Greenland Is Not the Critical Minerals Answer. Canada Is.

Greenland has increasingly been framed in public debate as a potential cornerstone of future critical minerals supply. Yet in a wide-ranging conversation with InvestorNews.com host Tracy Hughes, Jack Lifton, co chair of the Critical Minerals Institute (CMI) and one of the world’s most respected critical minerals experts, challenged that narrative directly. Lifton argued that claims surrounding Greenland’s mineral potential routinely blur a critical distinction between geological occurrence and economically recoverable reserves, leading to conclusions that are not supported by technical or financial reality.Asked whether Greenland holds large, untapped critical minerals reserves, Lifton was unequivocal. “I would say no,” he said, stressing that the term reserves has a precise technical meaning. “When you say reserves, you’re talking about things that we can economically and efficiently recover. I don’t think that that’s the case in Greenland.” The distinction, he noted, is frequently lost in media coverage, where the presence of minerals in the ground is often conflated with commercial viability.That misunderstanding carries geopolitical consequences. As Washington once again signals interest in Greenland as a strategic asset, Lifton warned that the United States risks misreading the broader competitive landscape, particularly with respect to Canada. With European governments openly prioritizing independence in critical minerals supply, he argued that Ottawa is positioning itself accordingly. “Canada’s vast resources of critical minerals are going to go to the highest and friendliest bidder,” Lifton said. “In my opinion, that’s going to be first of all the European Union and the UK, and second, some people in Asia that maybe the United States is not so friendly with.”The issue, in Lifton’s view, is not ambition but expertise. While some Americans admire Donald Trump’s aggressive negotiating style, Lifton questioned its applicability to natural resource development. “His expertise does not extend to natural resources,” he said. “The world of critical resources is a different world from building golf courses. And I don’t think it’s going to work out.” Natural resource supply chains, he emphasized, are capital intensive, slow to build, and resistant to political pressure.This same misunderstanding underpins the widely repeated claim that China “controls” the world’s rare earths. Lifton rejected that framing. “China as a nation seems to have about 40% of the known reserves,” he said. “That means that the rest of the world has 60%.” China’s dominance, he explained, lies not in geology but in execution. “They have the overwhelming majority of the downstream supply chain. That’s the problem.” The real chokepoints are not mines, but downstream processing.Viewed through that lens, Greenland’s appeal weakens further. Proposals to build advanced rare earth processing facilities there fail basic feasibility tests. “Not only does the infrastructure not exist,” Lifton said, “the people to manufacture the infrastructure don’t exist.” He estimated that developing comparable downstream capacity in Greenland could cost roughly ten times more than doing so in Quebec, which already hosts promising deposits alongside power, water, transport, and skilled labor.Timelines do little to improve the case. Suggestions that Greenland could become a rare earth producer within a decade ignore political and financial realities. “Ten years… means two and a half presidential administrations,” Lifton observed, citing shifting congressional priorities and policy instability. “How does that benefit anybody?” Private capital, he added, is the ultimate test. “If private equity that understands how to use money in the most profitable way is not jumping into this arena, it means this arena is dangerous.” Governments, by contrast, have a long record of absorbing losses.