Bering Strait dream won't die -- (The tunnel to Russia)

George Koumal admits he's seen plenty of eyes roll, heads shake and jaws drop while pitching a $40 billion submarine railroad tunnel connecting the continents of Asia and North America at the Bering Strait.

Koumal, head of the Tucson, Ariz.-based Interhemispheric Bering Strait Tunnel & Railroad Group, says the link is the only thing missing from Alaska's ability to become the economic hub of the world. A world, he says, that will see an economic renaissance as never before if only a tunnel were bored beneath the Bering Strait, opening access to vast untouched natural resources in Alaska, Canada, Siberia and eastern Russia.

Koumal says he's far from alone in his beliefs, with a worldwide membership not of pipe dreamers but of astute engineers, economists and forward thinkers from everyday walks of life.

Though not members of the lofty-named Interhemispheric Group, Alaska Republican Sen. Frank Murkowski says the idea of the tunneled trade route has merit, as does state Rep. Jeanette James, a North Pole Republican.

And for at least 30 years, the "Little Man," what Wally Hickel calls his inner voice, has told the former Alaska governor that building a rail tunnel connecting the hemispheres is the right thing to do.

The 60-year-old Koumal said he believes the project will be built in his lifetime and he says, "I smoke."

Naysayers are many, Koumal admits, but usually they can be swayed by asking them to do one simple thing: "Look at a globe."

The Czech-born engineer and businessman said all that keeps a passenger train from going from London to New York, or a grain train from Kansas City to Bombay, is the 55-mile stretch of water across Bering Strait, a once dry link where scientists believe man and animals migrated eons ago.

The tiny sliver between Alaska and Russia has tantalized developers for years, at least since the advent of railroads in the first part of the 19th century, Koumal said.

The entire project, which includes building the tunnel and the associated railroad tracks leading to it, would be the largest construction project ever done, he said.

It's a project so grand that the "Panama Canal and the pyramids of Egypt pale in comparison," he said.

The Bering Strait tunnel would be the largest in the world, and would be twice the size of the Chunnel, the French-British underwater link.

Technically, the tunnel and rail are fairly easy to construct, given the region's geology, Koumal said.

The Russian connection to the tunnel requires some 2,100 miles of track to connect with the Trans-Siberian Railroad at Egvekinot and ultimately to Yakutsk on the Lena River, according to Koumal's group. Then there's the matter of widening existing track in Russia, which uses a narrower gauge rail -- a small detail, Koumal said.

On the Alaska side, only about 1,000 miles of track would be needed to connect the Canadian railroads to Fairbanks, including some 270 miles of new track in Alaska, 570 miles in the Yukon, and 150 miles in British Columbia to Denese Lake or 172 miles to reach Fort Nelson, according to a study by the Koumal's group.

Murkowski has pressed Canada to cooperate with the United States in studying the feasibility of extending the Alaska Railroad to connect with the Canadian rail system. In 2000, Murkowski won approval for legislation and about $6 million for setting up a joint 24-member commission to study the feasibility of extending the railroad to complete a trans-continental link.

But he says the events of Sept. 11 stalled diplomatic negotiations between the U.S. State Department and Canada. Murkowski said he has offered several suggestions to speed up the railroad study process and expects negotiations to start soon.

The Alaska Republican, a longtime rail supporter who now is running for governor, said the age of the railroad has not even started.

"The prospects for trade and commerce are tremendous," Murkowski said of the Bering Strait tunnel.

James says such a railroad can reduce freight costs, improve visitor access, encourage resource development and reduce vehicle emissions.

James has been a strong promoter of linking the Alaska Railroad with the rest of North America's rail network, and the world.

"Imagine going from the lights of Broadway to the Northern Lights, or hauling freight from Kansas to Pakistan on a train," James said of the Arctic crossing. "This is a cool idea."

The distance from Fairbanks to the tunnel entrance at the Alaska coast is about 1,000 miles. Along the way are small, mostly Alaska Native villages whose residents have told state officials in surveys that they do not want to be connected to the rest of the world by highways or railroads.

Patrick Flynn, spokesman for the Alaska Railroad Corp., said the state-owned railroad has never studied running rail to a Bering Strait crossing, and instead mainly focuses on maintaining track it already owns.

Technically, Flynn believes the rail could be built to the northwest coast of Alaska, but getting the nod by village residents would be tough.

"I would submit to you that those are even larger hurdles than the technical ones," Flynn said.

Dennis Nottingham, an engineer who heads the firm of Peratrovich, Nottingham & Drage Inc., says a bridge is better suited for crossing the Bering Strait.

Tunnel advocates say their method makes more sense, mostly because of the maintenance is less in a tunnel than on a bridge.

His Anchorage-based engineering firm has offices in Juneau, Seattle and Oregon, and has been recognized as one of world's leaders in Arctic construction, including bridges, docks and oil platforms on Alaska's North Slope.

Nottingham is credited with designing some of the state's largest and most challenging bridge projects.

He believes bridges are inherently safer than tunnels and can be built cheaper. A tunnel alone, according to Koumal, would cost about $15 billion.

Nottingham says he can build a bridge for $10 billion, although he doesn't think either will every be built in the next 50 years or longer.

Nottingham said if it his bridge were to be built, it would be constructed with huge spans across the water midway to Little Diomede Island in Alaska and then 2.5 miles to Big Diomede Island on the Russian side, and across to the Asian continent.

Nearly every steel mill in the world would have to be used to fabricate the amount of steel needed for the bridge project, an economic boom in itself, Nottingham said.

Koumal, a mining engineer by trade, said he respects Nottingham's ideas, but can't be convinced that a bridge is a better idea.

Wally Hickel claims the idea for a tunnel beneath the Bering Strait is his. In 1972, he told a group of Russians: "Why war? Why not big projects?"

Unbeknownst to Hickel, firm plans for the tunnel have been around at least since 1906 when a group of New Jersey businessmen formed a corporation and raised $6 million toward the effort.

In a New York Times article from Oct. 25, 1906, developers boasted that tunnel construction under the Bering Strait would be easy, or as the newspaper termed it, "What is vulgarly known as a cinch."

The devlopers, however, didn't anticipate the Russian Revolution, political upheaval which not only nixed the tunnel plans, but also changed the course of world history.

Hickel and Koumal agree that money for the project will be found, most likely from a collection of corporations who understand the project's significance, and the profits to be reaped.

Koumal is hopeful that governments of the world someday will pony up and help fund the project, too.

At $40 billion, the Bering Strait tunnel project is inconceivably expensive, but it's small potatoes compared to the nearly $360 billion in the United States' defense annual budget, Koumal said. "And let's assume Russia has put up a similar amount."

Money will come, Koumal said, when people are educated about the project of uninterrupted rail circling the Earth and the worldwide wealth it would bring.

"We first must teach the intellects of the world that the world is round," Koumal said.

Burns said yesterday that the United States should import more oil from Russia
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20020912/pl_nm/energy_usa_burns_dc_1

and again here
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=\Politics\archive\200209\POL20020913b.html

Something cooking up in your neck of the tundra? Like big pipeline valves and or junctions?

Full CNSNews.com story

Senator Says Russia is the Answer To Middle East's 'Terrorist Oil'
By Robert B. Bluey
CNSNews.com Staff Writer
September 13, 2002

(CNSNews.com) - U.S. Sen. Conrad Burns said Thursday the country should immediately begin phasing out its reliance on Middle Eastern oil and instead seek new ventures in Russia and here at home.

The Montana Republican said given the development of fuel-cell technology and the potential for oil drilling in the Artic National Wildlife Refuge, it is a logical time to reduce oil imports from "terrorist" nations, such as Iraq and Saudi Arabia.

While Burns admitted U.S. companies would probably never be able to rely solely on oil produced outside the Middle East, the risks are too high to buy from those countries, he warned.

"Last year we sent $4 billion to Saddam Hussein in oil money," Burns said. "Some of our allies call it oil-for-food, but I call it oil-for-terror."

He added: "It is time we seek out new partnerships. It is time we find new sources of production. It is time we turn off the spigots of terrorist oil."

Burns said Russian President Vladimir Putin should use oil exploration around the Caspian Sea as an economic incentive for his country. He cited figures that show Russia has the potential to supply nearly as much oil as Saudi Arabia, the world's leading producer, if its undiscovered reserves are tapped.

In addition, he said estimates show the former Soviet republics that surround the Caspian Sea could produce more than 250 billion barrels of oil that has not been explored.

But in order for those steps to be taken, Burns said Putin and other leaders in the region must institute a number of reforms that would promote greater trade. Burns said it could take years before the infrastructure, including pipelines and refineries, are on par with similar operations in the Middle East.

"America buys virtually no oil from Russia and the Caspian states, yet they present the biggest opportunity in oil exploration and production for America," he said.

Sterling Burnett, a senior fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis, said greater exploration in Russia and the countries bordering the Caspian Sea might be worthwhile. He cautioned, however, that such a step would need to be taken as part of a much larger initiative if the plan Burns suggested is to work.

"In order to not rely on the Middle East for oil, we would have to develop [U.S. oil] fields to their fullest potential, develop Russia to its fullest potential and probably develop new areas outside of the [Persian] Gulf states," he said. "We would need better trading relationships with Canada and Mexico and we might even need to split Venezuela off from OPEC."

Those steps taken individually face stiff political challenges, he said. The likelihood that the United States could reduce its reliance on Middle Eastern oil "would not happen overnight," Burnett said.

The Cato Institute's Jerry Taylor, who is director of natural resource studies, was even more skeptical of a plan to utilize Russian oil as an alternative to that coming from Middle East nations.

"Even if we didn't import oil from terrorist nations, it wouldn't make any difference," Taylor said. "Terrorist nations would still be able to manipulate world oil prices and retain revenue."

He said if U.S. companies stopped purchasing oil from Saudi Arabia or Iraq, those countries would start selling to a country that would buy from them.

Burns also used his speech Thursday to stress the free-market principles of the oil industry. He predicted that if gasoline prices increased enough, that alone would have a greater impact than switching oil suppliers.

"When you start paying too much money to get your [sport-utility vehicle] on the road, you'll start seeing people buying smaller cars with better gas mileage," Burns said, noting that hybrid automobiles are gaining in popularity.

Carol A. Werner, executive director of the Environmental & Energy Study Institute, was encouraged that Burns discussed alternative energy and gas mileage in automobiles, but she said steps need to be taken now, not later.

Looking for undeveloped oil is the wrong approach, she said. She would rather have Congress increase fuel efficiency in vehicles and encourage the development of renewable reserves.

"In terms of looking at other oil fields, it is going to take years to get those fields developed to start producing oil," Werner said. "That also means dollars going out of the United States."

Some provisions of the long-awaited energy bill were compromised Thursday by House-Senate conferees, said Joe Brenckle, spokesman for the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. But while smaller matters relating to clean coal, energy efficiency and renewable energy were resolved, other issues such as drilling in ANWR and fuel-efficiency standards continue to be debated.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.