Highlights

• Radomir Pachytel's geological report reveals Greenland's extensive critical mineral reserves.
• Potential to reduce EU's dependence on foreign raw material suppliers.
• Greenland contains 25 out of 34 EU-designated critical minerals.
• Promising projects in:
  • Graphite
  • Rare earths
  • Molybdenum
  • Platinum group metals
• Significant geological potential, but:
  • Geopolitical challengesEnvironmental challengesInfrastructural challenges
  Currently, limit Greenland's immediate mineral extraction capabilities.

---

A sweeping geological report authored by Radomir Pachytel (opens in a new tab) of the Polish Geological Institute–National Research Institute (opens in a new tab) delivers a tantalizing thesis: Greenland possesses the mineral endowment to significantly offset the European Union’s dependence on foreign critical raw materials (CRMs)—including graphite, rare earth elements (REEs), molybdenum, niobium, tantalum, and platinum group metals (PGMs).

Published in the Polish scientific journal Przegląd Geologiczny (opens in a new tab) (Vol. 73, No. 3, 2025), the article presents a meticulously sourced, geologically rigorous, yet geopolitically limited assessment of Greenland’s mineral potential.

Pachytel's report arrives at a pivotal moment. The EU, grappling with soaring CRM demand driven by its green and digital transitions, remains alarmingly dependent on China for REEs (100% of heavy REE imports) and the U.S. for molybdenum. The report argues Greenland’s mineral endowment could change this dynamic, citing 25 out of 34 EU-designated CRMs present in Greenland, many with medium-to-high development potential.

So, What are the Author’s Key Findings?

Greenland is emerging as a geostrategic reservoir of critical minerals that could reshape Europe's raw materials security. The Amitsoq graphite project (opens in a new tab), led by London-based GreenRoc Strategic Materials, (opens in a new tab) boasts ore with over 20% carbon content—more than double the global average—with production targeted for 2028. In the realm of rare earths, the Kringlerne and Kvanefjeld deposits contain multibillion-tonne eudialyte-rich bodies potentially capable of meeting much of the EU’s demand. However, Kvanefjeld remains legally stalled due to uranium co-mining restrictions.

Meanwhile, the Malmbjerg molybdenum project (opens in a new tab), licensed to Toronto-based Greenland Resources (opens in a new tab), could supply up to 30% of EU consumption by 2029.

Greenland’s zirconium and hafnium resources are equally significant—an estimated 57.1 million tonnes of zirconium and over 100,000 tonnes of hafnium, possibly the world’s largest reserve. The niobium- and tantalum-rich Sarfartoq and Motzfeldt complexes offer diversification away from volatile African sources. Exploratory work at the Skaergaard intrusion also indicates promising reserves of platinum and palladium. While titanium, vanadium, and antimony deposits are present, they remain longer-term prospects, facing high CAPEX and harsh logistical constraints.

Strategic Proximity Meets Harsh Reality

The author, Radomir Pachytel, effectively highlights Greenland’s strategic advantages for European supply chains—its proximity to the EU, its legal and institutional alignment via the Danish Realm, and its streamlined one-door permitting system. These features do offer a comparative edge over unstable or distant suppliers. However, Pachytel’s analysis omits or glosses over three critical challenges undermining Greenland’s immediate viability as a central critical mineral hub.

First, the report sidesteps geopolitical volatility, notably ignoring the more profound implications of President Trump’s 2025 claim that the U.S. should control Greenland. While diplomatically dismissed, such rhetoric underscores the island’s uncertain geopolitical trajectory as it moves toward complete independence from Denmark. Second, the report soft-pedals uranium-related opposition, failing to engage with Greenland’s domestic uranium ban or the broader societal skepticism toward large-scale mining, factors that currently freeze projects like Kvanefjeld.

Third, it understates logistical and financial barriers: most deposits lie in remote, icy terrain with minimal infrastructure, no domestic processing capacity, and high-risk profiles. No major mining company has made a full-scale commitment—despite years of geological mapping—which raises serious doubts about Greenland’s near-term capacity to meet EU demand. The details of execution matter, suggesting Rare Earth Exchanges (REEx).

What the Report Overlooks

Pachytel's thorough geological mapping analysis falls short in economic, legal, and geopolitical diagnostics. For example:

• No cost-benefit comparison is provided to assess whether EU financing mechanisms (e.g., European Investment Bank or Global Gateway) can realistically bridge the infrastructure gap.
• No estimate is given of how long permitting, mine construction, and downstream processing would take under real-world political conditions.
• The massive environmental tradeoffs, including protected areas and indigenous land use, are acknowledged but not explored in depth.

Final Thoughts

The Pachytel report powerfully argues Greenland’s geological relevance in the global CRM map. However, it is a technical foundation, not an operational roadmap. If EU policymakers, investors, and Greenland’s autonomous government cannot align legally, financially, and socially, then even world-class deposits will remain frozen—literally and politically.

The potential is undeniable. But in a world defined by power, protest, and planetary limits, the value of a deposit is only as good as the will to mine it. Execution matters, and investors should be mindful of that mantra.

Greenland Minerals