logo
Rare earths hopeful in eye of Greenland political storm

Rare earths hopeful in eye of Greenland political storm

Yahoo15-02-2025
An Australian mining company with a stalled rare earths project in Greenland warns the territory risks damaging its reputation with foreign investors the longer a legal dispute drags on.
Greenlanders go to the polls on March 11 in a web of geopolitical tensions, including a Western desire to break China's rare earths monopoly and new US tariffs on several nations and imports of steel and aluminium.
The autonomous Danish territory of 57,000 people was thrust into the international spotlight in January after US President Donald Trump reiterated his desire to take control of the mineral-rich island.
Greenland responded to Trump: "We are open for business, but we're not for sale".
But Australian miner Energy Transition Minerals disputes that business-friendly claim, saying: "At the moment there is a closed door."
Since 2007 the company has sought to develop the Kvanefjeld mine project in southern Greenland, one of the world's largest rare earth mineral deposits that also has uranium in the mix.
The Perth junior miner has accused the present Greenland government of "moving the goalposts" and effectively halting the project after the 2021 election, by passing a law banning the mining of uranium - including as a by-product.
"Open for business means something different, it means being able to find compromise. It means being able to find solutions together," Energy Transition Minerals managing director Daniel Mamadou told AAP.
"After significant investment ... we are now being told to simply pack up and go. That is not acceptable."
Mr Mamadou characterised the moratorium as "uniquely designed to stop our project" with a retroactive impact, adding this behaviour "essentially damages investor confidence".
Venture capitalists are funding the company's legal case that is now before a tribunal in Copenhagen and Greenland courts.
Mr Mamadou recently travelled to Greenland on an attempted charm offensive, saying he wants to start a "new dialogue" and seek a negotiated outcome.
The trip coincided with Greenland entering its election campaign, however, and politicians gave the company a wide berth.
In the capital Nuuk, the Australian miners received a warm reception from Greenland's business community that has long spruiked the territory as a mining investment destination, including at promotional days in Perth.
Greenland Business Association director Christian Keldsen said the Australian company's legal case was frequently brought up by foreign companies whenever he did promotional talks.
"(From the association's perspective) we are concerned about the loss of potential jobs and possibilities from any mining project that doesn't go forward," Mr Keldsen told AAP.
"What we are working for is to be a reliable jurisdiction where the framework and the conditions aren't changed somewhere in the process."
Despite the prospect of creating about 300 jobs for Greenlanders, the project is deeply unpopular in Narsaq, a town of 1500 people located about eight kilometres from the proposed mine.
Sub-zero temperatures and about a dozen Narsaq protesters greeted the Australian mining executives' helicopter.
Many worry about the environmental impact of radioactive dust from the proposed open pit mine, as well as the potential leakage of radioactive tailings.
The region is considered Greenland's breadbasket and farmers are grazing some 20,000 sheep.
There are fears for food production, human health and potential water contamination affecting fish and whales in the fjord, says anti-uranium campaigner Niels Henrik Hooge from the Danish environmental organisation Noah.
Mr Mamadou insists the environmental impact assessment and project design are world class and the company would guarantee Narsaq residents' safety.
But mine opponent Mariane Paviasen Jensen, a government MP from Narsaq, said such assurances fell flat and the timing of the visit was inappropriate.
"I do believe that they are trying to interfere with our (upcoming) election," she told AAP.
The mine threatens the survival of the town, Ms Jensen said.
"It is not an option because if they get (permission) to dig, it will mean the end of Narsaq," she said.
Any potential displacement of Narsaq residents would feed into the trauma of Greenland's difficult colonial past with Denmark.
Some Greenlanders were forced to move from a settlement in the 1950s to make way for an expanded US Thule Air Base.
Sensitivities about uranium also run deep - the US secretly built another military base deep within Greenland's ice sheet, where it planned to potentially launch nuclear missiles at the Soviet Union if war broke out.
In 1968, a US bomber carrying four nuclear bombs crashed in northwest Greenland contaminating a fjord.
As Greenland's politicians hit the hustings, political campaigning centres on a growing push for independence, perhaps supercharged by Trump's interest.
But financial dependence on Denmark and a tiny economy heavily reliant on fishing remain sticking points to achieving that dream.
While the left-wing Inuit Ataqatigiit Party narrowly came to power on an anti-mine stance in 2021, the Kvanefjeld mine has support from the centre-left Siumut Party.
Whoever forms the next Greenlandic government will have to deal with mounting legal bills as the dispute with the Australian miner rolls on.
But Greenland observers are reluctant to say the mining project is dead in the water.
"The project never dies in the sense that the deposit is there. The uranium and the rare earth minerals are in the ground until someone digs them up. In that sense it could be resurrected any day," Danish Institute of International Studies senior researcher Ulrik Pram Gad said.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

10-year Treasury yield climbs ahead of key services data
10-year Treasury yield climbs ahead of key services data

CNBC

timea few seconds ago

  • CNBC

10-year Treasury yield climbs ahead of key services data

The 10-year Treasury yield inched higher as investors assessed developments related to U.S. President Donald Trump's tariff rates and looked toward data on July's services sector activity, slated for release later in the day. The benchmark 10-year note yield was over one basis point higher at 4.21% as of 4.15 a.m. ET, while the 30-year bond was less than one basis point higher at 4.801%. The 2-year Treasury note yield also climbed over 2 basis points to 3.702%. One basis point is equal to 0.01% and yields and prices move in opposite directions. The U.S. is expected to release the ISM non-manufacturing purchasing managers' index. Analysts polled by Reuters see the figure coming in at 51.5, up from 50.8 the previous month. Trump on Monday threatened to "substantially" increase tariffs on Indian goods, though he did not specify by how much. Last week, he floated a 25% levy and an additional "penalty" if India continues buying Russian oil. India pushed back against criticism from the U.S. and European Union over its purchases of Russian oil, saying it was being "targeted" unfairly after Trump warned of sharply higher tariffs. In a statement issued late Monday, India's Foreign Ministry said it only began buying oil from Russia after "traditional supplies" were redirected to Europe in the wake of the 2022 Russia-Ukraine war. "It is revealing that the very nations criticizing India are themselves indulging in trade with Russia. Unlike our case, such trade is not even a vital national compulsion [for them]," the ministry added, taking aim at the EU and U.S.

U.K., France Recognize Palestinian State—Will it Matter? Newsweek Writers Debate
U.K., France Recognize Palestinian State—Will it Matter? Newsweek Writers Debate

Newsweek

timea few seconds ago

  • Newsweek

U.K., France Recognize Palestinian State—Will it Matter? Newsweek Writers Debate

This week, Israeli President Benjamin Netanyahu said the Israel Defense Force would occupy the Gaza Strip, following announcements by France, Canada, and the United Kingdom that they would recognize Palestine as a state. Will recognition of Palestine make a difference? What would it take to achieve peace in Gaza? Newsweek contributors Dan Perry and Daniel R. DePetris debate: Dan Perry: France, the U.K., and others may mean well by considering recognition of Palestine, but doing so now would backfire badly by sending the message that terrorism works—that the October 7 massacre by Hamas has brought Palestinians closer to their goal. At a moment when Arab states are finally calling on Hamas to disarm, Western recognition would embolden extremists and further alienate Israelis. What is essential now is the removal of Hamas as a military force from the Palestinian arena. Only then—and only under moderate, unified leadership—should the West actively support a demilitarized Palestinian state. Daniel R. DePetris: The decision by the U.K. and France to recognize an independent Palestinian state is unlikely to have any effect on the situation whatsoever. This was the definition of a symbolic move, in large part due to frustration over Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's stewardship of the war in Gaza as well as the horrible images depicting starvation that are streaming out of the enclave. The facts on the ground are such that a two-state solution—a U.S. policy objective for decades across Republican and Democratic administrations—is at best on life support and at worst already dead. The U.K. and French bids won't change this. Only the decisions of Israel and the Palestinians will. Perry: You're right that only those parties can make peace. But recognizing Palestine now would give Hamas a massive political lifeline with the Palestinian public despite its military thrashing by Israel. It signals that violence, even a global-historic massacre like October 7, yields previously unachievable diplomatic results. Without Hamas' removal, Israel won't move an inch. That's why this gesture risks sabotaging the outcome it seeks, and at the very least will need to be messaged very carefully. DePetris: Hamas was becoming more rigid in its negotiating stance before unilateral recognition of a Palestinian state became a mainstream policy in European capitals. I'm not so sure this latest move gives Hamas anything more than a short-term propaganda boost that will inevitably die out as the war continues. Right now, Palestinians in Gaza are focused on surviving, not on state-building—and Israel, particularly under Netanyahu's government, is unlikely to move an inch on statehood regardless of the circumstances. Perry: Sure, this Israeli government is as obstinate as they come. One good thing that may come of recognition is to further Netanyahu's unpopularity in Israel. But the main objective is Hamas disarming and leaving power. Perhaps Arab countries, having won this recognition for their brothers, might take further real steps to bring that about. They'll need to make sure the thing I fear—the strengthening of Hamas—does not happen. Newsweek Illustration/Getty DePetris: Of course, Hamas should disarm. But there are a lot of things that should happen, but don't, for any number of reasons. Despite the beating Hamas has taken over the last 22 months, it still remains obstinate, in large part because it sees disarming as akin to surrendering. A similar dynamic is occurring with respect to Hezbollah in Lebanon, yet another anti-Israel militia that ties demilitarization to tangible (and enforceable) Israeli concessions like a full withdrawal. Would Hamas leave its weapons behind if Israel withdraws from Gaza and permanently ends the war? Perhaps. But don't count on it. Netanyahu is more interested in annexing Gaza, pushing an already remote scenario further into the distance. Perry: What needs to happen is an end to the war with reconstruction (as opposed to humanitarian) aid completely conditional on Hamas disarming and leaving, with the people allowed to exit as refugees if Hamas refuses. That would create huge pressure on Hamas, and possibly spark infighting as well. For any of this to work, recognition of a Palestinian state must not be credited to Hamas—that's the huge risk. The Hezbollah case is simply about Lebanon reasserting its sovereignty, which it has finally started to try to do, and here too massive Arab and Western support will be needed. DePetris: You're essentially describing the Israeli position: ending the war in exchange for Hamas disarming and leaving the enclave. If that were realistically possible, it would have been done already. But it isn't realistically possible; to Hamas, disarmament means surrender, and surrender means not having a place at the negotiating table. Netanyahu still believes he can accomplish this objective through military means by squeezing Gaza until Hamas throws up its hands. This is a losing strategy. It has been tried before and it jeopardizes the lives of the remaining hostages. Netanyahu can have the hostages or a full victory; not both. Perry: My dear fellow Dan, disarming Hamas may be spun as a victory for Netanyahu, but mainly it would be a favor to the Palestinians. This diabolical, maximalist group oppresses Gazans and its existence ensures the Palestinians will not have a state. Israel will not budge as long as they're around. There will be no Palestinian state before Hamas disarms, and I actually think both, in one form or another, will happen. I realize you think the two-state solution is no longer realistic—and if you're right, Israelis and Palestinians are doomed to be at war. I'm more optimistic than that, and from familiarity with the terrain I know it remains possible. But just barely. Let's hope the well-meaning "recognizers" don't hinder it. DePetris: I'm going to rain on everybody's parade: the situation in Gaza, and the Israeli-Palestinian dispute more broadly, is as depressing today as it was before the U.K. and France made their dramatic announcements about unilateral Palestinian statehood. Everybody claims they want the war to end, yet when push comes to shove, the United States does next to nothing to move it toward a conclusion. If Donald Trump is serious about seeing the fighting stop, he's going to have to get tough with Netanyahu by leveraging the U.S.' considerable military assistance. Otherwise, his entreaties are just words that mean nothing and risk drawing the United States deeper into a moral conflagration that doesn't serve its interests. I suspect Trump will take the path of least resistance, in which case we can expect the war to continue and the two-state paradigm to be buried even deeper. Dan Perry is the former Cairo-based Middle East editor (also leading coverage from Iran) and London-based Europe/Africa editor of the Associated Press, the former chairman of the Foreign Press Association in Jerusalem, and the author of two books. Follow him at Daniel R. DePetris is a fellow at Defense Priorities and a syndicated foreign affairs columnist at the Chicago Tribune. The views expressed in this article are the writers' own.

Russia's Richest Billionaires Are Getting Wealthier Fast
Russia's Richest Billionaires Are Getting Wealthier Fast

Newsweek

timea few seconds ago

  • Newsweek

Russia's Richest Billionaires Are Getting Wealthier Fast

Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Russia's richest individuals added more than $20 billion to their collective fortunes over the last year, with several sanctioned oligarchs—including Russia's wealthiest billionaire, Vladimir Potanin (net worth $30.6 billion)—leading the gains, according to Bloomberg's Billionaire Index. Why It Matters The rapid increase in wealth among Russia's billionaires is significant in the context of ongoing Western sanctions aimed at denting the country's economic power. Sanctions were imposed on dozens of Russian business figures following the 2022 invasion of Ukraine, a move intended to curb President Vladimir Putin's influence and dissuade Moscow's aggression. Photo-illustration by Newsweek/Getty/AP Newsroom However, data indicates these measures have not prevented Russia's ultra-rich from growing even richer, raising questions about the effectiveness of the sanctions regime. This trend is unfolding as the Kremlin touts economic resilience, and some tycoons are regaining assets amid an exodus of Western corporations from Russia. But Russia may face more sanctions soon, after President Donald Trump promised "severe" secondary tariffs on the country if Putin does not agree to a ceasefire in Ukraine. What To Know Russia's richest individuals tracked by the Bloomberg Billionaires Index have seen the following increases to their wealth in the year leading up to August 4: Pavel Durov — $3.27 billion — $3.27 billion Alisher Usmanov — $3.23 billion — $3.23 billion Viktor Vekselberg — $3.12 billion — $3.12 billion Suleiman Kerimov — $2.75 billion — $2.75 billion Vladimir Potanin — $2.74 billion — $2.74 billion Alexey Mordashov — $1.89 billion — $1.89 billion Victor Rashnikov — $1.57 billion — $1.57 billion Leonid Mikhelson — $1.38 billion — $1.38 billion Andrey Guryev — $1.30 billion — $1.30 billion Leonid Fedun — $1.25 billion — $1.25 billion Vagit Alekperov — $939 million — $939 million Roman Abramovich — $939 million — $939 million Gennady Timchenko — $835 million — $835 million Mikhail Prokhorov — $528 million — $528 million German Khan — $507 million — $507 million Alexander Abramov — $292 million — $292 million Andrey Melnichenko — $148 million The latest wealth increases have occurred in spite of international sanctions imposed since 2022. Key Russian billionaires, such as Potanin, Vagit Alekperov, and Alisher Usmanov, have seen new bans or asset freezes but continued to see their fortunes rise, largely because of sustained high global commodity prices and Russia's relative insulation from some foreign investment shifts. The main wealth drivers for Russia's billionaires remain the metal, mining, oil, gas, and chemical sectors. Individuals such as Potanin (Norilsk Nickel), Alekperov (Lukoil), and Leonid Mikhelson (Novatek) derive most of their net worth from these extractive and export-centric industries. Russia has made a total of 847 billion euros in fossil fuel revenue since the war in Ukraine began. Russian President Vladimir Putin is seen at the Kremlin in Moscow on August 4, 2025. Russian President Vladimir Putin is seen at the Kremlin in Moscow on August 4, 2025. AP What People Are Saying Kyle Haynes, an assistant professor at Purdue University's Department of Political Science said of Russia's fossil fuel revenue: "Sanctioned states always try to find workarounds using intermediaries, shell companies, smuggling, etc." President Donald Trump said last week of peace efforts in Ukraine: "We thought we had that settled numerous times, and then President Putin goes out and starts launching rockets into some city, like Kyiv, and kills a lot of people in a nursing home or whatever, you have bodies lying all over the street." He added: "I'm disappointed in President Putin. Very disappointed in him. So, we're going to have to look, and I'm going to reduce that 50 days that I gave him to a lesser number because I think I already know the answer [to] what's going to happen." What Happens Next The sustained growth of Russian billionaires' fortunes is seen as a challenge for Western policymakers seeking to use sanctions to limit Russian economic power. Analysts and observers expect continued scrutiny of both the sources of this wealth and the ability of international sanctions to restrict it.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store