Posted on 09/13/2002 11:47:38 AM PDT by Trailer Trash
Die? Is someone trying to kill it?
"The 60-year-old Koumal said he believes the project will be built in his lifetime and he says, "I smoke."
LOL! I like this guy.....
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. |
I honestly don't believe that the population density up that way would support such a venture.
But if there is a need for improved transportation infrastructure there, I could support some modern ferry transportation similar to what I understand is used in New Zealand. I certainly can't claim first-hand familiarity with specific details of the NZ ferries or travel across the Bering Strait. But it should make for interesting conversation among those who know something about what they're talking about.
It would be freight, and associated goods such as oil/gas, and possibly electricity. Passengers are not likely as a general rule, maybe some tourists or VIP dignitaries. it could be Maglev all the way, no reason not to do it that way. Excepting permafrost conditions.
Thank you for your inquiry. Your business is important to us. We appreciate the suggestion. A tunnel through the middle would come out near Durban, which is even farther from China than we are now, but have a nice day.
China is already beginning to occupy Siberia (more than 1 million Chinese have infiltrated in the last decade). China will eventually annex Siberia, and I don't like the idea of giving the Chinese a land route for an invasion into North America. The eventual sea battles trying to keep 1.3 billion people off out valuable land will be bad enough.
It would be tough to keep the Bering Tunnel open in case of general war. Just like the Chunnel. Choke points. Even if the Chinese gain a beachhead on both sides they couldn't move far without staying right on the rail route. Besides that, they would have to go through Russia to get to the Asian terminus of the Bering Tunnel, and that won't be a cakewalk either. And even if they manage to advance, where would they be? Fairbanks. Wow, series objective.
Blow it in their faces. Let seawater do the rest.
The eventual sea battles trying to keep 1.3 billion people off out valuable land will be bad enough.
They have to have a navy to do it. And they aren't building one worth a damn for that kind of mission.
I assume you're referring to how global warming is melting the permafrost and would cause maglev's elevated guideway to sink into the muck.
Plain old snow and ice accumulating on the guideway wouldn't interfere with Maglev operation. Most of that would actually be blown/fall off from the wind, and Maglev would simply whoosh right over what little actually built up.
Harsh weather is not a problem for Maglev!
The Trans-Alaska pipeline has to cross several hundred miles of permafrost, and it has held together with constant watching and maintenance. But the pipeline isn't a precision guiderail. It won't be easy nor cheap to maintain the Maglev's tolerances on permafrost.
I agree. This will never be built. It would take a thousand years for frieght fees to pay it off, assuming they could undercut shipping costs which is cheaper than railroads anyway. Water bourn transport is cheaper than land based transport.
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.