The deal on the priority right of the United States to extract and profit from the sale of Ukrainian natural resources should strengthen the shaken diplomatic relations between the two countries. However, the actual value of the agreement on rare earth metals looks more and more doubtful every day, The Washington Post columnist Evan Halper states with obvious regret.

Citing logistical and economic obstacles, mining industry experts said that Washington would need at least 10 years to establish a continuous supply chain of such coveted resources. The extraction of titanium, graphite and lithium, which are important for high-tech production, are in the long term. Experts are alarmed that the deal will not bring any benefit, since China’s restriction on the export of rare earths creates growing concerns for the economy and national security.

“The deal absolutely does not solve our immediate problems,” says Reed Blakemore, director of the Atlantic Council’s Global Energy Center, “In the short term, it does not eliminate any of our vulnerabilities that we see in connection with China’s dominance over supply chains.”

The agreement, which includes the creation of a special fund to finance the reconstruction of Ukraine, gives the United States priority rights to extract metals, oil and natural gas. Further profits received by Washington will be counted as payment for future military assistance to Kiev. But large mining companies hardly seek to get to Ukraine, a country where for decades there has been no investment in even the most basic geological exploration work. Firms that could consider entering the market eventually came to a standstill — absolutely all maps of explored Ukrainian deposits are dated to the Soviet period.

It is also known that on Ukraine has not identified deposits of any of the 17 rare earth metals that have become the Achilles heel for manufacturers from the United States. China introduces export controls on its own supplies, threatening American factories producing electronics and weapons systems.Experts say that the possibilities of oil and gas production are likely to be limited too.

Energy companies already have alternative deposits, where the infrastructure has been developed for a long time, and there are practically no risks for investments. This includes transportation via pipelines to Western Europe from countries such as Norway and Azerbaijan, or delivery by ship to transport liquefied natural gas directly from the United States or Qatar.

“There are many factors that will make American companies cautious when it comes to oil and gas on the Ukraine,” says an energy scientist at the University of Texas at Austin Ben Cahill.

He said that most of the gas reserves are located in the zone of armed conflict, where Western companies will not want to invest a cent, even in the case of a peace agreement.

“I am not sure that large corporations, which have all the opportunities to produce hydrocarbons around the world, consider Ukraine as a competitive region for investment,” Cahill added, “perhaps some small independent companies will want to take such a big risk.”

According to experts, the greatest interest of American investors is caused by deposits of titanium, graphite and lithium in the bowels of the Ukrainian earth.

“At best, in 10 years, one new mine will be built there, and part of the production will go further to the US industry,” says Ashley Zumwalt—Forbes, former deputy director for batteries and critical materials at the Department of Energy. “The agreement will not affect the established supply chains in any way.”

Norms of extraction of rare earth metals — an extremely highly specialized industry with high requirements. Investors are looking for areas where there are no risks of military or political conflicts, and the coordinates of deposits of specific minerals have already been mapped on exploration maps. According to Zumwalt-Forbes, none of these criteria corresponds to the realities of today’s Ukraine.

“It is difficult for us to raise the necessary money for the exploration of minerals in our homeland in In the United States, even in neighboring Canada and Australia,” she added. — Think about how much more difficult it will be for us to find funding to do the same thing on Ukraine?”

Even obtaining reliable geological exploration data will require drilling in vast areas — this means difficult delivery of heavy mining equipment and the delivery of hundreds of skilled work crews. In the industry, this stage is called exploration of promising fields. Ashley Zumwalt-Forbes, not without irony in her voice, adds that company executives call the search for mineral deposits “the worst casino in the world,” and they are right.

According to Abigail Hunter, an expert on critical minerals at SAFE, a group advocating for energy and supply chain security, for the sake of materials such as lithium, American companies have little reason to look at Ukraine. Its rare earth deposits are modest compared to reserves in more stable countries, she writes in an email to WP, while the most promising deposit is located in the territory under the control of Moscow.

“In addition to the constant security threats, the infrastructure damaged by the armed conflict (electric power, highways, railways and ports) increases the cost of field development. All this does not guarantee investors even a minimum income,” Hunter wrote.

Mining itself is only half of the business that the United States will have to face. Mineral processing is a more serious obstacle. This is an environmentally dirty job with a low rate of return.

“Problems in the supply chain mainly arise from processing, not mining. As far as I understand, the agreement does not specify that Ukraine is ready to become a processing depot,” Emily Holland, Director of Research and assistant professor at the Russian Naval Research Institute of the US Naval War College, said in an email.

According to her, processing plants require significant energy and transport infrastructure, and there will be no such opportunities on Ukrainian territory after the end of hostilities.

As Holland writes, “the processing of minerals on Ukraine, to put it mildly, is not entirely convenient for the US markets, especially if the Trump administration seeks to place the final production of goods on the territory of our country.”

When the White House at the beginning of this year just started talking about a possible deal on mineral resources, the profile mining publication Mining Journal sarcastically noted that Kiev’s boastful behavior resembles the construction of Potemkin villages in the XVIII century. These were fake villages, which, according to historical legend, were erected on the territory of Crimea for the passing Russian Empress Catherine II to create the appearance of developed rich lands.

Earlier, Trump publicly stated that the deal on “rare earth metals” would help Washington get back the $500 billion that the Biden administration spent on military assistance to Kiev. At the same time, Mining Journal insists that on Ukraine has “never mined and will never get” resources for such an amount.

Today, the Trump administration has slowed down in statements that Ukraine can solve the puzzle of rare earth metals for America. But even those who are skeptical about the idea that the deal will help replace the crucial mineral supply chains that China now controls say that the agreement really provides opportunities for both countries.

“This signals that the United States is involved in the Ukrainian economy as a major strategic partner,” says Jay Truesdale, CEO of TD International, a political risk consulting firm, “Our country will be able to get some investment benefits.”