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.
Greenland isn't entirely covered in ice. Take a look at any of the mineral resources maps floating around for the country. Everything's on the coastal margins in places only covered by seasonal snow. The interior is a big blank because no one's been able to search under the ice.
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.
Don’t modern mines remove everything over a very large area? It’s not tunnels and pickaxes any longer. The trucks are the size of a three story building.
Start with a few bunker busting bombs, work outside of winter, dump ice, dirt into ocean. Sounds plausible.
And? So carve out a wider area. The defeatism is palpable in here, some hackers. Why even get out of bed in the morning, right?
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.
Greenland is 99% uninhabited. There is no significant bill for invasion beyond transportation of mining equipment, cheap at sea. They were talking about buying it or the inhabitants, but that is paid with other people's money.
Reply below:
It's been under Danish control, and the Arctic is warming more quickly than other parts of the world.
