The US agreement securing rights to extract minerals in Ukraine has offered a diplomatic boost, yet its impact on the global race for critical metals used in weapons, electronics, and clean energy technologies is far from assured. As The Washington Post’s Evan Halper, a Washington-based business reporter covering the energy transition, notes, the deal underscores the deep challenges facing US efforts to secure strategic resources amid geopolitical instability, aging data, and growing urgency to reduce reliance on China.

Citing logistical and economic barriers, industry specialists said it will take at least a decade to benefit the strained US supply chain. Shipments of titanium, graphite, and lithium lie far off. Experts say the deal does little to reduce short-term dependence on China’s dominant grip over mineral markets.

“This absolutely is not a solution to these immediate problems,” said Reed Blakemore of the Atlantic Council Global Energy Center. “It does not resolve any of the vulnerabilities we see related to China’s dominance over these supply chains in the short term.”

US gains rights, not momentum

The agreement, which includes a fund for Ukraine’s reconstruction, gives the US access to extract metals, oil, and gas. Profits would offset future military aid to Kiev. Yet, mining companies remain hesitant, citing minimal investment in identifying Ukraine's mineral assets.

Many are relying on outdated Soviet-era geological surveys, creating serious uncertainty, as per the piece. Ukraine is also not a recognized source of any of the 17 rare earth elements critical to US manufacturing, despite past claims.

Experts suggest oil and gas prospects are similarly unattractive. Infrastructure is lacking, and viable reserves lie in conflict zones. Alternative sources, such as Norway, Azerbaijan, or LNG imports from the US and Qatar, present safer options.

“There are a lot of factors that would make US companies cautious when it comes to oil and gas in Ukraine,” Ben Cahill of the University of Texas at Austin told The Washington Post. “I’m not convinced larger companies... will see this as a competitive place to invest.”

Critical minerals: Modest reserves, major hurdles

In Halper's view, US interest will likely center on Ukraine’s graphite, lithium, and titanium. But even these hold long timelines.

“The best case would be a new mine gets constructed 10 years from now,” said Ashley Zumwalt-Forbes, former DOE official. “This deal doesn’t move the needle on our mineral supply chains.”

Mining margins are thin, and investors prefer regions with mapped deposits and low political risk, neither of which applies to Ukraine.

Early-stage mineral exploration, or “greenfield exploration", is expensive and risky. “It’s the world’s worst casino,” said Zumwalt-Forbes.

Abigail Hunter of SAFE noted Ukraine’s lithium reserves are modest, and its top deposit lies in "Russian-held territory". Damaged infrastructure only adds to development costs and investment uncertainty.

Processing: A bigger bottleneck

Processing, more than mining, is the real choke point in US mineral supply chains, experts say. Yet the US-Ukraine deal lacks any provision to develop processing capabilities.

“Processing minerals in Ukraine isn’t exactly convenient for US markets,” said Emily Holland of the US Naval War College, citing the country’s damaged infrastructure and lack of industrial capacity

Earlier this year, Mining Journal likened Ukraine’s mineral claims to “Potemkin Villages.” Despite former President Trump’s reference to $500 billion in rare earths, experts say Ukraine doesn’t produce, and likely never will produce, those elements.

Still, some see strategic value. “It signals that the US is engaged in Ukraine’s economy as a strategic partner,” said Jay Truesdale, CEO of TD International. “There will be some positive investment gains that can accrue as a result of this.”

Read more: US-Ukraine minerals pact sets up shared fund, raises big questions