Highlights

• Greenland possesses vast rare-earth mineral deposits.
• Significant obstacles to developing a viable mining sector include:
  • Lack of infrastructure
  • Regulatory challenges
  • Absence of midstream processing capabilities
• These obstacles deter international investors.
• The mining potential represents a potential geopolitical game-changer in challenging China's mineral supply chain dominance.

---

Sune Engel Rasmussen (opens in a new tab) recently wrote "Greenland Has the Makings of a Mining Boom. So Where Is Everyone?" via Tovima, a Wall Street Journal publishing partner in Europe.

The Wall Street Journal reporter paints a picture of Greenland as a land teeming with rare-earth riches, a potential counterbalance to China’s iron grip on the critical minerals supply chain. Yet, the reality on the ground is starkly different. Despite having one of the most promising rare-earth deposits outside of China, Greenland remains an inhospitable frontier for mining companies, tangled in a web of logistical nightmares, political landmines, and regulatory paralysis.

The piece vividly recounts the struggles of Australian firm Energy Transition Minerals (opens in a new tab), whose attempts to extract valuable minerals from the Kvanefjeld site have been thwarted by frozen terrain, bureaucratic inertia, and a sudden government U-turn on uranium mining.

Rasmussen is at his strongest when outlining the geopolitical stakes. He effectively frames Greenland’s mineral wealth as a potential game-changer in the global battle for resource independence. The numbers don’t lie—China refines 91% of the world’s rare-earth materials, leaving Western nations scrambling for alternatives. Greenland’s estimated 1 billion tons of rare-earth-rich deposits could transform the global supply chain if successfully tapped. Yet, as the article rightly points out, mining in Greenland is not merely about economics—it’s about power. Washington and Brussels may covet these minerals, but their political goodwill means little if the investment climate remains untenable.

The Problem is Not Access to Minerals

Where the article shines in its geopolitical framing, it falters in its economic depth. Rasmussen documents the litany of obstacles facing Greenland’s mining sector—frigid isolation, treacherous ice-choked shipping lanes, and a near-total absence of infrastructure.

However, he stops short of addressing the real bottleneck: the lack of midstream and downstream industrial capacity.

Mining rare earths is merely step one in a far longer and more complicated process. Without separation, refining facilities, magnet production plants, or the kind of government-backed industrial policy seen in China—those producing components, parts, and assemblies-- any raw materials extracted from Greenland will inevitably flow eastward, further cementing China’s stranglehold over the sector.

For example, the article never asks the essential question: What good is a mining boom if Greenland still relies on China for processing?  What is wrong with this picture? Why do so many talented, educated people not get this?

The piece also overlooks the comparative advantage of other Arctic mining regions. Rasmussen briefly mentions Alaska and Canada but does not examine why these regions succeeded, whereas Greenland has not. The answer is clear: government intervention and infrastructure investment. Canada and Alaska have benefited from subsidies, tax incentives, and pre-existing mining expertise. Greenland, by contrast, offers a blank slate—no roads between settlements, a skeletal workforce, and a permitting process so glacial it makes the Arctic ice sheet look speedy by comparison. Investors are not just hesitant; they are unwilling to take on the overwhelming financial and regulatory risk.

Presence of the Danish Government

The political dimension of the issue is compelling but underexplored. Rasmussen rightly acknowledges the uranium mining ban as a flashpoint but fails to examine Denmark’s larger role in the mess. As Greenland’s sovereign authority, Denmark wields significant economic and regulatory influence. Could Copenhagen help Greenland establish public-private partnerships to accelerate infrastructure development? Could it negotiate mining deals that balance economic opportunity with environmental concerns? The article leaves these questions frustratingly unanswered.

Gritty Realism

Rasmussen captures the human element of Greenland’s mining dilemma well. The voices of local Inuit communities provide a sobering counterpoint to the optimism of industry executives. Some see mining as a ticket out of economic stagnation, a means of reversing the town of Narsaq’s slow decline. Others fear the irreversible contamination of their land and the destruction of a way of life sustained by fishing and farming.

The proposed radioactive tailings pond—100 million tons of industrial waste contained by fragile mountain dams—reads like a recipe for disaster. The competing perspectives underscore the painful trade-offs inherent in resource extraction: prosperity or preservation, growth or environmental security?

Yet Another Incomplete Picture

As Rare Earth Exchanges finds in accounts around the world but especially in the West, yet again, ultimately, Rasmussen’s article is a compelling but incomplete analysis. He captures the challenges of Greenland’s mining sector but fails to interrogate the solutions. He describes the symptoms of stagnation but does not diagnose the root cause: the absence of a comprehensive mining-to-manufacturing supply chain.  And, of course, this former presupposed a later integrated government, finance sector, and industry proactive will to develop, construct, and operate.

Greenland’s rare earths will remain little more than theoretical assets without midstream processing. Without policy incentives, Greenland will continue to scare off investors. And without a long-term industrial strategy, the dream of a mining boom will remain exactly that—a mirage in the Arctic wilderness.