▶ Full Post Text
Found this on a golf court.
# US INTERNAL MEMO — CONFIDENTIAL
# Subject: Greenland Strategic Valuation (DCF) & Negotiation Framework
# Prepared for: Big Hands D
# Prepared by: Strategy / “AI-assisted analysis”
(Do not forward. Do not show Denmark. Do not post on Truth. DO NOT POST ON TRUTH!!!!)
# EXECUTIVE SUMMARY (READ THIS FIRST)
* Internal strategic value of Greenland to the US: $45–50bn
* DCF-based, not vibes-based — numbers included below
* Recommended transaction price: Near-zero cash consideration
* Rationale: The majority of value is created by US control itself and accrues globally, not to the seller
* Conclusion: High-value asset, low (or symbolic) purchase price, paid primarily in security guarantees and infrastructure commitments
This memo follows the same structure used previously in tariff and NATO-cost internal work:
1. Run the model as if we are right
2. Use the model to justify leverage
3. Negotiate price as if we are doing the world a favor
# PART I — INTERNAL VALUATION (DCF, NO APOLOGIES)
# 1. Asset Framing (Critical Assumption)
Greenland is modeled not as a small economy, but as a controlled strategic platform.
We value:
* Cash flows
* Avoided future costs
* Strategic rents
* Long-duration optionality
We explicitly exclude:
* Danish subsidies (seller-side distortion)
* Cultural or political sentiment
* “But it’s cold” arguments
This is an unlevered sovereign DCF.
# 2. Cash Flow Construction (Bottom-Up)
# 2.1 Fisheries (Baseline, Real, Defensible)
* Revenue: \~$300–350m
* EBITDA margin: \~25–30%
* Capex: minimal
* Volatility: low
Sustainable FCF:
👉 $80m annually
This anchors the model in reality.
# 2.2 Mining & Rare Earths (Strategic Economics)
Assets:
* Rare earth elements
* Uranium
* Zinc, iron ore, nickel
* Optional oil & gas (excluded from base case)
Assumptions:
* Long ramp (10–15 years)
* ESG friction
* State-controlled development
* Western supply-chain premium
Steady-state net FCF (post-ramp):
👉 $600m annually
This is conservative relative to China-scale REE economics.
# 2.3 Strategic / Military Rent (Tariff-Logic Applied)
Greenland provides:
* Arctic force projection
* Missile early warning
* Russia/China denial
* NATO stabilization
Absent Greenland, equivalent capability requires:
* Additional bases
* Expanded naval patrols
* Higher permanent defense spending
We model this as avoided annual cost, treated as implicit cash flow.
Implied strategic rent:
👉 $400m annually
Yes, this is the controversial line item.
It is also where most of the value lives.
# 2.4 Arctic Shipping, Data & Optionality
Includes:
* Arctic shipping routes (post-2035)
* Subsea cables
* Satellite ground stations
* Climate & weather data monetization
Haircut aggressively.
Steady-state FCF:
👉 $200m annually
# 3. Normalized Steady-State Free Cash Flow
|Source|FCF ($m)|
|:-|:-|
||
|Fisheries|80|
|Mining / REEs|600|
|Strategic / military|400|
|Shipping / data|200|
|Total|1,280|
Rounded for modeling:
👉 $1.3bn annual FCF
# 4. Timing & Ramp Assumptions
* Years 1–5: investment, infrastructure, politics
* Years 6–15: ramp-up
* Year 16+: steady state
Assume:
* Linear ramp to full FCF over 15 years
* Sovereign absorbs capex (not capitalized in EV)
# 5. Discount Rate (Key Strategic Assumption)
Two realities:
* Market WACC: 9–10% → project fails
* Sovereign / reserve-currency WACC: 6%
We use 6%, consistent with:
* USD reserve status
* Military control
* Strategic necessity
* Long-duration ownership
This is identical logic to tariff modeling.
# 6. Terminal Value
Assumptions:
* Terminal FCF: $1.3bn
* Long-term growth: 2%
* WACC: 6%
# 7. PV of Ramp Phase
* Average ramp FCF ≈ $650m
* 15-year ramp
* Discounted at 6%
👉 PV ≈ $14bn
# 8. Internal Enterprise Value
|Component|$bn|
|:-|:-|
||
|PV of ramp|14|
|PV of terminal|33|
|Total EV|47|
Internal valuation range:
👉 $45–50bn
This number is correct for internal decision-making.
# PART II — WHY WE DO NOT PAY THAT
Now the negotiation logic.
This is where valuation becomes price.
# 9. Global Public Good Discount
Under US control, Greenland provides:
* Arctic security for Europe
* NATO deterrence
* Stable global trade routes
* China containment
* Climate monitoring
These benefits are:
* Non-excludable
* Global
* Not monetized by the seller
Conclusion:
The US is underwriting global stability.
👉 Price haircut: –$15 to –$20bn
# 10. Avoided Future US Costs (Tariff Logic Redux)
Owning Greenland avoids:
* Future base expansion elsewhere
* Higher naval and air patrol costs
* Emergency REE supply-chain interventions
These are US costs that disappear.
In internal logic:
>
👉 Offset: –$10 to –$15bn
# 11. Denmark Subsidy Reversal
Current:
* Denmark pays \~$600m/year to Greenland
* This is a strategic liability, not charity
If the US assumes control:
* Denmark is permanently relieved
Capitalized value:
👉 Seller liability relief: –$15bn
Trump framing:
>
# 12. Stewardship / ‘If Not Us, Someone Worse’ Discount
Alternatives:
* Chinese influence
* Russian leverage
* Fragmented Arctic governance
US frames control as:
* Stabilizing
* Preventative
* Least-bad outcome
This is positioned as a service, not a purchase.
👉 Discount: –$5 to –$10bn
# 13. Netting It All
|Item|$bn|
|:-|:-|
||
|Internal value|\+50|
|Global benefit discount|–20|
|Avoided US future costs|–12|
|Denmark subsidy relief|–15|
|Stewardship discount|–8|
|Implied transaction value|≈ 0|
# 14. Recommended Transaction Structure
* No large cash payment
* Consideration delivered via:
* Security guarantees
* Infrastructure investment
* Long-term development commitments
* Headline number: 👉 $0–5bn equivalent, mostly in-kind, over decades
# 15. Final Internal Take
* Greenland is absolutely worth $45–50bn to us
* That does not mean we should pay $45–50bn
* Most of the value is created by our ownership
* Most of the benefit accrues to everyone else
This is the same logic used for tariffs, NATO funding, and security guarantees — just applied to land instead of trade.
If framed correctly:
* We look generous
* We look stabilizing
* We look indispensable
* Global Peace and Stability -> Nobel Peace Price for Big Hands D