Greenland’s mineral wealth overstated, credit rating agency says
Greenland’s reputation as a mineral treasure chest is “more myth than reality,” according to a new commentary from credit rating agency Morningstar DBRS, which argues that decades of talk about the island’s untapped riches have run far ahead of what has actually been found in the ground.
The commentary, published on 20 July, is the third in a four-part series examining Greenland’s economy against the backdrop of renewed U.S. interest in acquiring the territory. It makes the case that Greenland hosts almost no proven, economically viable deposits and that its strategic value to Washington rests on military and trade-route considerations rather than on metals and minerals.
“It is inaccurate to say that Greenland has a wealth of mineral deposits or oil and gas fields that are waiting to be mined, as the exploration work has simply never been completed to make this confirmation,” the authors wrote.
The report draws a distinction between geological potential, which Greenland has in abundance, and confirmed reserves, which it largely lacks. The island sits on rock sequences with the potential to host graphite, uranium, nickel, cobalt, zinc, lead, titanium, gold, lithium, copper and rare earth elements, several of which are central to the global energy transition. But potential is not the same as a working mine.
“As climate and weather changes expose more of the country landmass for the very first time, we may see increased exploration in the medium and longer term,” said Brian Szeto, Senior Vice President of Energy and Natural Resources Ratings at Morningstar DBRS. “However, this increased greenfield exploration has yet to begin and is typically a high-cost, low-reward endeavor.”
The commentary notes that Greenland currently has only two operating mines: the privately held White Mountain anorthosite operation and the Nalunaq gold mine in the south. It puts Nalunaq’s mine life at six years based on current resources, and warns the mine could close at the end of 2031 if further drilling fails to extend it.
That assessment is more cautious than the picture presented by Nalunaq’s operator. Amaroq Ltd., an Iceland-based company listed on Nasdaq Iceland, reported in July that underground drilling at the mine’s Main Vein returned grades averaging 42.8 grams of gold per tonne, results the company said reinforced confidence in its production profile and helped de-risk an exploration target of roughly two million ounces. Amaroq has guided to production of 25,000 to 35,000 ounces of gold in 2026.
The report points to a long history of exploration that failed to convert into production. Oil and gas companies have probed Greenland’s geology since the 1970s, the commentary notes, yet no commercially viable operation has emerged in more than five decades. The Isua iron ore project in the southwest was slated to begin production in 2015 but never did, undone by high capital costs, poor infrastructure and weak commodity prices. Its owner later went bankrupt and the government revoked the permit.
Permitting adds another barrier. Securing a mining licence in Greenland requires environmental baseline studies, social impact analysis, community consultations, heritage surveys and government approvals, a process that can take years and approval is not guaranteed even then.
The report cites the Kuannersuit rare earths project, also known as Kvanefjeld, as an example. The deposit is one of the largest undeveloped rare earth accumulations in the world, but it carries uranium as a byproduct. Greenland’s parliament banned uranium mining in 2021 and in June 2026 the Ministry of Mineral Resources rejected a bid by Australia’s Energy Transition Minerals to renew its exploration licence there.
The authors leave open the possibility that the calculus could change over the longer term, as retreating ice exposes more of the island to exploration for the first time. For now, they conclude, the excitement around Greenland’s resource endowment outpaces the evidence.
