US, Ukraine may wait decade or more to see revenue from minerals deal
Summary
LONDON/KYIV, May 1 (Reuters) - The financial payoff from a new minerals deal between Ukraine and the U.S. is likely to take a decade or longer as investors face many hurdles to getting new mines into production in the war-ravaged country.
Developing mines that produce strategically important minerals in countries with established mining sectors such as Canada and Australia can take 10 to 20 years, mining consultants said on Thursday.
But most mineral deposits in Ukraine have scant data to confirm they are economically viable. Investors may also baulk at funnelling money into a country where infrastructure such as power and transport has been devastated by Russia's three-year-old full-scale invasion and future security is not guaranteed.
"If anyone's thinking suddenly all these minerals are going to be flying out of Ukraine, they're dreaming," said Adam Webb, head of minerals at consultancy Benchmark Minerals Intelligence.
"The reality is it's going to be difficult for people to justify investing money there when there are options to invest in critical minerals in countries that are not at war."
While the financial benefits from the deal are uncertain, officials in Ukraine hailed it as a political breakthrough: They believe it will help shore up U.S. support for Kyiv that has faltered under President Donald Trump.
Ukraine needs U.S. support - especially weapons and cash - to withstand Russia's military invasion.
On the U.S. side, Trump heavily promoted the deal, especially the access it provides to Ukraine's deposits of rare earth elements which are used in everything from cellphones to cars. So government policy could hasten investment.
The U.S. does not produce significant amounts of rare earths and has ramped up a trade war with China, the world's top supplier.
The text of the deal signed in Washington showed that revenues for the reconstruction fund would come from royalties, licence fees and production-sharing agreements.
The text mentions no financial terms, saying that the two sides still have to hammer out a limited partnership agreement between the U.S. International Development Finance Corp and Ukraine's State Organization Agency on Support for Public-Private Partnership.
The text details 55 minerals plus oil, natural gas and other hydrocarbons. According to Ukrainian data, the country has deposits of 22 of the 34 minerals identified by the European Union as critical, including rare earths, lithium and nickel.
"The transition from a discovered resource to an economically viable reserve requires significant time and investment, both of which have been constrained, not only since the onset of the war but even prior to it," said Willis Thomas at consultancy CRU.
Ukrainian finance ministry data showed that in 2024, the Ukrainian state earned 47.7 billion hryvnias, or around $1 billion, in royalties and other fees related to natural resources exploitation.
But the joint fund created under the deal will only get revenue from new licences, permits and production-sharing agreements concluded after the accord comes into force.
SLOW PACE OF MINING LICENSES
Ukraine was slow to issue new natural resources licenses before Russia's 2022 full-scale invasion. From 2012 to 2020, about 20 licences were issued for oil and gas, one for graphite, one for gold, two for manganese and one for copper, according to the Ukrainian geological service. There are 3,482 existing licenses in total.
Since the agreement creates a limited partnership, the two countries may be looking at direct government investment in a mining company, analysts said.
Chile, the world's biggest copper producer and owner of state mining company Codelco, could be an example they follow, Webb said.
Another hurdle is that some potentially lucrative projects are on land occupied by Russia, and the agreement does not include any security guarantees. Washington has said the presence of U.S. interests would deter aggressors.
Seven of 24 potential mining projects identified by Benchmark are in Russian-occupied parts of Ukraine and include lithium, graphite, rare earth elements, nickel and manganese.
An official of a small Ukrainian company that holds the licence for the Polokhivske lithium deposit, one of the largest in Europe, told Reuters in February it would be tough to develop without Western security guarantees.
"The deal ties the U.S. more closely into Ukraine in that now they've got a bit more of a vested interest in this war coming to an end so that they can develop those assets," Webb said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
18 minutes ago
- Reuters
Hague NATO summit aims to focus on Trump's spending goal but Iran looms large
THE HAGUE, June 23 (Reuters) - The NATO alliance has crafted a summit in The Hague this week to shore itself up by satisfying U.S. President Donald Trump with a big new defence spending goal - but it now risks being dominated by the repercussions of his military strikes on Iran. The two-day gathering is also intended to signal to Russian President Vladimir Putin that NATO is united, despite Trump's previous criticism of the alliance, and determined to expand and upgrade its defences to deter any attack from Moscow. The summit and its final statement are meant to be short and focused on heeding Trump's call to spend 5% of GDP on defence - a big jump from the current 2% goal. It is to be achieved by investing more in both militaries and other security-related spending. Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez, however, upset NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte's preparations on Sunday as he declared Madrid did not need to meet the new spending target even as Spain approved the summit statement. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy has had to settle for a seat at the pre-summit dinner on Tuesday evening - rather than a formal session with the leaders when they meet on Wednesday - due to his volatile relationship with Trump. The U.S. bombing of Iranian nuclear sites at the weekend makes the summit much less predictable than Rutte - a former prime minister of the Netherlands hosting the gathering in his home city - and other NATO member countries would like. Much will depend on the precise situation in the Middle East when the summit takes place - such as whether Iran has retaliated against the U.S. - and whether other NATO leaders address the strikes with Trump or in comments to reporters. If the meeting does not go to plan, NATO risks appearing weak and divided, just as European members confront what they see as their biggest threat since the end of the Cold War - Russia - while bracing for possible U.S. troop cuts on the continent. Under the new defence spending plan, countries would spend 3.5% of GDP on "core defence" - essentially, weapons and troops - and a further 1.5% on security-related investments such as adapting roads, ports and bridges for use by military vehicles, protecting pipelines and deterring cyber-attacks. Such an increase - to be phased in over 10 years - would mean hundreds of billions of dollars more spending on defence. Last year, alliance members collectively spent about 2.6% of NATO GDP on core defence, amounting to about $1.3 trillion, according to NATO estimates. The lion's share came from the United States, which spent almost $818 billion. Washington has insisted it is time for Europeans to take on more of the financial and military burden of defending their continent. European leaders say they have got that message but want an orderly and gradual transition, fearful that any gaps in their defences could be exploited by Putin. They are particularly keen to stress their spending commitment as Trump has previously threatened not to protect allies that do not spend enough on defence. A prepared text summit statement agreed by NATO governments and seen by Reuters says: "We reaffirm our ironclad commitment to collective defence as enshrined in Article 5 of the Washington Treaty - that an attack on one is an attack on all." As part of their efforts to keep Trump onside, NATO officials have shunted difficult topics to the sidelines of the summit or kept them off the agenda altogether. While many European nations see Russia as an ever-growing threat, Trump has expressed a desire for better economic relations with Moscow - a prospect that Europeans think would help Russia to strengthen its military and threaten them more. Similarly, many Europeans are deeply wary of Trump's moves to lessen Russia's diplomatic isolation as part of his efforts to secure a deal to end the war in Ukraine. The brief summit statement will include just one reference to Russia as a threat to Euro-Atlantic security and another to allies' commitment to supporting Ukraine, diplomats say.
The Sun
18 minutes ago
- The Sun
First vid of Trump's B2s after mammoth 37hr ‘bullseye' Iran blitz… as Russia warns US ‘Pandora's Box has been opened'
Starmer calls for Iran to return to the negotiating table Sir Keir Starmer has warned there is a risk of the Middle East crisis spiralling beyond the region after Donald Trump ordered an attack on Iran's nuclear programme. The Prime Minister spoke to the US President on Sunday night after an air raid by B-2 stealth bombers and a salvo of submarine-launched missiles hit Iran's nuclear facilities. Downing Street said the leaders agreed Tehran must not be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon and called for Iran to return to negotiations. "The leaders discussed the situation in the Middle East and reiterated the grave risk posed by Iran's nuclear programme to international security," Downing Street said. "They discussed the actions taken by the United States last night to reduce the threat and agreed that Iran must never be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon. "They discussed the need for Iran to return to the negotiating table as soon as possible and to make progress on a lasting settlement. "They agreed to stay in close contact in the coming days." Earlier, Sir Keir - whose previous calls for restraint appear to have been ignored by the American leader - said there was a "risk of escalation", adding: "That's a risk to the region. It's a risk beyond the region, and that's why all our focus has been on de-escalating, getting people back around to negotiate what is a very real threat in relation to the nuclear programme." The UK was not involved in the US operation but there is the prospect of British forces being dragged into the conflict if Ayatollah Ali Khamenei orders a retaliation.
The National
19 minutes ago
- The National
David Lammy refuses to say if US Iran strikes were illegal
The US attacked three sites in Iran at the weekend, inserting itself into Israel's war aimed at destroying the country's nuclear programme. Asked about the lawfulness of the strikes on Monday, the Foreign Secretary told BBC Radio 4's Today programme that as the UK was "not involved" it was "for the Americans to discuss those issues". It was put to him that the UK Government had a firm view on whether Russia attacking Ukraine was legal, which he said was not a 'moral equivalence'. READ MORE: Kenny MacAskill: Donald Trump bombing Iran is illegal and insane He said: 'There isn't a moral equivalence here'. He added it had been "crystal clear' that Moscow invaded a sovereign nation. When it was put to him that it was extraordinary he could not answer the question as critics argue Iran is also a sovereign nation which was attacked without warning, he said: 'I don't think it is extraordinary because this was not the UK's action, we were not involved, we were clear when this began and Israel's attacks began that we were not involved… so I don't say it's not legitimate, but I can tell you as Foreign Secretary that we were not involved.' Lammy added that Iran has to 'get serious about the off-ramp that is being made available to them' and that 'ultimately this can only be dealt with in diplomacy.' (Image: Kin Cheung) The Foreign Secretary said Donald Trump's action 'may well have set back Iran several years', and enrichment of uranium at 60% cannot be allowed to 'slide'. Trump has floated the possibility of leadership change in Iran, hours after his team said replacing the Iranian government was not the aim of US attacks. Iran's military has vowed a "decisive response" after Trump said US strikes caused "monumental damage" to Iranian nuclear sites. The UN's nuclear watchdog has called for a ceasefire in order to inspect the damage. Asked about Trump's posts on Truth Social about regime change in Tehran, Lammy said: 'There will be further tweets on many issues over the next three-and-a-half years of Donald Trump's leadership that you will be discussing… the rhetoric is strong but actually I can tell you, having spoken to the Secretary of State, having sat in the White House, that this is targeted action to deal with Iran's nuclear capability.' READ MORE: UK providing 'political cover' for US and Israel after Iran attack He added: 'I'm very conscious that when I met colleagues in the White House on Thursday that they were considering all of the options… we knew that, you knew that as journalists. And Donald Trump made a decision to act to degrade that capability. "It may well have set back Iran by several years. That was a decision that he took.' Prime Minister Keir Starmer said Iran's nuclear programme is a 'grave threat' which the US military action would 'alleviate'. He has been accused of providing "political cover" for Israel and the US. The US attacked three sites in Iran including the Fordo facility, which is buried deep underground. In an address to the nation from the White House, Trump warned there could be further strikes if Iran retaliates. Iranian foreign minister Abbas Araghchi warned the attacks 'will have everlasting consequences' and that Tehran 'reserves all options' to retaliate.
