related molybdenum demand. Even so, Malmberg also depends on significant EU-linked funding support to bridge the gap between geological potential and economic reality.

The Metalnomist Commentary

Greenland critical minerals sit at the intersection of security politics, industrial policy and project finance. For the US and EU, supporting these projects is less about cheap tonnage and more about diversified, allied supply for sensitive value chains. For investors and operators, success in Greenland will hinge on blending geology with patient capital, sovereign support and realistic timelines rather than expecting a quick rare earths windfall.