Why Greenland's natural resources are nearly impossible to mine

[Havoc]

Today I heard some US official going on about how it's ideal for datacenters.

Presumably the B200s will be brought in via dogsled.

US has absolutely lost the plot

[deepsun]

"Politics is an art of distraction" (c)

All the fuss and constant bombardment of tweets is to distract from the Epstein files. And it works very well!

[wolvoleo]

It probably is pretty good for datacenters. You would save a ton on cooling cost. And CO2 footprint as a result. Not that current US cares about that but the rest of the world does.

And you don't have to own a country to put datacenters there. Simply investing there will bring jobs and money for the inhabitants, will make profit for the investor, it's a win win.

Forcibly taking it over will make a lot of enemies and disruption to trade. It will make less profit overall, especially once the population starts destroying your company assets, connection lines etc. Not to mention all the second tier effects in global lost trust from trading partners.

But Trump just looks at that big map and goes "This will be MINE". Is it really about more than that?

[moogly]

Not to mention the energy needed. Greenland does not even have a national grid. Lots of untapped hydro but that's not something you build in a fortnight.

[david-gpu]

I hope we can at least avoid the sanewashing.

> President Donald Trump has renewed his efforts to take over Greenland, and tapping into the Danish territory’s natural resources is a key part of the strategy.

It is not "taking over" or "annexing". It is invading. A military ally, at that.

And it is not "tapping into [...] natural resources". It is plundering their natural resources.

None of these hypotheticals are consensual. There is no plan for a freely agreed-upon bilateral agreement. This is about invading and pillaging a foreign land. Whether it is Greenland, Canada, or any other country.

[troyvit]

While we're at it I also fail to see any strategy.

[fakedang]

Reminds me of the allies backstabbing us so easily in Shogun 2 Total War. Aggressive expansion be damned.

[lazide]

We’ve always been at war with east Asia.

[1718627440]

> It is not "taking over" or "annexing". It is invading. A military ally, at that.

I do not get your point. An annexation is a military invasion with the intention of an ongoing control over that area.

"Taking over" is an euphemism of some more powerful entity stealing from some less powerful.

What's your point here?

[lifestyleguru]

The meeting with Zelensky in Oval Office wasn't some kind of convoluted strategy, a tease, or a bluff. It was fully serious and a preludium to something very nasty. That nasty thing hasn't happened yet.

[prepend]

It’s not invading, yet. Just buying or psyopping is more likely than fighting NATO.

[1970-01-01]

I find it funny that they could simply exit the Antarctic treaty and take over Antarctica and gain more value. There's plenty of good stuff under that ice too. It's very likely that it's got his favorite mineral of all: gold.

[mc32]

Don’t give governments bad ideas —surely the treaty will collapse one day and the big powers will divvy it up and push out the has been powers from the playground… but let’s keep things as they are as long as possible.

[prepend]

I think that’s harder than just buying/hypnotizing/invading/whatever.

If we exit the Antarctic treaty, then so will everyone else and there’s multiple competing claims.

[cdrnsf]

Yet one more bafflingly stupid decision from the cruelest and stupidest administration the US has ever seen. Perhaps electing a failed businessman and malignant narcissist and surrounding him with yes men was a bad idea? The cost of eggs certainly hasn't gone down.

[androiddrew]

Doesn’t matter, must have for trophy

[clickety_clack]

So you’re telling me there’s a chance?…

[justin66]

What examples of digging through that amount of ice for the purposes of mining are you familiar with? What's a good example?

It'd be interesting to understand how much the environment there increases the cost of mining. Anything is possible, but it'd be cool to know whether it makes any sense. (and yes, I think our leadership in the US is fully capable of causing an international crisis over mineral assets that would in financial terms be best left in the ground)

[acdha]

If “non experts” aren’t welcome, can you establish your expertise on the topic? In particular, what’s your experience with mining thorough ice or maintaining industrial operations in the Arctic or near-arctic conditions?

[trashtester]

The main problem with ice, is that it moves all the time. The glaciers on Iceland move up to 46m per day. Also, any tunnel created in fast moving ice could easily be crushed by the pressure of the ice.

[TitaRusell]

There is a cost benefit ratio to mining.

I imagine it is a lot easier to just strip mine Australia.

[phatfish]

I'm glad the resident HN tech bros are also Arctic mining experts. Surely they wouldn't complain about non-experts writing clickbaity articles while making claims with no evidence themselves.

[pier25]

What about 50-100 years from now when most of the ice will have melted?