Sign In or Create an Account.

By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy

Economy

The Big Question Hanging over Trump’s Minerals Deal with Ukraine

Are these minerals even economically viable?

Digging in Ukraine.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

President Donald Trump is going to be talking rocks with his Ukrainian counterpart Volodymyr Zelenskyy during their Friday meeting in Washington, D.C., where they will sign a “very big agreement,” Trump said Wednesday.

As the Trump administration has ramped up talks to end the war in Ukraine, shift America’s strategic priorities away from Europe, and build a new relationship with Russia, it has also become intensely interested in Ukraine’s supposed mineral wealth, with Ukrainian and American negotiators working on a deal to create an investment fund for the country’s reconstruction that would be partially funded by developing the country’s mineral resources.

But exactly what minerals are in Ukraine and if they’re economically viable to extract is a matter of contention.

So-called critical minerals and rare earths have a way of finding themselves in geopolitical hotspots. This is because they’re not particularly rare, but the immense capital required to cost effectively find them, mine them, and process them is.

“A lot of countries have natural resources. We don’t mine everything that exists underground. We look for projects that are economically competitive,” Gracelin Baskaran, director of the critical minerals security program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, told me.

Baskaran pointed out, it was precisely Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine that kicked the United States’ interest in building up supplies of critical minerals and rare earths outside of China — which dominates the industry — into overdrive.

“It was a fortuitous moment in that way for Ukraine’s resources, because they weren’t necessarily being mined before,” she said.

And Ukraine has done its best to promote and take advantage of its mineral resources, even if there’s some ambiguity about what exactly they are, and if they can be profitably extracted at scale.

While often conflated, critical minerals and rare earths are distinct. The so-called “rare earths” are 17 similar elements, which the U.S. Geological Survey explicitly says are “relatively abundant,” like scandium and yttrium. Critical minerals are a more amorphous group, with the USGS listing out 50 (including the rare earths) as well as commonly known minerals like titanium, nickel, lithium, tin, and graphite, with uses in batteries, alloys, semiconductors, and other high value energy, defense, and technology applications.

When countries are desperate for outside assistance or their patrons are desperate to see some return on their “investments” in military and foreign aid, as Bloomberg’s Javier Blas has pointed out, the minerals tend to show up — just look at the “$1 trillion in untapped mineral deposits” the United States identified in Afghanistan in 2010. Ten years later when the USGS looked at Afghanistan’s mineral industries, the rare earths remained untapped and instead the country was largely exporting talc and crushed marble to its neighbors.

Ukrainians have been eager to show there are economically viable and valuable minerals in the country, including a claim by one Ukrainian official in early 2022 that “about 5% of all the world’s ‘critical raw materials’ are located in Ukraine,” while a pair of Ukrainian researchers claimed there was 500,000 tons of unmined lithium oxide resources. More recently the country has claimed to have rare earths, and that President Trump has taken a special interest in.

Many industry experts doubt there’s any significant reserves of rare earths in the country, with the exception of scandium, which is used in aluminum alloys and fuel cells. Ukraine does have a significant mining industry and has produced substantial amounts of iron ore and manganese, along with reserves of graphite, titanium, cobalt, and uranium, many of which are those so-called “critical minerals” with uses for energy and defense.

“There do not appear to be hardly any economically viable rare earths in the country – that was largely a misuse of a term someone heard,” Morgan Bazillian, director of the Payne Institute and a public policy professor at the Colorado School of Mines, told me in an email.

Blas has documented a game of telephone whereby rare earths and critical minerals are conflated to make it seem like the former exists in abundance underneath Ukraine. Despite the doubts, President Trump said on Wednesday during his cabinet meeting “we’ll be really partnering with Ukraine, [in] terms of rare earth. We very much need rare earth. They have great rare earth.”

While there’s disagreement about exactly what Ukraine has to offer in terms of minerals, the interest in building up supplies of minerals is part and parcel of what is now a bipartisan priority to build up supplies and the ability to process and refine minerals used for a variety of defense, industrial, and energy applications.

To the extent the United States is able to jumpstart any new mineral operations in postwar Ukraine, it would require first repairing the country’s greatly damaged infrastructure, which has been wrecked by the very conflict that has spiked interest in the country’s mineral sector.

“Their infrastructure is decimated. Rebuilding it will be the priority, getting industry moving again will take time – including from basic services like electricity,” Bazillian told me.

And after that, much basic work needs to be done before any mining can happen, like an updated geological survey of the country, which hasn’t been done since the country was part of the Soviet Union. And all that’s before starting the process for opening a mine, something that on average takes 18 years to do.

“You need to have a geological mapping. You need to identify investors who want to go in. You need to build infrastructure,” Baskaran said.

“Ukraine has undeveloped or untapped potential that could be utilized. And the question is whether that untapped potential is economically viable, and we don’t know yet.”

Yellow

You’re out of free articles.

Subscribe today to experience Heatmap’s expert analysis 
of climate change, clean energy, and sustainability.
To continue reading
Create a free account or sign in to unlock more free articles.
or
Please enter an email address
By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy
Energy

All the Nuclear Workers Are Building Data Centers Now

There has been no new nuclear construction in the U.S. since Vogtle, but the workers are still plenty busy.

A hardhat on AI.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

The Trump administration wants to have 10 new large nuclear reactors under construction by 2030 — an ambitious goal under any circumstances. It looks downright zany, though, when you consider that the workforce that should be driving steel into the ground, pouring concrete, and laying down wires for nuclear plants is instead building and linking up data centers.

This isn’t how it was supposed to be. Thousands of people, from construction laborers to pipefitters to electricians, worked on the two new reactors at the Plant Vogtle in Georgia, which were intended to be the start of a sequence of projects, erecting new Westinghouse AP1000 reactors across Georgia and South Carolina. Instead, years of delays and cost overruns resulted in two long-delayed reactors 35 miles southeast of Augusta, Georgia — and nothing else.

Keep reading...Show less
Blue
Q&A

How California Is Fighting the Battery Backlash

A conversation with Dustin Mulvaney of San Jose State University

Dustin Mulvaney.
Heatmap Illustration

This week’s conversation is a follow up with Dustin Mulvaney, a professor of environmental studies at San Jose State University. As you may recall we spoke with Mulvaney in the immediate aftermath of the Moss Landing battery fire disaster, which occurred near his university’s campus. Mulvaney told us the blaze created a true-blue PR crisis for the energy storage industry in California and predicted it would cause a wave of local moratoria on development. Eight months after our conversation, it’s clear as day how right he was. So I wanted to check back in with him to see how the state’s development landscape looks now and what the future may hold with the Moss Landing dust settled.

Help my readers get a state of play – where are we now in terms of the post-Moss Landing resistance landscape?

Keep reading...Show less
Yellow
Hotspots

A Tough Week for Wind Power and Batteries — But a Good One for Solar

The week’s most important fights around renewable energy.

The United States.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

1. Nantucket, Massachusetts – A federal court for the first time has granted the Trump administration legal permission to rescind permits given to renewable energy projects.

  • This week District Judge Tanya Chutkan – an Obama appointee – ruled that Trump’s Bureau of Ocean Energy Management has the legal latitude to request the withdrawal of permits previously issued to offshore wind projects. Chutkan found that any “regulatory uncertainty” from rescinding a permit would be an “insubstantial” hardship and not enough to stop the court from approving the government’s desires to reconsider issuing it.
  • The ruling was in a case that the Massachusetts town of Nantucket brought against the SouthCoast offshore wind project; SouthCoast developer Ocean Winds said in statements to media after the decision that it harbors “serious concerns” about the ruling but is staying committed to the project through this new layer of review.
  • But it’s important to understand this will have profound implications for other projects up and down the coastline, because the court challenges against other offshore wind projects bear a resemblance to the SouthCoast litigation. This means that project opponents could reach deals with the federal government to “voluntarily remand” permits, technically sending those documents back to the federal government for reconsideration – only for the approvals to get lost in bureaucratic limbo.
  • What I’m watching for: do opponents of land-based solar and wind projects look at this ruling and decide to go after those facilities next?

2. Harvey County, Kansas – The sleeper election result of 2025 happened in the town of Halstead, Kansas, where voters backed a moratorium on battery storage.

Keep reading...Show less
Yellow