Greenland's mining bonanza still a distant promise
Before it could cast its first gold bar, Amaroq had to build a port and housing, repair a road, and ship over equipment -- a logistical nightmare highlighting the complexities of mining in inhospitable Greenland.
"This is obviously much, much harder than setting up any other business around the world," Eldur Olafsson, the head of the Canadian mining company, told AFP.
Amaroq operates one of only two active mines on the vast Arctic island, a region full of promise for mineral wealth but which has proven difficult to exploit.
From Ukraine, where US President Donald Trump wants to get his hands on natural resources, to the seabeds that numerous companies want to explore, minerals are today at the centre of major geopolitical and industrial ambitions.
Greenland remains almost entirely unexploited, and its minerals are seen as a potential springboard to independence, a goal backed by a majority of the island's 57,000 inhabitants.
Trump's stated ambitions to take over the Danish autonomous territory have only served to boost islanders' support for independence, and the timeframe for full sovereignty has been one of the main topics ahead of Greenland's March 11 legislative elections.
For many Greenlanders -- and probably Trump too -- the wealth generated by the minerals is front of mind.
They would likely generate enough revenue to replace the $565 million Denmark gives Greenland in annual subsidies.
With its underground riches, Greenland "could be a vital player" in the global mining industry, insists Thomas Varming, a geophysicist and consultant at the Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland (GEUS).
"Many of these deposits that we have are actually crucial for the green transition: minerals that go into batteries -- lithium, graphite -- and also elements that go into super strong magnets that you use in wind turbines or your electric cars or if you want to electrify your trains," he explained.
But in order for those minerals to become a cash cow for Greenland, the price of raw materials has to go up, because right now it's not profitable enough to mine them.
Around 80 percent of Greenland is covered by ice, it has an extreme climate, very little infrastructure, and strict environmental considerations.
All those factors send operating costs soaring, while competitors like mining powerhouse China have few such issues.
- Red lines -
"There have been many mining projects on the table and the short version is: nothing has happened. There has simply not been a business case," said one economist.
Greenland Ruby, which operated a small ruby mine, went bankrupt last year.
"Mineral development is a very slow-moving business. It takes about 16 years to develop into a mine. And in that period of time, you just spend a lot of money. You don't earn a lot of money," stressed Naaja Nathanielsen, Greenland's Minister for Business and Mineral Resources.
"We have a lot of mines in the making, but they are still in this 16-year period," she told AFP in her office in Nuuk, the capital of Greenland.
She said eight companies were due to hold operating licences by the end of the year -- which doesn't necessarily mean there will be that many mines -- and around 80 exploration licences have also been issued.
Greenlandic authorities have drawn several red lines when it comes to mining: no uranium, no oil and gas, and no deep sea mining.
"We are very reliant on our fisheries, and we as a tourist nation try to brand ourselves as a green and pristine place in the world," Nathanielsen said.
"We don't want that image to be tarred by environmental hazards."
For now, the mining industry accounts for just a minute part of Greenland's economy, especially since many of the jobs go to foreigners due to a lack of skilled locals.
Even though the United States and the European Union have both signed memorandums of cooperation with Greenland, a mineral bonanza remains promising but distant, leaving the island without a key pillar needed for its economic independence.
"We are not developing the mineral sector to become independent. We're developing it to get revenue for the Greenlandic society and people, and better welfare. And at some point, we will get to independence as well," Nathanielsen said.
phy/ef/po/cw
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
18 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Circle stock continues eye-popping post-IPO surge as stablecoin momentum builds
Circle Internet Group (CRCL) stock jumped as much as 18% Monday to a new intraday high, continuing the stablecoin issuer's meteoric rise following its blockbuster IPO earlier this month. The stock climbed to $165 before trimming gains, building on Friday's 25% surge, as investor enthusiasm around stablecoins — digital tokens backed by reserve assets like the U.S. dollar — continues to grow. Since its highly anticipated public markets debut on June 5 at $31 per share, Circle has soared roughly 400%. Circle's IPO success comes amid the Trump administration's push for a friendly framework for cryptocurrencies, the president's business involvement in the space, and legislation expected to go to a vote in the Senate this week that would regulate stablecoins. Bernstein analyst Gautam Chhugani wrote in a note Monday that "stablecoins have brought mainstream attention back to the underlying global rail - the blockchain, and its transformative potential over the long decade." Chhugani expects the legislation, called the Stablecoin GENIUS Act, to be the first bipartisan bill to be passed by the end of this summer. Circle is an issuer of the stablecoin USDC (USDC-USD), which is backed by the dollar. The company had $60 billion worth of the token in circulation at the end of the first quarter. Circle is the second-largest stablecoin issuer on the market, trailing only Tether, which has nearly $150 billion in circulation. The company generates the bulk of its revenue through "reserve income" — profits earned from the cash reserves backing the USDC stablecoins. Ines Ferre is a Senior Business Reporter for Yahoo Finance. Follow her on X at @ines_ferre. Click here for in-depth analysis of the latest stock market news and events moving stock prices Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Atlantic
20 minutes ago
- Atlantic
The Tyrant Test
For as long as I've been alive, American presidents have defined tyrants by their willingness to use military force against their own people in reprisal for political opposition. This was a staple of Cold War presidential rhetoric, and it survived long into the War on Terror era. Ronald Reagan declared in 1981 that 'it is dictatorships, not democracies, that need militarism to control their own people and impose their system on others.' His successor, George H. W. Bush, did the same in 1992, talking about American presidents confronting the Warsaw Pact, which had been 'lashed together by occupation troops and quisling governments and, when all else failed, the use of tanks against its own people.' Bill Clinton, when justifying strikes against the Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein in 1998, emphasized that Hussein had used his arsenal 'against civilians, against a foreign adversary, and even against his own people.' George W. Bush repeated that justification when invading Iraq in 2003, saying that Hussein's government 'practices terror against its own people.' Barack Obama, when intervening in Libya on behalf of rebels fighting Muammar Qaddafi, warned that Qaddafi had said 'he would show 'no mercy' to his own people.' It would be absurd to say that American presidents have always been principled defenders of freedom and democracy, but their long-shared, bipartisan definition of tyrant is one who oppresses his own. So it's striking that these warnings about tyrants in distant lands, who were supposedly the opposite of the kind of legitimate, democratic leaders elected the United States of America, now apply to the sitting U.S. president, Donald Trump. It is a simple but morally powerful formulation: A leader who uses military force to suppress their political opposition forfeits the right to govern. You could call this the 'tyrant test,' and Trump is already failing it. Trump came into office promising to carry out a 'mass deportation' of undocumented immigrants. Because of a degraded information environment riddled with right-wing propaganda, many Trump supporters came to think this meant he would target criminals whom the Biden administration allegedly was allowing to rampage freely throughout America. Instead, driven by Stephen Miller, immigration authorities have targeted workers, families, and asylum seekers— people who show up to their ICE appointments —for deportation. Agents have raided schools, workplaces, and homes— masked and out of uniform —methods more akin to secret police than civilian law enforcement in a democracy. Some deportees have been sent to a Gulag in El Salvador, while others have vanished or been expelled to third-party countries where they face dangerous circumstances. Predictably, these heavy-handed tactics have produced a backlash, most extensively in Los Angeles, where the Trump administration has sent detachments of Marines and the National Guard to discourage American citizens from expressing opposition to these methods. Adam Serwer: The Trump-Trumpist divide Although there are circumstances where an intervention by the National Guard might be justified, such a decision typically involves the judgement of local authorities—and what's happening in Los Angeles now is nothing like Arkansas's school-segregation crisis in 1957, when President Dwight D. Eisenhower federalized the Guard to protect Black students facing a racist mob trying to prevent them from attending school. Targeting California is no accident. Republican propaganda consistently paints blue states such as California as unlivable hellholes. Some of the protests have been violent and have given way to vandalism, but not at a level that requires a military deployment, regardless of right-wing propaganda outlets' best efforts to depict L.A. as a city on the brink of destruction. American service members have been ordered there not to protect their compatriots but to intimidate them at gunpoint for the sin of opposing the president. On Friday, for the first time, U.S. Marines detained a civilian, in apparent violation of the Posse Comitatus Act. The person in question was an Army veteran headed for the Veterans Affairs building in L.A. The president and many of his prominent supporters seem eager for escalation. Trump has said that Los Angeles has been 'invaded and occupied by illegal aliens and criminals,' and that 'violent, insurrectionist mobs' have been 'swarming and attacking' immigration-enforcement officers. Vice President J. D. Vance posted on X that 'insurrectionists carrying foreign flags are attacking immigration enforcement officers, while one-half of America's political leadership has decided that border enforcement is evil.' Miller accused L.A. Mayor Karen Bass, who had pointed out that the city had been more peaceful prior to the administration's response, of 'insurrection.' Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, who has been urging Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to use the military to detain American citizens, vowed at a press conference to 'liberate the city from the socialists and the burdensome leadership that this governor and that this mayor have placed on this country and what they have tried to insert into the city'—just moments before federal officers forcibly removed Senator Alex Padilla of California and pushed him to the ground when he tried to ask questions. Right-wing media, aware that the administration's actions and rhetoric resemble those of dictatorships, have been telling their audiences that the protests have all been cooked up by Democrats to trap Trump into acting like a dictator—never mind his obvious fondness for dictatorship. 'Democrats are causing mayhem in their cities, so when Trump restores order, they can label him a dictator and stir up even more hatred and violence against him,' the Fox News host Jesse Watters said on Monday. 'They're burning their own cities just to prove to their bloodthirsty base that they're fighting Trump in the streets, burning their own cities for power.' Someone might be bloodthirsty, but it's not the Democrats. David A. Graham: The Trump believability gap If L.A. had been taken over by insurrectionist mobs, the Trump modus operandi would be to pardon them and give them money—though only insurrectionists who try to overthrow the government on Trump's behalf, of course. Instead, the protests provoked by the administration's authoritarian tactics appear to be mere pretext for using force against Trump's political opposition. The L.A. police chief, Jim McDonnell, said the city's police force could handle the protests without assistance, but such a move would deny Trump his excuse for using the military against Americans who have the temerity to oppose him. This has long been a fantasy of Trump's— he praised China's crackdown on the Tiananmen Square protest movement as having 'put it down with strength.' Last week, he warned that anyone who protested his wasteful, self-worshipping military parade would be met 'with very big force.' How did Republicans go from condemning leaders who threaten their own citizens to becoming sycophants for one? Here, too, we find a holdover of Cold War rhetoric: the use of Third World to describe multicultural communities such as Los Angeles. In the 1950s, the terms First World, Second World, and Third World emerged as a means to describe Western-aligned nations, Soviet-aligned governments, and emerging nations not allied with either faction, respectively. Third World soon came to be used as a pejorative term for poor, nonwhite countries—full of human beings who could be considered disposable. And that's exactly how Trump officials and their allies are referring to communities such as Los Angeles in order to justify using military force. Last night, following the massive 'No Kings' protests across the country, Trump posted on his social network Truth Social that he was directing ICE to 'expand efforts to detain and deport Illegal Aliens in America's largest Cities,' which he called 'the core of the Democrat Power Center'; he further described immigration as turning America into a 'Third World dystopia.' The post echoed similar language from right-wing-media figures who, last week, began repeating the same rote talking points about the need to ban all 'Third World' immigration. The conservative podcaster Charlie Kirk, who spoke at Trump rallies during the 2024 election campaign, displayed on his podcast, as part of an argument for Trump using the military to 'take back the streets of LA. Do it and do it fast,' a chart from a white-nationalist website showing the white population of Los Angeles declining. Kirk also made explicit that he wasn't borrowing just the chart from a white-nationalist website but also its ideological conclusions about the threat that nonwhite people pose. ' This is the Great Replacement Theory,' Kirk explained. 'Remember we talked about how they want to replace white Anglo-Saxon Christian Protestants with Mexican, Nicaraguans, with El Salvadorians.' The term Anglo-Saxon Christian Protestants is wildly archaic, 1930s racism. What's next in the Republican-aligned podcast world? Rants about swarthy Sicilians and perfidious Jews? The increased support Trump received in the 2024 election from nonwhite voters hasn't altered prominent Trump proponents' view that America is the white man's birthright and that all others are merely interlopers. 'The deeper goal is to reshape America demographically. It is to make America less white, less European by descent,' The Daily Wire 's Matt Walsh declared. 'You're not gonna destroy Western civilization just by winning the next midterms or whatever. You destroy it by importing non-Western people.' Adam Serwer: Trump's followers are living in a dark fantasy These ideas weren't coming from just commentators. Attorney General Pam Bondi said L.A. 'looked like a Third World country' on Fox News; Miller posted on X that 'huge swaths of the city where I was born now resemble failed third world nations. A ruptured, balkanized society of strangers.' If Los Angeles is 'balkanized,' that is because it has a long history of being forcibly segregated by race, starting decades before Miller was born. But here, Miller's objection is not a call for integration but an expression of rage that the city is less white than it used to be. On Thursday night, Trump said 'illegal aliens' were turning America into a 'Third World Nation' and declared, 'I am reversing the invasion. It's called remigration,' using a European far-right term for ethnic cleansing of nonwhite immigrants from European countries, regardless of status or citizenship. The math here doesn't take much effort. In the view of these officials and commentators, California (and, by extension, America) has been ruined by immigration from Latin America, Africa, and Asia, which is what makes mass deportation and the use of American military force against their own people necessary. As it happens, this coincides rather neatly with Miller's expressed view that the repeal of racist restrictions on immigration in the 1960s destroyed the country. Both inside and outside the administration, the consensus of prominent Trumpists is that if you are not white, you are a threat to Western civilization. This is how they rationalize Trump failing the tyrant test—the threat of military force is being made against people the administration and its propagandists want you to see as not truly American. This is how a tyrant thinks. Every dictator who has ever cracked down on political opposition has done so by rendering them internal foreigners in rhetoric and deed, invaders of the body politic who can justly be crushed like insects. Those serving in uniform, military or civilian, should ask themselves whether becoming a tyrant's instrument against their own communities is what they had in mind when they signed up.
Yahoo
21 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Musk's Daring Gambit Has Managed to Do Something Remarkable: Alienate Democrats AND Republicans
It appears that Elon Musk has seriously overestimated his sustained popularity among his right-wing fans. In another masterful display of cunning, the world's richest man turned coat and viciously lashed out at his former best-friend-in-chief Donald Trump this month. It was a very public affair, as both parties traded blows over social media — and Trump at his many press conferences — but it was Musk who came out looking worse for wear, unable to equal the president's threats, squirming at the cold indifference he was being shown. In retrospect, his mysterious black eye was a prefigurement of things to come. And so in decidedly un-Don-Corleone fashion, the "Dogefather" all but groveled at the feet of the president this week, offering a simpering apology. But the damage had been done. According to a new poll from the Associated Press, fewer Republicans view Musk "very favorably" compared to April, plunging from 38 percent down to 26 percent. "Some things have happened lately that have changed how I feel about him a little," Alabama Republican Katye Long, who downgraded her view of Musk to "somewhat favorable," told the AP. "I also don't feel like he matters that much," she added. "He's not actually part of the government. He's just a rich guy who pushes his opinions." As far as high-profile fallouts go, this one was veritably cataclysmic. After Musk stepped down as a "special government employee," he blasted Trump's spending bill and trash-talked the president on his website, X. Trump, in turn, threatened to kill Elon's billions of dollars worth of government contracts. Musk made his own threat that he'd cut off NASA's access to SpaceX, before declaring that Trump is implicated in the unreleased Epstein files and agreeing that the president should be impeached. "Without me, Trump would have lost the election, Dems would control the House and Republicans would be 51-49 in the Senate," Musk fumed on his website X, after Trump said he was "disappointed with Elon." "Such ingratitude," Musk huffed. All the while, reports circled that the tech billionaire was heavily abusing drugs like ketamine — and to boot, incurring the unfortunate bladder issues that commonly stem from overusing the powerful anesthetic. It's not the end of the world for Musk, though. The polls suggest that most Republicans — 64 percent — still favor him to some degree, which is three points lower than April. He remains extremely unpopular among Democrats, however, though the repulsion he inspires among this base has slightly ebbed. In April, 74 percent of Democrats harbored a very negative view of Musk, but that share has now fallen to 65 percent. That may be a consequence of his diminished role in government since April; last month he finally left his role as a top advisor to Trump. In sum, in the AP's analysis, the intensity of the public's attitude towards Musk has shifted somewhat, but the overall opinions haven't. Musk has become an incredibly polarizing figure over the past several years, over the course of which he has expressed increasingly far-right views. He ensured the alienation of his traditionally liberal fans by endorsing Trump last summer and funding his campaign to the tune of some $300 million. Post-inauguration, Musk led his so-called Department of Government Efficiency, where he oversaw the firing of tens of thousands of federal employees, the slashing over 100 billion dollars of federal spending — including cuts to foreign aid and research grants at the National Institutes of Health — and tampering with Social Security. Most damning for Musk's bottom line: the backlash has blown back on his businesses, too. Tesla's popularity has plummeted in lockstep with its drying-up sales, and according to the recent poll, only 32 percent of US adults view his automaker very or somewhat favorably. That's far worse than any other brand; General Motors, which isn't exactly a PR darling, boasts a 60 percent favorable view. The irony is that Musk's courting of the right has seemingly done little to win over new devotees to the Tesla brand, with nearly a third of Republicans — 30 percent — having an unfavorable opinion of the EV company, while Democrats stand at 66 percent. If his master plan was eventually getting both sides to hate him equally, then we'd say he's finally starting to do a bang-up job. More on Elon Musk: Elon's Explosion at Trump Appears to Have Cost Him a HUGE Deal
