Forged Beneath the Ice: A Harsh Arctic Future

Post by Ray Suan Lee

President Donald Trump’s interest in Greenland has sparked worldwide attention on the Arctic territory. The scrutiny raises questions not only about its position as a political foothold for the United States but also about its value as a site for mining and resource exploration. This article discusses the latter, examining the region’s considerable potential and the challenges it faces. Greenland’s mining potential is far from trivial. As a landscape that boasts 25 out of 34 minerals regarded as critical raw minerals by the European Commission and 25 out of 60 critical minerals listed by the United States, Greenland sits precariously on rare earth exploitative vulnerability. Rich in the minerals needed for modern technologies, renewable energy systems and critical defence infrastructure, the country has gained enormous global interest as a perceived solution to the world’s growing demand for resources. Despite Greenland’s economic potential, the extraction process presents immense logistical and geological barriers. According to geomorphologist Paul Bierman, the instability of the Greenlandic environment makes mining and exploration both a risky and expensive endeavour. For example, most of Greenland’s rare earth minerals are locked under ice that is more than 3 kilometres thick, making access extraordinarily difficult. Furthermore, unlike most of the world’s other rare earth deposits, Greenland’s rare earth minerals are embedded within silicates, requiring the development and administration of novel specialised processing techniques for extraction. Yet extraction is only one part of the problem. Infrastructure limitations compound the challenges faced. Out of the 150 kilometres of roads in Greenland, only 60 kilometres are paved. Transportation of extracted minerals via helicopters and boats is likely to increase the cost of undertaking mining projects, potentially reaching sums that surpass the cost of extraction itself. In harsh Arctic conditions, higher operating costs may be incurred alongside greater risk and diminished profitability. It seems therefore that Greenland’s geological promise of minerals remains simply that: a promise. Some observers are under the impression that mining the rare earth minerals clustered in Southern Greenland, where there is greater access to roads, harbours and other critical infrastructure, could be a feasible option. However, it is notable that to date, no rare earth mining projects have entered commercial production anywhere in Greenland. This is the case because mining projects lack much of the social licence needed to even begin operating in the country, whose national identity is founded on an acute sense of environmental stewardship. In 2021, Greenland’s governing party, Inuit Ataqatigiit, secured electoral success on the ticket that they would pass legislation to block the development of the Kvanefjeld rare earth mine situated in Southern Greenland, one of the largest rare earth and uranium mines in the world. Inuit Ataqatigiit did as promised, supported by strong local opposition to the Kvanefjeld project, such as the grassroots movement “Uranium? No”. Ground-up environmental movements have long dominated local politics, continuing to sway governmental decision-making in the sphere of mineral mining. This explains why local acceptance of mining is far-fetched. Additionally, with all Greenlandic land being publicly owned and administered, the idea of private mining companies remains a foreign concept to locals. These factors combined have fostered strong local resistance towards mining. With its wealth of natural resources, Greenland currently occupies a geopolitically sensitive position. Some analysts believe that the growing global demand for rare earth minerals and intensifying geopolitical tensions will challenge the restrictions on rare earth and uranium mining in Greenland, making the ban a temporary feature. If international pressure mounts, future leaders could face difficult trade-offs between safeguarding national and economic security on the one hand, and satisfying local demands for environmental preservation on the other. If leaders were to cave under pressure, the repercussions will be extensive. For now, however, the extraction of minerals remains very much theoretical. It will require extensive planning, approvals, and the overcoming of much internal and external resistance. A few years ago, some companies could perhaps have gotten away with selling locals the notion that mining rare earth minerals could achieve the goals of green finance. Green finance is the idea that mining can be carried out in a way that reduces its environmental impact with cleaner technologies, such that the long-term benefits of using rare earth minerals to produce renewable energy infrastructure exceed the short-term implications of mining. However, with the current economic emphasis placed on discussions surrounding extraction, it is doubtful that locals will be marginally moved by such an excuse. As we rest on the present privilege that Greenland’s mining potential is not yet actualised, we must be cognisant of the fact that what happens now paves the way for the future of Greenland and the Arctic in the coming decades. Setting aside Trump, whose motives for targeting Greenland may range anywhere from pure economic gain to political motives, it is clear that the uncertain future of Greenland lies in the hands of its leaders. When the ice sheets melt away to reveal the minerals beneath – whether by natural forces or by human intervention – and companies find solutions to get around the difficulties of extraction, the region’s fate will lie in whether the Greenlandic government can continue to uphold the values respected by its people in the face of geopolitical pressures. It will also be a matter for the already fragile, enfeebled and upended global order to cooperate to resist what would otherwise become the inevitable, when the time comes.