[flagged]
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)
Actual subglacial mining has only been attempted a few times. Kumtor gold mine in Kyrgyzstan is in the middle of a couple glaciers and reshaped the landscape to redirect the glaciers a bit. Svea Nord in Svalbard ran tunnels under a glacier for coal. Canada's Granduc mine wasn't technically on or under a glacier, but it was just below one.
[0] https://archive.org/details/TheU.S.ArmysTopSecretArcticCityU...
I also wonder if there has ever been a real geopolitical obstacle to doing this stuff, since the Danes and Greenlanders seem amenable to doing business. It would seem the obstacles have all been financial.
As for "amenable", my experience is that people in the arctic are relatively unhappy about that sort of industrial development. They like the places they live.
However, the adjacent Canadian provinces (Nunavut & Northern Labrador) share many of the same geologic provinces, also without significant glaciation. There aren't a lot of big mines up there relative to the mineral wealth because it's simply too challenging. Constructing big infrastructure in the arctic takes resources approaching nation-state levels. Most mining companies can't muster that or maintain it long-term.
Start with a few bunker busting bombs, work outside of winter, dump ice, dirt into ocean. Sounds plausible.
But yes mines continue mining, is that somehow unexpected?
They extract oil from tar sands in Alberta, for example. Difficult things are done all the time that are costly, as long as the price exceeds the cost.
To be clear my post above is not supportive of the administration, but rather the feasibility of mining at high latitudes.
But it seems like a pretty long financial stretch to first pay for invading a country and then this.
Reply below: It's been under Danish control, and the Arctic is warming more quickly than other parts of the world.
I imagine it is a lot easier to just strip mine Australia.
But you can do both. It’s about marginal profitability, not absolute.
Do people think we must pick just one place to mine?
The idea would mine in all places where it’s marginally profitable until your capital is fully committed.
Greenland is real hard to mine in, needs infrastructure from scratch, and nowhere near enough of a local population.