Kalaallit Nunaat wants none of it

President Trump has an uncanny ability to expose and exploit the vulnerablity of others, a trait that is in full rein now that he is back in office. No need to rehearse here all the potential weaknesses in the US Constitution that he has already threatened in an unprecedented blitz of executive orders rolling back the power of federal government.

In this context President Trump’s musings about buying Greenland are entirely in character. Not for the first time he has touched on the increasingly fragile relationship between Denmark and Greenland (population 56,000) where calls for total independence are ever present. Currently Greenland (known as Kalaallit Nunaat to its indigenous Inuit people who make up 88% of the population) is, like the Faroe Islands, an autonomous territory of Denmark.

Trump’s timing is perfect because on 11 March Greenlanders go to the polls with independence again an issue. Prime Minster Múte B. Egede, leader of the pro-independence party Inuit Ataqatigiit, heads a coalition government and has made clear that Trump’s overtures are unwelcome stating ‘We do not want to be Danes. We do not want to be Americans’. Meantime Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederikse called Trump to tell him Greenland was not for sale.

Egede has suggested that a post-election referendum on full independence could be on the cards. This might seem reckless because a successful outcome could have major consequences. The Danish government’s position is that the wish of Greenlanders would be respected. The kicker is that Denmark’s block financial grant would be in jeopardy. This is a big deal. Half of the self-rule government’s revenue comes from Danish subsidy in an economy where over 40% of the workforce are employed by administration, and is basically dependent on its fish export industry, tourism and some mining. A 2019 poll showed that 67.8% of Greenlanders support independence from Denmark sometime in the next two decades, but in an apparent recognition of the economic repercussions, a 2017 poll showed that 78% would oppose independence if it implied a lower standard of living.

So we have it, Trump feeling out the weaknesses of an object of prey. He has even suggested that Denmark may not be the legitimate ruler of Greenland. This is a stretch but a good windup given the many sagas of nordic history over the centuries. It seems early Norse settlements including Eric the Red, who named the country, died out sometime in the early 14^th Century during the so called Little Ice Age, leaving only local inuit inhabitants. Their ancestory is said to date back to the Thule people who arrived in Greenland between 1000 and 1300 A.D. A Lutheran missionary/evangelist Hans Egede in the early 18^th century helped the Dano-Norwegian government of the time claim Greenland as a colony. Things unravelled when the Denmark-Norway union was dissolved by the Treaty of Kiel in 1814 with Denmark assuming Greenland as part of its monarchy and keeping the land mass and its trade very much to itself. Norway continued to claim territorial rights until an international arbitration in 1931 went Denmark’s way.

Largely unnoticed in the Trump-generated furore is that the US first showed interest in Greenland around the time Secretary of State William Steward in 1868 negotiated the purchase of Alaska from Russia for $7.2 million. This expansionism was soon being mocked as ‘Steward’s folly’, so his enthusiam to also buy Greenland got the shoulder. However he presciently reported the bountiful natural resources especially coal, whale blubber and cryolite that could enable the US to ‘command the commerce of the world’. Nothing came of a further attempt to negotiate a deal with Denmark in 1910.

In 1946, a $100 million cash offer from the US was rejected, but the thinking behind it resonates today. During the Second World War, the Nazi occupation of neutral Denmark raised fears that Germany would invade Greenland. So, in 1941, the US agreed a ‘Defence of Greenland’ treaty with the Danish ambasador in New York. As a result the US established a military presence in Greenland which continues today on a modest basis under a treaty signed in 1951. At the peak of the Cold War, the US Thule Air Base (now Pituffik Space base) housed 10,000 American troops. It now hosts a missile early warning system, space surveillance installation and is doubtless used for other military purposes.

Ironically climate change – one of Trump’s bête noires – is a major factor in bringing Greenland’s importance back into US strategic thinking. It may not be so long before global warming may conceivably free up shipping routes through the Arctic. It is not too far fetched to suggest that these options could emerge as plausible alternatives to transport through the Suez and Panama canals. That would put a more accessible Greenland in prime position to provide harbour for shipping, international trade and other roles.

For the US, additional maritime activity in the Arctic has more menacing implications. It fears Russia and to a lesser extent China can come uncomfortably closer to the US in a scenario where ports in Greenland would act as enablers. Russia’s increasing belligerence has prompted Finland and Sweden to join NATO which already includes the Arctic countries of Canada, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and the US.

As geoscientists know better than anyone, all these high level considerations cannot disguise the more pressing reason for Trump eyeing up Greenland real estate. The world’s biggest island has a wealth of unrealised natural resources of almost mythical proportions, including offshore oil and gas, which will come more accessible if the big melt continues.

Most of the undiscovered oil, gas, and natural gas liquids are likely to be offshore associated with the Upper Jurassic Composite Total Petroleum System. A much quoted estimate from the US Geological Survey in 2007 guessed that the East Greenland Rift Basins Province contains approximately (mean) 31,400 million barrels oil equivalent of oil, natural gas, and natural gas liquids. During a high oil price period in the 1970s, some limited seismic persuaded oil companies to drill five wells, all dry, plugged and abandoned before turning to more hospitable climates (For more, see Proving up petroleum prospectivity, J.C Olsen, First Break, Vol 24, 4, 2006).

From 2007 TGS embarked on multi-year seismic acquisition programmes on behalf of licensed operators, when oil was supposed to be running out. In 2009 or thereabouts new marine geophysical contractor Polarcus announced the launching of a fleet of innovative design vessels including some purpose-built for seismic surveys in arctic conditions, an indicator of anticipated E&P industry interest. However, none of later substantial seismic shot around Greeland on behalf of TGS and others translated into successful exploration wells, e.g., Cairns Energy came up with nothing after a drilling campaign ending in 2011. Just about all the majors relinquished their licences discouraged by the drop in oil price in 2014, the rise of US shale production and of course the challenging arctic environment.

Even if the industry wanted to reengage, Greenland’s government has made clear that oil and gas activity is inappropriate in the era of climate change and would endanger traditional industries and the way of life. In 2021 the issuing of new oil and gas exploration was officially banned by the incoming Inuit Ataqatigiit administration.

A much more flexible approach is being adopted by the same government regarding the exploitation of Greenland’s massive mineral riches including unexploited critical minerals needed for the world’s energy transition goals. These are what President Trump is most likely talking about, not ruling out force or economic sanctions to get his way.

Coincidentally last month Greenland’s government published Mineral Resources Strategy for 2025-2029 outlining a vision for a sustainable and prosperous future driven by responsible development of its mineral wealth emphasising sustainability, attracting investment, capitalising on critical mineral resources and further geological mapping of areas of commercial interest. (As recently as 2019 under the Biden admistration, the US Department of State and the Greenland Ministry of Mineral Resources and Labour joined forces on a new aerial hyperspectral survey to boost mineral exploration investment in South Greenland.)

The takeaway is that Greenland is happy to collaborate with the likes of the US and EU countries but on its own terms. In essence this means not rushing things, i.e., taking account of the wishes and capabilities of its tiny population and the need for a gradual build-up of infrastructure investment. In fact Greenland has had plenty of experience with the ups and downs of mining investment, minerals have been a source of revenue since the 1700s, with cryolite, copper and graphite being the main early targets. From 1958 until 1980 uranium was also exported before Denmark opted against nuclear power. Numerous mining licences have been issued over the years with varying outcomes, see Greenland mineral exploration history Flemming G. Christiansen, Mineral Economics (online), October 2022.

Currently Greenland has two operating mines, one producing anorthosite, the other rubies and pink sapphires with other projects in the works including zinc and titanium mines. Rare earths are definitely on the horizon but all eyes are on what happens at the large-scale Kvanefjeld project in southern Greenland proposed by Energy Transition Minerals. The company claims over one billion tonnes of mineral resources have already been delineated making it the most significant western world producer of crtical rare earths. However the project has fallen foul of legislation passed in 2021 that precludes extraction of the uranium associated with the other minerals at the site.

So far Greenlanders have been able to lay down the law but how long it can hold out against international commercial and geopolitical pressures to open up its mineral resources, not to mention the unwanted attention of the US president, is another matter.

Greenlanders going to the polls

Natural resources of almost mythical proportions