Introduction

Greenland ranks eighth globally in proven rare earths (details), with the potential to move even higher as exploration advances, but of the +250 mining companies holding exploration licenses in Greenland, only 9 companies hold commercial exploitation permits and only 2 are currently fully operational -- and neither are American domiciled.

What Is The Estimated Value Of Greenland's Critical Minerals?

 A study published in January 2025, citing data from geological surveys in the U.S., Denmark and Greenland, determined that the value of Greenland's  known critical mineral resources, which include rare earth metals (go here for a discussion of how rare earth metals and critical minerals differ from each other) is more than $2.7 trillion, suggesting that, even if Denmark reversed its opposition to selling Greenland, that land likely wouldn’t come cheap. The island could have a price tag of  $700 billion dollars - or higher. That’s the conservative estimate being floated as the potential price tag for acquiring Greenland, according to recent reporting.

Mining Companies In Greenland

As of January 2026, while over 250 mining companies hold exploration licenses in Greenland, only 9 companies have commercial exploitation permits, with only 2 - the White Mountain anorthosite mine and the Nalunaq gold mine - operational. Neither is American domiciled. Lumina Sustainable Materials mines the anorthosite and is a Greenlandic company. The Nalunaq mine is past gold production since 2013 and is operated by Amaroq Ltd., which is listed on the London Stock Exchange's Alternative Investment Market (AIM).

Why Does The U.S. Have No Mines In Greenland?

U.S. interest in Greenland has focused on blocking China and Russia, securing supply chains, and maintaining Arctic security—not on directly operating mines and this geopolitical posture has not translated into U.S. mining companies building and operating projects. Greenland prefers partnerships with Europe, Canada, and other allies rather than a single dominant U.S. operator and this reduces the likelihood of U.S.-exclusive mining ventures.

Indeed, while Greenland possesses vast reserves of rare-earth minerals, its mining sector faces significant obstacles preventing a full-scale boom such as:

• Limited Infrastructure: Greenland lacks roads, ports near most deposits; power infrastructure; local processing capacity, and this forces companies to build everything from scratch, making projects far more expensive and risky.
• Harsh Environmental Conditions: Greenland’s extreme climate and remote terrain make mining operations logistically difficult and expensive.
• Political and Regulatory Barriers: Greenland’s ban on uranium mining has impacted a number of projects.
• Economic and Foreign Investment Hurdles: Attracting major mining investment is proving difficult, particularly given strong local opposition over environmental and societal concerns.

.What Does The U.S. Need To Do To Establish Mines In Greenland?

As noted in an article on atlanticcouncil.org, Greenland’s strategic value lies in its role as a long-term diversification partner rather than an opportunity for immediate production and, while annexation rhetoric has drawn attention to Greenland’s resources, a unilateral U.S. approach would limit their potential value. More effective alternatives include:

• Strategic partnerships with Greenland and Denmark: Rather than pursuing ownership, American companies and the U.S. government could support mining development through direct investment, financing mechanisms, and technical assistance. Diplomatically bundled investment could help de-risk projects that might otherwise fail to attract private capital, an approach far less viable under a confrontational strategy.
• Competing effectively with Chinese investment: The Tanbreez case demonstrates that U.S. diplomatic engagement can influence ownership and investment outcomes, but effective competition requires more than lobbying against Chinese involvement. It demands credible alternatives such as competitive financing, technical expertise, market access, and partnership structures that align with project needs—all of which are more successful in concert with a wide pool of partners. 
• Supporting responsible development: Projects that lack local legitimacy are unlikely to succeed. Emphasizing environmental safeguards, indigenous rights, and meaningful benefit-sharing is both ethically and commercially essential. 

Conclusion

Greenland’s mineral wealth will take a decade or more to translate into meaningful supply. Its greatest value lies not in rapid extraction but in long-term diversification within a trusted political framework. For the United States the challenge is clear: securing access to critical minerals and strategic space without undermining the very alliances and norms that underpin long-term stability.

Patient, partnership-based engagement that respects Greenland’s autonomy and international law will not generate immediate headlines, but it offers the only credible path through a period in which intensifying competition over critical resources threaten to upend the established geopolitical order.

More By This Author:

My Attendance At This Year's World Economic Forum - "All Is Good"
Trump's Noise About Seizing Greenland Has Caused The Stocks Of The Mining Companies Operating There To Jump In Price
AI Semiconductor Stocks Expected To Continue Dramatic Surge In 2026 - Here's My Watchlist