General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsCould Greenland Join Canada? From Satire to Strategy
https://newsletter.aprogressiveway.com/send-michael-myers-to-greenland-on-secret-mission-revised/Editors note (January 2026):
What began as Trump satire in March 2025 led to an unexpected question: if Greenland seeks independence, what forms could that sovereignty actually takeand why joining Canada may be the best option. Reader responses and follow-up research on my first article pushed its companion post into unexpectedly interesting territory. Given Trump's renewed attention to Greenland, it felt worth revisiting.
I wrote a piece a few days ago on Greenland joining Canada. Being no expert on either country, this began as pure Trump satire, not a genuine proposal. However, after cursory research to make the piece feel more real, this idea sounded, surprisingly, plausible. Readers had interesting notions and actual supportive replies.
What is independence really?
One thread in responses was that Greenland wants independence, not another country. This got my geek up concerning what independence means. Again, no expert, but as it stands Greenland, with home rule, is still a self-governing territory within the Kingdom of Denmark. Denmark maintains sovereignty, controlling foreign affairs, defense, currency, and immigration, and could end self-governance because it granted self-governance. A first step to independence is cutting off Denmarks sovereignty from Greenland, with the worlds recognition. After that, there are choices.
Greenland could go it alone as one of the smallest countries in the world, by population, with its vast exploitable resources. That does risk descent into oligarchy as extraction-based economies tend to do, if there is not a sovereign wealth fund to distribute benefits to everyone. Or, Greenland could use its newfound agency and choose to integrate into another country in a way that enshrines its sovereignty and provides the democracy its people want to live in. Admission to Canada would be a negotiated process where autonomy is the condition of joining the federation. And Canada, constitutionally, provides much more autonomy than would ever be possible as a U.S. state.
**snip**
Ocelot II
(129,714 posts)AZJonnie
(3,188 posts)If anyone is interested in (AI's interpretation of) the facts re: whether this claim is well-backed, read on. If not, I don't need the requisite (to some) AI lecture. This would be a multi-day research project + write-up, and it's frankly not THAT important that every tidbit here is 100% accurate, and it's not my college thesis or anything.
If you go through all of this, you may come to the conclusion as I have: that the biggest problem Trump has with how Greenland operates presently is that there's a bunch of THEORETICAL oil & gas there, but there's a CLIMATE BASED moratorium on exploration and development. I think that probably sums up the majority of Trump's obsession, along with the potential to reduce dependence on Asia for REE's. I would add also that Greenland protects the fishing/hunting rights of the Native Inuit population by statute, and we all know Trump HATES that kind of "wokeness"
Here's the short summary:
- There *is* solid geological evidence for numerous large mineral deposits and very promising basins, so saying Greenland is **resource‑rich** geologically is defensible.[7][1][2][8]
- The leap to vast exploitable resources glosses over that:
- only a handful of mines operate;
- flagship projects (e.g. Kvanefjeld REEs) are blocked or contested;
- oil and gas potential is mostly undiscovered and subject to a political freeze; and
- cost, infrastructure, and environmental constraints are severe.[9][10][1][4][5]
So the factual core is large geological potential and several sizeable known deposits; the rest of the Greenland bonanza narrative is, at this stage, aspirational and strongly conditional rather than grounded in 100% known, readily accessible reserves.[1][2][4][6]
Here's the rest of the details
What is firmly known
These are the best‑documented, geologically **known** resources (not just potential) in Greenland:[8][9][10][7][1]
- Multiple large rare‑earth element (REE) and associated deposits in south and southwest Greenland (e.g., Kvanefjeld, Kringlerne, Sarfartoq, Motzfeldt Sø), with JORC‑compliant or similar resource estimates measured in hundreds of millions of tonnes of ore.[9][10][8]
- Significant deposits or prospects for molybdenum, zinc, lead, iron ore, titanium (ilmenite placers), graphite, tungsten, and other critical minerals identified in national and EU surveys.[11][2][6][7][8]
- Documented coal, gold and other metals in several belts that have seen historic or small‑scale mining.[2][12][13][7]
For hydrocarbons the distinction is sharper: the U.S. Geological Survey and other assessments estimate sizable *undiscovered* technically recoverable oil and gas in basins around Greenland (tens of billions of barrels of oil equivalent), but these are probabilistic, not proven reserves. No major commercial oil or gas fields comparable to the North Sea or Prudhoe Bay have been discovered and developed there.[3][14][5][15]
How much is exploitable today?
Very little of the known geology is currently exploited at industrial scale, for both mining and hydrocarbons. Key constraints:[4][1][11]
**Few producing mines: ** Greenland has only a small number of active or recently active mines, plus some re‑developments of historic sites; many identified deposits are still in exploration or feasibility stages.[10][1][8]
**Permitting and politics: ** A 2021 ban on uranium mining effectively froze one of the largest REE projects (Kvanefjeld), despite its large, well‑defined resource, and has led to arbitration by its developer.[16][9][10]
**Oil and gas moratorium: ** Greenlands government has suspended new oil exploration on climate grounds, even though USGS estimates suggest 1731 billion barrels of undiscovered oil‑equivalent offshore.[14][5][3]
**Economics and infrastructure: ** Remote locations, lack of deep‑water ports and roads, extreme weather, and ice raise capital and operating costs; several companies and analysts describe mining there as high‑risk and note that many projects may not be profitable at current prices.[1][2][4]
So even for deposits that are well‑mapped, exploitable is conditional on future policy, financing, infrastructure and commodity prices, not just geology.[2][4][1]
Critical minerals and rare earths
This is where much of the hype comes from: Greenland clearly hosts many of the EU‑defined critical raw materials, but that is not the same as having a bankable, built‑out supply base.[6][7][11][8]
- A 2023 survey cited by the European Commission found 25 of 34 critical raw materials present in Greenland, and an official Danish/Greenlandic review classed the resource potential as high or moderate for several key CRMs (REEs, graphite, cobalt, niobium, tungsten, etc.).[7][11][8][6]
- Individual deposits like Kringlerne and other Gardar province REE systems are described in technical literature as ranking among the larger undeveloped REE resources globally, in terms of size and grade.[8][9]
- However, the same technical and policy papers stress that only a tiny fraction of Greenlands area has been systematically explored, and that exploration success rates are low; many promising showings never become mines.[6][1][2]
In other words, the *geological* evidence for large critical‑mineral endowment is strong, but **commercially exploitable** tonnage is still mostly hypothetical.[4][1][8]
Oil and gas: estimates vs reality
Hydrocarbon claims are even more speculative than the mining headlines.
- USGS appraisals for offshore Greenland basins suggest roughly 17.5 billion barrels of undiscovered oil and around 148 trillion cubic feet of gas around the island, with some assessments for parts of East Greenland alone giving ~31 billion barrels of oil equivalent.[5][15][3][14]
- These are probabilistic, yet‑to‑find resource estimates under certain geologic assumptions, not proven reserves; exploration drilling since the 1970s has been sparse and largely unsuccessful, and no large commercial field is producing.[15][3][5][1]
- Greenland has now effectively halted new oil exploration for climate reasons, which means even if the geology is favorable, the exploitable part is politically blocked.[3][14][5]
So statements about vast oil and gas resources in Greenland are really statements about modeled potential, not about discovered, appraised, and sanctioned projects.[5][15][3]
[1](https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20250121-the-enormous-challenge-of-mining-greenland)
[2](https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-greenland-gold-rush-promise-and-pitfalls-of-greenlands-energy-and-mineral-resources/)
[3](https://www.thearcticinstitute.org/dimensions-oil-gas-development-greenland/)
[4](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/geologist-warns-prospect-mineral-bonanza-greenland-mirage-60-minutes/)
[5](https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/greenland-suspends-oil-exploration-because-of-climate-change)
[6](https://data.geus.dk/pure-pdf/MiMa-R_2023_1_web.pdf)
[7](https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20251104-the-story-behind-the-scramble-for-greenlands-rare-earths)
[8](https://www.innovationnewsnetwork.com/exploring-greenlands-critical-mineral-potential/18566/)
[9](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kvanefjeld)
[10](https://investornews.com/critical-minerals-rare-earths/the-greenland-critical-minerals-and-rare-earths-myth-dispelled/)
[11](https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/greenlands-rich-largely-untapped-mineral-resources-2025-01-13/)
[12](https://www.npr.org/2019/11/24/781598549/greenland-is-not-for-sale-but-it-has-the-rare-earth-minerals-america-wants)
[13](https://globaledge.msu.edu/blog/post/59485/inside-the-race-for-greenland's-vast-mineral-wealth)
[14](https://www.thearcticinstitute.org/greenland-new-frontier-oil-gas/)
[15](https://www.geoexpro.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/Oil-and-Gas-Resources-of-Northeast-Greenland.pdf)
[16](https://grist.org/energy/greenland-rare-earths-mining-geopolitics-china-us/)
[17](https://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/international-issues/greenland-land-of-enormous-mineral-wealth/)
[18](https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/03/world/europe/greenland-minerals-trump.html)
[19](https://natur.gl/guidance/miljoe/?lang=en)
[20](https://govmin.gl)
Fiendish Thingy
(22,448 posts)The people of Greenland dont want to become part of Canada.
What needs to happen is Canada and all the other NATO countries, with Greenlands permission of course, need to send several thousand troops to Greenland, along with airplanes and ships and a nuclear-armed submarine.
That should shut down Trumps fantasy quickly.
ericjhensal
(29 posts)Sure, it is a long-shot and unlikely. But it isn't beyond the realm of possibility. There is a strong connection between the Inuit in Nunavut and Greenland. The attitudes about government's role in providing services are the same. There is a very real common interest in arctic security. If the U.S. were in Greenland, Canada would be flanked--and that is an idea that goes back to Seward in the 19th century. And Greenland has an interest in securing itself, which can go sideways if they become a fully-independent sovereign nation ripe for invasion without any messy entanglement with Europe.
Canadian provinces are much more autonomous than U.S. states--just look at Quebec. You have to look at what a people want from democracy and, for Greenland, it is not necessarily as a fully-independent state --being a democracy as a province in Canada could achieve what they want.
"Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world. Albert Einstein
ericjhensal
(29 posts)Sure, it is a long-shot and unlikely. But it isn't beyond the realm of possibility. There is a strong connection between the Inuit in Nunavut and Greenland. The attitudes about government's role in providing services are the same. There is a very real common interest in arctic security. If the U.S. were in Greenland, Canada would be flanked--and that is an idea that goes back to Seward in the 19th century. And Greenland has an interest in securing itself, which can go sideways if they become a fully-independent sovereign nation ripe for invasion without any messy entanglement with Europe.
Canadian provinces are much more autonomous than U.S. states--just look at Quebec. You have to look at what a people want from democracy and, for Greenland, it is not necessarily as a fully-independent state --being a democracy as a province in Canada could achieve what they want.
"Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world. Albert Einstein
Fiendish Thingy
(22,448 posts)No serious person is suggesting this, either in Canada or Greenland.
Its ridiculous.
ericjhensal
(29 posts)Many things have begun with unseriousness people--those who consider what is not obvious. Look, do I think this could happen? It could, Canada did bring in Newfoundland, so it is not an entirely new idea. But do I believe it will happen--no. I just see ii as useful to consider what is possible. What does a country want with independence? What does it mean to be a democracy? These are all more than just getting to vote occasionally for representatives, but how to effectively gain legitimacy as a government and provide the goods and services a government is supposed to supply. I am just putting forward there is more than one way to get there, perhaps.
Melon
(1,170 posts)As the world becomes warmer, Greenland and the routes North are strategically important. Denmark needs to defend Greenland. Trump would likely have not come sniffing if it was defended and not considered a weak link to China and Russia. It's a historic holding and maybe Denmark is no longer strong enough to maintain Greenland from the other side of the world. Then Canada makes sense.