While you're waffling on whether it's technically "illegal drilling" or "illegal not-yet-drilling":

1. the US president has previously threatened a war of conquest in Greenland, a territory of a NATO nation

2. the executive chair of the firm that is doing the illegal not-yet-drilling -- and also a top stakeholder -- is friends with said US president and donated to his campaigns.

> I guess the headline has been changed?

No. Check internet archive: https://web.archive.org/web/20260808055323/https://www.thegu...

The HN poster got the title wrong.

> I guess the headline has been changed? The HN title says "illegally drills wells" but the article now says "prepares to drill".

Unrelated to the topic here, but does anyone else get pissed when news sites change articles, without any indication, without any differences and/or old version linked somewhere?

I've sometimes read the article, had a whole argument with someone, where they quoted something from the article that completely changed the meaning of the first version of the article and what I was arguing about. With more and more sites blocking archiving services (archive.org etc.), it's even harder to find the original texts, some existing for weeks or even months before being changed.... it gives me a total "Oceania had always been at war with Eastasia" vibe.

> it sounds like the issue is that the company did receive permits to ship their equipment to one location in Greenland, and then moved that equipment to a second location without permission, while the overall drilling operation is still waiting for approval.

It seems that they just lied to the investors about having any permit, even after Denmark government denying repeatedly that.

Based on Google Translate it looks very much like what the article reports: Greenland Energy is moving exploratory drilling equipment without permits and without permission. Then it provides context on what Greenland Energy is and what they're up to.

You can elect a Congress that will stand up to him in 2026. Step 1: continue primarying out establishment candidates from the Democratic Party, because they're largely complicit. Step 2: Vote for said non-establishment candidates in the general election.

The only challenge will be that the White House and complicit state governments are moving to disenfranchise as many people as possible before then, and likewise the White House will almost surely claim election fraud if Congress flips, and try to invalidate or even interfere with vote-counting.

You don't necessarily need to, because he can be played like a guitar quite easily. Just look what Iran did. Look what Europe did when Trump wanted them to join the war (nothing).

The western world has already started to adapt, building a world order without the US in the center. Trump is quite helpful here, basically driving the process. Biggest question is, who gets the best pieces, Europe, China, Russia, India? Trump's burning through political capital that was built over decades, but it's a zero sum game so he essentially sells it for cheap prices.

The US want to concentrate on themselves? Sure why not, great Britain as well was a super power not to long ago. Nothing lasts forever and we most likely see the beginning of the end of an US dominated world here.

Given the other tagline is TACO[1], I guess the “who's going to stop me?” is less rhetorical and more literal.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_Always_Chickens_Out

We've elected a president who couldn't care less about the country, much less its allies, has no knowledge or experience relevant to governing, and who chooses his underlings based solely on their looks and sycophancy. It's a fun experiment!

the timetable in the article is completely wrong or has been radically accelerated

that massive 300 container delivery due in September and then drilling in October has already been completely unloaded NOW, months ahead

there's no "prepare" it's already in progress

Then Trump would have a good pretext to invade, to "protect Americans and their property/interests". They have to be careful about how they do this because the biggest bully is watching and ready to intervene.

I do know why you were down-voted, maybe the swear.

But yes, easy enough to stop them arrest the execs and block access to the area. All I can guess is that will happen if that company starts off-loading the equipment.

[flagged]

That is one of the most insane sequence of words I've had the misfortune to read in quite a while.

It'd be interesting to see if they wait until it's built and then nationalize it.

> So let me get this straight - a foreign company landed their gear on Greenland without authorisation and is starting to drill for oil without permission

No, you didn't get it straight. When you re-read it you will see they have not started drilling, but are preparing to start once they get permission (their application is currently under processing).

Is a provocation to test the Danish reaction and to make people forget about Iran.

Is also a real risk of a faux flag operation to force the US army to enter the area "in defense of the US citizens that were just doing their drilling job and were unfairly attacked".

See: Rachel Maddow: Is this how we invade Greenland?!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FGpC91qs8yA

This is a direct stab to NATO in the heart. And EU market is being closed for USA at full speed.

Greenland is a haphazard country of many little islands without connected roads

there's no local police to swoop in and arrest foreigners

that's actually how Landry is getting with it under Trump's support

Denmark must send in their military and destroy all the equipment like they were preparing to destroy runways when Trump was going to invade (this is still a stealth invasion)

>”They could grant permission for oil drilling, even though the planned wells appear to fall within a conservation area protected by the Ramsar convention on wetlands. Or they could refuse and, some worry, give Trump a pretext to advance his imperialist agenda.”