inside sources print logo
Get up to date Delaware Valley news in your inbox

COHEN: Trump Means Business on Greenland

Rather than dismissing Donald Trump’s pre-inaugural musings about the importance of the United States acquiring Greenland as typical Trumpian bluster, people — friend and foe — should take the man seriously.  Changes are on their way in the Arctic North Atlantic.

Greenland — two and one-half the size of Texas — is strategic in terms of its location and its natural resources. It is coveted by China and Russia, and Trump is wise to recognize the geopolitical implications of allowing the giant island to fall into unfriendly hands.

A self-governing territory of Denmark, Greenland (population: 57,000) is pursuing complete independence.  The island cannot really stand on its own. It has been kept afloat by $600 million in annual Danish subsidies, a revenue stream that will disappear once ties are cut with Copenhagen. This is where Trump enters the picture.

In his wide-ranging Jan. 7 news conference, Trump said was an “absolute necessity” for the United States to take ownership of the island, even threatening Denmark with tariffs and hinting at military intervention if a deal cannot be reached. Denmark refuses to sell, and Greenland’s prime minister, Mute Egede, says, “We do not want to become American.”

However, U.S. investments in Greenland’s mining industry and closer bilateral security ties would be welcome, Egede emphasized.

The stakes are high. Greenland’s subsoil contains a variety of valuable minerals, rare earth metals, precious metals, and precious stones, including gold, silver, copper, lead, graphite, zinc, olivine, cryolite, and marble, according to Greenland’s Department of Environment and Mineral Resources. The island also abounds in lithium, cobalt and uranium, which, along with its rare earth elements, have a wide range of commercial and military applications.  The surrounding North Atlantic waters also have the potential for oil and natural gas development.

This treasure trove of natural resources between the Arctic and the Atlantic oceans now finds itself near center stage in the mounting geostrategic rivalry involving the United States, Russia and China. A change in Greenland’s status — from a Danish territory to some form of closer affiliation with the United States — will profoundly shake things up inside the Arctic Circle. With 15,000 miles of Arctic shoreline, Russia enjoys a formidable presence at the top of the world.

Commenting on Trump’s plans for Greenland, Vladimir Barbin, Russia’s ambassador to Denmark, said that “attempts to ensure U.S. national security at the expense of other nations may result in further deterioration of the situation in the Arctic, which Russia will take into account in its military planning.” 

China, which now calls itself “a near-Arctic” state, threatens to challenge Russia’s maritime regional dominance while simultaneously undermining the American position in the Arctic.  As a first, three Chinese icebreakers entered the Arctic via the Bering Straight last summer.

Beijing, the new kid on the Arctic block, has met with a cool reception. Its Polar Silk Road initiative launched in 2018 to enhance China’s presence in the region has fallen flat, with ambitious infrastructure and research projects in Finland scrapped by Helsinki after Beijing refused to condemn Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

Greenland has also rebuffed Chinese efforts to establish a mining presence on the island. China already dominates the mining, refining and processing of global metals. Penetrating Greenland’s riches would only strengthen its position to the detriment of Greenland’s only serious protector, the United States.

The rapidly shifting crosscurrents of 21st-century geopolitics support Trump’s interest in Greenland.

“If you want to be a powerful space-faring nation and be able to project space power in terms of offensive and defensive space weapons systems and other sorts of (intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance), you have to have infrastructure in the Arctic Circle — not to mention the Antarctic Circle — to seamlessly communicate and control all of your satellites,” Jahara Matisek, a professor at the U.S. Naval War College, recently told Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty. 

As for projecting space power from the Arctic, Thule Air Base in northern Greenland (opened by the United States in 1952) was renamed Pituffik Space Base in 2023 and is now part of the U.S. Space Force. To the remote installation’s southeast lies the strategically important Greenland-Iceland-United Kingdom (GIUK) gap, which provides access by sea to the Arctic. Monitoring the GIUK gap, safeguarding Greenland’s natural resources, and protecting U.S. military/space installations in Greenland is something that only an enhanced U.S. presence on the island can guarantee.

Interest in Greenland is nothing new. Secretary of State William Seward wanted to buy it from Denmark in 1867 (he had to settle for purchasing Alaska from czarist Russia); President Harry Truman offered Denmark $100 million ($1.6 billion in today’s money) in 1946. Trump raised the idea in his first term.

Today, the only question is what form the acquisition should take. Statehood is problematic given Greenland’s tiny population. More appealing to Trump and the Greenlanders may be the “Freely Associated State” status as has been granted to the Marshall Islands, Micronesia and Palus in the Pacific Ocean, where the United States has a military presence in exchange for financial assistance.  Another option is for Greenland to become a U.S. territory like Guam. 

Trump is the author of “The Art of the Deal.”  Negotiations are not far off. 

ALTHAUS: U.S. Must Build an Independent Critical Minerals Supply Chain

The United States relies on China for the critical minerals essential for semiconductors and chips, posing a severe strategic and economic risk. China controls 70 percent of the global critical minerals supply chain and 85 percent of processing capabilities, leaving U.S. industries unable to compete in the cost and availability of raw minerals.

We must act urgently to ensure we don’t lose our edge in global technology and economic leadership and mitigate the national security vulnerabilities that our dependence exposes.

In December, China retaliated against a U.S. crackdown on its semiconductor industry by banning exports of gallium, germanium and antimony to the United States, the three critical minerals required to manufacture semiconductors. With trade hostilities likely to continue escalating, establishing a robust domestic supply chain is paramount to our ability to compete.

In his first term, President Trump issued an executive order to ensure secure supplies, published a Critical Minerals List, streamlined permitting processes, and invoked the Defense Production Act. Trump has signaled he will further address our dependence by promoting the extraction and processing of critical minerals domestically (and with mineral-rich allied countries). The administration must keep this momentum going to keep America competitive in these vital industries.

First, the United States must incentivize domestic exploration. While major companies’ large mining projects ensure some production, a “bottom-up” approach focused on early stage exploration by junior mining companies will ensure a long-term supply of domestically mined minerals. Funding for such high-risk exploration programs has become difficult to obtain from traditional mining investors and those seeking exposure to critical minerals, so the administration must seek ways to unlock widespread investment. Adopting measures similar to Canada’s flow-through shares system, which provides tax incentives to investors, would attract investment, accelerate discoveries and unlock untapped resources.

Trump should continue streamlining the permitting process as domestic permitting delays can stretch years, erecting another barrier to new critical mineral projects and to investor sentiment.

We must also strengthen our alliances with international partners while expanding our global partnerships in emerging markets. Australia’s recent “no-China” clause, backed by a $400 million Australian government investment in a rare earth refinery, exemplifies how allied nations can bolster secure supply chains. The United States should pursue similar initiatives, encouraging allies to restrict sales to China in return for government incentives.

We should also diversify partnerships with resource-rich nations. Initiatives like the critical minerals dialogue with central Asian countries like Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan provide a good start. Africa also has vast reserves, but with China’s almost unimpeded access to the continent’s minerals, the United States must insert itself as an alternative. Speaking with African leaders, they seek diversification, which has left them indebted to China.

China has dominated the critical minerals markets partly because of its subsidized production and strategic price manipulation. By flooding the markets with cheap minerals, China undercuts competitors, discourages new entrants, and establishes the dependency we now find difficult to abandon. China often raises prices or restricts supply to gain geopolitical leverage.

To counter China’s price manipulation, the United States should lead the creation of a global critical minerals task force involving countries that are producers and users. This would coordinate international efforts to ensure fair pricing mechanisms, transparent trade practices, and diversified resource investments. We must also consider leveling the playing field through strict export controls on U.S.-processed minerals, prioritizing domestic needs before international sales while imposing penalties on unfairly subsidized Chinese-processed minerals.

Until the United States becomes a domestic producer, we must become a leader in mineral processing, which requires investments in domestic processing infrastructure. We can address our lagging capabilities by modernizing existing facilities, building processing hubs, offering tax incentives and grants to attract private investment, expanding federal R&D funding to develop efficient and sustainable processing technologies, promoting recycling and circular economy initiatives to recover critical minerals from e-waste, and establishing a National Critical Minerals Processing Innovation Center to drive technological advancements and workforce training.

Finally, Trump should appoint a high-level “critical minerals czar” to harmonize initiatives across federal agencies, develop long-term strategies, coordinate with allies and industry leaders, and ensure consistent progress toward achieving critical mineral independence.

This issue will continue to be among the most critical ones our nation faces. If we are to compete — and win — we must recognize the urgency and take strong, decisive action to address it. Our leadership on the global stage and national security alike depend on it.

Forget ‘Made in China.’ America’s Tech Challenge Is ‘Mined in China’

The United States is falling way behind in the global minerals race and the big loser could be the green energy sector, which is heavily reliant on minerals to power energy sources like wind and solar.

The U.S. Geological Survey’s annual Mineral Commodity Summaries report warns America is entirely reliant on foreign sources for more than half the critical minerals needed for its modern economy. That includes both green energy technologies of the near future, plus the batteries required to power laptops, cell phones, and other everyday items integral to everyday life.

And while the U.S. has agreements with friendly nations for these imports, China remains America’s top supplier — the nation that just sent a spy balloon through the skies over some of the nation’s top security areas.

“We have never been more dependent on China and others for the minerals that are absolutely essential to modern life,” said Katie Sweeney, executive vice president and chief operating officer of the National Mining Association. “The U.S. is stumbling when it comes to our supply chains. With each new announcement of a blocked mine or a foreign sourcing agreement with countries that have questionable labor practices, we are locking in our position of competitive weakness.”

Last year, the U.S. was 100 percent reliant on net imports for 51 nonfuel mineral commodities according to the Geological Survey. The report estimated the value of domestic metal mine production in 2022 was $34.7 billion, which was 6 percent lower than the revised value from 2021. The country’s capacity utilization for the metals mining industry dropped two percentage points from 2021 to 63 percent capacity last year.

The issue is not that the U.S. does not have the capability or resources to produce many of these minerals. The problem, according to mining advocates, is mine permitting takes an average of seven to 10 years.

“It takes forever to get a new permit. How crazy is that?” Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm said last March at the CERAWeek energy conference. Her comments that she would streamline permitting for sources of minerals needed for electric vehicles “elicit[ed] loud applause,” Reuters reported at the time.

But while comments from Granholm and Jigar Shah, head of the Department of Energy’s Loan Program Office sounded encouraging, the Biden administration remains reluctant to approve new mining projects. Just this month, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency denied permits for Pebble Mine in Alaska – a significant source of copper and gold – to protect salmon habitat.

The project would have mined up to 73 million tons of minerals per year, and Pebble Limited Partnership John Shively said the EPA’s action was “unlawful” and promised litigation over the denial.

Ian Lange, a faculty fellow at the Payne Institute for Public Policy at the Colorado School of Mines, bluntly assessed domestic production of minerals as “crappy.” Despite widespread acknowledgment among advocates of green energy that the U.S. cannot reach aggressive climate goals without critical minerals, Lange said many are more comfortable with outsourcing mining so they don’t have to see it happening – an advanced NIMBY-ism.

“The people who are supportive of clean energy but don’t want mining in the U.S. call it ‘friend-shoring’ where it’s sourced out to countries like Canada and Australia that do have environmental safeguards and labor standards,” he said.

The average time for permits in both of those countries is two to three years, according to the National Mining Association. But regardless of the good relationship the U.S. enjoys with those countries, China far surpasses them in production.

China is the largest processor of copper, nickel, cobalt, lithium, and rare earth minerals – all needed to power rechargeable batteries and other components of green technology, the association said. China is also planning 107 lithium-ion battery mega factories compared to nine in the U.S.; according to the mining association, that is the equivalent of China building one factory per week while the U.S. builds one every four months.

Increasing domestic production would meet two goals for the disparate groups that support mining and oppose it on environmental grounds: increasing economic development here at home.

“Both parties are interested in the same story of economic growth in the U.S.,” Lange said. “Low-income populations would a chance to expand [opportunities] because that’s where mineral deposits tend to be. But we’re missing out on the jobs and economic development that might come from developing a mine and supporting infrastructure.”

North Carolina has significant lithium deposits, and Idaho features large deposits of copper. In Minnesota, Twin Metals, which could produce approximately 30 million pounds of cobalt, and PolyMet, which could yield as much as 170 million pounds of nickel, are both stalled in the permitting process, the mining association said. And neither Resolution Copper in Arizona – a potential source of 25 percent of U.S. copper – nor Lithium Americas Thacker Pass in Nevada – the largest lithium deposit in the country – show signs of progress.

And then there’s the story from Maine, where the world’s richest hard rock lithium deposit was recently discovered, but state law forbids the mining procedures needed to extract it. Thanks to anti-mining laws, the $1.5 billion find may have to remain in the ground, and not in U.S. manufactured technology.

“We have tons of these minerals,” Lange said. “We have more than we’ll ever need but nobody likes a mine in their backyard.”

Please follow DVJournal on social media: Twitter@DVJournal or Facebook.com/DelawareValleyJournal

ERVIN: Absence of Secure Mineral Supply Chain Poses Threat to U.S. Manufacturers

Now is the time to ask: How important is the mining of minerals and metals in the United States to the advancement of clean energy technologies? As demand for clean energy metals soars, and as global supply chain challenges only grow more pronounced, the answer is exceedingly clear. Building a domestic mineral supply chain is foundational to the energy transition and electric vehicle revolution.

Geopolitical considerations are an important dimension of the need for U.S. mobilization in the minerals and metals space. U.S. mineral import reliance is at alarming levels and China is now the dominant producer of half of the more than 30 minerals the U.S. government has deemed critical to our economic and national security. Overreliance on a geopolitical rival for fuel or critical materials is not a place we want to be—just ask the E.U. as it deals with Russian dominance of the European gas market. But even putting aside grave geopolitical considerations, soaring commodity prices, and the threat they pose to clean energy deployment are reasons enough for the U.S. to fully engage in mineral supply chains.

Consider what is happening with the metals used for lithium-ion batteries, the enabling technology for EVs. Lithium prices jumped a staggering 437 percent in 2021 and they continue to rise this year. New battery manufacturing capacity is coming online far faster than miners can open new mines and bring production to market. The result is a tear in the lithium market that is showing no signs of slowing down.

What’s happening with lithium – while extreme – is precisely what could happen with so many other metals essential to the energy transition. From copper and nickel to rare earth minerals there’s well-founded concern the world is financing far greater demand for these minerals and metals than their supply. New mining projects are not coming online at nearly the volume or speed needed to keep up with the accelerating pivot to green energy.

The International Energy Agency (IEA) predicted in a landmark study last year that demand for some key metals, like lithium, could grow 40-fold by 2040. The mining industry is woefully ill-suited to keep up with that kind of demand. Mining projects are notoriously complex and time-intensive. While a new battery mega factory that can crank out batteries for millions of new EVs can be built and begin operation in just two years, the mines needed to supply it take far, far longer. In fact, from inception to completion, major new mining projects in the U.S. take 17 years on average to bring to market.

The machines of the green revolution have an acute materials problem and as we’ve seen, supply challenges can upend economies. This past year car dealerships were left empty when chip shortages deeply constrained new car production. The same kind of scenario could be coming for solar panels, wind turbines, and EVs as the materials needed for their production simply don’t materialize at scale.

The American manufacturing renaissance the Biden administration envisions led by the auto sector is being built upon a supply chain that for all intents and purposes doesn’t exist. That Made-in-America parade isn’t going to march unless there’s a swift and decisive commitment to mined-in-America.

Counting on global materials production to meet demand is a recipe for failure. As the IEA implored, mineral-producing nations must lean into the challenge. And despite our growing import reliance, the U.S. is rich in mineral resources. From lithium to nickel, copper, rare earths, and even cobalt, the U.S. has vast reserves. What we need is the policy commitment to ensure we can produce them and do so quickly. The U.S. has world-leading mining environmental and labor standards, what we must do is ensure we use those standards to encourage responsible production, not block it.

The world cannot afford for the U.S. to only be a materials consumer during the energy transition. We must also become a leading producer. Instead of depending on, or hoping for, imports from foreign-trade adversaries like China, we must help produce the materials that are the building blocks for the emissions-free technologies needed to win the climate fight. American manufacturing policy and energy policy should rest on the shoulders of American mining policy.

Follow us on social media: Twitter: @DV_Journal or Facebook.com/DelawareValleyJournal