U.S. and Ukraine may wait decade or more to see revenue from minerals deal
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 balk at funneling money into a country where infrastructure such as power and transport has been devastated by Russia's 3-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 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, license 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 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 licenses, permits and production-sharing agreements concluded after the accord comes into force.
Ukraine was slow to issue new natural resources licenses before Russia's 2022 full-scale invasion. From 2012 to 2020, about 20 licenses 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 license 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
Nikkei Asia
3 hours ago
- Nikkei Asia
US strikes Iran nuclear sites, Trump claims 'spectacular' success
U.S. President Donald Trump addresses the nation from the White House in Washington, following U.S. strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities on June 21. © Reuters KEN MORIYASU WASHINGTON -- U.S. President Donald Trump on Saturday evening announced that the U.S. military had conducted strikes on three Iranian nuclear sites, including the underground fuel enrichment plant in Fordow. "We have completed our very successful attack on the three Nuclear sites in Iran, including Fordow, Natanz, and Esfahan," the president wrote on his Truth Social network. "All planes are now outside of Iran air space. A full payload of BOMBS was dropped on the primary site, Fordow," he said.
Yomiuri Shimbun
3 hours ago
- Yomiuri Shimbun
A $250 Bill and ‘WMAGA': GOP Lawmakers Push Legislation Honoring Trump
Late last month, Florida Republican Rep. Greg Steube introduced a bill that would halt any funding for the Washington Metropolitan Area Transportation Authority unless its name was changed. Steube, whose southwest Florida district is about 950 miles from Washington, proposed WMATA be rechristened the Washington Metropolitan Authority for Greater Access or … WMAGA. The legislation also called for Metrorail, the system's flagship rail line, to be renamed the 'Trump Train.' The bill, Steube said in a statement, would signal a 'cultural shift away from bureaucratic stagnation toward public-facing excellence and patriotism.' Steube's proposal is just the latest in legislative offerings this year paying tribute to President Donald Trump. House Republicans have proposed at least eight bills since January to honor the president or burnish his image. They would, among other things, put Trump's portrait on U.S. currency, carve his face onto Mount Rushmore, rename Washington Dulles International Airport for him and make his birthday a national holiday. Two bills, both introduced by Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Georgia), called for the House to expunge Trump's impeachments in 2019 and 2021. Longtime political observers say the GOP's legislative love fest for the president is well outside of congressional norms. While members have often proposed legislation that honors presidents, it is almost never while they are still in office. 'It is unprecedented and to be honest with you, it's completely wild,' John White, professor emeritus of politics at Catholic University, said in an interview. 'History shows that most things are named after presidents after they have either long left office or been deceased.' Ronald Reagan was still alive in 1998 when Congress passed legislation renaming Washington National Airport for him. But by then, Reagan had been out of office for almost a decade and had been diagnosed with Alzheimer's. White also pointed to the renaming of Idlewild Airport in New York for John F. Kennedy in December 1963, just a month after his assassination. But that was a decision proposed by New York City's mayor at the time, not Congress. In 2012, Congress passed bipartisan legislation that renamed federal buildings for former Democratic president Bill Clinton and former Republican presidents George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush. Steube's proposal to rename the Metro was cheered by many from Trump's's base and met with derision by Democrats and other critics who saw it as a craven appeal to the commander in chief. 'WMATA is not a vanity project for Donald Trump to steamroll. It's the backbone of our nation's capital,' Sen Mark R. Warner (D-Virginia) posted on X. 'When will House Republicans stop trying to suck up to Donald Trump and start focusing on lowering the cost of living?' WMATA did not respond to a request for comment on the proposed change. None of the current laundry list of Trump-praising bills are likely to become law, as they face a challenging legislative process and constitutional obstacles. But they do serve a purpose for the members who introduce them, said Casey Burgat, director of the Legislative Affairs masters program at George Washington University's Graduate School of Political Management. 'They're trying to stand out amongst their peers of who can be the most supportive of a president who has a complete hold on their party,' Burgat said. 'Attaching their name to something in their institutional capacity not only signals to their constituents that they're doing this, but more importantly, probably, the president who's looking for fealty.' Three days after Trump's inauguration in January, Rep. Addison McDowell (R-North Carolina) proposed renaming Washington Dulles International Airport in Virginia to the 'Donald J. Trump International Airport.' 'President Donald J. Trump, the greatest president of my lifetime, was just sworn into office for a second term after a historic landslide victory,' Rep. Guy Reschenthaler (R-Pennsylvania), a co-sponsor of the bill, said in a statement. 'This legislation will cement his status in our nation's capital as our fearless commander in chief, extraordinary leader and relentless champion for the American people.' Rep. Claudia Tenney (R-New York) chose Valentine's Day to submit a bill that would make Trump's birthday, June 14, a national holiday along with Flag Day. 'Just as George Washington's Birthday is codified as a federal holiday, this bill will add Trump's Birthday to this list, recognizing him as the founder of America's Golden Age,' Tenney said in a statement at the time. (A few days earlier, Tenney had introduced H.R.1216 – a bill that would end federal support for PBS and NPR. It is titled the Defund Government-Sponsored Propaganda Act). 'President Trump is arguably the most consequential president ever, and his place in history will be remembered for generations to come,' said White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt in a statement. 'These proposals from Republican lawmakers serve as further proof there's never been a political leader in American history with such immense support from their Party as President Trump. The President appreciates the overwhelming support and these kind gestures from Republican lawmakers.' Several lawmakers in the current session have served up bills that aim to make Trump's face more ubiquitous. Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-Florida) introduced legislation directing the secretary of the interior 'to arrange for the carving of the figure of President Donald J. Trump on Mount Rushmore National Memorial.' The National Park Service has previously said there is no suitable stable space on the monument for another face to be added. Rep. Brandon Gill (R-Texas) proposed H.R. 1790, the Golden Age Act of 2025, which directs the Treasury Department to print $100 bills with Trump's portrait on them. That was just after Rep. Joe Wilson (R-South Carolina) introduced the Donald J. Trump $250 Bill Act, which would require the Treasury to print 'Federal reserve notes in the denomination of $250 and such notes shall feature a portrait of Donald J. Trump.' The $250 bill is meant to help the nation celebrate its 250 birthday next year, Wilson said in a statement, which concluded, 'The most valuable bill for the most valuable President!' Numerous House members co-sponsored the bill including Steube, Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-New York), Rep. Diana Harshbarger (R-Tennessee), Rep. Ralph Norman (R-South Carolina) and Rep. Darrell Issa (R-California). U.S. Treasurer Brandon Beach, who was appointed by Trump, wrote to Wilson in late May expressing his support for the bill but acknowledging that the law does not allow living people to appear on U.S. currency. In a letter Wilson's office shared with The Washington Post, Beach wrote, 'I am willing to help in any way that I can to make this a reality.' A spokesperson for House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-Louisiana) did not respond to an email seeking comment. Spokespeople for other Republican representatives contacted for this story pointed to statements made when the bills were introduced. Former Republican congressman Charlie Dent of Pennsylvania, who served in Congress from 2005 to 2018 and was a chair of the House Ethics Committee, said he thinks the bills honoring Trump would probably make some current GOP House members uncomfortable and he doesn't see much appetite for action on any of them. 'It's better to name buildings and institutions and airports for politicians long after they're out of office, after there's been some time to reflect on their records and their place in history,' he said. The various proposals honoring Trump this session are 'being done to please the president,' Dent said in an interview on Friday. 'I mean, he loves that kind of attention.' Dent added that he thinks it is 'ill-advised' to pass legislation bestowing honor on people in such a politically charged atmosphere. 'Usually when you do these types of honorifics, they are moments of celebration and joy to remember that individual,' Dent said. 'I don't think that's what would happen today with the current president, certainly not while he's in office. Maybe over time, after he's long gone, maybe people's views will shift on him. Who knows?' GW's Burgat says there's a risk involved that the legislation introduced extolling Trump diminishes the institution's reputation and its work. A 2023 Congressional Research Service report on commemorations noted that beginning in the 1960s, Congress attempted to reduce legislative proposals for naming federal buildings, designating federal holidays and establishing monuments. 'These initiatives were in response to concern that the legislative time spent on commemorative measures was excessive,' the report stated. 'It undermines the job itself,' Burgat said. 'Your job is to write laws, to study them. Not just memorialize the current president.'
Yomiuri Shimbun
3 hours ago
- Yomiuri Shimbun
Israeli Strikes on Iran Cap Dramatic Shift in Mideast Strategic Balance
JERUSALEM – While the world was bracing for President Donald Trump's decision on whether to bomb Iran and the tectonic waves that would follow, here in the Middle East, the earthquake had already struck. Israel's go-for-broke attacks on Iran launched just over a week ago – after decades of intense but largely covert conflict between the two powers – have dramatically shifted the strategic balance, according to analysts in Israel, across the region and beyond. And those fundamental changes look to prevail even after American bombers entered the fray this weekend. Israel's assault caps a string of upheavals that would have been inconceivable before the attacks carried out by Hamas against Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, including the routing of three Iranian allies: Hamas in the Gaza Strip, Hezbollah in Lebanon and the regime of Bashar al-Assad in Syria. Now, Israeli fighter jets are operating with impunity over the Iranian capital, Tehran, and Iran – perceived for years by not only Israel but many countries in the Arab Gulf region as the primary menace – has been exposed as a far hollower military force than many in the world believed. The decades-old status quo has been shattered, with Israel now ascendant as the Middle East's unchallenged military power, Iran and its 'axis of resistance' in disarray, and these two foes – for the first time – locked in direct combat. 'The region is fundamentally different now,' said Ali Vaez, Iran project director at the International Crisis Group in Washington. 'The name of the game for decades was that Israel and Iran would engage through proxies and covert operations. That it has turned into an open conflict is something I really didn't foresee.' He and other analysts were quick to say that the outcome of this conflict is far from clear, and the reshuffling of the regional order is far from over. Iran is weakened but not defeated. Its nuclear enrichment program is damaged, but it remains unclear whether it has been destroyed. Possible endgames, Vaez said, include the collapse of the Iranian regime, which by no means would assure the end of enmity; a military quagmire sucking in Israel and Iran, which could further destabilize the region; and, perhaps most feared, a determination by Iran that its survival requires the speedy development of a nuclear weapon. While this unfolding drama has yet to be resolved, the region has already been transformed in several essential ways, according to Middle East analysts. Israel no longer faces the intense threats from just across its borders once posed by Hamas and Hezbollah, which have been reeling since their longtime leaders were killed and much of their fighting forces decimated by Israel. A much-diminished Hamas is still trying to put up a fight amid the devastation of the Gaza war, while Hezbollah is unwilling, and perhaps unable, to retaliate against Israel for its attacks on Iran. Syrian rebels have shaken off the tyranny of the Assad regime and with it, the influence of Iran and Russia, which had long dominated relations between Syria and the world. Both Syria and Lebanon, where Hezbollah's political sway has receded, have at least a chance for renewal. 'The Levant has flipped,' said Paul Salem, former president of the Middle East Institute in Beirut. 'Both Syria and Lebanon are on a new and hopefully promising trajectory.' And Israel has rebounded from the devastating Oct. 7 attacks of 20 months ago. While Israeli hostages are still held by Hamas, and Israeli troops continue to wage a calamitous military campaign in Gaza, Israel is now in its strongest strategic position in decades, operating militarily beyond its borders in Lebanon, southern Syria and now over Iran. 'We've never used the word unprecedented so often,' said Renad Mansour, a senior research fellow at Chatham House, a think tank in London. Mansour likened the recent changes in the regional order, culminating in Israel's attack on Iran, to some of the most consequential upheavals seen by the Middle East in the past half-century. These include the oil shocks of the 1970s, the Islamic Revolution in Iran in 1979, the long Iran-Iraq War of the 1980s and the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003. 'This will be one of those hugely impactful moments in the history books,' he said. 'What emerges after this will not look like it was on Oct. 6. Israel's attack on Iran cements that.' Especially striking are the rapid deterioration of Iran's strategic position and the collapse of its decades-long enterprise to project power across the region via a network of allied militant armies, including in Iraq and Yemen. 'Iran was an imperial power that once boasted of controlling four Arab capitals: Beirut, Damascus, Baghdad and Sanaa,' said Salem. 'I mean, my God have they come down in the world?' Iran spent decades organizing and funding militant groups, and developing missile and drone technologies to arm them. Israeli officials estimated, for example, that Hezbollah had more than 100,000 rockets stockpiled before Israel targeted them. Governments in the region long feared the chaos Iran could unleash, and Tehran exploited these anxieties to further expand its sway. When missiles and drones launched from Iran sent fireballs over Saudi Arabian oil fields in 2019, Trump, in his first term, declined to retaliate despite pleas from several regional powers to act. 'Nobody thought they could do anything,' said Ksenia Svetlova, director of the Israel-based Regional Organization for Peace, Economics and Security. 'We were accustomed for decades Iran trying to export Islamic revolution, overthrow governments and sponsor terror groups.' She said she had heard many people in Arab Gulf countries say they were looking for someone to take on the Iranians. 'And that someone they meant was Israel,' Svetlova said. Israel has dealt a series of blows to Iran's nuclear and military efforts in recent years, engaging in sabotage and assassinations. Then last year, for the first time, Iran and Israel began openly trading strikes, initially triggered by a fatal Israeli attack on the Iranian consulate in Damascus, Syria, and Israeli forces succeeded in knocking out key Iranian air defenses. Since the tensions erupted into full conflict this month, Israeli forces have killed senior military officials and nuclear scientists; targeted nuclear, military, industrial and other sites; and demonstrated an ability to carry out attacks from the air and through covert operations with little if any resistance. 'The most important change is Israel's escalation dominance,' said Aaron David Miller, a former U.S. Middle East envoy under both Republican and Democratic administrations. 'It has something it's never had before, the ability to control the pace and intensity of conflicts in ways that no one can match.' Israelis are feeling bullish about their new status as the region's unchallenged hegemon. 'I don't believe Israel has been in a such a strong strategic position since I've been here,' said Natan Sharansky, a former Israeli politician who came to Israel after being imprisoned as a dissident in the Soviet Union. 'Suddenly all these challenges, especially the Iran challenge, can be faced on a different plane.' How Israel wields this unrivaled power will determine much about the future of the region. A confident Israel, for instance, could strike agreements to wind down the hostilities in Gaza, address Palestinian demands and relieve tensions elsewhere along its borders. But Miller said that the political pressure Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu faces from the extremist right-wing members of his governing coalition makes it difficult for him to convert military might into ceasefires and peace treaties that could produce regional stability. Trump's decision to order U.S. forces into action will probably also roil the Middle East further, even if the American military operation proves successful. The ultimate reverberations are hard to predict. 'If we have a massive U.S. bombardment, we may have something like Libya, with Iran descending into internal chaos,' Vaez said in an interview before the U.S. airstrikes were carried out, warning of repercussions throughout the region and beyond. 'Think of the waves of refugees to Europe from Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan, and imagine adding a country of 90 million people to the mix.'
